But another pattern has emerged alongside these flashpoints: ordinary citizens refusing to comply.

From Kotdwar and Nainital in Uttarakhand to Jaipur in Rajasthan, small acts of resistance are creating ripples that extend far beyond their immediate geography. These moments do not erase communal tension — but they complicate the narrative of inevitability.

Kotdwar: Republic Day, a shop sign, and a national ripple

On January 26, 2026, as reported by The Hindu (February 9, 2026), patriotic music echoed across Kotdwar’s Jhanda Chowk when a confrontation unfolded outside “Baba School Dress and Matching Centre,” a decades-old garment shop run by 71-year-old Wakeel Ahmed.

A group of young men demanded that Ahmed remove the word “Baba” from his signboard, claiming that Kotdwar — associated with Baba Siddhabali — did not permit a Muslim trader to use the term. Mobile phone videos later circulated widely, showing Ahmed visibly shaken.

The incident may have remained another viral moment of coercion had Deepak Kumar, a local gym owner, not intervened. When asked to identify himself, he responded: “My name is Mohammad Deepak.” The addition of “Mohammad” was deliberate — a symbolic rejection of rigid identity boundaries.

What followed, again reported by The Hindu, was swift escalation. An FIR was filed against Deepak, reportedly based on a complaint from members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. His gym memberships collapsed from 150 to 15. A crowd gathered days later outside his premises raising slogans. Police were deployed. His family reportedly received threats.

Yet this is where the story altered course.

As reported by The Indian Express, CPI(M) MP John Brittas publicly purchased a gym membership in solidarity. Fifteen Supreme Court senior advocates followed, each contributing Rs 10,000 as annual membership fees — deliberately structured as subscriptions, not donations, because Deepak refused direct financial aid. More than 20 lawyers pledged pro bono legal assistance.

Public figures such as Kaushik Raj, Raju Parulekar, Ramchandra Guha, Swara Bhaskar and Teesta Setalvad amplified calls for support.

A local confrontation thus transformed into a national solidarity campaign.

The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), in its January 2026 report Excluded, Targeted & Displaced, contextualised such incidents within a broader pattern of communal narratives, economic boycotts, and displacement in Uttarakhand since 2021. Kotdwar was not an aberration — it was part of a documented trajectory.

And yet, the ripple effect from Deepak’s intervention shows that the story does not end with targeting. It can expand into resistance.

Nainital: “Why are you beating everyone?”

In April 2025, Nainital witnessed unrest following the arrest of a 72-year-old man accused of molestation. According to reporting by The Hindu, although the accused was swiftly detained, protests escalated into vandalism of Muslim-owned shops and attacks on property.

Amid the chaos, Shaila Negi — daughter of a traders’ association office-bearer — confronted a swelling mob. In a viral video, she asks: “Sabko kyun maar rahe ho?” (“Why are you beating everyone?”).

She refused to shut her shop during a bandh called against Muslims.

The backlash, she later told The Hindu, included online rape threats and abuse. But her action inserted dissent into what might otherwise have appeared as unanimous anger.

The importance of her intervention lies not in scale but in rupture — she broke the logic of collective punishment.

Purola: When an 83-year-old lawyer said “no”

The summer of 2023 in Purola saw boycott calls and intimidation after allegations involving two youths of different faith in a love jihad case. Posters marked Muslim homes. Tenants were pressured to vacate. Protests reportedly involved groups including the Bajrang Dal.

As documented in The Hindu’s coverage and referenced in the APCR report, fear spread, and some minority families left. But 83-year-old lawyer Dharam Singh Negi refused to evict his Muslim tenants despite threats and posters pasted outside his own house. His defiance reportedly encouraged other landlords to stand firm. This was not viral. It did not trend nationally. But it stabilised a town at a fragile moment.

Jaipur: Public reversal of moral policing

On February 14, 2026, a public park in Jaipur became the setting for a confrontation that quickly travelled far beyond Rajasthan. Videos widely circulated showed a group of men, reportedly linked to the Bajrang Dal, approaching couples in the park on Valentine’s Day. Dressed in saffron scarves and carrying sticks, the men were seen demanding identification cards and questioning the legitimacy of the couples’ presence. Such scenes have, over the years, become almost ritualistic in parts of India, where fringe groups position themselves as defenders of culture against what they describe as Western influence.

Tingus from Bajrang Dal were asking for ID cards from couples.

People saw them and asked THEM for their ID cards.

All Bajrang Dal tingus started shivering.

This is gold stuff.pic.twitter.com/LNRw55gqZ0

— Jawaharlal Nehru (@PMNehru) February 14, 2026

What made this incident different, however, was the reaction it provoked. Instead of dispersing or complying quietly, the couples — joined by bystanders — began demanding identification from the vigilantes themselves. Voices in the video are heard asking under what authority the men were conducting checks. One individual insists on knowing their names and addresses and warns that he would take them to court. The dynamic of intimidation visibly shifted. What had begun as an attempt to assert moral authority turned into a public challenge to that very authority.

The exchange quickly escalated into a tense standoff, but the significance lay in the reversal. Moral policing typically operates through spectacle and psychological pressure — the presence of a group, symbolic attire, raised voices, and the implicit threat of escalation. Its power depends on the assumption that those targeted will feel embarrassed, cornered, or fearful. In Jaipur, that script collapsed. By demanding accountability, the public reframed the encounter as a legal question rather than a cultural one: who has the right to demand identification in a public park?

The viral circulation of the clip amplified this reversal. Social media users described the moment as an “UNO reverse,” but beneath the humour was a serious civic assertion. Instead of the now-familiar images of couples being chased or shamed, the video showed alleged vigilantes on the defensive, being questioned about their authority. The spectacle of humiliation, so often directed at young people celebrating Valentine’s Day, was replaced by a spectacle of resistance.

The Jaipur episode is important not merely as a viral moment but as an indicator of shifting public thresholds. Unlike instances in Kotdwar, Nainital, or Purola — where individuals initially stood almost alone — the Jaipur confrontation reflected collective, spontaneous pushback. It suggested a growing unwillingness among citizens, particularly younger urban residents, to concede public spaces to self-appointed moral enforcers. In doing so, it signalled that while intimidation may remain visible, compliance is no longer automatic.

The Pattern: From isolation to contagion

These incidents, taken together, reveal an emerging civic reflex:

• A gym owner interrupts harassment.
• Senior lawyers institutionalise solidarity.
• A woman challenges collective punishment.
• An elderly lawyer defies eviction pressure.
• Couples publicly question vigilante authority.

They are geographically scattered. They are politically unaffiliated. They are socially risky.

But they share one thing: they disrupt the perception of unanimity.

Communal polarisation often depends on silence. It thrives when intimidation goes uncontested. What these incidents demonstrate is that public dissent — even by one person — fractures that narrative.

The ripple from Deepak Kumar’s Republic Day intervention is especially instructive. His stand did not remain local. It catalysed legal networks, political support, and social media amplification. It reassured others that resistance might not mean isolation.

Jaipur shows what happens when that reassurance spreads.

None of these incidents eliminate structural tensions. None reverse policy shifts or ideological mobilisation. The APCR report makes clear that displacement and targeting remain real concerns in parts of Uttarakhand.

But they demonstrate something equally real: civic resilience.

They show that:

• Names cannot be monopolised.
• Crime cannot justify collective blame.
• Landlords need not obey mobs.
• Vigilantes can be questioned.
• Solidarity can be structured, visible, and contagious.

Hate travels quickly — through slogans, rumours, and viral clips. But courage travels too.

And increasingly, it is not travelling alone.

Related:

CJP’s 2025 intervention against ‘Digital Hate’: Holding television news channels accountable before the NBDSA

Public Resistance and Democratic Assertion: India through protests, 2025

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

The post Against the Script of Hate: How ordinary citizens are reclaiming public space appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After partition Muslim communalism asserted itself in Pakistan, eroding the possibility of the country becoming a thriving democracy. Social and economic progress was the biggest victim here diminishing the possibility of its transition into a modern state with progress, peace and Amity. India had a very secular leadership under Jawaharlal Nehru and he, with others, laid the foundations of a nation which –until a few decades ago –was held up as a unique experiment with core syncretic values. However, communal forces that have risen over the last couple of decades are undoing the achievements of the first four-five decades of peace and amity. Hate against Muslims has been their core method; to increase their power and hold over society.

During this march towards converting an aspiring democracy into a sectarian nationalist state, those brandishing this majoritarian politics have devised newer and newer languages and slogans against Muslims in particular and also against Christians.

The situation is pathetic now. Social common sense is full of Hate against Muslims and this is increasing by the day. We saw Hindu communalism developing a mechanism to spread far and wide to the extent that Muslim ghettos are the order of the day, vegetarianism being asserted, love jihad, land jihad, Corona jihad have been commonplace words. Starting from the top leadership the foot soldiers implement this hate into practical violence leading to polarisation of society.

The top leadership throws up slogans like ‘Batenge to Katenge’, ‘Ek hain to safe hain’, they can be identified from their clothes, they proliferate like rabbits, Hindus will become a minority, Hindus are in danger; to name just the few.  On the top of this pyramid, the Assam Chief Minister, who was earlier in Congress and is now in BJP from last few years, has made statements against Miyas, (Bengalis speaking Muslims), which exceed all the earlier hate speeches against Muslims. On January 27, 2026, he stated ‘four to five lakh Miyas will be removed from the electoral rolls through SIR’. He went on to state “Vote chori means we are trying to steal some Miya votes. They should ideally not be allowed to vote in Assam, but in Bangladesh.” According to media reports, Sarma also openly instigated the public by saying, “Whoever can give trouble in any way should give, including you. In a rickshaw, if the fare is Rs 5, give them Rs 4. Only if they face troubles will they leave Assam.” Reported the Deccan Herald.

To cap it all he has recently released a video on social media showing him shooting through rifle and bullet going and hitting the skull capped man and the boy standing close to him. This tweet has been deleted now. Seeing all this the renowned Human Rights activist and eminent author, Harsh Mander filed a petition against him for Hate speech to “Promote hatred, harassment and discrimination against Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam.” He said he had sought prompt action and the registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.To this Sarma responded that he will file multiple FIRs against Mander for helping the Muslims during NRC process, and ensure that he is sent to jail. (Latest news reports suggest that after two petitions moved in the Supreme Court of India, Sarma has made a scapegoat of the BJP’s social media chief and sacked him, disclaiming all responsibility for the controversial, hate-filled, video—Editors).

So, what has happened to the syncretic culture which has been part of our land for centuries, where Azan Peer and Shankar Dev of Assam preached harmony and lived in Assam itself? So, what happened to the Hindu Muslim interaction in all areas of life, food, literature, architecture and religious festivals? One starts feeling hopeless in this scenario and feels despondent.

And then came the incident from Kotdwar in Uttarakhand. Here an old Muslim man was running a shop called ‘Baba school dress’ for the last 30 years. Bajrang Dal activists pounced upon him questioning how he can name his shop Baba, which for them means a Hindu figure. Seeing this Deepak intervened. As he was confronting the Bajrang Dal attackers the police was a mute spectator and police filed FIRs against Deepak Kumar and his friend. In another FIR against the Bajrang Dal activists the FIR is against unknown persons.

Details of Deepak Kumar’s stand and the backlash he faced may be read here.

So much hope was generated after this incident. The hope that humanism is not totally wiped in the flood of hate created by the followers of Hindu nationalism. Deepak is a living example of the thick Hindu Muslim relations which prevailed here but have become an exception by now. This exception shows the prevalence of earlier amity. Indian Currents reported, Deepak Kumar’s act of Humanism is worth 100 salutes. Rahul Gandhi, the leader of opposition, complimented Deepak Kumar and stated, “”Deepak is fighting for the Constitution and humanity—for that Constitution which the BJP and the Sangh Parivar conspire every day to trample underfoot. He is a living symbol of a shop of love in the marketplace of hate, and that is what stings those in power the most. The Sangh Parivar is deliberately poisoning the country’s economy and society so that India remains divided and a few continue to rule on the crutches of fear.” Reported the Hindustan Times.

Deepak Kumar himself had a very sweet answer as to why he called himself Mohammad. It was an act of solidarity and he said, ““Saraswati was sitting on my tongue, and that’s why, at that moment, the name ‘Mohammad Deepak’ came out of my mouth. I thought they would understand that I am Hindu, and that the situation, which was getting heated, would calm down. But instead, an FIR has now been filed against me.” Reported the Quint.

One only hopes and wishes we see more of people like Deepak Kumar who represent the true idea of India.

(This piece has been edited in part for language and style)

The post Mohammad Deepak: Upholding fraternity amidst a sea of hate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement recorded that, PUCL was constrained to point out that Himanta Biswa Sarma has a notorious track record of making hateful statements about religious minorities, from Christians to Muslims as well as statements which reinforces the legitimacy of caste hierarchy and order. The rhetoric of the Chief Minister has often gratuitously and pejoratively invoked the term “jihad” in connection with various issues involving the Muslim community.

In November 2025, the Citizens for Justice & Peace had complained to the Election Commission of India, under the Representation of People’s Act, on Himanta Biswa Sarma’s speech filled with hate delivered during the Bihar state assembly elections. Details may be read here. Another complaint to the National Commission for Minorities may be read here.

“In August 2024, Sarma recklessly accused the University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya, a Muslim-run institution, of engaging in “flood jihad”, blaming it for the outbreak of floods in Guwahati. He has also made the ridiculous claim that the university has a Mecca-like structure, and therefore it is a symbol of “jihad”. Similarly, Sarma also made the unfounded allegation that Bengali Muslim farmers were practising “land and fertiliser jihad” by using high amounts of fertilisers on their crops.

Moreover, the human right platform links this spiral in hate speech in the north-eastern state with the 2026 Vidhan Sabha elections. “As Assam prepares for its next state general election in 2026, Sarma has intensified his targeting of Bengali Muslims. Sarma said that between ‘four to five lakh Miya voters’ would be removed from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process in the state. He also emphasised that “Himanta Biswa Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyas” and urged people to “trouble” Miyas saying, “only if they face troubles will they leave Assam”.

Besides, says the PUCL statement, “He (Sarma) has made no bones of not only discriminating against Bengali speaking Assamese Muslims but has also illegally incited others to discriminate against them. On January 28, 2025, he said that, ‘Whoever can give trouble in any way should give, including you. In a rickshaw, if the fare is Rs 5, give them Rs 4. Only if they face troubles will they leave Assam… These are not issues. Himanta Biswas Sarma and the BJP are directly against Miyas. What is the point of telling us that these are issues? We are saying it openly; we are not hiding it. Earlier, people were scared; now I myself am encouraging people to keep giving troubles”.’”

The Chief Minister has moved from speech which demeans, degrades and humiliates to speech which incites civil society to demean, degrade and humiliate Bengali speaking Muslims. With none of this hate speech facing any significant pushback, the Chief Minister has been emboldened to further extend the boundaries of his hateful and unconstitutional rhetoric.

Background 

On February 8, 2026,  a video which has come to be referred to as the `Point-blank video’ purportedly showed Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma aiming a rifle and firing a shot at two individuals — one wearing a skullcap and the other sporting a beard that looked like a Muslim man. The wall the photo was hung on bore the words “No mercy” – with the caption “point-blank shot”. Though the outrage which greeted this video resulted in the video being removed from social media page of the BJP Assam unit, the damage had been done. For the video reinforced the CMs constant diatribe against Bengali Muslims as intruders who have stolen the jobs of Assamese thereby inflaming passions with the potential to result in major violence against Muslims and other minorities.

The only conclusion one can draw is that the incitement to murder was a bridge too far as far as what was acceptable from the Chief Minister and he was forced to take down the video.

However, the fact that the video was deleted cannot be allowed to obscure the history of Sarma’s repeated violations of his constitutional oath as Chief Minister to ‘faithfully and conscientiously discharge’ his ‘duties as a Minister for the State’ and to ‘do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.’

The PUCL has also strongly condemned the language of the Assam Chief Minister as a complete repudiation of his oath of office. The Chief Minister has used language which demeans and degrades Assam’s Muslims, incites discrimination against them and goes so far as to incite the murder of Muslims. None of this language is sanctioned by the Constitution. The Chief Minister has violated his oath not to discriminate on grounds of religion and not to incite violence against members of a community. Far from promoting fraternity, which is the most basic constitutional obligation of a head of state, he has gone out of his way to promote divisiveness, hatred and violence in Assam.

“The Chief Minister has thus been a serial violator of the most basic norms which govern a constitutional democracy as well as the constitutional responsibility of a head of state.  His language has made it amply clear that he does not seek to govern on behalf of the Muslim communities of Assam. As such he has unequivocally and expressly repudiated his constitutional oath to govern without ‘fear or favour, affection or ill-will.’ In particular the Chief Minister has made it clear that he governs with an animus which targets the Muslim community. The Chief Minister has thus proved himself constitutionally incapable of abiding by the mandate of the Constitution that all person are equal before the law.

“The PUCL calls for the Chief Minister to resign as he has repeatedly violated his oath of office to govern without ‘fear or favour, affection or ill-will.’ The PUCL also calls on the Prime Minister to take action against the Chief Minister under Article 355 to ensure that Assam is governed in ‘accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.’”

The statement has been issued by the Kavita Srivastava, president of the PUCL and Dr V Suresh, General Secretary.

Citizens for Justice and Peace,  had in this creatively analysed this new political playbook of parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) who use a full-fledged, cynical and multi-layered hate assault –(mis) using fringe groups to star campaigners—to systemically dish out hatred, at peace time but especially during an increasingly weaponised election cycle. The article may be read here.

Related:

Law as Resistance: A year of CJP’s interventions against a rising tide of hate

Hate Watch 2025 | Tracking Hate, Defending Democracy | CJP

Poster-boy of ‘Hindutva’, Assam CM targets, Himanto Biswas Sarma threatens ex-US President with Islamophobic Slur: ‘Hussain Obama’

Hate Watch: Himanta Biswas Sarma on ‘Love Jihad’ during the Gujarat poll campaign

The post Himanta Biswa Sarma must resign as Chief Minister of Assam for serial violations of his oath of office: PUCL appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2025 Intervention Tracker:

• NCSC: 2 Complaints
• NCM: 6 Complaints
• NHRC: 2 urgent memorandums
• Police/Administration: 6 Complaints
• Preventive Actions: 2 pre-emptive Complaints

1.  National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC): Battling caste-based atrocities

In early January 2025 (January 8), CJP approached the NCSC to highlight a troubling spike in atrocities against Dalit communities across Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. These complaints, detailing incidents from late 2024, emphasised that such violence is rooted in a deeply ingrained discriminatory mind-set. CJP’s intervention sought to move the Commission beyond mere observation toward active enforcement of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

“Dignity for All”: a national mapping of 30 critical atrocities across 9 states

On June 24, CJP further filed a major formal complaint documenting 30 distinct incidents of violence across nine states, ranging from horrific sexual assaults on minors to the murder of a 10-year-old boy in Etah (Uttar Pradesh). Invoking Article 338 (5) of the Constitution, CJP sought an urgent probe into these crimes, which included social boycotts and the denial of cremation rights.

Widespread crimes against SCs violating the PoA Act and Civil Rights

CJP Stated in its complaint that, these incidents directly contravene the spirit and letter of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and more critically, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST PoA Act), which specifically aims to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and to provide for special courts for the trial of such offenses and for relief and rehabilitation of the victims. The recurring nature of these incidents, especially the multiple instances of sexual violence and physical attacks, reveals a severe lapse in the implementation and enforcement of these crucial legislations.

Targeted crimes against SCs, a pattern of abuse

Through this complaint, CJP highlights that systemic, widespread incidents of caste-driven oppression that are prevalent countrywide, across states governed by different political dispensations pointing to a deep-rooted societal malaise that has not only acquired a frightening level of ‘normalised violence and oppression’ but also is ‘allowed because of structured levels of immunity’.

CJP also stated in its complaint that as per the NCRB report, there are a total of 70,818 cases of atrocities against SCs and 12,159 against STs that remained pending for investigation at the end of the year 2021. A total of 2,63,512 cases of SCs and 42,512 cases of STs were placed for trial in the courts. At the end of the year, more than 96 percent of the total cases were still pending for trial. Though the charge-sheeting percentage was more than 80%, but the conviction rate remained below 40%.

Why did CJP intervene?

CJP stepped in because these atrocities were no longer isolated crimes but had become the “new normal” of daily humiliation and violence revealing spiralling trends. When local police failed to register FIRs or provided “structured immunity” to dominant-caste perpetrators, it became clear that only a high-level constitutional push could break the deadlock. CJP’s intervention was necessary to force the NCSC to address the systemic collapse of the PoA Act and protect the basic human dignity of the marginalised communities.

1.  National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): CJP’s Memorandum 

On May 31, 2025, CJP submitted a memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding a major human rights crisis in Assam. In memorandum CJP reported that between May 23 and May 31, the Assam Border Police conducted secretive night raids across 33 districts, detaining at least 300 individuals, primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims, without warrants or legal paperwork. While some were eventually released, approximately 145 people remained untraceable, leading to fears of illegal “pushbacks” across the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The memorandum highlighted that many detainees were already involved in ongoing legal cases or had lived in India for generations. CJP argued that these actions bypassed the rule of law and violated constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22. CJP has asked the NHRC to demand a full report from the government, set up a fact-finding committee, and ensure the immediate safety and return of those unlawfully detained or expelled.

On June 4, 2025, CJP submitted a supplementary memorandum to the NHRC providing harrowing first-person testimonies of illegal night detentions and forced expulsions in Assam. This submission followed the initial May 31 memo and documented a systematic campaign where the Assam Border Police allegedly bypassed all judicial sanctions to deport Bengali-speaking Muslims, including the elderly, the chronically ill, and individuals protected by court stay orders.

The memorandum included testimonies from survivors like Hajera Khatun and Sona Bhanu, who described being blindfolded, fingerprinted without consent, and abandoned in “no-man’s land” swamps under the cover of darkness. Families reported finding their missing loved ones only through viral social media videos filmed in Bangladesh. Notably, CJP revealed that individuals previously released from detention centres through legal efforts—such as Doyjan Bibi and Abdul Sheikh—were re-detained and forcibly removed despite complying with all bail conditions. CJP has urged the NHRC to launch an independent inquiry, summon top officials, and ensure the safe return of all those subjected to these extra-legal deportations.

Rationale of CJP’s Intervention

This crisis demanded CJP’s intervention because the state was operating entirely outside the law, conducting what looked more like abductions than legal detentions. By disappearing people in the dead of night and “pushing” them across borders, the administration bypassed the entire judicial system, including the Supreme Court’s own stay orders. CJP acted to stop this “stealth purge” and ensure that no person is rendered stateless through secretive, extra-legal executive actions.

III. National Commission for Minorities (NCM: Stemming Organised Hate

Throughout 2025, CJP acted as a constitutional vanguard, filing six major complaints with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM).

• “Dharma Sansads” and 2. “Trishul Deekshas”

The beginning of the year 2025 was marred by high-decibel events like “Dharma Sansads” and “Trishul Deekshas” in regions like Delhi, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. These gatherings were marked by explicit calls for economic boycotts and physical violence against Muslims and Christians. CJP’s complaints to the NCM detailed how speakers propagated baseless conspiracies such as “love jihad” and “land jihad” and these events created an atmosphere of deep fear and uncertainty. Consequently, we urged the Commission to hold those responsible accountable by ensuring FIRs are filed under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023

• Complaint over hate speech at Trishul Deeksha events

On January 29, CJP had filed a formal complaint with the NCM, raising alarm over a series of Trishul Deeksha events held in December 2024 across Punjab, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Organised by far-right groups such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal, and Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad (AHP), these gatherings featured openly inflammatory rhetoric, hate speech, and mobilisation against minority communities, particularly Muslims and Christians.

• Complaint against hate speeches at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events

On January 22, CJP filed a complaint with the NCM regarding a series of hate speeches delivered at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events on December 20, 2024, led by Yati Narsinghanand and other right-wing figures. Despite being denied permission to hold the event in Haridwar, the gathering proceeded at another location, where inflammatory and violent rhetoric was once again espoused, targeting Muslims and calling for a Hindu-only nation. The speeches at the event included derogatory language and explicit calls for physical violence against Muslims, promoting a vision of a society devoid of religious diversity.

• The Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra: a ten-day mapping of fear

On December 2, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) submitted an exhaustive complaint to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) regarding the Hindu Sanatan Ekta Padyatra, a massive 10-day mobilisation led by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri. Traversing 422 village panchayats across Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, the march was documented by CJP as a systematic campaign of “othering” that weaponised religious identity. CJP’s detailed mapping of speeches Categorised the rhetoric into direct hate speech and high-intensity fearmongering, notably demographic conspiracy theories claiming Hindus were on the “brink of becoming minorities.”

The yatra featured exclusionary slogans such as “Jo Ram ka nahi wo kisi kaam ka nahi” and explicit calls for the economic boycott of Muslims and Christians. CJP highlighted how speakers used their spiritual authority to normalise “bulldozer justice” and incite historical resentment, such as invoking the Babri Masjid demolition to demand the reclamation of other religious sites. Warning that such organised campaigns, involving an estimated 3,00,000 participants, could trigger real-world violence, CJP urged the NCM to launch a fact-finding mission. Crucially, the organisation prayed for the appointment of nodal officers as per the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines to protect vulnerable communities from the volatile atmosphere generated by the padyatra’s rhetoric.

1. Targeting Bengali-origin Muslims

In late September (September 30, 2025), submitted a comprehensive complaint to the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), highlighting what it described as an “alarming and coordinated escalation of hate speech” across India. The complaint documents how Bengali-origin Muslims, many of whom are lawful Indian citizens, are being systematically vilified as “Bangladeshis” and “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) in election rallies, public protests, and online campaigns. CJP’s submission to the NCM Chairperson requested a full inquiry and preventive directions to curb vigilante activity, emphasising that such rhetoric directly contravenes Supreme Court directions on hate crimes.

• CJP’s key demands to the NCM

The complaint called upon the Commission to:

• Take legal cognisance under the NCM Act and initiate an inquiry.

• Direct registration of FIRs against individuals and organisations spreading hate.

• Curb vigilante activity by outfits like Bir Lachit Sen and All Tai Ahom Students’ Union.

• Ensure police compliance with Supreme Court orders on suo motu action.

• Enforce preventive measures, such as videographing rallies and banning repeat hate offenders.

• Urge social media platforms to remove hateful content.

• Launch a fact-finding mission on the profiling, harassment, and eviction of Bengali-origin Muslims nationwide.

• CJP’s key intervention in systemic targeted harassment and hate-motivated violence against Christians in Rajasthan (September, 2025)

On October 8, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) regarding a surge in targeted harassment and hate-motivated attacks against the Christian community in Rajasthan throughout September 2025. The complaint highlights a series of disturbing incidents following the introduction of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025. Key flashpoints included a police raid on a children’s hostel in Alwar on September 3, the coercive interrogation of believers in Kotputli-Behror on September 9, and the forceful closure of St. Paul’s Hostel School in Dungarpur on September 11. Most notably, on September 21 in Jaipur, a mob of 40–50 activists assaulted a private prayer meeting, injuring eight people.

CJP urged the Commission to take immediate cognizance of these events, which they describe as a “coordinated campaign” involving vigilante violence and administrative bias. CJP requested a time-bound investigation into police misconduct and the registration of FIRs under BNS Sections 196 and 299. They further called for the implementation of Supreme Court guidelines from the Tehseen Poonawalla case to ensure accountability and the protection of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 25.

Action Taken by NCM: Following the formal complaint lodged by CJP, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) initiated official proceedings on October 14, 2025, by issuing a directive to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan. In its formal communication, the Commission stated that “The complainant should be apprised of the action taken in the matter and the Commission should also be informed.”

• The rise of extra-legal vigilantism and “Identity Policing”

On December 18, 2025, CJP formally approached the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) to report a surge in vigilante violence and state-led targeted evictions. The comprehensive complaint documents a disturbing pattern of incidents occurring between September and November 2025, primarily targeting Muslim and Christian communities across multiple states. CJP highlighted five critical areas of concern as physical vigilantism involving cow protection and moral policing; economic intimidation through informal boycotts of minority-owned businesses; disruption of Christian prayer meetings under the guise of preventing conversions; coercive identity policing; and large-scale demolitions that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations without adequate rehabilitation.

The central theme of the CJP’s complaint is the emergence of “self-appointed enforcers” who act with a perceived sense of impunity. CJP argued before the NCM that these are not isolated events but a recurring pattern that erodes constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. The organisation expressed grave concern over selective law enforcement, noting that police often act upon vigilante complaints while ignoring the initial unlawful acts of the perpetrators. CJP has urged the NCM to demand action-taken reports from state governments, ensure the impartial application of criminal law, and safeguard the livelihoods and dignity of minority groups against normalisation of such violence.

Action Taken by NCM: On January 23, 2026, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has officially taken cognizance of the representation submitted by CJP on December 18, and has registered the case. Acting on complaint, the Commission formally forwarded a copy of the complete representation to the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, for urgent consideration and appropriate intervention.

III. Police Authorities: Demanding Neutrality & Accountability

In 2025, CJP filed 5 major collective complaints with police and administration, across several states, to demand accountability, immediate preventive action, and a strict adherence to the rule of law.

“In the line of Crossfire”: when CJP demanded authorities to Act

Throughout February and March, CJP filed multiple state-wide complaints against BJP MLA and Minister Nitesh Rane for inflammatory speeches delivered in Pune, Sindhudurg, and Ratnagiri. CJP contended that as an elected representative in a position of significant influence, Rane bore a heightened legal and ethical responsibility to maintain communal harmony. Invoking the Supreme Court’s landmark Amish Devgan judgment, which distinguishes between free speech and harmful incitement, the organisation filed a series of formal complaints to demand that law enforcement act decisively against rhetoric that threatened the state’s social fabric.

1.  Nanijdham, Ratnagiri – On March 28, 2025, CJP approached the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate of Ratnagiri regarding a speech delivered by Rane during a public felicitation. The complaint documented how Rane propagated baseless conspiracy theories like “love jihad” and “land jihad,” utilising Islamophobic slurs and specifically targeting religious sites such as Mazars and Dargahs. CJP argued that this inflammatory language was a direct attempt to stir fear and mistrust toward the Muslim community, citing the Amish Devgan standard that such speech serves no legitimate purpose other than to sow division and provoke social discord.
2.  Wagholi, Pune – On March 18, 2025, CJP approached the Additional Director General (Law & Order) and the Pune Police regarding a contentious speech delivered at a temple in Wagholi. In this instance, Rane openly advocated for housing discrimination, urging Hindus to rent properties exclusively to fellow Hindus and warning that renting to even one “Aslam” would lead to a demographic takeover. CJP asserted that this rhetoric incited segregation and violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. Furthermore, Rane’s fabrication of a coordinated plot to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047 was flagged as a dangerous exploitation of public anxiety designed to dehumanise an entire community.
3.  Sindhudurg District – On March 7, 2025, CJP filed a joint complaint with the SP and Collector of Sindhudurg addressing speeches delivered in Kundal and Sawantwadi. These events, organised by right-wing outfits, featured Rane warning locals about “Islamisation” and issuing explicit threats. In Sawantwadi, Rane reportedly told the audience to contact him directly to “settle” matters if anyone “kept an evil eye” on his religion, pointedly remarking that he would ensure such individuals would not return to their place of worship on Fridays. CJP highlighted this as a clear incitement to communal violence and a violation of Supreme Court mandates that require police to take suo moto action against hate speech regardless of the speaker’s political standing.
4.  Nagpur City –  On April 24, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint with the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Maharashtra, and the Nagpur Police Commissioner regarding a divisive speech delivered by right-wing influencer Kajal Hindustani (Kajal Singhala). The speech, delivered during a public “Shivjanmotsav” event in Nagpur on February 19, 2025, targeted the Christian and Muslim communities through inflammatory narratives and baseless conspiracy theories.

CJP’s submitted that Hindustani’s rhetoric—which characterised conversions as being traded for “a sack of rice” and utilised the “Love Jihad” trope—meets the definition of hate speech as established in the Supreme Court’s Amish Devgan vs. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1 ruling. The complaint argues that such statements serve no purpose other than to sow mistrust, demean minority religious practices, and dehumanise marginalised sections.

Partisan conduct by Jagaon Police: CJP’s intervention

CJP intervened in October 2025 following a distressing breach of professional conduct by the police in Jalgaon. CJP filed a comprehensive complaint with the Director General of Police (DGP) of Maharashtra and the Superintendent of Police in Jalgaon, calling for immediate disciplinary action against officials from the Jamner Police Station. This demand for accountability arose after police personnel were observed publicly participating in a communal procession organised by Shiv Pratisthan Hindustan—the very organisation whose members are accused in the brutal August 2025 lynching of 20-year-old Suleman Pathan.

The complaint, which was also marked to the Maharashtra Home Department and the National Human Rights Commission, contends that such conduct is a blatant violation of the police oath of office and the Maharashtra Police Conduct Rules. CJP argued that the participation of investigating officers in a rally organised by a far right group linked to the accused is not just an ethical failure, but a total collapse of the constitutional principle of neutrality. Such actions severely compromise the integrity of criminal investigations and shatter the public’s—particularly the victim’s family’s—faith in the fairness of the legal process.

In its pursuit of justice for the Pathan family, CJP has demanded the immediate suspension of the concerned officers and the transfer of the Suleman Pathan investigation to an independent agency. Furthermore, the organisation has pressed for a state-wide directive to reaffirm the necessity of police impartiality in all communal and hate-crime cases.

Curbing market vigilantism: the Malabar Hill incident

In late November (November 25, 2025), CJP moved against a former political leader who conducted unauthorised “Aadhaar checks” of Muslim vendors at Mumbai’s Malabar Hill. CJP identified this as an unlawful assumption of policing functions and religious profiling intended to disrupt the livelihoods of minority communities. By demanding identity documents and instructing Hindu vendors to display saffron flags, these actors attempted to enforce a system of visible segregation. CJP’s complaint urged the police to protect the vendors’ right to trade and to register FIRs against the vigilante actors.

Action Taken by NCM: Pursuant to the CJP’s complaint submitted on November 25, 2025 against Raj Saraf, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has taken cognisance of the matter and forwarded the complaint to the concerned authorities for appropriate inquiry and action. The complaint was received from the office of the National Commission for Minorities, Malabar Hill, Thane, and was thereafter transmitted to V. P. Marg Police Station for further investigation. The police authorities have acknowledged receipt of the complaint and have initiated the process of inquiry in accordance with law.

1.  Preventive Action against Hate-filled Gatherings

CJP’s proactive stand against the proposed communal mobilisation in Pune and Goa

In January, CJP proactively filed two complaints with the Pune and Goa Police to halt “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti” events. Highlighting the track record of the organising outfits in promoting Islamophobia and economic boycotts, CJP urged authorities to invoke Sections 130 and 132 of the BNSS, 2023 to prevent cognisable offences. CJP emphasised in its complaints that allowing such gatherings would violate fundamental rights and contravene Indian criminal law, particularly by inciting communal tensions in otherwise peaceful regions.

• When CJP asks Pune Police to halt right-wing’s ‘Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Andolan’ event

On January 4, 2025, CJP filed a formal complaint with the Pune Police seeking immediate preventive action against the “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Andolan” scheduled for the following day. Organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), the event raised alarms due to the group’s history of inflammatory rhetoric regarding “Love Jihad,” economic boycotts, and religious conversions. CJP argued that such gatherings stoke communal tensions and violate constitutional rights, citing a Mumbai precedent where a similar rally was denied permission to preserve social harmony.

• CJP seeks preventive action against HJS’s Goa event

On January 22, 2025, CJP further filed a formal complaint with the Goa Police, seeking immediate preventive action against the “Hindu Rashtra Jagruti Sabha” event scheduled for January 25 in Sanguem. Forwarded to the Inspector General and Superintendent of Police, the complaint highlighted the potential threat posed by the organiser, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), a group with a documented history of hate speech and divisive rhetoric. CJP raised a sharp alarm, noting that the HJS frequently propagates baseless conspiracies like “Love Jihad” and calls for economic boycotts against minorities, which could ignite communal tensions in a diverse region.

Rebuilding faith in the Rule of Law

CJP’s 2025 interventions were not just about reporting crimes; they were about providing a blueprint for administrative action. Through the distribution of our handbook, “Towards a Hate-Free Nation,” CJP equipped police and district administrations with the latest jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. We maintain that combating hate is a collective responsibility, and our relentless intervention with the NCM, NCSC, NHRC & other constitutional bodies/authorities and state police/administration remains the frontier of this effort to reclaim the secular and democratic fabric of India.

Related

Fighting Hate in 2024: How CJP Held Power to Account

2024: CJP’s battle against communal rallies before and after they unfold

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post Turning the Constitution into Action: CJP’s year against a rising tide of hate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the centre of this legal moment is Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, whose public utterances over the last five years—now exhaustively catalogued before the Court—are alleged to represent not isolated political rhetoric but a sustained pattern of communal vilification, exclusionary exhortation, and legitimisation of social and economic discrimination against Muslims, particularly Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam.

The petitions—filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI leader Annie Raja, a group of twelve citizens comprising former IAS, IFS officers, diplomats, academics and civil society actors, and Islamic clerics’ body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind—seek criminal accountability, independent investigation, and for the first time, judicially enforceable standards governing the speech of constitutional functionaries.

“Point Blank Shot”, “No Mercy”: The video that triggered urgency

The immediate trigger for the CPIM and Annie Raja petitions is a video uploaded on February 7, 2026, from the official X (formerly Twitter) handle of BJP Assam.

The video depicts Chief Minister Sarma firing a gun at animated images of two men shown within a crosshair, portrayed as Muslims. As the gun discharges, the figures are struck repeatedly. The visuals are overlaid with phrases such as “Point blank shot” and “No mercy”, culminating in slogans that read:

• “Foreigner-free Assam”
• “Community, land, roots first”
• “Why did you go to Pakistan”
• “No forgiveness for Bangladeshis”

The video ends with a stylised, cowboy-like portrait of the Chief Minister himself.

Although the video was deleted following widespread outrage, the petition stresses that it continues to circulate widely, amplified by unofficial accounts and political messaging networks. The petition describes it as the most explicit and violent crystallisation of an already entrenched political narrative, one that frames an entire community as legitimate targets of exclusion and hostility.

Urgent mentioning before the Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the CPIM and Annie Raja petitions before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking urgent listing.

“We seek urgent intervention of this Court with respect to disturbing speeches made by the sitting Chief Minister of Assam. Complaints have been filed, but no FIRs have been registered,” Pasha submitted, as per LiveLaw, specifically referring to the February 7 video and earlier speeches.

The Chief Justice remarked that electoral seasons increasingly see political disputes entering constitutional courts, observing that “part of the elections is fought inside the Supreme Court.” However, the Court indicated that it would examine the matter and grant a date.

Details of the petition filed by the CPIM

1. Not an Isolated Video: A five-year pattern of exclusionary speech

Crucially, the petitions insist that the February 7 video cannot be viewed in isolation.

The CPIM petition places before the Court a detailed chronology stretching from 2021 to February 2026, documenting a steady escalation in the Chief Minister’s public rhetoric. These include statements that allegedly:

• Conflate illegal immigration with Muslim identity
• Repeatedly deploy the slur “Miya” to refer to Bengali-speaking Muslims
• Call for denial of land, employment, transport, and livelihoods
• Advocate social and economic boycott framed as “civil disobedience”
• Encourage harassment through electoral roll objections
• Suggest removal of voting rights for members of a religious community

One of the most striking passages cited urges citizens to create conditions in which Muslims “cannot stay in Assam” by denying them rickshaws, shops, vehicles and land. Another openly exhorts supporters to short-pay rickshaw pullers belonging to the targeted community so that they are compelled to leave.

The petition argues that when such statements emanate from the head of the elected executive, they do not remain rhetorical—they acquire coercive force, shaping behaviour on the ground.

2. From Speech to Social Harm: “Acting on the CM’s directions”

What distinguishes these petitions from earlier hate speech challenges is the emphasis on documented social consequences.

The CPIM petition cites reports of daily-wage workers being harassed, rickshaw pullers being deliberately underpaid, and individuals being confronted and asked to vacate neighbourhoods for being “Bangladeshi Muslims.” In several instances, videos circulating online allegedly show perpetrators explicitly stating that they are acting in accordance with the Chief Minister’s directions.

The petition warns that this marks a dangerous constitutional threshold: the translation of executive rhetoric into informal, decentralised enforcement by citizens, blurring the line between State authority and vigilante conduct.

3. Immigration, NRC and the charge of deliberate conflation

A central legal argument advanced is that the Chief Minister’s rhetoric deliberately collapses the distinction between illegal immigration and Muslim identity.

The CPIM petitions point out that immigration is religion-neutral under Indian law, and that NRC data demonstrates that a majority of those excluded were non-Muslims. The selective focus on Muslims, therefore, is argued to expose the communal intent underlying the speeches.

What is framed publicly as demographic anxiety or border security, the petition contends, operates in effect as religious profiling and collective punishment, incompatible with Articles 14, 15 and 21.

4. Constitutional oath and misfeasance in public office

The CPIM petition anchors its challenge in the constitutional oath taken by ministers to uphold sovereignty, integrity, fraternity and equality.

Relying on decisions such as Manoj Narula v Union of India, State of Maharashtra v SS Chavan and Daulatmal Jain, the petition argues that repeated, deliberate use of State authority to stigmatise and exclude a community constitutes misfeasance in public office and a breach of constitutional trust.

The petition further invokes the Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus in the hate speech batch (Qurban Ali, Shaheen Abdulla), which mandates suo motu registration of FIRs in cases attracting Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 IPC (now reflected in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). The complete absence of FIRs, despite repeated complaints, is characterised as systemic executive impunity.

5. Reliefs Sought: FIRs, SIT, transfer of investigation

Given that the alleged offender is a sitting Chief Minister, the petition seeks:

• Mandatory registration of FIRs under the BNS
• Constitution of an independent Special Investigation Team
• Transfer of all related investigations to an independent authority

The petition argues that State and Central agencies cannot reasonably be expected to act independently when the subject of investigation occupies the apex of political power.

Other petitions filed

1. A Parallel Constitutional Question: Who regulates the speech of the powerful?

Running alongside the CPIM petition is a broader writ petition filed by twelve citizens—former civil servants, diplomats, academics and public intellectuals—which raises a distinct but connected constitutional concern: the complete absence of standards governing the public speech of constitutional authorities.

As per LiveLaw, this petition highlights not only the Assam CM’s remarks on “Miya Muslims,” “flood jihad,” “love jihad,” and voter removal, but also similar patterns across states and offices—references to “land jihad,” “infiltrators,” “anti-nationals,” and exhortations to “avenge history.”

The petition argues that while individual statements may fall short of statutory hate speech thresholds, their cumulative effect corrodes constitutional morality, erodes fraternity, and legitimises discriminatory governance.

Drawing on Navtej Singh Johar, Joseph Shine, and Government of NCT of Delhi, the petition contends that constitutional morality must operate as a restraint on those who exercise public power.

“Holders of public office are not ordinary speakers,” the petition emphasises. Their words carry the imprimatur of the State, shape administrative behaviour, and have a chilling effect on vulnerable communities—even absent explicit incitement.

The petition seeks declaratory relief that official speech must conform to constitutional values, and urges the Court to lay down guidelines that regulate conduct without curtailing free speech. Detailed report may be read here.

2. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind: Hate speech, disguised and normalised

Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has reinforced these concerns by flagging Sarma’s January 27 statement that four to five lakh “Miya voters” would be removed during electoral roll revision.

According to the report of LiveLaw, the clerics’ body argues that many such utterances function as disguised hate speech, escaping prosecution due to selective enforcement and unchecked police discretion.

Relying on India Hate Lab data, Jamiat notes a 74% rise in hate speech incidents in 2024, with nearly 98% targeting Muslims, and links this surge to rising hate crimes against minorities.

A Common Grievance: Police inaction and the charge of selective enforcement

Across petitions, a common grievance emerges: law enforcement’s pick-and-choose approach.

While FIRs are swiftly registered against minorities, complaints against powerful public officials remain unattended. This, the petitioners argue, violates Article 14 and hollow out the rule of law.

Invoking Lalita Kumari, Tehseen Poonawalla, Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan and Kaushal Kishore, petitioners urge the Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 to impose binding accountability mechanisms.

A constitutional crossroads

Taken together, these petitions force the Supreme Court to confront a profound constitutional dilemma:

• Can holders of constitutional office weaponise speech without consequence?
• Does repetitive exclusionary rhetoric itself constitute unconstitutional governance?
• Can constitutional morality be judicially enforced against executive speech?
• When does silence and inaction by institutions become complicity?

With judgment reserved in the broader hate speech matter, the Assam CM petitions may well shape the next doctrinal chapter on hate speech, executive accountability, and the constitutional limits of political power.

Related:

When Genocide is provoked from the Stage: Raebareli hate speeches, Bhagalpur dog whistles, and a delayed FIR

The Politics of Processions: How the Sanatan Ekta Padyatra amplified hate speech in plain sight

The Orchestrated Extremism: An analysis of communal hate speech in India’s election cycle (2024–2025)

CJP urges NCM action against hate speech campaign vilifying Bengali Muslims as ‘Infiltrators’

‘Islamophobia dominates Indian hate speech’: Equality Labs report on Facebook India

The post Supreme Court asked to intervene as petitions flag “normalisation of hate” in Assam CM’s public speeches appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the communication, the signatories have stated that these series of public statements made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture, says the communication. Besides, the letter states that the statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

In addition, the letter enumerates what they see violations of the Oath of Constitutional Office by the Chief Minister.

The entire letter may be read below:

February 5, 2026

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice Gauhati High Court

Guwahati, Assam

Subject: Request for Suo Moto Cognisance of Repeated Hate Speech, Executive Interference, and Constitutional Violations by the Chief Minister of Assam

Respected My Lord,

We write this letter with profound faith in the constitutional role of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as guardian of the fundamental rights.

It is with deep concem that we draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court to a series of public statements made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, which, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture. The statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

(A) Instigation for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation

In a recent public statement Chief Minister of Assam instigated people to make people from Miyan community suffer, he categorically stated, “Whoever can, in whichever way should make Miyan suffer. If you board a rickshaw, if the fare is 5, pay them #4”. Such a statement, coming from the highest executive authority of the State, constitutes a direct call for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation of the Miyan community, normalising

cruelty and stripping them of their inherent right to live with dignity as guaranteed under the Constitution.

(B) Direction to interfere in the Special Revision (SR) process

Equally alarming are public statements wherein the Hon’ble Chief Minister has stated that he has directed or ordered BJP party workers to file objections during the Special Revision (SR) process, particularly targeting members of the Miyan community, he has also said that the officers should work overtime to make Miyan suffer. This is a grave constitutional impropriety. A constitutionally mandated and quasi-judicial process such as the SR cannot be converted into a partisan or communal exercise at the behest of the Chief Minister. Such statements amount to executive interference, undermine institutional neutrality, and violate the principle of free and fair democratic processes, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. But, till now, the Election Commission authorities have not taken cognizance of such illegal interference in the SR exercise by the Assam Chief Minister and BJP workers.

Collectively, these utterances have a chilling effect on the right to life with dignity under Article 21, violate equality before law under Article 14, and erode fraternity, a core constitutional value expressly enshrined in the Preamble. They also strike directly at secularism, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Violation of Constitutional Oath

Under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, the Chief Minister swears an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to discharge duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Publicly singling out a religious community for suffering, economic deprivation, heightened scrutiny, and exclusion is fundamentally incompatible with this oath. Such conduct represents not merely political impropriety but a constitutional breach by a constitutional functionary.

Supreme Court Directions on Hate Speech

The brazen hate speech of the Assam Chief Minister is prejudicial to national integration and directly promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, has categorically directed that where instances of hate speech come to the notice of authorities, the police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo moto, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of wit Thace dirartinne are hindinn under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the

identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of court. These directions are binding under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the Chief Minister himself, the ordinary executive machinery becomes structurally compromised, making judicial Intervention indispensable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India reiterated that any attempt to spread hate speech must be dealt with iron hand. The Supreme Court observed that, “Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.”

Secularism as Basic Structure

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, notably in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, and Aruna Roy v. Union of India. State power cannot be exercised to privilege or prejudice citizens on the basis of religion, nor can governance be infused with communal considerations. The statements and directions referred to above are plainly inconsistent with these binding constitutional principles.

In these extraordinary circumstances, we respectfully submit that this is a fit case for this Hon’ble Court to exercise its suo moto jurisdiction to:

1. Direct competent authorities to register a case against hate speech, executive interference, and violations of fundamental rights;
2. Protect the dignity, equality, and security of the affected community;
3. Reaffirm that constitutional functionaries are bound by their oath and constitutional discipline; and
4. Uphold public confidence in secular constitutional governance and the rule of law.

The intervention of this Hon’ble Court is crucial not only for the protection of a vulnerable community but also for preserving the constitutional equilibrium between executive power and fundamental rights. Silence or inaction in the face of such open constitutional transgressions risks normalising them and eroding the moral authority of the Constitution itself.

We submit this representation with utmost respect and hope that this Hon’ble Court will consider taking appropriate action in accordance with law.

Yours faithfully,

1. Dr. Hiren Gohain, Scholar and public intellectual
2. Harekrishna Deka, former DGP, Assam and author
3. Thomas Menamparampil, former Archbishop Guwahati
4. Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, Member of Rajya Sabha
5. Dr. Dulal Chandra Goswami, Environmental Scientist
6. D. Salka, retd. IAS
7. Paresh Malakar, Editor-in-Chief, Northeast Now Duball hoswe upall
8. Deepak Goswami, former Deputy Director General, NIC
9. Lakhi Nath Tamuli, retd. IAS
10. Jayanta Borgohain, retd. Deputy General Manager, IOCL
11. Dr. Indrani Dutta, former Director, Omiyo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development
12. Robin Dutta, former Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam
13. Rashmi Goswami, Social Activist
14. Najibuddin Ahmed, retd. Adl. Chief Engineer, PHED.
15. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah

Related:

CJP seeks action against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam for election code violations in Bihar

Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

Himanta Biswa Sarma in latest hate speech blames people of ‘specific religion’ for BJP loss in Nagaland, Meghalaya

The post Suo moto cognisance of repeated hate speech by CM Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma must: Assam’s public intellectuals to Gauhati HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Located in the Hanumangarh district of northern Rajasthan, near the fringes of the Thar Desert, Gogamedi is not merely a pilgrimage site but a living archive of north-western India’s syncretic past. The shrine, popularly known as Gogamedi, is dedicated to Gogaji Chauhan, also revered as Jaharveer Gogga, a 11^th century medieval Rajput warrior-saint whose veneration cuts across religious boundaries. For centuries, Gogamedi has drawn Hindu and Muslim devotees alike—peasants, pastoralists, warriors, and traders—making it one of the rare sacred spaces in Rajasthan where religious identity has historically been secondary to lineage, memory, and shared devotion.

It is precisely this inclusive character that has recently come under strain. On January 26 this year, Riddhima Sharma, a Jaipur-based social media influencer, visited Gogamedi and posted videos and statements that were widely perceived as communal and inflammatory. Circulated extensively on social media, the content appeared to question the legitimacy of Muslim participation at the shrine and deployed a language of exclusion alien to Gogamedi’s lived traditions. The episode led to public confrontations at the site and drew condemnation from local devotees and Rajput organisations like Kshatriya Parishad , who accused Sharma of attempting to communalise a shrine historically rooted in Hindu–Muslim coexistence.

What unfolded at Gogamedi was not an isolated provocation by an individual influencer. It was symptomatic of a broader political project—one that seeks to recast shared folk shrines into narrowly defined, Brahminical Hindu spaces, erasing inconvenient histories and displacing long-standing custodial communities. Gogamedi, with its Rajput genealogy and Muslim priesthood, stands as a stubborn obstacle to this project. Hindutva, the political project that this country is under siege currently from, is both Brahmanical and exclusivist.

Gogamedi, Gogaji Chauhan, and the Rajput Custodianship of a Shared Cult

Gogaji Chauhan, also known as Jaharveer Gogga, occupies a distinctive place in north-western India’s folk-historical memory.

To understand why Gogamedi resists easy communal categorisation, one must return to the figure of Gogaji Chauhan himself. Remembered in bardic traditions, oral epics, and folk memory as a protector of pastoralists and farmers, Gogaji was a Chauhan Rajput chief of Jangaldesh or Dadarewa (present-day Churu district) and a contemporary of Mahmud of Ghazni as per historians like Dasarath Sharma, RC Temple and sources like Kayamkhan Raso and Jain text Shrawak-Viatudi-Atichar. These historical references tell us that he was a feudal under the Imperial Chauhans of Rajasthan and the region he ruled, from Fazilka in Haryana to Dadrewa in Churu was called Chayalwara, after the Chauhan subclan – Chayal, to which he belonged.

During the era of Firoz Shah Tughlaq, many Chayal chiefs embraced Islam under the influence of Sufis, one of which was Dadrewa’s Raja Karamchand Chauhan, who became Kayamkhan. His and his brother’s descendants, collectively called Kayamkhanis, have produced excellent soldiers to this day, including many who have been awarded Vir Chakras and Sena Medals. The cities of Jhunjhunu and Fatehpur (near Sikar) were founded by Nawab Mohammad Khan and Nawab Fateh Khan – both Kayamkhani rulers.

Hence, unlike Sanskritic deities absorbed into Brahminical ritual hierarchies, Gogaji belongs to the world of historical figures turned folk hero-saints—figures whose authority emerged from martial ethics, local sovereignty, and popular reverence rather than scriptural sanction.

A crucial, often deliberately obscured fact is that the chief priests of Gogamedi have historically been Muslim Rajputs of the Chayal (Chauhan) lineage, regarded as descendants of Gogaji himself. Their presence is not a later “accommodation” but intrinsic to the shrine’s history. In Rajasthan’s folk religious landscape, lineage frequently outweighs doctrinal religion, and Gogamedi exemplifies this logic. The priesthood here is hereditary, tied to blood and ancestry rather than to Brahminical ritual qualifications.

Gogamedi is also part of a wider constellation of shrines associated with the five Panchpirs of Rajasthan, all of whom are remembered in regional tradition as Rajput warrior-saints – some of them are Pabuji Rathore, Mehaji Mangliya, Ramdevji Tomar and Harbuji Sankhla. In each of these shrines, custodianship has historically remained with the saint’s own descendants, irrespective of whether they identify today as Hindu or Muslim. This pattern unsettles modern communal frameworks but makes perfect sense within the pre-colonial social world of the region.

Far from being a marginal or neglected site, Gogamedi has repeatedly served as a space of political and social convergence. In June 2025, the town hosted a meeting attended by members of BAMCEF (an Ambedkarite organization) and its Rajput offshoot-wing KMM, with participation from both Hindu and Muslim Rajputs. These gatherings underscored Gogamedi’s continuing role as a node of Rajput solidarity cutting across religious lines—an aspect rarely acknowledged in mainstream narratives.

The shrine’s inclusive ethos was also formally recognised by the princely state. In 1911, Maharaja Ganga Singh Rathore of Bikaner undertook the renovation of the Gogamedi complex. Importantly, this was a vital act of historical preservation. Ganga Singh ensured that the Muslim priests of Chayal Chauhan ancestry were accorded due respect by Hindu devotees, granted state patronage, and paid for their maintenance as descendants of Gogaji Chauhan. The Bikaner ruler’s intervention reinforced the shrine’s syncretic and Rajput-centric character.

Gogamedi, therefore, is not simply a symbol of abstract Hindu–Muslim harmony. It occupies a unique socio-political position, binding Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs—particularly Kayamkhanis—into a shared sacred and historical universe. Any attempt to communalise the shrine necessarily threatens this fragile but enduring bond.

Influencer Politics, Brahminical Assertion, and the Targeting of a Rajput Shrine

Against this historical backdrop, the actions of Riddhima Sharma acquire a sharper political meaning. Sharma is not a local devotee shaped by Gogamedi’s traditions but a Brahmin influencer from Jaipur, whose social media persona is built around performative religiosity and viral provocation. Her intervention at Gogamedi was not an innocent act of devotion but an intrusion into a space structurally and historically divorced from Brahminical authority. What was at stake was more than a generic Hindu–Muslim tension.

The language deployed, and the specific focus on Muslim priests, pointed towards an attempt to engineer fissures between Hindu Rajputs and Muslim Rajputs, particularly Kayamkhanis, who have long been integral to the region’s political and social fabric. By questioning Muslim custodianship, such interventions seek to delegitimise Rajput lineage-based authority and replace it with a Brahmin-centred religious hierarchy.

This is a familiar pattern. Across north India, shared folk shrines—whether associated with warrior-saints, pastoral deities, or local pirs—are increasingly being targeted for “purification”. The process typically involves reframing the shrine within a Sanskritic idiom, introducing Brahmin priests, marginalising hereditary custodians, and reinterpreting history to align with a homogenised and Brahminised Hindu identity. Gogamedi’s resistance to this process lies precisely in its Rajput genealogy and Muslim priesthood, which together obstruct the consolidation of Brahminical socio-political supremacy.

Seen in this light, the Gogamedi episode is less about one influencer’s statements and more about a struggle over power, memory, and control. Control over the shrine implies control over donations, narratives, and regional influence. Displacing Muslim Rajput priests would not only communalise the site but also dismantle a long-standing Rajput polity in the region—one that has historically operated outside Brahminical mediation.

The backlash therefore, should not be read as a mere defensive reflex. It represents a conscious assertion that Gogamedi belongs to a non-Brahminical, lineage-based sacred order, and that attempts to hijack the Gogaji cult into a Brahminical socio-political structure amount to historical distortion and cultural aggression.

Conclusion: Defending Gogamedi Is Defending History Itself 

The controversy surrounding Gogamedi is a reminder that India’s religious past is far messier, richer, and more plural than contemporary political projects allow. Shrines like Gogamedi survived precisely because they resisted rigid boundaries—between Hindu and Muslim, between priest and warrior, between devotion and lineage. To communalise such spaces is not to “protect” tradition but to falsify it.

What is unfolding at Gogamedi today is a test case.

Will shared sacred spaces be allowed to exist on their own historical terms, or will they be forcibly assimilated into a homogenised religious order that privileges one caste and one narrative over all others? Defending Gogamedi is not merely about preserving harmony; it is about defending the right of history to remain complex, uncomfortable, and inclusive. In that sense, the struggle over Gogamedi is not peripheral.

It goes to the heart of how India chooses to remember itself.

Related:

गोगामेड़ी: राजपूत–मुस्लिम परंपरा और उस पर होते सांप्रदायिक दावे

The post Rajasthan: Gogamedi, a Rajput-Muslim shrine and the politics of communal capture appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the present time, Uttarakhand has become a centre of hate crimes. A few days ago, a report by a US-based think tank was released, which stated that the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand, Pushkar Singh Dhami, delivered the highest number of hate speeches in the year 2025. In 2025 alone, he gave a total of 71 hate speeches, which included terms such as spit jihad, land jihad and love jihad.

In Uttarakhand, under the protection of the government, dargahs are being continuously targeted. Sometimes the administration itself reaches the spot with bulldozers, and at other times anti-social elements arrive with hammers to demolish them. In one of his speeches, Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami himself claimed that his administration has demolished 600 dargahs. This is the official figure; apart from this, hundreds of other dargahs have already been demolished so far.

Something similar happened when, influenced by the Chief Minister’s provocative speeches, anti-social elements themselves vandalised an over 100-year-old shrine dedicated to Syed Baba Bulleshah in Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, on 24 January 2026. Approximately 25 to 30 people arrived at the shrine early in the morning and damaged the site using hammers. The group reportedly chanted religious slogans during the act, and a video of the incident has been circulated on social media. The police have taken the video as evidence for their ongoing investigation.

Perhaps the attackers do not know, O ignorant hammer-wielders, which personality’s shrine they went to demolish. They do not know who that great personality was. That shrine belongs to Hazrat Bulleh Shah, the great 17th-century Sufi, poet and philosopher.

Hazrat Sayyid Abdullah Shah Qadiri, also known as Hazrat Baba Bulleh Shah, is universally acknowledged as the greatest of the Punjabi mystics. No Punjabi mystic poet enjoys wider fame and a greater reputation. His kafis have gained unique popularity. In truth, he is one of the greatest Sufis of the world, and his thought equals that of Jalal al-Din Rumi and Shams Tabriz of Persia.

About Hazrat Bulleh Shah, Shah Inayat Qadiri writes:

Hazrat Shah Inayat, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

Bullhia rabb da pan ai

edharo puttan odharo lan hai.

“O Bulleh! This is the secret of Almighty Allah: on this side He uproots, on the other side He creates.”

“This,” says the tradition, “so deeply impressed Baba Bulleh Shah that, forgetting his family and its status, he became Inayat Shah’s disciple.”

Hazrat Bulleh Shah always stood for humanity and peace. In his life, we find many such incidents that prove that he was a humanist.

He emphasised universal love, tolerance, and the transcendence of sectarian identities, viewing humanity as inherently united under a single divine essence. His teachings advocated equality and rejected caste, creed, and ritualistic barriers that separated people, especially Hindus and Muslims, during a time of communal tensions under Mughal rule.

Influenced by Sufi traditions and elements of Hindu philosophy such as Vedanta, Bulleh Shah promoted humanism, urging followers to prioritise inner spiritual connection over external religious labels, and to see God in every individual regardless of faith.

He was revered across communities, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike, for his role as a beacon of peace, denouncing dogma and social stratification while fostering fraternity and oneness.

Bulleh Shah’s time was marked by communal strife between Muslims and Sikhs. But in that era, Baba Bulleh Shah was a beacon of hope and peace for the people of Punjab. While Bulleh Shah was in Pandoke, Muslims killed a young Sikh man who was riding through their village, in retaliation for the murder of some Muslims by Sikhs. Baba Bulleh Shah condemned the murder of the innocent Sikh and was censured by the mullas and muftis of Pandoke. Bulleh Shah maintained that violence was not the answer to violence. He also hailed Guru Tegh Bahadur as a ghazi (an Islamic term for a religious warrior), which earned him the wrath of the fanatical Muslims of that time.

Banda Singh Bairagi was a contemporary of Bulleh Shah. In retaliation for the murder of Guru Gobind Singh’s two sons by Aurangzeb, Banda Singh Bairagi sought revenge by killing ordinary Muslims. Baba Bulleh Shah tried to persuade Banda Singh Bairagi to abandon his campaign of revenge. Bulleh Shah told him that the same sword which fell upon Guru Gobind Singh’s sons and innocent Sikhs had also fallen upon innocent Muslims. Therefore, killing innocent Muslims was not the answer to Aurangzeb’s oppressive rule.

Hazrat Bulleh Shah’s famous poem “Neither Hindu Nor Muslim” (original Punjabi: Na Hindu na Musalman) is a powerful critique of religious labels. This poem calls for discarding pride and walking on the path of peace, transcending binaries such as sin and virtue, or believer and non-believer, in order to embrace universal love.

Neither Hindu nor Muslim,

Sacrificing pride, let us sit together.

Neither Sunni nor Shia,

Let us walk the road of peace.

We are neither hungry nor full,

Neither naked nor clothed.

Neither weeping nor laughing,

Neither ruined nor settled.

We are not sinners nor pure and virtuous;

What is sin and what is virtue, I do not know.

Says Bulleh Shah, the one who attaches his self to the Lord

Gives up both Hindu and Muslim.

Bulleh is neither Rafzi nor Sunni,

Nor learned, nor an intellectual, nor a Jaini.

I have learnt only the lesson of the love of God.

People say: Bulleh is an infidel (kafir)

And an idol-worshipper.

But in the Lord’s court, both the momin and the kafir

(Believer and non-believer) are treated alike.

Here was Ramdas (a Hindu) and there Fateh Muhammad (a Muslim),

What an ancient quarrel there was between them,

But now their dispute has vanished,

And something new has emerged!

Makkay gayaan, gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow jummay parrh aaeey

Ganga gayaan, gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow gotay khaeeay

Gaya gayaan gal mukdee naheen

Pawain sow sow pand parrhaeeay

Bulleh Shah gal taeeyon mukdee

Jadon Mai nu dillon gawaeeay

~In English

Going to Makkah is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of prayers are offered.

Going to River Ganges is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of cleansing (Baptisms) are done.

Going to Gaya is not the ultimate

Even if hundreds of worships are done.

Bulleh Shah the ultimate is

When the “I” is removed from the heart!

This composition subverts orthodox identities and aligns with Sufi concepts such as wahdat al-wujud (the unity of being), where religious multiplicity dissolves into divine oneness, promoting interfaith reconciliation and humanistic equality.

In some of his verses, the Vaishnava colour is so dominant that one hesitates to accept them as the compositions of a Muslim. The vocabulary, metaphors, atmosphere, and thought are all Vaishnava. In the following verses, the gopis of Krishna’s devotees speak:

Murlī baj uthi aghatan, sun sun bhul gaian sab batan;

Sun sun Sham Sundar dian batan……

(Lord Krishna is playing the flute. Hearing its sound, I have forgotten everything.)

Bullhe Shah main tad birlai;

Jad di Murli Kanha vajai;

Bauri hoe ke tain val dhai,

Kaho ji kii val dast baratan.

(When Lord Krishna sounded the flute and I heard its voice, says Hazrat Bulleh Shah, I cried in agony. Since then I have been wailing in the pain of separation. Bulleh, the gopi, turned mad and ran towards Lord Krishna. The gopi asks where else she should go.)

Bulleh Shah sees God in Krishna, who grazed cows in Brindavan, and in Rama, who invaded Lanka:

Bindraban vich gauan charaen;

Lanka charh ke nad vajaen;

(O God, it was You who grazed the cows in Brindavan in the form of Krishna, and it was You who blew the trumpet of victory and invaded Lanka.)

In the verses where Islamic terminology appears, the spirit remains undeniably Vaishnava. Hazrat Bulleh Shah adored Prophet Muhammad not merely as a messenger of God, but as an incarnation of God.

He died in 1757 at the age of 77 and was buried in Kasur, where he had spent most of his life.

A regular contributor to New Age Islam, Sahil Razvi is a research scholar specialising in Sufism and Islamic History. He is an alumnus of Jamia Millia Islamia.

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Hate Politics and the Message of Hazrat Bulleh Shah appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to CJP’s complaint, the show in question surrounded the tragic incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, which the program used as a pretext to incite communal tension within India. It is important to mention that while the professional identities of the Muslim panellists—including Islamic scholars and researchers—were acknowledged in the introductions, the channel systematically reduced them to a religious monolith by utilising the sensationalist and confrontational title “Kalicharan Maharaj Vs 4 Maulana.”

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

The show may be viewed here:

The complaint argues that the format, framing, selection of panellists, choice of questions, and on-screen graphics collectively abandoned journalistic neutrality and elevated unverified conspiracy-laden assertions into national discourse without editorial scrutiny. CJP has asserted that the show not only misrepresented facts regarding violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, but also used such incidents as a pretext to frame Indian Muslims as a civilisational threat.

From cross-border violence to domestic polarisation

According to the complaint, the broadcast opened by linking violence against Hindus in Bangladesh with the purported rise of “Islamist aggression” globally. However, instead of exploring geopolitical circumstances or international minority protections, the show allegedly shifted its focus toward a domestic communal binary. The choice to present the debate as “Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulana” formed the foundation of this shift, CJP states.

Despite introducing the Muslim speakers as an Islamic scholar, political analyst, researcher, and commentator, the anchor and graphics repeatedly referred to them simply as “Maulana,” thus transforming a discussion that could have been political or geopolitical into a religious contest. CJP describes this as “misclassification for ideological staging,” intended to create a perception of siege, in which a solitary Hindu ascetic was portrayed as battling an institutionalised Muslim clerical bloc.

Six-question format framed as leading accusations

Throughout the program, the anchor posed six structured questions with the duration of the program revolving not strictly around them. The title and the overarching theme of the show were entirely misleading, communal, and provocative in nature;

• Why are Maulanas selective regarding the lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh

• Is there a conspiracy to defame India by labelling it ‘Lynchistan’?

• What is the need for a ‘new Babri’ in India?

• Why the deception of Hindu daughters by hiding one’s identity?

• What is the cure for the extremist mindset of ‘Spit Jihad’?

• Is this an attempt to incite Muslims using threats of Jihad?

The debate concluded with a final question from the host that was intentionally biased and communally charged:

• Will the country be governed by the Constitution or by Sharia?

Rather than clarifying the issue, CJP contends that these questions acted as “leading indictments” that presumed collective Muslim culpability. Queries such as “Why are Maulanas selective regarding lynching of Hindus in Bangladesh?” presupposed silence or complicity, while the final question — “Will the country be governed by the Constitution or Sharia?” — framed Indian national identity in existential religious terms.

The complaint argues that such formulations not only lacked neutrality but also “prime viewers toward moral panic,” presenting Muslims as inherently disloyal or hostile to constitutional order.

Unchecked hate speech and historical tropes

CJP identified the segment between timestamps 03:47 and 05:50 as particularly problematic. According to the complaint, Kalicharan Maharaj used this interval to allege that Quranic verses command violence against non-Muslims, that a “Ghazwa-e-Hind” war was imminent, and that Indian Muslims were celebrating terrorism, foreign defeats, and the “endangerment of Hindus.”

The complaint stated that the host refrained from interrupting or contextualising these claims, nor did he correct doctrinal misinterpretations or historical inaccuracies. This lack of intervention, CJP argues, amounted to “editorial acquiescence” and violated NBDSA’s guidelines on anchor conduct, which require moderators to prevent communal provocation and ensure fair debate.

Ticker graphics as messaging devices

Beyond the spoken exchanges, CJP drew the NBDSA’s attention to ticker text such as “थूक जिहाद वाली कट्टर सोच का इलाज क्या?”, which the complaint argues acted as subliminal messaging designed to reinforce conspiracy theories regarding Indian Muslims.

According to CJP, such graphics, appearing independently of verbal debates, functioned as “parallel instruments of communal persuasion,” circumventing potential rebuttal from panellists.

Rebuttals marginalised, counter-narratives interrupted

The four Muslim panellists reportedly condemned violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, referenced Quranic principles of humanity, and questioned the logic of demographic threat narratives. However, the complaint contended that these rebuttals received limited airtime, often collapsed mid-sentence, or were reframed by the anchor to suit the original premise.

This, CJP argues, transformed the broadcast from a debate into a performance of polarisation, where countervailing facts were permitted only insofar as they sustained spectacle.

Constitutional vs. civilisational framing

The complaint pays particular attention to Zee News’ repeated invocation of a “civilisational clash” premise, perpetuated through references to “New Babri,” “Land Jihad,” and demographic fear-mongering. This framing intentionally juxtaposed constitutional citizenship against religious identity, portraying Indian Muslims as aligned with transnational Islamist forces rather than as domestic citizens.

According to the complaint, this framing not only essentialised Indian Muslims into a singular political category but also presumed collective disloyalty, a hallmark feature in scholarly definitions of hate speech.

Journalistic responsibilities and democratic stakes

The complaint stresses that broadcasters hold heightened responsibility during prime-time debates, which significantly influence public discourse and Zee News neglected established standards requiring accuracy, fairness, and avoidance of communal colour, thereby violating both NBDSA guidelines and the basic tenets of responsible media conduct.

The broadcast “an act of manufactured communal crisis,” warning that such content corrodes democratic deliberation by replacing informed public reasoning with fear-driven binaries, the complaint reads

Relief sought

In its prayer for relief, CJP has requested corrective action, including takedown of the broadcast, broadcast of a public apology, and institutional compliance directives aimed at preventing recurrence of such programming. The petition argues that accountability is essential not merely for redress but for restoring ethical norms within India’s broadcast ecosystem.

The copy of complaint dated January 20, 2026 may be accessed from here

A complaint had earlier addressed to Zee News on January 7, 2026, seeking a response and corrective action. As the broadcaster did not engage, CJP subsequently escalated the case to the NBDSA on January 20, 2026.

Related

Hate Watch 2025 | Tracking Hate, Defending Democracy | CJP

NBDSA ने ‘मिया बिहू’ पर सांप्रदायिक, एजेंडा–आधारित ब्रॉडकास्ट के लिए टाइम्स नाउ नवभारत को फटकारा; भड़काऊ कंटेंट हटाने का आदेश दिया

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

The post CJP files NBDSA complaint over Zee News’s ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’, alleging communal framing and hate tropes appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The report, titled “Excluded, Targeted, & Displaced: Communal Narratives and Violence in Uttarakhand,” is based on field investigations, victim testimonies, police records, court documents, official notices, and media reports. It records incidents from districts including Uttarkashi, Tehri, Chamoli, Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, and Haldwani, and examines how criminal allegations, administrative actions, religious mobilisation, and government policies intersected with communal narratives on the ground.

According to APCR, the report traces how these incidents unfolded over time, the nature of violence and displacement experienced by affected families, and the responses of the police and state authorities in each case.

Details of the Report: A pattern takes shape

According to APCR, communal violence in Uttarakhand cannot be understood as a series of isolated incidents. From 2021 onwards, Muslims across districts have faced targeted violence, economic boycotts, evictions, intimidation, and attacks on religious spaces, often following rumours, allegations, or political mobilisation by Hindutva groups. These incidents occurred across Uttarkashi, Tehri, Chamoli, Nainital, Dehradun, Haridwar, and surrounding regions, affecting shopkeepers, migrant workers, religious institutions, and long-settled families—many of whom had lived in Uttarakhand for decades.

The report notes that many affected Muslim families trace their migration to Najibabad, Uttar Pradesh, dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, well before Uttarakhand became a separate state in 2000. Despite this, they are repeatedly branded as “outsiders.”

The Haridwar Dharm Sansad, 2021: APCR identifies the December 2021 Haridwar Dharm Sansad as a critical flashpoint. At this three-day conclave, multiple Hindutva religious leaders delivered speeches calling for violence against Muslims, the establishment of a Hindutva rashtra, and the suppression of Islam and Christianity. Speakers named in the report include Yati Narasinghanand, Prabodhanand Giri, Yatindranand Giri, Sadhvi Annapurna, Swami Anand Swaroop, and Kalicharan Maharaj.

Police complaints were filed following public outrage, but the report notes that the event contributed to the normalisation of openly violent anti-Muslim rhetoric in the state.

Administrative drives and communal framing: In 2023, the Uttarakhand government initiated a statewide drive to identify and remove “illegal structures” on government land. Right-wing groups framed this as action against “land jihad” and “mazar jihad.” By May 2024, Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami claimed that 5,000 acres had been recovered.

APCR records that mosques and mazars were disproportionately targeted, while comparable scrutiny was not applied to religious structures of other communities. This framing, the report states, created public legitimacy for demolitions and heightened communal tensions.

Purola, 2023- allegations and aftermath: In Purola, Uttarkashi district, a case alleging the kidnapping of a minor Hindu girl by Ubaid Khan and Jitendra Saini triggered widespread unrest. In court, the girl later stated that she had not been abducted and that the police had coerced her statement. Despite the acquittal, right-wing protests escalated.

Muslim families were forced to flee or sell properties. A Hindutva Maha Panchayat was organised, prompting intervention by the Uttarakhand High Court, which reminded the state of its duty to maintain law and order. Following the incident, the Chief Minister announced background verification measures, stating that people would be able to live in Uttarakhand only after verification.

Uttarkashi, 2024- mosque targeting and mob violence: On October 24, 2024, a rally led by Swami Darshan Bharti demanded demolition of the Uttarkashi mosque. The rally turned violent: five police personnel and over 30 civilians were injured, and Muslim shops were vandalised and looted.

Despite assurances to the High Court, a Hindutva Mahapanchayat was allowed on 1 December 2024, where speakers—including BJP MLA T Raja—issued threats involving bulldozers. APCR records that this directly violated the spirit of the High Court’s directions.

Testimonies document shopkeepers suffering losses of ₹50,000 to ₹1 lakh, broken shutters, looted goods, and lasting fear.

Tehri region- Srinagar, Chauras, Kirti Nagar: In Srinagar, Muslims reported being pushed out from Kirti Nagar and Chauras, following “love jihad” allegations. At least 15 shopkeepers were evicted and forced to return to Najibabad.

APCR records how communal narratives entered schools, with teachers recounting speeches about “love jihad” and “land jihad” at official functions. Muslim government employees reported being labelled outsiders and accused of occupying land or jobs.

In Chauras, after allegations about a relationship between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, at least five Muslim shopkeepers fled, despite no complaint from the woman’s family.

Gauchar, Chamoli- Escalation from a minor dispute: On October 15, 2024, a parking dispute between two men—one Hindu, one Muslim—escalated into communal mobilisation. Right-wing groups intervened, leading to the eviction of at least 10 Muslim shopkeepers.

Families who had lived in Gauchar for 45 years fled overnight. APCR documents mob intimidation at hospitals, vandalism of shops, and police-escorted evacuations.

Nanda Ghat- Forced overnight displacement: Nanda Ghat witnessed one of the most severe incidents. Following an eve-teasing allegation against a Muslim barber, a sequence of protests culminated in large-scale vandalism on September 2–3, 2024. Shops were looted, ₹4 lakh in cash stolen, vehicles thrown into rivers, and a makeshift mosque destroyed.

Police advised Muslims to leave for their own safety. Thirty to thirty-five people were escorted out in police vehicles, effectively evacuating the community. Despite High Court directions later ensuring protection, most families did not return.

Nainital, 2024- Violence following a criminal allegation: In April 2024, after the arrest of Mohammad Usman under POCSO and BNS provisions, protests turned violent. APCR documents stone-pelting, vandalism of Muslim shops, attacks on eateries, and an assault on Nainital Jama Masjid, which is located next to the police station.

Despite repeated requests, additional forces were not deployed for hours. No FIR was registered for damage to the mosque, even after multiple hearings.

Expansion to Haldwani: Following Nainital, right-wing groups moved into Haldwani, pressuring Muslim shopkeepers to change names or shut businesses. Long-standing establishments reported threats after their religious identity became known.

Legislative changes and institutional targeting: APCR documents the passage of the Uniform Civil Code (2024) and subsequent 2025 amendments, along with changes to anti-conversion laws and minority education governance. These laws increased penalties, expanded definitions of unlawful conversion, and altered the structure of madrasa regulation, raising concerns among Muslim communities about loss of autonomy.

The UMMEED portal and demolitions: The report records that the UMMEED portal digitisation drive required all waqf properties to register within a short deadline. Due to technical failures and documentation requirements, 75% of waqf properties remained unregistered. These were automatically classified as “disputed.”

Between June and November 2025, APCR records the demolition of over 300 Muslim shrines and dargahs, including registered properties such as Hazrat Kamal Shah Dargah in Dehradun. The Supreme Court later issued contempt notices in some cases.

Conclusion drawn by the report

The APCR fact-finding report concludes that the incidents documented across Uttarakhand between 2021 and 2025 cannot be viewed in isolation. Based on field investigations and verified records, the report finds that Muslim individuals and families were repeatedly subjected to violence, threats, vandalism, economic exclusion, evictions, and displacement following communal mobilisation, allegations, or administrative action.

The report records that in several locations, police protection was either delayed or inadequate, FIRs relating to attacks on Muslim property and religious places were not consistently registered, and affected families were advised to leave areas “for their own safety.” Many of those who fled had lived in these towns for decades and were forced to abandon homes, shops, and livelihoods without any formal rehabilitation or assurance of return.

APCR further notes that administrative measures—such as demolition drives, verification exercises, and regulatory actions—often coincided with periods of heightened communal tension, deepening insecurity among minority communities. Taken together, the report documents a sustained impact on the safety, dignity, and ability of Muslims in Uttarakhand to live and work without fear, and places these findings on record for judicial, institutional, and public scrutiny.

The report may be read below:

Related:

Bihar under BJP: Hate attacks against Muslims spiral, one dies

India’s Silent Push-Out: Courts, states, and the deportation of Bengali-Speaking Muslims

Weaponising Sufism and Wahhabism to Subjugate Muslims

Delhi Court sentences riots accused for promoting hatred against Muslims, sentences him to 3 years in custody

The post From Purola to Nainital: APCR report details pattern of communal violence in Uttarakhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.