Thodupuzha, a small town at the foothills of Western Ghats in Kerala, was gripped by violent protests and curfews last week. Muslims protestors ravaged the town and forced shopkeepers to close down their shops. They were up in arms against a question paper that insulted their god ‘Allah’ and their prophet Muhammad.

The offending question paper was part of an internal examination in the Malayalam language department of Newman College, Thopuzha. The head of department, one Prof Joseph, had included a few lines of fictitious conversation between the prophet Muhammad and Allah to test his students’ skill at punctuation and grammar. Little did the professor realize that this exercise would be a full stop in his career! Those lines portrayed Allah and the prophet in bad light. The author of those lines – whether the professor or someone else – betrays his malice and folly.

Malice, because the writer portrays Allah and the prophet as persons bereft of any intelligence. The writer places abusive words in the mouth of Allah. Whatever one thinks of Islam or its followers, it is indeed wickedness to ascribe a folly and vulgarity to the Muslim’s god. If the ‘conversation’ included in the exercise had been between two ordinary Muslims, things would have been slightly different.

This was an act of folly because the professor allegedly created a joke about Allah and Muhammad as if he were creating a Sardarji joke. The Sikh community has a sense of humour that is unique; they laugh at themselves even as other laugh at them, thereby nullifying the effect of any cruel joke. It was foolish of the professor to ridicule the Muslim community. If people think that he did this deliberately to create a religious uprising or riot, they cannot be blamed. Mr Joseph, being a professor, will find it difficult to convince anyone that he was unaware of past Muslim objections to criticism and ridicule. The whole world knows what will happen if someone makes a cartoon or a joke about any Islamic icon.

The Newman College suspended the professor from service. The Catholic diocese under which the college functions has expressed regret. However, it is unfortunate that the entire blame is now on the professor. How is it that the Principal of the college does not share any blame? Responsibility for any academic issue should finally be on the Principal’s shoulders.

The ministers in charge of Education and Home Affairs called for strict action against just the professor. They wanted to press criminal charges against Prof Joseph. If the Principal and the management of the college can be let off the hook, and if the latter can wriggle out of the situation by just issuing a notice of regret, why can’t the professor be given a chance to apologize unconditionally? After all, he is a teacher – that too, a teacher of the local language. The examination was an internal assessment—not a University exam in which the question paper could get wide circulation. The Kerala Government’s decision to frame criminal charges against the professor might be interpreted as an attempt to please a minority community at the expense of another.

Students who were offended by the question should have complained to the Principal. They should have sought the professor’s apology or suitable in-house punishment instead of taking the matter to the streets. The disturbance in the region was not caused by the question paper; it was the decision of the students to take the matters to the wider religious community that created widespread disturbance. One breach of law does not excuse or justify another. One negative action should not have been dealt with by another larger negative reaction.