AMPLIFICATION OF AZAAN AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION

India seems to follow a regular framework whenever somebody shows the audacity to comment on their view towards any matter. Firstly, a bloomer in interpreting the statement made or stating it carelessly then continuing it with speculative discussions which finally lead on to controversies.

Sadly, what we miss out over here is, understanding the importance of the issues pertaining to that particular matter and other related aspects. Once, everyone is satisfied with their share of recognition, the matter is blown off. It’s important to know that, every argument should be backed by a premise in order to make it meaningful which I believe both Mr Nigam and the cleric, Syed Shah Atef Ali Al Qadri failed to hold in the recent conflict between “Amplification of Azaan and Freedom of Religion”.

For the ones who might not be familiar with the dispute of the famed singer, Mr Sonu Nigam, who on April 17, 2017, tweeted, “I’m not a Muslim, and I have to be woken up by the Azaan in the morning. When will this forced religiousness end in India?” The tweet by the singer had created an uproar on social media and a fatwa was also issued against him. He also used the word “Gundagardi” for the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers during prayers which was interpreted differently by the community people at large as they thought it to be penalised under section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. Writ petitions were also filed before the Hon’ble Courts against Nigam, however, all got dismissed on the ground that, “the words used in the tweet were not meant to insult any religion or religious belief of any class of citizens and were apparently not deliberate or malicious.”

The statement made by Nigam, was merely his view towards a particular faith and he has a right to express until it hinders with the rights of other citizens, which clearly did not happen in this case as the statement was nowhere related to stopping of a practice and rather just to the manner in which it can be done. It’s true that praying to god is an essential and pious activity of all religion but its amplification is not necessary; in fact, must not be done except on certain festivities.

The Noise Pollution regulation and control rules, 2000 caps noise limit for residential area at 55 Dba during the day and 45 Dba at night and anytime it seems to get violated, one can always call the police or report the matter to the control board, which probably was the only mistake Mr Nigam did by ranting the social media. However, it gave a hope of having fruitful discussions on many important sectors.

In a country like ours, we cannot compel any person for anything. There’s a difference between being “restricted” and being “forced”. When any individual is ‘forced’ or ‘pressurized’ to follow religious discourse or music or way of life, it’s called ‘forced religiousness’ and hence Nigam was not wrong in terming it that way. However, as the monotony repeats itself, this sparked a controversial debate which also saw a ‘fatwa’ being issued against him for having ‘sinned’ and going against Islam. Wonder, we might get to see the ancient speaker used by Prophet Mohammed someday!

I won’t waste time on writing about the whole issue of conditions and compensation announced by the Maulvi as he merely proved to be an ‘educated idiot’ by doing so. In August 2000, the Supreme Court of India rightfully noted in a case before it (Church of God v. KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association, AIR 2000 SC 2773), “Undisputedly, no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor does it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. In a civilised society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons, students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during daytime or other persons carrying on other activities cannot be permitted.”

It is ironical when the population of a nation like India preaches the ideals of religious tolerance amongst masses, but themselves fail to respect and revere basic rights of others with regards to their very existence. Conflicting opinions and views are a way of life in a secular country, but what must change is the problem of perception.

Author: Sanjana Gupta