While the speech originated as a local executive response to the Bareilly protest, its propagation and amplification were largely mediated through national and regional media, especially Hindi television channels like Times Now Navbharat, Zee News Hindi, and News18 Hindi, which paired the CM’s words with dramatic visuals of protests, police action, and property demolitions. Short-form clips circulated widely on social media, creating a feedback loop that magnified both the rhetoric and the state response.

This media-driven amplification transformed a local law-and-order issue into a nationally visible spectacle of punitive governance, normalising coercive enforcement and targeting of a religious community. The timing and scale of dissemination may also have significant political resonance, particularly with the upcoming Bihar elections, as the Hindi-language media networks ensured that the CM’s rhetoric reached a broad, politically significant audience.

Within days the state response in Bareilly intensified: large-scale arrests, property-sealing and demolition actions, 48-hour internet suspensions, criminal FIRs (running into hundreds or thousands in some counts), and administrative notices against aides of the cleric who called the Bareilly protest. That sequence of ‘protest → CM rhetoric → heavy-handed enforcement’ raises three connected questions the rest of this piece examines in depth:

• Did the CM’s speech cross legal lines such as incitement or unlawful discrimination?
• Did the state response follow due process and the Supreme Court’s own safeguards (including the duty to investigate hate speech suo moto)?
• What are the measurable social, legal and media consequences of that political rhetoric?

What happened — a timeline

The trigger (September 4–9, 2025): The flashpoint began on September 4 when an illuminated board/banners reading “I Love Muhammad” appeared during an Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi procession in parts of Kanpur (Syed Nagar/Rawatpur). Local objections, framed by some Hindu groups as a “deviation from tradition”, led the police to register an FIR on September 9 against 24 persons (9 named, 15 unknown) for allegedly disturbing communal harmony. The complaint, according to the report of India Today, centred on shifting tents/banners into a location on a public road near a gate used by Ram Navami processions. That apparently small ritual alteration escalated as news and social media spread the story to other districts.

Escalation and the Bareilly protest (September 26–27, 2025): On September 26, a public gathering in Bareilly — called in sympathy with the “I Love Muhammad” campaign and associated with cleric Tauqeer Raza Khan — clashed with police after Friday prayers; police used lathi-charge and reported stone-pelting and injuries to officers. According to a report of Times of India, authorities say the protest had been called without permission; police also said the gathering showed signs of pre-planning through social media groups. Multiple FIRs and detentions followed. Local reporting states dozens detained with FIRs filed against hundreds — and some outlets report FIR counts running into the thousands across multiple stations. Shortly after the clashes, the cleric and several aides were arrested.

The Chief Minister’s response (September 28, 2025): Speaking at a public ‘Viksit UP’ event, CM Yogi Adityanath warned that those who “vandalise in the name of faith… attack the police… we won’t let you go… chedhoge to chodenge nahi aur chodenge nahi toh fir chootoge bhi nahi.” He used phrases such as “denting and painting must be done” and framed the response as necessary to protect festivals and public safety. These comments were widely reported and repeated across national news outlets the same day and the day after.

The contentious speeches delivered by CM Adityanath are:

अगर बेटी की सुरक्षा पर हाथ डालने का प्रयास किया,
व्यापारी के प्रतिष्ठान में आग लगाने का प्रयास किया,
उत्सव में अराजकता पैदा करने प्रयास किया तो,

यह रास्ता सीधे नर्क में जाने का होगा… pic.twitter.com/gUV9vkYnRX

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ हिन्दुस्तान की धरती पर नहीं होगा,

अगर किसी को जहन्नुम में जाना हो तो ‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ के नाम पर अराजकता पैदा करने का कुत्सित प्रयास करे…

देर-सबेर ‘छांगुर’ जैसे हाल तो उनके भी होने ही हैं… pic.twitter.com/8V6MXvZbgm

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

छोटे-छोटे बच्चों को जिनके हाथों में कलम होनी चाहिए, जिनके हाथों में नोटबुक होनी चाहिए, विज्ञान और गणित की पुस्तकें होनी चाहिए, उनके हाथों में I Love Muhammad का पोस्टर…

…इनको यह भी नहीं मालूम कि उनकी जिंदगी तो बर्बाद है ही लेकिन इन बच्चों की भी जिंदगी ये लोग बर्बाद करने पर… pic.twitter.com/rhCBIxoh71

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

याद रखना!

जब भी दुस्साहस करोगे, ऐसे ही पिटोगे जैसे बरेली के अंदर पीटे गए हो… pic.twitter.com/AZWOU4m495

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

लव-जिहाद, धर्मांतरण और गो-तस्करी जैसी राष्ट्र विरोधी गतिविधियों के प्रति हमें सतर्क रहना होगा,

अगर कहीं कोई भूल से भी इस प्रकार की गतिविधियों में लिप्त है, उसकी सूचना ससमय पुलिस और प्रशासन को उपलब्ध करवाइए,

उपचार की व्यवस्था हम स्वयं कर लेंगे… pic.twitter.com/wLTyTcChgD

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

2025): After the violence and speeches, the district administration moved decisively: large-scale arrests and FIRs were filed, properties linked to accused persons were sealed or demolished by the local authority demolished including a banquet hall and other structures allegedly used by those arrested, administrative notices, for example, power-theft notices, were issued against associates of the cleric, and internet and SMS services in Bareilly district were suspended for 48 hours citing maintenance of public order, as per The Economic Times. Several human-rights and legal activists have already filed petitions and complaints alleging lack of prior notice for demolition and possible collective punishment. Political parties and civil-society delegations have begun to visit the city; opposition leaders are demanding investigations.

The problem with the speech itself

1. Targeting + personal reference. The CM specifically attacked a cleric’s actions, namely Tauqeer Raza Khan, and conduct in public, saying that the “Maulana forgot who is in power” and promising retribution that would be remembered by “future generations.” Targeting an identifiable leader and associating him and his followers with violence elevates the rhetoric beyond abstract law-and-order language.
2. Punitive metaphors taken literally. The repeated use of “denting and painting” and explicit references to the “bulldozer” rhetorical universe, and actual demolitions in other recent UP campaigns, is not merely figurative; in the current UP context it has an institutional history as a public performance of punishment — a state spectacle with material consequences. The phrase therefore reads as both a policy cue and a public warning.
3. Promise of force / deterrence directed at a community act. Even if the immediate trigger was violence, the CM’s formula — “If you trouble us, we will not spare you” — was framed to deter a specific form of expressive action, such as displaying I Love Muhammad posters, that political actors and some civil-society figures had defended as speech. The combination of delegitimisation, portraying the slogan as manipulation of children or anarchy, plus promise of collective discipline is consequential.

Those three features — naming, punitive metaphor, and generalised deterrence — are the elements that make legal and normative analysis urgent.

Media: Who amplified, and how amplification changed the story

The media ecosystem played a decisive role in transforming Yogi Adityanath’s remarks from a local political reaction into a nationally mediated performance of power. Within hours of his speech, both television and print outlets had front-paged his most aggressive lines — “chedhoge to chodenge nahi” and “denting and painting must be done” — turning threats of retribution into viral catchphrases.

National and regional broadcasters, including Times Now Navbharat, Zee News Hindi, and News18 Hindi, ran segments that paired these quotes with dramatic visuals of protests, lathicharges, and property demolitions. The YouTube thumbnails and on-screen tickers themselves became an extension of the state’s messaging — text overlays like “Maulana bhool gaya kaun sarkar mein hai” or “Bareilly mein danga, sarkar ki kathor karwai” visually encoded the CM’s warning as spectacle and slogan.

This media choreography had a dual effect. First, it nationalised the CM’s rhetoric, ensuring that what began as a local communal disturbance was recast as a state-wide law-and-order triumph. Second, the widespread replaying of his lines — often stripped of context and accompanied by enforcement footage — normalised the language of punishment and deterrence. Even platforms that did not editorially endorse the speech contributed to its amplification through repetition and aestheticisation.

Some outlets, such as The Wire and The Indian Express, offered a countervailing frame: detailed timelines, verification of police claims about “online toolkits,” and critical analysis of the administration’s disproportionate use of force. But these were exceptions within an overwhelming current of performative law-and-order coverage. The split in framing — between law-and-order narratives and civil-liberties scrutiny — reveals how editorial positioning directly shapes the moral valence of communal incidents.

Short-form videos from these channels, extracted as YouTube shorts and Twitter/X reels, circulated widely on social media. These clips — the CM’s warning juxtaposed with scenes of violence and police deployment — fed a feedback loop: the more viral the visual, the stronger the administrative justification for subsequent measures like internet suspension and mass arrests. In effect, the media ecology and the state’s coercive apparatus became mutually reinforcing.

This convergence also raises a constitutional question about mediated governance. When executive speech, journalistic amplification, and administrative coercion operate in sync, the boundary between state messaging and independent reportage collapses. The outcome is not merely the spread of information, but the construction of a “performance of control”, where the appearance of decisive governance substitutes for adherence to due process.

Attached is a collection of YouTube thumbnails from Times Now Navbharat, Zee News Hindi, and News18 Hindi demonstrates this vividly — a montage of headlines that blur the line between news coverage and narrative reinforcement, framing punitive action as political virtue.

Legal frame: what the law says and where courts have drawn the line

Three interlocking legal rules matter here:

• The statutory toolbox for “hate” / public-order speech: India’s criminal law criminalises speech that promotes enmity or hatred between groups (e.g., IPC Section 153A/Section 198 BNS), imputations prejudicial to national integration (IPC Section 153B/Section 197 BNS), deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings (IPC Section 295A/Section 298 BNS), and statements likely to create terror or public alarm (IPC Section 505/Section 356 BNS). These are the provisions courts and police typically invoke in communal-speech cases. The Supreme Court has emphasised that lawful restrictions must be precisely applied and proportionate
• The Supreme Court’s duty-to-act on hate speech: Shaheen Abdulla and follow-up orders: In Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court highlighted the “growing climate of hate” and directed police chiefs to take suo motu action in hate-speech incidents — specifically instructing registration and investigation under IPC sections such as 153A, 295A and 505 without waiting for a private complaint. These directions were later extended to all States/UTs; the court took the view that proactive policing is essential to preserve the secular fabric envisaged by the Preamble. That jurisprudence puts an onus on state police: if a public utterance plausibly constitutes hate speech, police must investigate it on their own motion.
• The constitutional limit: incitement and proximity to violence: Indian courts have insisted on a context-sensitive test. The classic guide is Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), where the Supreme Court upheld sedition law only for words that have the “tendency or intention of creating public disorder” or inciting violence; mere abusive or critical expression cannot be criminalised. Modern caselaw returns to the same principle: to punish speech the state must show an intention or proximate tendency to produce imminent lawless action — not merely dislikeable or provocative words. This high threshold matters because it keeps robust political speech protected while allowing punishment where speech is truly dangerous.

Apply the law to the facts: Did the UP CM cross the line?

This is the crucial, uncomfortable question. Courts usually apply a two-part analysis to political speech by powerful actors:

• Does the speech itself contain elements of the statutory offences?

The Chief Minister’s speech went beyond mere governance rhetoric. It singled out a specific cleric and his supporters, implicitly ascribing collective culpability to a religious community. The language of punishment and humiliation—phrases such as “denting and painting” or “beaten as in Bareilly”—was not random metaphor; it invoked a visual and historical grammar of state-sanctioned coercion. These expressions are deeply loaded in Uttar Pradesh’s recent political lexicon, symbolising demolition drives, police beatings, and targeted action that disproportionately affect Muslim localities.

Further, the assertion that “future generations” would be taught a lesson carries the unmistakable tone of collective retribution, extending the threat from present offenders to an entire community across time. Such language constructs Muslims not as citizens subject to law, but as an enduring adversarial category — a perpetual “other” against whom exemplary force is justified.

Under Sections 153A (now Section 196 of BNS) and 295A (now Section 298 of BNS)  of the Indian Penal Code, the test for criminality hinges not merely on overt incitement but also on whether the speech promotes enmity, targets a community, or is likely to disturb public tranquillity. Read against the backdrop of recent police actions in UP—demolition of Muslim-owned properties, custodial violence, and selective FIRs—the Chief Minister’s words may reasonably be understood as an endorsement and encouragement of discriminatory state practices.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in cases such as Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) clarifies that when influential figures make statements capable of mobilising real-world hostility, the likelihood of incitement must be assessed contextually, not in isolation. From that perspective, Yogi Adityanath’s remarks arguably cross the boundary from administrative assertion into speech that legitimises and incites discrimination.

In sum, while the speech may not contain an explicit call to violence, it performs a dog-whistle function: normalising state-backed hostility and signalling permissibility for coercive action against a targeted religious group. In legal terms, that makes it a fit case for prima facie examination under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) IPC, especially given the speaker’s constitutional position and the demonstrable pattern of violence that followed.

• What changed after the speech? (state action and proportionality)

The true constitutional stakes emerge not merely from what was said, but from what followed. When a Chief Minister’s public rhetoric is swiftly mirrored by administrative action—bulldozers rolling in, FIRs multiplying overnight, and digital blackouts silencing affected districts—the question is no longer one of abstract speech, but of state power animated by speech.

In the immediate aftermath of Yogi Adityanath’s address, municipal and police authorities in multiple UP districts launched coordinated operations: mass detentions of Muslim youth, property demolitions framed as “encroachments,” and sweeping suspension of internet services. These were not isolated law-and-order responses but a choreographed display of retribution, executed without adequate notice, hearing, or judicial oversight.

Courts have repeatedly emphasised that executive spectacle cannot substitute due process. In its observations concerning “bulldozer justice,” the Supreme Court has held that demolitions carried out as instantaneous punishment for alleged offences are unconstitutional unless preceded by notice, opportunity to respond, and adherence to municipal laws (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2022). The law draws a bright line: urban planning cannot be weaponised as penal theatre. Yet, in Uttar Pradesh, the chain of events—fiery speech followed by visible coercive measures—suggests a punitive motive masquerading as law enforcement.

Equally significant is the Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022) principle, which imposes a positive duty on the police: they must initiate suo-moto FIRs against hate speech, irrespective of the speaker’s political stature. The judgment underscored that inaction is complicity, and selective enforcement deepens discrimination. In this case, law enforcement pursued alleged protestors with urgency but failed to act on the Chief Minister’s inflammatory remarks, despite clear statutory grounds under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) IPC.

The constitutional doctrine of proportionality also comes into play. Administrative actions must bear a rational nexus to legitimate aims, employ the least restrictive means, and avoid discriminatory impact. Yet the scale and selectivity of post-speech measures—demolitions confined largely to Muslim-majority neighbourhoods, police raids on specific youth groups, and the near-complete absence of accountability for vigilante actors—suggest a pattern of collective punishment rather than targeted, proportionate law enforcement.

As many have noted, when executive speech operates as a signal and the bureaucratic apparatus responds with coercive overreach, the boundary between political rhetoric and state sanction collapses. The state ceases to act as a neutral arbiter and instead becomes a performer in its own moral spectacle, projecting deterrence through fear.

In sum, while Yogi Adityanath’s speech might be defensible as political expression if viewed in isolation, the temporal and causal sequence of events—immediate arrests, sweeping FIRs, and punitive demolitions—creates a compelling case that state power was deployed not for justice but for signalling. Such a pattern raises grave constitutional concerns under Articles 14, 19, and 21, even if establishing direct criminal culpability for the speech remains legally complex.

The ground reality: Evidence of disproportionate enforcement and social fallout

The aftermath of the Bareilly clashes reveals a pattern that extends far beyond a conventional law-and-order response. It reflects a multi-tiered exercise of coercive state power, activated in the wake of the Chief Minister’s speech and sustained through both formal and informal mechanisms of punishment.

• Mass arrests and sweeping FIRs: In the immediate aftermath, police operations intensified across Bareilly and adjoining districts. Reports cited dozens of detentions within hours, and FIRs naming hundreds—sometimes even thousands—of individuals. According to The Times of India, nearly 2,000 people were named across multiple police stations, though the exact number varied by outlet. The breadth of these FIRs—often containing generalised allegations—raises serious questions about collective culpability and the use of preventive detention as a form of intimidation rather than targeted investigation.
• Property sealing and demolitions: Municipal and development authorities undertook swift demolition and sealing drives against properties allegedly linked to the accused—among them a banquet hall and other commercial structures. Families reported that no prior notice or opportunity to be heard was provided, prompting complaints to the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission. As The Times of India noted, these measures echo the state’s recent pattern of bulldozer-led punitive actions, widely criticised by rights groups as performative retribution designed to convey dominance rather than ensure compliance with planning laws. The recurrence of such demolitions immediately after communal incidents suggests a deliberate conflation of criminal liability with property ownership and community identity.
• Administrative and regulatory reprisals: Alongside police action, the administration issued a series of “ancillary punishments”—including power-theft notices, income recovery claims, and regulatory sanctions against persons associated with the cleric at the centre of the protests. These quasi-civil penalties compounded the economic and psychological burden on affected families. The simultaneity of these measures—each lawful in isolation but collectively disproportionate—points to a pattern of cumulative punishment through bureaucratic instruments.
• Communications blackouts: Authorities imposed a 48-hour suspension of mobile internet, broadband, and SMS services across Bareilly district, citing the need to curb rumours and prevent mobilisation. The Economic Times reported that this was one of several recent instances where internet shutdowns have become the default administrative reflex during communal tensions. Such measures, while framed as precautionary, raise acute proportionality and necessity concerns under the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of Indiav (2020) standard, which requires narrowly tailored, time-bound restrictions and periodic review.
• Societal reverberations and exclusionary practices: The social aftershocks were equally significant. Civil-society observers and media, such as LiveMint documented a perceptible tightening of social boundaries in the weeks following the incident. Muslims reportedly faced pressure to abstain from participating in garba celebrations and other public festivities, and instances were noted where Hindutva groups sought to monitor or exclude Muslim presence at cultural events. Though less quantifiable, these developments illustrate how executive rhetoric and coercive enforcement combine to legitimise exclusion at the community level, embedding state-endorsed bias within everyday social interactions.

Taken together, these events depict not an isolated breakdown of order but a coordinated sequence: rhetoric, repression, and social sanction. The cycle of speech, enforcement, spectacle, and exclusion forms a distinctive template of governance—where administrative action doubles as political performance, and punishment itself becomes a form of public messaging.

The Political Economy of Hard-line Rhetoric: How speech translates into power

Whether by deliberate strategy or downstream effect, hard-line public rhetoric by state leaders like Yogi Adityanath yields three tangible advantages for majoritarian or vigilante actors operating at the political margins. It converts language into action, rhetoric into legitimacy, and coercion into spectacle.

1. Implicit legitimisation of vigilante policing: When a head of government publicly vows “uncompromising action” and uses metaphors of retribution—such as “denting and painting” or “we will not spare you”—the message travels well beyond the bureaucracy. It functions as a symbolic green light for local affiliates, vigilante groups, and ideological sympathisers. These actors interpret the rhetoric as moral endorsement for “citizen policing” or social intimidation campaigns under the guise of defending faith or nationalism. Civil-society reports document a consistent pattern: Hindutva outfits intensify surveillance of Muslim participation in cultural events—such as garba celebrations or processions—soon after high-profile communal statements. In practice, this rhetoric lowers the cost of vigilantism, creating a permissive environment where harassment appears state-sanctioned.
2. Narrative control and inversion: Strongman rhetoric also reshapes the moral sequence of events. By branding expressive or devotional acts—such as the “I Love Muhammad” posters—as “provocations,” the state repositions itself as the neutral guarantor of order, while protestors are recast as disruptors. This narrative inversion turns a community’s assertion of faith into a law-and-order problem, allowing the administration to deploy coercion with minimal public pushback.
   As The Wire and other critical outlets observed, media framing plays a decisive role: channels that foreground “riots” and “discipline” amplify the executive’s preferred storyline, while those that question due process or disproportionality are marginalised as “soft on disorder.” The result is a feedback loop where political rhetoric and editorial selection co-produce legitimacy.
3. Electoral signalling and mobilisation gains: Beyond its immediate administrative use, hard-line speech operates as a performative display of strength aimed at a political constituency. The imagery of bulldozers, swift arrests, and collective punishment serves as a spectacle of decisive governance, projecting control and dominance. Scholars of South Asian populism have noted that such performances of punishment—what The Loop terms “punitive populism”—transform the machinery of justice into an instrument of emotional reassurance for the majority. Each demolition or crackdown becomes not just an act of enforcement but a ritual reaffirmation of political identity, blurring the lines between public order and electoral theatre.

Taken together, these three dynamics show how rhetoric, media, and enforcement converge into a single ecosystem of majoritarian power. In this model, punishment is not merely administered—it is performed, televised, and voted upon.

Accountability gaps and legal remedies

The aftermath of the Bareilly episode demands more than commentary — it demands accountability. When executive speech, administrative action, and media amplification intersect to produce coercive outcomes, the constitutional order must provide correctives. The following lines of legal and institutional response arise directly from existing Supreme Court jurisprudence and human-rights practice:

1. Suo moto inquiry into the Chief Minister’s speech under the Shaheen Abdulla directions: The Supreme Court has made it unequivocally clear that police are under a continuing duty to register suo moto FIRs in cases of hate speech, regardless of the speaker’s political position. Inaction in the face of potentially inflammatory statements by high public officials amounts to contempt of the Court’s directions. A representation to the High Court or Supreme Court seeking compliance would therefore be legally tenable if no inquiry has yet been initiated.
2. Judicial review of demolitions and sealing drives for arbitrariness and disproportionality: The Supreme Court’s November 2024 observations on “bulldozer justice” caution that demolitions used as instant punishment violate due process. Every affected person is entitled to prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and independent adjudication before property action. Where municipal or development authorities acted immediately after communal incidents, those demolitions merit judicial scrutiny as punitive theatre rather than lawful urban regulation.
3. Human-rights complaints and public-interest petitions documenting the full sequence: The timeline itself — from the Kanpur FIRs to the Bareilly clashes, the CM’s speeches, and the administrative crackdown — forms crucial evidence of state overreach and selective enforcement. Complaints to the NHRC, the State Human Rights Commission, or the jurisdictional High Court can seek independent inquiry, victim compensation, and publication of findings. Precedents show that such petitions have successfully compelled state responses and stayed coercive action.
4. Media accountability and transparency demands: Given the central role of television and digital platforms in magnifying punitive rhetoric, transparency measures are essential. Broadcasters and social media intermediaries should be required to preserve all footage, thumbnails, and metadata for future scrutiny. Outlets that used sensational promos can be asked to issue contextual clarifications or corrections through the NBDSA process. Simultaneously, police and civic authorities must disclose the legal basis for mass FIRs, demolition orders, and internet suspensions. Public disclosure often becomes the first step toward halting unchecked executive excess.

Conclusions — legal risk, democratic cost

The Bareilly “I Love Muhammad” row and its aftermath sit at a critical intersection of power and speech in contemporary India. What began as an expressive act — a slogan, a banner, a theological or identity affirmation — was transformed rapidly under political and administrative force into a narrative of provocation, then into a sequence of punitive state interventions.

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s rhetoric did more than warn: it arguably furnished the legal and moral scaffolding for escalated state action — actions that, according to credible reportage, stretched procedural norms, threatened minority rights, chilled speech, and disrupted daily life for many. Legal redress is challenging but not impossible: the constitutional framework, statutory provisions, and Supreme Court precedents exist to push back against such overreach.

Bareilly is therefore not just a local incident. It’s a test case. If the judicial system, civil society, and media fail to rigorously examine speech + enforcement, the precedent is troubling: political speech that combines identity, faith, punitive promise and spectacle becomes a license to marginalise. For democracy to survive in such moments, the invisible boundary between “law-and-order” and state overreach must be policed with the same seriousness with which we monitor overt dissent.

References:

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/take-suo-motu-action-against-hate-speech-crimes-without-waiting-for-complaint-supreme-court-212282

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/what-is-i-love-muhammad-row-and-why-it-sparked-protests-across-india-barawafat-procession-kanpur-nagpur-hyderabad-owaisi-full-story-2791497-2025-09-22

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/bareilly-cleric-among-8-held-2000-booked-31-detained/articleshow/124185812.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/i-love-muhammad-row-up-cm-yogi-adityanath-warns-habitual-law-breakers-after-bareilly-protest-says-denting-painting-must-be-done/articleshow/124189795.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/internet-suspended-in-bareilly-for-48-hours-after-i-love-muhammad-row/articleshow/124273149.cms

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/yogi-adityanath-warns-i-love-mohammad-protesters-chedhoge-to-fir-chodhenge-nahi-11758975758381.html

https://thepolisproject.com/research/sc-verdict-demolitions-statecraft/

https://thewire.in/politics/i-love-muhammad-banner-controversy-how-routine-decoration-in-kanpur-sparked-nationwide-protests-and-crackdowns

https://www.scobserver.in/journal/bulldozer-demolitions-remind-of-a-lawless-ruthless-state-of-affairs-declares-supreme-court-as-it-issues-pan-india-guidelines

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/i-love-muhammad-row-plea-filed-in-human-rights-body-on-demolition-ofproperties-in-bareilly-affected-families-say-no-prior-notice-sent/articleshow/124345491.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/i-love-muhammad-row-rs-1-crore-power-theft-notice-to-tauqeer-razas-aides/articleshow/124324197.cms

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/bulldozer-justice-punitive-populism-in-india/

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/i-love-muhammad-row-cleric-tauqeer-raza-detained-protest-10274731

https://theprint.in/politics/cleric-who-once-said-modi-should-learn-from-yogi-whos-tauqeer-khan-in-eye-of-i-love-muhammad-storm

https://kmsnews.org/kms/2025/09/20/muslims-protest-across-india-against-registration-of-case-for-writing-i-love-muhammad-saw.html

https://sabrangindia.in/register-prosecute-hate-speech-offences-promptly-uphold-rule-law-sci-all-states

https://sabrangindia.in/hate-crime-hate-speech-scs-scrutiny-continue

https://sabrangindia.in/free-speech-even-in-bad-taste-is-protected-if-no-incitement-to-violence-hp-hc

https://www.toaep.org/pbs-pdf/138-lokur-damojipurapu

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/tension-in-bareilly-drones-are-up-ahead-of-friday-prayer-internet-shut-down/articleshow/124280351.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/one-can-say-i-love-modi-but-not-i-love-mohammad-owaisi-amid-bareilly-unrest-condemns-violence/articleshow/124284809.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/i-love-mohammad-march-violence-after-stone-pelting-in-bareilly-cops-resort-to-lathicharge/articleshow/124157113.cms

https://cjp.org.in/bns-2023-does-nothing-to-bring-in-a-nuanced-effective-understanding-of-hate-speech-making-its-prosecution-even-more-difficult

https://cjp.org.in/cjp-files-complaints-against-the-hate-speeches-delivered-in-uttar-pradesh

https://cjp.org.in/the-sentinel-and-the-shift-free-speech-in-the-supreme-court

https://thelogicalindian.com/chedhoge-to-chodhenge-nahi-yogi-adityanaths-warning-after-i-love-mohammad-protest-turns-violent-in-up

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/internet-cut-for-48-hours-in-ups-bareilly-amid-i-love-muhammad-posters-row-9384013

https://article-14.com/post/govt-whataboutery-inaction-why-hate-speech-persists-despite-the-supreme-court-wanting-to-stop-it-64c3372224505

The post From Words to Bulldozers: How a Chief Minister’s rhetoric triggered and normalised punitive policing in Bareilly appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Social media posts suggested there was “forced conversion” or “religious mixing” happening, resulting in vigilante groups mobilising and police quickly intervening — not against the aggressors, but against individuals accused of converting others. In several districts, including Alwar, Dungarpur, and Jaipur, the people abusing Christians worked with police and other authorities, a relationship that demonstrated their collusion. The accounts below follow this trajectory — from Alwar and Dungarpur’s early raids to the violence reported in Jaipur’s Pratap Nagar — and how an entire month was essentially practice for institutionalised religious surveillance and social exclusion.

This complaint and supporting documentation derive from validated field reports and a comprehensive timeline of events built by the Coordination Committee for Protection of Freedom of Religion and Human Rights in Rajasthan — a network of civil society organisations that has been following closely incidents of harassment and hate crimes against Christians within the state. The Coordination Committee includes People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), People’s Union for Human Rights (PUHR), All India People’s Forum (AIPF), Janwadi Mahila Samiti (JMS), Rajasthan Christian Fellowship (RCF), National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), Adivasi Adhikar Abhiyan (AAA), and Bhil Pradesh Mukti Morcha (BPMM), among others. Their Joint Press Statement of September 25, 2025, chronicled targeted attack incidents, police harassment, and coercive raids in the wake of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025. CJP’s submission relies on that data to further triangulate it with independent media reports, HindutvaWatch documentation, and on-ground interviews to provide a detailed record of an organized campaign of intimidation conducted under the cover of “anti-conversion vigilance.”

Gelota, Alwar (MIA Thana, Alwar district)

Police conducted a raid on September 3 on a hostel for children that allegedly housed approximately 25 poor children run by a missionary in Galota (Udyog Nagar locality). The police action followed a complaint filed by a VHP activist alleged that a “conversion” was underway. The police reportedly confiscated literature, a FIR was filed; the police arrested two hostel staffers—listed in the log as Amrit (a teacher) and Sonu Rai (press reports also identify her as Sonu Singh/Garasia)—and detained them in judicial custody. Reports indicate that local Sangh affiliate groups (VHP/Bajrang Dal) coerced the authorities into arresting. Media reporting addresses the arrest and the police case; civil society groups who monitor the case remark that it is the first in a spate of incidents after the anti-conversion bill was introduced.

Khetolai Village (Bhabru Thana), Kotputli-Behror District

On September 9, less than an hour after the anti-conversion legislation was introduced in the Assembly, officers arrived on the property of a house in the family of brothers Vikram and Rajendra Kanav, who host their own satsang/prayer meetings. The brothers state they were told, rather explicitly, not to hold prayer sessions with outsiders, then were brought to the police station and interrogated, finally being coerced into signing a form, or written undertaking, indicating they would not hold their satsangs and would not “invite outsiders” to their home. The brothers’ account of the incident follows a trend being run in the community by local Sangh activists (identified in the log as Shri Ram Samiti), who have consistently threatened this family in various ways. Complaints were made, in writing, not only to the SP but also to other organizations such as the PUCL.

Paota (Pragpura Thana), Kotputli-Behror district

A similar incident took place in Paota on September 9. Believer Gajanand Kuldeep stated that the next morning after the Bill passed, the SHO summoned him, stating that if he hosted prayers, meals, or called people outside again, he would be arrested. He testified that he was forced to sign a document that indicated he would stop doing this activity. Like the Khetolai incident, PUCL passed his application on to the SP, and was kept on the record as an example of coercive policing as part of wider harassment following the Bill introduction.

Jhelana, Bichiwada, Dungarpur District

Local Hindu sangathans and a Sant Samaj group protested outside a minority-run school and its church ahead of the scheduled prayer service on September 10, claiming the school was a site for the conversion of Adivasi students and parents. Police arrived in significant numbers; the school maintained that it is a minority-run educational institution and denied that there had been any conversion activity. The incident intensified tensions, but no FIR was filed in relation to the protest. The account refers to this as an incident as an event of communal mobilization involving pressure from authorities on students and staff in the school community.

In a separate case in Durgapur on the same date, an Adivasi organiser with a local mazdoor sangathan said she was stopped on the road and verbally threatened by VHP/Bajrang Dal activists who accused her organisation of “converting Adivasis.” Also, the landlord of the office supposedly threatened to evict them. The organiser described it as demoralising and reported that a formal complaint was being prepared, and civil society groups mentioned that this harassment was part of the broader campaign.

St Paul’s Hostel School, Patela, Dungarpur City

On September 11, after investigation and complaints, including a health inspection in early 2023, the district authorities responded to complaints (made by the ABVP and others) by issuing an order to close the hostel/school for alleged record-keeping and sanitation infractions. The Child Welfare Committee, in collaboration with district education and administration personnel, whisked away 230 children to their families; the authorities issued show-cause notices and initiated proceedings under the JJ Act against the school authorities. The staff contends that the closure is a result of pressure from right-wing student groups and has displaced the school kids and staff; reports are that the school is seeking legal remedies to restore the school to operation.

Chak-6P hostel school (Anupgarh, Sri Ganganagar district)

On September 16, an incident log entry reported a nocturnal attack on a hostel school for orphans: students and adult supervisors were said to be frightened by an enterprising attack on the site in the middle of the night. The log entry does not provide many public details but lists the incident as one of a multitude of attacks aimed at Christian institutions in the district. Similarly, civil society narratives identify hostel attacks as part of a continuation of incidents.

Ward No. 14, Anupgarh Thana (District: Sri Ganganagar)

A local citizen complained on September 17, stating that a person who lived in the area (whom we cannot identify in the log) had been “converted” as per missionary activity; the Vishwa Hindu Parishad filed a police complaint in support of this local citizen. The officer of the law arrested two persons, associated with a missionary prayer group, by the names of Polus Barjao and Aryan, and began an investigation to ascertain the degree of conversion processes. It was reported that a third person (the landlord) was in hiding from police arrest. The two arrested were later remanded and put into judicial custody; the case file states the Indian police were undertaking active investigations into conversion processes, as per the FIR filed by the VHP.

Pratap Nagar (Sector 08/82/625), Jaipur (Rajasthan)

On September 21, approximately 40–50 Bajrang Dal activists allegedly entered a private residence where Pastor Bobas Daniel was conducting a prayer meeting of about 15–26 people. According to local sources, the Bajrang Dal group locked the doors, broke items, and physically assaulted congregants. Neighbors, including a pregnant woman and the landlady, attempted to intervene to protect the victims, but allegedly were beaten themselves. Victims state that eight were injured; the police filed the FIR only after lengthy protests and community pressure for accountability. Locals expressed concerns over delayed police responses, no prompt documentation from medical professionals, and failure to arrest persons who assaulted congregants, despite eyewitness evidence provided by victims. Media accounts confirmed both the attack and the delay of police response.

On September 23, 2025 — Hindustan Bible Institute (HBI), Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

Almost 50 Bajrang Dal activists surrounded the campus of HBI after a visit from two visiting staff members from the head office of HBI. The protesters were targeting HBI due to accusations of “forced conversions” of members of a local church. Police officers escorted the visitors from out of state to the police station after probable cause occurred from the protests. The mobile devices, Aadhaar cards, and property documents were confiscated from visitors and some local staff, and the property of the institute was detained. Guests left the facility for the night but were there after civil society intervened, although some devices and property papers were withheld. Civil society groups described the detainment as broad and the lack of property restoration as violations of their freedom of movement and association, and also demanded the immediate restoration of property and arrest of the perpetrators. National and international news services reported on the incident; civil society organized delegations to meet with senior officers and issued joint statements condemning the attacks.

Engineered Vigilantism and the Mechanics of Fear

In September 2025, an evident and purposeful pattern of inciting violence against Christians was followed. Most incidents started with rumours of “forced conversions”, often transmitted via WhatsApp groups or VHP, Bajrang Dal, or ABVP local units, targeting schools and hostels run by Christians or prayer gatherings. These allegations served as incitement to coordinated raids, mob assemblies, and police involvement, all as a rubric of vigilance. Many of the same incidents occurred across Alwar, Dungarpur, Anupgarh, and Jaipur. Pastors in Alwar and Kotputli-Behror were summoned and pressured into signing undertakings not to pray. Groups on the right stormed educational and welfare institutions for Adivasi and Dalit children in Dungarpur and Anupgarh, accusing them of “conversion through education”. The apex of these events occurred in Jaipur’s Pratap Nagar, where a mob assaulted those attending prayer, kicked several women, and destroyed public and private property while police sat by or arrived late.

Such violence was rarely spontaneous. The same three steps were followed: rumour being spread, mob assembly, and state validation of the violence through a raid or a politically motivated delay in filing an FIR. Even if the violence ended quickly, the intimidation and coercion continued – everything from pastors suspended from conducting worship, to schools sealed, to social workers leaving in fear.

While Rajasthan represented the focal point, the scenario reflected a national agenda. When combining repeat attacks by Hindutva affiliates with the targeting of marginalized groups, this wasn’t simply random aggression, but a more comprehensive policy of surveillance and social exclusion acted along with administrative acquiescence and ideological consensus.

The Rhetoric of Conversion and Cultural Purity

At the core of these campaigns rests a control ideology – an ideology that sees religious diversity as a danger, and that views women, Dalits, and Adivasis as “vulnerable bodies” who need to be protected from conversion. The rhetoric here is reminiscent of the more familiar tropes of Hindutva propaganda: the notion that Christian charity disguises “mass conversions,” that western forces undermine Indian culture, and that Hindu identity must be “defended” under the watchful gaze of vigilantism. The word “conversion” operates much like “love jihad” in anti-Muslim rhetoric – shorthand for cultural invasion and the fear of demographic change. However, the terms of conversion are also intended to implicate Christian schools and welfare Institutions in “Westernising” India’s poor through education and through care, thus recasting social uplift as social subversion. With the most recent incidents in September as one instance, foreign and local pastors were referred to as “agents.” New believers became “traitors,” and Christian education was labelled as “mental colonisation.” Such language comes out of Far-Right narratives and foretells danger while dehumanizing the minority population. Such language, too, perversely renders violence a moral obligation.

These narratives are meant to reinforce (and reproduce) caste hierarchies, wherein Dalit and Adivasi populations are painted as “vulnerable to corruption,” while maintaining caste(s) boundaries of purity-pollution under the guise of religion. The institutional forces of religion, caste, and nationalism become a single ideological and controlling matrix, which is central to Hindutva mobilisation.

In the end, it is political, not religious. As elections approach, “conversion panic” tells the story of a group working to unite the base and distract from the failures of governance. By presenting Christians as controlling the marginalized and suspicious, those invoking conversion panic can generate both moral panic and political capital, repurposing faith-based fear into electoral gold.

Silence, Complicity, and the Erosion of Protection

If there is a pattern that is as troubling as the violence itself, it is the silence—or worse, complicity—of the machinery of the state itself. All over Rajasthan, police responded to violence against Christians with bias, siding with aggressors over victims. In Alwar and Ktputli-Behror, officers pressured Christian pastoralists to sign undertakings prohibiting worship rather than offering protective services. In Dungarpur, Christian schools and hostels were invaded by police, who conducted raids without warrants, sometimes only after complaints from VHP or Bajrang Dal workers. In Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, women were assaulted and prayer halls were vandalised without the police filing any FIRs against the perpetrators. Instead, those praying were questioned as to their “conversion motives,” effectively treating them as suspects in their own community.

This pattern demonstrates not only bureaucratic indifference but collusion between law enforcement and vigilante groups. Normative lines of state duty have blurred with the mood of majoritarian sentiments in ways that create a situation of fear, putting Christians in the position of suspicion. By repeating the language of “conversion vigilance,” police and district officials not only create confusion around maintaining civic responsibility, but they also license mob violence in the name of duty.

The overall consequence is that constitutional protection is slowly torn asunder. Article 25 protects freedom of religion; Article 21 protects dignity and freedom. But the rights are now conditional – subject to majority privilege. The events of September 2025 show that when the state becomes a mechanism of ideological enforcement rather than neutrality and fairness in justice, citizenship itself becomes stratified based on faith. Unless there is accountability and equal protection can be guaranteed under the law, the glamorized promise of secular democracy will be meaningless but abiding, while hate will continue to loom under the guise of law and order.

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

Related:

A week of escalating persecution: Far-right Hindu groups target Christian gatherings in India

The Anti-Conversion Law of Rajasthan: A threat to individual liberty and religious freedom

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

Everyday Atrocity: Mapping the normalisation of violence against Dalits and Adivasis in 2025

Anti-Christians Widespread hate events on the eve of X’mas, Punjab, UP, Kerala, Rajasthan

The post September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint, addressed to the DGP and copied to the Maharashtra Home Department and the National Human Rights Commission, argues that such conduct represents a gross violation of the oath of office, the Maharashtra Police Conduct Rules, and the constitutional principle of neutrality that underpins policing in a secular democracy.

CJP has urged immediate suspension of the concerned officers, transfer of the Suleman Pathan investigation to an independent agency, and a state-wide directive reaffirming police impartiality in communal and hate-crime cases.

The Crime: A lynching born of hate

On August 11, 2025, 20-year-old Suleman Khan Pathan, a resident of Betawad Khurd in Jalgaon’s Jamner taluka, was brutally lynched by a mob for being seen in a café with a Hindu girl. The café stands barely a minute’s walk from the local police station.

According to reports by Scroll.in, The Wire, Article 14, and NDTV, the mob dragged Suleman out, kidnapped and assaulted him for hours across multiple locations, and finally beat him to death in front of his family. His father, mother, and sister were also attacked when they tried to intervene.

The FIR, filed promptly under Sections 103(1) and 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (the mob-lynching provisions), named eight accused, four of whom — Aaditya Devre, Krushna Teli, Sojwal Teli, and Rishikesh Teli — were later confirmed to be active members of Shiv Pratisthan Hindustan, a Hindutva outfit led by Sambhaji Bhide, known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric and open rejection of India’s tricolour in favour of a saffron flag.

The accused were part of a local network that frequently mobilised against what they called “love jihad,” a discredited conspiracy theory used to demonise interfaith relationships.

The outfit and its ideology

Founded by Sambhaji Bhide in 1984, Shiv Pratisthan Hindustan has over the years built a reputation for hyper-nationalist, anti-constitutional, and communal rhetoric. Bhide’s speeches — including public calls to “chop down Muslim men” and to replace the tricolour with the saffron flag — have repeatedly drawn complaints under hate-speech provisions, though he has rarely faced legal consequences.

Investigations by Scroll.in and The Wire reveal that the outfit has actively expanded its base in northern Maharashtra, with hundreds of local youth being mobilised through cultural runs, martial displays, and social media campaigns steeped in communal imagery. Its members have glorified Suleman’s killers online, labelling the victim a “jihadi” and defending the lynching as “protection of Hindu women.”

The Procession: Police and accused ideologues march together

On Dussehra (October 2025), while the investigation into Suleman’s lynching was still ongoing, Jamner witnessed the Durga Mata Maha Daud — a massive public procession organised by Shiv Pratisthan Hindustan to mark the culmination of Navratri.

Thousands marched in saffron turbans, waving tridents, swords, and lathis, chanting incendiary slogans such as: “Durga ban, tu Kali ban, kabhi na burkhe wali ban” (Become Durga or Kali, but never a woman in a burkha.)

Among them were uniformed police officers, including Inspector Murlidhar Kasar, the original investigating officer in the Suleman lynching case. Videos published on social media show Kasar leading the procession, carrying the outfit’s saffron flag, and welcoming participants with tilaks and flower petals. The flag itself bore a plaque declaring it to be India’s “true national flag”, displaying a saffron map of “Akhand Bharat” that symbolically erases India’s constitutional tricolour. At that moment, the distinction between law enforcers and ideological actors collapsed entirely.

The video may be viewed here:

A betrayal of the police oath and constitutional duty

CJP’s complaint highlights that this conduct is a direct violation of the oath of office sworn by every Maharashtra Police officer — to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India” and to perform duties “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”

It also breaches the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, particularly:

• Rule 3(1): Every government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and do nothing unbecoming of a government servant.
• Rule 5(1): No Government servant shall be a member of or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization which takes part in politics, nor shall he take part in, or subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.
• Rule 24: No Government servant shall, by writing, speech or deed, or otherwise indulge in any activity which is likely to incite and create feelings of hatred or ill-will between different communities in India or religious, racial, regional, communal or other grounds.

By marching in uniform under a communal organisation’s banner, these officers have forfeited the appearance and substance of neutrality. As the complaint notes, “No investigation can be credible when the investigator marches beside those under investigation.” The police oath, the Constitution, and the spirit of secular law enforcement stand violated.

A compromised investigation

For the Pathan family, the participation of these officers has deepened their sense of betrayal.
They had earlier complained of intimidation, deliberate omissions in the FIR, and the police’s refusal to act on their statements naming key assailants. Now, with the same officers seen celebrating alongside members of the accused’s organisation, the family’s fears of bias have turned into certainty. They have indicated their intent to seek judicial monitoring of the case to ensure impartiality.

The legal and ethical context

The Supreme Court of India in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) laid down a binding framework to combat mob lynching, directing that all investigations must be impartial, supervised, and shielded from communal influence. It further stated that any police officer found negligent or biased in such cases would face departmental and penal action.

CJP’s complaint invokes these guidelines, arguing that the conduct of the Jamner officers is in contempt of the Supreme Court’s directives and warrants immediate disciplinary inquiry.
It also references the National Police Commission’s Code of Ethics, which demands impartial behaviour and expressly forbids allowing personal or ideological beliefs to influence official actions.

CJP’s demands

In its submission to the DGP, CJP has sought the following immediate measures:

1. Suspension and departmental inquiry against all officers who participated in the Shiv Pratisthan rally, including Inspector Murlidhar Kasar;
2. Transfer of the Suleman Pathan lynching investigation to an independent agency such as the CID;
3. Public clarification from the Maharashtra Police regarding its position on the officers’ participation;
4. Statewide circular reaffirming that police personnel are prohibited from taking part in political, communal, or sectarian processions; and
5. Protection for Suleman’s family and witnesses, who have expressed fear and loss of faith in the current probe.

The Larger Issue: Policing and prejudice

Beyond the specifics of the Suleman case, the incident reflects a larger institutional drift where sections of the police appear to blur the line between law enforcement and ideological alignment. Maharashtra has, in recent years, witnessed a sharp rise in hate speech and communal offences — second only to Uttar Pradesh, according to India Hate Lab’s 2025 report.

In this environment, the neutrality of the police is not just desirable; it is existential.
A single image of an investigating officer carrying a saffron flag can undo decades of trust built between citizens and the state.

The complete complaint may be read here.

Image Courtesy: twitter.com

Related:

CJP calls for action by NCM against hate speeches at Dharam Sansad and Trishul Deekha events, files 2 complaints

CJP moves NCM against arms training camps, weapon distribution events in Assam and Rajasthan

CJP complains to NCM over Uttarakhand Muslim exodus; seeks urgent action

CJP moves NCM against Shiladitya Dev for targeting the ‘Miya Muslim’ community of Assam

The post CJP files complaint to Maharashtra DGP, SP Jalgaon over police participation in communal rally amid Suleman Pathan lynching probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Friday Night, October 3: The first clash

The unrest ignited around 1:30 a.m. on October 4, during the Durga idol immersion procession near Haathi Pokhari in the Dargha Bazar area, a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood known for its tight-knit interfaith community, as per Times of India. Residents objected to the loud music and provocative slogans, including repeated chants of “Jai Shri Ram,” accompanying the procession heading towards the Kathajodi river, as reported by India Today. Traditionally this slogan has no place during Durga Puja and has been perceived to be linked to an aggressive majoritarianism.

Minor verbal disagreements quickly escalated into violence. Stones and glass bottles were hurled from rooftops, injuring at least six people, including Deputy Commissioner of Police Khilari Rishikesh Dnyandeo, ANI reported. Local grocer Mohammad Asif told reporters that while the initial scuffle had been contained, “all of them were drunk. We pacified both groups, but it later escalated”, as per Hindustan Times. Rumours of Hindu fatalities circulating in the aftermath further inflamed passions, setting the stage for larger-scale clashes.

Six police personnel were injured in the initial violence, and six individuals from both communities were arrested, NDTV report states. The situation cast a pall over the city, reviving memories of past curfews, notably the last major shutdown during the Mandal Commission protests in 1991, as noted by former MLA Pravat Tripathy, according to Moneycontrol.

Sunday, October 5: VHP rally and widespread violence

Tensions further escalated on Sunday evening, October 5, when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) organised a large motorcycle rally—allegedly numbering over 2,000 participants on more than 1,000 bikes—to protest the earlier Dargha Bazar clashes, as per India Today. Authorities had denied permission for the rally, citing concerns over law and order, but the organizers proceeded, intending to pass through the sensitive Dargha Bazar area. The permission granted for the route of the VHP rally has been questioned by right-thinking citizens.

Initially, police allowed the rallyists to assemble near the area. However, once law enforcement attempted to redirect them, the rally escalated into rampage and vandalism. Protesters stormed a local mall, vandalized shops—including mutton stalls, food joints, and general stores—and torched roadside establishments. Stone-pelting and clashes with police followed, leaving 25 people injured, including eight police officers, according to Hindustan Times.

Videos circulating on social media before the internet suspension showed plumes of smoke rising over the narrow lanes of Dargha Bazar, with police in riot gear forming barricades amid screams and sirens, as per India Today.

Government Response: Curfew, internet suspension, and law enforcement measures

In the aftermath of Sunday’s violence, the Odisha government responded with stringent measures:

• A 36-hour curfew across 13 police station jurisdictions, including Dargha Bazar, Mangalabag, Cantonment, Purighat, Lal Bagh, Bidanasi, Markat Nagar, CDA Phase 2, Malgodam, Badambadi, Jagatpur, Bayalis Mouza, and Sadar (ANI).
• Internet and social media suspension from 7 p.m. on October 5 to 7 p.m. on October 6, covering the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, Cuttack Development Authority, and 42 adjacent Mauza areas, to prevent the spread of provocative content and rumours (NDTV).
• Continuous flag marches, drone surveillance, and enhanced patrolling across the city’s sensitive areas (PTI).

Additional Police Commissioner Narasingha Bhola confirmed that eight people had been arrested, with more under detention, and investigations involving CCTV and drone footage were ongoing, reported ANI. The authorities emphasised that arrests would follow “proper examination of evidence”.

Revenue Divisional Commissioner Guha Poonam Tapas Kumar issued a warning: “All people who have tried to take the law into their own hands will be booked… Anybody who has tried to damage the social fabric will be taken to task”, reported NDTV.

Monday, October 6: VHP bandh and a fragile peace

In response to the immersion violence, the VHP declared a 12-hour bandh on Monday, October 6. Under a heavy police presence, the bandh passed off peacefully, highlighting the effectiveness of the curfew and security measures, as reported by The Indian Express. Local officials noted that while the streets remained quiet, the city was grappling with fear and uncertainty, with residents reluctant to venture outdoors.

Mayor Subhas Singh underlined Cuttack’s “unique culture of Hindus and Muslims living as brothers for generations”, and called on all citizens to protect this communal harmony, as per NDTV. Cuttack MP Bhartruhari Mahatab, BJD Chief Naveen Patnaik, Congress MLA Sophia Firdous, and Union Minister Dharmendra Pradhan issued repeated appeals for peace, stressing that rumours and inflammatory social media posts must be avoided, reported Hindustan Times.

ANI provided that several injured individuals from Friday and Sunday, including Pintu Mahar, Mukesh Mahar, Subhashree Jena, and Sankar Biswal, were treated and discharged, with the police clarifying that no fatalities had occurred.

Background: Communal sensitivities in Odisha

While Cuttack has historically been a model of interfaith coexistence, Odisha has witnessed a rise in communal tensions in recent years. Notable incidents include:

• Attacks on Christians and harassment of nuns (SabrangIndia)
• Clashes during processions in urban centres like Bhubaneswar, Sambalpur, and Cuttack (Deccan Herald).
• Property damage and arson during festivals, often exacerbated by rumours, demographic shifts, and political tensions (Hindustan Times).

The 2008 Kandhamal riots represent the most severe anti-Christian violence, but even post-2023, Hindu-Muslim tensions have increased. In 2024 alone, Odisha recorded an 84% rise in communal riots, resulting in 13 deaths, primarily among Muslims, Moneycontrol reported. The 2025 Cuttack disturbances underscore the vulnerabilities of religious processions in multi-religious urban settings. Small disputes—such as objections to music, slogans, or immersion routes—can quickly escalate if rumours or political mobilizations intervene.

Current Situation: Towards restoration of peace

As of October 7, Cuttack remains under curfew, and internet services have been extended to 7 p.m. on the same day, as per NDTV. Flag marches and intensive patrolling continue. Authorities have stressed that public cooperation is critical for restoring full normalcy.

Civil society leaders and residents expressed hope that Cuttack’s legacy of bhaichara (brotherhood) would be preserved through:

1. Strengthening law enforcement to prevent delayed or inadequate responses
2. Community engagement during festivals to foster trust and cooperation

1. Awareness campaigns to curb rumours and misinformation
2. Long-term measures addressing any fears of demographic shifts, economic inequalities, and resolving historical grievances

Related:

Institutional Murder in Odisha: A Student sets herself on fire to be heard

Bengali Migrant Workers Detained in Odisha: Calcutta High Court demands answers, seeks coordination between states

Bengali-Speaking Migrants Detained En Masse in Odisha: National security or targeted persecution?

From Protectors to Perpetrators? Police assaulted women, Children, Christian priests in Odisha: Fact-finding report

Odisha: 6 Months in Power, ‘Double-Engine’ BJP Govt Looks Button-Holed

The post Cuttack plunged into chaos during Durga Puja, dozens injured as procession clashes spiral into violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A courtroom disrupted

The usual morning mention round in Supreme Court’s Court No. 1 turned chaotic within minutes. At around 11:35 a.m., an advocate in full courtroom attire stood, removed a shoe (or attempted to unroll a bundle), and sought to throw it toward the bench. The act was accompanied by a sharp slogan that “Sanatan Dharam ka Apmaan Nahi Sahega Hindustan.”

Lawyers present have recalled that the object barely reached the dais — security moved swiftly. The man was escorted out, the session halted briefly, and then resumed. Chief Justice Gavai, visibly composed, turned to the next advocate and said “Don’t get distracted. We are not distracted by this.” With that, the Court proceeded as though unshaken.

The man in the robe: Rakesh Kishore

The person behind the outburst was soon identified: Advocate Rakesh Kishore, aged 71, enrolled in the Bar Council of Delhi in 2009. He held multiple bar cards — including the Supreme Court Bar Association, Shahdara Bar Association, and BCD, as reported

According to the Indian Express, Kishore resides in Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi, and over the years has been associated with disputes relating to his housing society. Residents say elections in his society have not been held in recent times; complaints against him include one over an alleged assault of a senior citizen in 2021. The Delhi Police that functions under the direct control of India’s dreaded Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) –and is known for its aggressive surveillance of ordinary citizens was surprisingly charitable with the offender. Charging protesting citizens with a draconian law, the UAPA, in this instance, the same force has chosen to go soft. Citing the “reason” that the SC Registry was not pressing charges, they released Kishore within hours, maintaining he had no prior criminal record. Since then, the offender has been widely interviewed by a government-friendly media.

“More offended by rule of law than religion?” Suspended advocate reacts to CJI’s Mauritius remark

Speculation was rife on the “motive” with media quick to attribute the contemptuous aggression at CJI Gavai’s reported remark to a petitioner who had prayed for “replacing” the deity of Vishnu at Khajurao, a UNESCO world site and under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The CJI had later clarified his remarks in the Khajuraho case, emphasising respect for all religions and saying social media misinterpretations had amplified the controversy.

However, suspended advocate Rakesh Kishore, after being released by Delhi Police, has expressed discontent—not over any religious sentiment, but in response to a public statement made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) during a visit abroad.

In a statement to news agency ANI, he said he was deeply hurt by what he perceived as mockery from the judiciary—especially comments by the CJI in a case involving a damaged Vishnu idol at Khajuraho. He asserted he felt “no regret” and claimed his act was a reaction to what he viewed as contempt directed at believers of Sanatan Dharma.

Referring to the CJI’s remarks in Mauritius — “The Indian legal system is governed by the rule of law, not the rule of bulldozers” — Kishore responded, stating, “…The CJI should consider that, holding such a high constitutional position, he ought to understand the significance of ‘Milord’ and maintain its dignity… You go to Mauritius and say that the country will not run with a bulldozer. I ask the CJI and those opposing me: Is the bulldozer action by Yogi ji against those who encroached on government property wrong? I am hurt and will continue to be so…”

Further, Kishore invoked “divine guidance,” saying that he could not rest after what he believed was an insult. He reiterated that he was neither drunk nor under influence, but acting from emotional distress. His reaction appears rooted more in political alignment and perceived personal affront than in any specific legal principle or religious issue.

#WATCH | Delhi: Countered on his action against the highest position holder in judiciary, suspended Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to hurl an object at CJI BR Gavai, says, “…CJI should think that when he is sitting on such a high constitutional post, he should… pic.twitter.com/6WgPZmQjO7

— ANI (@ANI) October 7, 2025

The Trigger: a temple idol, a viral remark, and Mauritius speech on ‘Bulldozer Justice’

The roots of Rakesh Kishore’s outburst appear to lie in entrenched casteist hatred and perceived ideological insult. In September 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest petition seeking the reconstruction of a damaged Lord Vishnu idol at the Javari Temple in Khajuraho. When the bench — led by CJI B.R. Gavai — rejected the plea, the Chief Justice remarked, “Go and ask the deity itself to do something.”

While intended to highlight the Court’s view that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the comment sparked a firestorm online. It was widely seen — and misrepresented — as flippant and disrespectful to religious sentiments. Social media amplified the controversy, framing it as an affront to Sanatan Dharma, giving rise to a charged narrative of judicial insensitivity.

Further CJI Gavai’s recent speech in Mauritius, where he invoked his 2024 ruling on illegal demolitions, reminding the world that the highest court in the land stands against injustice. In that judgment, the Court had clearly held that the executive cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner.

SC Judgment A Clear Message That India Governed By Rule Of Law & Not Rule Of Bulldozer : CJI BR Gavai In Mauritius#SupremeCourt #CJIBRGavai https://t.co/vxQzhxm2ir

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 3, 2025

Citing this principle abroad, the CJI said, “The Indian legal system is governed by the Rule of Law, not by the rule of the bulldozer.” Though meant to reaffirm constitutional values, this statement became another flashpoint. Critics like Kishore interpreted it as an indirect attack on certain state-level actions — particularly in Uttar Pradesh. Amid these twin provocations, Kishore claimed he acted out of emotional distress and divine compulsion, viewing both statements as cumulative insults to his faith and belief system.

There is a further twist to the tale. During the Dussehra vacation of the Supreme Court Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh (a state that has been one of the prime offenders in aggressive demolitions of minority properties and places of worship) saw a series of demolitions, including the ancestral home of Olympic Gold Medallist and Padma Shri Mohd. Shahid demolished in Varanasi Road widening drive, end September.

Online Hate Build-Up against CJI Gavai

The attack on CJI Gavai and his august office as also his identity did not happen in isolation. Weeks before far right platforms were airing interviews instigating violence against India’s first Buddhist Chief Justice. Right wing “influencer”, Ajeet bharti with Kaushlesh Rai and Editor of Opindia (another instigator rightwing digital platform), Anupam Singh can be heard inciting people to violence against the CJI. During the conversation, Kaushlesh says, “I’m a Gandhian. I don’t support violence. If I did, I would have said, ‘Look, if Gavai ji gets into a fight, he lives in the courthouse, and there are Hindu lawyers there. At least one Hindu lawyer should grab Gavai ji’s head and hit him hard against the wall, so that it breaks into two pieces. But I don’t support violence at all.’ During the conversation, Ajit Bharti had also suggested surrounding Justice Gavai’s car. Kaushlesh Rai goes on to say, “Oct 2nd is coming, what Godse did is beyond your capability, but you can become Gandhi. What is the max punishment for spitting in Gavai’s face under the IPC? Not more than Six months? It’s nothing more than that. Hindus can’t even do this?”

Bar Council of India suspends lawyer

Within hours of the shocking display of hate and contempt, the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued an interim suspension of Kishore’s license to practice. The BCI’s order — under the Advocates Act, 1961 — called his conduct “prima facie inconsistent with the dignity of the Court.”

#BREAKING| BCI suspends practice of Advocate Rakesh Kishore, who attempted to attack CJI BR Gavai today

The Council has also initiated disciplinary proceedings against Kishore #SupremeCourt #cjibrgavai pic.twitter.com/Pv4lvPYTaV

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) October 6, 2025

According to order, he has been barred from appearing, pleading, acting or practising in any court or tribunal across India. Courts, tribunals and bar associations were to be informed. A show-cause notice was issued, requiring Kishore to explain in 15 days why the suspension should not continue.

Courts and its pesky choices

To date, the Supreme Court Registrar General opted not to initiate criminal proceedings. The Delhi Police, after questioning Kishore for a few hours, released him, citing lack of a case file from the Court, as per reports

The Court itself stayed silent in public. It neither issued a press release nor filed an FIR. Some legal observers interpreted this as a strategic restraint—refusing to magnify the act by escalating it. Yet many felt a full judicial revulsion or contempt action would have better affirmed the Apex Court’s institutional strength.

Legal fraternity condemnation

Leading bar bodies and senior advocates were quick to speak out. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) called the act “unbecoming” of a lawyer and urged suo moto contempt proceedings. They argued the gesture threatened to “scandalise the office of the CJI” and damage public faith in the court.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) passes resolution condemning the “unwarranted and intemperate gesture” of an advocate who allegedly disrespected the Chief Justice of India and companion judges, calling it an assault on judicial independence.#SupremeCourt pic.twitter.com/0PWFOq1lCl

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 6, 2025

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned the act in strong terms, stressing institutional dignity, decorum and constitutional duty.

It was senior counsel, Kapil Sibal’s tweet on X at around 5 p.m. yesterday, October 6 that pushed the moral bar high, commenting on the absence of any condemnation from either the Prime Minister, Home Minister or Law Minister.

CJI

The uncivilised behaviour of a member of the Supreme Court Bar must be publicly condemned by one and all since it is affront to the majesty of the court

The silence of the PM , the Home Minister and the Law Minister is to say the least surprising

— Kapil Sibal (@KapilSibal) October 6, 2025

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has unanimously condemned the “reprehensible act” by an advocate inside the courtroom of CJI Justice B.R. Gavai on Oct 6. Calling the conduct “utterly unbecoming of an officer of the court,” the SCBA said it strikes at the foundation of mutual… pic.twitter.com/VHcF3RNovh

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) October 6, 2025

Senior advocate Indira Jaising went further, labelling the act “ideological and casteist” and calling upon the Attorney General to initiate contempt of court action. She urged the Supreme Court judges to issue a united statement rejecting ideological attacks on secular courts.

Attorney General should take action for contempt of court for an ideological castest attack on a secular court https://t.co/Fk4XrWTGOX

— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) October 6, 2025

The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, offered a more tempered take. He condemned the act as a product of misinformation and social media frenzy, praised the CJI’s composure, and warned that his restraint must not be mistaken for institutional weakness.

Attack on the CJI is an assault on the dignity of our judiciary and the spirit of our Constitution: Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition, took to X to lambast the attack, “The attack on the Chief Justice of India is an assault on the dignity of our judiciary and the spirit of our Constitution.”

The attack on the Chief Justice of India is an assault on the dignity of our judiciary and the spirit of our Constitution.

Such hatred has no place in our nation and must be condemned.

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 6, 2025

Congress directed criticism at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, noting that for hours the PM’s office remained silent. In a post, Congress taunted the PM: “Your silence is deafening — it screams complicity.”

“India’s Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was brazenly attacked in the Supreme Court today. Yet, not one word of condemnation from the Prime Minister so far. Mr. Modi, your silence is deafening and screams of complicity. You must speak up.”

India’s Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was brazenly attacked in the Supreme Court today.

Yet, not one word of condemnation from the Prime Minister so far.

Mr. Modi, your silence is deafening and screams of complicity.

You must speak up. pic.twitter.com/vodFnPjMye

— Congress (@INCIndia) October 6, 2025

Sonia Gandhi, former party president, expressed “profound distress,” calling the act an “assault not just on the CJI, but on the Constitution.”

“No words are adequate to condemn the attack on the Honourable Chief Justice of India in the Supreme Court itself. It is an assault not just on him, but on our Constitution as well. Chief Justice Gavai has been very gracious but the nation must stand in solidarity with him unitedly with a deep sense of anguish and outrage” she said

Statement of CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi Ji

No words are adequate to condemn the attack on the Honourable Chief Justice of India in the Supreme Court itself. It is an assault not just on him, but on our Constitution as well.

Chief Justice Gavai has been very gracious… pic.twitter.com/3FgEk2q5gV

— Congress (@INCIndia) October 6, 2025

There is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society, utterly condemnable: PM Modi

Pressure mounted. Late evening on October 6, PM Modi posted a condemnation. He wrote, “Spoke to CJI BR Gavai. The act is utterly condemnable. Such reprehensible behaviour has no place in a civilised society.” He hailed the CJI’s composure as a testament to judicial dignity.

Despite this, critics noted that the PM’s response came only after public pressure escalated. The delay was spun as political hesitation.

“I appreciated the calm displayed by Justice Gavai in the face of such a situation. It highlights his commitment to values of justice and strengthening the spirit of our Constitution” PM Modi said

Spoke to Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai Ji. The attack on him earlier today in the Supreme Court premises has angered every Indian. There is no place for such reprehensible acts in our society. It is utterly condemnable.

I appreciated the calm displayed by Justice…

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) October 6, 2025

Underlying currents: caste, religion & polarisation

The act was not merely a shocking security breach — it looked like a violent manifestation of ideological, religious and caste bias.

CJI Gavai is a practising Buddhist from the Dalit community, and some spokespeople observed that targeting him via religious slogans—Sanatan Dharma—had distinct caste overtones. The fact that a lawyer in the name of religious pride attempted assault on a Dalit judge stirred discomfort.

In legal circles, there is now renewed urgency around access control as how did a man with a proximity card enter the courtroom and bring an item?

The attacker was in full uniform , wearing a proximity card and was carrying a bag as well along with a rolled up bundle of some papers. He apologized to J. Chandran saying that “it” was only for J. Gavai.

— Anas Tanwir (@Vakeel_Sb) October 6, 2025

The unflinching bench: how the chief justice responded

What has drawn admiration across the board is CJI Gavai’s restraint during the moment. As chaos briefly erupted, he paused, remained still, and directed his courtroom not to be distracted. That calmness — amid a surprise attack — was lauded inside and outside legal circles.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, commenting on an unusual incident, praised the CJI Gavai for maintaining a calm and composed demeanour throughout. He noted that such odd events are not unprecedented in the Indian judiciary. Recalling a similar episode from the past, he mentioned that CJI Hidayatullah, who was also from Nagpur, once had a shoe thrown at him by a disgruntled litigant.

Displaying remarkable composure and wit, Justice Hidayatullah reportedly said, “The man has lost his case, he should not lose his shoe as well.”

Full marks to the calm and composed demeanour with which the CJI continued the proceedings. Such odd events have happened before as well. CJI Hidayatullah, also from Nagpur had a shoe thrown by a disgruntled litigant. He ordered the shoe to be returned saying, “The man has lost… https://t.co/9XXfBjOwDV

— SANJAY HEGDE (@sanjayuvacha) October 6, 2025

Inside the court, no visible disruption followed the incident. The CJI continued hearing cases scheduled for the day, according to sources. His poise came to symbolise institutional durability in the face of provocation.

What comes next — contempt proceedings? Will the court act?

Legal bodies like SCAORA and senior advocates have urged the Supreme Court to take suo moto contempt notice, emphasising that any attempt to assault or scandalise the highest seat of justice cannot go unchecked.

While the CJI displayed remarkable composure, the judiciary now faces a crucial moment, whether to continue exercising restraint or to respond firmly to uphold its institutional authority.

Beyond contempt proceedings, the Court should consider imposing some penalty, and setting a clear precedent against courtroom misconduct—especially when it’s cloaked in ideological justification. Such steps would necessary for public trust, protect judicial dignity, and send a strong message that the sanctity of the courtroom is inviolable. The need for a unified condemnation of the incident by the whole of the Supreme Court is also the need of the hour.

The nation now watches: will the Supreme Court let the moment pass — or rise to define it?

Related:

“Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court to hear urgent pleas against state-sanctioned bulldozer demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan

The post Violence & Sanatan Dharma: Now suspended lawyer defends shoe attack on CJI Gavai, claims it was a protest against ‘bulldozer’ remark” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Busted! The Delhi High Court strongly questioned the lack of empirical evidence for these claims, pointing out that the government’s decision to bury them inside was a sensitive law-and-order call that could not be challenged over a decade later on mere “personal views.”

Background

On September 24, 2025, the Delhi High Court heard a PIL seeking the removal of the graves of two Kashmiri separatist leaders: Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) founder Mohammad Maqbool Bhatt and Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru. Both were sentenced to death and executed in Tihar Jail – Guru in February 2013 and Bhatt in February 1984. They were both buried in the jail premises after performing the last rites according to the Islamic principles, a sensitive decision taken by the government to prevent law-and-order disturbances that may have arisen from public burials.

The petition, filed by Hindu right-wing organisation ‘Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh’ argued that Bhatt and Guru, acting under the influence of “extremist Jihadi ideology,” orchestrated acts of terrorism that gravely threatened India’s sovereignty. The Sangh President, Jitendra Singh Vishen, had previously written to President Droupadi Murmu, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, urging them to shift the graves “to the depths of the Atlantic Ocean or to a secret place in the jungles of Amazon” in order to curb “Jihadi mentality” and free the “holy land of India” from the graves, dargahs, and mausoleums of terrorists.

Their plea sought directions to the authorities to remove the graves from Tihar or, as an alternative, to relocate the mortal remains to a secret location to prevent “glorification of terrorism.”

What is the Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh? What purpose does its petition serve? And what larger narrative does it seek to construct? The answers begin to emerge once we look closely at the claims made in their plea.

Claim #1:

The presence of these graves, the petition stated, has turned Tihar jail into a site of “radical pilgrimage” where extremist elements gather to pay homage and venerate convicted terrorists.

Busted – a wild claim without evidence!

In the aforementioned letter, Vishen wrote that the two convicts have become “heroes of the society with a jihadi mindset” and are worshipped as religious leaders by young men who bow before their graves. “People of Jihadi society make fun of the law and order of the country by doing criminal activities day in and day out to offer prayers at the graves of the above two terrorists, and are also popularizing Central Jail Tihar as the graveyard/mausoleum/dargah of the above two terrorists,” the letter claims.

The Delhi High Court pressed the petitioner to produce data showing that people visit the graves to pay homage. Observing that no material had been produced to support the claim aside from stray social media posts, the Court asked, “Where is the empirical data? We cannot act on news clippings.”

Claim #2:

The construction and continued existence of the graves inside a state-controlled prison, counsel for the petitioner argued, was a ‘health hazard’ and a ‘nuisance’ as people are committing crimes to go to the jail and pay homage. 

Busted – legally and factually wanting! 

The Court rejected the argument that there was a ‘nuisance’ within the meaning of Section 398 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (1957). Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya said, “This provision is made for any kind of nuisance to be removed. Not for the removal of a grave if that grave has been put in with the consent of the authority which owns the land. Jail is not a public place. Jail is a place owned by the State established for a specific purpose of incarceration.”

The Court further emphasised that the government’s action to bury the bodies within the prison was based on a sensitive political and law-and-order situation. The Court could not overturn a policy decision made by the State in an area of its specific and sensitive competence, especially not 12 years later and on unsubstantiated grounds.

Claim #3:

 The graves are unlawful and violate Delhi Prisons Rules 2018, which states that the remains of executed prisoners must be disposed of in a manner that prevents glorification and maintains prison discipline, argued the petition.

Busted – no law prohibits cremation or burial inside the jail!

The Bench corrected the misinterpretation of Rules 895 to 897, remarking that, “if a body has to be transported outside the prison, it has to be done with all solemnity. It doesn’t say that each body has to be taken outside prison.”

Claim #4:

The existence of the graves not only “undermines national security and public order,” but also “sanctifies terrorism in direct contravention of the principles of secularism and rule of law under the Constitution of India,” the petition states.

Busted – no constitutional rights or fundamental rights infringed!

The Court dismissed such a broad constitutional claim. “Tell us which law has been infringed and which fundamental rights of yours have been infringed by this. Something you wish cannot become the subject matter of a PIL,” the Court said, underscoring that the judiciary’s role is to address rights and statutes, not to legislate on personal views. “I like this, you like something else. These are not matters to be taken in courts.”

The High Court further maintained that such policy decisions lay with the government, not the judiciary. “Government decided to have the burial in jail keeping these issues in mind. Can we challenge that 12 years later?” the Bench asked.

“Somebody’s last rites are to be respected.”

Pattern of Post-Mortem Erasure

The petition frames its demand for grave removal as a continuation of an “established state practice,” asking the court to treat the graves of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt the same way as those of Ajmal Kasab and Yakub Memon, “where every precaution was taken to prevent glorification.”

However, these earlier episodes do not add up to a clear, uniform practice, but a patchwork of administrative choices driven less by due process and more by political spectacle. Administrative powers, court orders and enforcement measures are deployed unevenly, creating a de facto policy that singles out sites linked to Muslim history for agitation, removal, demolition or public shaming.

The petition’s insistence the state follows an “established practice” is undercut by its own example. In September 2022, BJP MLA Ram Kadam shared photos showing marble slabs and LED lighting “adorning” the grave of 1993 Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon. A political row erupted: the BJP accused the erstwhile Maha Vikas Aghadi coalition and Shiv Sena leadership of having “beautified” the grave and warned it could become a ‘mazar;’ Shiv Sena leaders countered that the cemetery was privately managed and charged the BJP with trying to divert attention and inflame communal tensions ahead of civic polls. The episode illustrates how these disputes are rarely about procedure, law, or even history – rather, they are exercises in narrative-building and political opportunism.

The same year, a few months later, the spotlight shifted from Mumbai to Satara where the administration demolished structures around the 17th-century tomb of Afzal Khan, the Adil Shahi general slain by Chhatrapati Shivaji. Officially, the drive was framed as the removal of “unauthorised constructions,” with Hindu nationalist groups alleging that the Hazarat Mohammad Afzal Khan Memorial Society was expanding the tomb and glorifying an “enemy of Swaraj” in “Shivaji’s own land.” The demolition was carried out on the 363rd anniversary of Khan’s death and was seen as a major “win” for the Hindutva groups. The Supreme Court later sought reports on whether due process had been followed, but by then the demolition was over. Again, we see how the graves, memory, and history of Indian Muslims are but props in electoral theatre.

In March 2025, following the release of Bollywood film Chhava, a far-right campaign demanded the demolition of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar with VHP-Bajrang Dal warning of a “Babri-like” repeat if the tomb was not removed. The agitation set off communal riots in Nagpur, leaving over 30 injured and 40-year-old welder Irfan Ansari dead.

Is it possible to tell history as the story of one side, while erasing the other? What happens when stories are pared down to black and white, heroes and villains, holy and savage, us and them? Do they still hold memory, or do they begin to serve a purpose beyond remembering? When history is stripped of its layers, nuance, and its many voices, when what remains is defaced textbooks and demolished tombs, are we left with memory — or with propaganda?

Conclusion

The Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh has been party to over 170 cases linked to Hindu majoritarian causes across the country, including the Gyanvapi mosque dispute. Its litigation is driven by an ideology of historical revisionism – recasting India’s past as a story of continuous “foreign aggression” by Muslims and Christians, against the “native” Hindus (a claim categorically debunked by the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory). The purpose is to erase every trace of “foreign” (“enemy”) religious groups in order to establish the Hindu Rashtra.

In the end, demands for post-mortem erasure are not grounded in law, empirical evidence, or constitutional principle. They are acts of disinformation and political theatre, designed to delegitimise the cultural and historical existence of India’s largest religious minority. The campaign to target graves of Indian Muslims – rulers or convicts (or, most frequently, of ordinary citizens and local communities) – is a campaign to deny dignity even in death, and to eternally remember the deceased, and by extension their entire community, as the “perpetual other.”

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this Hate Buster has been worked on by Raaz)

Related:

Hate Buster: Muslims and the Myth of Polygamy in India

Hate Buster: Was every Muslim previously a Hindu?

Were all Muslims previously Hindus?

Why is the right-wing so scared of Shirdi Sai Baba?

Muslims and the Myth of Polgyamy

India’s Struggle for Social Harmony: Challenges Amidst Surge in Hate Speech

The post The Politics of Memory: Controversy over graves of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This organised rhetoric, amplified at political rallies and religious gatherings, lays the ideological groundwork for the Union’s policy of nationwide profiling, detention, and covert deportations of suspected foreign nationals. The present escalation was triggered in April 2025 by Operation Sindoor, a military operation targeting cross-border terror camps, which catalysed a wave of jingoism and a new national purpose in spotting, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants. This has led to a coordinated drive where more than 1,500 people were “pushed out” into Bangladesh in five weeks between May – July 2025. The scale and manner of these deportations – the absence of formal orders, access to legal aid, or verification by Foreigners Tribunals – reveal a disturbing trend of expulsions without due process.

The result has been a targeted attack on largely poor migrant workers from West Bengal who moved to cities such as Mumbai, Delhi, and Ahmedabad in search of jobs. Those working in the unorganised sector, such as domestic workers, vegetable vendors, and rickshaw pullers, are frequently targeted by individuals and groups affiliated with the Hindu far-right. Families say that men and women are being picked up in sudden raids, transported to Assam, and coerced across unguarded sections of the border by the Border Security Force (BSF). From lawful citizens vanishing in midnight raids to migrant workers being harassed, humiliated, and forcefully evicted, the pattern of systemic persecution demonstrates a calculated effort to terrorise Bengali-speaking Muslims working in different parts of the country under the pretext of them being Bangladeshi infiltrators.

This report tracks the incidents of hate speech during August – September 2025. The data shows a systemic, ideologically-driven campaign that leverages historic tensions and is enabled by state complicity. With elections approaching, this orchestrated fear-mongering reflects a calculated political strategy to stigmatize minorities, displacing democracy with majoritarianism. The rhetoric and tropes, from Gazwa-e-Hind to Love Jihad, are strategically deployed to create a climate of conspiratorial fear. The propaganda is designed to foster a public imagination in which the targeted community has no place in ‘Bharat,’ the Hindu Rashtra.

The Multiplier Effect: How Propaganda Works to Manufacture Consent

The sequence of raids and deportations targeting Bengali Muslim migrant workers is sustained by organised propaganda. The BJP’s campaign during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections is a crucial case study to understand how the ‘infiltrator’ rhetoric, initially used to popularize an electoral agenda, was given fire by the highest political figures. Even prior to 2024, in fact playback to 2014 and even before, the right wing party’s persistent rhetoric of “orchestrated demographic change” through “illegal immigration (the term ghuspetiya is the most weaponised adjective of the same) has been carefully used at election time, to fuel insecurities and cause voter division.

On April 21, 2024, Modi delivered one of his most inflammatory speeches at Banswara, Rajasthan, invoking the “infiltrator” bogey as a dog whistle against Muslim citizens. The speech remains publicly available on his YouTube and Facebook pages, where it has garnered over one million views.

“When they (the opposition) were in power, they said that Muslims had the first right to the properties of the state. This means that they would collect these properties and give them to the ones who have more kids (insinuating Muslims). They will give it to the ghuspaithiye (infiltrators). Do you want to give away your hard-earned money to the intruders? These urban naxals will not even spare the mothers and sisters or their mangal sutra. They will go that far.”

– Narendra Modi, Speech at Banswara

Modi continued to replicate similar hate speeches across India during the election campaign, delivering 63 hate speeches between April 21 and May 30.^[1]

This was followed up by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. In a May 21, 2024 speech in Shravasti, he declared, “After conducting an X-ray of your wealth, they will distribute it to infiltrators—Bangladeshi infiltrators, Pakistani infiltrators, or any other Muslim infiltrators.”

 National leaders such as Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, along with powerful regional figures like Yogi Adityanath and Nitish Rane, seed this rhetoric from the top. This is seamlessly woven into campaign strategies and state addresses. Their authoritarian stature lends immediate credibility to the narrative, with every local election speech reaching nationwide audiences.

Once their signal words are introduced into political discourse, the rhetoric spirals outward. “Infiltrators” soon became common parlance among Hindu far-right and mainstream Indian media.

Concentrated ownership of mainstream media makes it a hyper-competitive market where survival depends on government approval. Furthering outrage and violence through disinformation makes the business of the media (both mainstream and digital) profitable. The ‘marketplace of ideas’ is a contest to see which channel can amplify hate and hysteria the loudest.

Leading the amplification is Sudarshan News’ Suresh Chavhanke, whose ‘Janata NRC’ campaign advocates for a vigilante-style “citizen-led” version of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), encouraging ordinary people to identify and expose “Bangladeshi infiltrators” or “illegal Muslims” in their neighbourhoods. CJP has filed 3 MCC violation complaints with CEO Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke in 2024.

Digital media is the most potent element of the propaganda flow. It allows hate speeches, often delivered at in-person mass gatherings like political rallies, religious parades, marches, and demonstrations, to transcend physical boundaries and amplify their reach far beyond their immediate audiences. Live streams are particularly crucial for hate actors, as they allow them to circumvent content moderation rules on hate speech and amplify their messages in real-time. Hindutva influencers like Kajal Hindustani and self-proclaimed monks like Mahant Raju Das frequently use Facebook Live to broadcast hate speech. This is then strategically clipped and reposted across platforms for maximum reach – from a full-length YouTube video to a 30-second Instagram reel. Tailored clips find a crucial delivery mechanism in private, tightly networked, and unmoderated WhatsApp channels (of which the BJP alone operates an estimated 50 lakh), which are ideal for closed-group persuasion, rapid peer endorsement, and sustaining echo chambers.

At the local level, amplified hate is converted into tangible action, mobilisation, and policy execution by BJP leaders, Hindu far-right organizations, and religious figures. The signal words penetrate hate speeches, communal rallies, and public interest litigations, justifying calls for violence, economic boycotts, and vigilante evictions. India Hate Lab reports that in 2024, 22% of hate speeches invoking the “Bangladeshi infiltrator” bogey included direct calls for violence.

Since the rhetoric has come all the way from the top, these ground groups are effectively granted impunity, operating with tacit state sanction that discourages police to file FIRs or pursue accountability.

The interplay between top-down and bottom-up hate speech flows saturates political discourse with narratives that vilify and threaten Muslims, effectively crowding out space for meaningful democratic debate.

Weaponising Historic Tensions: the Miya Kheda Andolon in Assam

The border state of Assam provides crucial historical context for the nationwide crackdown on Bengali-origin Muslims. For decades, fears about demographic change, purportedly caused by Muslim migration from Bangladesh, have been mobilised by the Hindu far-right to shape politics and policy in the state. These anxieties eventually led to the creation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), a controversial mechanism aimed at identifying undocumented immigrants. The NRC was designed to “recognise and expel illegal immigrants” by determining “who was born in Assam and is therefore Indian, and who might be a migrant from neighbouring Bangladesh.” However, during its 2019 implementation, 1.9 million people, including several thousand Hindus, were excluded from the register. Muslims left out of the NRC faced disproportionately severe consequences, including detention in government-run facilities and harsh living conditions.

Since early June, Assam has witnessed a sharp escalation in hate speech, targeted harassment, violence, and state-led evictions against Bengali-origin Muslims, under the campaign to remove “illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.” Between July 9 and July 30, India Hate Lab (IHL) documented 18 rallies and protests across 14 districts, and nine cases of targeted violence and harassment.^[2]

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has been a powerful and consistent propagator of hateful rhetoric. Sarma has repeatedly referred to the evicted families as “illegal Bangladeshis” in several posts on X, asserted that the government will continue with its anti-encroachment drives to protect the ‘jati,’ and given a public appeal that people not provide shelter to those evicted.

On May 15, 2025, speaking at a rally in Giridih, Jharkhand, Sarma framed Muslim “infiltration” as an existential threat, claiming “Infiltrators are entering Jharkhand and are forcefully marrying Adivasi women [referencing the ‘original inhabitants’ of India]. These Muslim infiltrators are again becoming citizens and are grabbing lands in Jharkhand…. They came in thousands, then in lakhs, and now they are in crores. Today, we (Hindus) have to fight daily for our existence.”

On May 28, 2025, speaking at a press briefing, Sarma announced a new scheme to issue arms licenses to indigenous residents of “vulnerable and remote areas,” particularly those living along the Bangladesh border. He specifically named five districts with significant Muslim populations as the initial focus areas, stating that the initiative was intended to “tackle unlawful threats from hostile quarters.”

On June 9, 2025, Sarma claimed that “newly arrived” Muslims have weaponized the consumption of beef and the call to prayer as tactics to drive out local Hindus.

On July 21, 2025, at a state event in Darrang, he referred to Bengali-origin Muslims as “suspected Bangladeshis,” dismissed slogans of communal harmony as naive, and claimed that reclaimed land from Muslims was being put to better use.

On July 24, 2025, responding to a question about whether this situation might turn violent, Sarma replied that he wanted the “situation in Assam to be explosive,” adding that Assamese people could only survive if armed.

On August 2, at an election rally in Udalguri, Sarma said there was no need to ask for documents from those he referred to as “our people.” He claimed that documents should be demanded from people who were recently evicted and alleged that people from Bangladesh were entering Assam daily. He urged the public to recognise who the real enemies of Assam are.

This rhetoric was repeated by the local ethno nationalist organization, Bir Lachit Sena, whose chief Shrinkhal Chaliha stated that his group would carry out evictions themselves if the police failed to act. In the Sivasagar district, the Sena along with at least six other organisations have been conducting house-to-house searches to verify the documents of people working as labourers and staying on rent, with the object of forcing people of “suspect nationality” to “go back to where they came from.

On July 25, Bir Lachit Sena protested against illegal Bangladeshi infiltrators in Kaliabor. Members stopped vehicles on roads and questioned them, leading to a chaotic situation eventually requiring police intervention.

On August 10, a maktab in Tinsukia district was demolished. Shahin Alam, a teacher at the maktab, was harassed to show his Aadhaar card and threatened by a group of people saying, “Toi iyar pora jaboi lagibo” (You must leave this place). A recording of the demolition shows a group of youth chanting slogans such as “Jai Aai Axom” (Hail mother Assam) and “Bir Lachit Sena Zindabad.”

Veer Lachit Sena, All Tai Ahom Students’ Union, Hindu Suraksha Sena, and AHP-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal have been undertaking similar harassment and vigilante eviction drives.

On September 5, Veer Lachit Sena staged a protest at the Police station in Dhemaji over allegations that Bengali-origin Muslim men assaulted an Assamese rickshaw driver, raising slogans targeting the community like “Bangladeshi Miya go back,” “Remove Miyas, save Dhemaji,” and “Miya hooliganism won’t be allowed.”

On September 2, at a meeting of AHP-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal-Rashtriya Mahila Parishad in Bongaigaon, leader Debajit targeted Muslims, alleging that over a thousand villages had been taken over by “Bangladeshis.” He claimed that places with names like Islampur were being established across the district and called it a conspiracy to turn India into an “Islamic State” by buying land at high prices to prevent Hindus from purchasing it.

On August 31, at an AHP-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal meeting in Rangia, Kamrup, state president Dinesh Kalita targeted Muslims, alleging that wherever their population increases, Hindus are attacked and women assaulted and killed. He promoted the conspiracy theory of “love jihad”, claiming those involved in the district are RSS-Rashtriya Muslim Manch leaders. He called for strengthening their organisation to stop the “intimidation of Bangladeshi-Miyas” and kill those who shelter them in villages.

On August 28, Hindu Suraksha Sena staged a protest in Barpeta, chanting slogans such as “Bangladeshi Miya be warned,” “Islamic expansion won’t be allowed in Assam,” and demanding that those they deemed traitors of the country be shot. They also burned effigies of Mahmood Madani and Syeda Hamid for opposing the recent eviction drives targeting Bengali-origin Muslims.

On August 8, NewsNow circulated a video showing vigilantes in Tinsukia district demanding NRC documents from a woman.

On August 5, following the direction of the president Milan Buragohain, the union intercepted 16 “Miyas” near a bus stand in Tinsukia town. These persons were on their way to Arunachal Pradesh to work as masons and construction labourers, but were made to return home to western Assam’s Barpeta, Dhubri, and South Salmara-Mankachar districts. The union also said it issued a month’s notice to some 50 families of “illegal immigrants” to leave an area near the district’s coal-rich Margherita town.

The Miya Muslims of Assam live predominantly in the flood-prone Char Chapori (river islands and embankments) areas, where thousands have lost their land to river erosion. Many landless families have resettled on government land or migrated to different cities and other districts within Assam in search of livelihoods.^[3] The term “Miya” is now used pejoratively and often as a slur against Bengali Muslims, who are accused of “weaponising” beef consumption, polluting Hindu areas, and threatening Assamese identity. The eviction drives in Assam have disproportionately affected Miya Muslims, many of whom have lived there for decades. Assam news channels have published videos showing vigilante groups going door to door in Upper Assam, threatening Miya Muslims to leave within 24 to 48 hours.

On August 8, a public meeting in Sivasagar district called for homeowners to check tenants’ documents before renting out properties, in a bid to keep Upper Assam “free from illegal Bangladeshis.” An attendee told a reporter from the Wire that Miya migrant workers from Lower Assam resemble “Bangladeshi people” – because they wear lungis and tupis (skull caps) – sparking “anxiety” among “indigenous communities”, as people cannot identify who is a ‘Miya’ and who is a Bangladeshi.

Also on August 8, indigenous Assamese Muslim woman Wazida Begum stirred controversy with her strong statements distancing ‘Assamese Muslims’ from ‘Miya Muslims’ amid an ongoing eviction drive in Upper Assam. “A section of Assamese Muslims in Upper Assam have provided shelter to Miya Muslims and even entered into marital relations with them. This is extremely alarming.” She further warned that cultural assimilation through intermarriage could threaten indigenous identity by stating, “Marriage with Miya Muslims must be barred. We are Assamese by birth and we must live and die in Assam.” Wazida added, “One mistake by a local marrying a Miya girl has jeopardized the entire Sonari town today. In another remark she said, “When indigenous communities begin marrying Miya Muslims, it legitimizes their stay. We must not allow such marriages or give them shelter.”

On August 3, Situ Barua, a member of the Jatiya Sangrami Sena, is seen warning a man from Hojai district: “Shut up, you Miya… Miyas have to vacate Upper Assam within 24 hours.”

Assam is scheduled to go to polls in 2026, making the ‘Miya Kheda Andolon’ (movement to drive away the Miyas) a timely electoral tool. By stoking xenophobic anxieties and communal fear, the campaign diverts public attention from pressing governance failures and corruption scandals, such as the ‘Gir Cow Scam’ – a controversy involving allegations of corruption, mismanagement, and favouritism in a government-backed dairy initiative under the Gorukhuti Bahumukhi Krishi Prakalpa (GBKP), which implicates BJP ministers and has sparked protests across the state. The political opportunism of the xenophonic narrative serves not just to exclude a minority, but to shield the political elite from accountability.

Political Opportunism and the Consolidation of the Majoritarian Vote in Bihar

In Bihar, the political campaign against Bengali-origin Muslims has been weaponized to secure electoral gains ahead of the assembly elections. This has been synchronised with a state-level administrative exercise – the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). This exercise by the Election Commission began on June 25, tasking booth-level officers tasked with collecting enumeration forms from 7.89 crore voters in the state within 31 days. While the opposition is demanding a rollback, the BJP has framed the process as necessary to “purge” foreign nationals from the voter list.

On July 22, BJP leader and Deputy CM Samrat Choudhary accused RJD chief Lalu Prasad and West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee of being ‘anti-national’ for opposing the SIR, claiming, “for vote bank politics, they want to keep lakhs of infiltrators in the voter list and are opposing the ongoing SIR of the electoral rolls in Bihar.”

On July 23, Hindutva channel Sudarshan News repeated the claim that the opposition is rattled because their vote bank “thrives on fake identities and infiltrators.”

On July 25, BJP MP Jagannath Sarkar alleged that “Rohingya Muslims from Bangladesh have learned Bengali and changed their names to obtain Aadhaar and voter cards” in India.

This political leveraging of the SIR to attack the opposition and reinforce the ‘infiltrator’ narrative has also spread to neighbouring states. West Bengal is a key ideological battleground, where Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has publicly accused BJP-ruled states of using deportations to harass Bengali-speaking Indians.

On July 25, West Bengal BJP President Samik Bhattacharya called for the implementation of the SIR, warning that failing to do so could result in the state becoming “West Bangladesh.”

On July 31, BJP leader and the Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly, Suvendu Adhikari, vowed that not a single Rohingya or Bangladeshi intruder would stay in Bengal if BJP comes to power. “First, these Rohingyas and Bangladeshi Muslim intruders should be deleted from the voter list. Then they should be expelled from the country, the way the Haryana government and other governments are doing. Not a single Bangladeshi Muslim intruder or Rohingya will stay here. This is our commitment,” he said

The much-publicised draft of electoral rolls was released by the Election Commission on August 1, after the first phase of the SIR was completed. Contrary to the widespread claims, not a single voter’s name was deleted on the ground of alleged infiltrators from Bangladesh, Nepal, or Myanmar. However, the propaganda continued unabated.

On August 2, Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan Singh dismissed claims of harassment of Bengali-speaking migrants in BJP-ruled states. He reasserted that the verification process is also part of efforts to identify Bangladeshi infiltrators who may be living illegally in India using fake documents such as Aadhaar cards.

On August 8, Union Home Minister Amit Shah backed the Bihar SIR, declaring “Names of infiltrators must be removed from the voters’ lists. They have no right to vote.” He further attacked the opposition, saying “Lalu Prasad, Tejashwi Prasad and Rahul Gandhi should answer who they want to save — those from Bangladesh who devour jobs of the people of Bihar? Bihar people will never accept infiltrators who Rahul Gandhi and Tejashwi want to use as vote bank.”

On August 24, BJP national secretary and IT cell head Amit Malviya said that Aadhar card cannot be used as a valid document for citizenship. “The truth is simple: SIR is intact, Aadhaar alone cannot get you enrolled; dead, fake, Bangladeshi and Rohingya names will be removed and only Indian citizens will elect the next government – not foreigners,” he said.

On August 25, Union Minister and BJP MP Giriraj Singh, speaking at an NDA alliance meeting in Purnia, referred to alleged Bangladeshi immigrants as “demons,” asked attendees if they should be killed, and urged them to buy only from Hindu vendors, eat only jhatka meat, and avoid halal.” Singh denounced statements by a former-UPA official alleging that they “aimed at carrying out a Ghazwa-e-Hind.”

On September 15, speaking at an election rally in Purnia, Modi launched a sharp attack on Congress and RJD, accusing them of supporting illegal infiltrators for vote-bank politics. “Congress and RJD have not only threatened the honour of Bihar but also the identity of Bihar,” he said. “Today, a huge demographic crisis has arisen due to infiltrators in Seemanchal and Eastern India. People of Bihar, Bengal, Assam and many states are worried about the safety of their sisters and daughters. That is why I have announced the Demography Mission from the Red Fort.”

On September 16, BJP national spokesperson Rohan Gupta supported the Prime Minister’s stance, repeating that infiltrators are a “serious threat to national security.” Speaking at Ahmedabad, Gupta claimed, “Aadhaar card registration in Seemanchal has reached 108 percent and even 110 percent. This means there are more Aadhaar cards than people. This is a warning signal. This is not just data manipulation, but a direct threat to our internal security.” Gupta said that infiltrators weaken the demographic structure, strain resources, and create law and order problems.

On September 18, Amit Shah asserted that SIR) would remove “impurities” from voters’ list in Bihar. Speaking at back-to-back workers’ conclaves at Dehri-on-Sone and Begusarai, which were attended by party activists from 20 of the state’s 38 districts, Shah called upon party workers to “visit every house in the state and spread the message that all districts of Bihar will be left teeming with infiltrators from Bangladesh if they (Congress, RJD and Left combine) came to power, even by fluke.”

Also on September 18, Giriraj Singh alleged that mosques in Bihar are sheltering infiltrators from Bangladesh to boost the Muslim vote-bank. Speaking in Patna, he claimed that around 25 lakh votes were removed in Begusarai and accused RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi of protecting infiltrators through their yatras. Giriraj Singh compared the situation to Bengal, saying Hindus have become a minority in many districts.

The chief target of the SIR campaign has been the Seemanchal belt in northeast Bihar. This region, flanked by Nepal and West Bengal, comprises the four districts of Purnia, Katihar, Araria, and Kishanganj, where the Muslim population is far higher than the rest of the state. Various ‘sources’ in the Election Commission have claimed that the real aim of this voter-list revision is to flush out Bangladeshi infiltrators in Seemanchal.^[4]

After the first phase of the revision, not a single ‘infiltrator’ was identified in Seemchal. However, the exercise did strike off a total of 65 lakh voters, with 7.6 lakh from Seemchal, on other grounds. The majority are workers from Patna, East Champaran and Madhubani. This data strongly suggests that the SIR is not a purge of infiltrators, but a calculated political ploy that disproportionately targets migrant labourers—many of them Bengali-speaking Muslims—who are away from home and unable to verify their enrolment.

The entire operation, from political mudslinging by Modi and Shah, to hate speeches by Giriraj Singh, to the Election Commission’s SIR, serve a cohesive political and ideological purpose. By relentlessly branding Muslims as “infiltrators” and creating a “demographic crisis” bogeyman, the campaign simultaneously attempts to suppress the minority vote while galvanizing the majority Hindu vote. This consolidation is essential in the Hindu Rashtra framework, the administrative process of voter deletion is transformed into a performative act of “purifying” the nation, cementing the idea that the only legitimate citizen is one who fits the dominant religious and cultural identity.

Propaganda Tropes and their Ideological Underpinnings

The ‘Bangladeshi infiltrator’ bogeyman and the hateful rhetoric that accompanies it is not haphazard, but a meticulously constructed architecture of exclusion that serves political, patriarchal, and ideological goals.

Hindutva is a political project of nation-building which conceptualises Bharat as the land of the Hindus, and a Hindu as one for whom Hindustan is not only a Pitribhu (Fatherland) but also a Punyabhu (Holyland). Followers of Islam and Christianity, whose holy sites lie outside India, are perpetual ideological outsiders – infiltrators. This ideological denial of a community’s sacred belonging is then translated into a territorial mandate. By delegitimising their citizenship, the propaganda cements Muslims as an internal enemy whose very presence undermines the nation’s integrity. The call to expel “ghuspaithiye” is thus presented as a necessary act of national purification.

On Independence Day, members of Antarashtriya Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Bajrang Dal held a slogan march in Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh, demanding an “Akhand Bharat” and calling to drive out “Bangladeshi ghuspaithiya” (infiltrators). A few days before, on August 11, AHP-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal members held a procession in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, chanting slogans demanding the eviction of those they alleged to be Bangladeshi ghuspaithiya (infiltrators).

As we can already see, the ideological architecture is built upon specific, repeated propaganda tropes.

Trope 1: Demographic Supremacy: “Population Jihad” and the Great Replacement Bogey

This trope is designed to create a manufactured sense of existential threat and economic scarcity among the Hindu majority. For years, Hindu nationalists have mobilized anti-Muslim sentiments around an imagined threat of “population jihad,” which rooted in the unsubstantiated claim that Muslims will take over India’s population by intentionally producing more children than Hindus. This argument about demographic change is now being made by invoking the “Bangladeshi infiltrator” bogey.

On August 22, AHP–Rashtriya Bajrang Dal staged a protest in Garoth, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh and submitted a memorandum to the SDM, targeting Muslims, fear-mongering over their population, and demanding population control laws and action against alleged Bangladeshi and Rohingya “ghuspaiths” (infiltrators).

On July 31, AHP-Rashtriya Bajrang Dal staged a protest in Aonla, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, demanding a population control law, alleging that the country’s population growth is driven by the infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims. They called for the eviction of those they termed as infiltrators and urged measures to curb the Muslim population.

The ‘infiltrator’ narrative, therefore, feeds on and reinforces a fear of demographic change in India based on bogus claims of “explosive population growth” among Muslims, which will lead to Muslim domination and the eradication of Hindus. The coordinated demand for discriminatory population control laws translates abstract demographic anxiety into concrete political policy.

This demographic fear is immediately weaponized by political leaders to invoke economic scarcity, recasting systemic socio-economic failures as the direct fault of the minority community.

On August 25, at a Varaha Jayanti celebration organised by Vishwa Hindu Kranti Sanghatan in Navi Mumbai, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane fearmongered about alleged Rohingya and Bangladeshi “infiltrators” taking jobs and casting votes to make non-Hindu candidates win. He spread anti-Muslim conspiracy theories of “love jihad” and “land jihad”, declaring, “We are not goltopis or dadiwallas; we are Hindus!”

Hindu far-right leaders like Nitish Rane frequently demonized Indian Muslims as parasitic and thieving, alleging that they were either wrongfully granted resources that rightfully belonged to Hindus or were stealing Hindu wealth through acts of aggression. This narrative manufactures an artificial fear of resource scarcity amongst the local population, creating fear and panic among marginalized groups that are the most reliant on social services (e.g., subsidized ration, public healthcare) and most prone to unemployment. The lie that “infiltrators” are illegally obtaining identification documents and claiming indigenous land makes the constitutional rights of Indian Muslims seem like an act of aggression against the majority.

Trope 2: “Love Jihad” and Conversion Hysteria

“Love Jihad” is a fear manifested from Brahmanical Patriarchy. The trope defines Hindu women as naive, unintelligent, or brainwashed, justifying the constant surveillance and control of their bodies and choices by Hindu men. Simultaneously, it portrays the Muslim man as inherently lustful and predatory, whose interest in a Hindu woman is never based on consent or genuine affection, but is part of a wider, organized, terrorist plot to convert and co-opt the “vessel of the Hindu Rashtra” – the body of upper-case women.

On August 15, at a government school in Budwa, Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh, BJP leader Durgesh Tiwari peddled all three components of the trope: anti-Muslim conspiracy theories of “love jihad,” the economic threat of Bangladeshi/Pakistani “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators), and the claim that Muslims and Christian missionaries were carrying out religious conversions.

On August 20, at the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) Foundation Day celebration at PGDAV College, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi Cabinet Minister Kapil Mishra spread fear over alleged demographic change and claimed that Rohingya and Bangladeshi “ghuspaith” (infiltrators) have been settled in several states. He also peddled the anti-Muslim “love jihad” conspiracy theory and stoked fears of religious conversion.

“Love Jihad” is the gendered face of the wider conversion hysteria, leveraging sexual anxiety to reinforce the political demand for national purity, Hindu patriarchy, and Muslim exclusion.

Trope 3: Othering & Dehumanisation: Sanctioning Violence and Eliminating Dissent

Dehumanisation is the ultimate rhetorical tool in the architecture of exclusion. Its primary goal is to strip the targeted community— Bengali-origin Muslims and anyone who speaks up for them—of their human status, moral consideration, and constitutional rights.

On September 8, speaking at a yoga programme in Dagarpur village, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh MLA Nandkishore Gurjar (BJP) claimed, “Swines and Bangladeshi Rohingyas are being settled here, and they will ruin the country. I am fighting with them every day.”

On August 25, at an Akhand Aryavarta Arya Mahasabha event in Lucknow, speaker Mahadev Baba claimed that Bangladeshis and Rohingyas are cannibalistic and “eat human flesh,” alleging they are obtaining Aadhaar cards in India. He targeted Muslims with slogans like “We two, our forty, everyone with an AK-47 in hand” and “We two, our seventy, everyone with bricks and stones in hand,” and questioned who would protect Hindu women from them.

Again, we see how framing the minority as a savage, inhumane threat to Hindu women – the honour of the Hindu community – sanctions aggressive pre-emptive action against Muslim men.

On August 26, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) and Karwan-e-Mohabbat jointly convened a public tribunal titled ‘People’s Tribunal on Assam: Evictions, Detentions and the Right to Belong’ at the Constitution Club of India. The event was disrupted by a mob with aggressive and communal sloganeering, including “Desh ke Gaddaro ko / Goli maaro saalo ko” (Shoot the ones who are traitors to the nation).

This report demonstrates how civil society’s attempt to address state-led human rights violations is immediately and aggressively characterized as anti-national activity, thus suppressing democratic dissent in favour of authoritarian majoritarianism.

The Final Test: Invalidation of Constitutional Citizenship

The repeated political rhetoric of the ‘Bangladeshi infiltrator’ ensures that the public consciousness is primed to view Bengali-speaking Muslims as illegal aliens, predatory savages, inhuman – in other words, immediate and acceptable targets for attack.

Reports from Odisha in August 2025 demonstrate the immediate and brutal translation of high-level political hate speech into on-ground action, as Bengali-speaking Muslim migrant workers faced targeted violence in Sambalpur, Keonjhar, Jagatsinghpur, Kendrapara and Bhadrak districts.

Journalists reported that BJP leaders roughed up and handed over 34 Bengali-speaking Muslim migrant workers engaged in the construction sector to the police. The police later released them after verifying that they were from West Bengal, not Bangladesh.

27-year old Noorul Sheikh, a hawker from Chunakhali village (West Bengal), was attacked, beaten and injured by a group of people with saffron flags. “I failed to convince them that I am from West Bengal, not Bangladesh, despite providing my Aadhar card and other residential documents. They dismissed them as fake and were adamant about targeting us for being Bengali-speaking Muslims,” he reported to TwoCircles.

A mason recounted that Bengali-speaking Muslims were made easy targets by individuals carrying saffron flags and loudly chanting “Jai Shri Ram.” “They used vulgar language against Muslims and our religion, Islam, abused us, threatened us to go back to Bangladesh, and attacked and beat some of us despite us showing our Aadhar and Voter ID cards upon request. With folded hands, we repeatedly told them that we are Indian residents of Murshidabad and not Bangladeshi Muslims, but they refused to accept it.”

The pattern of profiling and violence is replicated by state actors across India. On September 8, 18 migrant hawkers from West Bengal were detained for five days by police in Uttar Pradesh’s Basti district after allegedly being labelled as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The workers, all residents of Murshidabad district, claimed that they were detained despite possessing valid Aadhaar and voter ID cards. Police first detained four or five of the migrants. Their landlord then told the remaining workers to go to the Nagar police station with their identity documents for verification.

The ‘infiltrator’ rhetoric therefore provides ideological cover for state-aligned political groups to conduct arbitrary violence and detention against Indian citizens, based solely on their linguistic identity and religious affiliation. Citizenship, the rule of law, and documentation are all rendered invalid in the face of majoritarian fervour.

The Complete Circuit: Ideology to State-Policy

The incidents recorded during the last few months demonstrate that the systematic targeting of Bengali-origin Muslims as “Bangladeshis” or “ghuspaithiye” (infiltrators) is a targeted campaign of communal nation-building: Indian citizenship is defined not by constitutional rights but by religious identity, aligning with the exclusionary tenets of Hindutva.

The data shows that the hate campaign leverages pre-existing ethnic and communal tensions for electoral gain. The ideological arrow is pushed from the top down: originating from elected ministers like Kapil Mishra and Nitesh Rane, amplified by party subsidiaries (AHP, VHP, Rashtriya Bajrang Dal) and media, and enacted by state police and vigilante mobs.

The rhetorical architecture, encompassing Population Jihad, Love Jihad, and Dehumanisation, converges on the citizen question. By denying the community their Pitribhumi and Punyabhumi, the campaign strips them of the fundamental premise of rights, from which all other civil and democratic rights arise.

The constant, coordinated nature of the campaign, from rallies organized solely for hate speech to the relentless electronic media bombardments, is designed to normalize the narrative. These regurgitated narratives aim to rewrite truth and history through continuous repetition. By the time complaints or judicial processes are put into action, the damage is already done through physical violence, economic deprivation, or deportation.

To dismantle this architecture of exclusion and uphold the constitutional mandate of India, immediate and coordinated action is required from all branches of the state and civil society.

1. Halt Displacement and Ensure Due Process: The state authorities in Assam and other states must immediately halt all eviction and demolition drives targeting Bengali-origin Muslim communities. Due process and rehabilitation for all those evicted must be ensured.
2. Hold State Actors Accountable: State officials, political leaders, and vigilante groups who incite hate or enable communal violence must be held accountable through effective prosecution.
3. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) should launch a fact-finding mission into human rights violations related to demolitions, hate speech, and displacement.
4. Indian courts should take suo moto cognizance of mass evictions and hate mobilizations to ensure the safety and security of minorities.
5. The Supreme Court’s guidelines on hate speech must be strictly enforced. Concrete steps must be taken to ensure that police stations are not left alone; handbooks detailing these guidelines should be printed in regional languages and provided to all police personnel for education and immediate reference.

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

Footnotes:

^[1] India Hate Lab, ‘Hate Speech Events in India – Report 2024’ (February 6, 2025)

^[2] India Hate Lab, ‘Data Reveals Rising Hate and Violence Against Bengali-Origin Muslims in Assam’ (July 31, 2025)

^[3] Kazi Sharowar Hussain, ‘’You’re Bangladeshi’: ‘Nationalist’ Groups Target Miya Muslims, Give Ultimatum to Leave Upper Assam’ (The Wire, August 14, 2025)

^[4] Yogendra Yadav, ‘Bihar SIR: 789 pages, 1 B.I.G. lie, 0 foreigners’ (National Herald, August 2, 2025)

Related:

1. A Targeted Campaign: The orchestrated crackdown on Bengali Migrants and the rising pushback from courts, Bengal government, and civil society
2. India’s Stealthy Pushback: Thousands of alleged “Bangladeshi immigrants” deported without due process across states

The post How the Hindutva propaganda machine turns citizens into ‘infiltrators’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As political power shifted and the presence of an aggressive exclusion-driven right-wing party emerged, these ideas of inclusion slowly vanished also from the community-driven Ganesh Chaturthi.  Nowhere is this more evident than this year, 2025. Turning turtle on the tradition of social commentary which was essentially progressive, the 10-day long festivities were exploited by Hindutva groups in various municipalities to manufacture a sense of othering, even hate. Political power has always dominated these community expressions, with the dominant political force, “capturing” the dozens of “Ganpati mandals.” This year, Hindutva groups engaged in furthering their central political agenda by promoting conspiracy theories about “love jihad,” conversions, and fears of demographic change. All this under the garb of cultural and religious devotion.

Some key incidents from the Ganesh Chaturthi 2025 celebrations:

Bangalore, Karnataka

On August 3, in Bangalore, a Hindutva leader by the name of Mohan Gouda uttered remarks at a gathering, under the pretext of encouraging people to celebrate participation in the Ganesh festival, but his comments soon took a turn towards the communal. Gouda said people should attend this festival, but also advocated for a supposed “Hindu Rashtra” merging the religious celebration into a political-religious ideology. He argued that English medium education was a tool to segregate Hindus from their culture, claiming it intended to “make Hindus mentally Christian.” He evoked the theme of “love jihad” again, as well as conversions happening systematically, arguing that these conspiracies were detrimental to Hindus and Hindu society.

Through video and social clips being distributed on HindutvaWatch’s Telegram channel- and reproduced on both Facebook and Instagram- you can hear his comments and witness his ridiculous claims first-hand.  He states: “English medium education was introduced to separate Hindus from their culture and make them mentally Christian.”

His remarks are more than mere political rhetoric at a festival; they turn a moment of religious observance into a statement of political exclusion. Gouda’s comments convey to worshippers that it is a particular religious identity that delineates loyalty, and that any existence/involvement of minorities in that moment is a form of “internal threat.”

Kota, Rajasthan

On August 27, a flashpoint erupted in Kota’s Vigyan Nagar over a local non-vegetarian restaurant that posted wishes for Ganesh Chaturthi along with pictures of its menu. Activists from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) – Bajrang Dal saw the post and descended on the location, accused the place of promoting religious enmity, and claimed that by associating images of Ganesh with its non-vegetarian food, they were hurting the sentiments of Hindus. The municipal authorities, clearly under duress, arrived on-site and soon sealed off the restaurant!

Clarion India reported the incident via HindutvaWatch, which added further details to what had unfolded. According to Clarion, a restaurant owner and two others were arrested and police confirmed that the person responsible for preparing the poster, the restaurant, and the person preparing the posters for printing had all been detained. A minor was also detained for allegedly posting the content but was later let go. Regarding the arrest, Kota City Superintendent of Police, Tejaswini Gautam, stated the case is being handled with seriousness and assured that compliance with the law would occur and that everyone accused except the minor would be charged in accordance with the appropriate legal statues. Clarion also reported that during the protest, workers prayed the Hanuman Chalisa in front of the restaurant site and requested justice until police intervened.

None from the media have queried the police authorities about which law has been violated in posting or conceiving an image with Ganesh Chaturthi with a non-vegetarian menu. On the contrary, the right to life and right to do business freely (Article 21 and Article 19) of the restaurant owner stand violated.

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

On August 31, 2025, in Ashok Nagar, Bilaspur, observances around Ganesh Chaturthi took a distinctly communal turn. At the local function, Hindu nationalist figure Thakur Ram Singh grabbed the mic to insult Christians and Muslims, claiming they were causing conversions. He referred to them as “illegitimate children of Chadar-Father” in an overtly inflammatory way, attempting to ‘de-legitimize’ them as an identity group, in public. The implication of conversion, especially at a religious function, no doubt heightened fears of encroachment on Hindu faith, resulting in minorities becoming enemies within.

At the time of writing, mainstream/legacy media have not detailed the police or administrative responses to that particular speech. Bilaspur has begun to be a recurring place of communal tension and mobilisation: just months prior, it was reported that Thakur Ram Singh and others had led police to raid Christian prayer meetings as part of a “conversion campaign,” as well.  The Bilaspur event can be viewed as part of a pattern, for religious festivals in our context have evolved into not just sites for communal signalling, but actually exclusion; prejudice cloaked as religious rhetoric towards political mobilization.

Dehradun, Uttarakhand

On August 31, 2025, in Dehradun, a rally celebrating Ganesh Chaturthi hosted by the Hindu Raksha Dal included Swami Darshan Bharti, who delivered a speech that condemned Muslims. He reportedly insisted that Islam needed to be “crushed” in Uttarakhand and that “Allahu Akbar” could not be shouted in a territory of Hindus and Hindu gods. Accompanying Bharti was Bhupendra ‘Pinki’ Chaudhury, the President of Hindu Raksha Dal, who used derogatory language and communal identifiers to label Muslims “topi-dariwale,” “burkhewale,” “kuthmulle,” and “jihadi.” Apart from the slur and denigration of Muslims, such a speech also engendered a sense of fear (at witnessing assertions of religion, chanting of prayers etc) and demographic anxiety. Hence, a public religious event, marked traditionally with community celebration, saw –through the presence and hate speech delivered by hate offenders— the assembly transformed into a site of communal exclusion.

So far, no information is available from mainstream newspapers (in English or regional) about any action, arrest or filing of FIRs pertaining to this speech. The absence of any visible response from authorities together with the public nature of the event and speech contribute to ongoing contexts of impunity and normalization of this kind of hate discourse under the guise of religious ceremonies.

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

On September 4, 2025, at a Ganesh Chaturthi celebration in Purushottam Nagar, Bhopal, an event organized by VHP-Bajrang Dal leader Manish Saini delivered incendiary diatribes against non-Hindus. He claimed that non-Hindus have ‘a deliberate agenda to attack Hindu women’, mentioned cow slaughter, and cited the popular conspiracy theory of “love jihad.” He framed religious minorities as predatory agents who are actively destroying the social fabric of Hindu community from within and implied that Hindu women were perpetually at risk of either forced conversion to Islam or being ‘snared’.

A video of the event can be accessed on social media and has been shared on HindutvaWatch’s Telegram and Facebook broadcasting platforms.

In addition to the contents of the speech, little media or local official coverage has reported on subsequent activity — such as FIR lodging, arrests, or administrative censure. There has not been a public response from municipal authorities or police in Bhopal that indicates whether they would hold Saini accountable for this incitement in a public setting. This absence of public condemnation or visible follow-up action, to an explicit example of hate speech throws up the question of impunity around such crimes that result in the normalisation of hate and exclusion.

From Devotion to Division

Ganesh Chaturthi, a festival that was in previous decades, an occasion for collective bonding, is seeing signs of being turned into a platform for hate and violence in its entirety. From Bangalore to Bhopal, the festival was utilized to, amongst other things, legitimate conspiracy theories, justify the vilification of minorities, and monitor the social and economic lives of vulnerable communities. These instances signal how quickly a space intended for devotion can be co-opted for exclusionary politics when law enforcement abandons its duties and the government remains silent. The commissioning of such incendiary speech during religious observances poses a distinct threat not only to minorities, but to the democratic and secular fabric of the country. If immediate steps are not taken to reign in the instigators, and return festivals to their inclusive or so-called “original” form, hate will only continue to grow.

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

Image: Representational Image

Related

UP Imam assaulted after refusing ‘Jai Shri Ram’, threatened to leave country; FIR still pending

Targeted as ‘Bangladeshis’: The hate speech fuelling deportations

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

Gujarat: 15-year-old Muslim boy dies by suicide after alleged communal harrassment

The post Unifying cultural celebration weaponised: Ganesh processions turned into stages for hate speech & moral policing appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to a Newslaundry investigation, Gaud framed the order as a safeguard against “love jihad,” claiming that Muslim salesmen could use interactions with women customers to form relationships. He gave traders a September 25 deadline. By the eve of the deadline, the impact was visible: more than 50 Muslim employees had already lost their jobs, and at least four Muslim shopkeepers had been forced to vacate their spaces. The market has around 500 shops, with between 100–125 Muslim salesmen and 10–15 Muslim shop renters, many of whom have now been displaced.

Human Cost: “Jobless just because I am Muslim”

The consequences of the campaign have been devastating for those who built their lives in the market.

• Gabbar Ghori (52), who has worked in the bazaar for four decades, told Newslaundry: “I was only 12 when I started here. Since then, I’ve never left. Both my sons also worked here. Now, all three of us have lost our jobs. We earned ₹50,000–60,000 together, with ₹21,500 going towards our flat’s EMI, ₹3,500 for a bike loan, and ₹5,400 for a personal loan. Suddenly unemployed, we don’t know how to survive. For the past 25 days, I haven’t eaten or slept properly.” His employer, he said, was sympathetic but afraid, asking him to either take leave or work secretly until “things calm down.”
• Mohammad Gulzar (42), another salesman with 30 years in the market, said he earned ₹22,000 a month, with ₹7,000 going towards rent and the rest supporting his two children’s schooling. “Now I am jobless just because I am Muslim. Employers are compelled to remove us under political pressure. Despite being citizens of this country, we are forced to endure this,” he told Newslaundry and later repeated during a protest march covered by the Free Press Journal.
• Rahmat Khan (32, name changed) explained that Muslims have worked in the market for decades. “Suddenly political leaders accuse us of being part of so-called ‘love jihad.’ They are forcing our employers to remove us. The most painful part is that no one—police, politicians, or social workers—is helping. Who will give us jobs now?” he asked in his complaint, cited by Newslaundry.
• Shakir Mohammad, the sole earner for his mother, wife, sister, and two children, told Newslaundry: “Tomorrow is the deadline. Around 50–60 people have already been removed.”
• Mohammad Harun (55), who has run a rented shop in the bazaar for 20 years, told Newslaundry that Gaud’s supporters demanded ID cards of all his eight employees—six Muslims and two Hindus. Days later, his landlord asked him to vacate by September 25. “My owner was kind to me, but he was under pressure. They would have targeted him if he had refused.”

Association’s endorsement of “cleansing”

Rather than resisting, the Sheetla Mata Bazaar Vyapari Association has largely endorsed Gaud’s diktat. In a report by ThePrint, association president Hema Panjwani defended the order, saying: “Muslim salesmen would stand on the road to call in customers and stare at women passing by. Now Aklavya bhaiya has tightened the noose. Nobody should have rented their shops to Muslims in the first place; all of them will have to vacate. Once this succeeds, we will implement it in other markets too.”

Association member Anil Sharma, described as a close aide of Gaud, told ThePrint that Aadhaar details of shop employees are being collected to note their religion. The campaign has been named “bazaar ka shuddhikaran” (purification of the market), with Sharma adding: “The second step would be to investigate each Muslim employee’s involvement in ‘love jihad’ cases.”

Another member, Pappu Maheshwari, confirmed to ThePrint: “Bhaiya has requested us to politely ask retailers to remove Muslim salesmen.”

Police cite “no video evidence”

When Newslaundry asked Indore Police Commissioner Santosh Singh about the issue, he claimed no one had approached him and referred queries to the local DCP. DCP Anand Kaladgi said no FIR could be filed against Gaud because “he has not made any statement openly, and there is no video evidence except what is in the media.” This, despite Muslim workers submitting a written complaint to the commissioner’s office on September 15, explicitly alleging that they were being targeted for political gain.

Two traders told Newslaundry anonymously that no action would be taken since the market lies in the constituency of Gaud’s mother, BJP MLA Malini Gaud.

Protests and political reactions

As the deadline approached, Muslim workers staged silent protests inside the market and later held a march from Bajaj Khana Chowk to Rajwada, reported by the Free Press Journal. Carrying placards, they demanded the right to continue their work without religious discrimination. “We are Hindustani and have been doing business here for decades,” Gulzar told FPJ. “Business should be business, not politics. For 30–35 years we lived peacefully here, and now we are being pushed out just because we are Muslims.”

This communal move was not only protested by Muslims, but also Hindus. Many came out to resist this forceful eviction, like Balwant Singh Rathore (40), a shopkeeper in Indore.

“The harmony between Hindus and Muslims should not be shattered, and they should be given equal opportunities to earn a living,” he said.

#Indore #Islamophobia

Balwant Singh Rathore (40), a shopkeeper in Indore, is opposing the forceful eviction of Muslim shopkeepers and salesmen from the city’s historic Sitla Mata Market.

“The harmony between Hindus and Muslims should not be shattered, and they should be given… pic.twitter.com/FSSiSx0RSQ

— काश/if Kakvi (@KashifKakvi) September 24, 2025

The Congress also intervened, with city chief Chintu Chouksey submitting a memorandum demanding an FIR and warning that Gaud’s statement was an attempt to “disturb communal harmony” in Indore (FPJ Shorts).

Gaud’s controversial record

This is not the first time Eklavya Singh Gaud has found himself in controversy. As Newslaundry noted, he was accused of roughing up a police constable during a temple visit, booked for assaulting Congress workers, and was the complainant in the case that landed comedian Munawar Faruqui in jail for over a month over a joke he reportedly never cracked. According to FPJ, he even warned that the Hind Rakshak Samit would take “direct action” if his directive was ignored.

A chilling precedent

The Sheetla Mata Bazaar episode reflects a broader trend where livelihoods and businesses are targeted through the lens of communal identity. As September 25 arrived, scores of Muslim families were left jobless—not for misconduct or inefficiency, but because of a political ultimatum backed by the local trade association and tolerated by police inaction.

Related:

Two Sons, One Spirit: Muslim men perform Hindu mothers’ last rites in Rajasthan and Kerala

Tilak, ID Checks & Religious Tests: what’s happening at Garba events?

Madhya Pradesh Muslim man lynched in Rajasthan’s Bhilwara over cattle transport; family alleges religious targeting & extortion plot

The post Indore’s Bazaar Purge: Muslim workers and shopkeepers forced out under BJP leader’s ultimatum appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The most recent incident took place on September 23 in Pratap Nagar, Jaipur—a constituency represented by the Chief Minister himself. What should have been a routine visit by religious leaders to a Christian training institute quickly turned into a scene of fear, aggression, and misuse of police authority.

This has prompted civil society groups to issue a joint statement, condemning the violence, demanding justice, and urging the state government to uphold the rule of law and protect constitutional freedoms.

What happened at Hindustan Bible Institute in Jaipur?

The Hindustan Bible Institute (HBI) in Jaipur, established to train pastors and Christian leaders, has been functioning peacefully for years. But on the afternoon of September 23, around 3 PM, it was surrounded by nearly 50 members of the Bajrang Dal, who accused the institute of engaging in religious conversions.

At that time, two guests—one from HBI’s head office in Chennai and another from Bagidora, Banswara—were present at the institute for a scheduled inspection visit. Without any proof or official complaint, Bajrang Dal members began protesting aggressively, claiming the two were in Jaipur to carry out conversions.

Instead of protecting the visitors or dispersing the crowd, the local police from Pratap Nagar Thana detained the two HBI guests for “questioning.” Their mobile phones were seized. The police also confiscated the institute’s laptops, landline phone, pen drive, and even official documents, including property papers.

“The police took the two Guests from outstation HBI offices to the Police station in the name of enquiry and seized their phones as if they had committed a crime,” — Joint Civil Society Statement

This action—without any legal warrant or confirmed wrongdoing—has shocked many and highlighted the growing misuse of police power in religious matters.

Christian families living in fear

The HBI centre in Jaipur is run by two local Christian families, who were also present during the incident. Civil society members who later visited them reported that the families were shaken and afraid for their safety. They had simply been hosting two guests for an official inspection—something that any organisation does regularly. Yet, after this incident, they now live in fear of further targeting or retaliation, despite doing completely legal and constitutionally protected work.

“They were terrified as to what may befall them when they were doing absolute legal work under the Indian constitution,” — Delegation after meeting the HBI families

Second attack in CM’s own constituency in just three days

Shockingly, this wasn’t an isolated case. Just two days earlier, on Sunday, September 21, Pastor Daniel was attacked while leading a Christian mass in a private house in Pratap Nagar. His prayers were disrupted, and he was assaulted.

Despite protests by the local community, an FIR was registered only after several hours. As of now, no arrests have been made in that case either. Civil society leaders pointed out that both attacks occurred within the Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Shamra’s constituency, showing a complete disregard for peace and communal harmony, even in areas under direct state leadership.

“This was the second incident in the CM’s constituency in three days,” — Civil Society Statement

The role of the anti-conversion bill: law or license to harass?

According to the joint statement, these incidents are not random—they are part of a larger pattern that began after the Anti-Conversion Bill was tabled and passed in the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha earlier in September.

Since then, nine incidents targeting Christians have been reported:

• 2 attacks in Dungarpur
• 1 in Alwar
• 2 in Jaipur (including the HBI incident and Pastor Daniel’s attack)
• 2 cases of police harassment in Kotputli-Behror district
• 2 incidents in Anupgarh, Hanumangarh, including a break-in at a children’s hostel and assault of two Christian staff

Civil society groups argue that the Anti-Conversion Bill has created a climate of suspicion and intolerance, where any religious gathering or activity is falsely framed as an attempt at forced conversion, leading to mob violence and police misuse.

Civil society responds: urging accountability and justice

In response to the Pratap Nagar incident, a delegation of civil society organisations met with DCP Sanjiv Nain, ACP Vinod Kumar Sharma, and SHO Manoj from Pratap Nagar Thana. The delegation included Sawai Singh, John Mathew, President of Jaipur Christian Fellowship (JCF), Father Vijay Pal Singh, Joint Secretary of JCF, Kavita Srivastava of the PUCL.

They condemned the police actions and mob aggression and demanded:

1. Immediate release of the two HBI guests detained unlawfully
2. Return of all confiscated items, including phones, laptops, and documents
3. Arrest of the Bajrang Dal members responsible for the protest and disturbance
4. Strict action to prevent further attacks on minorities

“Till strict action is not taken, such incidents will continue,” — Civil Society Delegation

United stand: who signed the statement?

The joint press statement was issued by multiple rights and minority organisations across Rajasthan, including Jaipur Christian Fellowship, Rajasthan Samagra Sewa Sangh, PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties), APCR (Association for Protection of Civil Rights), Rajasthan Baudh Maha Sangh, NFIW (National Federation of Indian Women), AIDWA (All India Democratic Women’s Association), Daman Pratirodh Andolan, Rajasthan, Buddhist Society of India, Jamat-e-Islami Hind, Rajasthan, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Dalit Muslim Ekta Manch.

This shows that the issue is not just about Christians, but about the broader erosion of civil rights and religious freedoms in the state.

An urge for rule of law, not rule of fear

The repeated attacks, police overreach, and growing fear among Christian families in Rajasthan are more than isolated incidents—they represent a systemic problem that is threatening India’s constitutional values. If religious minorities cannot carry out their daily prayers or official inspections without being accused, detained, or threatened, then the rule of law itself stands compromised.

The civil society groups are clear in their message: This must stop. Now.

“Such communal incidents and attacks on minorities need to stop now,” — Joint Statement

They call upon the Rajasthan government to act decisively—not just to protect the rights of one community, but to preserve the secular, democratic fabric of India.

Related:

“Your Helplessness feels in the garb of Protection”: SC rebukes CBI for failure to arrest officers in custodial death case of Deva Pardhi

“Shielding their own”: Supreme Court slams Madhya Pradesh police, transfers custodial death probe of a tribal man to CBI

“No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order

The post Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law appeared first on SabrangIndia.