The growing Muslim radicalization is a fact. whether it’s because of external factors pertaining to US/Israel interventions in ME or Saudi funded Salafist theology or any other reason. what must be observed to determine whether A or B is a national security threat is: how *many* of them are ACTUALLY willing to adopt violent Jihad or actively engage in terrorist activities. Growing beards,wearing Burqas or the refusal to mingle with the crowd don’t count as proof. It could merely be to have a sense of one’s own identity. Religious symbolism is often used to assert oneself .It is the individual’s right.. The duty of the state to protect it’s minorities from the tyranny of the majority BUT that’s not done by appeasing A side to enrage side B. Maximum effort must be put in to ensure fairness and impartiality via legitimate institutions. That is the hallmark of a true Secular democracy.
As far as Tavleen Singh’s article is concerned, she has rightly pointed out the lack of Liberal MSM coverage on the growing Islamist intolerance and the pseudo-secular actions of UP Govt. Although I agree with the essence of the article, insinuating that every bearded Muslim man is a potential Jihadi is a bigoted conclusion. One must avoid a stereotype perpetuated analysis. Unfortunately, what perturbs me the most is the absence of a basic level of nuance required in making a point (especially in mainstream discourse). Journos mustn’t leave scope for interpretation on sensitive issues especially while making relatively anecdotal assertions (in this case, her private source). Tavleen should have provided more evidence to support her claim about bearded men and Burqa clad women. Nevertheless, it is important for everyone not to let this issue off the hook and pile on as much as evidence as possible.