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.

These events, which are meant to showcase religious pride and unity, have increasingly turned into platforms for radicalisation and hate, with organisers and speakers using the stage to openly call for violence, demonise minorities, and propagate the toxic ideology of Hindutva. What is most troubling, however, is the active collusion of the authorities in allowing these hate-filled gatherings to take place with impunity. Despite clear violations of laws that prohibit hate speech and incitement to violence, these events continue to receive routine approval from local police, demonstrating a disturbing pattern of state inaction or even complicity.

From encouraging communal unrest in cities like Indore, Mandsaur, and Sitapur to the violent calls echoed in smaller towns like Rudrapur and Curchorem, these yatras are marked by leaders, including elected MLAs, delivering speeches that glorify historical violence, spread unfounded fears about Muslim ‘conspiracy theories,’ and even openly incite the crowd to take up arms. Yet, remarkably, these actions are often not met with any meaningful intervention. Police authorities, tasked with upholding law and order, routinely turn a blind eye to the inflammatory content of these rallies, providing permits and facilitating their execution without so much as a word of caution. In some cases, police officers can be seen participating in or condoning these hate-fuelled events, raising questions about the selective enforcement of law and the complicity of the state in fostering an environment of religious tension.

This permissiveness is not a coincidence but a deliberate strategy employed by various state and political actors who benefit from the deepening communal divide. The political establishment, especially the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allied Hindutva groups, have long sought to consolidate their base by stoking Hindu-Muslim animosity and presenting themselves as the sole defenders of Hindu identity. The unchecked rise of such yatras is an outcome of this broader political strategy, wherein hate is weaponised to galvanize support and suppress dissent. The consequences of this are deeply troubling: instead of upholding India’s secular constitution, these rallies contribute to a toxic environment of fear, alienation, and violent polarisation, where Muslims are increasingly portrayed as enemies within, vulnerable to state-sanctioned violence.

Moreover, the very fact that these events are allowed to proliferate despite their clear violation of laws against hate speech speaks to a breakdown in the rule of law and the erosion of democratic norms. The failure to prosecute organisers or speakers, or even arrest those who incite violence, sends a clear message that the rights of minorities are secondary to the political needs of those in power. The environment in India today is one where the state has become complicit in the perpetuation of hate, and the idea of communal harmony seems to be a distant memory, systematically replaced by fear, mistrust, and violence. The unchecked rise of these yatras is a symptom of a deeper malaise that threatens the very fabric of Indian democracy.

Themes of hate speeches in Shaurya Diwas and Shaurya Yatra events

The hate speeches delivered, details of which are given below, during these rallies consistently present a few dangerous themes, which are crucial to understanding the ongoing communal tensions in India. These themes not only seek to deepen divisions but also actively promote hostility and exclusion.

1. Glorification of historical violence: A recurrent theme is the glorification of past acts of violence, particularly the demolition of the Babri Masjid. By framing these events as triumphs of Hindu unity and honour, speakers encourage a violent, revisionist narrative. In cities like Mandsaur, Indore, and Sitamau, participants celebrated the destruction of the Babri Masjid and called for similar actions in other religious sites such as the mosques in Kashi and Mathura. This narrative casts such acts not as crimes but as righteous deeds, and it emboldens further acts of aggression.
2. Portrayal of Muslims as threats: Numerous speeches depicted Muslims as an existential threat to the Hindu community, with claims that Muslims are engaged in covert warfare (e.g., “love jihad,” “land jihad,” “game jihad”). Speakers regularly framed Muslims as invaders or aggressors, with language like “sleeper cells,” “Jihadi population,” or “terrorists” used to demonise them. In some instances, the rhetoric escalated to violent calls for the removal of Muslims from India, particularly in speeches by figures like those in Dhampur and Sitapur, where a genocidal tone was evident.
3. Conspiracy theories and fear-mongering: A key tactic in many speeches was the propagation of baseless conspiracy theories. Claims about “love jihad,” a fictitious notion alleging that Muslim men are systematically targeting Hindu women for conversion, were a common thread, as were fears about a “demographic shift” and “Muslim population growth.” These theories aim to sow fear and suspicion, portraying Muslims as part of a coordinated effort to undermine Hindu identity and take over the country. Such rhetoric is intended to create a climate of distrust and hostility, polarising communities.
4. Rejection of coexistence: Many of the speeches explicitly rejected the notion of Hindu-Muslim coexistence, framing the two communities as fundamentally incompatible. For example, the speaker in Sitapur framed Hindus and Muslims as “eternal adversaries” and representatives of “two separate civilizations,” reinforcing the divisive “us vs them” narrative. This rhetoric directly undermines the pluralistic foundation of Indian society, rejecting the idea of a unified, multi-religious nation.
5. Incitement to violence and aggression: Multiple speakers openly incited violence, urging Hindus to take up arms and defend their religion against alleged Muslim threats. In multiple rallies, participants were seen brandishing swords, tridents, and other weapons, with leaders openly encouraging violence. For instance, in Curchorem, Goa, and Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, speakers called for violent retaliation against Muslims, while in Rudrapur, Uttarakhand, a leader described Muslim-majority areas as “sleeper cells” that needed to be eradicated. These speeches create an atmosphere of fear and aggression, normalising the idea that violence is justified in the name of religion.
6. Hindu supremacist ideology: The overarching narrative of these speeches often revolved around the idea of Hindutva, a Hindu nationalist ideology that seeks to define India as a Hindu-only nation. This ideology is used to justify the exclusion and marginalisation of Muslims, with calls for economic boycotts of Muslim businesses, as seen in Balunda, Rajasthan. The speeches also portrayed Muslims as “outsiders” who should either convert or leave the country, further alienating the community and denying them their rightful place as citizens.

Together, these themes reflect a growing trend of radicalisation and exclusion in Indian politics and society, particularly among far-right groups. The use of historical grievances, fear-mongering, and direct incitement to violence threatens the fragile communal harmony in many parts of India, contributing to an environment where hate and violence are increasingly normalised. These speeches also illustrate how political and religious leaders, including elected representatives, are systematically fostering division to consolidate power, rather than promoting unity and peace.

Details of the hate speeches and hate mongering

Below is a detailed account of some of these events:

1. Samastipur, Bihar (December 6)

In Samastipur, members of the VHP and Bajrang Dal gathered to mark “Shaurya Divas.” The rally featured participants openly brandishing swords, a symbolic act that evoked aggression and intimidation, while commemorating the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The event took place against the backdrop of presently heightened communal tensions in the country, amplifying fears among local Muslim communities. Such displays of weaponry at religious processions are not just provocative but also serve to instil a sense of impunity among those perpetuating hate.

2. Ambala, Haryana (December 6)

A similar rally was organised in Ambala, Haryana, where the VHP and Bajrang Dal again celebrated the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Although less overtly violent, these events contribute to a growing normalisation of hate-filled rhetoric under the guise of cultural celebrations. Ambala, with its historical communal harmony, has increasingly witnessed such events disrupting the delicate social fabric of the region.

3. Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh (December 6)

In Mandsaur, the VHP chose a temple setting for their “Shaurya Divas” observance. While framed as a prayer meeting, the event subtly glorified the Babri Masjid demolition, embedding it within religious rituals to legitimise and sanctify communal violence. The choice of a temple as the venue further solidified the narrative of Hindutva as a defender of faith, using historical grievances to fuel contemporary animosities.

4. Bazpur, Uttarakhand (December 8)

In Bazpur, participants in a Shaurya Divas rally chanted inflammatory slogans, including “Put on Dabur’s oil and erase Babur’s name,” linking consumerism with communal hatred. Such rhetoric cleverly plays on cultural pride while stoking animosity against Muslims, whom Hindutva ideology associates with “Babur,” the Mughal emperor. The slogans exemplify the subtle but calculated mobilisation of everyday language to deepen religious divides.

5. Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (December 8)

Mathura, a city with historical and religious significance, witnessed a particularly charged Shaurya Yatra. During the rally, participants raised slogans like “Cut the hands of those who cut cows,” a direct threat aimed at Muslims. The choice of Mathura is deliberate, as it is a site of ongoing disputes over religious spaces, with extremist groups seeking to replicate the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir narrative. The rally further strained communal relations in a region already fraught with tensions.

6. Curchorem, Goa (December 8)

In Goa’s Curchorem, BJP legislator T. Raja Singh used the Shaurya Yatra as a platform for hate speech, as he does habitually and with impunity. He spread conspiracy theories such as “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “demographic change,” all of which have been repeatedly debunked but continue to fuel anti-Muslim narratives. The involvement of a public representative, as he in an elected MLA from the ruling party, in such rhetoric underscores the institutional support these divisive agendas enjoy. Raja Singh’s 48-minute speech exemplifies how Shaurya Yatras are not isolated events but part of a larger strategy to systematically marginalise minorities.

Some extracts from Singh’s speech are as follows:

“I was reading a statement made by the Governor of this state. He said the percentage of Muslims in Goa, which was 3 per cent 10-15 years ago, has now risen to 12 per cent. This is something to consider and carefully think about.”

“Wherever Hindu population has decreased, conversions of Hindus have occurred there.”

“If the Jihadi population in India continues to grow and if their MPs are 300, then which community will the Prime Minister be from? Unka hi hoga, na (from their’s, right)? And in countries where ‘their’ Prime Minister is elected, what has been the condition of Hindus. History is witness to that.”

Brandishing a sword, Singh could be heard saying, “This sword is not just to be kept in its sheath. This should be in the home of every Hindu.”

“Love Jihadis don’t only target Hindus. I want to appeal to our Christian brothers from Goa. You should watch the Kerala Files (Story) movie even though the film doesn’t tell the entire story. The movie shows how in the name of love jihad, Hindu and Christian girls were lured. Hindus have kept their doors open for Christian brothers to fight against love jihad. Do join hands…our strength will increase.”

“They are appealing for help. I want to say that ‘Bajrangi’ is ready to fight for the protection of Hindus in Bangladesh. Modi ji, just open the gates for 15 minutes and we will do it.”

“In the next 20-25 years, if Hindus follow ‘hum do hamare do’ dictum, then they will suffer the same fate and atrocities as Hindus in Pakistan.”

7. Ved Mandir, Masani, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (December 8)

At a Shaurya Yatra rally, Bajrang Dal National Convenor Sohan Singh Solanki delivered a provocative speech, declaring that Hindus were ready to reclaim “Krishna Janmabhoomi” at a single call from the saints. He propagated conspiracy theories like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “thook jihad” while alleging an “anti-Hindu” conspiracy to convert Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. The speech not only incited division but also aimed to stoke fears and grievances, weaponising religion to justify aggression.

8. Barsana, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (December 10)

In Barsana, a Shaurya Yatra rally organised by the VHP and Bajrang Dal saw participants brandishing swords, and several speakers incited violence under the guise of protecting religion and the nation. The choice of Mathura—an area central to Hindutva’s ideological focus on reclaiming “Krishna Janmabhoomi”—further underscores the agenda to exacerbate communal divides in a region already fraught with sensitivities.

9. Angul, Odisha (December 11)

The VHP organised a Shaurya Sanchalan (display of valour) rally in Angul, where members of the Maa Hingula Paika Akhada Seva Sangha paraded with swords and other weapons. This display of arms, framed as an assertion of cultural pride, masked a deliberate attempt to intimidate minorities and assert dominance. Odisha, historically less prone to communal violence, has seen a steady rise in such events after the change in the state government, reflecting a worrying trend of polarisation.

10. Indore, Madhya Pradesh (December 15)

At a VHP-Bajrang Dal Shaurya Sanchalan event in Indore, speaker Vinod Sharma openly praised the demolition of the Babri Masjid as a symbol of Hindu unity. He declared Ayodhya was merely the beginning, with plans to reclaim Mathura, Kashi, and temples in Bangladesh and Pakistan as part of an “Akhand Bharat.” Sharma also propagated vile conspiracy theories like “spit jihad” and “urine jihad” while dehumanising Muslims as deviants. His statements not only glorified violence but also legitimised future communal confrontations, painting them as part of a larger nationalist agenda.

11. Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand (December 15)

In Rudrapur, a speaker at a VHP-Bajrang Dal Shaurya Yatra spread conspiracies about Muslims “taking over” Hindu properties, recounting a fabricated story about a Maulana promising Muslim children possession over Hindu households. The speaker described areas with Muslim populations as “sleeper cells,” drawing parallels to Kashmir and Pakistan, thereby equating minority communities with security threats. This narrative seeks to delegitimise the presence of Muslims as citizens, portraying them as invaders within their own country.

12. Balunda, Pali, Rajasthan (December 15)

Far-right leader Yogi Laxman Nath addressed a Shaurya Sanchalan organised by the VHP-Bajrang Dal, calling for an economic boycott of Muslim-owned businesses. Promoting the conspiracy theory of “love jihad,” he incited economic and social ostracisation while sowing fear about the Muslim population’s growth. His rejection of communal harmony underscores the agenda to fracture India’s pluralistic ethos by fomenting suspicion and hostility.

13. Khajuha, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh (December 15)

In Rae Bareli, participants of a Shaurya Yatra openly displayed swords and other weapons. This visual spectacle of aggression, staged in the heartland of Uttar Pradesh, is emblematic of how these rallies aim to intimidate minority communities. Such public demonstrations of force create an atmosphere of fear and insecurity, undermining communal harmony.

14. Rampur, Uttar Pradesh (December 15)

At a Shaurya Yatra in Rampur, participants raised inflammatory slogans like “Tel lagao Dabur ka, naam mitao Babar ka” and “Hindustan me rahna hoga, to Jai Shri Ram kehna hoga (if you want to continue living in India, you have to say Jai Shri Ram.” These chants not only invoke the Babri Masjid demolition but also demand conformity to Hindutva ideology as a precondition for living in India. The slogans are a direct threat to the secular character of the nation, weaponising religious identity to exclude and marginalise minorities.

15. Chandausi, Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh (December 15)

During the Shaurya Jagran Yatra, a VHP-Bajrang Dal leader propagated conspiracies of “love jihad” and “land jihad,” which are frequently used to vilify Muslims. By portraying Muslims as aggressors engaged in covert “jihad,” these speeches aim to radicalise Hindu audiences and perpetuate a cycle of fear and hatred. It is essential to note that in the past moth itself, Sambhal saw instances of communal violence and state excess, which resulted in the death of five Muslim men.

16. Mumbai, Maharashtra (December 15)

In Mumbai, Bajrang Dal leader Vivek Kulkarni used a Shaurya Sanchalan event to glorify the Babri Masjid demolition and spread conspiracies like “love jihad” and “land jihad.” The speech, delivered in India’s financial capital, highlights how communal polarisation is being pushed even in urban, multicultural spaces. The glorification of historical violence is intended to legitimise similar actions in the future, normalising hate and exclusion.

17. Dhampur, Uttar Pradesh (December 15)

In Dhampur, a leader at the Shaurya Jagran Yatra glorified the Babri Masjid demolition while spreading a range of conspiracy theories, including “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “game jihad.” He explicitly urged violent retaliation against Muslims and called for their removal from India, underscoring the increasingly genocidal tone of such rallies. This event reflects the extreme rhetoric becoming normalised in public discourse, with open calls for violence going unchecked.

18. Morigaon, Assam (December 16)

A Shaurya Divas event organised in Morigaon included a speech dismissing the Babri Masjid as “just a structure” where no prayers were ever offered, reducing it to a relic unworthy of recognition. The event also featured a “Trishul Deeksha” ceremony, where participants swore oaths while holding miniature tridents, symbolising a militaristic approach to their ideological goals. These ceremonies are emblematic of efforts to radicalise attendees and normalise aggression under the guise of cultural pride.

December also saw multiple “Trishul Deekha events” being organised across India, a detailed report of which may be read here.

19. Sitamau, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh (December 17)

In Sitamau, Bajrang Dal district in-charge delivered an incendiary speech during a Shaurya Yatra rally. He glorified the Babri Masjid demolition, called for the “liberation” of Kashi, Mathura, and Bhojshala, and spread the “love jihad” conspiracy. Explicit threats were made, including a vow to “find all Bangladeshi supporters and give them a beating.” His declaration that “Yes, they should be scared of us” while referring to the Muslims highlights the deliberate cultivation of fear among minorities as a strategy to consolidate communal polarisation.

20. Allipur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh (December 20)

Speaker Narendra Hindu delivered an incendiary speech during a Shaurya Yatra, predicting a dystopian future where Hindu women would be captured, cows slaughtered, temples demolished, and Hindus exterminated. His rhetoric framed Muslims as existential threats, stoking communal fear and legitimising divisive and violent actions.

21. Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh (December 20)

At a Shaurya Yatra, a Bajrang Dal leader glorified the demolition of the Babri Masjid, chanting slogans like “Ek dhakka aur do, Babri dhancha tod do (give another push, break the structure of Babri).” He called for similar actions in Kashi and Mathura mosques, and suggested adopting confrontational strategies to claim religious sites like Bhogshala and Sambhal. This narrative promotes an aggressive and revisionist agenda, seeking to rewrite history through violent reclamations.

22. Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh (December 20)

During a Shaurya Divas event, Bajrang Dal leader Tarshvee Upadhyay used dehumanising language, referring to Muslims as “illegitimate children of Babur.” He boasted about breaking barricades to demolish the Babri Masjid, framing the act as a triumph over centuries of oppression. Such statements glorify past violence and incite further hostility.

23. Haridwar, Uttarakhand (December 22)

In Haridwar, Sohan Singh Solanki’s speech at a Shaurya Yatra demonised Muslims as terrorists and promoted a slew of conspiracies, including “land jihad.” He described Muslims as “pigs” and framed them as existential threats targeting women, cows, and land. Solanki also blamed Muslims for the caste system and untouchability, distorting historical realities to create a divisive narrative.

An extract from his speech is:

“When they are in the minority, they make idols; alleged when they become the majority, they destroy our idols.”

24. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh (December 24)

In Jabalpur, a Shaurya Yatra escalated into a physical altercation between VHP-Bajrang Dal members and police officers, after the police halted the rally for lacking proper permissions. Participants carried lathis and miniature tridents, symbolising their readiness for confrontation. This incident underscores how these events disrupt public order and embolden participants to defy legal authorities.

25. Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh (December 25)

During a Shaurya Diwas event in Sitapur, organised by the VHP and Bajrang Dal, an unidentified far-right leader delivered an incendiary speech portraying Muslims as eternal adversaries to Hindus. The speaker framed Hindus and Muslims as representatives of two fundamentally irreconcilable civilisations, reinforcing a divisive “us vs them” narrative. This rhetoric sought to deepen communal divides, explicitly rejecting the idea of coexistence or fraternity between the two communities. Such speeches amplify societal polarisation, legitimise exclusion, and fuel animosity, contributing to an environment where prejudice and violence against minorities can thrive.

A map showing the Shaurya Yatras held across India may be viewed here.

Related:

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

Christmas under siege: right-wing target Christmas celebrations across states, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Kerala

Right-wing outfits disrupt Christmas across the country, alleged religious conversion through events

The post Shaurya Yatras: Orchestrated mobilisation of hatred appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, Kerala recorded the lowest number of murders in the country between 2018 and 2020, with a rate of 0.08%. In stark contrast, Uttar Pradesh, governed by hard-line Hindutva forces, had the highest murder rate at 15.1%. Kerala’s achievement underscores its status as a “Garden of Peace” amidst the turmoil propagated by states leaning towards communal politics. The success of Kerala’s governance and the peaceful coexistence of its people challenge the divisive ideologies of Hindutva proponents, who seemingly wish to transform Kerala into a jungle of trouble.

A recent controversy further illustrates this antagonism. Maharashtra’s Fisheries and Ports Development Minister, Nitesh Rane, made inflammatory remarks while speaking on the occasion of Shiv Pratap Din, which marks Chhatrapati Shivaji’s historical victory over Afzal Khan. Rane accused those who supported Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in Kerala’s Wayanad constituency of being anti-national. He claimed that the Indian Union Muslim League, an ally of the Congress, worked against national interests and stated, “Kerala is a part of our country, and if anyone works for Pakistan or commits atrocities against Hindus in Kerala, we will have to speak about it. Kerala is ours, and it will remain ours. In the future, Kerala will become ‘Bhagwadhari,’ I am confident about it.” Rane, facing a backlash thereafter was quick to clarify that ‘Kerala was very much part of India,’ though his slurs against the party in power, CPI-M and people of Kerala continued.

Kerala’s Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan, condemned Rane’s statement, calling it deeply provocative and deplorable. He highlighted how such remarks reflect the Sangh Parivar’s divisive approach towards Kerala. Congress spokesperson Atul Londhe Patil also criticised Rane and demanded his removal from the Maharashtra cabinet, while Kerala’s Leader of the Opposition, V. D. Satheesan, called the statement a new low in Indian politics and demanded Rane’s resignation. Former Finance Minister of Kerala, Thomas Isaac was succinct in his response too. “We are no mini-Pakistan, you hate monger BJP minister. Kerala is proudly secular, lowest in untouchability practices, educated and healthy. Our per capita income 60 % above the national. It is you Sanghi who wants to make India into Hindutva mirror image of Pakistan.”

#WATCH | Pune: Maharashtra Minister and BJP leader Nitesh Rane, says, “Those who supported and worked for Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in the elections are anti-national. We have this information…All India Muslim League who worked against the nation had worked… pic.twitter.com/MWM7XSaO9m

— ANI (@ANI) December 31, 2024

We are no Mini Pakistan, you hate monger BJP minister.Kerala is proudly secular, lowest in untouchability practices,educated and healthy.Our per capita income 60% above the https://t.co/N0aDy1FXny is you Sanghi who wants to make India into Hindutva mirror image of Pakistan.

— Thomas Isaac (@drthomasisaac) January 1, 2025

Maharashtra Minister #niteshrane‘s comments referring to Kerala as a’mini-Pakistan’ &its people as terrorists is strongly condemned.This really startling statement signals a low point in politics. He has no right to remain in his ministerial position.@RahulGandhi@priyankagandhi

— V D Satheesan (@vdsatheesan) December 30, 2024

https://www.aninews.in/news/national/politics/nitesh-rane-clarifies-mini-pakistan-remark-says-kerala-part-of-india20241230140041/?amp=1

This is not the first instance of Sangh Parivar members targeting Kerala and Rane’s diatribe is not happening in isolation. The controversial film, ‘Kerala Story’, (film maker Vipul Shah, and brazenly promoted by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) selectively portrayed Islam and Muslims in a malevolent manner. On September 30, 2017, leader of their pack and a career criminal, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat accused the governments of Kerala and West Bengal of siding with “jihadi elements.” Chief Minister Vijayan responded sharply, stating that Bhagwat’s comments were baseless and stemmed from the RSS’s inability to gain political traction in Kerala. Earlier this year, on April 7, former Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis alleged that Kerala had become a “hotbed of anti-national forces” due to misgovernance and “minority appeasement.”

The repeated targeting of Kerala by Hindutva leaders reveals their discomfort with its inclusive development model, which starkly contrasts their exclusionary ideology. The Sangh Parivar’s rhetoric often hinges on creating divisions and fostering communal disharmony. Kerala, with its progressive policies and rejection of such divisive narratives, serves as a thorn in their side.

It is evident that organisations like the RSS thrive on minority hatred, sustained by the venom of Hindutva. Their modus operandi resembles the mythical demon Ravana, whose heads multiplied upon being cut off. Each attempt to disrupt Kerala’s harmony only strengthens the resolve of its people to resist communal forces. As Kerala continues to uphold the values of pluralism and progress, it stands as a beacon of hope against the tide of divisive politics sweeping parts of the nation.

Sadly, the Supreme Court’s guidelines on hate speech issued in October 2022, directing the police forces in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttarakhand to take suo moto action against individuals making hate speeches, irrespective of the religious community they belong to, remain a dead letter. This lack of enforcement perpetuates a climate of impunity and encourages those who seek to sow seeds of division through their hate speech.

Related:

The real Kerala story

Legal Pledges Fall Short: Hate speech prosecutions stalled in Maharashtra

The post From God’s Own Country to a Hindutva Target: Kerala’s Model of Harmony Faces Persistent Threats appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For Cow vigilantes Modi had given a statement that murder in the name of cow is not acceptable, and just a few hours later a Muslim man was done to death on this issue. Apart from the phenomenon which is continuing. “Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday said that the significance of love, harmony, and brotherhood is central to the teachings of Lord Christ. He also urged people to strengthen these values.” Just a couple of days later the vigilante groups and even Bajrang Dal groups attacked a person in Ahmedabad who had dressed as Santa Clause and was distributing gifts. A video is going viral where two men dressed as Santa Claus being beaten up by hooligans at the Kankaria Carnival in Ahmedabad. This probably is the first year where people dressed as Santa Clause are being hauled up.

Already we had seen that Carol Singers were beaten up and since BJP came to power Carol singing has been stopped in Rashtrapati Bhavan. Bajrang Dal has also issued warnings to Hindus for their attending Christmas parties. How come these acts at the time of Christmas are seeing a new low currently?

Recently we also saw the claims on mosques that there was such a temple so it must be dug up a la Babri Masjid style. Seeing the spate of such made up claims, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat himself said that we should not keep looking for Shivling under every mosque. It is amazing that the claim is made, and dispute created in Kashi where a fountain looking structure is claimed to be a Shivling and demand for converting the mosque into a temple boosted. After the Sambhal claims, the violence followed.

Probably shaken by this and the feeling that the Supreme Leader of the supra political outfit felt it will bring loss of face for ‘RSS Combine’ and so he gave a sane looking call, “The Ram Temple was about faith, and Hindus wanted it built. But raising disputes about new sites out of hate is unacceptable,” he said. “Some people think they can become leaders of Hindus by creating new controversies. How is this allowed?”

And lo and behold most of the fringe organizations of Hindutva politics are coming forward to oppose it. One knows that RSS is a strict disciplinarian organization, and its members do not violate the commands of its leader. So who are these Senas, Dharma Sansads springing up by a dozen and going against the appeal of Bhagwat?

To cap it all, RSS’s unofficial mouth piece Organizer itself came forward to articulate the fringe elements’ demands and wrote that “Temple restorations are a quest for our identity! (TOI Dec 27, 2024). It also claims that temple restorations are for our national identity and to seek civilizational justice.

How come the hate is so pervasive that it is crossing the limits set by its own leaders? Is it that the leaders like Prime Minister Modi want the actions leading to hate to continue, as it strengthens their politics? If not then why are the perpetrators of violence are enjoying impunity? Why does the whole system from spreaders of hate speech, to those responsible for maintaining law and order and even to some extent even the judiciary have a soft corner for these criminal elements.

Having enjoyed the impunity for destroying Babri Mosques and lynching in the name of cow/beef or on killings and torture on the charge of ‘love-jihad’, now they know they can get away with their illegal acts. They feel that law may be bent to ensure that they are exonerated.

The phenomenon of Organiser opposing Bhagwat arouses curiosity. Is there a split within RSS on the issue? Bhagawat trying to talk peace and harmony and the managers of Organiser feeling that the path of Hate and violence should be pursued to its fullest depth.

There is another aspect which needs to be understood. When such phenomenon’s are unleashed for political benefits, initially the leaders congratulate themselves for their success in the electoral arena. From top to bottom diverse elements spring up and as Mr. Bhagawat said some of them ape for higher political position and influence. They are the one’s continuing their earlier political roots of which were sown by their leaders. One recalls that previous top RSS leader K. Sudarshan, who later became RSS Chief, was on the stage when Babri mosque was being demolished. This has been a classical case of crime and no punishment.

All the guilty of this dastardly crime of Babri demolition were finally given ‘not guilty’ chit and the judge who did this for the communal politics, got a plum job after his retirement.

As they say, ‘as you sow, so you reap’, the demolition of Babri process as a whole tells us that it was not just a spreading of fake narratives of temple destructions, and many myths against Muslims. The result is there for us to see, where even the Supreme authority of RSS is not being listened to. The anti-Christian campaign is just a continuation of the decade’s old propaganda against Christians that they are converting by force, fraud and allurement.

The likes of Bhagwat and Modi are witnessing right in front of their eyes that the Genie can be unleashed from the bottle, but to put it back is a task, which is close to impossible.

Related:

75 Years Down the Line, Whither Indian Constitution?

Promoting love or instilling hate and fear

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

The post Hate transcending the boundaries: Whither dictates by Supreme Leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

The court proceedings- Supreme Court and High Court

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

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

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

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

Detailed piece regarding the said petition can be read here.

Hate mongering by Yati Narsinghanand

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

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

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

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) December 22, 2024

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

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

The CJP video may be viewed here.

Other hate speeches delivered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcription of the speech:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcription of the speech:

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

Related:

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

Yati Narsinghanand booked for comments on former president

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

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

The full court meet was called to discuss the issue of designating retired judges of the High Court as senior advocates. However, the CJI is learnt to have brought up the issue of Justice Yadav. “It is very much an ongoing issue and no decision has been made. The full court was just told that the meeting had taken place,” a source said.

Another source said that at the meeting Tuesday, the Collegium had told Justice Yadav that a public apology on record was needed to put the issue to rest. But he wanted to clarify from a public platform at a future date that his remarks had not been taken in the proper spirit.

Notably, it is now learnt that the Collegium will wait for a few days before deliberating on the next steps. The CJI is meanwhile in the process of discussing the issue with the full court is seen by those in the judicial circles as an indication of the Collegium’s seriousness of the issue and an attempt to “take the court into confidence” on the next steps.

What the Collegium can do is either transfer the judge or initiate an in-house inquiry. The process of an in-house inquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act is a precursor to recommending the judge’s removal to the President.

It was while addressing an event organised by the VHP’s legal cell on December 8 on the premises of the Allahabad High Court, that Justice Yadav had targeted Muslims and framed the Uniform Civil Code as a Hindu versus Muslim debate where the former had brought in reforms while the latter had not.

“You have a misconception that if a law (UCC) is brought in, it will be against your Shariyat, your Islam and your Quran,” Justice Yadav said. “But I want to say one more thing… whether it is your personal law, our Hindu law, your Quran or whether it is our Gita, as I said we have addressed the ills (buraaiyan) in our practices… kamiyan thi, durust kar liye hain (the shortcomings have been addressed) …untouchability… sati, jauhar… female foeticide…we have addressed all those issues… Then why are you not doing away with this law… that while your first wife is there…you can have three wives… without her consent… that is not acceptable.”

Justice Yadav went on to say that Hinduism had the seeds of tolerance which Islam didn’t. He also said, “I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan… and the country will run according to the majority who live in Hindustan.”

Related:

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

SC Collegium summons Allahabad HC Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims

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

The post CJI Khanna apprises full court of SC on Collegium meeting with Justice Yadav appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A video of the said speech may be referred here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition to the upcoming Dharam Sansad

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

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

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

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

The letter makes urgent demands, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The letter may be read here.

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

The social media post may be accessed below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CJP video may be viewed here.

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

Related:

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

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

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

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