Extremists trying to speak on behalf of one faith adore extremists speaking on behalf of another faith. In the insults, threats and violence of the other, they find validation for their own. It is tempting then, for those that oppose extremism to suggest that the best way to fight it as a whole is for people to fight the extremists among their own communities – Muslims condemning Muslim extremists, Hindus condemning Hindu extremists, Sikhs condemning Sikh extremists, and so on and so forth.
As they say, for every problem there is a single, easy, and simple solution that is also totally wrong. This is a wonderful example of one such “solution” that not only does not solve the problem but creates a whole host of new ones.
Firstly, and foremost is that instead of defining the problem as one faced by the whole of body public, it makes it a set of problems to be combatted along confessional lines. In a society being divided by extremists, it divides society further. We become less “we, the people”, and more “we, the different peoples” – striking at the heart of a Constitutional Republic that would be blind to caste and creed. We become not common citizens in a state of our making, but compartmentalised communities trapped in the prison of our confessional groups.
Secondly, it makes communities judge themselves about their crimes against other communities. While – at a theoretical level – this may be a noble goal, it is one more suitable for saints than citizens. Who believes that the rich alone should decide how the rich should act – except the rich? Who believes that it would be a good idea for men alone to decide how to restrain and discipline men for crimes against women? If only colonial powers decided how colonial powers would act, we would never see decolonisation. A very basic judicial principle is “nemo judex in causa sua”, or that nobody should be the judge in their own cause. It is why judges recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest – real or perceived.
Thirdly, and following from these two, it drives communities to be suspicious of each other. Instead of working towards a common goal, of say restricting lynchings or punishing hate crimes, it makes people ask, “Why don’t Hindus stop that man?”; “Why don’t Muslims punish that woman?”; “Why are Christians letting off that person easily?” And because we do not – for good reason – trust people to be fair when their own interests are at stake, we will always believe the “other community” is doing less than ours. This breeds resentment and anger, excellent fodder for extremism directed at the other.
Lastly, it leads to victim blaming. If we believe that another community is not doing enough to fight extremists in its own midst, if one of “theirs” is attacked, or if “they” are attacked, it is easy enough to say, “Well, they deserved it.” By setting a standard that will never be fulfilled – no community will ever be free of extremists of one type or another – we give extremists among our own the freedom and excuse to act against other communities.
At the heart of the message that we must all fight extremism in our own communities is a sectarian view of the world, a lawless vision where we are born into gangs that punish their own if they violate the boundaries of another. This is a vision that is perfectly in line with criminal syndicates like the Mafia, or in feudal societies and khap panchayats. It has no place in a society that values justice, freedom, or the value of an individual as a citizen equal to all other citizens. But it is seductive in its simplicity because this is how we experience life as children, one group against another. Because of this, it has a sheen of “common sense” and offers a sense of comfort of a life we lived before our encounter with the state.
The reality is that life in a state, in a civilised society that allows us to be more than the identities we were born into, requires hard choices and compromises. It demands that we grow up and learn to work in our common interest – instead of mere personal or communal interests. It requires us to be citizens fighting for the rights of all other citizens, not just that of our community. It is neither easy nor simple, but it is what is required of grown-ups. And while it is no surprise that extremists would rather we behaved like squabbling children, it is a sad commentary on a country if even its “progressives” present such arrant nonsense as a “solution”.