When a thief is caught and evidence is produced, such as CCTV recordings, he often attempts to escape with various excuses—claiming it is not true or even blaming the CCTV itself. A similar pattern is now emerging in Kerala, where a nationalist Malayalam TV channel exposed the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and its narrative of glorifying the horrors of the Mughal period and its actions through debates and evidence. In response, The Islamic organisation has sought to defend itself by invoking notions of history and pluralism, while labelling criticism as part of a “fascist agenda”, thereby misleading the public.
As debates and discussion started exposing Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, the organisation made it a point to attack the media, particularly targeting the Malayalam TV channel, as a tit-for-tat response to criticism.
The TV channel has rightly criticised Jamaat several times, accusing it of promoting extremist ideologies and influencing Kerala politics.
The channel has frequently organised debates that characterised the ideas of Islamic outfit as having a “Taliban mindset” and questioned its alleged capture of Kerala’s socio-political space, often accusing it of creating communal polarisation.
The channel has alleged several times, with evidence, that the textbooks taught in Jamaat-run madrasas contained lessons from extremist leaders and thinkers, including Sayed Abdul Ala Maudoodi, its founder. This, critics argue, could promote extreme views among children.
Jamaat’s attacks have been launched through its mouthpiece, “Prabodhanam”, a Malayalam weekly established in 1949. An article authored by Assezudheen C.H., Director of the Kerala Madrasa Education Board (KMEB), published in the latest issue of Prabodhanam, glorifies the madrasa textbooks brought out by the KMEB, which is controlled by the Integrated Education Council of India (IECI).
It states that attacks against such books are attacks against great history and pluralism, and labels such criticism as part of a “fascist agenda”.
The article claims that the eight centuries-long Mughal rule was the golden age for Bharat. It states that Islamic rule transformed Bharat into a “Sona ke chidiya” (golden bird) and praises Mughal economic policies.
The author cites examples such as the construction of the Grand Trunk Road. It also lists Islamic contributions, including music, cuisine, dress, the Taj Mahal, Qutb Minar, and the Red Fort. Among other claims, the author states that several Muslim freedom fighters faced the death penalty.
The following key debates by the TV channel appear to have provoked Jamaat-e-Islami:
- It accused the outfit of having a Taliban mindset, based on contemporary incidents.
- The channel has raised concerns regarding Jamaat’s involvement in Kerala’s political affairs and its impact on communal harmony in the state.
- These discussions occurred alongside broader political allegations from leaders claiming that Jamaat could influence the Home Department if certain alliances come to power. These allegations have consistently drawn sharp reactions and legal warnings from the outfit.
- These accusations are part of a larger, ongoing conflict in Kerala, where various parties and media outlets hold conflicting views on the role of Jamaat.
- The TV channel’s allegations gain further relevance as the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) received Jamaat’s support in the recently concluded Kerala Legislative Assembly elections.
This is significant, as Jamaat has recently reiterated that it has not abandoned its core tenets. One of its stated beliefs is that “nationalism, democracy, and secularism are modern superstitions that infest society”.
The nationalist TV channel had recently highlighted this in connection with a statement by V. D. Satheesan, Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in the state assembly, who claimed that Jamaat had given up its doctrine of a ‘theocratic state’. However, Jamaat’s leadership quickly clarified that it has not abandoned its fundamental ideology.
Now, the attack on the TV channel appears to be an open admission that Jamaat is distorting history to suit its agenda and, when it fails, becomes defensive in reality but aggressive in public.
