The azaan, loudspeakers, and religion in public life.

First, I did not support Ukraine and vilify Russia off the bat, but actually praised the Government of India on its neutral and non-aligned stand. Then, I warned of causing harm to the movement for asserting female agency and consent by focusing on Scindia's at best wrongly placed empathy and at worst patronising 'touch'. Then, I wrote about refusing to be in the left or right-wing and remaining firmly centrist, and seeing greys and nuance even when everyone around me is losing their heads.

And now, this.

Seems my days as a 'certified liberal' are coming to an end quickly. I will soon be labelled 'certifiable' by the very people who have agreed with me and my opinions in the past!

Anyway, for what it's worth, here are my (undoubtedly controversial) views about another controversy. I am going to piss everyone off: my Muslim friends, my liberal friends, my neutral friends, my leftist friends, and even, as you will notice, my right-wing ones. But since I cannot help but write and opine, here goes nothing.

I have been observing a lot of my friends opine on some Twitter troll's suggestion that azaan be held on mobile phone apps. Honestly, I am a bit surprised because neither is this the first time such a suggestion has been made, nor is such a suggestion confined to Muslim-haters. There are already several dozen Muslim prayer apps, some of them having 10s of millions of downloads. Also, Muslim intellectuals and scholars have opined on this (1. Najmul Hoda; 2. Riyaz Khan; 3. The Mufti Online; 4. Arshad Alam) and this is not specifically a Hindutva agenda item (though this particular tweet is, let me hasten to clarify)

I am hardly a Muslim-hater (though, as an atheist, my views on religion, any religion, including Islam) are quite well-known, but even I think that loudspeakers in residential areas should not be allowed to anyone unless it is a public service message being transmitted. The courts of India have given various judgements on this (1. Allahabad HC; 2. Gujarat HC ; 3. Goa HC; 4. Madras HC; 5. Karnataka HC) and mostly, most sane people, intellectuals, and even judges agree that this would be ideal.

That said, the operative word is 'anyone'. Not temples, not gurudwaras, nor churches, nor mosques. No loudspeakers. Not Ambedkar Jayanti, not Shiv Jayanti, not Ganesh Festival, no one. The fact that in a free, democratic, and secular country like India, citizens are being forced to listen to a message transmitted by a religion (which every sane person, and the law has agreed is a private matter) is itself an abomination. Your freedoms must stop an inch from my nose, or ear in this case.

So, you ask, what about public celebrations of Diwali or Holi? I disagree with you. The court (and once again, all sane people are on the same side here) has been quite clear about this: You cannot burst crackers that make a sound and you cannot throw colours on people who do not wish to participate. Indeed, there have been several instances where the law has been made clear about fireworks, much to the consternation of the religious right.  But the law is the law. You point out that even then people burst loud crackers and the law has not stopped them. I agree. I think they must be stopped. The point is that if I wish to enforce the law, at least one exists. In terms of loudspeakers, despite a lot of verdicts by courts and handwringing by activists, no law exists that stops my ears from being assailed every morning and evening by azaan, gurbani, bhajans, and kirtans.

What about the Kumbh Mela or the Ram Temple then? Should that also be held/build on Facebook, some have asked in return. My simple answer is, why even hold any Melas or build any temples at all? All of this religious claptrap is better absent from our lives totally, without exception. Not even on Facebook is a temple or Kumbh necessary, according to me. That way, I am an equal opportunity offender when it comes to religion.

Unfortunately, there is some nuance that is missing when indulging in this whataboutery. To begin with, each issue must be seen in and by itself. But in India, and the charged and polarised atmosphere as it exists today, perhaps we can forgive everyone for linking a religious issue of one religion to another. That said, this is not a religious issue, according to me. It is not my case that azaan or Islam be banned or dictated by the government or non-Muslims. Just like the banning of firecrackers is not about Hinduism. Both of these cases are about pollution, whether smoke or noise. Once again, I recognise that such matters cannot be confined to simple issues of objective harm being done by the practitioners and get complicated by being compounded with religious feelings. So, let us agree that this issue cannot be seen in isolation. The next issue is the objection to other religious expressions like large gatherings (Kumbh, Jagrans, Urs, etc.) or building religious structures like temples and churches and mosques. I think this is missing the point. Constructing a building for the private practice of a religion that happens inside it without disturbing anyone is not an issue for me. Of course, the caveat is that it must not be constructed on public or disputed land, or by destroying archaeologically relevant structures already standing on the said land. This rules out the new Ram Temple in Ayodhya, since it does not fulfil these criteria. But it does not stop one from building a temple or collecting money for it or praying inside it per se, as is a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. This is not the same as the usage of a loudspeaker to transmit bhajans at 4 in the morning across town. Ditto to large gatherings. One may, with the permission of the local authorities, have large gatherings for any purpose, including religious ones. But, once again, as per my own understanding and belief, this must be done without causing anyone else's fundamental rights to be trampled. So, these are my answers to the Ram Temple construction and Kumbh Mela questions. By insisting that I answer these is building a strawman and then vanquishing him, claiming victory.

TL;DR: My stand on the use of loudspeakers is clear. Either ban them all, or allow them all. I'd say ban them because they are infringing on my constitutional rights and your belief system does not require them as central to it (even if we were to concede for a moment that your belief is as important as my rights). All other issues may be independently discussed and have no bearing on what is right or wrong as far as loudspeakers are concerned.

P.S: Debjani Bhattacharya is an RSS shill and my agreeing with her tweet means nothing else except that I agree with that one specific tweet. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.