Recent activity on X (previously Twitter), once again, showcases this mode of policing. Accounts such as Team Falcon and Muslim IT Cell have employed shaming and ridicule to condemn Muslim women for entering temples, forming friendships with men outside their faith, or celebrating their autonomy. Hindu supremacist organizations have found ways of employing the same tactics to marginalize a woman’s choice to marry a man outside of their faith or community, or choose clothing outside the boundaries of permissible attire. Despite presenting opposing principles, the toolbox is strikingly similar to “police” online, to “publicly shame”, and to socially “humiliate” someone into submission and compliance. Be it ‘love jihad’ or ‘bhagwa jihad’ the perpetrators mind-set is strikingly similar.

Common ground: Shaming, justification, surveillance

What is notable about these campaigns is their use of public shaming. Women are marked and shamed for exercising personal agency.

An example: a post by Team Falcon post showed a photo of Muslim women at a temple, with the caption sneering this as “shameful conduct of Muslim women.” Another post demonstrated how a woman was shamed for holding arms with her Hindu friends—that is to say, ordinary social situations were framed as shameful. By publicising women’s names, images, and voicing their social interactions, these accounts have made private behaviour into a public spectacle of communal shaming.

One post shared a photo of two Muslim women, who reportedly were turned away from a Garba event organised at a local mosque. Instead of holding the organisers accountable, the post went after the women specifically, trying to accuse them morally for attending, despite their faith.

Shaming is almost always accompanied by an explanation that the conduct is ideologically wrong. In fact, the rhetoric goes beyond objection of personal conduct to suggesting that women’s choices are a threat to the community. In one post, visiting a temple was framed as evidence of “Bhagwa Jihad,” a term meant to suggest that religious fluidity is part of a conspiracy to transform the community.

Another example stated that Muslim women were “diluting our culture by mixing with Hindus,” which reduces friendship or interfaith marriage to a ‘betrayal of the community’.  This discursive leap from personal agency to community traitor inspires politicized agency and turns it into a conflict of identity.

These stories are preserved by a social surveillance system that invites followers and supporters to act as its enforcers, magnifying and prolonging the policing effect. For example, a Muslim IT Cell post asked supporters to “expose Muslim women who befriend Hindus and betray their deen.”

Such posts act as crowdsourced surveillance, where every choice – what to wear, who to be with – may be subject to scrutiny in the public domain. The result is a constant sense of being watched – an online panopticon in which women are made to second-guess their choices.

Taken together, these practices represent informal yet deeply felt regulations of women’s lives. The coercion is not just in the explicit threats, but also in the fear they produce. Women who are targeted suffer reputational damage, harassment, and ostracism; women who are not targeted come to feel the threat, and, ultimately, censor themselves and withdraw from public life. Hashtags like “Bhagwa Jihad” and posts calling women’s autonomy “disgraceful” function in this same way as a means of ideological control based on obedience brought about from fearing discovery and humiliation.

Constitutional protections undermined

Monitoring women’s decisions online fundamentally contradicts the guarantees in the Constitution of India. These posts constitute a breach of Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, yet what does it matter when a post describes a woman’s behaviour as “shameful conduct of Muslim women,” only to post another opinion claiming disloyalty for visiting a temple? Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex and religion, yet these online campaigns are based on precisely these grounds. Article 19(1) (a) guarantees us freedom of expression, which is broadly interpreted in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence to encompass choices of dress, associations, and beliefs.

At the heart of all these violations lies Article 21. It guards against any violation of the right to life and personal liberty, which has been gradually expanded in case law to include dignity, privacy, and autonomy. Yet, the monitoring and invading of a woman’s private behaviors essentially negates these liberties. When a public social interaction or a photograph can be subclassed or reframed into a documentation of “immorality” or “betrayal,” any assurances of dignity and private space, as contemplated by Article 21, disappear.

When women are demeaned for either entering a temple or upholding interfaith friendships/relationships by being vilified with derogatory and vile terms like “Bhagwa Jihad,” their rights guaranteed in the Constitution become hollowed-out rights. Public degradation dissuades them from expressing themselves, chilling their speech and removing their agency. These case studies expose the inconsistency: constitutional guarantees and judicial pronouncements declare autonomy, dignity, and equality, but the social narrative and digital age conflict with these values every day. Women are free in principle, but the fact-checking hashtags like “Bhagwa Jihad” and public campaigns or calls to “expose” them erode the rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution.

From online narratives to real-world consequences

Online shaming is not limited to timelines or hashtags; it invades women’s daily lives. Women are often shamed through posts and subjected to abuse, harassment, trolling, and stalking. Comments online like, “shameful behaviour of Muslim women,” go beyond disapproval and serve as a way to justify policing women on the street, at school, or at work. On top of this, the damage extends to reputational damage. “Bhagwa Jihad,” and “betrayal of faith” are screen-shotted, shared in WhatsApp groups, and saved, creating a digital footprint that follows women around. Whether true or not, the stigma sticks to women — impacting lives, jobs, education, and relationships.

Furthermore, shaming online leads to community ostracisation. Families often pressure women to leave friendships, jobs, and in some cases, marriages, due to a fear of social stigma. This has deep psychological harm, resulting in self-censorship, withdrawal from public spaces, and anxiety for what could happen if they exercise their autonomy.

Narratives of extremism, whether Muslim or Hindu, utilize the same logic of patriarchal control. In some Muslim extremist narratives, having a friendship with an interfaith person or visiting their place of worship may be viewed as a “betrayal of the deen” — an expectation that women should always carry the burden of safeguarding religious purity. Similarly, Hindu supremacist narratives present a threat of “love jihad” in interfaith marriage, while insisting that women should employ prescribed dress codes to preserve “cultural purity.” The terms may differ, but the strategy is the same: reduce women to instruments of ideological reproduction and limit women’s freedoms to protect the imagined community.

The counter voices as an act of resistance

In the current context of online shaming and moral policing, we have begun to see, from both public figures and ordinary users, a push back against the misogyny present both in Hindu and Muslim extremist narratives. Historian Ruchika Sharma has been particularly vocal, using her X account to explicitly call out Muslim men for hypocritically excluding women from public and religious spaces, while also criticising Hindu supremacy for their almost violent moral policing of women’s dress, marriage, and friendships.

By not allowing either side the luxury of moral high ground, Sharma demonstrates how patriarchy traverses ideological boundaries. These interventions are far from simply rhetorical and create important counter-spaces of resistance, wherein women’s choices become reframed as matters of constitutional rights, rather than communal loyalty. The assertion by Sharma that women’s freedom cannot be bartered away because of any anxieties concerning faith or culture reflects the guarantees embedded in Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom of association), and 21 (the right to dignity). Her voice, in fact, shows how social media, notoriously a tool of harassment against women and gender non-conforming persons, can be reclaimed as a space for accountability and counter-narrative.

These instances of resistance signal to us that the digital space is not only a realm of control but also a site of struggle. Resistance voices undermine the legitimacy of an extremist tongue, and in doing so, disrupt the cycle of shaming and surveillance, and offer women and allies a shared vocabulary of solidarity.

In a similar vein, feminist groups, journalists, and student activists condemn moral policing on the internet, provide targeted women with legal and psychological support, and educate the public on constitutional protections. These alternative voices reclaim social media as a public space of accountability and solidarity, demonstrating that resistance is indeed possible and effective.

Women’s autonomy as first casualty

Patterns traced across ideological lines reveal an unsettling truth: women are the first and primary victims of extremist strategies because controlling women constitutes an effective means of enforcement and compliance with extremism. Public shaming, ideological justification, and social surveillance follow women from digital spaces into families, workplaces, and communities, exposing women to reputational, psychological, and social harms.

These practices violate Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, undermine the aspirations of Vishaka and Shafin Jahan, and erode dignity, freedoms, and the equality of living. Social media and public discourse are vehicles of cultural policing that further amplify exposure to threats and surveillance.

Women’s autonomy is not a negotiable cultural or religious project; it is foundational to democratic society. Maintaining women’s autonomy is non-negotiable and requires platform accountability, legal protections, institutional fortitude, and proactive counter-speech, all stemming from an understanding that gender is to be the first fault line along which extremist ideologies seek to exert control.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this community resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Related: 

Exclusion at the Gate: Navratri becomes the new front for communal politics

Muslim women publicly assaulted, hijabs forcefully removed in twin attacks

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

Right-wing groups demand Muslim ban at Jabalpur Navratri garba

The post Misogyny & Faith: Extreme narratives curtailing the autonomy of women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Naik’s divisive comments come at a time when Pakistan is grappling with significant social, political, and economic challenges. His rhetoric—particularly against women and those raising concerns about child abuse—has been widely condemned as regressive, dangerous, and reflective of an ideology that marginalises vulnerable communities. His actions, whether it be walking out of an event for orphaned girls or making sexist comparisons between unmarried women and sex workers, and using sex workers as a slur, have sparked outrage across the country. Women’s rights activists, journalists, and everyday citizens have expressed disgust at how Naik’s words seek to reinforce patriarchal norms that strip women of their autonomy and dignity.

One of the most contentious remarks was made during a public lecture, where Naik claimed that unmarried women cannot be respected in society unless they marry men, even if the men are already married. His comparison of single women to “public property” or “bazaari aurat” has drawn sharp criticism, with many accusing him of dehumanising women and promoting misogynistic views that have no place in a modern society. Such comments, according to critics, not only reinforce harmful gender stereotypes but also encourage societal control over women’s bodies and choices, a hallmark of extremist ideology. These comments have broader implications, especially in a country like Pakistan, where women already face significant barriers in terms of rights and freedoms.

Further adding to his inflammatory rhetoric, Naik recently engaged in a troubling exchange with a Pashtun girl during a lecture at the Governor House in Karachi. The young woman bravely raised concerns about rising drug addiction, adultery, and paedophilia in her area. Rather than addressing these pressing issues, Naik dismissed her entirely, stating that paedophilia could not exist in an Islamic society and demanding that the girl apologise for even raising the question. His defensive and dismissive attitude angered many, with critics accusing him of gas lighting the young woman and ignoring the critical social problems she was trying to highlight. Paedophilia, child abuse, and drug addiction are serious concerns in parts of Pakistan, yet Naik’s refusal to engage with them reflects a dangerous disregard for the realities on the ground. By silencing those who speak up, he perpetuated a culture of denial and inaction.

What makes Naik’s rhetoric particularly dangerous is its capacity to act as religious dog-whistling—appealing to hard-line religious sentiments while subtly promoting misogyny, patriarchy, and an anti-progressive agenda. His comments are framed in religious language, making it harder for critics to challenge them without being accused of opposing Islamic values. This tactic, often used by religious extremists, plays on the sensitivities of devout communities, pushing them to accept regressive ideologies disguised as religious truth. In countries like Pakistan, where religious leaders hold significant sway, this kind of dog-whistling can have real-world consequences. It can fuel gender inequality, increase intolerance, and silence those who seek to address critical social issues.

Moreover, Naik’s controversial statements are not isolated incidents; they are part of a broader pattern of using religious rhetoric to reinforce conservative and patriarchal values. His dismissal of critical issues like paedophilia or drug addiction undermines efforts to tackle these problems within Pakistani society. Instead of addressing the legitimate concerns of the people, Naik’s responses seek to silence dissent, protect the status quo, and invalidate the experiences of those who suffer the consequences of social ills. This is not just harmful rhetoric; it actively discourages progress and reform, putting vulnerable populations at greater risk.

In a time when Pakistan is already struggling with deep socio-political divides, Naik’s presence and his hate-filled speeches are pouring fuel on an already volatile situation. His views provide justification for those who wish to maintain societal control over women, further marginalise already vulnerable communities, and dismiss important social issues as mere fabrications. The decision to invite him as a state guest has backfired, with growing frustration across the country and even among his supporters. Many feel that Naik’s brand of religious extremism has no place in a country striving for progress, equality, and justice.

Ultimately, Zakir Naik’s lecture tour in Pakistan has raised serious questions about the dangers of religious dog-whistling and its potential to inflame divisions, promote regressive ideologies, and silence the voices of those calling for reform. His words are not just offensive; they are dangerous, as they sow seeds of intolerance and misogyny, leaving lasting damage in their wake. By providing him with a platform, Pakistan risks legitimising an ideology that is at odds with the nation’s aspirations for a more just and equitable society.

Details of the derogatory speeches by Naik:

1. Refusal to present awards to young orphan girls (Islamabad)

One of the most shocking incidents occurred during an event for orphaned children in Islamabad. Naik was invited to present awards, but when it was time to give shields to the young girls, he abruptly left the stage, citing religious reasons. He stated that the girls were Na-Mahram, meaning they were unrelated to him by blood, and under his interpretation of Islamic law, it was inappropriate for him to interact with them. This act led to widespread outrage, with many accusing Naik of objectifying women and reducing young girls to mere symbols of sexual propriety, even in a context that should have been about honouring their achievements.

Sindh-based writer Zubair Soomro voiced the frustration of many critics, saying, “How could such clerics objectify women sexually? Why couldn’t he see these girls as daughters, with father-like love?” His actions were seen as not just an insult to the girls but also as a reflection of his regressive and patriarchal mind-set. This incident set the tone for the rest of Naik’s controversial tour and became a focal point for criticism on how he treats women and girls in his speeches and actions.

2. Misogynistic remarks about unmarried women (Lahore)

Naik further incited outrage during a large public gathering when he made demeaning comments about unmarried women, comparing them to “public property” if they do not marry. He argued that in society, an unmarried woman cannot be respected and that if there are no single men available, her only choice for respectability is to marry a man who already has a wife. Otherwise, he implied, she would become a “bazaari aurat” (public woman, implying a sex worker). His exact words, “There is no way an unmarried woman can be respected… any respectable woman would opt for marrying a married man over being public property,” drew condemnation from across Pakistan and beyond.

Either marry a married man or become a “bazaari aurat”. Zakir Naik is continuously coming up with problematic statements. Who invited him? Please don’t invite such illiterate people next time! pic.twitter.com/XmiXiKMgpS

— Saad Kaiser (@TheSaadKaiser) October 7, 2024

This comparison of unmarried women to sex workers, especially by talking about sex workers in a derogatory way, was seen as not only deeply offensive but also a dangerous endorsement of patriarchal control over women’s choices. Women’s rights activists, civil society groups, and many others denounced the statement for reducing women’s value to their marital status and suggesting that single women have no dignity unless they are attached to men. Naik’s statement reinforced a regressive and sexist narrative that places the blame on women for their status, reflecting a worldview that deeply disrespects and diminishes women’s autonomy.

3. Dismissal of concerns about paedophilia and drug addiction (Karachi)

In another disturbing incident during his lecture at the Governor House in Karachi, a young Pashtun girl raised concerns about growing issues like drug addiction, adultery, and paedophilia in her region. Naik’s response was dismissive and defensive. He claimed that her question was invalid because, according to him, in a truly Islamic society, paedophilia could not exist. When the girl attempted to elaborate on her concerns, particularly about the normalisation of paedophilia in her area, Naik interrupted her and demanded an apology for bringing up such a topic. He stated, “A Muslim can never commit sexual abuse against children,” and insisted that her concerns were unfounded, implying that either her claim of living in an Islamic society was false or the issue of paedophilia was fabricated.

Naik’s refusal to acknowledge the girl’s concerns, coupled with his demand for an apology, was met with sharp criticism online. Many accused him of gas lighting the girl and ignoring serious social issues, especially in regions like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where concerns about child abuse and other crimes have been raised repeatedly. His tone was seen as condescending, and his refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue on such a critical issue highlighted his lack of empathy and understanding.

Zakir Naik, the most famous Muslim scholar in South Asia, gaslights a Pashtun girl when she questions the collapse of society caused by religious extremism.

pic.twitter.com/zxEoPeTeZE

— Habib Khan (@HabibKhanT) October 6, 2024

This incident worsened Naik’s already controversial standing in Pakistan, as many were angered by his disregard for the real and pressing issues faced by people, particularly women and children. His dismissive attitude towards a young woman brave enough to speak about such concerns added fuel to the fire of his growing unpopularity during the tour.

Zakir Naik’s inflammatory comments during his tour of Pakistan have sparked significant backlash, with each of the three instances representing different facets of his problematic worldview. From objectifying women to dismissing genuine societal concerns, Naik’s rhetoric continues to alienate not only his critics but also his followers, many of whom feel embarrassed by his actions. Despite being invited as a state guest, his reception in Pakistan has been marred by widespread discontent, particularly over the harmful and regressive views he espouses in his speeches. His tour, instead of fostering dialogue or religious understanding, has served to expose the deep-seated misogyny and disregard for critical social issues that underpin his ideology.

As news surfaced of Zakir Naik receiving a warm welcome in Pakistan, India condemned the gesture, while also noting that it was unsurprising. “We have seen reports of Zakir Naik being feted in Pakistan, where he was given a warm reception,” said External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal during his weekly press briefing. “It is not unexpected for us that an Indian fugitive has been received with high-level honours in Pakistan. While it is disappointing and condemnable, it doesn’t come as a surprise,” he had added. 

Outrage on social media

Pakistani actor and singer Ali Zafar, known for his roles in Bollywood films like Mere Brother Ki Dulhan, Dear Zindagi, and Chashme Baddoor, has strongly criticised Islamic preacher Zakir Naik for his controversial remarks about unmarried women. Naik’s recent comments, where he compared single women to “public property,” have sparked widespread outrage across Pakistan, with many condemning his statements.

Ali Zafar also voiced his disapproval, using social media to share his thoughts. In a post on X, he respectfully challenged Naik’s views, offering an alternative perspective. “With all due respect, Dr. Sahab, there is always a third option. A woman can lead a respectful and independent life, whether as a working professional, a mother, or both. She can choose her own path, just like millions of women around the world do, and they are equally respected by millions of men. The problem lies with those men who view them as ‘bazaari’,” Ali wrote.

The actor-singer further emphasised that the Quran teaches men to respect women, and that purity starts with one’s own actions. “Respect is always mutual, and that’s what the Quran teaches. On a personal note, I feel we (men, in general) have suppressed women for centuries, making them feel guilty for nothing. It’s time we correct ourselves first and let them flourish, allowing them to pursue their dreams as we do. I hope you won’t take offense to this healthy criticism. May peace be upon you,” Ali concluded.

With all due respect Dr. Sahab. There is always a third option.
A woman can live a respectful and independent life, being a working woman or a mother, or both together, or the life she chooses for herself, just like millions of women around the world do and are equally respected… https://t.co/cAISOeDxS6

— Ali Zafar (@AliZafarsays) October 9, 2024

There were more social media users who came out with their criticism against the comments made by Naik. One user remarked, “Stop inviting people like this to our country.” Another voiced their frustration, saying, “It’s baffling that the Pakistani state would invite Zakir Naik, given his track record of spreading intolerance and dogmatism. While India had the courage to ban him, we seem to roll out the red carpet. What does this say about our commitment to inclusivity and moderation?”

Another comment highlighted the irony: “If Zakir Naik hadn’t come to Pakistan, we might never have realized that India was right to ban both him and his Peace TV channel. We are always quick to label India as Islamophobic without considering their perspective on this issue.”

If Zakir Naik had not visited Pakistan, how would we have realized that India was right to ban both his entry & his Peace TV channel?

We are always quick to label India as Islamophobic without taking the time to understand/consider India’s perspective on their matters. pic.twitter.com/g2lNnGJXoF

— Hafsa Akram (@Hafsa_RG) October 7, 2024

One other user criticised Naik’s inflated ego: “Zakir Naik is a textbook case of power corrupting someone. He’s so full of himself that he can’t see beyond his own ego. It’s absurd that he’s given any honour when all he does is bask in undeserved praise, further feeding his misguided sense of greatness.”

One more user added: “Naik was clearly pandering to the extreme right-wing clerics in Pakistan, and in doing so, he made a fool of himself. His being invited as a state guest speaks volumes about the priorities of our government. It’s a sad state of affairs.”

Zakir Naik’s backward remarks like “Either marry a married man or become a ‘bazaari aurat’” are not only demeaning to women but reveal a mindset stuck in patriarchal thinking. Such individuals should not be given platforms. Let’s stop inviting figures who spread harmful ideas. pic.twitter.com/JfNOkqnNBH

— Daily_Dose_News (@DdnDose) October 8, 2024

The widespread backlash Naik has faced for his remarks is not surprising, as his statements not only reveal deep-seated misogyny but also promote an extremist interpretation of religion that should have no place in modern society. His comparison of unmarried women to “public property” is not just demeaning but dangerous, as it reinforces harmful stereotypes and justifies oppressive attitudes towards women. Such religious dog-whistling, where intolerance is disguised as piety, fosters extremism and divisiveness, undermining efforts to build an inclusive, respectful society. Naik’s rhetoric fans the flames of misogyny and intolerance, and allowing him a platform sends the wrong message—that such regressive views are acceptable.

It’s crucial to reject figures like Zakir Naik and to not offer them a space to spread their extremist ideas. Religious extremism, whether it comes in the form of hate speech or discriminatory ideologies, cannot be tolerated, as it poses a threat to both social cohesion and human rights. Naik’s views should be condemned unequivocally, and countries should be mindful of the message they send when they welcome figures known for spreading hate and division.

Related:

Suspended again: Deepak Sharma’s relentless cycle of hate across multiple social media accounts

Hate Speech by Zakir Naik: Painful punishment awaits those who abuse the Prophet

Zakir Naik Showcases the Rot within Islamic Theology

Why social media giants must identify and remove Zakir Naik’s hate speech

The post Zakir Naik’s lecture tour sparks outrage in Pakistan: Misogyny and extremism in the spotlight appeared first on SabrangIndia.