In public life today, especially in politics, it is very important to have an unrelenting media presence and to be the constant source of chatter. And this becomes almost a herculean task if you are not in power. But there are political leaders who have been able to acquire a larger-than-life stature owing to their media presence, even if largely negative.

Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament from Hyderabad and the chief of not even a regional party, the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (better known as MIM), is one of them. He is once again in the news. But this time around he is in news for supposedly ‘good reasons’.

And that ‘good reason’ is that in one of his recent speeches he has called the Islamic State, or ISIS, not only un-Islamic and anti-Muslim, but also went on to declare: “ISIS Dogs of Hell, Will Cut Them Into 100 Pieces”. This speech by him is being hailed as brilliant and pivotal by a large number of people. Notably, most of those who are praising him used to hate him till yesterday.

Some of them in fact, wanted to cut him and his brother to a hundred pieces. Let me share with you few examples. Mohd Asim, a self-declared ‘Owaisi-hater’ Muslim journalist, who works with NDTV and often writes on “Muslim issues” opines in his recent blog, “Owaisi’s Speech Shows He Can Be A Good Leader”. To which says Owaisi, I am just trying to be a good human being, “Do not want be LEADER”.  A friend who identifies himself with centralist politics said, “These are the strongest words by an Indian politician on ISIS”.  A leftist friend remarked, “Does any other political leader has such guts to take head on with terrorist group ISIS?” Even self-professed right-wing Swarajya Magazine’s editorial director, R Jagannathan welcomed it. However, he was quick to add that Owaisi’s anti-ISIS speech “does not break the spell of Islamism”.

In other words, his newfound admirers include people from across the political spectrum— left, right and centre. Not only that, even ZeeNews published the speech prominently and more than 11 thousand people shared it in less than five days.

Something similar can be noted in the case of Zakir Naik as well. Mainstream media and intellectuals who otherwise detest if not ‘love to hate’ groups like Darul Uloom Deoband and Raza Academy praised the condemnation of televangelist Zakir Naik. It is another matter that, Deoband later took strong objection and stated that their name should not be used in a campaign against Naik.

To me, it has a strong message and that is, if you are a Muslim/Muslim organisation and can abuse/condemn Muslim/Islamic sounding organisations and choice names that are better or bitter than what the Bhakts use, you become the real patriot.

Think of the words, “Kuttey” and “Sau Tukde Kar Dena”. Are not these precise words and phrases, often used to demean and threaten  Muslims or gain popularity by rabble-rousers like Akbaruddin Owaisi? If you hear the speech, you will realise the tone and tenor used in it are no different from what Owaisi and his party has been targeted for over the years. He has often been termed as an educated Muslim fundamentalist.

It can also be argued that those now praising him do not hate him but only react to things as they unfold. To be honest, I don’t think that’s the case. Why? Had that been the case, Owaisi would not have been pilloried for extending legal aid to ISIS suspects arrested from Hyderabad earlier this month. It was seen as so grave that a BJP lawyer in Hyderabad filed a complaint with the local police, arguing that Owaisi’s stand on legal aid is like ‘giving oxygen to terrorists’. Local BJP MLA Raja Singh – known mostly for his hate speeches – demanded that Owaisi be arrested and his party de-recognised. It was also reported that the Centre sought report from the governor on Owaisi for extending legal aid. And this despite the well-established fact that providing legal aid/assisting accused to ensure free and fair trail is a constitutional duty.

But some people can argue that Owaisi’s move to provide legal aid to the ISIS suspect was not out of respect for his constitutional duty but was based wholly on his intention to appease Muslims and give them the message that “don’t worry, I am there to support you”. I am ready to buy this theory and won’t be surprised if it was really done with such intentions. However, let me also add that as long as the state and its agencies fail to provide quality access to justice, non-state actors (including NGOs, civil society organisations) and politicians like him will occupy the space or grab the opportunity for their own reasons.

Focus of recent debates and discussion on Owaisi has turned from him being the Bad Muslim to a good one: Adarsh Musalman, who is supposed to denounce terrorism at every turn, in every Facebook update, through every tweet, and, in the case of Owaisi, in every speech.

However, my larger questions are: what kind of polity do we believe in and would like to practice? If we really believe in justice and equality, then why do we resort to revenge or language of revenge in order to ‘seek or attain justice’?I am saying this because to me, Owaisi’s speech symbolises that language of revenge. And his praise across the quarters hints that your abusive language, or shouts from your rooftops that you are against terrorists organisations like ISIS, can make you a ‘good Muslim’.And this is what I call, politics of condemnation.

The fact remains that Owaisi’s speech against ISIS might bring some laurels to him from different socio-political quarters; it is hardly going change things on the ground. No matter, how much Muslims and their self-appointed leaders decry terrorism and violence, they will be seen as supporters of terrorism, terror suspects and potential terrorists. Because if condemnation was the solution to terrorism and terrorist groups, then 70,000 Indian Ulema (Islamic scholars/ Muslim clerics) have already issued fatwa against ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qaida and other terror groups last year.  A simple google search will tell you: this was not the first and last time when Muslim clerics called ISIS un-Islamic and anti-Muslim.