The loudspeaker row on Azaan and Hanuman Chalisa— which sparked a national debate on prime time and in political circles, began in Maharashtra with Raj Thackery of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) issuing an ultimatum to the Rana couple sailing on the same boat about the removal of loudspeakers that hung over the minarets of mosques—has now reached Uttar Pradesh.
“So far, 53,942 loudspeakers have been removed from different holy locations throughout the state till 7 a.m. (Sunday) this morning,” said Prashant Kumar, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) in Uttar Pradesh. Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, had issued an advisory restricting the volume of loudspeakers within the institution’s premises before this move. The sound level of 60,295 loudspeakers was later decreased by the authorities and brought within normal specifications. As luck would have it, the debate that ensued followed the sectarian violence that erupted in several states during the recent Hindu festivals of Ram Navami and Hanuman Janmotsav, and the subject has been simmering ever since. Raj Thackeray gives Yogi a thumbs up, saying, “In Maharashtra, we don’t have ‘yogis’ in authority; what we have are bhogis (hedonists).”
In reality, numerous courts have noted the following at various times:
1. Supreme Court (2005): In July 2005, the Supreme Court issued an order prohibiting the use of loudspeakers and music systems in public places between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. (except in emergency situations), citing the serious health effects of noise pollution on those who live in such areas.
2. Bombay High Court (2016): The Bombay High Court ruled in August 2016 that utilizing loudspeakers was not a fundamental right. No religion or sect could claim that the capacity to use a loudspeaker or public address system was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, according to the Bombay High Court.
3. Uttarakhand High Court (2018): “The loudspeakers continue to blare even after 12 a.m.” “The loudspeaker cannot be utilized without proper clearance from the government, including by temples, mosques, and gurdwaras,” according to the court.
4. Karnataka High Court (2021): In January 2021, the state government was instructed to take action against unlawful loudspeakers at religious sites throughout the state by the Karnataka High Court. It ordered the state government to issue immediate orders to the police and the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) to take action against the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers in religious structures, citing noise pollution legislation and Supreme Court judgements as justifications. The state government was then asked by the Karnataka High Court to explain the statutory provisions that enable loudspeakers and public address systems in mosques, as well as what steps are being done to reduce their use by November 2021.
5. Haryana and Punjab High Courts: The Punjab and Haryana High Courts issued an order in July 2019 forbidding the use of loudspeakers in public places, including religious groups. Public address systems should only be used with prior consent, according to the court, and the noise level should never exceed the permitted limit.
Thus, the Uttar Pradesh government has set the ideal example of communal unity and secularism by removing loudspeakers from mosques, temples, and gurudwaras. While it has been extensively debated how India defines, rather, ratifies itself as a “secular nation” but is, in fact, not, Yogi Adityanath seems to be on a mission to dispel common beliefs about the Nehruvian style of secularism that has been adopted by the left for decades. Academics, ideologues, and activists on the left have cleverly labeled and reduced secularism to expressing ugly and slanderous sentiments on Hindus and their cultures, hence demonstrating their “secular credentials” and “solidarity” with India’s minority groups.
Secularism, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “the conviction that religion should not influence or be involved in the structure of society, education, government, or other institutions.” And that is precisely what the Yogi administration is doing, by questioning the established concept of secularism, which is based only on minority appeasement. Neither Vikas Dubey nor Mukhtar Ansari is safe in Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh. The government has reduced the volume of loudspeakers at the Gyanvapi Mosque if loudspeakers are not used during aarti at temples such as Kashi Vishwanath Dham, Kaal Bhairav, Sankatmochan Temple, Durga Temple, and Tulsi Manas Temple in Varanasi.
Yogi Adityanath, the saffron-clad Chief Minister, has made no apologies for his tough stance on crime in Uttar Pradesh, declaring in an interview, “Agar apraadh karenge toh thok diye jayenge” (Criminals would be shot). The Chief Minister’s pet initiative “Operation Clean” has taken the hardest measures against criminals, and the Yogi administration seems to have a tight grip on law and order in the state, with crime rates substantially below the national average. On the occasion of Ram Navami, there was not a single case of communal clashes, rioting, or even violence in Uttar Pradesh, which was once known as the epicenter of riots, despite stone-pelting, violence, arson, and nearly Armageddon by Islamistic Jihadis being witnessed across the length and breadth of India. However, the Indian version of Stockholm syndrome has turned “liberals” into the worst racists, who are eager to destroy all the principles they profess to protect for the greater good. This is the core subject that is being used to sell a misleading story about violence: The Hindus incited local Muslim populations by playing “provocative music” and “raising slogans” while travelling through “Muslim regions”. But liberals must be cautious about spreading this argument since by doing so, they’ve reached the precipice and must realize that their days are numbered. If simply playing music in a religious procession is “provocation” for violent acts to be justified, it is not only a call for Hindus to concede more, confining their religion to private spaces while Muslims are free to pray in public places like roads, but it also encourages Muslims to continue using anarchy as leverage. Since 1947, ‘minorityism’ has been the sine qua non of the Indian polity, a neologism denoting a political system or process in which a minority section of a population enjoys a certain degree of precedence in that entity’s decision-making.
It should come as no surprise that music might be used as a “provocation” for violence. “Another evidence of this attitude of exploitation is supplied by the Muslim demand on cow-slaughter and the stopping of music before mosques,” BR Ambedkar said in a chapter on communal violence. In all Muslim nations, music is permitted to be performed in front of mosques. Even in Afghanistan, which is not a secular nation, no one objects to music playing in front of a mosque. In India, however, the Muslims must insist on its halt for no other reason than the Hindus’ claim to it. In his revile and condemnation of Islam, BR Ambedkar, who was famed for his critique of Hinduism, was all the more blatantly caustic at best and brutally honest at worst. However, it’s ironic that two different treatises by the same man, critiquing two different communities, are read so differently, but they both display the most fascinating cocktail of discrimination and “victim card” we’ve ever seen, where even the onus of violence and arson by Islamists on the auspicious day of Ram Navami is laid at the Hindus’ feet.
“But nowhere was there any tu-tu mainmain (arguments)… much alone rioting and disturbance,” the first UP chief minister to take the oath for a second term remarked at a rally. This exemplifies UP’s new progressive mindset. There is no room for rioting and turmoil here. On the Ram Navami anniversary, UP exhibited this. In fact, the monk CM’s ace in the pack this election was Uttar Pradesh’s well-maintained law and order situation. Aside from Rana Ayyub’s habit of referring to Yogi Adityanath as a “militant Hindu monk,” UP is aggressively courting companies, boasting the lowest crime rates, and upholding religious peace as an ideal state need.
Uttar Pradesh has clearly gone a long way from Mulayam Singh’s notorious “ladke hai galti ho jaati hai”(To err is male) sexist argument against the death penalty for rape, to Yogi Adityanath’s “criminals will be shot” shout!
Academics, ideologues, and activists on the left have cleverly labeled and reduced secularism to expressing ugly and slanderous sentiments on Hindus and their cultures, hence demonstrating their “secular credentials” and “solidarity” with India’s minority groups. Yogi administration is questioning the established concept of secularism, which is based only on minority appeasement. Neither Vikas Dubey nor Mukhtar Ansari is safe in Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh.