Who Owns Ayush Malik's Faith?

About Author: Aziz Umar is Co-Founder of FairLex & Researcher at Project Mishkat

Imagine a situation of a democracy, where its mainstream media start propagating false information and propaganda in the garb of appealing member of one particular community, and exploitating member of another community, that too in a minority. However, the Media is not only a victim of this development of extreme-right-wing political wings; institutions like investigation agencies are also facing a high degree of manipulation with the dominance of exteme right wing politics.

The report of a recent incident with 30 year old individual named Ayush Malik, well-educated and same person resided in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. This is the story which shake me completely, as I am not able to digest such a holistic incident in the country, which claims to be the mother of all democracies. Ayush ( Mohammad Ali) reverted to Islam, with his own choice, faith, belief, and statements, evident from his several interviews and talks available on social media.

It was alleged that he had been forcibly converted to Islam by members of the Muslim community, by narrating that he had been deceived by a woman named Chandni Quraishi and her family. It was also alleged that he had been brainwashed in a manner that he was compelled to confess to the true conversion to Islam.

It is demonstrated from numarous numbers of interviews of Ayush that he accepted Islam not due to any love affairs, but because he was truly inspired by the notion advanced by Islam, which he gained by listening to Islamic scholars like Dr. Israr Ahmad ( May Allah give him Jannah and make us like him) and explicitly by Mohummad Ali ( Former renowned Boxer, May allah give him Jannah).

It is a well-established Islamic principle that when "any individual decides to become among favourate once for almighty Allah, then he must have to sacrifice something really important for that sake." Ayush just listens to what he deems best for him in this life and afterwards.

The present FIR lodged by Ayush's father against Chandni and his family, and charging them under various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and UP anti-conversion laws, is bare what I call malicious prosecution, which is registered just to merely exploit the members of specific communities.

However, even more surprising is that despite Ayush's clear mention about his choices, the Indian Mainstream media clearly ignored the truth to push a sensational "Love Jihad" narrative. An Aaj Tak reporter, Arvind Ojha, stood right next to Ayush and told millions of viewers that Ayush was "brainwashed" and needed intense "deradicalisation". The channel ran aggressive tickers talking about a "web of illusion" and a plot to grab crores in property.

This toxic media behaviour is part of a larger structural problem, as recently, the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) fined Zee News Rs 1 lakh for a very similar broadcast. They had framed a consensual interfaith marriage as a "jihadist conspiracy," even while playing a video of the woman stating she was leaving with her husband willingly. By acting like kangaroo courts and erasing individual agency, the media actively creates hostility between communities, which is a major reason why India's global press freedom rank has dropped to 157th.

I think these media platforms should shame on themselves. I do not call it Independent platforms but a lapdog media, and a slave of the government, which is taking its role as followers of agencies' instructions. Therefore, I believe that what RSF in its world press index ranked India to 157th position is really genuine, and I even say that by covering this incidence that thank ranking will further exacerbate in the coming years.

Being a student of law, I believe that these kinds of FIRs and media coverage is grieve violation of both spirit and letter of our beloved and sacred Constitution. Our Constitution, through Article 25 allow all citizens freedom to practice the religion of their own choice subjected to certain reasonable restrictions. I am not able to understand what Ayush did wrong by converting to Islam by his free choice, which is evident from his own talks. Forcing him to re-convert into Hinduism will clearly violate his most fundamental right under Article 21, which gives him the right to live with dignity which also include right to express personal choice.

This incident compelled me to understand that these laws should not be called as anti conversion law, but should be called as anti Muslim conversion laws. I believe that what Ayush did and is doing is a courageous task, and inshallah, he must not fear from the ill powers and continue to demonstrate his sabr ( patience). He is not realising that he is inspiring millions of Muslim youth and enhancing the level of their faith, and I hope he continues with the same spirit, Ameen!