The case stems from a telephonic conversation that took place on February 25, 2025, during which Koratkar allegedly made both contentious and intimidating remarks to Indrajit Sawant, a historian. The incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

On Tuesday, February 25, soon after the reported telephonic threats, historian Sawant shared on social media a six-minute, 30 second audio recording of a phone conversation between (a man named) Koratkar and himself. With this recording he posted, “A man named Prashant Koratkar, who calls himself a Parashurami Brahmin, is making threats in the name of the honourable chief minister. I have received such threats before but I am sharing this recording to show how hatred and disrespect for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj persists among some people. I want the Maratha and Bahujan communities to realise this. Koratkar from Nagpur—neither he nor anyone else can scare a true follower of Shivaji Maharaj. Jai Shivray!”

Concerned about the nature of the threats made against him, Sawant recorded the conversation and shared it on social media before filing a police complaint. Inspector Sanjiv Kumar Zade of Juna Rajwada police station confirmed that an investigation had been launched, with police teams prepared to travel to Nagpur if necessary to track down Koratkar. Koratkar in the recorded conversation has, while lashing out at Sawant for his views, threatened him with the “present return of Brahmin rule in Maharashtra.”

Sawant has been vocal in his criticism of the film Chhaava, arguing that it distorts history by portraying Maharani Soyarabai as a villain while ignoring the role of Annaji Datto. Citing historical sources such as the writings of François Martin, the former French governor of Pondicherry, Sawant has contributed to the ongoing debate by revealing how it was Brahmin clerks had betrayed Sambhaji Maharaj to the Mughals. He also demanded the removal of incorrect historical information from Wikipedia to prevent misinformation.

Unable to stomach this rendering of historical facts, Koratkar reportedly threatened Sawant in the aforesaid phone conversation. His perceived proximity with politically powerful figures in Maharashtra today has led to the debate around his continued non-arrest and protection.

Protests erupted from last month itself following the transcript of the audio going viral. On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. Protesters also went to the Kolahpur police station to ensure action against him.

On March 1, the Kolhapur court had initially granted Koratkar interim protection from arrest, on the condition that he appear before the police and surrender the mobile phone and SIM card used during the call. However, responding to pressure and outrage over Koratkar’s remarks, the Maharashtra government challenged this interim relief before the Bombay High Court, which subsequently directed the Kolhapur sessions court to prioritise the hearing and decide on the bail application after considering all parties’ arguments.

During the final hearing, Koratkar’s legal counsel argued that he had been cooperating with the authorities and, therefore, should be granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution, however, strongly opposed the plea. Public Prosecutor Vivek Shukla asserted that the accused had tampered with key evidence—the mobile phone from which the alleged call was made—by erasing its data. He further argued that Koratkar had failed to comply with the conditions set by the court while granting interim relief, thereby forfeiting his right to seek further protection. Shukla also questioned why the journalist was seeking anticipatory bail instead of surrendering, stating that freedom should not be misused to evade legal scrutiny.

Asim Sarode, representing the complainant, further alleged that Koratkar had misled the court by falsely claiming his mobile phone had been hacked. He pointed out that instead of appearing before the police as directed, the accused had sent his mobile phone through his wife, raising concerns about his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Sarode urged the court to invoke Section 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the destruction of evidence, to ensure accountability for the alleged tampering.

Despite the court’s rejection of his bail plea, Koratkar remains un-arrested, intensifying public protests led by the Sakal Maratha community.

Bombay High Court intervenes, directs Kolhapur Court to hear all parties

On March 11, the Bombay High Court had reviewed the Maharashtra government’s plea challenging the Kolhapur sessions court’s interim protection order. A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil directed the lower court to ensure that all parties, including the state government, were heard before making a final decision on Koratkar’s bail application.

During the proceedings, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the state, argued that the Kolhapur sessions court had passed its earlier order granting interim relief without giving the prosecution an opportunity to present its case. He highlighted that Koratkar had failed to surrender his phone as per the court’s directions, instead sending it through his wife. Upon examination, it was found that all data had been erased, raising suspicions of evidence tampering. Venegaonkar maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover any deleted data that could be critical to the investigation.

The prosecution further pointed out that the sessions court had made certain observations about Koratkar’s social media accounts being hacked and donations being collected in his name before the case was registered. The state government contended that these findings were made without proper scrutiny and without hearing all parties, which was a violation of due process.

Koratkar’s defence, on the other hand, challenged the maintainability of the state’s plea, arguing that the interim relief order was legally sound. Meanwhile, the complainant’s lawyer, Asim Sarode, also raised objections, stating that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the sessions court granted Koratkar protection from arrest.

After hearing the arguments, the Bombay High Court clarified that it would not interfere with the merits of the case but expected the Kolhapur sessions court to decide the matter independently and in accordance with the law. The high court disposed of the state’s plea, reiterating that its observations should not influence the final decision of the lower court.

Mass protests and political pressure for arrest

On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. A delegation, including community leaders Prakash Khandagale, Amol Mane, Swapnil Kale, Alok Rasal, and Deepak Ingle, met Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Rashmitha Rao, who assured them that Koratkar would be arrested within 24 hours. However, when no action was taken by the next day, another protest erupted outside Beltarodi police station, with demonstrators urging authorities to file an FIR against Koratkar in Nagpur in addition to the existing case in Kolhapur.

Amid mounting pressure, former royal and community leader Raje Mudhoji Bhosale led a delegation to the Nagpur police commissioner’s office, demanding that Koratkar be charged under sedition laws. Protesters also accused Koratkar of attempting to create caste tensions by referencing the caste of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. The Citizen Action Committee warned that if Koratkar was not arrested, they would file complaints against him at multiple police stations.

With tensions running high for over 72 hours, the Sakal Maratha community has called for an urgent meeting to determine further action if authorities fail to act swiftly.

Political reactions and demand for swift action

The delay in Koratkar’s arrest has drawn criticism from political figures. On March 4, Kolhapur MP and descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, Shahu Shahaji Maharaj, questioned why the police had not yet acted against Koratkar. Speaking during an official visit to Nagpur, Shahu Maharaj stated that he would take up the matter with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis during his upcoming visit to Kolhapur.

Former Maharashtra minister Anil Deshmukh also criticised the inaction, suggesting that Koratkar was being shielded by influential figures. “His whereabouts are unknown, but how is that possible when police personnel were stationed outside his house? How did he disappear despite a security presence?” Deshmukh asked.

Amravati MP Balwant Wankhade echoed these concerns, stressing that individuals who insult revered historical figures should face strict consequences. “Those who make offensive statements against figures deeply respected by the people must not be spared. The government must take prompt action,” he asserted.

With pressure mounting from political leaders, civil society, and protest groups, the demand for Koratkar’s arrest has intensified. The coming days are expected to see further action from both the authorities and the protesting groups as tensions continue to escalate.

Maharashtra government’s silence, Koratkar’s political ties, and the systematic distortion of history

The Maharashtra government’s two-faced response – on the one hand appealing protection granted to him from arrest but on the other its reluctance or failure to arrest Prashant Koratkar– despite the overwhelming evidence against him and the widespread public demand for accountability, has exposed the double standards in law enforcement. Even as protests intensify across the state, top echelons of the government have chosen to remain silent, raising serious questions about whether political patronage is shielding Koratkar from arrest. The speculation is not baseless—recent visuals showing Koratkar in close proximity to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and senior police officials — have only reinforced allegations that the ruling establishment is protecting him. This selective application of the law is in stark contrast to how dissenters and activists are swiftly arrested, often on flimsy charges, while those with political connections continue to evade legal scrutiny.

These visuals have been taken from Dr. Prashant Koratkar – Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.448369837294425

The larger controversy surrounding Koratkar is not just about one individual’s remarks but is emblematic of a broader ideological project to distort Maharashtra’s history. The ongoing “Brahmanisation” of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is a deliberate attempt to whitewash the historical record and erase their true legacy. Sambhaji Maharaj, long regarded as a fearless warrior who resisted Mughal rule, is now being forcefully rebranded within a narrow caste framework to suit present-day political narratives, with attempts to paint him as a Brahmin leader rather than a Bahujan leader. At the same time, the erasure of historical nuances surrounding figures like Aurangzeb is being used as a tool to fuel communal tensions and stoke resentment.

The recent outbreak of violence in Nagpur over the portrayal of Chhatrapati Sambhaji and Aurangzeb underscores the dangerous consequences of this systematic distortion. The deliberate rewriting of history is not an academic exercise—it has real-world implications, as it foments hatred, deepens social divides, and often leads to violence. The Maharashtra government’s failure to act against Koratkar while allowing these tensions to escalate suggests that it is complicit in this divisive agenda. (A detailed report regarding the outbreak of violence may be read here.)

As the demand for Koratkar’s arrest grows louder, the government’s inaction is becoming increasingly indefensible. If he continues to evade arrest, this will only confirm what many already allege—that the law in Maharashtra does not apply equally to all, but is instead wielded as a weapon against the powerless while offering protection to those who enjoy political favour. The coming days will be a test of whether the government prioritises justice or remains beholden to its ideological allies at the cost of social harmony.

Background of the case

On February 26, 2025, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Prashant Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station for allegedly threatening historian Indrajit Sawant and making statements that could incite communal tensions. According to the police, the incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar as mentioned above. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

Following the backlash of widespread protests, Koratkar denied any involvement, insisting that he had no connection with Sawant and that the voice in the audio clip was not his. He criticised Sawant for publicly naming him without verification, stating that he had since received multiple threats. Koratkar announced plans to file a defamation complaint and approach the cyber cell for redress.

A case had been registered against Koratkar under sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 151(4), and 352 of the BNS, and investigations are ongoing.

In response, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to police officials, Koratkar’s comments were aimed at provoking caste-based tensions. Sub-inspector Santosh Gawade is leading the investigation, and technical evidence is being gathered with assistance from the cyber cell.

Koratkar has denied all allegations, claiming that the voice in the viral audio clip is not his. He accused Sawant of defaming him without verification and asserted that he had been receiving threats since the controversy erupted. Koratkar had further announced plans to file a counter-complaint with the police and the cyber cell.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

The post Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The speech and the full incident

On Tuesday, March 11, Suvendu Adhikari, speaking to reporters outside the West Bengal Assembly, accused the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) government of being a “communal administration” and likened it to “Muslim League 2.” He went further, stating that if the BJP comes to power in 2026, they would remove all Muslim MLAs of the TMC from the assembly. His remarks, laced with communal undertones, sparked immediate outrage, with many terming it a direct attack on constitutional democracy.

The controversy erupted just a day after BJP’s Haldia MLA Tapasi Mondal defected to the TMC. The TMC swiftly condemned Adhikari’s remarks, with spokesperson Kunal Ghosh calling them “dangerous, provocative, and depraved.” Ghosh further stated, “In Parliament or state assemblies, there can be debate and arguments. But to rake up religion and target MLAs belonging to a specific community is contrary to the principles of the Constitution. It’s also a criminal offence.” The state BJP, however, remained silent, neither endorsing nor disowning the comments.

The incident occurred against the backdrop of Adhikari’s suspension from the assembly until March 18, 2025 for allegedly insulting the Speaker’s chair. Earlier in the day, BJP MLAs had staged a protest inside the assembly, tearing official documents after the Speaker denied their adjournment motion over alleged attacks on Hindu temples. The Speaker, Biman Bandyopadhyay, in response, directed the assembly secretary not to provide BJP legislators with any further documents related to House proceedings.

In a further escalation, Adhikari and his party members staged a demonstration outside the assembly, alleging that the ruling party was suppressing the opposition’s voice. He claimed that Hindus were being attacked in various districts of Bengal, that Hindu shop owners and houses had been set on fire, and that the state police were acting in a communal manner by restricting Holi celebrations on March 14, as it coincided with a Friday prayer day. He alleged that in Birbhum district’s Santiniketan, police had instructed people to finish Holi celebrations by 11 AM due to Friday prayers. He also claimed that in Uluberia, those celebrating India’s victory in the Champions Trophy were attacked, with even a local police officer being injured. Adhikari framed these incidents as proof that the TMC government was catering to Muslim interests at the cost of Hindus, further inflaming communal sentiments.

Inciting hate, undermining the Constitution

Adhikari’s statement is not merely hate speech—it is a direct assault on the constitutional framework of India. The Constitution guarantees equal rights and representation to all citizens, irrespective of religion. His words suggest an intention to exclude a specific religious community from legislative representation, violating the core tenets of democracy and secularism. Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination based on religion) are fundamental principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and Adhikari’s remarks trample upon them with shocking impunity.

This is not an isolated instance of Adhikari’s communal rhetoric. His earlier dismissal of BJP’s ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’ slogan, replaced with a divisive “Jo hamare saath, hum unke saath” (We are with those who are with us), was a clear indication of his supremacist ideology. Such statements, if left unchecked, normalise religious discrimination and stoke communal polarisation.

A case for immediate action

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) has rightly condemned Adhikari’s comments as “dangerous, provocative, and depraved.” Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee responded strongly, condemning Adhikari’s remarks as a blatant attempt to sow communal discord. “This is not just hate speech, this is an open threat to democracy. Bengal will never accept such divisive politics. I challenge him to try and throw out a single MLA—he will see the power of the people’s mandate,” she said.

Given the gravity of his statements, mere condemnation is insufficient. Adhikari was earlier suspended from the assembly for the remainder of the budget session due to his misconduct, but this latest episode warrants far more serious consequences.

1. Legal action: His remarks could potentially be prosecuted under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups) and 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Expulsion from the Assembly: The West Bengal Legislative Assembly must consider a more severe disciplinary measure—either extending his suspension indefinitely or expelling him altogether. The Speaker has the authority to take such action in cases of grave misconduct.
3. BJP’s accountability: The silence of the state BJP leadership on this matter is deeply telling. If the party does not dissociate itself from Adhikari’s remarks and take internal disciplinary action, it is complicit in endorsing such unconstitutional rhetoric.

A dangerous precedent

If Adhikari is allowed to get away with such statements, it sets a dangerous precedent for Indian politics. Normalising calls for religious exclusion from legislative bodies not only weakens democracy but also emboldens other leaders to follow suit. West Bengal has a long history of communal harmony, and allowing such hate speech to fester threatens the social fabric of the state.

India cannot afford to treat such explicit communal threats as mere political rhetoric. There must be an unequivocal rejection of these unconstitutional utterances, backed by swift legal and parliamentary action. Anything less would be a failure to defend the democratic ideals upon which the nation stands.

Related:

Hindu festivals and sectarian nationalist politics

Manipur tensions escalate over free movement policy: Kuki-Zo resistance and government crackdown

Uttarakhand: Relentless Anti-Muslim Campaign Continues in Holy Month of Ramzan

Month-old Muslim infant allegedly crushed during police raid in Alwar: No arrests made; three cops booked on murder charges

The post WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Similarly, T Raja Singh, notorious for his divisive views, has with his statements about “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” a theory that frames Muslims as a threat to India’s identity. Alongside these leaders, right-wing influencer Kajal Hindustani has propagated harmful stereotypes and hate against Muslims.

Nitesh Rane: spreading misinformation and suspicion through alleged theories of ‘Love Jihad’ and ‘Land Jihad’

Nitesh Rane, the BJP MLA from Kankavli in the Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra and now the Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister, has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents of aggressive hate speech in the state. Many of his speeches from February 2025 have caused a significant uproar, raising concerns for the social climate in the state. 

February 20, 2025 

February 20, during a public felicitation event at Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Shri Swami Narendracharayaji Maharaj Nanijdhama in Ratnagiri, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a hate-filled speech targeting Muslims. 

Rane in his speech said that, “Because issues like Love Jihad and Land Jihad are actively happening around us. Through Love Jihad and religious conversion, a large-scale effort is underway to bring countless Hindu mothers and sisters into Islam by those engaging in Jihad.”

He propagated unfounded conspiracies about ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ intensifying his rhetoric by labelling Muslims as “jihadis.” Rane also criticised Mazhars and Dargahs, claiming that the said structures “pop up anywhere,”.

He further added that, “I have initiated a program through my ministry to make our 720-kilometer coastline Jihad- free. Therefore, in all these matters, it is extremely important for me to receive Swamiji’s guidance and blessings from time to time. All the illegal activities happening around us—wherever you look, spreading the green cloth, building mazars and tombs everywhere—against all this, our Maharashtra government will take a firm stand without any Hindutva-based bias. On this occasion, I assure Swamiji of this today.”

His words not only spread fear but are also baseless accusations against an entire religious community. His speech serves as another example of the dangerous rhetoric emerging from political figures in the region.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 19, 2025 

On February 19, at a Shiv Jayanti event organised by the VHP and Bajrang Dal in Sawantwadi, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a series of inflammatory remarks targeting Muslims. He boldly declared, “This is a Hinduwadi government,” and went on to threaten that in Sindhudurg, anyone who even “looks at Hindus in an incorrect manner” would face consequences, urging people to contact him directly to “settle it before next Friday.”

Rane said that, “the Chief Minister is a staunch Hindutva. If anyone in this Sawantwadi, this Sindhudurga, keep evil eye at my Hindu religion, just give me a call, I will make sure that he doesn’t go to that place again on Friday. Don’t worry about anything.”

He also labelled Muslims as “green snakes,” who are involved in a deep-rooted conspiracy against Hindus. Rane’s speeches continued in this vein throughout the month of February, spreading more hateful conspiracy theories, and even suggesting that if Muslims “looked at Hindus in an incorrect manner,” they would face consequences. He stated that, “Our government is very bad. What is going on around I am aware of everything. You don’t have to struggle. Wherever something wrong is happening, wherever someone tries to slaughter a cow, wherever someone tries to smuggle, wherever green snakes try to wriggle, just make one call, and leave the rest of the arrangements to me.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 8, 2025 

On February 8, at the Hindu Rashtra Adhiveshan organised by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Kudal, Sindhudurg, BJP MLA Nitesh Rane delivered a divisive speech, alleging that ‘jihadis’ were targeting Hindu temples and again referring to Muslims as ‘green snakes.’ He said that India is a Hindu nation and alleged that Muslims were conspiring to turn the country into an Islamic state by 2047. Rane then propagated the baseless conspiracies of ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ fearmongering about the supposed Islamization of India. He accused Muslims of attempting to seize Hindu lands and religious sites, symbolically covering them with a ‘green shroud.’ 

Nitesh Rane’s speech is deeply problematic due to its divisive and inflammatory nature. He quite deliberately, and repeatedly perpetuates harmful stereotypes and spreads fear by framing certain religious communities as a threat to Hindu society. His speech begins with claims of “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and references to the “Waqf Board,” which without evidence, target Muslims and imply a coordinated effort against Hindus:

“While taking out these rallies, there were some cases of Love Jihad, some cases of Land Jihad, and some cases related to the Waqf Board. We, as the Sakal Hindu Samaj, took out those rallies and went to meet the affected families and we tried to provide them justice. How far have these Islamization and Jihadisation people reached? How much has their courage grown? You all should all imagine this. You people should be able to guess where the danger is from.”

This statement fuels unfounded fear and animosity, casting Muslims as a monolithic and hostile group. He further stokes this narrative by discussing the supposed encroachment of Muslims on religious sites, such as temples:

“I always wonder—if you want to spread Islam, why do you always target our temple lands? If you want to build a mosque or a dargah, then buy an open piece of land yourselves and say, ‘We want to build a mosque here, a dargah here.’ But they always want to do these things on the land of our temples.”

Such rhetoric incites division, mistrust, and hostility. He concludes by framing this as a grand conspiracy:

“By 2047, they want to turn our Hindu nation into an Islamic nation. Their evil eyes are on the temples, and we should be moving towards ensuring how to keep them safe,” Rane Said.

Rane referred Savarkar in his speech and said, “Swatantryaveer Savarkar has written very well that the Hindu society suffers more from Hindus themselves than from Muslims. Some of these people ask me how I can call it a Hindu nation, as it does not fit within the Constitution.”

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 5, 2025 

On February 5, at a public event organised by a coalition of far-right groups in Wagholi, Pune, BJP MLA Rane delivered an inflammatory anti-Muslim hate speech, propagating the baseless conspiracies of ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ while falsely claiming that Muslims aim to turn India into an Islamic state. 

During his speech, he urged Hindus to rent homes only to fellow Hindus, warning that “it starts with one Aslam, and then you have a hundred Aslams.” Targeting the azaan, he claimed that if Hindus rented to Muslims, soon they would be overrun and the azaan would echo five times a day. He openly advocated for housing discrimination, urging the audience to “just declare that you don’t rent to non-Hindus.” Rane further fuelled the conspiracy of ‘love jihad,’ continuing to spread baseless fears of a demographic threat.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 3, 2025 

On February 3, in Chandrapur, Rane made a chilling threat towards Muslims, declaring that acts like “Love Jihad,” “Land Jihad,” and “cow slaughter” would no longer be tolerated. At a religious assembly, Rane openly warned the minority religious community, stating that the state had a Hindutva-based government, and if these issues persisted, they would take direct action.

He was quoted as saying:

“If these people sporting beards do not stop this Love Jihad, Land Jihad, and the drama against Hindu society in time, then even those sitting in Pakistan will not be able to recognize you. I guarantee.”

His rhetoric targets Muslims as a collective threat to Hindu society, presenting them as part of a grand conspiracy to turn India into an Islamic nation by 2047. The speech perpetuates harmful myths such as “Love Jihad” and “Land Jihad,” which have no basis in reality but are used to fuel hatred and division. Rane asserts:

“When the police conducted their inquiry and asked what exactly they were plotting here, they responded by saying that their goal is to make India an Islamic nation by 2047, and all their efforts are directed towards achieving that.”

This unfounded claim creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, portraying Muslims as scheming to overthrow the country’s demographic makeup.

He continues with further inflammatory statements:

“Because in the beginning, only one comes. Just one—someone named Aslam. And then he will bring 100 more Aslams along with him. He will start cooking food that we don’t prefer, and because of that smell, the Hindu community will begin to leave. Then, five times a day, their loudspeakers will start blaring.”

This passage not only reinforces the idea of Muslims as an invasive force but also promotes communal fear by linking Muslims to undesirable behaviour.

Additionally, Rane makes claims about “Love Jihad,” where he manipulates personal stories to push the narrative of Hindu girls being brainwashed:

“I have met sisters who have been victims of Love Jihad. You would be shocked to see their miserable condition. These girls are brainwashed to the extent that they refuse to recognize their own parents.”

This kind of rhetoric is not new for Rane, who has long harboured views that fuel communal animosity. At this event, he claimed that a strict law against religious conversions would be introduced in Maharashtra. He further warned Muslims involved in such acts of “trapping” Hindu women that the government would deal with them harshly, reinforcing the idea of an aggressive, intolerant Hindutva ideology.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister #NiteshRane on Monday sounded a stern warning to a particular community, stating that “Love jihad, Land Jihad, and cow slaughter” will not be tolerated. He emphasised that the state has a #Hindutva-oriented government and discussed the… pic.twitter.com/OZfJAUR67L

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) February 4, 2025

Recently, two FIRs were filed against Nitesh Rane for alleged hate speech targeting Muslims in Ahmednagar. Both FIRs were filed by the Ahmednagar Police against Nitesh Rane for his controversial remark. Rakesh Ola, the Superintendent of Police in Ahmednagar, confirmed the registration of two FIRs—one on September 1, 2024, and the other on September 2, 2024. These FIRs were filed at the Shrirampur and Topkhana police stations, respectively. Rane made his speeches during public meetings in the Shrirampur and Topkhana, in support of Hindu seer Mahant Ramgiri Maharaj, who had made derogatory remarks about Islam and Prophet Muhammad. Rane warned of repercussions if the Maharaj was harmed. In his address, Rane had said, “If anything happens to Maharaj, there will be repercussions. I’m going to give this threat in the language which you understand. If you have done anything against our Ramgiri Maharaj, we will kill you after barging into your mosques. You must remember this threat,” Rane had said, reported Times of India.

On September 5, an FIR was also filed against Nitesh Rane for his hate speech. The case was registered by the Gittikhadan police in Nagpur under sections 196, 299, 302, 352, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR follows a complaint lodged by Mohammed Yunus Patel (47), a resident of Awasthi Nagar in South Nagpur, who alleged that Rane hurt the religious sentiments of a specific community during a speech he delivered in Ahmednagar on September 1, 2024, as HT reported.

Rane’s rhetoric, including claims of Love Jihad and Land Jihad, is not an isolated incident but part of a wider strategy by certain BJP leaders to stoke communal fears for political leverage.

T Raja Singh: Escalating divisive narratives

T Raja Singh, BJP’s MLA from Goshamahal in Hyderabad, is notorious for his controversial and often extremist views. His speech at the Deccan Summit in Pune on February 8, 2025, only further reinforced his reputation. Singh stirred the pot by promoting the divisive conspiracy theory of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” falsely claiming that Muslims were plotting to turn India into an Islamic nation.

“They have another Pakistan inside India, these land jihadis.”

Singh went on to misrepresent historical events and figures, wrongly alleging that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had declared that Muslims had the first right to India’s resources. 

His rhetoric also targeted religious educational institutions, especially Madrasas, and he called for the construction of temples in historically disputed locations like Kashi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal, where Mosques stand at the moment. In his mind, these temples, built after destroying the current Islamic religious structures, would “remove the stains” from these sacred sites, promoting the idea of religious purity while targeting Islamic places of worship.

Singh’s speeches only contribute to a growing sense of fear and mistrust between India’s communities, feeding into a larger narrative of religious confrontation and division.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Kajal Hindustani: A right-wing influencer encouraging harmful communal divisions

February 19, 2025 

Kajal Hindustani is another key figure spreading dangerous communal poison. At a Shiv Jayanti event in Nagpur on February 19, Hindustani not only pushed the harmful “love jihad” narrative but also revived harmful stereotypes about Muslims. She referred to Muslims as “jihadis,” equating them with violence and radicalism. Additionally, she launched an attack on the Muslim practice of Azaan, fuelling the existing prejudice against Islamic religious practices.

This kind of speech is highly problematic, as it promotes an environment where one community’s practices and identity are vilified and targeted. Hindustani’s reach as an influencer amplifies her harmful messages, reaching a much wider audience.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Following the complaint filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) on October 25, 2024, against Kajal Shingala, also known as Kajal Hindustani, for delivering an anti-Muslim hate speech at an event in Thane, an FIR was registered on October 30, 2024, at the Wagle Estate Police Station in Thane. The FIR charges Hindustani under sections 299, 302, and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which address offenses related to promoting religious animosity and public mischief. In addition, the event’s organizer, Veer Bahadur Yadav, was also booked for his involvement in permitting the speech. 

Ashwini Upadhyaya: Legitimising hate and conspiracy theories

February 20, 2025 

Ashwini Upadhyaya, a Supreme Court lawyer and prominent BJP leader, has also been vocal in spreading far-right narratives. On February 20, at a lecture on the Indian Constitution in Parbhani, he advocated for the restoration of “historic sacred places” like Kashi, Mathura, and Bhojshala, referring to which he claimed that the Mosque had been built after destroying temples. This rhetoric is rooted in the ideological push for the Ram Mandir, built at the destruction site of Babri Majid, and other religious sites to be reclaimed as symbols of Hindu supremacy.

The video of speech can be seen here:

Upadhyaya’s speeches are filled with conspiracy theories, including baseless claims about “love jihad” and “land jihad.” He further exacerbated these fears by drawing on international examples, citing China and Israel as models for population control measures. Linking population control to “love jihad” reflects a troubling trend where he frames demographic changes, especially Muslim migration, as a grave threat to India’s Hindu identity.

February 11, 2025 

On February 11, in Raigarh, Upadhyaya made statements about “infiltration jihad” and the alleged presence of six crore “infiltrators” in India, many of whom, according to him, were Muslims. Such claims serve no purpose other than to stoke fear and division in society.

The video of speech can be seen here:

February 2, 2025 

On February 2, in Pune, at the V.D. Savarkar Memorial Lectures organized by Swanand Janakalyan Pratishthan, Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay demonized Muslims by selectively citing cases where Hindu women were murdered by Muslim men. He stirred fear about ‘infiltration’ and led the audience in an oath against alleged ‘land jihad’ and ‘love jihad,’ promoting unfounded and divisive claims about demographic threats.

The video of speech can be seen here:

The role of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti: furthering hate and division

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, a far-right organisation, also plays a significant role in spreading of conspiracies and peddling hatred with potential to harm our social fabric and harmony. On February 3, during a press conference on Bangladeshi ‘infiltrators’ at Marathi Patrakar Sangh, Mumbai, organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, Sanatan Sanstha leader Abhay Vartak claimed that on alleged Bangladeshi “infiltrators,”. Abhay Vartak, claimed that up to ten lakh Bangladeshi immigrants live in Mumbai, which he linked to an increase in crimes and unemployment. His remarks were clearly aimed at inciting fear and suspicion towards the Muslims living in Mumbai, holding them responsible for collectively attacking the Indian economy. Vartak further promoted the conspiracy of “land jihad” and “love jihad,” underscoring how these controversial and harmful ideas are being propagated at multiple levels.

The impact of hate speech on Maharashtra and beyond

The hate-filled speeches delivered by these lawmakers and influencers are not only harming Maharashtra’s social fabric but also endangering the unity of the nation. Such rhetoric creates an environment where one minority community feels persecuted, that can lead to a cycle of hate and retaliation. Moreover, these statements are dangerous as they normalize a call for violence and discrimination against a particular religious community, portraying them as collectively acceptable responses to perceived grievances.

By invoking divisive terms like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “infiltration jihad,” these above-mentioned leaders are playing on people’s fears, creating imaginary threats to the nation’s demographic and religious balance. 

Furthermore, these speeches shrinking the very foundation of India’s secular democracy, where all religions are meant to be treated equally. Instead, they promote a vision of India where one religion is dominant and all others are viewed with suspicion and hostility.

The role of authorities in curbing hate speech

The time has come for a serious conversation about the accountability of public figures, particularly legislators, who use their platforms to promote hate and division. In Maharashtra, BJP leaders like Nitesh Rane, T Raja Singh, Ashwini Upadhyaya, and others have proven that they are willing to sow communal discord for political gain. Their speeches not only undermine the values of unity and secularism but also pose a grave threat to the fabric of society.

It is critical for the authorities to take swift action against hate speech and hold leaders accountable. The continued silence and inaction will only embolden others to follow in their footsteps, further poisoning the political discourse and deepening the divisions within our society. The future of Maharashtra, and indeed India, depends on the strength of its commitment to secularism, equality, and justice. It is time for the nation to stand united against hate, no matter where it originates.

Related

Mtra Elections: On CJP’s complaint on an MCC violation FIR has been registered against Kajal Hindustani for hate speech

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

Looking back at 2024: Constitutional Court rulings that undermine justice and accountability

The post Leaders and the spread of divisive narratives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Two key factors shaped the trajectory of hate speech in 2024: the general elections held between April and June and the state elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand later in the year. The election season provided an opportunity for the BJP and its ideological allies to deploy hate speech as a tactical instrument of voter mobilisation, using communal rhetoric to polarise electorates along religious lines. Additionally, the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh in August 2024 and subsequent violence against Hindus in that country were exaggerated and weaponised by Hindu nationalist groups to justify anti-Muslim sentiment in India. These events led to the second major surge in hate speech, as BJP leaders and right-wing organisations capitalised on anxieties surrounding Bangladeshi Hindus to vilify Indian Muslims as an existential threat.

This report does not merely document numbers; it exposes the deliberate strategies, key actors, and ideological motivations behind the intensification of hate speech. By analysing both the content and context of hate speech events, it highlights how communal hatred has become a structured and institutionalised feature of Indian political life.

The role of the BJP and Hindu nationalist groups in organising hate speech

The most striking aspect of the hate speech patterns in 2024 was the direct involvement of the BJP and its ideological affiliates. Unlike previous years, where hate speech was primarily driven by state-level BJP politicians and religious extremists, 2024 saw an aggressive push from the highest levels of political leadership, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. These leaders did not merely tolerate or ignore hate speech; they actively participated in it, using their national and regional platforms to spread divisive narratives, dehumanise Muslims and Christians, and stoke communal tensions.

The BJP emerged as the largest organiser of hate speech events, directly facilitating 340 gatherings—29.2% of all documented cases. This was a massive 580% increase compared to 2023, where the party was responsible for only 50 such events. The party’s leadership strategically weaponised hate speech as an electoral tool, particularly during the general elections, where 76.7% of BJP-organised hate speech events occurred.

Alongside the BJP, its ideological allies, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and its militant youth wing, the Bajrang Dal, played a central role in propagating hate. These groups organised 279 hate speech events, a 29.1% increase from the previous year. The Sakal Hindu Samaj (SHS), a Maharashtra-based coalition of Hindu nationalist organisations, was responsible for 56 hate speech events, featuring extremist speakers like Suresh Chavhanke, Kajal Hindustani, and BJP legislators T. Raja Singh and Nitish Rane.

The Hindu Rashtra Sena (HRS), led by Dhananjay Desai—an individual accused in the 2014 murder of a Muslim tech professional—also expanded its operations, coordinating 19 hate speech events. Smaller groups such as the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), Rashtriya Hindu Sher Sena, Shiv Shakti Akhada, and Shri Ram Sena also played roles in spreading anti-Muslim and anti-Christian propaganda.

These findings illustrate that hate speech in India is not merely an act of individual bigotry; it is an organised, well-funded, and politically sanctioned project, strategically deployed to create a climate of fear and exclusion for religious minorities.

The election season: Hate speech as a tool for political mobilisation

The 2024 general elections and subsequent state elections in Maharashtra and Jharkhand were inflection points in the escalation of hate speech. During the election period, 373 hate speech incidents were recorded, with Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Delhi, West Bengal, and Jharkhand being the most affected.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi emerged as one of the most active disseminators of hate speech, particularly after his April 21 election rally in Banswara, Rajasthan, where he accused Muslims of being “infiltrators” who would take away Hindu wealth and resources. This speech triggered a nationwide surge in hate speech events, with many BJP leaders mimicking and amplifying his rhetoric.

Home Minister Amit Shah also played a pivotal role, delivering 58 hate speeches, often invoking Muslim “vote jihad” and the threat of “land jihad”. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath led the charge with 86 hate speeches, averaging one hate speech every four days. Other BJP leaders, including Himanta Biswa Sarma, T. Raja Singh, Nitish Rane, and Pushkar Singh Dhami, followed suit, systematically targeting Muslims and Christians.

The BJP’s election strategy relied heavily on manufacturing fear and communal resentment. A common narrative was that opposition parties, particularly the Congress and the INDIA alliance, were working to strip Hindus of their rights and redistribute resources to Muslims. Modi, Adityanath, and Shah repeatedly claimed that the opposition would take away Hindu property and give it to “Bangladeshi infiltrators and Rohingya refugees.”

The normalisation of such rhetoric had real-world consequences. Hate speech is not just words; it is a form of political violence—a precursor to mob attacks, communal riots, and systemic discrimination. By integrating hate speech into mainstream electoral discourse, the BJP and its allies effectively legitimised violence against minorities, making it an acceptable part of governance and state policy.

The role of social media in amplifying hate

Hate speech in 2024 was not confined to public gatherings. Social media played a critical role in amplifying and mainstreaming hate speech, ensuring that it reached millions within seconds. The IHL report tracked 995 videos of in-person hate speech events back to their original sources on Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, and Telegram.

Facebook alone hosted 495 hate speech videos, while 211 were traced to YouTube. Additionally, 266 anti-minority hate speeches delivered by BJP leaders were simultaneously live-streamed across multiple platforms. This demonstrates how social media platforms, despite their stated policies against hate speech, served as key enablers of communal propaganda.

The virality of hate speech on digital platforms exacerbated the cycle of radicalisation, with algorithm-driven amplification prioritising the most extreme voices. Instead of curbing communal incitement, Facebook and YouTube allowed inflammatory content to spread unchecked, effectively becoming complicit in the proliferation of Hindu nationalist extremism.

Anti-Muslim hate speech: From dehumanisation to calls for violence

The IHL report reveals that 1,147 out of 1,165 hate speech events targeted Muslims, demonstrating that anti-Muslim rhetoric remains the cornerstone of Hindu nationalist politics.

Dehumanisation and conspiracy theories- The report documents an alarming rise in the use of conspiracy theories to portray Muslims as an existential threat to Hindus. These include:

• “Love Jihad” – The false claim that Muslim men are seducing Hindu women to convert them to Islam and destroy Hindu culture.
• “Land Jihad” – The baseless allegation that Muslims are systematically occupying Hindu lands.
• “Vote Jihad” – The claim, propagated by Modi himself, that Muslims vote as a bloc to weaken Hindu political power.
• “Population Jihad” – The debunked theory that Muslims are deliberately increasing their population to outnumber Hindus.
• “Thook Jihad” (Spit Jihad) – The unfounded conspiracy that Muslims spit on food to contaminate it.
• “Economic Jihad” – The assertion that Muslim businesses are attempting to monopolise the economy to subjugate Hindus.

PM Modi, CM Adityanath, and other BJP leaders actively promoted these narratives in election speeches, fuelling hate crimes and vigilante violence against Muslims.

Direct calls for violence and social boycotts- The report documents 259 hate speeches that explicitly called for violence against Muslims. This included:

• Calls to “eliminate infiltrators”, a dog whistle for Muslim extermination.
• 111 speeches advocating economic boycotts of Muslim businesses.
• 274 speeches calling for the destruction of mosques and Muslim homes.
• 123 speeches that urged Hindus to arm themselves against Muslims.

In one of the most egregious incidents, at a VHP weapons worship event in Uttarakhand, a speaker openly declared that “killing non-Hindus would lead to salvation”.

By endorsing and institutionalising hate speech at the highest levels of political leadership, the BJP has created an atmosphere where state-backed discrimination and violence against Muslims have become routine.

Anti-Christian hate speech: A surge in persecution

While anti-Muslim hate speech remains dominant, 2024 also witnessed a sharp increase in anti-Christian rhetoric. The report documents 115 hate speech events targeting Christians, a number that correlates directly with the rise in attacks on churches and Christian institutions.

Religious persecution and forced conversions- Hindu nationalist groups, particularly the VHP, Bajrang Dal, and Rashtriya Bajrang Dal (RBD), have aggressively pushed the narrative that Christian missionaries are engaging in mass conversions.

At a VHP event in Siliguri, West Bengal, on November 24, a speaker urged activists to “resort to violence if necessary” to stop Christian pastors from entering villages.

Targeting Christian institutions- Christian schools and churches have faced relentless attacks. In March 2024, Hindu nationalist groups in Assam posted threats across Christian-run schools, demanding the removal of crosses and religious symbols.

In December 2024, a Hindu monk in Rajasthan boasted of shutting down “10-15 churches” and jailing 80 Christian priests.

At a Rashtriya Bajrang Dal event in Uttar Pradesh, leaders called for attacks on Catholic schools, branding them as “centres of religious conversion”.

The surge in anti-Christian hate speech has led to a documented increase in mob attacks, forced “reconversion” events, and desecration of churches across India.

Conclusion: Hate speech as a normalised political strategy

The findings of the India Hate Lab 2024 report point to a chilling reality: hate speech has been fully absorbed into India’s political mainstream. The BJP, through both its top leadership and its allied organisations, has made communal rhetoric a central feature of its governance and election strategy. Social media platforms have failed to contain the spread of hateful content, creating an ecosystem where violent rhetoric thrives with impunity.

This normalisation of hate speech is not just a symptom of rising intolerance—it is a deliberate and structured political project, designed to marginalise Muslims and Christians, consolidate Hindu nationalist power, and undermine India’s democratic framework. The consequences of this state-sanctioned hate will reverberate for years to come.

The complete report may be viewed here.

Related:

Are Indian anti-conversion laws targeting minorities or protecting the vulnerable?

The Steady Marginalisation of Indian Muslims

Honour for killers of Gauri Lankesh and MM Kalburgi in Karnataka, public felicitation and terms like “Hindu tigers” for accused Amit Baddi and Ganesh Miskin

BNSS empowers law enforcement and judiciary with sweeping authority over property: a mightier state, a meeker citizen

The post India’s Hate Speech Crisis: 1,165 cases recorded in 2024, up 74.4% from 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hate speech is any word written or spoken, signs, visible representations within the hearing or sight of a person with the intention to cause fear or alarm, or incitement to violence.” Provisions in law criminalise speeches, writings, actions, signs and representations that foment violence and spread disharmony between communities and groups.

Violation of Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony or activities that disrupt public peace or teach people how to use violence against any group, can invoke imprisonment and a fine. For general offenses, the maximum imprisonment is three years. For offenses that occur in a place of worship or during a religious ceremony, the maximum imprisonment is five years.

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) –Section 153a, 153b, 153c and 505 were expected to address hate speech but were already inadequate. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 which replaces the Indian Penal code has been criticised for making prosecution of hate speech even more difficult. The BNS ignores the 267^th Law Commission report and a slew of Supreme Court judgements asking for a nuanced effective understanding of and penal provisions against hate speech.

At times there is a confusion between free speech and hate speech. Free speech is extremely important and needs to be protected in societies that value human rights. The Camden Principles on freedom of expression and equality explore the fine balance between these two. Limitations on free speech can also be used by those in power to suppress the voices of minorities. Draconian laws such as the UAPA have been slapped on several vocal critics of the government. This is sheer abuse of power.

Offensive speech that poses a risk or threat to others has to be taken seriously if it incites discrimination, hostility or violence towards a person or group defined by their race, religion, ethnicity or other factors. It occurs through a process of ‘othering’. Hate speech has been known to incite, enable or instigate hate crimes which can be defined as overt acts of violence against persons or property (vandalism); arson; violation or deprivation of civil rights; certain “true threats; or acts of intimidation, assault or murder; or conspiracy to commit these crimes. It is a criminal offense motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity, including skin colour and national origin. It is more than offensive speech or conduct and its victims can include institutions, religious organizations and government entities as well as individuals. The seriousness of hate speech has been mentioned by the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres as a precursor to atrocity crimes.

Hate speech has become the norm in election campaigns

The political leaders who indulge hate speeches are hardly prosecuted and punished. The impunity that protects perpetrators of hate speech within a democratic system is alarming. Should hate speech, openly calling for violence, vandalism, ethnic cleansing, taking up of arms etc. and directed against specific individuals and communities, especially as part of election campaigns be allowed unchecked? These hate speeches are not even infrequent and within private spaces but blaring on loudspeakers and on social media. Anonymous handles on social media congregate in huge numbers to attack, vilify and abuse individuals and communities.

Sadly, with the escalation of identity politics geared towards the elections, hate speech reaps rich dividends. We have reached a point where there is a need for a perpetual enemy to bring us together. The Muslim community in India has borne the brunt of this, although other minorities have not been exempt. This hate speech is becoming entrenched and normalised and becoming part of school and institutional behaviours and regular social media posts and WhatsApp forwards. These hate filled and discriminatory messages are accepted at face value without any kind of commitment to the truth. Illogical, irrational, baseless fake news are peddled putting communities at risk of losing lives, livelihoods and dignity. Media, the supposed 4th pillar, is in cahoots with this, with shocking conflict of interest and unabashed allegiance to the current party in power.

There have been a series of hate speeches leading up to elections particularly by the current regime.

In January 2023, a religious conclave in Haridwar saw calls for organised violence against Muslims similar to the Myanmar kind of ‘cleansing campaign’ and that any resistance by the government would be faced with ‘revolt’.

The targeting has been relentless. Muslim businesses have been targeted, there have been open calls for economic boycotts and even those engaged in trade have been viciously and horrifically attacked, lynchings of suspected cattle traders or even of consuming/transporting beef have been attacked by maniacal mobs. Vocal Muslim women on social media have been put up ‘on sale’, mosques have been vandalised and demolished. Internet is rife with the blatant anti-minority hatred that has been completely unchecked (and even to some extent enabled) by the government in power. False accusations have been thrown around without any commitment to the truth or fraternity. When called out, rhetoric and falsehoods are the norm.

Human Rights watch analysed the Prime Minister’s speech after the announcement of the Moral Code of Conduct (which forbids appealing to communal feelings for securing votes) in ……….and found Islamophobic remarks in 110 campaign speeches. “If elected to power at the Centre, Congress would distribute people’s property, land and gold among Muslims,” Mr. Modi said during his address at a Lok Sabha elections campaign meeting in Rajasthan’s Banswara district on April 21, 2024. This kind of language, as opposed to the language of non-discrimination and inclusivity, is most unbecoming of an elected representative of the State.

According to the HRW report, taking hate speech to the realm of hate crime, the BJP government has demolished Muslims’ homes, businesses, and places of worship “without due process” and “carried out other unlawful practices”, all of which have continued since the election.

A report by the NGO Common Cause has documented that half the police they surveyed had anti-Muslim bias making them less likely to intervene in the event of crimes against Muslims. There are several records of impunity being offered for crimes against this community, by courts and other government bodies. Ironically, laws are being passed to further vilify and target these same communities.

It is shameful to see  extrajudicial punishments being meted out to innocent Muslims, in the inhumane method of “bulldozer justice.” Since 2022 several homes have been destroyed by the authorities meant to protect citizens with flimsy reasons that no court of law would sustain. It is common knowledge that those who participated in protests or raised their voices against the government in power have been targeted by this state sponsored violence and hate crimes. The Supreme Court has stated that retaliatory demolitions are not acceptable, but even that does not seem to be a suitable deterrent, which must again concern all law abiding citizens of the country.

In May, two BJP officials made profane comments about Prophet Mohammed, leading to deadly protests across India and condemnation from Muslim-majority countries. The BJP suspended the officials but these responses are too infrequent and slow and after much damage has been done.

The US Commission on International Religious freedom has classified India as a country of particular concern and urged the US government to place sanctions on Indian officials responsible for abuse. This is indeed a shame on the country’s vibrant democratic image that has been respected across the world. It would require a lot of concerted effort to undo this damage caused to our country’s reputation.

The significant enemy concept plays well in Indian politics. It is a deviation from the real politics of governance. The policies of development should be the primary issue of the campaign agenda. Unfortunately we do not witness any such debates having serious and substantial matters in the debate. The loud spoken sensational statements in public make the news.

There are no adequate laws to deal with hate speech. The legal process will take such a long time and the consequences even if there is punishment will come only after the damage is done and the election is also over. Hence the damage control is not done at all.

The loss of argumentative Indian is an irreparable loss for the Indian system. We need to argue out things on the basis of reason, logic and scientific temper. But in reality it is religion, caste and personal history of individuals. Hence the deviation is very easy in such a context.

In the process of we and they narrative the hate speeches appeal to the minds of the masses. A deep sense of deprivation and insecurity is made part of the conversation and that can be fatal. The political campaign’s goal is very clear. It is not interested in convincing people on substantial arguments but in dividing people in the name of religion and caste.

A twisted history is part of such rhetoric in political speeches. Some historical figures are suddenly demonised and a few new historical figures are created overnight to suit the narrative that is being built up for the election run.

No doubt it is part of the larger system. It is a consequence of identity bargaining in the political sphere. Divide and rule has become the order of the day in our democratic electoral politics.

Solutions and the way forward

What are the possible solutions to these low level political gimmicks in the country that are putting our own fellow citizens at risk to their lives, property, mental health and religious freedom? The Election Commission, which has a crucial role to enable free and fair elections, has to ensure that campaigns are also above board and following basic ethical principles of non-discrimination. Selective and slow response beats the purpose of the Election Commission itself. Taking these hate speeches to court is a long drawn process and justice is often delayed endlessly. We need to explore the possibility of fast track courts during the elections specifically geared to hate speeches and hate crimes.

The voting population, including the future populations need to be educated on the right way of conducting election campaigns and the need to hold violators accountable. Those perpetuating these hate speeches only do so because they see political benefit to it. If this benefit is withdrawn by an informed and articulate voter base, it will not be able to unleash the unrestrained damage that it is currently able to.

Rajya Sabha Member Manoj Kumar Jha (RJD) has called for a law to regulate hate speech and improve information disclosure about paid content. He has called out news channels for deliberately broadcasting TRP-centric news without or contrary to officially known facts. Importantly he also suggested that such legislation be introduced with stakeholders to find a balance between censorship of harmful content and freedom of speech and expression. He also made a case for including internet education in the school curriculum to impart basic knowledge and also sensitise children about the responsible use of the internet and the risks of hate speech and abuse.

He submitted a Bill in the Rajya Sabha on 9^th December 2022 against hate crimes and hate speech directed to a person based on religion, race, caste or community, sex, gender, sexual orientation, place of birth residence, language, disability, tribe etc. and that it should be non-cognizable and non-bailable. Any person:— (a) who intentionally publishes, propagates or advocates anything or communicates to one or more persons in a manner that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to harm or incite harm or promote or propagate hatred, based on one or more of the following grounds: (i) religion, (ii) race, (iii) caste or community, (iv) sex, (v) gender, (vi) sexual orientation, (vii) place of birth, This includes intentionally distributing or making available electronic material which constitutes hate speech and advocate hatred that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Hate speech, particularly as an election tool, and directed across the minorities, specifically the Muslim community is rampant across the country, and only growing worse. The consequences are severe and in contrast to the democratic fibre of the country. There is a need for urgent steps to be put in place to keep the government in check. All bodies with power to intervene – whether it is the Election commission, the judiciary, the police, civil society and even the voters need to take a stance that hate speech will not be tolerated. Let us stop normalising and enabling hate speech. This, as we know from history, is only a few steps away from hate crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Let us act with the urgency that the issue deserves.

The author is the Director of St. Joseph’s Law College Bengaluru. His social media handles are @JeraldSJCL Twitter/ @Jeralddsouzasj Instagram. The author is also part of a Campaign against Hate Speech.

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

The post Hate speech – a convenient tool in election campaigns appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These events have seen the propagation of hate speech targeting minority communities, particularly Muslims and Christians, with calls for violence, economic boycotts, and the promotion of harmful conspiracies. The CJP’s complaints underscore the critical need for urgent action from the NCM and other authorities to curb the spread of such rhetoric and ensure the protection of vulnerable communities. As the situation escalates, it is increasingly evident that there is a pressing need to reaffirm India’s commitment to secularism, social harmony, and the safeguarding of minority rights.

Complaint over hate speech at Trishul Deeksha events

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

The complaint details multiple instances where speakers at these events propagated divisive narratives, including baseless conspiracies like ‘love jihad’ and ‘land jihad,’ while calling for economic boycotts and vigilantism. At a Delhi event, senior VHP leaders declared their intent to “liberate” religious sites such as the Gyanvapi and Shahi Idgah mosques, while also targeting Ajmer Sharif Dargah, a revered Sufi shrine. In Himachal Pradesh, hate-filled speeches likened Muslims to “monsters” and falsely accused them of contaminating food, stoking economic and social discrimination. In Rajasthan’s Sirohi district, an event saw explicit calls for violence, with one leader urging attendees to “pick up weapons and be ready for war.”

Of particular concern is the complicity of law enforcement, as highlighted by a uniformed police officer in Sirohi who publicly participated in a Trishul Deeksha procession alongside far-right leaders. This raises serious questions about institutional bias and the failure of authorities to act against hate speech.

CJP has urged the NCM to take immediate cognisance of these incidents, investigate the organisers and speakers, and ensure legal and administrative action against those responsible for spreading hate and inciting violence. The organisation has emphasised the need for proactive measures to prevent the further normalisation of communal rhetoric, safeguard minority rights, and uphold India’s constitutional commitment to secularism and social harmony.

The complaint may be read here.

Complaint against hate speeches at ‘Dharma Sansad’ events

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

Narsinghanand, a known figure for his controversial views, reiterated his demand for a “Hindu Rashtra” and expressed a vision of a society with no room for Muslims, mosques, or madrasas. He also issued veiled threats against political leaders, further stoking communal tensions. Other speakers, including Kalicharan Maharaj and Shrimahant Raju Das, echoed similar sentiments, accusing Muslims of destroying Hindu temples and calling for violent action against them. The event also featured a monk who advocated for armed self-defence against Muslims and secular Hindus, calling for the prevention of Azaan and Muslim events in mosques.

These speeches have a grave impact on social harmony, further polarising communities and fostering an atmosphere of fear and insecurity among minorities. The hateful language used during the event has emboldened those with similar views, contributing to the rising tide of religious intolerance and making it more difficult to achieve peaceful coexistence. The impunity with which these individuals have acted and the lack of strong legal action against them has only worsened the situation, with social media platforms becoming breeding grounds for such harmful narratives.

In the complaint, CJP calls on the NCM to take urgent action, including initiating investigations, ensuring FIRs are registered against those responsible for inciting hate speech, and holding them accountable under relevant Indian laws. The complaint also urges the Commission to monitor the progress of investigations, compel authorities to take action, and issue further directives to prevent the spread of such dangerous rhetoric. This intervention is vital to safeguard the secular fabric of India and uphold the rights of religious minorities, preventing further escalation of communal violence.

The complaint may be read here:

Related:

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

CJP seeks preventive action against HJS’s Goa event

CJP Maharashtra: Surge in communal and caste-based violence with six incidents in January 2025

The post CJP demands NCM action on hate speeches at Dharma Sansad and Trishul Deeksha events, files two complaints appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Undermining the freedom struggle

Bhagwat’s assertion undermines the monumental significance of August 15, 1947, as the day marking India’s liberation from colonial rule. The sacrifices of figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhagat Singh, and numerous unsung heroes are side-lined in favour of an ideological claim. Rahul Gandhi denounced the remark as “insulting to freedom fighters,” while Jairam Ramesh characterised it as “anti-national” and reflective of an agenda to rewrite history. Leaders like Tejashwi Yadav noted that this narrative belittles the immense sacrifices made by the freedom fighters under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership, disregarding their unparalleled contributions. Revanth Reddy, echoing these concerns, demanded that Prime Minister Modi clarify his position on Bhagwat’s remarks, questioning whether the government stands by the freedom fighters or supports this ideological stance.

Historical revisionism and its dangers

Shashi Tharoor warned against conflating India’s independence with ideological or religious milestones. He emphasized that independence was achieved through the collective sacrifices of patriots who endured British oppression, including incarceration and execution. Tharoor cautioned that attempts to redefine this historical truth risk diminishing its universal and inclusive nature. Digvijaya Singh echoed these concerns, demanding an apology from Bhagwat and criticizing the divisive undertones of the statement.

Assault on constitutional values

The remarks challenge the principles enshrined in India’s Constitution, adopted on January 26, 1950. By linking independence to a religious event, Bhagwat’s comments contradict the secular and pluralistic ethos envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Jairam Ramesh argued that such rhetoric undermines the democratic foundation of the Republic, disrespecting the Constitution’s commitment to equality and unity.

Political and social implications

The political backlash to Bhagwat’s statement has been unequivocal. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee labelled the remarks “anti-national” and “dangerous,” highlighting their potential to distort history and disrupt social harmony. The National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), led by Varun Choudhary, called for stringent action against the RSS, asserting that Bhagwat’s rhetoric threatened the nation’s unity and integrity. Shashi Tharoor pointed out that linking independence to religious milestones risks alienating minority communities and rewriting India’s collective historical achievements. Sachin Pilot also voiced strong opposition, condemning the remark as an affront to the sacrifices of countless freedom fighters. He criticized the government for weakening constitutional institutions and fostering an environment where such divisive statements are normalised.

Divisive ideology and historical context

Critics like Tejashwi Yadav and Digvijaya Singh underscored the RSS’s historical non-participation in the freedom movement. They argued that such statements attempt to appropriate the legacy of the independence struggle while marginalizing diverse contributions. Farooq Abdullah’s response emphasised the collective effort and sacrifices of all communities, warning against narratives that could deepen communal divides. This sentiment was echoed by Sachin Pilot, who criticized the remark for diminishing the inclusive struggle that defined India’s fight for freedom.

Public sentiment and wider repercussions

The broader public and political reaction to Bhagwat’s statement reflects its polarizing nature. Leaders across party lines, including KC Venugopal and Mallikarjun Kharge, have condemned the remarks as an affront to the sacrifices of martyrs and freedom fighters. Organizations like the Congress and NSUI have staged protests, with demands ranging from an apology to a ban on the RSS. This widespread opposition underscores the importance of safeguarding India’s historical narrative from ideological distortions.

Broader concerns on historical narratives

Bhagwat’s statement aligns with a broader trend of historical revisionism, where specific ideological milestones are promoted as central to India’s identity. Such narratives risk side-lining the secular and pluralistic contributions of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Jawaharlal Nehru. Jairam Ramesh noted that this trend undermines the Constitution and the values it represents. By celebrating the Ram Temple’s consecration as “true independence,” the RSS projects a narrow and exclusionary vision of Indian history.

Mohan Bhagwat’s remarks represent more than a historical misrepresentation; they pose a challenge to India’s pluralistic and democratic framework. The struggle for India’s independence was a collective effort transcending religious, regional, and ideological boundaries. Attempts to rewrite this narrative for political or ideological purposes must be actively challenged to preserve the integrity of India’s democratic and constitutional ideals. Moving forward, reaffirming the values of unity, secularism, and inclusivity is essential to maintaining the spirit of the freedom struggle and the Republic it helped establish.

Related:

Riddles of Ayodhya Ram Temple: Consecration of Bhagwan Ram’s idol, but which one?

As Ram Temple inaugurated in UP, reports arrive of communal incidents from five states

Only Hindutva can unify India, says Bhagwat

The post Bhagwat’s remarks spark national unity debate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Background of the Speech

The event took place on January 5, 2025, in Rohini, a region of Delhi that is home to a diverse population. Nazia Elahi Khan, a leader affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), addressed a gathering organized by the Hindu nationalist group “Chetna.” The speech quickly turned controversial as Khan launched into a tirade filled with derogatory statements targeting the Muslim community. What began as a political address soon devolved into a vicious and divisive rhetoric that sought to dehumanize Muslims and propagate harmful stereotypes.

CJP’s Complaint to the CEO, Delhi

In its complaint, CJP sought the immediate attention of the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi, citing multiple violations of the MCC, which prohibits speeches or activities that incite communal violence, disrupt public peace, or foster distrust between communities. The CJP detailed the content of Khan’s speech, emphasizing how it:

• Incited communal hatred by making sweeping, baseless generalizations about Muslims, painting them as inherently violent and criminal.
• Violated the ethical and moral guidelines of the Model Code of Conduct, particularly its call for leaders to avoid using religion, caste, or community-based appeals to influence voters.
• Violated Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prohibits the use of religious or communal appeal to garner votes and ensures that political discourse remains centred on governance and policy issues.

CJP argued that Khan’s speech, especially during the critical period leading up to the Delhi Assembly elections, had the potential to destabilize the social fabric, incite communal violence, and polarize voters along religious lines.

Key violations highlighted by CJP in its complaint:

The CJP’s complaint meticulously pointed out the specific sections of the speech that violated both the MCC and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Stereotyping Muslims as violent and criminal

Khan’s speech included inflammatory statements targeting Muslims as a group. She falsely stated that Muslims were inherently violent, associating them with rape, terrorism, and “love jihad.” One of the most disturbing sections of the speech, transcribed as follows, demonstrates this:

“Tell them (Muslims) to get education, they will not! Tell them to become human, they will not! Tell them to study, they will not study! Tell them to do something, they will not do it! But if you tell them to rape, they will do it immediately. Tell them to do love jihad, they will do it immediately. Tell them to throw bombs, bullets, and ammunition! They will throw it immediately. Tell them to create terror, they will do it immediately.” She said

This statement not only perpetuates damaging stereotypes but also accuses an entire community of violent tendencies based on their religion. Such claims are deeply misleading, devoid of any factual basis, and incite animosity among communities. This is a clear violation of the MCC, which mandates that political leaders refrain from using inflammatory speech that could disturb public peace or harmony, CJP stated in its complaint

Derogatory remarks about Islamic practices

BJP leader Khan during her speech said, that “Tell them (Muslims) to get education, they will not! Tell them to become human, they will not! Tell them to study, they will not study! Tell them to do something, they will not do it! But if you tell them to rape, they will do it immediately. Tell them to do love jihad, they will do it immediately. Tell them to throw bombs, bullets and ammunition!

Here, the speaker engages in harmful stereotyping by accusing Muslims of being inherently violent and prone to terrorism. By falsely associating the Muslim community with rape, “love jihad,” and terrorism, the speech spreads misinformation and incites fear and hatred.

“They will throw it immediately. Tell them to create terror, they will do it immediately. What is it after all? What is there in this community? What is the secret of that heavenly book, that Al-Quran, which is a community that has been troubling people of all religions in the world” she said.

CJP said that this speech is deeply problematic and derogatory, especially during the period of the Delhi Assembly Elections 2025. The speaker makes sweeping and false generalizations about the Muslim community, portraying them as inherently violent, criminal, and prone to terrorism. By linking Muslims to heinous acts such as rape, “love jihad,” and terrorism, the speaker promotes harmful stereotypes that incite fear and hostility. These divisive and baseless accusations are not only factually incorrect but also inflammatory, creating an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility between communities.

“During a pre-election period, such statements are highly dangerous as they have the potential to polarize voters based on religion, undermining the principles of free and fair elections. Elections should focus on issues of governance, policy, and development, not on spreading hate and division. The speech directly violates the Model Code of Conduct, which calls for peaceful and respectful discourse, and jeopardizes the social harmony needed for democratic participation. By targeting an entire community with such derogatory remarks, the speaker seeks to manipulate voter sentiment through fear, rather than fostering an informed, inclusive, and fair election process” CJP stated in its complaint

The divisive “Us vs. Them” narrative

Khan went further to attack Muslim religious and cultural identity, attempting to create a sharp divide between Muslims and Hindus. She asserted:

“I know that the way people of Sanatan Dharma read Ramayana, Mahabharata, Shrimad Bhagwad Gita, there is peace inside them, there is humanity inside them, there is a yearning for forgiveness inside them. But you will have to ask for the address of the lane you don’t want to go to, you will have to explain to your daughters that no Abdul is good.”

Here, Khan made a derogatory and sweeping generalization about Muslims, labelling them as inherently dangerous to society. This remark not only sought to disparage Muslims but also propagated a culture of fear and mistrust among Hindus, encouraging religious polarization.

The video can be accessed through this link:

CJP mentioned in its complaint that Khan’s speech shifts the focus of the elections from governance and development to divisive identity politics. Her rhetoric promotes communal anxieties, leading voters to make decisions based on religious biases rather than critical issues like economic growth or healthcare. This practice deepens communal divides and erodes trust in democratic institutions, potentially inciting social unrest in a diverse city like Delhi.

Violation of MCC and People’s Act

Further, Khan’s speech violates multiple provisions of the MCC, which mandates a peaceful and fair electoral process. Her inflammatory language, which appeals to religious sentiments and incites communal tensions, breaches MCC guidelines related to general conduct and election campaigning. These actions distort the democratic process and jeopardize public peace and harmony. Under the Representation of People Act, 1951, Khan’s speech constitutes a violation of Sections 123(2), 123(3) and 123(3A), as it involves undue influence and appeals based on religion. Additionally, her remarks breach provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), promoting enmity and causing fear or alarm among communities, leading to potential legal action, CJP stated in its complaint

CJP urged the CEO to take immediate action against Khan, including issuing a public censure, prohibiting her future campaigning in Delhi, and investigating the BJP for promoting divisive rhetoric. Monitoring of political speeches should also be increased to ensure compliance with the MCC and uphold the integrity of the electoral process.

CJP’s complaint dated January 20, 2025 can be read here:

However, on January 10, 2025, CJP also filed a complaint against BJP councillor Ravinder Singh Negi (Vinod Nagar – 198) for delivering an anti-Muslim, communal speech during an election campaign event in Patparganj Assembly Constituency on January 6, 2025. The speech, aimed at securing votes, incited communal tensions and violated the Model Code of Conduct. CJP called for immediate action, stressing the detrimental effect such rhetoric could have on Delhi’s communal harmony, particularly in the context of the upcoming 2025 Delhi Assembly elections.

Related

CJP seeks action against BJP Councillor for anti-Muslim & communal election campaign

CJP files 3 MCC violation complaints with CEO Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke for hate speech

CJP files 5 hate speech complaints before CEO Maharashtra as violated MCC

The post CJP calls for electoral action against BJP leader’s hate speech at Rohini Chetna event appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He referred to Muslims as “descendants of the Mughals,” called for “Jai Shree Ram” to dominate India, and spread fear by suggesting a Muslim population threat to Hindus, with specific reference to West Bengal, as CJP pleads before the CEO Delhi.

CJP mentioned in its complaint that, “BJP leader Ravinder Singh Negi’s speech appears to be a clear attempt to communalize the election process by drawing sharp religious lines between Hindus and Muslims. By invoking his identity as a “Sanatani Hindu” and asserting a duty to protect Hindus, Negi positions the Hindu community as a victim in need of protection from an alleged Muslim threat. He frames this as a moral imperative, aimed at gaining votes on religious grounds rather than on merit or policy.”

CJP stated that BJP Councillor’s speech highlights divisive rhetoric, particularly in his mention of the “descendants of the Mughals” and their “faces downcast,” which seems to stigmatize Muslims by associating them with past Muslim rulers in India. This historical reference is meant to provoke fear and resentment towards Muslims, painting them as hostile or antagonistic to Hindu interests. The statement that “only ‘Jai Shri Ram’ will be spoken” further emphasizes Hindu supremacy, implying that Muslims and other non-Hindu groups should be marginalized.

Additionally, Negi brings up the issue of the Kashmiri Pandit exodus and the alleged persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. While these are legitimate concerns, his framing of these issues in a way that directly associates them with Muslims (both in Kashmir and Bangladesh) exploits communal sentiments to garner support. By focusing on perceived threats to Hindu communities, he uses emotional appeals that stoke fear and division rather than offering solutions to social or economic issues.

The harmful impact of divisive rhetoric on Delhi’s social fabric and democratic values

CJP in its complaint before CEO, Delhi concerned that the divisive rhetoric presented in Ravinder Singh Negi’s speech poses a significant threat to Delhi’s social fabric and democratic values. By categorizing entire communities based on religious identity, Negi fosters division and resentment between Hindus and Muslims. His statements that Muslims are the “descendants of the Mughals” with “faces downcast” perpetuate harmful stereotypes and vilify a large segment of the population. This fuels communal animosity, creating an environment where religious identity becomes the basis for trust and belonging, rather than shared values of equality and mutual respect.

“Furthermore, the use of historical grievances, such as the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits and alleged violence in Bangladesh, stirs up fear and distrust without addressing the broader complexities of these issues. Instead of focusing on unity or national progress, Negi’s rhetoric plays on emotions, encouraging polarization and undermining the inclusive spirit that democratic societies thrive on” as per CJP complaint.

Impact on electoral environment

Additionally, CJP has highlighted serious concerns regarding the impact of divisive language on the electoral environment, particularly in reference to BJP Councillor Ravinder Negi’s statements. CJP stated that Negi’s rhetoric significantly impacts voting behavior, as it shifts the focus of electoral choices from substantive issues like governance, economic growth, healthcare, and infrastructure to communal anxieties. This shift, according to CJP, undermines reasoned debates and encourages a political discourse cantered on identity politics and exclusionary agendas. The divisive language employed fosters communal polarization, transforming elections into contests for dominance rather than forums for collective progress. Voters, CJP mentioned, are swayed by alarmist narratives rather than informed decision-making based on candidates’ policies and merits. CJP also pleaded that this kind of rhetoric diminishes the democratic integrity of the electoral process, as it exploits religious and cultural insecurities.

Furthermore, CJP emphasized that such communal narratives erode public trust in democratic institutions, as high-ranking leaders like Negi set a troubling precedent prioritizing polarization over unity. CJP noted that this rhetoric risks inciting social unrest, which could have lasting consequences for peace and stability in Delhi.

Violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)

CJP also brought attention to Negi’s violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), specifically stating that his statements breach guidelines aimed at ensuring free, fair, and peaceful elections. CJP pointed out that Part I of the MCC prohibits activities that aggravate existing communal tensions, which Negi’s comments clearly violate by using religious identity to promote political loyalty. His call for Hindus to vote for BJP based on religious grounds and his derogatory references to Muslims further exemplify this breach. Additionally, CJP emphasized violations under Part V of the MCC, where appeals to religious sentiments in election campaigns are prohibited, stating that Negi’s speech violates this by promoting Hindu identity and vilifying Muslims.

Legal violations under the Representation of People Act, 1951

CJP also referenced legal violations under the Representation of People Act, 1951, specifically Section 123(2), which prohibits undue influence on voters. CJP pleaded that Negi’s religious appeals aim to influence voters by framing voting for BJP as a moral duty, based on religious loyalty rather than policy considerations. CJP further noted that Negi’s appeal violates Section 123(3), which prohibits appeals on religious grounds, as well as Section 123(3A), which prohibits promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between communities for electoral gain. CJP argued that Negi’s divisive rhetoric, which creates hostility between Hindus and Muslims, seeks to exploit these divisions for political advantage, violating multiple sections of the Representation of People Act.

CJP’s complaint to CEO Delhi dated January 10, 2025 may be read here:

Related:

CJP files 3 MCC violation complaints with CEO Maharashtra against Suresh Chavhanke for hate speech

CJP files 5 hate speech complaints before CEO Maharashtra as violated MCC

CJP’s fight against Hate: FIR filed against Suresh Chavhanke for Hate Speech at Karad event

The post Communal Campaign: CJP approached CEO, Delhi against the MCC violation and hate speech by BJP Councillor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A striking feature of the year’s events is the prevalence of moral policing, predominantly by Hindu vigilantes, accounting for 10 incidents, with three others involving unidentified groups. Religious conversion allegations also sparked tensions, though such incidents were limited to one case involving Hindu fundamentalists. The contentious issue of cattle vigilantism saw two reported cases, both allegedly carried out by Hindu vigilante groups.

Hate speech and hate crimes, both online and offline, emerged as a significant concern, with 27 incidents being reported. These included inflammatory remarks by Hindu fundamentalists in 15 cases, and 10 instances of hate speech proliferating via social media platforms. While Muslim fundamentalists were linked to two online hate incidents, the overwhelming majority of such activity was attributed to Hindu fundamentalist groups.

Attacks on places of worship were relatively rare in the coastal district of Karnataka but nonetheless symbolic of the communal fault lines, with one reported incident allegedly involving Hindu fundamentalists. Additionally, four other communal clashes or acts of violence were noted, including three attributed to Hindu fundamentalists and one to Muslim fundamentalists, with an unidentified group implicated in another.

These statistics offer a window into the persistent communal tensions in Karnataka’s coastal districts, underscoring the urgent need for proactive measures to foster harmony and curb the growing influence of vigilante groups. This report seeks to chronicle these incidents, not only to document the events of 2024 but also to highlight the socio-political conditions enabling such divisive activities. Through this report and this analysis, the aim is to contribute to ongoing efforts towards promoting peace and unity in this troubled region.

A comparison of the statistics of the current year with the previous year may be viewed here:

Incidents of moral policing

The report highlights a series of incidents in coastal Karnataka where moral policing and vigilantism were directed primarily against interfaith relationships. In Dharmasthala, an interfaith couple was harassed by locals and taken to the police station, though they were ultimately found to have committed no offence. Similarly, in Mangalore’s Kadri Park, three teenagers attacked a nursing student and his friend, recording and harassing them before being apprehended by the police.

In Puttur, a minor girl attending a local event was reportedly harassed by a youth of another faith, sparking a protest outside the police station by Hindutva activists demanding the youth be handed over. Meanwhile, at Panambur Beach in Mangalore, a woman meeting a friend was accosted by members of a Hindutva group who scolded the duo and filmed the incident.

Other incidents include the assault of a man and his mother in Kadaba for assisting a distressed woman, the repeated framing of consensual interfaith relationships as “love jihad,” and the targeting of couples travelling together, often leading to police involvement after interference by vigilante groups. These incidents underscore the region’s heightened communal tensions and the frequent intrusion of vigilante groups into personal matters.

Meanwhile, the right-wing Hindutva group Sri Ram Sena launched a controversial helpline to address so-called “love jihad” cases, aimed at interfaith relationships, particularly those involving Muslim men and Hindu women. The group claims that Hindu women are lured into relationships by Muslim men who allegedly aim to convert them. This initiative reflects a growing concern among certain segments of society about interfaith unions, and it has already stirred discussions regarding the involvement of law enforcement and whether such actions contribute to rising communal tensions.

In Sullia on January 12, 2024, a young man named Jostin Babu was beaten by a group of youths at a local temple fair after being seen talking to senior girl students from his college. This incident led to a complaint being filed at the Sullia police station. In a separate incident in Puttur on August 20, 2024, a minor girl was stabbed by a youth after she rejected his romantic advances. The assailant, with a history of conflicts, allegedly attacked her with a sharp object, leading to communal tensions as both individuals belonged to different communities. The girl was treated in hospital, and an investigation was launched under the POCSO Act.

Further investigation into the Puttur incident later revealed that the story may have been fabricated. CCTV footage contradicted the girl’s account, leading the police to question the authenticity of the claim. Some students also questioned the involvement of the accused boy, with certain groups offering support to his family, claiming the incident was being framed to stir communal unrest. A student organisation from the same college even demanded the suspension of the girl involved for making a false accusation.

These incidents highlight a complex intersection of personal conflicts, communal sensitivities, and societal divisions. Each case underscores the escalating tensions that are often fuelled by accusations and allegations involving different communities, further polarising the social fabric of India.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

1. Targeting of interfaith relationships: A clear pattern emerges of vigilantism directed against interfaith couples, particularly when one partner is a Muslim. Many of these incidents involve accusations of “love jihad,” with consensual relationships often being misconstrued as coercive or predatory. Such relationships are consistently framed as a threat to communal harmony, leading to harassment, public humiliation, and police involvement.
2. Role of Hindutva organisations: Many incidents are driven or escalated by the involvement of Hindutva groups such as the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad. These organisations frequently gather crowds, stage protests, and exert pressure on law enforcement agencies to act against individuals from minority communities. Their presence and actions often serve to heighten communal tensions.
3. Public and police complicity: There is evidence of public participation in these incidents, where bystanders either inform vigilante groups or directly intervene to question or detain interfaith couples. Police involvement often follows, with authorities typically taking the couples into custody, questioning them, and sometimes returning women to their families. This reflects an implicit validation of the moral policing actions.
4. Violation of individual privacy and rights: The incidents regularly involve breaches of privacy, with photos and videos of couples being taken and shared without consent. Individuals are subjected to public scrutiny and moral judgment, often in violation of their rights as consenting adults. Women, in particular, face heightened surveillance and are frequently returned to their families, disregarding their autonomy.
5. Escalation into communal narratives: What begins as a personal or interpersonal conflict often escalates into communal narratives. Small disputes or interactions are leveraged by vigilante groups to propagate divisive rhetoric, further polarising communities. The term “love jihad” is repeatedly used to stoke fear and mistrust, even in cases where no evidence supports the claim.
6. Police action under pressure: Law enforcement appears to act under pressure from vigilante groups in several cases, treating consensual adult relationships as criminal matters. The swift involvement of the police, often in response to demands from Hindutva groups, reflects the growing influence of these organisations in dictating public and legal responses.

Incidents of religious conversions

In Puttur, seven families from Panja and Pallodi in Kadaba taluk, who had converted to Christianity over 20 years ago, were reconverted to Hinduism in a ceremony organised by the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). These families, primarily from Scheduled Castes, had converted to Christianity with promises of better living conditions, but over time, they remained in poverty as the church stopped providing support. The VHP and Bajrang Dal worked with them for two years, encouraging them to revert to Hinduism by offering material support and religious education. The reconversion ceremony, held at the Sri Panchalingeshwara Temple, involved traditional Hindu rituals and included clothes, groceries, and household items for the families.

This incident highlights how extremist Hindu groups use both religious and material incentives to coerce vulnerable individuals into changing their religious identity, often framing it as a return to their “ancestral” faith. This raises concerns about religious coercion, as such movements exploit socio-economic struggles to further their ideological goals, undermining personal freedom and religious choice.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several patterns emerge from these incidents involving religious vigilantes and the use of religion for coercive purposes:

1. Exploitation of vulnerable communities: Many of the victims in these incidents, including those in both the Hindu vigilante and unidentified segments, belong to marginalised or economically disadvantaged communities. The reconversion ceremonies, for example, targeted Scheduled Caste individuals who had initially converted to Christianity due to promises of material support. This highlights a troubling trend where extremists exploit socio-economic vulnerabilities to gain religious or political allegiance.
2. Religious polarisation: The incidents often involve a clear division between religious communities, which is exacerbated by the actions of vigilante groups. Whether it’s the spread of false accusations in Puttur or the targeting of interfaith relationships under the guise of ‘love jihad’, these incidents feed into the narrative of a growing religious divide. The aggressive defence of religious identities seems to be used to further polarise communities, leading to communal tensions.
3. Use of religion as a political tool: Both the reconversion incident and the ‘love jihad’ helpline reflect the increasing use of religious identity as a political tool. The reconversion was framed as a return to the “ancestral” faith, positioning Hinduism as the authentic faith, and indirectly promoting a narrative that portrays conversions to other religions as unnatural or coercive. Similarly, the ‘love jihad’ helpline seeks to control and manipulate interfaith relationships by framing them as religious violations, thereby politicising personal choices.
4. Coercive religious practices: The reconversion ceremony and vigilante actions such as the harassment of interfaith couples reveal how extremist groups use religious rituals and social pressure to force individuals into conformity. The promise of material benefits, such as housing and financial support, alongside the pressure to convert, showcases the coercive nature of these practices.
5. Media and social media amplification: Many of these incidents have been magnified by social media, where misinformation or unverified claims spread quickly. In the case of the stabbing incident in Puttur, for instance, the communal angle was immediately highlighted by social media users, leading to public outcry and protests. The viral spread of images and accusations often exacerbates communal tensions and fuels public sentiment.
6. State inaction or complicity: Another pattern is the state’s apparent inaction or indirect support of such vigilante activities. While some incidents, such as the stabbing in Puttur, prompt police investigation, the involvement of right-wing groups like the Sri Ram Sena in orchestrating campaigns like the ‘love jihad’ helpline is indicative of the potential complicity of the state in religiously motivated activities. This highlights the need for stronger legal frameworks to curb the influence of extremist groups in shaping societal norms.

Incidents of cattle vigilantism

The cattle vigilantism incidents in coastal Karnataka illustrate an increasing trend of religiously motivated actions by groups such as Bajrang Dal, who take it upon themselves to enforce laws regarding cattle transport. On February 25, 2024, in Sullia, Bajrang Dal activists intercepted a vehicle they suspected was involved in the illegal transport of cattle. They informed the local police, who arrested the driver, Bibin Paulose, and seized the cattle. This was one of the first of a series of such incidents throughout the year.

In Puttur on March 25, 2024, a similar event unfolded when Bajrang Dal activists received information about cattle being transported late at night. They attempted to stop a Swift car, but the driver lost control and crashed into a ditch. The activists managed to alert the police, who took control of the vehicle and the cattle, though the driver managed to escape. This action was part of a wider network of vigilantism, where community members work with local authorities to apprehend suspected violators.

On April 10, 2024, Bajrang Dal’s involvement was again evident when activists tipped off the police about cattle being transported to an illegal slaughterhouse in Mulky. The police managed to intercept the vehicle, arrest the driver, Jaya, and seize two cows, though the prime accused, Ashraf, escaped. This raised concerns about the increasing role of religiously motivated groups in law enforcement.

The most violent incident occurred on May 22, 2024 in Mudubidri, where a group of vigilantes attacked three men who were transporting cattle from Kallamundkur. The attackers, believed to be part of Bajrang Dal, not only assaulted the victims but also caused significant damage to their vehicle, even stabbing one of the men, Muhammed Zian, in the back. The police, after receiving the complaint, filed charges against the attackers and the victims, further highlighting the complex dynamics of these incidents.

On October 16, 2024, in Puttur, Bajrang Dal activists followed an auto-rickshaw carrying a calf and reported it to the police. The calf was rescued, and the authorities arrested the driver and two women involved in the incident. These incidents often blur the line between legal and extrajudicial actions, as vigilantes act outside the law to enforce their interpretations of cow protection.

Furthermore, such vigilantism is not limited to Muslims alone. For example, on June 27, 2024 in Vittal, Bajrang Dal activists intercepted a vehicle carrying a bull and handed over the driver and cattle to the police. Even non-Muslim individuals were caught up in the system, with Hindu activists implicated in cattle transport cases, such as the seizure of cows in Belthangady on October 4, 2024, where two BJP activists were arrested alongside two Muslims. In another case from October 19, 2024 in Belthangady, authorities discovered cattle being transported without the necessary permits, and the individuals involved had attempted to disguise their identities with slogans like “Tatvamasi” and “Jai Sri Ram.”

These incidents demonstrate an increasing pattern of violence, intimidation, and religiously charged actions by vigilante groups, suggesting that the protection of cows has become intertwined with communal agendas, often undermining the rule of law and creating tensions between communities.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several patterns emerge from the series of cattle vigilantism incidents in coastal Karnataka:

1. Religious motivation and community vigilantism: The majority of these incidents involve groups like Bajrang Dal, which is strongly associated with Hindutva ideology. The activists often justify their actions as a form of religious protectionism, particularly regarding cow slaughter. While the law prohibits the illegal slaughter of cattle, these groups have taken on a quasi-policing role, acting outside the formal legal framework.
2. Escalating violence: Many of the incidents involve increasing levels of violence. While early incidents such as the one in Sullia (February 2024) involved non-violent interventions, later incidents became more aggressive, culminating in attacks on individuals. For example, the assault in Mudubidri on 22nd May 2024 resulted in a stabbing, underscoring the dangerous escalation of these confrontations. Vigilantes are no longer just reporting suspected violations but are actively engaging in violence, which raises concerns about law and order in these regions.
3. Involvement of local authorities: Police are often involved, but the level of coordination between vigilantes and local authorities varies. In some cases, like in Puttur (March 2024) and Mulky (April 2024), the police responded quickly, arresting suspects and seizing cattle. However, in other cases, vigilante groups seem to operate with tacit approval or assistance from local police, which raises questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement and the role of communal politics in policing.
4. Targeting of specific communities: Although non-Muslims are also involved in some cases, such as the incident in Vittal (June 2024), the majority of the incidents disproportionately target Muslims, both in terms of the suspects and the accusations of illegal cattle transport. This points to a pattern of communal polarisation, where Muslims are seen as the primary violators of these laws in the eyes of the vigilant groups.
5. Increasing vigilante acts across the region: The number of incidents appears to be rising, suggesting a coordinated campaign by religious groups to assert control over cattle transport and slaughter. As more reports surface, it is evident that these vigilante groups are operating with growing regularity and confidence, emboldened by the support or inaction of local authorities and the state government.
6. Use of religion to justify illegal actions: In several cases, vigilante groups have invoked religious slogans, such as “Jai Sri Ram,” as part of their actions, often to mask their identity or to assert the religious nature of their activities. This points to a deliberate attempt to politicise cow protection and use it as a vehicle for wider religious and communal agendas.
7. Legal grey areas and extrajudicial actions: The actions of these groups often fall into legal grey areas. While they claim to be enforcing the law, they do so without legal authority, leading to questions about the rule of law in these situations. The vigilantism and resultant violence often complicate the investigation and prosecution of actual legal violations, as both perpetrators and victims are subjected to multiple charges, further muddying the legal landscape.
8. Impact on minority communities: These incidents contribute to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, particularly for Muslim communities, who are frequently accused of violating cattle transport laws. The frequent attacks and assaults on Muslims involved in these incidents exacerbate religious tensions, perpetuating a cycle of mistrust and hostility between different community groups.

Incidents of hate speech/crime

The incidents of hate speech and communal tension in Mangalore highlight a concerning trend of escalating religious intolerance and political exploitation of such issues. On February 12, 2024, Mangalore City North MLA Y. Bharat Shetty made a statement urging parents to avoid sending their children to Christian missionary schools, citing alleged anti-Hindu sentiments, such as derogatory remarks made by a teacher at St. Gerosa School. This sparked widespread controversy, with Shetty’s comments further inflaming communal tensions, leading to protests outside the school by right-wing activists. The protests, led by Shetty, fellow MLA D. Vedavyasa Kamath, and other right-wing leaders, promoted religious intolerance and vilified the Christian community, accusing them of plotting against Hindu sentiments. The police filed a case against these leaders for inciting communal hatred, demonstrating a clear attempt to manipulate religious grievances for political gains.

Another incident, on March 10, 2024, saw Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Sharan Pumpwell urging the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to raid madrassas and mosques for clues related to a Bengaluru café blast, based purely on the religion of the suspect, without any concrete evidence. This call for indiscriminate raids reflects a dangerous pattern of associating criminality with religion and exacerbating communal fear and hatred. Pumpwell’s rhetoric feeds into a larger narrative of demonising Muslim institutions and communities, often without due cause or regard for the rule of law.

Furthermore, the May 2024 incident involving a group of Muslims offering Friday prayers on a public road in Kankanady became another flashpoint for communal rhetoric. Right-wing groups, including the VHP, condemned the act and threatened counter-actions such as Hanuman Chalisa recitations on the same public roads. These groups framed the act as a deliberate attempt to provoke Hindu sentiments, despite the fact that the group offering prayers claimed no such intent. The police, however, initiated legal action against the group, while the VHP leader Pumpwell was accused of threatening social harmony and creating fear within the community by promoting vigilante actions. The mosque committee later assured that such incidents would not occur again, emphasising the need to respect public space and prevent future controversies.

In June 2024, communal tensions erupted in Mangalore when BJP MLA Harish Poonja falsely accused mosques of hiding weapons, sparking protests from Muslim leaders. This incident highlighted the growing political use of inflammatory rhetoric to stoke religious discord.

In July, a social media post by Dr. Upadhya, inciting violence against Muslims, went viral, illustrating how hate speech on digital platforms can spread quickly and fuel division. Similarly, in August, the Sullia police investigated an incident where individuals threatened students at a mosque over their attire, reflecting how even personal choices are increasingly politicised in a climate of rising intolerance.

Later in August, a gang-rape case became politically charged when BJP leaders tried to frame it within the “Love Jihad” narrative, further polarising the issue. This incident underscored the risks of politicising crimes, which distracts from justice and fuels communal division.

In September, inflammatory incidents continued, including the arrest of Satish Devadiga for promoting hatred through a derogatory banner, and a letter from a religious organisation demanding Muslims stop distributing food during a Hindu festival. These events demonstrated the persistent role of symbolism and rhetoric in inflaming communal tensions.

In October, Arun Ullal’s video urging Hindus to avoid Muslim-run schools sparked backlash, showing the extent to which hate speech had permeated educational institutions. Similarly, in November, incidents like derogatory messages at a bus stop and calls for Hindu-only vendors at temple events demonstrated the continued use of public spaces for spreading religious division.

These events reflect a growing trend of communal polarisation in Mangalore, where politicians, social media, and local activists increasingly exploit religious sentiments to fuel conflict. These incidents depict a pattern where political and religious leaders manipulate real or fabricated grievances to stoke communal tensions. The rhetoric used by individuals like Shetty, Kamath, and Pumpwell is often inflammatory, framing religious practices and educational institutions as battlegrounds for ideological warfare. The subsequent protests and legal actions against the Muslim community further escalate these divisions, creating an environment where peaceful coexistence is undermined by political calculations. The role of law enforcement is also concerning, as it often appears reactive or complicit, failing to address the communal rhetoric and violence perpetuated by such figures. The overall narrative is one of increasing intolerance, with politicians and right-wing groups using hate speech as a tool to consolidate power and deepen religious divides.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several key patterns emerge from the series of incidents in Mangalore, pointing to a larger trend of communal polarisation and political exploitation. These patterns not only highlight the rising religious intolerance but also underscore the role of politics, social media, and public spaces in amplifying hate and division.

1. Political exploitation of religious sentiments: A clear pattern of politicians using religious issues for political gains emerges throughout the incidents. Figures like Y. Bharat Shetty and Sharan Pumpwell frame religious issues as central to political discourse, amplifying grievances in ways that stoke communal tensions. Shetty’s comments on Christian missionary schools and Pumpwell’s calls for raids on Muslim institutions reflect how political figures exploit religious issues to consolidate their base, creating fear and division within society. This tactic often results in increased polarisation, where the political agenda supersedes the need for social harmony.
2. Demonisation of religious minorities: Another recurring pattern is the consistent demonisation of Muslim institutions and communities. Incidents such as Pumpwell’s call for NIA raids based on the religion of a suspect, Harish Poonja’s false accusations about mosques hiding weapons, and the framing of personal choices (like attire and religious practices) as threats, feed into a narrative that associates criminality and divisiveness with Muslims. This leads to a climate of suspicion and fear where the Muslim community is increasingly viewed with hostility, regardless of the facts. The framing of incidents such as the “Love Jihad” case as part of a larger conspiracy is another example of how religious minorities are vilified.
3. Weaponisation of social media and public spaces: social media and public spaces are increasingly being used as tools for spreading hate and amplifying divisive narratives. Dr. Upadhya’s viral post and the inflammatory videos, such as Arun Ullal’s call to avoid Muslim-run schools, show how quickly hate speech can spread, influencing public opinion and escalating communal tensions. Similarly, public spaces, like the Kankanady road incident or the derogatory banner in September, are increasingly becoming sites of ideological battles, where symbols and actions are used to provoke and exacerbate divisions.
4. Incitement to violence and vigilantism: Several incidents demonstrate a pattern of incitement to violence and calls for vigilante actions. The threats made against students at a mosque in Sullia, the Hanuman Chalisa recitation counter-threat, and the public demonstrations and protests often escalate into direct confrontations. This not only creates a volatile atmosphere but also encourages vigilantism, where groups take justice into their own hands, bypassing legal processes and further contributing to the erosion of law and order.
5. Selective law enforcement and impunity: A troubling pattern in these incidents is the reactive or selective nature of law enforcement. While there are occasional legal actions taken, such as the police case against political leaders like Shetty for inciting communal hatred or investigations into hate speech, there is a perception that enforcement is uneven. Many incidents involving right-wing leaders or activists, particularly those stirring religious hatred, often go unpunished or are handled leniently, fostering a sense of impunity. This selective enforcement undermines trust in the rule of law and fuels the perception of bias.
6. Polarisation of educational and social spaces: Education and social practices increasingly become sites of ideological conflict, with religious identity becoming a point of contention. Arun Ullal’s video against Muslim-run schools and the arrest of Satish Devadiga for promoting hatred through symbols are examples of how educational institutions and social gatherings are politicised, turning them into battlegrounds for ideological warfare. These incidents reflect a growing trend of divisiveness in public life, where even seemingly mundane spaces are appropriated for religious and political purposes.

Incidents of hate speech on social media

The incidents in Mangaluru and surrounding areas between February and December 2024 illustrate a growing trend of communal tensions exacerbated by social media. These incidents reveal how both individuals and groups exploit online platforms to spread provocative and often false content, which stokes religious and political divides.

In February, BJP MLA Harish Poonja stirred controversy by suggesting that taxes paid by Hindus should only benefit Hindus, an inflammatory statement that sparked public backlash and accusations of anti-Constitutional rhetoric. This was followed by a complaint in which a former Mangaluru Corporator accused unknown individuals of spreading fake news about a teacher at St. Gerosa School, further contributing to the growing religious discord. Meanwhile, a pattern of misrepresentation and religious malignment continued into April when false claims about a temple official’s religious identity were circulated online, aiming to stir communal sentiment. These acts of misinformation often exploit people’s beliefs and can quickly escalate tensions, as seen in the case involving a provocative video shared by BJP workers outside a mosque in Bantwal in June.

Social media platforms, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram, played a crucial role in spreading such content. A viral video showing BJP workers celebrating an election victory with provocative slogans in front of a mosque in Bantwal raised significant concerns, particularly as it highlighted inconsistent law enforcement responses, which further polarised communities. Similarly, derogatory posts about religious figures and symbols, such as those in September, led to multiple police cases and arrests, underscoring the divisive potential of online hate speech.

The role of inflammatory voice messages and posts did not remain confined to one community. In June, a Muslim man was accused of posting communally provocative content, leading to a police investigation, mirroring the actions of those spreading hate from the other side. Additionally, in September, the contentious issue of a planned Eid procession led to further clashes, as social media posts from both sides’ escalated tensions. This exchange of provocative content highlights how social media platforms have become battlefields for ideological warfare, often spilling over into real-life conflicts.

The Hindu Janajagruti Vedike (HJV) in September also lodged a complaint about the defamation of Hindu gods on a Facebook page, once again demonstrating how online platforms are manipulated to spread vulgar and defamatory material. These incidents underline the vulnerability of social media to being used as a tool for incitement and the dangers of unchecked, inflammatory online discourse in fuelling communal divides.

Overall, the incidents reflect the growing role of social media in communal polarisation, with both religious communities increasingly using these platforms to spread misinformation, provoke reactions, and undermine social harmony. The inconsistency in law enforcement, particularly in dealing with inflammatory content, further exacerbates the situation, leading to a cycle of retaliation and escalating tensions across communities.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

The incidents in Mangalore and surrounding areas reveal several patterns related to communal tensions and the role of social media in exacerbating these divisions:

1. Exploitation of religious sentiments: A key pattern is the deliberate manipulation of religious sentiments by political and community leaders for personal or political gain. Statements by public figures, such as BJP MLA Harish Poonja’s call to restrict tax benefits to Hindus and inflammatory rhetoric surrounding school incidents, are often designed to create divisions and fuel animosity between communities.
2. Social media as a catalyst: Social media platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram have become central to spreading hate speech, misinformation, and provocative content. From fake voice messages about teachers to derogatory posts about religious figures and institutions, these platforms amplify the reach of harmful narratives, making it easier to ignite communal tensions on a large scale. The speed and anonymity provided by social media make it a particularly potent tool for incitement.
3. Religious polarisation and counter-accusations: A recurring theme is the polarisation of communities, with both Hindus and Muslims being accused of provoking one another through inflammatory posts and messages. For example, complaints about provocative content circulated by both Hindu and Muslim individuals highlight how both sides are contributing to the deepening religious divide. The back-and-forth nature of these accusations intensifies the conflict and creates a cycle of hostility.
4. Law enforcement inconsistencies: There is a noticeable inconsistency in how law enforcement responds to incidents based on the religious affiliation of the parties involved. The police often seem to take action only when the incident involves certain communities, or when it garners significant public attention, leading to accusations of bias. For instance, the lack of action against BJP workers celebrating an election victory in front of a mosque sparked public debate about unequal policing.
5. Provocative actions and public symbolism: Public spaces, including roads and mosques, have become arenas for ideological battles, with symbolic acts like offering prayers on the streets or chanting religious slogans outside religious buildings used to provoke reactions. These actions, often framed as threats or deliberate provocations, escalate tensions and fuel conflict between religious groups.
6. The role of fake news and misrepresentation: The spread of fake news is a critical factor in inflaming tensions. Instances where fake voice messages or false claims are made about religious figures or communities demonstrate how misinformation can be weaponised to damage inter-community relations. This often involves the spread of exaggerated or fabricated allegations that target religious or community identities, further deepening mistrust.

Incidents of desecration of religious places

On September 15, 2024, a stone-pelting incident targeted the Majidulla Hudajumma Mosque in Katipalla, Mangalore, during the Eid Milad celebrations. Six individuals, identified as Bharat Shetty, Chennappa Shivananad Chalavadi, Nitin Hadap, Sujit Shetty, Anappa, and Preetham Shetty, were arrested in connection with the attack, which is believed to have been orchestrated to inflame communal tensions. The attackers arrived on two bikes and threw stones at the mosque, damaging its glass windows, which was seen as an attempt to provoke violence between Hindu and Muslim communities in the area.

The police, under the guidance of senior officials including the police commissioner and deputy commissioners, swiftly formed a special team to investigate the case. The suspects were arrested within hours, highlighting the police’s prompt response in apprehending those responsible. However, the fact that some of the arrested individuals had numerous prior criminal cases raises concerns about the lack of deterrence for repeat offenders and the systemic issues that allow such individuals to continue committing violent acts.

This attack follows a disturbing trend of using religious sites and symbols to incite violence, a tactic that has been increasingly weaponised in Mangalore’s political and social landscape. The fact that the arrested individuals were largely from local areas further points to the deepening communal divide within the community, where local residents may be mobilised to engage in violent acts under the influence of right-wing groups. This raises questions about the role of local political forces in fostering an environment where attacks on places of worship are not just tolerated but may be tacitly encouraged for political gain.

Despite the arrests, the broader context of rising communal tensions in Mangalore, marked by earlier incidents of hate speech and protests, suggests that these actions are part of a larger, coordinated effort to stoke division.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

Several concerning patterns emerge from the stone-pelting incident at the Majidulla Hudajumma Mosque, as well as the broader communal tensions in Mangalore. These include:

1. Targeting religious spaces: Attacks on religious places, particularly mosques, appear to be a growing method of inciting communal violence. The mosque attack in Katipalla is part of a wider trend of using religious sites as symbols of contention, which serves to inflame tensions between religious communities. The destruction of religious symbols is often used as a tool to provoke responses, creating cycles of violence.
2. Repeat offenders in communal violence: The arrested individuals in this case had multiple prior criminal records, which underscores a troubling pattern where repeat offenders are involved in communal violence. The presence of individuals with established criminal backgrounds reflects the failure of local law enforcement to prevent these individuals from continuing to contribute to escalating tensions. This raises questions about how effectively the law deals with offenders, particularly those with a history of communal violence.
3. Political mobilisation of religious sentiments: The involvement of local figures with affiliations to right-wing groups or political parties, as seen in the case of Bharat Shetty and his associates, illustrates the instrumentalisation of religion for political gain. Inflammatory actions, such as the stone-pelting incident, are often linked to larger political strategies that seek to consolidate power by exacerbating religious divides. This pattern highlights the danger of politicians exploiting religious sentiments to further their own agendas, irrespective of the damage it causes to social harmony.
4. Media and social media amplification: The rise of social media as a platform for spreading communal rhetoric and mobilising people for violent actions is evident in Mangalore. The use of social media to spread hateful narratives or to glorify violent actions contributes to the amplification of communal discord. This is not just limited to traditional media but includes more covert digital spaces that serve as echo chambers for extremist views.
5. Uneven law enforcement: While there was a swift police response in this instance, there is a broader concern about the inconsistency in how law enforcement handles communal incidents. This can be seen in the reaction to similar incidents where legal action may be slow or even absent, depending on the religious or political affiliations of the individuals involved. The arrest and punishment of offenders in some cases, versus leniency or a lack of action in others, shows a concerning pattern of selective enforcement.
6. Escalation of religious intolerance: The attack on the mosque follows a series of incidents, including hate speech, political rhetoric, and symbolic actions (like protests), that reflect an increasing normalisation of religious intolerance. These incidents suggest that the region is witnessing a shift towards more overt communalism, where religious identities are increasingly used to divide communities and foster hostility.

Other communal incidents

The incidents detailed in the report reflect a deeply troubling escalation of communal tensions, particularly in Mangalore and surrounding areas, where religious groups, both Hindutva and Muslim fundamentalists, appear to be engaging in provocative actions that exacerbate existing divides. In the case of the teacher’s suspension in Mangalore, a series of protests erupted after allegations were made that she had insulted Hinduism, Lord Ram, and Prime Minister Modi during a class on “Work is Worship.” The situation was further inflamed by the active involvement of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and other right-wing groups, who demanded punitive action against the teacher. This incident, where a teacher with years of experience was suspended following a complaint by a parent and the subsequent protests, exposes a disturbing pattern of right-wing organisations pressuring educational institutions to conform to their ideological standards. This pressure to silence dissent not only stifles academic freedom but also undermines the broader principles of secularism and freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution. Political leaders such as MLAs further fuelled the controversy, adding political weight to the protests, which escalated tensions. The actions of these groups, demanding swift action in the name of protecting religious sentiments, reflect an increasing intolerance for any form of critique, even in academic spaces, and raise significant concerns about the erosion of intellectual freedom and pluralism in society.

On the other hand, the incidents allegedly involving Muslim fundamentalists demonstrate a reactive form of communal violence that perpetuates cycles of aggression. In one instance, following the celebration of Prime Minister Modi’s swearing-in ceremony by BJP workers, provocative slogans were allegedly shouted near a mosque in Boliyar. These inflammatory slogans, including “you people belong to Pakistan,” stoked animosity and provoked a violent response from a group of Muslim youths, who followed the BJP workers and, in an altercation, stabbed two individuals. While the stabbing was condemned as an act of violence, the incident itself is indicative of the underlying communal tensions that have been festering for years. The violent reaction was likely fuelled by the provocative nature of the slogans, which targeted Muslims directly, creating a volatile situation that ultimately resulted in physical confrontation. This incident underscores a broader pattern where religious communities retaliate against perceived insults or provocations, further deepening the divide between the groups. The police response to these incidents, though swift in some cases, seems more reactive than preventative. The deployment of police forces and the formation of peace committees after the violence suggests an attempt to manage the fallout, but the failure to prevent these incidents from escalating in the first place raises questions about the effectiveness of law enforcement in addressing the root causes of communal strife.

Another concerning pattern emerges from the involvement of political figures in many of these incidents. In both the teacher suspension and the Boliyar stabbing case, local MLAs and political activists from both sides of the communal divide seem to have played a role in escalating the situation, either by leading protests or making statements that inflame the public sentiment. The active participation of these political figures suggests that communal violence is being increasingly politicised, with both sides leveraging religious issues for electoral gains. This politicisation of communal conflicts only exacerbates existing divisions and makes it more difficult to de-escalate tensions, as religious issues become intertwined with political agendas. Furthermore, the selective nature of law enforcement in many of these incidents is troubling. While the police appear to act swiftly when right-wing groups are involved, there is often a delay or lack of action when incidents involve Muslim groups, further fueling perceptions of bias and uneven justice. The police’s failure to prevent the inflammatory actions of both Hindu and Muslim groups, including the provocative slogans and public demonstrations, points to a systemic failure in maintaining law and order and fostering communal harmony.

Moreover, the widespread use of social media in these incidents plays a critical role in amplifying communal tensions. In the Mangalore teacher case, a voice message alleging derogatory remarks against Hinduism went viral, and in the case of the BJP workers, social media posts highlighting provocative slogans added fuel to the fire. These viral messages often spread misinformation, creating echo chambers where religious groups are further polarised. The role of social media in the rapid dissemination of potentially harmful content highlights the need for more effective regulation and monitoring to prevent its misuse for communal ends.

Overall, these incidents exemplify a dangerous trend where both Hindutva and Muslim fundamentalist groups are using inflammatory rhetoric and actions to provoke and retaliate against each other, often with the involvement of political figures who exacerbate the situation. This cycle of provocation and retaliation not only perpetuates violence but also erodes trust in the rule of law, as the police are seen as either unable or unwilling to effectively prevent communal flare-ups. Furthermore, the growing politicisation of communal violence, selective law enforcement, and the unchecked spread of hate speech on social media are contributing to a volatile and divisive atmosphere. These patterns of communal violence, driven by ideological and political motivations, pose a significant threat to social harmony, national unity, and the secular fabric of Indian society.

Patterns emerging from the incidents

A clear pattern emerges from these incidents, highlighting the cyclical nature of communal violence in India, where both Hindutva and Muslim fundamentalist groups engage in provocative actions that deepen societal divides. Key elements of this pattern include:

1. Provocative actions and retaliation: Incidents often begin with provocative actions or inflammatory rhetoric. In the Mangalore teacher case, a statement perceived as offensive to Hindu sentiments led to widespread protests and demands for punitive action. Similarly, the Boliyar stabbing incident was sparked by provocative slogans targeting Muslims, which were followed by violent retaliation from Muslim youths. These provocations often trigger a cycle of retaliation, with each side responding to perceived insults or affronts to their religious identity. This cycle perpetuates violence and escalates tensions, reinforcing communal divisions.
2. Involvement of political leaders: Political figures from both sides of the communal divide play an active role in escalating these incidents, either by leading protests, making incendiary statements, or aligning with religious groups to gain political leverage. The teacher suspension case saw the involvement of local MLAs from the right-wing, while political figures from both communities often take sides in the aftermath of violence. This politicisation of communal conflicts fuels polarisation and makes it harder to de-escalate tensions.
3. Selective law enforcement: A key feature of these incidents is the perceived bias in law enforcement. While police forces may act swiftly when right-wing groups are involved, delays or lack of action occur when incidents involve Muslim groups. This selective enforcement contributes to the perception of uneven justice, which further exacerbates communal tensions and erodes trust in the authorities.
4. Role of social media in amplifying divides: social media plays a central role in spreading provocative content and misinformation. Viral messages, videos, and posts often escalate minor incidents into larger communal flashpoints. In the case of the Mangalore teacher, a viral voice message was enough to spark protests, while the Boliyar incident was amplified by social media posts highlighting provocative slogans. The rapid spread of such content creates echo chambers that reinforce communal identities and fuel hatred.
5. Failure to address root causes: The pattern reveals a systemic failure to address the root causes of communal tensions. While police and political leaders may act after violence erupts, there is little focus on preventative measures or addressing the underlying issues driving communal animosity. Educational institutions, law enforcement, and political leaders seem to focus on damage control rather than on fostering understanding and promoting peaceful coexistence.
6. Escalation through ritualised violence: Violence becomes a repetitive and ritualised response to perceived slights, with each side acting in a manner that mirrors or retaliates against the other. This creates a dangerous feedback loop where the focus shifts from addressing the core issues of intolerance to outdoing each other in acts of violence.

Report for 2022 can be accessed here.

The complete report may be read below:

A comparative table may be viewed here:

Related:

Is Mandya becoming the new right wing capital of Karnataka?

Development project threatens the livelihood of port village in Karnataka

Karnataka: Hindutva groups call for economic boycott of Muslim vendors at Siddheshwar Temple

Hindu Janagaruti Samiti (HJS) & Karnataka links

The post Shadows on Karnataka’s Coast: Report provides the communal flashpoints that defined the region in 2024 appeared first on SabrangIndia.