Despite being denied permission for the event in Haridwar, another gathering took place on December 20, where similar inflammatory rhetoric was once again echoed. The said event, organized by Yati Narasinghanand, was marked by a series of hate speeches that incited violence and targeted the Muslim community. Narasinghanand, known for his controversial rhetoric, repeated inflammatory statements calling for the creation of a Hindu-only nation, free of Muslims, mosques, and madrasas. Other speakers at the event, including right-wing figures, made similarly provocative remarks, with one monk calling for violent actions against those perceived as enemies of Hindus and accusing Muslims of being responsible for the destruction of Hindu temples. The speeches included calls to pick up arms in defence of Hinduism and incited hostility towards Muslims, with derogatory language and references to historical grievances. These hate-filled statements not only sought to provoke religious tensions but also called for physical violence against those who did not conform to the speakers’ vision of a Hindu nation.

At the same event, as per ABPLive, Narasinghanand has announced plans to move the ‘Dharma Sansad’ to the Prayagraj Kumbh.

The court proceedings- Supreme Court and High Court

High Court: Prior to an event in Haridwar where dog-whistling against Muslims reportedly occurred, the Uttarakhand High Court had issued a crucial directive on December 20. Justice Alok Kumar Verma, presiding over a single bench, instructed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Haridwar to ensure law and order in response to a proposed ‘Dharma Sansad’ organised by the controversial priest Yati Narsinghanand. The event had aimed to rally Hindu organisations and advocate for the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra. The court also reiterated the Supreme Court’s directions in Shaheen Abdullah v. State, emphasising that state authorities must act suo-motu to address any hate speech targeting religious communities, even without formal complaints.

Supreme Court: On December 19, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a contempt petition against the Uttar Pradesh government and police for allegedly failing to prevent the ‘Dharam Sansad’ organized by Yati Narasinghanand in Ghaziabad from December 17 to 21. Narasinghanand, known for his history of making communal remarks targeting Muslims, was the central figure behind the event. However, the Court directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to take all necessary measures to prevent any hate speeches during the event.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar emphasised the need for the state to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s previous directions concerning hate speech prevention. CJI Khanna instructed that the event should be monitored and recordings of the proceedings be made, stressing that the Court’s decision not to entertain the petition did not imply any tolerance for violations.

When the petitioners, including former civil servants and activists, pointed out that the event’s promotional materials contained hate speech against Muslims and incited violence, CJI Khanna suggested that the petitioners approach the High Court, as the Supreme Court typically refrains from being the first point of contact in such matters. He also noted that if violations occurred, bail cancellation could be sought for Narasinghanand, who is out on bail in several hate speech cases. The Court reiterated its earlier orders for district officers to ensure all precautionary measures were taken to prevent any violations of its directives.

Detailed piece regarding the said petition can be read here.

Hate mongering by Yati Narsinghanand

On December 20, after being denied administrative permission to hold a ‘Dharma Sansad’ in Haridwar, he shifted the event’s focus to conducting a Mahayagya at the Sripanchdashnam Juna Akhara headquarters. During this ritual, he called for the “destruction” of individuals who had hindered the original programme. Addressing a gathering of followers, he declared, “The biggest reason for the misery of us Hindus is that we do not have a country of our own,” reiterating his demand for a Hindu Rashtra. Narsinghanand further unveiled his vision of a “Sanatan Vedic Nation,” one that, according to him, would have “no room for a single mosque, a single madrasa, or a single jihadi.” Drawing a comparison with Israel’s protective stance towards Jews, he claimed that such a nation would serve as a global guardian for Hindus.

In addition to this, a widely circulated video shows him addressing an audience alongside other right-wing figures, where he issued a veiled threat against AIMIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi. Referring to Owaisi’s 2012 speech in Telangana, in which Owaisi controversially stated that “if the police were to be removed for 15 minutes, the Muslim community could show its strength,” Narsinghanand declared: “If the police move away for 15 minutes, this person asking and lecturing for time will not survive.” The statement drew cheers and chants of “Har Har Mahadev” from the audience. He went on to pledge his family’s complete dedication, even to the point of sacrifice, for the cause of “Sanatan Dharma.”

At the World’s Religion Parliament in #Haridwar on December 20, 2024, controversial #Hindutva monk #YatiNarsinghanandGiri made a provocative statement, saying, “If the police moves away for 15 minutes, this person asking for time will not survive.” pic.twitter.com/trOsjvgtMV

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) December 22, 2024

Narsinghanand’s comments, filled with communal overtones, reflect a persistent pattern of dog-whistling and explicit incitement against Muslims. By invoking the idea of a Hindu Rashtra devoid of diversity and issuing veiled threats of violence, he continues to fan the flames of communal division. These events highlight the unchecked rise of far-right narratives, raising concerns about the absence of strong legal action against such blatant hate speech. The lack of accountability not only emboldens such figures but also poses a grave risk to social harmony and the secular fabric of the nation.

A deep dive into Yati Narsinghanand’s history of spreading hate may be read here.

The CJP video may be viewed here.

Other hate speeches delivered

At the said event in Haridwar, several other speakers joined Yati Narsinghanand in delivering speeches laced with communal rhetoric and expressing grievances over the authorities’ actions against the event. The details are as follows:

Shrimahant Raju Das: Raju Das of Ayodhya’s Hanuman Garhi delivered an instigatory speech expressing outrage over the cancellation of the Vishwa Dharma Sansad by the authorities. He criticised the actions of the police and district officials, describing their intervention as the “height of insult” to Sanatan Dharma. According to Raju Das, the decision to halt the event, which was organised to highlight alleged atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh, demonstrated blatant disrespect towards Hindu religious practices and beliefs.

He accused the officials involved of behaving autocratically and called upon Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami to intervene in the matter. Raju Das demanded that action be taken against what he termed “shameless officials” who disrupted the religious gathering. “Entering the headquarters of Sripanchdashnam Juna Akhara and stalling the Vishwa Dharma Sansad shows that now Sanatan Dharma has become a subject of joke for the officials,” he stated. His remarks suggested that the authorities’ actions were not merely administrative decisions but part of a larger pattern of undermining Hindu traditions and leadership.

Raju Das further framed the cancellation as a deliberate affront to the dignity of Hindu religious institutions, amplifying the grievances of the attendees and organisers. His rhetoric, steeped in the language of victimhood and religious insult, sought to rally support against what he portrayed as systemic disrespect for Sanatan Dharma by state officials. This sentiment resonated strongly with the audience, who viewed the disruption as an attack on their religious and cultural identity.

Unidentified monk: Video of an unidentified monk has also surfaced from the said event, where he has made comments that are deeply, concerning and reflect a blatant incitement to violence, hate, and religious intolerance. The speech, filled with derogatory language and dangerous rhetoric, targets Muslims and secular Hindus while calling for violent actions to “protect” Hindus from alleged threats. It attacks individuals and groups based on their religion, denigrates Muslims in particular, and glorifies the idea of violence as a form of self-defence for Hindus.

In one section, the monk lashes out at BJP ministers for not reacting strongly enough in Parliament, accusing them of being passive while Hinduism is allegedly attacked. He uses inflammatory language to suggest that Hindu ministers should resort to physical violence against their political opponents, specifically targeting a person referred to as “the son of Sonia,” presumably a reference to Rahul Gandhi. This rhetoric escalates by suggesting that Hindu ministers should “tear apart” their opponents in Parliament, a call to violent action that could undermine public trust in democratic processes.

The monk continues by declaring that Hindus have become “secular” and have lost their historical and religious significance, positioning them as victims of a perceived rise in Islamic power. His remarks paint a picture of Hindus as under siege and calls for an armed response against Muslims, suggesting that Hindus should “pick up arms” to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

Other parts of his speech contain discriminatory and violent language, referring to Muslims using dehumanizing terms such as “children of demons” and calling for the prevention of Azaan and Muslim events in mosques or madrasas. He makes inflammatory comparisons between Muslims and pigs, calling them undeserving of living in India, which is not only deeply offensive but also further fuels religious intolerance and division.

Such speech is dangerous and contributes to an atmosphere of hate and distrust between communities. It is crucial for legal and social systems to respond to such hate speech promptly, holding individuals accountable for statements that incite violence and undermine the principles of pluralism and coexistence that are foundational to a democratic society.

Transcription of the speech:

“In the parliament, the son of Sonia has been punching at nationalist ministers. Now tell me, you (BJP) have so many ministers present in the parliament, why did you not crush him there and then? They have attacked Hindus. It is so sad when we see him calling Hindus as violent while the Hindu ministers sit and watch. They should take the name of Mahadev and tear him apart in the Parliament itself.”

“Hindus are stupid. We see our God and Goddesses taking up weapons, but we have become secular Hindus and have lost everything. There used to be a time when our Sanatana Dharma was everywhere in the world, and there used to be no Father or Chaddar. But we have lost it all and the situation is such now that we are a minority in 9 states. They are the children of demons; they won’t leave us.”

“The way these Islamists are finishing those who are non-Muslims, it is high time that we pick up arms and be alarmed of their actions. Who will protect you? Now it is your time to pick up the arms and protect you children, your shops and houses, your family and future.”

“I want to urge the PM and the Union HM to ensure that no Azaan or any Muslim event takes place in any Madrasa or Mosque.”

In Maharashtra, there live some children on pigs, and then there are some Sanatanis present there who conquer over then and wave the flags of Sanatan.”

“There is this big monster in front of us who is planning to eradicate humanity, as they have done in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria. But I feel pain when yeh sab bh***o ke bache, yeh nalayak baap ki aulaad, s**r ke bache say that Hindu-Muslims are brothers. Are h*******n, nalayakon, those who could not be the brothers of their own sisters and cannot be brothers to Shias if they are Sunnis, how will they be our brothers?”

“There was an issue in a village where a s**r (slur for Muslims) was looting a cycle. When he was caught, the seculars wanted to leave him. But I am not a secular, I would have (makes gesture for taking out a sword and slaughtering) done it and taken the name of our Gods.”

“In India, we cannot have children of pigs living in India.”

Kalicharan Maharaj: Kalicharan Maharaj made controversial remarks in which he compared the teachings of Islam and Hinduism regarding war. He claimed that Muslims are taught that engaging in war would earn them women in heaven. In contrast, he referred to the Bhagavad Gita, suggesting that Hindus are taught that fighting to protect their religion will bring them God’s favour. However, he criticised Hindus for not following this principle, accusing them of being passive and failing to act when needed. He argued that those who do not follow God’s commands will not receive divine assistance in times of need. To underline his point, Kalicharan Maharaj referenced historical events, stating that when Muslims destroyed 500,000 Hindu temples, no divine intervention occurred, implying that the lack of action from Hindus led to this absence of divine help.

Transcription of the speech:

“They are told that if they indulge in war, they will get women in heaven. We are taught through Bhagwat Gita that if we indulge in war for protecting our religion, we will get God. But we do not follow the teachings of our Gods, and rather sit ideally. And those who do not follow the orders of God, the God will also not come to save them when they require it. History has seen it that when these Muslims demolished 5 lakh temples, no God came out.”

Related:

Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC

Yati Narsinghanand booked for comments on former president

UP: Yati Narsinghanand delivered provocative anti-Muslim hate speech, invoked Love-Jihad, temple demolition

The post Hate speech and calls for violence at Yati Narsinghanand’s Mahayagya event– A push for a Hindu Rashtra amidst dog whistling against Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The raids, conducted primarily in Muslim-dominated areas, have been criticised by all as biased and vindictive. Local Muslims describe the operation as a “witch hunt,” accusing the authorities of targeting their community under the guise of law enforcement. So far, the UPPCL claims to have uncovered power theft in numerous households, levying fines amounting to ₹1.3 crore. Several homes have had their power connections severed, leaving families in distress. Danish, a businessman from the area spoke to Maktoob media and voiced the community’s frustration: “Earlier, they used to demolish houses of Muslims. Now they are accusing us of power theft. They don’t want us to live peacefully.” 

Allegations against SP MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq- first rioting, now electricity theft

The most high-profile case involves Samajwadi Party MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq, whose home in Sambhal’s Deepa Sarai locality was raided by UPPCL officials accompanied by police. According to the authorities, Barq’s three-storey house was operating with two electricity meters, each with a capacity of just two kilowatts (kW), despite a load requirement of at least 16.5 kW. The electricity department alleged that the meters were tampered with, showing zero or minimal readings over the past six months. These discrepancies led to the disconnection of power and a hefty fine of ₹1.9 crore imposed on the MP.

Santosh Tripathi, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the electricity department spoke to multiple media houses and said, “A house of this size, equipped with air conditioners, refrigerators, and other electrical appliances, cannot function on such a low load. During inspections, we found that the meters registered zero consumption for six months.” Tripathi also alleged that solar panels installed at Barq’s residence were non-functional, further questioning the family’s explanation of their electricity usage.

However, Barq’s lawyer, Qasim Jamal, has rejected these allegations, asserting that the residence operates on two 4-kW meters, supplemented by a 10-kW solar panel and a 5-kW generator. “We will present all this evidence in court,” Jamal stated. Despite this defence, the authorities maintain their stance, with Additional Superintendent of Police Shrish Chandra affirming that evidence of tampering and unauthorised load has been documented.

Another threat FIR Against MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq- another layer of targeted action

Pursuant to the electricity raid, The Uttar Pradesh police have lodged an FIR against Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq and his father, Mamlook-ur-Rahman, accusing them of threatening and intimidating officials from the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). According to the complainants, UPPCL engineers V.K. Gangal and Ajay Sharma, who were inspecting the residence, faced threats from Mamlook-ur-Rahman. They allege that Mamlook told them he was recording their actions and warned that they would face consequences when the government changes. The engineers also claimed that the household was drawing over 16 kilowatts (kW) of power despite only being authorised for a 2-kW connection.

Notably, MP Barq denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated. He stated that the Yogi Adityanath government was targeting him for raising concerns about police violence during a controversial court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on November 24, which had resulted in the deaths of four Muslims. “I was not in Sambhal that day, yet the police booked me for instigating the mob. Now, they have filed another FIR against me. There is no power theft in my house; this is a false and motivated allegation,” Barq told reporters.

The FIR against Barq adds another dimension to the state’s actions against him. Already named in an FIR for allegedly instigating violence during the mosque survey, Barq has denied those charges as well, maintaining that he was not present in Sambhal at the time of the incident. He has challenged the accusations in the Allahabad High Court. However, the state has escalated its actions, first accusing him of power theft and now of threatening public servants.

The Shahi Jama Masjid survey itself has been a flashpoint in Sambhal, as it purportedly sought to determine whether the mosque was built by demolishing a temple during Mughal rule. The survey led to clashes between police and locals, with five Muslims killed and many others injured. Barq has been vocal in demanding justice for the victims, a stance he believes has made him a target for retribution.

Detailed reports on Sambhal may be read here and here.

This latest FIR reflects a pattern of suppressing dissent through legal and administrative means. For Barq, it underscores how opposition figures, particularly those raising issues affecting Muslim communities, are increasingly vulnerable to state-backed harassment. As he continues to contest these charges in court, the allegations against him and his family raise broader concerns about the use of legal mechanisms to silence critics and intimidate minorities.

Community concerns and broader implications

For the Muslim community in Sambhal, these allegations come amid heightened tensions following recent police violence. Many residents fear that the power theft crackdown is merely a continuation of the state’s efforts to marginalise them. The timing of these actions has further deepened suspicions. Shortly before the crackdown over electricity theft, a Hindu temple in Sambhal was reopened, with right-wing groups demanding surveys of surrounding areas and the removal of Muslim homes. Many have argued that the power theft raids and the accompanying media narrative serve to vilify Muslims and distract from the systemic targeting of their community.

The impact on residents has been severe. As per the report of the Indian Express, Idreesa, whose son was among those killed in November’s violence, has now been accused of power theft and fined ₹8,000. “They don’t want us to live peacefully,” said Zohaib, another resident, who noted that such actions are unprecedented in the region’s recent history.

The systematic nature of these raids, coupled with heavy police deployment, suggests an orchestrated effort to intimidate and harass the community. As demolitions face judicial oversight, electricity theft allegations are becoming a new weapon in the state’s arsenal, raising critical questions about the abuse of administrative power and the deepening marginalisation of minorities in Uttar Pradesh.

The strategic revival of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal: A questionable timeline

The reopening of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, has raised serious concerns about the government’s intent and the communal implications of its actions. Uncovered during an anti-encroachment drive, the temple had reportedly been locked since 1978 following communal riots that displaced the local Hindu community. Now, decades later, its “rediscovery” has been celebrated by BJP leaders and the state administration as a reclaiming of “heritage,” yet this timeline raises critical questions about its timing and motive.

Notably, following the Supreme Court’s recent stay on surveys of religious places, which was issued to prevent further exacerbation of communal strife, the focus seems to have shifted. Instead of directly targeting contested religious structures, the administration has pivoted to reviving claims over existing sites like the Shiv-Hanuman temple. This new approach suggests an effort to sustain the communal polarisation agenda while adhering to the legal restrictions imposed by the apex court.

The temple’s reopening has been accompanied by heavy security, symbolic gestures, and an intensified narrative of reclaiming lost heritage. Political leaders like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and other BJP figures have positioned the event as a moment of historical justice. Statements about idols being destroyed and houses being built over the temple land are being amplified, with little evidence provided to substantiate these claims. These assertions are deeply polarising and appear designed to pit communities against each other, especially when made in the backdrop of ongoing administrative action against Muslims in the region.

The disturbing cycle of targeted actions continues

This temple revival is not an isolated incident. It coincides with an intensified crackdown on Muslim communities in Sambhal under the pretext of anti-encroachment and electricity theft drives. These actions are not just administrative measures but appear to be a systematic strategy to marginalise and intimidate Muslims in the region. Several houses and mosques in Muslim-majority areas were accused of electricity theft, with officials alleging they found numerous appliances connected to meters that were switched off. Heavy fines have been imposed, and power connections severed, further destabilising these communities.

Residents have called these actions targeted harassment. They argue that the state government is finding new ways to exert pressure after the Supreme Court barred arbitrary demolitions and surveys of religious sites. As provided by a report of Times of India, Muslim residents in the area, fearing the loss of their homes and belongings, have begun demolishing their own houses, which the administration claims were built on “encroached temple property.” Residents have expressed their helplessness, stating that self-demolition allows them to salvage some possessions before inevitable action by the authorities. This grim scenario highlights the disproportionate burden placed on vulnerable communities, who are left with no choice but to dismantle their lives under the shadow of state-sanctioned aggression. 

A pattern of marginalisation and state attempts to create division- UP government to revisit 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

The Uttar Pradesh government’s plan to re-open the 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appears to be another instance of selectively reviving historical incidents to fuel contemporary communal narratives. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s statements linking Sambhal’s communal history to a broader pattern of victimisation of Hindus reinforce a polarising narrative that risks deepening existing tensions.

Adityanath’s claim that 209 Hindus were killed in communal riots in Sambhal since independence is framed to underline alleged historical injustices, but it sidesteps the broader and more complex realities of communal violence in the region. His assertion that the opposition has remained silent on Hindu casualties while showing concern over recent events not only politicises communal tragedies but also diverts attention from the need for accountability in handling current conflicts.

The decision to revisit the 1978 riots, while ostensibly aimed at ensuring justice, coincides with a series of administrative and legal measures in Sambhal that disproportionately target the Muslim community. Together, these actions create an atmosphere of communal antagonism rather than reconciliation.

Rather than fostering communal harmony or addressing systemic issues, re-opening the 1978 cases risks becoming a tool for perpetuating divisive narratives. Such a move underscores the need for caution and sensitivity in addressing communal histories to prevent further polarisation and escalation of tensions.

Related:

Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The entire tragedy at Parbhani, marked by violent police atrocities and custodial torture, was mitigated, in part, by the timely intervention of senior activists, their legal teams, and local journalists. As the combing operations began, Advocate Pavan Jhondhale and his colleagues swiftly made their way to the police station, where they encountered the terrified families of the victims, who were visibly cowering in fear. Advocate Jhondhale, speaking to SabrangIndia, recounted the chilling scene: “We could hear screams of pain coming from inside the locker room when we were at the police station after the combing operations.”

Advocate Jhondhale highlighted how the advocates were being stopped from meeting the victims. He stated“Following this, they visited the affected areas and made contact with the victims. On December 12, when the victims—seen as accused by the police—were brought to court, their injuries were unmistakable: bleeding, swollen limbs, and other visible signs of torture. The police’s behaviour at the Magistrates Court was hostile. They blocked the advocates from meeting the victims, erecting barricades to prevent communication. This occurred on December 12.”

Sharing how the victims of custodial torture, even after being presented to the court, could not express their pain and abuse that they were facing, Advocate Jhondhale said “Earlier, at the police station, the team had gathered details of the FIRs and the sections under which the victims had been booked. In FIR 590, 27 individuals had been arrested, while in FIR 591, 5 were detained. The advocates requested that the Magistrate ask the accused if they had any complaints about their treatment in police custody. However, out of sheer fear, the victims did not respond. The advocates urged the Magistrate to ask them again, as there were clear signs of injury.”

“When the Magistrate asked again, they still could not detail their treatment, out of intimidation,” Advocate Jhondhale explained. This led Advocate More, his colleague, to argue against extending the police remand due to the ill-treatment the victims had endured. Despite the compelling evidence, the court granted two more days of police custody.

Advocate Jhondhale  stressed on how the conditions of the victims worsened during the next two days that they spent in police custody, “On December 14, the advocates appeared in court again, and by this time, the condition of those who had been arrested had significantly worsened. It was then that the Magistrate ordered the victims to be transferred to Magistrate Custody (MCR). On December 15, a Sunday, all of the victims, including Somnath Suryawanshi, were transferred to MCR. Later that evening, the heartbreaking news came that Somnath Suryawanshi had died.”

While dealing with the fact that Somnath Suryawanshi died due to custodial torture, the team of advocates was also tasked with ensuring that the truth of how Somnath died gets documented and fair procedure is followed. Advocate Jhondhale said “Arguably, had the police custody remand (PCR) not been extended so routinely, a life might not have been lost. The advocates, in their efforts to seek justice, were also directed to the Sessions Court. On the very day of Somnath Suryawanshi’s death, December 15, Advocate Jhondhale provided that they had urgently requested an In Camera post-mortem and forensic examination to be conducted on Suryawanshi not in Parbhani, but in Shambhajinagat (Aurangabad). To ensure this, the advocates had to take the issue of the alleged death in police custody directly to the District Collector at her residential quarters on Sunday evening. They presented the guidelines and cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their demand. As a result of their persistent efforts, the transfer was finally ordered.”

Speaking to the SabrangIndia team, Advocate Pavan Jhondhale was categorical that it was this proactiveness that mitigated what could have turned out to be a far worse situation on the ground. His timely intervention, alongside the efforts of his colleagues and the local community, played a crucial role in addressing the police atrocities and ensuring that the victims’ suffering did not go unnoticed. Without this vigilance and persistence, the situation could have spiraled into something even more tragic.

Notably it was the combined legal and activist efforts of Pavan Jhondhale, Vijay Kale, Mahendra More, Imtiaz Khan, Vishwanath Anbhure, Vijay Sable that ensured some semblance of return to rule of law, in Parbhani post December 10, 2024.

Demands for a judicial inquiry have been made by the local affected population since December 17. In addition to the violent crackdown, several of those who reportedly are either residents of Parbhani or those who were peaceful protesting the desecration of the Constitution on December 10 were arrested on false charges. Among those arrested was Somnath Suryawanshi who succumbed to injuries allegedly inflicted in police custody after he had moved to judicial custody. Speaking to Sabrangindia on the status of the Ambedkarite protestors arrested on charges of rioting, advocate and activist, Rahul Pradhan Pradhan revealed that 26 individuals had been granted bail by the Sessions Court on December 18 and were expected to be released soon. However, five accused remain in jail, though none of them are women or minors.

न्यायासाठी आंदोलन थांबलेले नाही.
परभणी येथे आजपासून “न्याय आंदोलन” सुरू झाले असून परभणीतील सर्व आंबेडकरी समाज पक्षभेद, मतभेद सोडून साखळी आंदोलन करत आहे.

मी ही स्वतः आज या आंदोलनात सहभागी झालो. जो पर्यंत मुख्यमंत्री फडणवीस दोषी पोलिसांवर खुनाचे गुन्हे दाखल करणार नाहीत, तोपर्यंत… pic.twitter.com/oXhhYGt0vt

— Rahul Pradhan – राहूल प्रधान (@RahulPradhan84) December 19, 2024

Opposition protests, growing public discontent with the state government

The custodial death and the sarpanch’s murder became focal points for the opposition during the winter session of the Maharashtra legislature. Members of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), including the Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP, staged a walkout accusing the government of neglecting law and order. Congress leader Nitin Raut criticised the police and the administration, stating, “The interim medical report confirms police brutality. This is a gross failure of governance, and the government must act immediately to ensure justice.”

सोमनाथ सूर्यवंशीचा पोलीस कोठडीतील मृत्यू अमानुष मारहाणीमुळेच

कायद्याचा विद्यार्थी असलेल्या सोमनाथ सूर्यवंशीची कस्टडी डेथ पोलिसांनी केलेल्या अमाणूष मारहाणीमुळेच झाली. त्यामुळे सूर्यवंशीच्या मृत्यूला जबाबदार असणाऱ्या पोलिसांवर तातडीने गुन्हा दाखल करण्याची मागणी आज सभागृहात केली.… pic.twitter.com/a3wsZzZiD8

— Dr. Nitin Raut (@NitinRaut_INC) December 18, 2024

Speaking in the Assembly, Raut raised the issue of brutality against Dali women by male officers as well. He also took to social media and stated “After the desecration of the Constitution in Parbhani, the police administration took the precautions that should have been taken while this was happening. The police have lathi-charged Buddhists, Bhim Sainiks and those protecting the Constitution. The police have beaten up the mother of a one-and-a-half-month-old child in her house. All this is an outrage. The government demanded in the House to immediately register a case against the guilty police officers and take action.”

परभणीत संविधान विटंबना झाली यानंतर जो काय प्रकार घडला, हे प्रकार घडत असताना पोलीस प्रशासनाने जी दक्षता घ्यायला पाहिजे होती ती घेण्यात आली. बौद्ध लोकांना, भीमसैनिकांना आणि संविधानाचे रक्षण करणाऱ्यांवर पोलिसांनी लाठीचार्ज केला आहे. सव्वा महिन्याच्या मुलाच्या आईला घरात पोलिसांनी… pic.twitter.com/tVkzce2xwT

— Dr. Nitin Raut (@NitinRaut_INC) December 19, 2024

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Ambadas Danve expressed similar concerns, emphasising that the right to protest was being suppressed under the current regime. Congress MLA Nana Patole argued that the government’s mismanagement of the Parbhani violence and the Beed murder had heightened tensions across the state. Speaker Rahul Narwekar, however, rejected an adjournment motion to discuss these issues immediately, stating that the matter would be taken up later, leading to further outrage among opposition members.

The dual tragedies have led to mounting public anger, with activists, residents, and political leaders demanding accountability. In Parbhani, local residents staged protests alleging that the police crackdown disproportionately targeted Dalit communities. In Beed, Maratha leaders accused the administration of failing to address growing caste tensions.

Activists have raised contentions that the incidents highlight systemic flaws in governance, including police overreach, caste discrimination, and ineffective conflict resolution mechanisms. Opposition parties have called for judicial inquiries into both cases and immediate reforms to prevent such incidents in the future.

Protests and police brutality

The backdrop of these protests lies in the desecration of the Constitution on December 10, an incident that initially led to peaceful demonstrations by Ambedkarite groups. However, according to reports of eye-witnesses from the ground, these protests escalated into violence—an outcome many believe stemmed from law enforcement’s deliberate inaction. Advocate and  activist Rahul Pradhan, who has been on the ground in Parbhani since the incident, told SabrangIndia that the narrative pushed by the police does not reflect the truth. According to Pradhan, the Ambedkarite protests were entirely peaceful and concluded amicably after discussions between protest leaders—including activists Vijay Wakode, Sudhir Salve, and Ravi Kamble—and the police. He emphasised that the violence that later unfolded was not instigated by Ambedkarites but by unknown outsiders who engaged in arson, rioting, and stone pelting while the police stood by as passive onlookers.

Pradhan accused the police of enabling the violence, alleging that law enforcement allowed the hooligans to wreak havoc unchecked for hours. He noted that it wasn’t until the late evening of December 11 that the police began arresting individuals—but shockingly, their focus was on Ambedkarite activists who had peacefully protested rather than the actual perpetrators of the violence. “It seemed as if the police had an agenda, some instructions from above, and they were working according to it,” Pradhan stated.

The arrests of Ambedkarites were part of what Pradhan described as a targeted “combing operation” in Dalit and Buddhist-majority settlements. Such operations typically involve searching areas for individuals accused of cognisable offences, but in this case, the execution was brutal and indiscriminate. Pradhan and other activists recounted chilling accounts of police brutality during these raids, with men, women, and even children reportedly beaten savagely.

The horrors inflicted on these communities are deeply disturbing. Women were not spared, with male police officers allegedly assaulting them in particularly degrading and inhumane ways. Pradhan narrated the ordeal of a woman who had delivered a baby just a month prior—she was reportedly beaten without mercy. In another instance, police officers allegedly grabbed a woman by her hair, stood on her thighs, and struck her with sticks. Independent journalist Sharmistha Bhosale, who has been documenting the aftermath, shared harrowing images of the victims, corroborating these allegations of police excesses.

Rahul Pradhan’s accounts lay bare a grim reality: these raids were not about maintaining law and order but appeared to target Dalit and Buddhist communities in a manner that suggests systemic bias and state complicity. The violence unleashed by the police has left these communities traumatised, with many continuing to demand accountability and justice for the atrocities they endured. Suryawanshi’s death and the events that followed stand as a stark reminder of the deep-seated inequalities and institutional failures that plague the justice system in India. The outrage and protests sweeping Maharashtra are not just calls for justice for one man but a cry against the entrenched caste-based oppression and unchecked state violence that has gone on for far too long.

Sharmistha Bhosale, an independent journalist, also reporting from Parbhani, also shared her perspective with SabrangIndia, expressing deep anguish over the brutality inflicted upon the Dalit community, particularly women. “The way these people, especially the women, have been brutalised is beyond imagination. The targeted individuals are daily wage workers. Male police officers have, with impunity, used excessive force against Ambedkarites. Would male police inflict such gendered violence on women, even older women without the impunity born of political protection,” she asked. Sharmistha Bhosale shared exclusive photographs from Parbhani with Sabrangindia.

Advocate and activist Rahul Pradhan raised serious questions about the conduct of the police and their one-sided investigation into the Parbhani incident. According to Pradhan, the authorities are deliberately diverting attention away from the desecration of the Constitution, which initially triggered the protests. “Why have the police not checked the CCTV footage from the area where the desecration occurred? Did the perpetrator drop from heaven? Why is there no investigation against him?” he asked, pointing to glaring omissions in the police’s approach.

Pradhan also criticised the government for its inaction against the police officers involved. He argued that the absence of suspensions, transfers, or any punitive measures suggests tacit state support for the excessive use of force. “Even after the death of one Dalit man in custody and allegations of mass brutalisation, the government has taken no action against the police. If the state were not backing the excessive use of force against the marginalised, why would it stay quiet till now?” Pradhan remarked.

Pradhan, along with other activists, has demanded an independent judicial investigation into the entire series of events in Parbhani, beginning with the desecration of the Constitution and its underlying causes. He attributed the act of desecration to a climate of hate speeches prevalent in the area. Additionally, he called for the registration of an FIR against the erring police officers, including charges of custodial torture and murder in the case of Somnath Suryawanshi.

The demands for justice—ranging from a transparent investigation to accountability for the police—highlight the systemic flaws in how marginalised communities are treated by law enforcement and the state. The Parbhani incident is not merely a local tragedy but a reflection of a larger pattern of oppression and impunity that continues to plague India’s justice system.

“They took my son’s life” says deceased Somnath Suryawanshi’s mother

Under the scorching December sun in Parbhani, Vijaya Venkat Suryavanshi mourned the death of her eldest son, Somnath Suryavanshi, a 35-year-old law student from the marginalised Vadar community. Speaking to BBC Marathi, Vijaya recounted the heartbreak of losing her son while he was in judicial custody. “They deliberately took my son away. They beat him up and took his life. Then they called me to tell me he was gone,” she said, holding back tears. Somnath had travelled to Parbhani to take an exam but was arrested by the police in connection with the violence that erupted in the city on December 11. The police claim Somnath died of a heart attack, but the family strongly disputes this, pointing to the autopsy report that lists “shock following multiple injuries” as the cause of death.

The violence began after the desecration of a copy of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. Protests led by Ambedkarite groups culminated in a citywide bandh that escalated into stone-pelting and arson. Somnath, according to his family, had no involvement in the unrest but was arrested on December 11. He was held in police custody for two days before being transferred to judicial custody. By December 15, he was dead. The Suryavanshi family alleges that Somnath was subjected to severe custodial torture, with his brother Premnath detailing how the police “stripped him and beat him for days, trying to keep him alive with medical treatment until he succumbed.”

BBC Marathi’s on-ground reporting revealed accounts from Bhimnagar residents, who described widespread police brutality in the aftermath of the violence. Sudhakar Jadhav, a kidney patient recovering at home, claimed the police forcibly entered his house, dragged him and his son outside, and beat them ruthlessly. “They beat my son so much that his skin peeled off. The marks of their sticks are still visible on his back and thighs,” he said. Women in the area also alleged that they were assaulted, with one blind woman recounting how her son was beaten on his back and head. Activists from the Ambedkar movement accused the police of conducting targeted combing operations in Ambedkarite and Buddhist settlements, indiscriminately attacking residents, including women and children.

Rahul Pradhan asserted that the police “created terror” in these settlements under the guise of maintaining order. Vijay Wakode, another activist, accused the police of orchestrating Somnath’s death, alleging, “They beat him for two days in police custody and continued the assault in judicial custody.” Wakode himself passed away from a heart attack on December 16, adding another layer of tragedy to the unfolding events. Notably, Wakode had also been booked for rioting by the police.

Despite the mounting allegations, Special Inspector General Shahaji Umap dismissed claims of combing operations or misconduct. In a statement to BBC Marathi, Umap maintained that only individuals involved in the December 11 violence were detained and denied reports of police raids in residential areas. On Somnath’s death, Umap refrained from making further comments, suggesting that the medical report would provide definitive answers. There is however no response on the violence inflicted and injuries suffered by victims, evident from not just the post-morten but strong eye-witness accounts.

The Suryavanshi family and the residents of Bhimnagar continue to demand justice, accusing the police of unchecked brutality and systemic targeting of marginalised communities. This case has reignited concerns over custodial violence in India, with activists calling for accountability and reform to address the institutional impunity that enables such incidents. BBC Marathi’s detailed coverage sheds light on the devastating consequences of this alleged abuse of power, offering a grim reminder of the cost of silence and inaction.

Parbhani: Custodial death of a Dalit man

The unrest in Parbhani began on December 10 when a replica of the Indian Constitution placed near a statue of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar was vandalised. The desecration led to widespread protests by Dalit organisations, culminating in violence and clashes with the police on December 11. Incidents of stone-pelting and arson were reported, prompting the police to arrest several individuals. Among those arrested was 35-year-old Dalit law student Somnath Suryawanshi, who had reportedly returned to Parbhani to appear for an exam.

Somnath was taken into police custody on December 12 and subsequently transferred to judicial custody after having spent two days in police custody. On December 15, he complaint of chest pain, and when taken to the hospital was declared dead, with an interim postmortem report stating that the cause of death was “shock following multiple injuries.” His family alleged that he was subjected to severe custodial torture, with his brother, Premnath Suryawanshi, stating, “Somnath had nothing to do with the protests. He was beaten for days until he succumbed to his injuries.” Activists have accused the police of targeting Dalit settlements in the aftermath of the protests against the desecration of the Constitution, claiming that innocent people, including women and children, were subjected to violence during combing operations.

Detailed report on the same may be read here.

Beed: Murder of a Maratha sarpanch raises caste tensions

In Massejeog village of Beed district, the kidnapping and murder of Maratha sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh on December 9 has also caused significant unrest. Deshmukh, known for his leadership in the Maratha community, was allegedly killed in a caste-related dispute. The prime accused, Vishnu Chate, belongs to the OBC-Vanjari community, which has historically been at odds with the Marathas over issues such as reservation and local dominance.

As per multiple reports, Deshmukh’s body was discovered on the highway, and initial reports suggested he was tortured before being killed. Opposition leaders criticised the delay in apprehending the main accused, with NCP MLA Sandeep Kshirsagar noting that despite an extortion case being filed, no murder charges had been officially registered. BJP MLA Namita Mundada from Kaij described Deshmukh as a respected community leader whose death had shocked the region.

Custodial Violence in Parbhani: Tragedy and allegations of police brutality

The custodial death of 35-year-old Dalit youth Somnath Suryawanshi in Parbhani and the kidnapping and murder of Maratha sarpanch Santosh Deshmukh in Beed have triggered widespread condemnation from various political parties, Dalit organisations, and social groups. Both incidents have exposed systemic governance failures and reignited debates on caste-based discrimination and police brutality in Maharashtra.

In Pune, the Matang Ekta Andolan and the Republican Party of India (RPI) organised protests in front of the district collector’s office. RPI leader Parshuram Wadekar called for an independent inquiry into the incidents and demanded stringent action against those found responsible. A Dalit organisation released a statement condemning police actions in Parbhani, claiming that the authorities conducted brutal search operations targeting Dalit youths and women after the protests. The statement read, “After Dalit youths agitated in Parbhani, the police conducted search operations and beat the youths and women. Action should be taken against those found guilty.”

Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) city president Prashant Jagtap announced agitations outside the Pune collector’s office, stating, “Both the Parbhani custodial death and Beed sarpanch murder reflect a breakdown of law and order. This government must be held accountable for failing to protect its citizens.”

Related:

No quality education without teaching equality, secularism, fraternity value: SC

Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character

Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC

The post State-sanctioned brutality? Dalit communities targeted in Parbhani “combing operations”, women, children abused appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court had earlier directed authorities to take immediate action against such hate speeches and events, even if no formal complaint was made. However, despite clear announcements about the “Dharam Sansad” and its harmful content being shared publicly, the authorities have failed to act. This petition calls for the Court to intervene and ensure that the law is enforced, so as to prevent any further spread of hate and violence.

Not only through legal means, many religious organisations have also condemned the scheduled event. The Satya Dharam Samvad (SDS), a collective of 62 prominent Hindu Acharyas, has also spoken against the divisive nature of the proposed “Dharam Sansad,” calling for its rejection and emphasising the need for unity, tolerance, and interfaith dialogue. In a statement, they expressed concern over the misuse of religion to incite hatred and violence, reaffirming that Hinduism, with its core principles of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions), stands for peace, acceptance, and harmony.

Satya Dharam Samvad condemns the “Dharam Sansad” and calls for unity

The Satya Dharam Samvad (SDS), an organisation of Hindu Acharyas, has called upon Hindu religious leaders and organisations to reject the divisive “Dharam Sansad” proposed by the Yati Narsinghanand Foundation, scheduled to take place from Tuesday to Saturday at the Shiv-Shakti temple complex in Ghaziabad’s Dasna. In a joint statement signed by 62 Acharyas, including prominent figures like Swami Raghavendra, Acharya Bajrang, Mahant, Prof. Anantanand Rambachan, Ashok Maharaj Kamble, and Ashok Sangpa, the SDS emphasised the importance of promoting unity, tolerance, and dialogue over hatred and division.

The statement expressed deep concern over the increasing misuse of religion to spread violence and discord, urging a return to the foundational values of Hinduism – Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and Sarva Dharma Sambhava (equal respect for all religions). It affirmed that Hinduism has always stood for peace, acceptance, and harmony, rejecting caste-based divisions and any form of oppression. True spirituality, the signatories asserted, lies in recognising the divine presence in all beings and fostering mutual respect.

The SDS also criticised the “World Religion Convention” and the provocative speeches targeting specific faiths that are being promoted as part of the upcoming event. These actions, they argued, are a departure from the true essence of Sanatan Dharma, undermining its spiritual sanctity while threatening the harmony of the nation. The statement firmly condemned words or actions that promote hatred, disrespect other religions, or incite violence, calling such behaviour completely at odds with Hindu principles.

Calling for interfaith understanding and peaceful coexistence, the SDS urged religious leaders to oppose the exploitation of religion for political or divisive purposes. They also called on the authorities to take accountability and ensure that religion is not misused to fuel division. The signatories appealed for unity, urging Hindus and people of all faiths to come together with kindness and mutual respect, recognising that India’s true strength lies in its diversity and shared harmony.

The press release may be read here.

Details of the petition

Background: The petition had been filed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 129 of the Constitution, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition arises from the deliberate and wilful disobedience of two specific orders passed by the Supreme Court: the order dated October 21, 2022 in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 940/2022) and the order dated April 28, 2023 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 943/2021). These orders had directed state authorities to take suo- motu action against hate speech or activities that attract offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), even in the absence of formal complaints. The orders further clarified that any hesitation or delay in complying with these directions would amount to contempt of court.

The petition states that despite these explicit directives, the petition highlights that the authorities in Uttar Pradesh, including the Commissioner of Police, District Magistrate, and Director General of Police, have failed to act against an upcoming event titled “Dharam Sansad,” scheduled to take place from December 17 to 21 at Shiv Shakti Dham, Dasna, Ghaziabad. The event, organised by the Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati Foundation, has been widely publicised through a website titled worldreligiousconvention.org. The website and the event itself are rooted in incendiary, communal content that openly propagates hate against the Muslim community, posing a direct threat to constitutional values of secularism and fraternity. The contempt petition seeks immediate judicial intervention to prevent this event and hold the respondents accountable for their failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s earlier orders.

The content of the event and its communal nature: The petition brings to the Court’s attention the blatantly inflammatory and communal nature of the content being disseminated through the website promoting the “Dharam Sansad” event. The petition provides that the mission statement of the event openly declares:

“The World Religious Parliament is a meaningful initiative to warn the whole world about the danger of Islam and it is an effort to bring together every Non-Muslim of all over the countries.”

Further, the petition also provides the vision statement that outlines an explicit and dangerous agenda:

“Our goal is to free the entire world from Islamic Jihad. This is our specific goal and to achieve this goal, we will take all possible steps.”

In addition to the website’s content, the petition underscores that provocative and hateful language has been used in public speeches made by the event organisers, event as the announcement of the Dharam Sansad was being made. As per the petition, Yati Ramswaroopanand, one of the key figures associated with the event, delivered a speech in Dehradun on September 10, 2024, describing Muslims as “not human” and calling for Uttarakhand to be made “Islam mukt.” He further urged Hindus to “keep good weapons and learn how to use them.” The petition provides supporting material, including transcripts, screenshots, and reports, to substantiate these claims.

The petition emphasises that the dissemination of such incendiary content and the planned congregation of individuals with a documented history of hate speech is not only a violation of Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the IPC but also strikes at the core of India’s constitutional values of secularism, harmony, and fraternity.

Track record of violence and state inaction: The contempt petition goes beyond the immediate concern of the “Dharam Sansad” and highlights the troubling track record of the individuals involved in organising and promoting the event. Individuals like Yati Narsinghanand and Yati Ramswaroopanand have repeatedly made provocative speeches inciting communal violence. For instance:

• In October 2024, Darshan Bharati, another organiser of the “Dharam Sansad,” instigated a violent rally in Uttarkashi, where stones were thrown at the police, injuring 27 people, including police personnel.
• In September 2024, a speech delivered by Yati Narsinghanand in western Uttar Pradesh, against Prophet Mohammad, led to mass protests and violence in the region.
• In 2023, in Purola, Uttarkashi, a false “love jihad” narrative was used to incite violence, leading to attacks on Muslim-owned shops and the forced displacement of Muslim families. Subsequent court findings revealed that the case was fabricated, yet no action was taken against the instigators.

The petition highlights that despite a well-documented history of hate speech and communal violence directly linked to these individuals, the state authorities have failed to take preventive action or register FIRs, as mandated by the Supreme Court. This consistent inaction emboldens the organisers and poses an imminent threat to communal harmony in the region.

The petition argues that the respondents’ failure to act constitutes not just a dereliction of duty but a wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s orders. By ignoring repeated provocations and open announcements of such events, the state authorities are in clear contempt of court.

Legal basis and prayer for relief: The petition places heavy reliance on two recent judgments of the Supreme Court to strengthen its legal argument. In Chaduranga Kanthraj URS v. P. Ravi Kumar (2024), the Court clarified that wilful disobedience—deliberate and intentional disregard of court orders—constitutes civil contempt. Similarly, in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna (2024), the Court expanded the scope of contempt, holding that any act intended to undermine the judicial process also falls within its ambit. The petition argues that the respondents’ failure to prevent the “Dharam Sansad” event, despite its provocative and unconstitutional nature, directly undermines the Court’s authority and frustrates its earlier orders.

The petition concludes with the following prayers:

1. To initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for their deliberate non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders dated October 12, 2022 and April 28, 2023.
2. To issue immediate directions to the respondents to take legal action against the organisers, speakers, and promoters of the “Dharam Sansad” event. This includes issuing prohibitory orders to prevent the event from taking place and registering FIRs against those involved.
3. To pass any other relief that the Court may deem necessary to uphold its authority, safeguard public order, and protect constitutional values.

The petition emphasises that the Court’s intervention is not only necessary to address the specific case of non-compliance but also to reaffirm the rule of law and the constitutional mandate of secularism and fraternity. By allowing such events to proceed unchecked, the respondents are enabling the erosion of these values and endangering communal harmony across the nation. The petition, therefore, calls upon the Court to take strong and decisive action to ensure compliance with its earlier orders and prevent further escalation of hate speech and violence.

A detailed report on the widespread opposition that the Dharam Sansad is facing can be read here.

Related:

Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC

Uttarakhand: Retd. Muslim Army Officer Faces Ire of ‘Hindutva’ Forces; FIR Filed After 2-Yr Legal Battle

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance

The post Dharm Sansad: Hindu Religious leaders condemn ‘divisive’ event even as a contempt petition is filed in SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioners, a group of former civil servants and activists, have highlighted that the event’s website and promotional materials are riddled with inflammatory content, openly calling for violence against followers of Islam. They have accused the Ghaziabad District Administration and Uttar Pradesh Police of failing to implement the Supreme Court’s clear directives to take suo-moto action against hate speech.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, urgently mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, seeking immediate intervention as the event is set to commence tomorrow. However, the Chief Justice directed Bhushan to file a formal urgency application, leaving precious little time for any concrete action to prevent this hate-filled gathering.

The petitioners include notable figures such as Aruna Roy (Retd IAS), Ashok Kumar Sharma, Deb Mukarji, and Navrekha Sharma (Retd IFS), along with Syeda Hameed, former NCW Chief, and Vijayan MJ, a social researcher. These individuals have consistently spoken against the rising tide of communal violence and the growing impunity of hate-mongers like Narsinghanand.

It is worth recalling that the ‘Dharam Sansad’ events held by Narsinghanand in 2021 sparked national outrage due to their explicit calls for genocide against Muslims. Despite his arrest for hate speech and his subsequent release on bail, Narsinghanand has continued to spew communal poison without restraint. Shockingly, even the Supreme Court’s notice to him in a criminal contempt case for his derogatory remarks against the judiciary has done little to curb his hateful tirades.

The state’s apparent refusal to act in the face of such blatant incitement raises troubling questions: Is the administration complicit in enabling hate speech? Or has the law been reduced to a mere spectator, powerless against the rise of hate-driven extremism? With the Dharam Sansad on the horizon, the consequences of this inaction could be catastrophic.

It is essential to provide here that sources from the ground have told SabrangIndia that the Utar Pradesh police has issued a letter that Dharam Sansad has not been granted permission. It is pursuant to the same that Yati Narsinghanand had announced they are moving the event to Haridwar. However, the Source has told the SabrangIndia team that the Haridwar police has also issued a letter stating that they have denied the permission, but the organisers of the event are threatening to go ahead.

Hate speech marks the announcement of controversial ‘Dharm Sansad’ in Uttarakhand

On September 10, 2024, Yati Ramswaroopanand, a close associate and follower of the infamous Yati Narsinghanand, delivered a deeply disturbing hate speech at the Dehradun Press Club. The event, ostensibly organised for “Sanatani Hindus,” became a platform for Ramswaroopanand to spew venomous and dehumanising rhetoric against Muslims, where he shockingly announced the upcoming ‘Dharm Sansad,’ scheduled for December. This announcement, made against a backdrop of vile and divisive commentary, exemplifies the dangerous intersection of hate speech and communal mobilisation in India.

During his speech, Ramswaroopanand labelled Muslims as “not human” and called for stripping them of their rights, openly dehumanising an entire community. He incited fear with baseless and grotesque claims, alleging that Muslims in Bangladesh had “raped, cut into pieces, and eaten” women. He used this fabricated narrative to argue that Uttarakhand was on the verge of becoming a “second Bangladesh,” stoking communal tensions with deliberate misinformation. The seer even urged Hindus to “arm themselves” under the pretext of protecting their families, a call that dangerously borders on incitement to violence. (Detailed report may be read here.)

In his inflammatory speech, Ramswaroopanand claimed that Muslims were increasing their population to create new countries, while Hindus were being rendered “impotent” and helpless. He pledged to use the December ‘Vishwa Dharma Sansad’ to strategise ways to make Uttarakhand “Islam-mukt” (free of Islam), directly advocating for communal exclusion and hatred.

A video of the said speech may be referred here:

The event, promoted as a gathering for “Sanatani Hindus,” was widely publicised on social media. Videos of Ramswaroopanand’s speech, which included phrases like “Every person reading and believing the Quran becomes a terrorist,” went viral, sparking outrage and concern. The Dalanwala police registered a suo motu FIR under sections 196 (promoting enmity) and 353 (public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Dehradun SSP Ajai Singh cited Supreme Court guidelines requiring immediate action against hate speech, but beyond the FIR, no substantive steps have been taken to hold the speaker accountable.

This event is particularly alarming because the announcement of the ‘Dharm Sansad’—an event already under scrutiny for its history of incendiary rhetoric—was made at a venue where hate speech was not only delivered but celebrated. Ramswaroopanand’s remarks mirror the toxic legacy of his mentor, Yati Narsinghanand, who has a long history of using platforms like the ‘Dharam Sansad’ to spread communal hatred.

Notably, Narsinghanand himself is the key organiser of this upcoming ‘Dharam Sansad.’ Despite being out on bail with explicit conditions prohibiting him from making hate speeches, he continues to flout the law with impunity. On September 29, 2024, he had delivered another inflammatory speech in Ghaziabad, which led to violence. Yet, the Uttar Pradesh police have failed to seek the cancellation of his bail, enabling him to orchestrate yet another divisive event.

This pattern of impunity has drawn sharp criticism from civil society. An open letter by former civil servants and activists, including Aruna Roy, Ashok Kumar Sharma, and Syeda Hameed, lambasted the authorities for failing to enforce the Supreme Court’s directives on hate speech. The letter called out the administration for allowing events like the ‘Dharm Sansad’ to proceed, despite their clear potential to incite violence and disrupt communal harmony.

The stakes are high as the ‘Dharam Sansad’ approaches. Ramswaroopanand and other organisers have continued their campaign of provocation, even presenting blood-written letters to Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Dhami in November, demanding the state be declared “jihad-free.” This dramatic and deeply unsettling act underscores the audacity of these hate-mongers and the complicity of those who enable their actions.

The announcement of the ‘Dharm Sansad’ at an event laced with hate speech is a stark reminder of the growing normalisation of communal hatred in India. The failure to act decisively against figures like Ramswaroopanand and Narsinghanand sends a dangerous message: hate speech and calls for violence can be delivered without fear of consequences. With the event just days away, the question remains—will the state and law enforcement finally act, or will this disturbing cycle of hate continue unchecked?

Opposition to the upcoming Dharam Sansad

1. Civil Society groups demand action against upcoming ‘Dharam Sansad’: In a strong show of resistance, over 65 organisations and 190 civil society activists from 22 states have addressed an open letter to the President of India, urging the immediate cancellation of a ‘Dharam Sansad’ planned from December 19 in Uttar Pradesh. Organised by notorious Hindutva leaders, including Yati Narsinghanand—who has repeatedly been accused of delivering hate speeches and inciting violence—the event has sparked nationwide concern over its potential to stoke communal tensions.

The letter highlights the unchecked actions of Hindutva figures like Narsinghanand, Rakesh Tomar, and Darshan Bharati, who, despite facing multiple charges for hate speech and direct violations of bail conditions, continue to operate with impunity. “No action is being taken against these individuals despite their history of incitement to violence and their blatant defiance of court orders,” the letter states, underlining the grave inaction by law enforcement agencies and the state governments.

The signatories caution against the planned ‘Dharam Sansad,’ warning that it involves individuals with records of violence and hate crimes. They also raise alarm over the involvement of “national and international elements” linked to such crimes. The letter asserts, “A group of people already charged with multiple offences, whose activities have drawn national and international condemnation, is planning a public gathering in western Uttar Pradesh with the explicit intent to propagate hate and division.”

Representatives from prominent organisations such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA), Ambedkar Students Forum, Bharat Jodo Abhiyan, and Bebak Collective are among the signatories. These groups have consistently worked to uphold constitutional values and fight against communal violence.

The letter makes urgent demands, including:

• Immediate cancellation of the ‘Dharam Sansad.’
• Prevention of international participants linked to hate crimes from entering India for the event.
• Legal action by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments to revoke the bail granted to Yati Narsinghanand and others in violation of their bail conditions.
• Enforcement of Supreme Court orders to prosecute hate speech and protect minorities from targeted attacks.
• Compensation for victims, especially minorities, who have suffered violence as a result of hate speech and inflammatory events.

The civil society members emphasise that the union Government and the state administrations have a constitutional duty to act against hate crimes and uphold public order. They argue that failing to prevent this gathering will further embolden individuals already responsible for communal disharmony and violence.

The letter ends with a plea for accountability: “We urge the government to comply with the law, safeguard minorities, and ensure that such divisive and inflammatory programmes are not allowed to threaten the secular fabric of our country.”

This urgent appeal underscores the growing frustration among civil society groups over the unchecked rise of hate speech and violence in India and their determination to confront this disturbing trend through collective action.

2. Former civil servants urge Union HM Amit Shah to intervene against communal events in Uttarakhand: Over eight dozen former civil servants have written an open letter to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, demanding immediate action to prevent the planned Mahapanchayat in Uttarkashi on November 4, 2024, and the Dharma Sansad scheduled for December. These events, organised by figures like Yati Narsinghanand, have been condemned for spreading hate and inciting violence against minorities. The signatories, part of the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), have expressed grave concern over the inaction of the Uttarakhand police in addressing violations of bail conditions by Narsinghanand and others, despite their repeated use of incendiary rhetoric to foment communal unrest. They argue that Narsinghanand, in particular, should be arrested under the National Security Act (NSA) for attempting to disrupt public order.

The letter underscores a troubling shift in Uttarakhand, a state once celebrated for its peace and pluralism, which is now being transformed into a breeding ground for communal hatred. The former civil servants highlighted what they called a “wilful injection of communal poison” into the state’s social fabric, driven by majoritarian forces seeking to create an aggressive and militarised version of Hindutva. These efforts, they argue, are aimed at forcing minorities to live in perpetual fear while promoting a narrative of Hindu supremacy. The letter calls this strategy a template for spreading similar campaigns across other regions that have thus far resisted such divisive politics.

The former bureaucrats sharply criticised the authorities’ failure to act against hate speech and violence, despite clear Supreme Court directives mandating legal accountability. They also expressed dismay at the lack of action against repeated bail violations by individuals like Narsinghanand, who has continued to organise events aimed at inciting communal violence. The signatories demanded that both the Mahapanchayat and Dharma Sansad be immediately cancelled, and that the police take strict legal action against all those involved in promoting hate and inciting violence. They further urged the Union government to ensure accountability from the Uttarakhand police, insisting that the state’s law enforcement agencies must act in accordance with constitutional principles and judicial mandates.

In their appeal, the signatories expressed no political affiliation, stating that their concern is solely for the preservation of peace and harmony in Uttarakhand. They warned that failing to act decisively against such events would irreversibly damage the state’s legacy of coexistence and turn it into yet another battleground for communal conflict. Through this letter, the CCG has once again called attention to the escalating threat of communal polarisation in India and the urgent need for firm government intervention to uphold the nation’s secular values.

The letter may be read here.

3. Ayodhya’s Mahant Ram Das appeals to State and Union Governments to deny permission for Yati’s event: Mahant Ram Das, a prominent religious leader from Ayodhya, has appealed to both the State and Central Governments to withhold permission for the controversial World Religious Convention scheduled to take place at Dasna, Ghaziabad, organised by Yati Narsinghanand. Known for his inflammatory rhetoric and involvement in communal hate speech, Narsinghanand’s event has raised serious concerns regarding the potential for further incitement to violence and communal unrest. In his appeal, Ram Das emphasised the need to uphold public order and prevent any event that could disrupt the peace and harmony of the region, urging the authorities to take a firm stance against such divisive gatherings.

The social media post may be accessed below:

The controversial rise of the ‘Dharma Sansad’ and Yati Narsinghanand’s hate speech

A Dharma Sansad, or “Religious Parliament,” is traditionally a platform for Hindu religious leaders, or Sants, to deliberate on issues they deem important to Hindu dharma and make decisions regarding religious matters. The first Dharma Sansad was convened by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in 1984 at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, where a pivotal decision was made to launch the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, igniting one of the most contentious religious and political struggles in India’s history that led to violence and encouraged divisions. Subsequent Dharma Sansads were held in various parts of the country, with the VHP’s margadarshak mandal (a body of 65 prominent Sants) at the helm of these events. These sansads began to focus on a wide range of issues concerning Hindu identity and unity, often invoking deep religious sentiments and ideologies rooted in the belief of Hindu cultural and religious supremacy.

In the 1985 Dharma Sansad held in Udupi, for instance, resolutions were passed demanding that important religious sites, such as Shri Ramjanmabhoomi, Shri Krishnajanmasthan, and the Kashi Vishwanath temple, be immediately handed over to the Hindu community. These resolutions set the stage for a series of confrontations that would come to define the religious and political landscape of India for decades, where foundation for religious attacks against religious places and Hindu majoritarianism would be set. Since then, the VHP has organised 17 such sansads, where religious leaders gather to guide the Hindu community on matters of faith, spirituality, and social cohesion. However, the nature of these events has changed over time, especially as they have become increasingly intertwined with the rise of Hindutva politics.

In recent years, the tone has shifted towards a more aggressive and exclusionary rhetoric. The last Dharma Sansad in Haridwar in 2019 demanded the freeing of Hindu temples from government control, and it was held against the backdrop of rising tensions between different religious communities in India. These events, however, started taking a more radical turn with the controversial Dharma Sansad held in Haridwar in December 2021, a shocking turning point in the nature of these gatherings. Over the course of three days, prominent Hindutva figures, hard-line religious leaders, and right-wing activists delivered speeches urging violence against Muslims and calling for a complete annihilation of the Muslim community. The event, which attracted national attention, also saw the participation of BJP leaders like Ashwini Upadhyay, whose involvement in previous events calling for violence against Muslims had already raised alarm.

The Haridwar Dharma Sansad became infamous for the volume of hate speech that was broadcast publicly. Among the most vocal speakers was Yati Narsinghanand, notorious for his incendiary remarks and hate-driven rhetoric. During the event, Narsinghanand, alongside other prominent speakers, incited violent action, calling for genocide and openly threatening the Muslim community. Video footage from the event, including a disturbing clip showing Narsinghanand threatening police officers during the arrest of Jitendra Narayan Tyagi (formerly Wasim Rizvi), further highlighted the dangerously inflammatory nature of the gathering. In the video, Narsinghanand can be heard telling the police, “Tum sab maroge” (“You will all die”), showcasing his disregard for public order and law enforcement.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the legal response was slow. The police only filed an FIR on December 23, and Tyagi was arrested on January 13, 2022, for his inflammatory remarks at the event. Narsinghanand was arrested a few days later, but received bail on February 7, 2022, despite his history of hate speech and his violation of bail conditions. His bail conditions required him not to repeat the same offences or participate in any events that could stir communal disharmony. Yet, just months after his release, Narsinghanand continued his hate-driven activism, making further derogatory and harmful remarks about Muslims.

In September 2024, Narsinghanand stirred controversy once again during an event in Ghaziabad, where he called for the burning of effigies of Prophet Muhammad instead of Ravana during Dussehra. His provocative speech incited widespread anger within the Muslim community, triggering mass protests across multiple cities, including Kashmir, Saharanpur, Aligarh, Meerut, Ghaziabad, and Hyderabad. Protesters demanded Narsinghanand’s immediate arrest, accusing him of inciting violence and spreading communal hatred. His inflammatory rhetoric also included references to Muslim workers infiltrating Hindu homes, accusing them of targeting Hindu women. This baseless and harmful accusation further fuelled tensions, as it played into already existing stereotypes and prejudices, creating a sense of fear and division.

The protests across the country are a direct response to Narsinghanand’s repeated violations of the law and his role in inciting hatred and violence. While Narsinghanand continues to enjoy significant support within certain Hindutva circles, his actions have clearly crossed the line into criminal behaviour. However, despite the widespread public outcry, authorities have failed to take firm action against him, allowing him to continue stoking communal tensions.

In November 2024, CJP had released a chilling investigative video exposing the dangerous rise of hate in India. It goes beyond individuals like Yati Narsinghanand to uncover the deeper ecosystem that fuels their venom. Hindutva organisations, social media platforms like Meta, and government inaction—this is the unholy nexus enabling hate to thrive unchecked. Through shocking footage, incendiary speeches, and in-depth analysis, the video reveals alarming patterns of violence against Muslims and other minorities. Yet, amidst the despair, CJP stands firm—fighting legal battles, documenting hate crimes, and holding perpetrators accountable. If the government won’t act, civil society must rise. But how long can this burden fall on the people? How much longer will justice remain a distant dream?

The CJP video may be viewed here.

A deep dive into Yati Narsinghanand’s history of spreading hate may be read here.

Related:

Uttarakhand: Retd. Muslim Army Officer Faces Ire of ‘Hindutva’ Forces; FIR Filed After 2-Yr Legal Battle

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance

The post Fierce backlash grows against Yati Narsinghanand’s Dharam Sansad as fears of incitement to violence escalate; plea moved in SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It was on December 8 after delivering a speech at an event organised by the legal cell of Hindu right-wing organisation Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) that these remarks were reportedly made.

The Opposition clock, led by independent member of parliament, senior counsel Kapil Sibal has already submitted an impeachment notice against him. The motion, signed by 55 MPs, is expected to be addressed during the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament.

On December 10, Monday, Sabrangindia had done a detailed story on the sharp reactions to the Judge’s remarks, including letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjeev Khanna by Brinda Karat, polit bureau member of the CPI-M and letters by several advocate organisations and unions. Controversially, on December 15, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh (UP, the state where the remarks were made, Adityanath stated that he “agreed” with the remarks of the Judge!

During his lecture at the VHP function, on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Justice Yadav made controversial remarks asserting that India will operate according to the wishes of the majority population.  He also made a series of other controversial remarks during his speech, including the use of the term “kathmullah,” a derogatory slur against Muslims. It was two days later, sources informed Bar & Bench that the top court had taken note of the controversy, with its administrative side calling for details from Allahabad High Court.

The comments made by the sitting judge has led to demands that he be impeached and judicial work be withdrawn from him in the meantime.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) had thereafter also filed a formal complaint with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) demanding an in-house enquiry against Justice Yadav. Incidentally, on December 12, Allahabad High Court announced a major change in the roster of Justice Yadav. Effective December 16, he will only be hearing first appeals – cases arising out of orders passed by district courts, and that too only those filed up to 2010.

Related:

Impeach the Judge, INDIA bloc set to move impeachment motion against HC judge who made communal hate-speeches

Justice Yadav, a sitting HC judge, and his speech at VHP event that was riddled with anti-Muslim rhetoric and majoritarian undertones

The post SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The retired Army officer was not only accused of having “a Pakistani connection and providing education to ‘Talibanis’” and also being “anti-Hindu”. While, the local police refused to help the beleaguered Army veteran by filing a case against such elements, he has been left to fighting a case in the local court for the past two years just to get a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against four alleged accused who, he says “created a nasty vilification campaign against the retired Muslim Army officer on social media, tried to inflame communal passions, gathered a mob against him with an alleged attempt to harm him and even blackmailed him to part with money.”

The former Army officer had to fight a long legal battle in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar in Dehradun district for two years to get an order asking the police to lodge a case against four persons, namely, Rakesh Tomar alias Rakesh Tomar Uttarakhandi, Girish Chander Dalakot, Bhupendra Dogra and Solanki.

Finally, on December 7, 2024, the Vikasnagar police lodged a case under Sections 386, 505 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against these persons, but till date no action has been taken against them.

Rakesh Tomar Uttarkhandi, president of the Rudra Sena, was also allegedly involved in the Purola ‘Love Jehad’ case and resultant targeting of Muslims in Uttarkashi district in the summer of 2023. The Purola case was later proved to be false and motivated in a court of law.

This is a story of Lt. Col. Abdul Qadir (retd), who has been running Bright Angels School, a prestigious senior secondary CBSE school in Vikasnagar town. The school is popular among all the sections of the society in the area. Qadir is a popular figure and had contested the Vikasnagar Assembly polls on a Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) ticket in the 2007 Assembly elections and polled more than 8,000 votes. He later joined the BJP and being an educationist, was given a position of vice-chairman of the Muslim Education Mission, a state government body under then Chief Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank.  But that was long ago.

In his complaint to the police, Lt.Col. Abdul Qadir (retd) said that he had been running the school for the past many years. But trouble started on July 21, 2022, when the school management decided to call off the school at 12.30 on a Friday. The decision of the school management was criticised by some people and the school decided to take back the decision, seeking an apology if “anyone was hurt by such a decision”. The school management clarified that the decision was taken for the convenience of the staff and not for Friday ‘Jumma’ prayers, as alleged.

He further alleged in his complaint that Rakesh Tomar Uttarakhandi, along with his accomplices, continued a communal tirade against the school with an intention to cause a “communal riot by inciting people to gather at the school and to vilify the school through social media campaign.”

The retired Army officer stated that as a result of such a social media campaign against him, comments like “Is H****i ko G**li Mar do” were posted. On July 24, 2022, Rakesh Tomar Uttarkhandi, with alleged intention to cause harm to the owner and his school, gathered a mob but due to police presence, burnt an effigy of the school owner, as police looked the other way. Lt.Col Abdul Qadir (retd) has further alleged in his complaint that Rakesh Tomar Uttarakhandi sent a him message seeking a ransom of Rs. 10 lakh.

In his complaint in the court, the former Army officer said he had no idea that the alleged accused already had criminal cases registered against them. He alleged that the accused threatened him of “their reach on social media” and if he dared to complain against Uttarakhandi, he would “emerge as a hero” in the backdrop of Hindu-Muslim politics being played out in the hill state. The retired Army officer has sought action under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468. 471, 384, 120 B of IPC to be read with Section 67 of the IT Act.

The application in the local court was moved under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.Pc (criminal procedure code). He has also sought protection for him and his family under the given circumstances.

The Uttarakhand Police, despite filing a FIR on December 7, 2024, is yet to take any action against the accused.

Interestingly, Rakesh Tomar Uttarakhandi addressed media persons on Thursday evening and continued his tirade against the retired Army officer and his school, charging him of being “anti-Hindu” and “anti-national” and instead seeking action against him.

The writer is a freelancer based in Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

Courtesy: NewsClick

The post Uttarakhand: Retd. Muslim Army Officer Faces Ire of ‘Hindutva’ Forces; FIR Filed After 2-Yr Legal Battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is true that the degree of intensity of the policies of these two, Hindu Nationalism and Taliban, are very different but if one digs deep into the issue one can see the basic similarities in these types of politics. The Taliban policies towards women, the attitude of many Gulf countries and Iran are similar but not exactly the same. No two countries express their policies on ditto lines. Still one can discern the similarities at the level of principles. This phenomenon, fundamentalism in these countries has come up mainly from the decade of 1980s, with Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power in Iran; he changed the social landscape drastically. While at superficial level fundamentalism means going to the fundamentals, it is not just that. Fundamentalism is an imposition of selected parts of religious traditions on the society through state power. Many times this is done even not by the government which is ruling; but by dominant political tendencies.

These impositions are most conservative, backward looking and oppressive not only to women but also to the other weaker sections of society. Fundamentalism always strengthens itself by creating an internal or external enemy. In most of the Gulf countries it is women which are the main target. At places “Satan” (devil) America is so presented as the main. To this enemy all the ills of society are attributed to. In that way the Fascism which developed in Germany in particular shares this trait with fundamentalism, where Jews were labeled as cause of Germany’s ills and were targeted to the extent of Genocide, to strengthen the power of the leader, who was supreme in the state.

The traits of fundamentalism and fascism are also seeing some overlap. In Germany, women were dictated to be the beings whose role is in ‘Kitchen, Church and Children’. Depending on different countries these roles are patterned on similar lines, even in fundamentalism.

Hindu Nationalists’ most overt attack is on the Muslims (and lately Christians also). We have witnessed horrific communal violence increasing in quality and quantity over the last few decades. Beginning from the ghastly tragedy of demolishing a Mosque in Ayodhya and the consequent violence now questioning the existence of mosque is proliferating like a malignant cancer. In addition there is cow-beef lynching becoming the order of the day. Cow vigilantes are proliferating dime a dozen. The word Jihad to target the Muslim minorities has picked up and starting from love jihad, corona jihad to now land jihad has been added to the ever proliferating list!

No doubt compared to the targeting of Muslims the other implications of this fundamentalism get dwarfed in India, though they are very much similar. As far as women are concerned the Sati system has been prohibited, the last one being that of Roopkawar in the 1980s. In the Bhavari Devi case the upper caste rapist were released with the honorable Court opining that how can the upper caste accused be raping a low caste women! That’s the reflection of prevalence of caste system.

If we analyze the attitude of Hindu nationalist policies, the very notion of love jihad is very much anti women. This gives the handle to the male members of the family, to keep a watch on ‘their’ girls. The Same tendency which has been opposing the love jihad is opposed to the wearing of jeans by girls. The attitude regarding violence is best reflected in the Bilkis Bano case, where those found guilty of rape and murder were honored once they got relapsed. Mercifully they are back in jail to serve the sentence. A woman professor from Goa who wrote that Mangal Sutra is like a chain for women was hounded badly. To cap it all at theoretical level Manu Smiriti is eulogized as the ideal to be followed.

Calling all this as Hindu religiosity as she calls the present offensive of Hindu nationalists is very much off the mark. She herself cites the example of three Muslims being beaten with slippers to shout Jai Shree Ram. Here labeling all this in the category of religiosity hides the commonality of all this as having its similarity with fundamentalism. Calling Muslim fundamentalism as jihadi Islam falls too short and away from the commonalities, which is prevailing in many countries. It prevails in Egypt and many other countries as Muslim Brotherhood. Then there is the Ayatollah regime in Iran.

Hindu religiosity is practiced by millions of Hindus, who have been living with people of other religions for centuries, making India a really plural, diverse country. What began as an ideology articulated by Savarkar and Golwalkar is the base on which the present actions and policies of Hindu nationalism stand. These were totally opposed to Indian Nationalism which emerged as the part of anti colonial struggle. The greatest Hindu of the twentieth century, Mahatma Gandhi had to take three bullets on his chest for standing as a Hindu standing for plural India.

Singh is right in detesting this ‘religiosity’ but she needs to delve deep to understand this is the same pattern which ‘Jihadi Islam’ and Islamic Fundamentalists followed. Here politics derives its legitimacy from religion and mauls the society under the clothing of religion. And that is precisely what is going on in India today, be it the claim over most of the mosques, or use of bulldozers or to beat the Muslim Children in the class a la Tripta Tyagi of locking the child in the store for bringing non vegetarian food in the school, or beating the girls coming out from a pub in Mangalore!

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia

Also Read:

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Promoting love or instilling hate and fear

Restating the agenda of Hindu Rashtra: RSS chief sets the tone for BJP politics

The post Taliban, Women’s Equality and Hindutva Nationalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Challenging the suit on technical grounds, the mosque committee argued before the High Court that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and therefore, not a “juristic person” under law who can engage in legal action of this nature. A juristic person is a legal entity that is treated as a person.

The mosque authorities have also argued that the property in question has always been a mosque since its construction in 1398 and that it has never been in the possession of followers of any other religion, nor do they have any title over the same.

The original suit was filed by the Swaraj Vahini Association in May before the Jaunpur Civil Court sought that the property be declared as a temple and that followers of the Sanatan religion have the right of worship therein. Sanatana Dharma is a term some people use as a synonym for Hinduism. The association had also sought a direction that would restrain non-Hindus from entering the premises.

The challenge has claimed that Raja Vijay Chandra built the Atala Devi temple in the 13th century, where Hindu rituals such as puja, sewa and kirtan were performed. Besides, in its own version of history the Swaraj Vahini claims that the temple was demolished during the rule of Firuz Shah Tughlaq in the second half of the 14th century, allowing for the construction of the mosque, the association claimed.

On July 25, a court-appointed team had reached the site to conduct a survey but had to return because the gates were closed, Dainik Bhaskar had reported. Ever since the parliamentary wing of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) assumed state power in 2014 in Delhi and then in 2017 in Lucknow, several such disputes of similar nature have come to the fore in recent weeks.

On November 24, violence even broke out in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal after a group of Muslims objected to a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Chandausi town. A trial court had ordered the survey in response to a suit claiming that the mosque had been built in 1526 by Mughal ruler Babar on the site of the “centuries-old Shri Hari Har Temple dedicated to Lord Kalki”. Police behaviour has come in for sharp criticism as five innocent persons were killed in the violence during the survey. Days later, on November 27, a Rajasthan court also admitted a petition claiming that the shrine of 13th-century Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer was built over a Shiva temple.

Atala Masjid or Atala Mosque is a 14th-century mosque in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. It is located 399 metres at a distance away from Shahi Qila fort and one km away from the Jama Mosque says Wikipedia. Rebowned for its arches and architecture, William Hodges made a sketch of the mosque when he visited Jaunpur, and included it in his book Selected Views in India, Drawn on the Spot, in the Years 1780, 1781, 1782 and 1783, and Executed in Aqua Tinta. 

Related:

Sambhal Mosque, Ajmer Dargah: how deep do we plunge into the abyss?

Rising Tensions: Muslim Religious Sites face renewed attacks, demand for survey in Delhi’s Jama Masjid and Hanuman Chalisa

Safeguarding our shrines

How the Ajmer Shrine Brings Alive the Spirit of Ramzan & Islam

The post Jaunpur’s Atala mosque has moved HC against local court order directing filing of suit claiming it was ‘ancient Hindu temple’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This strategy, aimed at deterring future incidents, is not without precedent. The Yogi Adityanath administration employed a similar tactic in 2020, putting up banners in Lucknow displaying names and photographs of individuals accused of violence during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests. That move, however, was met with severe judicial criticism. (Detailed reports on Sambhal violence can be read here, here and here.)

2020 Allahabad High Court judgment: A scathing rebuttal

In March 2020, the Allahabad High Court took suo moto cognisance of the UP government’s decision to erect banners with personal details of alleged anti-CAA protestors. The court’s observations were unequivocal, labelling the state’s actions as “unwarranted interference in privacy” and “highly unjust.” The division bench, comprising the then Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha, ruled that the move violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy and personal liberty.

Rejecting the Advocate General’s defence that the posters aimed to deter violence, the court had stated: “We do not find any necessity for a democratic society for a legitimate aim to have publication of personal data and identity. The accused persons are the accused from whom some compensation is to be recovered and in no manner they are fugitive.”

The court had further emphasised that the state’s actions failed the tests of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. It noted the absence of any statutory authority permitting such public shaming and criticised the selective targeting of individuals: “As a matter of fact, the placement of personal data of selected persons reflects colourable exercise of powers by the Executive.”

Additionally, the court reminded the state that its role is to uphold constitutional values, not infringe upon them by stating “Where there is gross negligence on part of public authorities and government, where the law is disobeyed and the public is put to suffering, and where the precious values of the Constitution are subjected to injuries, a constitutional court can very well take notice of that at its own.”

The bench ordered the immediate removal of the banners and directed the government to file a compliance report. The judgment remains a landmark assertion of individual rights against executive overreach.

The judgment can be read here.

A repeat of the past or a deliberate defiance?

The Sambhal administration’s decision to resurrect the controversial practice of ‘naming and shaming’ reeks of disregard for constitutional values and judicial precedent. The Allahabad High Court’s 2020 ruling left no ambiguity about the illegality and unconstitutionality of such actions. Yet, the state government appears undeterred, prioritising populist optics over the principles of justice and rule of law.

This move raises troubling questions about the UP government’s commitment to upholding citizens’ fundamental rights. By persisting with tactics that have already been judicially condemned, the state signals a disturbing willingness to defy constitutional safeguards for political expediency. Instead of addressing the root causes of communal tensions, the administration risks stoking further divisions by weaponising public shaming as a tool of governance.

The brazen defiance of past judicial directives is not just a legal misstep but an affront to the very fabric of a democratic society. The right to privacy, due process, and equal protection under the law cannot be sacrificed at the altar of authoritarian governance. If left unchecked, this pattern of state overreach threatens to erode the trust of the governed and weaken the constitutional bedrock that holds India together.

Related:

Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Uttarakhand: Despite BJP Govt Assurance to Contrary in HC, Hindu Mahapanchayat Held in Uttarkashi

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

The post UP government’s ‘naming and shaming’ tactic: A repeat of constitutional defiance appeared first on SabrangIndia.