Sir Syed Ahmed Khan-an educationist from the 19^th century who also was also the founder of the Aligarh movement-founded the Mohammeden Anglo Oriental College (MAO College) in 1877. There is a great deal of literature on how Syed Ahmed Khan was working for development of both Hindus and Muslims while serving as a judge, and how he found the Scientific Society with Hindu personalities to translate scientific works into Urdu and Hindi.[3] The same literature also marks a shift in how he later specifically focussed particularly on upliftment of Muslims through education. In this pursuit, he established a school in 1875 which later became the MAO College.

The MAO College eventually transformed into AMU in 1920 through an Act of the Central Legislature, expanding its academic reach and gaining university status.  The birth of independent India in 1947 brought forth a new era, marked by the adoption of the Constitution in 1950. This landmark document enshrined fundamental rights, including provisions for minority institutions, notably Article 30(1), which guaranteed religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.  The enactment of the Constitution necessitated aligning existing laws with its principles.  Consequently, the AMU Act underwent amendments in 1951 and 1965. These amendments aimed to reconcile the university’s governance structure with the newly established constitutional provisions, particularly those related to secularism, equality, and the right to education for all citizens.

Changes to AMU Act after Independence

The 1951 Amendment Act was crucial in reshaping AMU’s governance to adhere to the principles of the Constitution, particularly those related to government aid and non-discrimination. The amendment addressed several key aspects, including the composition of the university’s governing body, “the Court,” and provisions for religious instruction. Prior to the amendment, the AMU Act mandated that all members of the Court be Muslims.  This provision was deemed incompatible with the secular and egalitarian ethos of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on religion.  The 1951 amendment removed this requirement, allowing for a more diverse and inclusive composition of the Court, thereby adhering to Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.

Another significant aspect addressed by the 1951 amendment pertained to religious instruction. The original AMU Act mandated religious instruction for Muslim students, a provision that raised concerns about potential discrimination against students of other faiths. To rectify this and ensure compliance with Article 28(1), which prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds, the amendment removed the mandatory religious instruction provision.  This change was crucial in aligning AMU with the principles of the. By removing the requirement for an all-Muslim Court and the mandatory religious instruction provision, the 1951 amendment sought to remove any impediments to AMU receiving government aid while upholding the principles of secularism and equality enshrined in the Constitution.

However, the 1965 Amendment Act, introduced amidst a period of campus unrest, significantly altered the power dynamics within the university, further intensifying debates about its minority character and the autonomy of minority institutions in general. This amendment effectively curtailed the authority of the Court, reducing it to an advisory body. The Executive Council, on the other hand, saw its powers considerably augmented. Additionally, the amendment introduced significant changes to the composition of the Court, shifting from an elected body to a primarily nominated one. These changes, perceived by many as a move towards greater government control over the university, sparked concerns about the erosion of minority institutions’ autonomy and sparked renewed legal challenges. The Supreme Court delivered its judgement on the validity of the amendments in Azeez Basha vs. Union of India.

Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1967) and subsequent developments.

In the 1967 case of Azeez Basha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined the question of whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court ultimately ruled that AMU was not a minority institution, a decision that has been contested ever since.

The petitioners in Azeez Basha had challenged amendments made to the AMU Act in 1951 and 1965, arguing that they violated the Muslim community’s right to administer an educational institution they had established. These amendments, as previously mentioned, changed the university’s governance structure and composition, including measures that reduced the power of the university’s Court, removed a requirement for Court members to be Muslim, and empowered the Executive Council.

The Court upheld the amendments, determining that the AMU was neither established nor administered by the Muslim minority at the time the Constitution came into force. The Court reasoned that because the central legislature enacted the AMU Act in 1920, the university was established by the government, not a religious minority. The Court determined that the words “establish and administer” in Article 30(1) must be read conjunctively, meaning the minority community must have both established and administered the institution to qualify for protection under this article.

Timeline: key developments after Azeez Basha

November 26, 1981: The two-judge bench in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya vs. District Inspector of Schools expressed doubts about the Azeez Basha judgment and referred the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration.[4] The case involved a different educational institution and was considering whether registration as a society under the Societies Registration Act changed an institution’s status as a minority institution. The judges questioned whether an institution established with any non-minority participation could be considered a minority institution and directed that a larger bench consider the matter. However, this reference was never conclusively addressed.

December 31, 1981: The AMU Act was amended with the intention of overturning the Azeez Basha judgment. This amendment redefined “University” in the AMU Act to mean “the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of India, which originated as the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, and which was subsequently incorporated as the Aligarh Muslim University”. The amendment also emphasized the university’s role in promoting the educational and cultural advancement of Muslims. However, the legal validity of this amendment, and whether it could supersede the Supreme Court’s Azeez Basha judgment, became a point of contention in future litigation.

 2002: The Supreme Court, in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka stated that the determination of whether a community is a minority is to be made at the state level.[5] The Court in TMA Pai framed a question similar to the one in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya, but ultimately determined that the question of indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority institution should be decided by a regular bench, not the eleven-judge bench hearing the case. However, this question remained unanswered.

2005: AMU, asserting its claim as a minority institution based on the 1981 amendment, reserved 50% of seats in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim candidates. This decision led to the case of Dr. Naresh Agarwal v. Union of India.[6] The petitioners in this case, citing Azeez Basha, contested the reservation policy and argued that AMU was not a minority institution. The Union and the University countered that the 1981 amendment had nullified Azeez Basha.

2005: The Allahabad High Court, relying on the reasoning in Azeez Basha, struck down AMU’s reservation policy.  The High Court determined that the 1981 amendment did not change the basis of the Azeez Basha decision, and so AMU remained a non-minority institution. The High Court reasoned that the Muslim community had willingly surrendered their right to administer AMU to the government. It also found the 1981 amendment impermissible because the amendment sought to overrule the Azeez Basha judgment without removing its legal basis.

2006: The Union government and AMU appealed the Allahabad High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.

 February 12, 2019: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, recognising that the correctness of Azeez Basha remained unresolved, referred the question of AMU’s minority status to a seven-judge bench. The bench determined that previous references, including the one in Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya, had not provided a definitive answer to this question.  This referral also directed the seven-judge bench to consider the impact of the 2010 amendment to the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act (NCMEI Act) on AMU’s minority status. The 2010 amendment to the NCMEI Act expanded the definition of a minority institution to include universities, a change the three-judge bench felt necessitated further examination.

Arguments

The petitioners primarily argued that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) should be recognized as a minority institution based on its historical connection with the Muslim community, and therefore entitled to protection under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. They challenged the long-standing precedent set by Azeez Basha, which had denied AMU minority status. The petitioners contended that the Azeez Basha judgment misinterpreted the scope of Article 30(1) and created a restrictive precedent that limited the ability of minority communities to establish and administer universities. They emphasized that a university could be considered “established” by a minority community even if it was formally incorporated through a legislative act, particularly when the community played a significant role in the institution’s conception, development, and ongoing character. The petitioners highlighted AMU’s historical origins, its contributions to Muslim education and culture, and the university’s strong ongoing connection with the Muslim community as evidence of its minority character.

The respondents argued that AMU’s establishment through the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920, enacted by the British Indian government, negated the claim that it was established by the Muslim minority community. They emphasized that the Act granted the government extensive control over the university, including the power to appoint key officials, regulate its functioning, and oversee its finances. This control, they contended, contradicted the autonomy and independence typically associated with a minority institution. The respondents also argued that the Muslim community, in its pursuit of a university, had willingly accepted a certain level of government control in exchange for recognition and support. This acceptance, they argued, amounted to a surrender of the right to establish an independent minority institution. This surrender predated the Indian Constitution, they noted, and therefore could not be reevaluated based on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The respondents further argued that AMU’s designation as an “institution of national importance” under Entry 63 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, combined with its integration into the regulatory framework established by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act of 1956, demonstrated its national character and its alignment with the broader Indian higher education system.

Majority Judgement

Decoupling minority status from statutory incorporation, date of establishment, and administrative composition

The majority judgment authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra sought to clarify the criteria for determining the minority status of educational institutions in India. This 4:3 decision rejected a narrow interpretation of Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The majority opinion articulated a set of principles aimed at ensuring the protection of minority rights in the realm of education.

Firstly, the judgment refuted the long-held notion that statutory incorporation automatically precludes minority status. The court distinguished between “incorporation” and “establishment,” asserting that these concepts are distinct and should not be conflated. Therefore, the mere fact that the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was created through an Act of Parliament (the AMU Act of 1920) does not inherently negate its potential minority status. The majority opinion emphasized that the critical inquiry should focus on who established the institution and the driving force behind its creation, the purpose of the creation and the way it was created. It is here the majority judgement makes the distinction. [Paragraph 94]

The majority stated that the indicia for treating an educational institution as a minority education institution constitutes the genesis of the idea or ‘brain’ behind the establishment as gauged from the correspondence, government resolutions.  This inquiry should lead back to a person from the minority community. Additionally, the purpose of the institution can be for the benefit of the minority community rather than being ‘solely for the benefit of the minority community.’ [Paragraph 72]

The implementation of the idea, according to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, needs to be examined but state aid in the implementation would not adversely affect the minority status of the institution. The administrative structure also should reflect the minority character of the institution. [Paragraphs 133-138]

Secondly, the majority judgment debunked the idea that an institution’s date of establishment is determinative of its minority status. The court clarified that Article 30 does not restrict the right to establish and administer educational institutions to minorities only after the Constitution came into effect. This clarification ensures that the protection afforded to minority educational institutions under Article 30 extends to institutions established before the Constitution’s adoption, acknowledging the historical context of minority education in India.[Paragraph 119]

Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, the court held that administration by non-minority members does not, in itself, negate an institution’s minority status. Recognizing the evolving nature of educational institutions and their commitment to secular values, the majority acknowledged that a minority institution might not require minority members in its administration to maintain its essential character. The court highlighted that a minority institution might prioritize secular education, making the presence of minority members in administration unnecessary. This principle allows minority institutions to embrace inclusivity and diversity in their administrative structures without jeopardizing their minority status and the associated constitutional protections. The court also recognized that compelling a minority institution to surrender its minority character in exchange for recognition or affiliation would violate Article 30(1).[Paragraph 160]

Minority opinion

Justice Surya Kant’s dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority on two crucial points: how the case came before the court and what criteria should be used to determine the minority status of an institution.

First, Justice Surya Kant strongly criticizes the procedural route the case took. The issue of AMU’s minority status started with a two-judge bench that doubted the correctness of a previous five-judge bench ruling (the Azeez Basha case). This two-judge bench then referred the case directly to a seven-judge bench, bypassing the proper channels. Justice Surya Kant argues this is a fundamental error. He cited established legal principles and the Supreme Court’s own precedent in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v State of Maharashtra to emphasise that a smaller bench cannot overrule or refer the decisions of a larger bench without going through the Chief Justice of India.[7] This, he argued, undermines judicial order and predictability. [Paragraph 91]

Second, on the substantive issue of how to determine minority status, Justice Surya Kant disagreed with the majority’s view that an institution incorporated by a statute can still be considered a minority institution. He emphasizes that both the “establishment” and “administration” of an institution must reflect its minority character for it to receive protection under Article 30(1). This is a conjunctive reading of those two terms – both conditions must be met. [Paragraph 131]

.Justice Surya Kant, in his dissent, listed factors indicating a loss of minority administrative control over an institution: management unaccountable to the founders, external vetoes in staffing decisions, lack of guaranteed minority representation on governing bodies, and a shift from the institution’s original minority-focused goals. These suggest diminished influence of the minority community in administering the institution.[Paragraph 181]

Justice Dipankar Datta expressed caution against recent judicial trends that diverge from historical precedent and original constitutional interpretations. [Paragraph 133] He emphasised that judges are not infallible and should be guided by the framers’ intentions rather than rewriting history. He argued that the right to establish and administer minority institutions (under Article 30) is contingent upon the community’s intent and control. Regarding Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), he noted its founding circumstances, highlighting that it was publicly funded and controlled by the colonial government, with minimal Muslim community oversight—pointing to a limited claim to minority status in its administration. He was the lone judge withing the minority to go ahead and declare that AMU is not a minority educational institution.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma opined that for a minority community to claim administrative rights under Article 30, they must have “established” the institution, meaning they must have independently and predominantly created it without substantial outside control. The institution’s purpose should primarily serve the minority’s interests, and they should hold decisive administrative power. The term “establish” refers strictly to the act of creation, and cases should evaluate whether the minority community directly contributed to its foundation and operation, according to him. [Paragraph 266]

Understanding the reasoning

El Clásico between purposive and literal interpretation

The majority took the route of purposive interpretation of the Constitutional provision by examining the purpose of Article 30(1) and how the article underscores the imperative to enable minorities to maintain their distinctive characteristics and fulfil their specific needs. Out of the majority judgement’s discussion, a principle emerges— that the special right under Article 30(1) of the Constitution is that the state must grant the minority institution sufficient autonomy to enable it to protect the essentials of its minority character. [Paragraph 65] Using this, the Court also went on to devise the tests which look at the origins and purpose of the institution in question, to answer whether it is a minority institution or not. The majority judgement also stated that it is inconsequential whether the word ‘establish’ in Article 30(1) actually means ‘to bring into existence’ or ‘to found’ the real determination becomes possible only when the veil of the statute is lifted. [Paragraph 110]

Justice Dipankar Dutta’s minority opinion stresses on the literal phrase in Article 30(1) and states that the framers of the Constitution were aware of the circumstances of the times and yet, they used the word ‘establish’ instead of ‘found’ —a broader word. [Paragraph 134] Later he stated that even if the verb ‘establish’ could be read as ‘to found’ which he found no warrant to so read, the Muslim community’s leaving the administration of AMU to be worked out according to the AMU Act shows the clear lack of intention on part of the community to administer it. [Paragraph 133]

These are classic conflicts in terms of interpretation. While the purposive interpretation looks at the origins of the law and the purpose it sought to achieve, the literal interpretation gives importance to the intent and wisdom of those who framed the law since they understood the circumstances better and yet used the wording. While literal interpretation is used to let the law be a stable instrument for order, purposive interpretation enables law to be instrument in social change.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s minority ppinion and loose threads

An interesting line of reasoning emerges from the minority opinion of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. First, he states that there was no right under Article 30 in 1920 for it to have been surrendered to the government by the minority community via the enactment of AMU Act. Essentially, he stated that the Constitution bestows the right on minorities and before 1950, the right did not exist. This reasoning recognises constitution as a document that effectuates change-something similar to what  Justice Vivian Bose had said in Virendra Singh vs State of UP in 1955 that “The Constitution  by  reason of the authority derived  from and conferred  by the people of India destroyed all vestiges  of arbitrary and despotic power in the territories of India and over its citizens and lands and prohibited just such acts of arbitrary power as the State in the present case was seeking to  uphold.”  The chance at progressive interpretation however gets lost when the opinion says that since there was no right to establish institutions for minorities, there is no question of relinquishing the right. Additionally, he went on to say that limited minority aspects/elements cannot make an institution a ‘minority institution.’ [Paragraph 204]

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated in his minority opinion that the court cannot be swayed by one side of the story or the other. He referred to the competing narratives by both appellants—saying that the university was established by Muslim people for the benefit of Muslim community with the help of state sanction, and by respondents—saying that the establishment of the university was largely a government affair with minority elements. He states as follows in Paragraph 204:

“If in a given case, there may be other factual factors pointing towards the contrary, highlighting that whatever the intention or the will of the minority community might have been at the said time, in exchange or during negotiations, if the resultant institution was effectively rendered an open governmental institution [with limited minority aspects], then Article 30 would be out of the picture.”

We do not get to see in his opinion how or why this conclusion can be drawn from the elaborate discussion he did on the facts leading up to the establishment of the university or why a significant effort by the minority community can be trumped by the mere fact that university gets incorporated by a legislative act.

The majority judgement tackles this line of reasoning by saying that In Article 30(1) by saying that, there is no distinction between universities and colleges regarding minority rights. Both serve the common purpose of educating students, and minorities are entitled to autonomy in administering these institutions to benefit their communities. The term “establish” refers to the act of founding an institution and is distinct from “incorporation.” A person or community could establish a teaching college that later became a university, and the right to establish is not limited by legal incorporation under the Act.

The bench however left the determination of the minority status of AMU itself and directed that a smaller bench would apply the criteria as laid out by the seven-judge bench.

(The author is part of the research team of the organisation)

[1] 2024 INSC 856

[2] 1968 AIR 662

[3] Kidwai, S., 2020. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Reason, Religion and Nation. Routledge India.

[4] W.P. (C) 54-57 of 1981

[5] Writ Petition (civil)  317 of 1993

[6] 2005(4)ESC2489

[7] (2005) 2 SCC 673

Related:

SC refuses to interfere with selection, appointment of new AMU VC

The never-ending attack on AMU, India’s top-ranked university

Why does the Modi Sarkar want to stymie AMU’s Off Campus Centres?

The post Supreme Court delivers a 4:3 Verdict on parameters to determine the minority status of institutions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The victim, who had been married for just two months, recounted the traumatic experience. She asked people gathered there to give a phone to call for help, but was rebuffed.

In #UttarPradesh‘s #Aligarh, a 22 year old girl named #Sultana was eve teased and molested by half a dozen men in #DelhiAligarhTrain, when her husband raised objection he was beaten by the miscreants, and instead of arresting the eve teasers police arrested her husband.. pic.twitter.com/ZevbEXHqEx

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) November 15, 2024

The attackers even assaulted her husband with belts at Aligarh Railway Station, right in front of her and her in-laws. To make matters worse, the assailants threatened the victim with a gun. She alleged that a group of other people also joined in beating him up further.

People remained mute spectator, Police chosen selective action

The woman said that, “The goons began staring at me as soon as the train left Delhi. When I objected, they tried to touch me. My husband stepped in to defend me, but he was attacked. Despite my pleas for help, other passengers just watched silently” as Times of India reported,

Relatives of the couple soon arrived at the station and staged a protest in response to the incident. Following the public outcry, the GRP released the husband and registered a case at Aligarh GRP Police Station against the attackers. Police confirmed that one of the accused, Jitu Singh, a resident of Usmanpur Khandauli in Agra, has been arrested. However, three others, including Mahesh from Singh Kuberpur, remain at large, while two more suspects have yet to be identified.

Notably, GRP SHO Shailendra Yadav confirmed that a case had been registered following the victim’s husband’s complaint. The charges include Section 74 (assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 115-2 (voluntarily causing hurt), and Section 352 (insult that provokes a breach of peace) of BNS, 2023. The couple, married just two months ago, had travelled from Delhi to Aligarh to attend a family wedding. The husband, who runs a clothing business, has been living in Delhi since their marriage.

Alarming rise in anti-Muslim attacks in Train

There has been a concerning surge in attacks on Muslim passengers on trains in recent years. This disturbing trend is exemplified by several incidents, including, in August, 2024, an elderly Muslim man was brutally beaten by fellow passengers on a train near Nashik district, Maharashtra, in September, 2024,  a group of Madrasa students traveling in a general coach were assaulted by two allegedly intoxicated assailants in route to Mumbai.

In July 2023, a shocking incident occurred on the Jaipur-Mumbai Central Superfast Express, where a Railway Protection Force (RPF) constable, Chetan Singh, fatally shot four individuals, including an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) and three Muslim passengers, near Palghar Railway Station in Mumbai Suburbs.

Related:

Uttar Pradesh: Where women live in fear

Crimes against women highest in Uttar Pradesh: NCRB 2020 report

Violence and assault targeting Dalits rock Uttar Pradesh

The post Muslim bride molested on Delhi-Aligarh train, husband thrashed for defending her appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Typically, such posters are displayed during Muharram and Arbaeen (in August) and remain up until they fade or are replaced by new ones. The poster in question was part of a longstanding tradition within the Shia Muslim community, serving as a tribute to Imam Hussain’s sacrifice, and was not meant to convey any political or sectarian message.

The situation escalated when BJP Indore Vice-President Aklavya Singh Gour (Convenor of Hindu Rakshak Sangathan), son of MLA Malini Gour, posted on X on November 3, 2024, accusing the Muharram poster of promoting terror and challenging the administration’s peacekeeping efforts. He called for immediate action, urging local authorities to identify and punish those responsible for displaying the poster.

He stated that “This poster depicting the terror of ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ put up on a mosque in Kagdipura area of ​​Indore is mocking the administration’s peacekeeping system. The administration is requested to take immediate cognizance and take strictest action against the culprits.”

इंदौर के कागदीपुरा क्षेत्र में एक मस्जिद पर लगाया गया गजवा-ए-हिंद’ के आतंक को दर्शाता यह पोस्टर प्रशासन की शांति व्यवस्था को मुंह चिढ़ा रहा है।
प्रशासन से निवेदन है तत्काल संज्ञान में लेकर दोषियों के विरुद्ध कठोरतम कार्यवाही करें।@DrMohanYadav51 @CMMadhyaPradesh @vdsharmabjp pic.twitter.com/Fy5rgkOwhb

— Aklavya Laxman Singh Gaur (@aklavyagaur) November 3, 2024

In his post, he also tagged the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav.

The post quickly gained traction on social media, fuelling a larger debate and drawing attention to the religious symbolism in the poster, which some claimed could potentially inflame communal sentiments. However, this interpretation was contested by many locals, who pointed out that such posters are a common sight during Muharram, a significant religious observance for Shia Muslims, and are not associated with any political or militant agenda. As per Dainik Bhaskar.

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/mp/indore/video/poster-depicting-ghazwa-e-hind-terror-put-up-on-indore-mosque-133906177.html?type=video

Following the same and in an effort to avoid further escalation of tensions, members of the Shia community voluntarily removed the poster, recognising the potential for misunderstanding the context of the poster. This action came in the face of growing social media misinformation and the spreading of divisive narratives, ultimately defusing the situation before it could spiral into broader communal unrest.

Moreover, Additional Commissioner of Police, Indore, Hemant Chauhan stated that “We would like to inform you that after the Shia community meeting at Chatrikura police station, there was a discussion regarding a banner that had been raised concerning a specific issue. Some members of the Shia community also came to meet regarding this matter.” In the video, ACP Chauhan clarified that the poster in question was related to Karbala and was not objectionable in any way, as confirmed by members of the Shia community. ACP Chauhan further stated that, to prevent any misunderstandings, the members of the Shia community themselves voluntarily removed the poster.

Indore, Madhya Pradesh: Hemant Chauhan, ACP, says, “We would like to inform you that after the Shia community meeting at Chatrikura police station, there was a discussion regarding a banner that had been raised concerning a specific issue. Some members of the Shia community also… pic.twitter.com/FdC5jddspl

— IANS (@ians_india) November 4, 2024

BJP MLA Malini Gour’s son, Aklavya Singh Gour, took to his social media handle on X once again, this time claiming that the poster had been removed by the police administration. In his post, he tagged both Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), drawing further attention to the issue.

इंदौर के कागदीपुरा क्षेत्र में लगे एक विवादित पोस्टर को संज्ञान में लेते हुए स्थानीय पुलिस प्रशासन ने तुरन्त हटवा दिया, जिसके लिए पुलिस प्रशासन का धन्यवाद एवं आभार।@drmohanyadav51@cmmadhyapradesh#djp_mp@bjp4mp@vdsharmabjp
@rss_org_official pic.twitter.com/y2m7FexKqR

— Aklavya Laxman Singh Gaur (@aklavyagaur) November 3, 2024

The poster’s actual meaning and context

The poster in question is a common sight during Muharram, particularly in Shia Muslim areas, and is part of a traditional display honoring the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and his family at the Battle of Karbala. The imagery often includes the presence of Imam Hussain’s sister, Zainab, and his daughter, Sakina, who are depicted witnessing the battlefield after the massacre of their family members. The Arabic inscription on the poster reads, “Man kunto maula fa haza Aliun maula” — a famous phrase meaning, “Whoever I am the leader of, Ali is their leader,” referencing Imam Ali, the first Imam in Shia Islam.

Notably, the saffron flag shown in the poster has been misinterpreted by some as a symbol of Hindu nationalism. However, the saffron flag is a common cultural symbol in many Muslim communities, particularly among Shia Muslims. It is associated with the remembrance of the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, symbolizing sacrifice and the struggle against tyranny. The saffron flag does not carry any sectarian or political message related to the “Ghazwa-e-Hind” or any challenge to Hinduism. It is instead a tribute to the spiritual and historical significance of the event.

BJP’s connection to Shia Muslims

Despite the BJP’s stronghold in Madhya Pradesh, the state government has shown little attention to issues affecting the Shia community, as evidenced by the recent controversy surrounding posters in the city. These posters, which were based on false and misunderstood claims, created tension in the community. Interestingly, many Shia Muslim leaders in India have historically aligned themselves with the BJP, especially during events like Muharram. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has even visited Shia religious sites, such as the Shia Majlis, where he recited Marsiya (elegiac poetry) alongside mourners during Muharram.

Additionally, during his state visit to Egypt in June 2023, Modi visited the historic Al-Hakim Mosque in Cairo, which was restored with the help of India’s Dawoodi Bohra community. The mosque, dating back to 1012, holds cultural and religious significance, particularly for the Bohra community, which traces its roots to the Fatimids. Modi praised the mosque’s intricate restoration, highlighting India’s strong ties with this sect.

Image: https://me.thedawoodibohras.com/2023/06/26/pm-modi-visits-egypts-historic-11th-century-al-hakim-mosque-in-cairo/

On November 15, 2022, during the G20 Summit in Bali, Indonesia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with members of the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Image: https://www.thedawoodibohras.com/dawoodi-bohras-welcome-prime-minister-modi-to-indonesia/

It is also an important fact that Pro-BJP Shia leaders are increasingly being rejected by the broader Shia community in India. Their political affiliations are seen as conflicting with the community’s values, leading to a growing disconnect. Many Shias view these leaders as prioritizing political gain over religious unity and community interests.

The political attempt to target the Muslim community with such misguided, manipulated and potentially divisive allegations can be seen as part of a larger strategy to exploit religious divisions for electoral gain. However, it is important for leaders within the community, including pro-BJP Muslim leaders, to understand the dangers of allowing such misinterpretations to spread, as it undermines communal harmony and could eventually backfire, leading to greater polarization.

However, the recent events, including the incident at the Jaipur Shia Imambada, where BJP MLA Balmukund Acharya forcefully entered the premises and misbehaved with Muslim women, serve as a critical lesson for pro-Modi Shia leaders. Despite their support for the BJP, such rising incidents suggest that no one, not even those aligned with the party, may remain immune to its increasingly divisive tactics.

Related:

Telangana High Court affirms right of Akbhari Shia Women to conduct religious activities in Hyderabad’s Ibadat Khana

ISIS Attacks Iran: What Lies Behind the Shia-Sunni Divide

Mumbai’s Shias Stand with Sunni Muslims in Babri Masjid Case: AD

The post Indore Muharram Poster Misunderstood: right-wing claims ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ message, despite common tribute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

zindaa hae,

Zindaa hone per sharminda hae!

Human beings are still alive;

They are ashamed to be alive!

[Renowned cultural-political-human rights activist of Pakistan, Shahid Nadeem’s Urdu couplet on the silence of the civil society on attacks on minorities in Pakistan. He received forty lashes for writing and singing these lines by the Zia regime in Pakistan. It would be no different in present day India ruled by RSS-BJP.]

For almost all of the past three decades, on every anniversary of the horrific 1984 massacre of Sikhs in India, this author has been reminding the nation of how the Indian State and judiciary did not bother to punish the perpetrators of this horrendous mass killing of innocents of the second largest religious minority of our country. On every anniversary the author had hoped that thereafter justice would be done and he would not have to write the painful story once again as a reminder. This has not happened this year 2024 either. The saga of the criminal betrayal by the Indian Republic has no end and the author along with victims continues to cry before a deaf and dumb Indian State. Shockingly, on the 40^th anniversary of the genocide of Sikhs, the Indian State has even stopped making the claim that it continues to strive to get justice for the victims, like in the past!

What is the status of justice delivery for 2,700 Sikhs[1] massacred in Delhi? Renowned advocate H S Phoolka, who battled along with victims, puts it succinctly:

“The number of commissions and committees set up to probe the murders… is more than the number of convictions…One such commission was the G T Nanavati Commission, set up in 2005 by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led NDA government. According to its report, 587 FIRs were registered in Delhi in relation to the riots. While 241 of these have been filed as untraced, 253 ended in acquittal. Of the remaining, 40 FIRs are pending trial and one is pending investigation. Eleven FIRs have been quashed, and in 11 other FIRs, the accused have been discharged. Three cases have been withdrawn. To date, just 27 cases have ended in convictions. Of these, just 12 are convictions in murder cases.”

‘Anti-Sikh riots: Four decades on, just 12 murder cases have ended in conviction’, The Indian Express, Delhi, October 31, 2024.

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/anti-sikh-riots-four-decades-on-just-12-murder-cases-have-ended-in-conviction-9646833/

Two kinds of justice

Whenever the country witnesses large-scale violence against the minorities and Dalits, the search for perpetrators continues endlessly and the criminals are rarely identified or punished. Major incidents of violence against minorities like Nellie massacre (1983), Sikh massacre (1984), Hashimpura custodial massacre of Muslim youth (1987), pre/post- Ayodhya mosque demolition violence against Muslims (1990-92), Gujarat carnage (2002) and Kandhmal cleansing of Christians (2008) and continuing blood-bath of Kuki Tribals (who are mostly Christians) in Manipur  are testimony to this reality.

When the victims are Dalits or minorities no such urgency is shown. In such cases the Indian State is fond of playing the commission-commission game. Enquiry Commissions after commissions would be constituted to see that the heinous crimes disappear from the public memory. The horrendous massacre of Sikhs in different parts of India in 1984 is a living testimony of this attitude of the Indian justice system with the motto in Sanskrit: ‘Yato Dharma Tato Jaya’ [Where there is righteousness and dharma, there is victory]. The higher Judiciary must explain what it means by Dharma. Does it include religions of minorities and right of Dalits also?

The scenario for anti-Dalit violence is no different. The major incidents of persecution and massacre of Dalits; 1968 Kilvenmani massacre, 1997 Melavalavu massacre, 2013 Marakkanam anti-Dalit violence, 2012 Dharmapuri anti- Dalit violence (all in Tamil Nadu), 1985 Karamchedu massacre, 1991 Tsundur massacre (all in AP), 1996 Bathani Tola Massacre, 1997 Laxmanpur Bathe massacre (all in Bihar), 1997 Ramabai killings, Mumbai, 2006 Khairlanji massacre, 2014 Javkheda Hatyakand, (all in Maharashtra), 2000 Caste persecution in (Karnataka), 5 Dalits beaten/burnt to death for skinning a dead cow 2006, 2011 killings of Dalits in Mirchpur (all in Haryana), 2015 anti-Dalit violence in Dangawas (Rajasthan) are some of the thousands of incidents of the Dalit persecution. In almost all these cases perpetrators are yet to be identified. Even if identified the prosecution rate has never exceeded 20%.

On the other hand, in the reverse, in cases where Dalit, working class and minority ‘perpetrators’ of violence are efficiently put on trial by constituting special investigation teams and punished by fast track courts. In order to meet the end of ‘justice’, ‘national security’ and ‘wish of the society’ they are hanged and jailed. The over-all reality is that whenever victims are minorities, working class and Dalits the State and judiciary go into coma.

Betrayal by governments until 2014

After giving free run to the killer gangs, the government appointed one man Marwah Commission to find out the perpetrators of the 1984 ‘riots’. As this exercise was proving inconvenient, it was asked to disband itself within short period of its existence and a sitting Supreme Court Judge Ranganath Mishra was asked to conduct inquiry into 1984 ‘riots’ who submitted his report in 1987. Shockingly, this fact finding (or fact-hiding) commission headed by Misra observed that

“riots which had a spontaneous origin later attained a channelized method at the hands of gangsters”.

The full-fledged massacre was reduced to ‘riots’ as if Sikhs equally participated in the violence. This was a brazen manipulation. The ‘apostle of justice’, Mishra, champion of the theory of spontaneity was not, naturally, able to find out from where these gangsters came! According to Jarnail Singh author of the book I Accuse: The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984 for this service to the State he was awarded a seat in the Rajya Sabha.

Over the next two decades, not less than nine commissions of inquiry were instituted. For the Indian State it became a routine to announce constitution of some new commission or some more compensation to the families of victims in order to deflect the mounting anger at the times of elections. Highlighting the anti-minority bias of such commissions, H. S. Phoolka, a renowned lawyer, commented that instead of getting convicted many of the political perpetrators get promoted to seats of power!

In the latest development Supreme Court of India on August 16, 2017 ordered the constitution of a panel comprising two of its former judges to examine the justification for closing 241 anti-Sikh riot cases probed by SIT in next 3 months; these three months are yet to be over!

Betrayal by the RSS-BJP regime

The RSS always claims to have always stood for Hindu-Sikh unity. It occasionally expresses its gratitude to Sikhism for “saving Hinduism from the Muslim aggression”. It may not be irrelevant to note here that RSS does not treat Sikhism as an independent religion, which discarded Casteism and Brahmanical hegemony, but part of Hinduism. The RSS/BJP leaders have blamed the Congress for anti-Sikh violence Modi while addressing a public rally during last parliamentary elections at Jhansi, UP (October 25, 2013) asked Congress leaders to explain who “killed thousands of Sikhs in 1984” and “has anyone been convicted for the Sikh genocide so far”. Modi during Punjab elections and 2014 general elections kept on referring to ‘qatl-e-aam’ or genocide of Sikhs.Modi after becoming PM in a message (October 31, 2014) said that anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination were like a,

“dagger that pierced through India’s chest…Our own people were murdered, the attack was not on a particular community but on the entire nation.”

Hindutva icon, RSS whole-timer and PM Modi lamented the fact that culprits were yet to be booked and tried for this massacre. However, Modi did not tell the nation what NDA governments which ruled this country from 1998 to 2004 did to persecute the culprits. Modi also forgot to share the fact that as per the autobiography of LK Advani (page 430); it was his Party which forced Indira Gandhi to go for army action infamously named as Operation Blue Star which killed large number of Sikh pilgrims.Renowned journalist Manoj Mitta, author of the book When a Tree Shook Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and Its Aftermath straight forwardly tells that

“Despite the BJP rule, there has hardly been any will to enforce accountability for the massacres that took place under the Congress. It’s as if there is a tacit deal between the sponsors of 1984 and 2002″.

It was no over-sight that during 2024 parliamentary elections 1984 massacre was totally forgotten. This is not what outsiders or critics of the RSS have been telling. The perusal of contemporary RSS documents show that major focus was on condemning the Sikh extremism, eulogizing Indira Gandhi and welcoming the crowning of Rajiv Gandhi as new prime minister.

RSS ideologue Nanaji Deshmukh’s questionable attitude on the Sikh massacre

The most important proof of such a dehumanized attitude towards the massacre of Sikhs is a document circulated by Nana Deshmukh, a prominent whole timer and ideologue of the RSS [now deceased]. This document titled as ‘Moments of Soul Searching’ was circulated by Deshmukh on November 8, 1984, may help in unmasking the whole lot of criminals involved in the massacre of innocent Sikhs who had nothing to do with the killing of Indira Gandhi. This document may also throw light on where the cadres came from, who meticulously organized the killing of Sikhs. Nana Deshmukh in this document is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984.

This document also reflects the degenerate and fascist attitude of the RSS towards all the minorities of India. The RSS has been arguing that they are against Muslims and Christians because they are the followers of foreign religions. Here we find them justifying the butchering of Sikhs who according to their own categorisation happened to be the followers of an indigenous religion. In this document we will hear from the horse’s mouth that the RSS like the then Congress leadership believed that the massacre of the innocent Sikhs was unavoidable.This document was published in the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, who later became Defence Minister of India in the NDA regime, in its edition of November 25, 1984 titled ‘Indira Congress- RSS collusion’ with the following editorial comment:

“The author of the following document is known as an ideologue and policy formulator of the RSS. After the killing of Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) he distributed this document among prominent politicians. It has a historical significance that is why we have decided to publish it, violating the policy of our Weekly. This document highlights the new affinities developing between the Indira Congress and the RSS. We produce here the Hindi translation of the document.”

The original pages of the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, may be seen below.

Deshmukh in his document, “Moments of Soul Searching” on the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984. His defence of the carnage can be summed up as in the following:

1. The massacre of Sikhs was not the handiwork of any group or anti-social elements but the result of a genuine feeling of
2. Deshmukh did not distinguish the action of the two security personnel of Indira Gandhi, who happened to be Sikhs, from that of the whole Sikh community. According to his document the killers of Indira Gandhi were working under some kind of mandate of their
3. Sikhs themselves invited these attacks, thus advancing the Congress theory of justifying the massacre of the Sikhs.
4. He glorified Operation Blue Star and described any opposition to it as anti- national. When Sikhs were being killed in thousands he was warning the country of Sikh extremism, thus offering ideological defense of those killings.
5. Sikh community as a whole was responsible for violence in
6. Sikhs should have done nothing in self-defence but showed patience and tolerance against the killer
7. These were Sikh intellectuals and not killer mobs which were responsible for the massacre. They had turned Sikhs into a militant community, cutting them off from their Hindu roots, thus inviting attacks from the nationalist Indians. Moreover, he treated all Sikhs as part of the same gang and described attacks on them as a reaction of the nationalist
8. He described Indira Gandhi as the only leader who could keep the country united and assassination of such a great leader such killings could not be avoided.
9. Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Mrs. Gandhi as the PM and justified the nation- wide killings of Sikhs by saying, “When a huge tree falls there are always tremors felt”, was lauded and blessed by Nana Deshmukh at the end of the
10. Shockingly, the massacre of Sikhs was being equated with the attacks on the RSS cadres after the killing of Gandhiji and we find Deshmukh advising Sikhs to suffer silently. Everybody knows that the killing of Gandhiji was inspired by the RSS and the Hindutva Ideology whereas the common innocent Sikhs had nothing to do with the murder of Indira
11. There was not a single sentence in the Deshmukh document demanding, from the then Congress Government at the Centre or the then home minister Narsimha Rao (a Congress leader dear to the RSS who later silently watched demolition of Babri masjid by Hindutva goons as prime minister of India in 1992) remedial measures for controlling the violence against the minority community. Mind it, that Deshmukh circulated this document on November 8, 1984, and from October 31 to this date Sikhs were left alone to face the killing gangs. In fact November 5-10 was the period when the maximum killings of Sikhs took place. Deshmukh was just not bothered about all
12. It is generally believed that the Congress cadres were behind this genocide. This may be true but there were other forces too which actively participated in this massacre and whose role has never been investigated. It could be one of the reasons that actual perpetrators remain unknown. Those who witnessed the genocide were stunned by the swiftness and military precision of the killer/marauding gangs (later on witnessed during the Babri mosque demolition, burning alive of Dr. Graham Steins with his two sons, 2002 pogrom of the Muslims in Gujarat and cleansing of Christians in parts of Orissa) which went on a burning spree of the innocent Sikhs. This, surely, was beyond the capacity of the thugs led by many Congress
13. It is shocking that Deshmukh presented 1984 massacre of Sikhs as an issue between Sikhs and Hindus. He wrote: “I feel proud of all those Hindu neighbours who protected lives and property of troubled Sikh brothers without caring for their lives. Such things one being heard from all over Delhi. These things have practically increased the faith in natural goodness of human behavior and particularly faith in Hindu nature.” He remained oblivious to the fact that these were not only Hindus but Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Communists who defended Sikhs’ lives and

RSS problematic attitude towards the Sikh massacre

The Deshmukh document did not happen in isolation. It represented the real RSS attitude towardsthe Sikh genocide of 1984. It may be relevant to know here that the RSS cadres did not come forward in defence of the Sikhs. The RSS is very fond of circulating publicity material, especially photographs of its khaki shorts-clad cadres doing social work. For the 1984 violence they have none. In fact, Deshmukh’s article also made no mention of the RSS cadres going to the rescue of Sikhs under siege. This shows the real intentions of the RSS during the genocide.

The RSS English organ, Organizer in its combined issue dated November 11 & 18, 1984 carried an editorial titled ‘Stunning Loss’ which praised Indira Gandhi in the following words:

“It will always be difficult to believe that the Indira Gandhi is no more. One had got so used to hearing her myriad voices for so long, that everything looks so blank without her. The violent manner of her death is the most shocking horror story, giving the nation the creeps…It is a case of treacherous fanatics stigmatizing the whole nation by butchering a remarkable specimen of Indian womanhood…She literally served India to the last drop of her blood according to her own lights.” The same editorial ended with the words supporting newly installed PM, Rajiv Gandhi who “deserves sympathy and consideration”. 

Organizer also carried statement of RSS Supremo; Bala Deoras titled ‘Balasaheb condemns assassination, Delhi carnage’ in a single column. He mourned and condemned the carnage but not even once referred to the fact that Sikhs were under attack. For him it was “infighting in the Hindu Samaj”. He also overlooked the fact that it was not only Delhi where Sikhs were butchered/burnt but in many other parts of India too. According to this statement “swayamsevaks have been instructed to form or help in forming Mohalla Suraksha Samitis” for restoring peace and rehabilitation of the sufferers. However, there are no documents available in the contemporary RSS archives to show how these Samitis functioned. It is a fact that RSS which is fond of displaying photographs of its cadres doing social work did not publish any visual of the activity of these Samitis.

In the same statement Deoras reacting to the assassination of Indira Gandhi stated,

“It is shocking beyond words to express  the  feelings  at the murder of PM Mrs.               Indira Gandhi by some fanatic elements. She had been carrying on almost the entire burden of the country since 1966. She was loved and respected not only in this country but all over the world. Her passing away at this critical juncture will create a void in India and also in the world.”

According to  the above mentioned Organizer, “RSS Sarkyavah, Rajender Singh issued instructions to all the branches in  the country to hold a special meeting in Shakha condemning the dastardly murder of the PM and paying  homage  to the departed             soul. He also issued instructions to cancel all public functions to be held by RSS during the period of mourning”.

Of course, the RSS archives do not contain any instructions from RSS top brass instructing the mourning of Sikh victims.

RSS against former PM Manoham Singh’s apology for the 1984 massacre

That the RSS continues to downplay 1984 Sikh massacre is alsoe clear by the perusal of charter of demands submitted to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in last July. The senior RSS  ideologue, Dina Nath Batra on behalf of RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas submitted five pages containing list of items to be removed from school text-books. Batra demanded that any reference to violence against minorities in the text-books should be removed which included references to a simple apology tendered by the former PM Manmohan Singh over 1984 violence.

It is to be noted that in an apology in Parliament on August 12, 2005, Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India stated:

“I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.”

So the search for finding the perpetrators of Sikh massacre of 1984 continues endlessly. The present RSS/BJP rulers who claim to be co-religionists of Sikhs prove no different from Congress. The only hope is that those Indians who have stakes in continuation of democratic-secular Indian polity will come forward to force the Indian State to identify and punish the killers. Scholars who have been involved in the study of religious violence are unanimous in the conclusion that if 1984 massacre was not allowed to happen, there would not have been 1992-93 (violence against Muslims in pre/post Babri mosque demolition period), 2002 (massacre of Muslims in Gujarat), Kandhmal 2008 (cleansing of Christians) and many other massacre of the minorities of India. Allowing the 1984 massacre the Indian State, let it be known to all the majoritarian fascist organizations that in such criminal happening the former would remain silent! 

Nana Deshmukh awarded ‘Bharat Ratna’

As if it was not enough injustice to the martyrs and survivors of the 1984 massacre, on the eve of the last Republic Day (January 25, 2019) RSS/BJP rulers of India, bestowed the highest national award, the Bharat Ratna (gem of India) on Nanaji Deshmukh. PM Modi praising Deshmukh said, “He [Nana Deshmukh] personifies humility, compassion, and service to the downtrodden. He is a Bharat Ratna in the truest sense”.If anybody wants to understand the exact meaning of the proverb ‘to rub salt into the wound’ this Bharat Ratna to Deshmukh is the fittest example!

This photograph is of a street theatre performance titled ‘Sadharan Log (common people) by Nishant Natya Manch against massacre of Sikhs in 1984. It was performed at more than two thousand places. The author is also doing a role.

Link of a 2023 interview of the author on the same tragedy:

https://www.academia.edu/107044638/Victims_Will_Never_Forget_The_Violence_Shamsul_Islam_On_1984_Massacre_of_Sikh

Link for the full English text of the RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s document: https://www.academia.edu/4890979/RSS_IDEOLOGUE_ NANA_DESHMUKH_J USTIFIED_MASSACRE_OF_SIKHS_IN_1984_From_RSS_archives_

[1] This is the official figure, according to the civil rights organisations around 3,000 were killed!

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

The post Fortieth anniversary of the forgotten mass 1984 killing of Sikhs, rapist and killers yet to be identified and punished appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This decision by the Dhami government came shortly after the Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh also implemented similar strict guidelines. In the name of preventing contamination of food by saliva (thook) and human waste, a new regime of surveillance is being put in place. Reports from Uttar Pradesh indicate that the Yogi government has vowed to take strict action against any eatery worker found to be an “intruder” or “illegal foreign citizen.”

At a function held on October 13 in Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar district, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Dhami stated, “Religious conversion, encroachment, land jihad, and thook jihad will not be allowed in Devbhoomi Uttarakhand.” Two days later, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath announced that strict measures would be implemented to prevent food adulteration. As he put it, “Recent incidents involving contamination of food items such as juice, lentils, and bread with human waste or other dirty substances have been disturbing and adversely affect public health. These incidents also harm social harmony and are utterly unacceptable.” Their statements were reported in The Organiser (October 16, 2024), the English weekly and mouthpiece of the RSS.

According to media reports, Yogi Adityanath held a high-level meeting with officials on October 15 to discuss these proposed laws. While supporters of these guidelines claim they aim to prevent any form of food contamination and ensure consumer safety, growing concerns suggest that these measures are likely to be misused against marginalized communities, particularly Muslims and Dalits.

These fears are not unfounded when considering the larger campaign surrounding a newly created pejorative term, “spit jihad.” Supremacist Hindutva-led campaigns around purity and pollution have further entrenched existing social prejudices, exacerbated stigmatisation, and fuel racism. Moreover, this deliberately and politically created frenzy around “spit jihad” threatens to weaken the broader movement towards equality and non-discrimination by legitimising casteist and communal reactionary forces.

The very term “spit jihad” itself reveals the underlying anti-Muslim prejudice driving these campaigns. There is no logical connection between the act of spitting and the concept of jihad. The deliberate choice of the word “jihad” by right-wing forces suggests a sinister agenda, as it perpetuates harmful stereotypes against Muslim and Islam and promotes communal divisions.

Islamic scholars provide a nuanced definition of the term jihad and the debates surrounding it, but the broader consensus is that the term refers to making efforts for a just cause. It has nothing to do with violence, nor is it directed against non-Muslims or a threat to the safety and well-being of Hindus. There is no historical record of Muslims, as a community, declaring jihad against Hindus. In simple terms, jihad means striving for a legitimate and just cause. In other words, it is a struggle against injustice and oppression. In a catholic sense, jihad has two primary dimensions. There is the outward jihad, which may be waged for a just and noble cause, but there is also the inner jihad—a personal struggle against the self. It is widely accepted that this inner jihad, aimed at purifying one’s character and conduct, is the “greater” jihad. Reforming oneself, striving to be a good human being, and purifying the heart is considered a far more difficult and noble pursuit than the external jihad.

However, today, in India’s vitiated political landscape, the misuse of the term jihad has been twisted to mean an unholy conspiratorial assault by Muslims and through that, by Islam. The Taliban and Islamists have not helped matters (recall the Bamiyan Buddha destruction in March 2001 following a February 26 order by Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Umar)

Political Islam and Islamists have assisted in extenuating a growing Islamophobia world over. Some hawkish scholars declared the Muslim world a threat to the West, fear of Muslims began to spread among non-Muslims. With the help of a powerful propaganda machinery, myths were ingrained in the minds of many that Muslims are preoccupied with waging violent jihad against “infidels.” False claims such as Muslims increasing their population through polygamy, converting non-Muslims by force or deceit, or harbouring “nefarious” plans to revive the Caliphate by dismantling democratic and secular institutions have been repeated endlessly. Lies, when told often enough, can start to be perceived as truth. This is why even some liberals have developed an unfounded fear of Muslims.

The truth, however, is far different. For a vast section of silent, worshipful Muslims, the ideal figure for Muslims is the Prophet Muhammad, whose life is filled with examples of friendship and cooperation with non-Muslims. He often entered into treaties with them, and the Holy Quran emphasizes that His message is for all of humanity, not just Muslims. The Quran repeatedly underscores the importance of serving humanity, regardless of faith. It frequently mentions worship of God and service to both Muslims and non-Muslims in the same breath. History also bears witness to the peaceful coexistence of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, where they were allowed to freely practice their religious beliefs. Even Jewish communities, often persecuted elsewhere, lived peacefully during Muslim rule.

It needs to be stressed however that a violent and supremacist version of political Islam, spread in the Middle East and many other countries in which Islam is the accepted official religion has extenuated both the prejudice and the real divide. Besides, the misinterpretation and manipulation of religious concepts are not unique to Islam. Sections of Muslims, do exploit religious symbols to serve their own selfish interests. There are even instances of upper-caste Muslim men denying rights to lower castes or women within their own community. Similarly, there are Muslims who might misuse Islamic concepts and commit acts of violence. However, such anti-social behaviour is not confined to Islam. For instance, the Hinduism espoused by Mahatma Gandhi and that practiced by his assassin, Nathuram Godse, were starkly different. This shows that any religion can be misused, and it is unfair to view Muslims through a narrow, prejudiced lens as a monolithic community stuck in medieval practices.

Even before the rise of the RSS and BJP to political dominance they have been ideologically wedded to a Hindu civilization, a Hindu nation based on supremacy and the notion of the “the other.” These outfits, now in power have long since not only absorbed global anti-Muslim propaganda but have also redefined and weaponised it, making it even more dangerous. The global fear of Muslims, which began intensifying after the Cold War in the 1990s, was skilfully exploited by right-wing forces in India. Instead of challenging this harmful narrative, they embraced it to further their anti-Muslim agenda. Hindutva ideologues drew from the writings of Western anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim figures, repackaging these prejudices for an Indian audience.

The relentless injection of anti-Muslim rhetoric by the commercial and big media has proven to be equally troubling. Even a rational mind, once exposed to this toxic content over time, can become infected with hatred towards Muslims. Media, dominated by the upper castes, has played an alarmingly irresponsible role in perpetuating this hate. A case in point is a special show aired by a prominent Hindi news anchor, which distorted the concept of jihad to suit a Hindutva narrative. The anchor claimed that Muslims were waging jihad in numerous domains—economy, education, history, media, music, and even by influencing secular intellectuals. Additionally, the anchor alleged that Muslims were deliberately increasing their population to change India’s demographic balance and trap non-Muslim women in what has come to be known as “love jihad.”

The underlying message from such rhetoric is clear: Hindus are being told to “wake up” to the supposed danger posed by Indian Muslims –who could be neighbours even– who are accused of weakening the Hindu community in every sphere of life. The recent spit jihad campaign is just another extension of this ongoing narrative, which portrays Muslims as a threat to Hindu identity and culture.

This divisive strategy has found various outlets, including the repeated targeting of food-related practices. Take, for example, the Muzaffarnagar police’s recent order requiring shopkeepers and food vendors to display their names to avoid “confusing” Hindu pilgrims. While authorities claim there is no communal motive behind such measures, Yogi Government minister Kapil Dev Agarwal openly revealed the true agenda. Speaking in Agra before the Kanwar Yatra, he said, “During the yatra, some Muslims run their shops under the names of Hindu gods and goddesses. We have no objection to them running their shops, but they should not name them after Hindu deities because devotees sit there and drink tea and water.”

Although the Supreme Court stayed this order, declaring such policies inappropriate in a secular state, the underlying communal agenda persists. The spit jihad campaign, purportedly designed to prevent food contamination, is nothing but another attempt to deepen religious and social divisions. By pushing the idea that contamination comes specifically from Muslims, the campaign fuels long-standing anti-Muslim and anti-Dalit prejudices. In most of the viral videos accusing people of spitting or contaminating food, the perpetrators are invariably portrayed as Muslims.

For years, Hindutva forces have circulated rumours among Hindus that Muslims deliberately spit in food before serving it to Hindus. Ironically, in northern India, especially Uttar Pradesh, Sunni Muslims have also been brought up with prejudices of a similar kind vis a vis Shias! These divisive tactics have now today got a powerful supremacist state backing. Used to discredit the practice of inter-dining, a critical aspect of building communal harmony and the overall secularisation of society. Rather than countering such harmful biases, current communal forces are further demonizing inter-dining—a practice that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had strongly emphasized as essential for bridging societal divides. By attacking inter-dining, which could help foster unity, the Hindutva forces are undermining efforts to build an inclusive society, promoting division instead.

Finally, the spit jihad narrative is less about food safety and more about deepening religious and caste divisions. By creating an atmosphere of suspicion and prejudice, these campaigns undermine the very foundations of India’s pluralistic and secular fabric.

The issue of “spit jihad,” often framed as primarily targeting Muslims, actually has far-reaching consequences for both Muslims and Dalits, as it taps into deeply entrenched social prejudices that affect both communities. Historically, the notion of purity and pollution, which is central to the caste system, was first imposed upon Dalits. The practice of untouchability, grounded in the belief that Dalits were impure, was justified by upper-caste Hindus through the lens of caste segregation. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar critiqued this social hierarchy, noting that the caste system fosters contempt, especially for those at the bottom. For Ambedkar, this was why Hinduism lacked the feeling of fraternity and community bonding, prompting him to convert to Buddhism as a form of protest.

In independent India, the practice of untouchability was outlawed, and the state was tasked with implementing measures to uplift Dalits, Adivasis, and other marginalized groups. However, campaigns like “spit jihad” represent a counter-revolution to these democratic gains. By justifying social segregation and reinforcing the idea of “purity” in the name of food safety, these measures indirectly revive old forms of untouchability, especially in relation to Dalits and Muslims.

This modern version of the purity-pollution binary is being repurposed by communal forces to deepen divisions, not just against Muslims but also Dalits. The upper-caste Hindu perception of pollution—historically linked to caste—now manifests in their reluctance to share food or dine in eateries owned by Muslims. This phenomenon is not new for Dalits, who have long faced similar discrimination. Many Dalit business owners conceal their caste to avoid losing customers, and the same applies to Muslim-owned businesses today, where communal forces push for a clear division between “Hindu” and “Muslim” food establishments.

Even today, upper-caste-owned food chains and eateries are more widely accepted, while those owned by Dalits or Muslims are viewed with suspicion. As a result, Dalits and Muslims often have to hide their identities in business dealings to avoid losing customers from upper-caste Hindus, reinforcing both caste-based and religious discrimination.

In this context, the “spit jihad” campaign is not just an attack on Muslims but a reaffirmation, negatively, of the social prejudices and hierarchies that have oppressed Dalits for centuries. Both groups are treated as impure and “othered” by the dominant caste and religious forces, perpetuating the same exclusionary logic. The division between “Hindu” and “Muslim” food shops today echoes the historical exclusion of Dalits from spaces and resources.

Recently, I visited the old city areas of Lucknow, specifically the old city area. I needed to purchase sweets for my relatives. When I asked my Muslim friends to help me with the purchase, one of them mentioned a sweet shop called “Maulana Sweets,” known for its reasonable prices and good quality. However, they cautioned that my relatives might not accept sweets from there. When I responded that it could be possible, my friend suggested taking me to a nearby Hindu-owned shop, named after a Hindu god, to avoid any potential issues.

This communal and caste-based discrimination in the food industry is an extension of the broader socio-economic marginalization of these communities. By reinforcing social distancing and fostering a sense of distrust, these campaigns aim to erode the gains made towards social equality, targeting the economic livelihoods of Muslims and Dalits alike. Such policies and campaigns don’t just seek to control hygiene or safety; they represent an insidious attempt to deepen societal divides along both religious and caste lines.

If we truly want to build a secular India based on the principle of fraternity, we must combat social prejudices. However, reactionary forces are moving in the opposite direction, with a vested interest in further dividing society along religious lines. Their measures aim to benefit upper-caste businessmen by excluding Muslims and Dalits from competition. This is why it appears that the true motive behind the BJP government’s decision to disclose the names of hotel owners and staff is to exploit the reactionary sentiments prevalent in society, ultimately benefiting their financial backers. Therefore, I contend that these laws are not primarily designed to protect consumer health or prevent food contamination. Instead, they are intended to economically weaken the already vulnerable Muslim and Dalit communities.

There is a striking irony here. While the BJP governments are so proactive in ensuring food safety for consumers, they make little effort to secure the rights of workers in eateries. Across the country, the conditions in hotels are deplorable. Visit any dhaba, and it is likely you’ll see a child working there. Child labour is rampant in many hotels and dhabas. Why doesn’t the government take serious steps to address these issues? Even more troubling is that most of the workers cleaning utensils are Bahujans. Their fingers rot from constant exposure to water, they are paid meagre wages, and they are forced to work long hours under inhumane conditions. Why is there no initiative from the BJP government to improve the welfare of these workers?

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the primary aim of these guidelines against so-called “spit jihad” is reactionary. Their main objective is not to ensure consumer safety or protect food from contamination. Instead, these policies are designed to economically marginalize Muslims and Dalits while intensifying the regime of surveillance. Not long ago, a campaign against halal food was launched by Hindutva forces to exclude Muslim businessmen, and these new regulations are a continuation of the Hindutva agenda. Secular-democratic and social justice forces must unite to oppose these divisive policies.

(Dr. Abhay Kumar is an independent journalist. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com)

The post ‘Spit Jihad’: a conspiracy afresh to break the economic backbone of Muslims & Dalits appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Huge protest erupts over namaz: Roorkee, Uttarakhand

In Roorkee, students at Quantum University ignited protests by chanting “Jai Shri Ram” in response to a video that had gone viral, showing a woman offering namaz on campus. This incident has become a flashpoint, epitomising the rising anti-Muslim hatred within the state. In the video, a large crowd of students can be seen vocally expressing their disagreement, chanting the slogan “Jai Shri Ram” as they gather in opposition to the woman’s act of offering namaz.

Reports indicate that the protesting students were in contact with the right-wing outfit Rashtriya Bajrang Dal, raising concerns about the influence of extremist groups on educational institutes. This connection highlights how external pressures can exacerbate divisions within educational institutions, turning a place of learning into a battleground for ideological conflicts, fueled by right-wing outfits across the state.

In Roorkee, Uttarakhand, a protest erupted against a woman offering Namaz at Quantum University after a video of the incident went viral. Students responded by chanting “Jai Shri Ram,” while members of Bajrang Dal claimed it was related to love jihad and conversion. pic.twitter.com/tkaz9mCJUS

— The Observer Post (@TheObserverPost) October 29, 2024

While reacting to the incident of Quantum University, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde wrote on social media platform X, that “These students have effectively devalued the employability quotient of the alumini of this university.”

These students have effectively devalued the employability quotient of the alumini of this university. https://t.co/9PCR3YNuuh

— SANJAY HEGDE (@sanjayuvacha) October 30, 2024

Right-wing leader distributed sign board: Ramnagar, Uttarakhand

Simultaneously, in Ramnagar, far-right leader Raju Rawat initiated a campaign to distribute signboards stating “Garv Se Kaho, Hum Hindu Hain” (say proudly! We are Hindus) to Hindu vendors, so that people can identify the stalls based on their religion, urging shoppers to buy only from stalls marked for “purity.”

Notably, these divisive and anti-Muslim signboards featuring “Santani Sabjiwala” have been also distributed among vegetable vendors within the Hindu community across Himachal Pradesh. By encouraging shoppers to identify vendors based on religious affiliation, these signs promote a harmful atmosphere of discrimination and segregation of Muslims on religious grounds. These signboards have been distributed in gross violation of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and seem to go unaddressed, with no punitive actions taken by the concerned state governments.

In Ramnagar, Nainital, on October 28, far-right leader Raju Rawat again intensified communal tensions by checking the Aadhar cards of Muslim vendors, claiming that they were outsiders responsible for disrupting local businesses. His claims reflect a broader narrative that seeks to paint Muslims, particularly those labeled as “outsiders” or “Bangladeshi infiltrators,” as a threat to the local economy and community cohesion.

By framing these vendors as unwelcome intruders, Rawat is not only spreading hate but also inciting fear among the local population against the Muslims.

Srinagar, Uttarakhand

On October 27 in Srinagar, far-right leader Lakhpat Singh Bhandari led a protest rally against what he termed “love jihad,” a controversial term used to describe alleged efforts by Muslim men to convert Hindu women through marriage. During the rally, Bhandari propagated conspiracy theories surrounding this issue, making the unfounded claim that a significant number of these cases involved barbers.

Bhandari’s assertions reflect a problematic trend where unfounded accusations are used to stoke communal tensions. By specifically targeting a profession, he seeks to generalize and vilify an entire community based on the actions of a few, thereby exacerbating divisions within society.

The rise of communal and anti-Muslim protests in Uttarakhand has become increasingly evident, with rising incidents of abuse and discrimination against Muslims. The state government has failed to take preventive measures against these events, and in some cases, has seemingly promoted the distribution of discriminatory signboards, as seen during the recent Kanwar Yatra. This escalation of hate is a direct result of divisive and hateful propaganda propagated by right-wing groups.

These incidents highlight the alarming influence of extremist narratives that fuel anti-Muslim sentiments in the region. This growing hostility not only undermines the rights and dignity of individuals but also poses a serious threat to social cohesion in Uttarakhand and impact to the Muslim population of Uttarakhand.

Related:

Dehradun Press Club allows hate event “how to save women from jihadis”

Tensions escalate in Himachal and Uttarakhand, multiple protest and rallies against mosques

Tide of hatred against Muslims continues: Payment denied for Muslim server

The post Uttarakhand: Students chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ in response to a video showing women offering namaz appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The comprehensive 36-page fact-finding report by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) offers an in-depth analysis of the violence and tensions that erupted in Himachal Pradesh. It meticulously documents the protests that took place in Sanjauli (Shimla), Mandi, Solan, Kullu, and Palampur with credible testimonies, highlighting the underlying issues that fueled the unrest. Through thorough ground reporting, the report examines the complex interplay of factors contributing to the communal tensions, including provocative rhetoric and community grievances. Additionally, it presents recommendations focused on civil society initiatives and long-term measures aimed at fostering dialogue and promoting understanding among diverse communities. The APCR’s findings underscore the urgent need for sustained efforts to address the root causes of conflict and build a more inclusive and harmonious society.

Background

In September 2024, communal tensions surged in Himachal Pradesh against a Mosque situated in Sanjauli, Shimla, on the call made by Vishva Hindu Parishad and other right-wing outfits over demand to demolish the alleged unauthorised structure of mosque. During the protests and rallies, derogatory slurs against Muslims and Islamophobic slogans were chanted by the mob of right-wing protesters on September 11, 2024.

These demonstrations fueled animosity and deepened divisions within the community, leading to heightened fear and insecurity among local Muslims. Amid this turmoil, the Congress government faced criticism for its failure to address the growing communal tensions in the state. The role of state ministers Vikramaditya Singh and Anirudh Singh, whose Islamophobic remarks during this period were seen as contributing to the escalating unrest.

The protests and rallies were started over the 14-year-old disputed four-storey mosque located in the Sanjauli area of Shimla. It is reported that the incident escalated and flared up from a stray incident as some people allegedly attacked a local trader with rods and sticks. Then a FIR was registered on 6 persons for alleged attack. It was alleged that all the accused then fled from there and hid in the Sanjauli mosque, resulting in communal tension and protests and slogans chanting against the allegedly illegal construction of the mosque in Sanjauli, claiming that the mosque was constructed illegally and without permission.

Sabrang India’s full report on Sanjauli Mosque dispute can be read here

Importantly, the issue got attention and media coverage when Himachal Panchayati Raj Minister and Congress MLA Anirudh Singh raised the issue of alleged illegal construction of the Sanjauli mosque, while claiming increasing theft in the area, raised love jihad concern before the State Assembly. Speaking at the Himachal Pradesh Assembly, Singh demanded an investigation into the construction of Shimla’s Sanjauli Masjid and highlighted the alleged illegal construction of the mosque had led to tensions in the area.

“It has become difficult for women to walk in the Sanjauli market, and thefts are occurring. Love Jihad is another serious issue that needs attention and is dangerous for our country and state. Fights are taking place,” he addressed in assembly.

On the 7th day of Monsoon Session of Vidhan Sabha,
discussion held over illegal construction by the people of a particular community in Shimla and concerns arising due to increasing number of illegal migrants entering #HimachalPradesh. #Shimla #Sanjauli pic.twitter.com/hAq2CGk4Xg

— Anirudh Singh (@anirudhsinghMLA) September 4, 2024

APCR’s fact-finding report

The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR)’s fact-finding report reveals that the protest of September 11, took a violent turn with protesters clashing with police and attempted to breach barricaded in Sanjuali. As per report, APCR’s on ground reporting revealed that an incident preceded the conflict. An altercation between Hindu men and Muslim men in Malyana, which is around 9 kilometres from Sanjauli, led to injury of a few Hindu men. The FIR number 148/2024 was registered on 30th August, on the day of incident. The FIR registered on the complaint of 37-year-old shopkeeper Vikram Singh alleged that the accused Mohammad Kulnavaj and his men injured Singh and his friends Jaipal and Rajeev Sharma.

Following the incident, a rumour was spread that the Muslim men after hurting Hindu men took refuge in the Sanjauli mosque. After that the Sanjauli mosque became the target of Hindu far-right protests. The Malyana incident was utilised as justification for a march from Malyana to Sanjauli, with demands for the expulsion of Muslim outsiders and the demolition of the mosque, which Hindu far-right claimed as illegal.

According to report, after the fight in Malyana, on 1st September, the first protest rally against the mosque was taken out in Sanjauli. It was initiated by local Congress counsellors, local Hindu right-wing outfits and BJP members. Himachal Pradesh’s Minister of Rural Development Anirudh Singh and his Congress party colleague Harish Janartha also raised the mosque issue in the Himachal Pradesh Assembly on 5 September.  In his widely viral speech from the assembly Anirudh Singh alleged that persons of Bangladeshi origin were living in the mosque and demanded that their identities be verified. He said, “They started construction without approval. It was an illegal structure. First, one floor was built, then the rest followed,” and later added, “They have a habit of engaging in illegal activities. They built a 5-storey mosque. This entire matter should be investigated.”

After the first major protest on 1st September, protest rallies against the mosque were also taken out on 5th September and on 11th September. The call for the 11th September protest was given by Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Hindu groups protested the mosque construction, demanding action. Protesters chanted slogans such as – “Mulle Katue nahin chalenge” “Masjid ko girana hoga” “Himachal Ne Thaana Hai, Devbhoomi Ko Bachana Hai” “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” “Jai Sri Ram.

The report pointed out that from Sanjauli, the violent protests against Muslims spread to the entire Himachal including Shimla’s Nerwa and Kasumpti, Mandi, Chamba, Bilaspur, Una, Palampur, and Nagrota Bagwan of Kangra, Hamirpur, Sirmaur and other districts.

The report further reveals that the role of Congress leaders in the communal tension in Himachal Pradesh has been criticised as ineffective. According to reports, the Congress government failed to address the growing tensions, leading to increased fear within the Muslim community. The situation escalated to the point where protesters clashed with police and shops were vandalised in Mandi, Palampur, Sanjauli, Kullu, and Solan. The fact-finding team visited all these locations.

Importantly, the report also highlighted that Congress minister Anirudh Singh also questioned the citizenship of Muslim workers in Himachal Pradesh and Vikramaditya stated that all vendors will now have to display their IDs outside their shops. The decision was 6 rolled back after significant criticism. The lack of decisive action from Congress leadership allowed the situation to spiral out of control.

According to APCR, “The incident has exacerbated communal tensions between Hindu and Muslim communities, affecting local businesses and residents. The controversy highlights concerns about minority rights and freedom of religion in India. The rise of communal politics has contributed to increased tensions, with Himachal Pradesh becoming a focal point.”

Testimonies

Notably, the report captures testimonies from survivors and witnesses in Shimla, Sanjauli, Mandi, Solan, Kullu, and Palampur, revealing a climate of fear following recent communal tensions.

Altaf Hussain, a 25-year-old shopkeeper in Sanjauli, described how the peaceful environment has drastically changed, noting that many Muslims, particularly laborers from Uttar Pradesh, have fled due to fear of violence from Hindutva organizations. He expressed gratitude for local support but remains apprehensive about his safety.

Sunita, a 55-year-old neighbor of the mosque, witnessed firsthand the vandalism and aggression during protests, emphasizing that Muslims had never misbehaved and labeling the controversy as politically motivated. She voiced her fear during the protests and her efforts to reassure frightened Muslim families.

Anwar Ali, the general secretary of the mosque committee, highlighted the discriminatory rhetoric labeling Muslims as “outsiders,” asserting their integration into the community through personal connections, including attending Hindu weddings. The testimonies collectively illustrate the deepening divides and heightened anxieties within the community, stressing the urgent need for dialogue and understanding to restore harmony

Himachal Pradesh communal protests’ impact on Haryana elections

The report also highlights that there has been a well identified pattern to the communal violence in India often preceding elections. BJP and its ideological master, RSS has mastered the dreadful art of kicking off controversies and flaring up communal tension. Just before any election, there will emerge a concocted controversy involving Muslims to manufacture hatred and produce small- and large-scale violence against Muslims. To give a few examples – just before 2014 Lok Sabha elections large scale antimuslimism violence in Muzaffarnagar (2013) was manufactured on the false allegations of love jihad, Karnataka hijab controversy was kicked off to influence the 2022 UP elections and now Sanjauli mosque controversy that spread across Himachal was largely manufactured to affect the assembly elections in Haryana.

Police action so far

However, APCR fact-finding report mentioned that during September 11 protest in Sanjauli, around 10 people, including police personnel and women, sustained injuries during crowd control.   In Shimla, police booked 50 people for violence, including leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, panchayat chiefs and their deputies, former councillors, and shopkeepers. FIR was registered against the Hindutva protesters in Sanjauli, Nerwa, Mandi, Kullu, Sirmaur, Bilaspur, Una, and Chamba. However, nobody has been arrested yet.

Recommendations of APCR’s fact-finding report:

Following the findings and testimonies of the report, APCR recommendations for addressing communal tensions in Himachal Pradesh:

1. Effective Governance: Ensure swift action against communal elements to prevent escalation of tensions, as seen in the Sanjauli mosque issue.
2. Inclusive Dialogue: Foster open communication between Hindu and Muslim communities to promote understanding and peaceful resolution.
3. Strengthening Law and Order: Deploy adequate security forces to maintain law and order, preventing clashes and vandalism.
4. Leadership Accountability: Hold elected representatives accountable for inflammatory statements, promoting responsible leadership.
5. Community Engagement: Encourage community-led initiatives promoting interfaith harmony and social cohesion.
6. Policy Reforms: Review and reform policies to address communal tensions, ensuring equal protection and opportunities for all citizens.
7. No Permission for Inflammatory Rallies: Deny permission for rallies that may incite communal conflicts, as identified by intelligence agencies or local authorities.
8. Government Support for Muslims: The government should take proactive steps to ensure Muslims feel secure, such as increasing police presence in sensitive areas and engaging in dialogue with community leaders.
9. Social Media Monitoring: Track and counter inflammatory content on social media platforms.
10. Swift Legal Action: Ensure prompt arrests and prosecution of perpetrators of communal violence.

Other recommendations:

Civil Society Initiatives

1. Community-Led Initiatives: Support grassroots initiatives promoting communal harmony.
2. Interfaith Coalitions: Form coalitions of community leaders, organisations, and individuals.
3. Advocacy Campaigns: Launch campaigns to promote tolerance, understanding, and peaceful coexistence.
4. Education and Research: Conduct research and educate the public on communal harmony.
5. Conflict Resolution Training: Provide training for community leaders in conflict resolution

Long-Term Measures

1. Education and Awareness: Integrate communal harmony and cultural sensitivity into school curricula.
2. Interfaith Initiatives: Encourage interfaith dialogues, cultural events, and community programs.
3. Economic Empowerment: Implement initiatives to promote economic equality and opportunities for marginalised communities.
4. Strengthening Institutions: Ensure independence and effectiveness of law enforcement, judiciary, and regulatory bodies.
5. Policy Reforms: Review and reform policies to address communal tensions, ensuring equal protection and opportunities.

However, The APCR’s report highlights the Congress government’s inaction and the Islamophobic rhetoric of its leaders as key factors fueling the communal violence in Himachal Pradesh. Titled “Creating the Muslim Outsider: Hate Speech, Migrant Vulnerability, and Faltering Law & Order in Himachal Pradesh,” the report critiques the ineffective responses of Congress leaders during escalating tensions, particularly focusing on the inflammatory remarks made by ministers Vikramaditya Singh and Anirudh Singh. These comments, coupled with a lack of decisive action, contributed to an environment of fear and insecurity among Muslims. The findings emphasize the urgent need for responsible leadership, community dialogue, and proactive measures to prevent future violence, ensuring a more inclusive and harmonious society. Addressing these issues is essential not only for restoring peace but also for protecting the rights and dignity of all communities in the region.

The full report can be read here

Related:

Tensions escalate in Himachal and Uttarakhand, multiple protest and rallies against mosques

Tensions escalate in Himachal and Uttarakhand, multiple protest and rallies against mosques

Temple-mosque politics: Right Wing’s communal hit list getting longer?

The post APCR’s Fact-Finding Report: Congress ministers remarks escalated the communal tensions in Himachal Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Who is Suresh Chavhanke?

Suresh Khanderao Chavhanke, serves as the Chairman and Chief Managing Director of Sudarshan TV Channels Ltd. (Sudarshan News) and is an active and full-time member of the Rashtirya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS). He is the Editor-in-Chief of Sudarshan News Channel and is infamous for his hate-filled and often anti-minority debate shows, including “Bindas Bol,” “Chalte-Chalte,” and “Jan Sansad,” which have been noted for promoting divisive rhetoric and inflammatory speeches and reports. Apart from spreading hatred through his news channel, he also attends far right physical events, inspiring a militaristic Hindutva. He often uses these occasions to deliver inciteful speeches.

His ties with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are long standing, having been a member since the age of tjree years when he started attending its meetings/shakha gatherings. As a member of RSS, he has also worked as a reporter of pro-RSS newspaper, Taun Bharat.  He has held several posts in the RSS before becoming a “full-time reporter”. He launched Sudarshan News channel in 2005 in Pune and later shifted it to Noida, outside Delhi.

Image: Suresh Chavhanke’s official X handle @ https://x.com/SureshChavhanke

Criminal cases linked to Suresh Chavhanke

Serial Hate Offender Suresh Chavhanke, is a polarising figure who today faces multiple FIR against Chavhanke, including allegations of rape, attempted murder, and fraud. In 2016, a former employee accused him of sexual exploitation, claiming he raped her and attempted unnatural acts under false promises of marriage. Apart from these serious allegations, there are growing concerns about police inaction and government-sponsored propaganda that seem to shield him from accountability even as he continues onnhis hate-dishing spree! Chavhanke —as mentioned above— has also faced numerous accusations of inciting communal hatred through inflammatory speeches, attracted significant public and media scrutiny regarding both his actions and the systemic issues enabling them.

Accused of Rape, attempt to murder and fraud

According to Hindustan Times, in year 2016, a former employee of the Sudarshan News had filed an FIR in the Women’s Police Station in Noida alleging that Chavhanke has raped her and attempted to have unnatural sex with her on October 20, 2013. She also accused Narain Sai son of self-proclaimed godman Asaram Bapur for attempting to rape her in September 2013.

The victim alleged that Chavhanke had sexually exploited her since 2013 under the promise of marriage and had taken cash and jewellery worth Rs. 27 lakhs from her. The police booked Chavhanke under a total of 11 sections of the IPC, including charges of rape, attempted unnatural offenses, attempted murder, forced miscarriage, criminal intimidation, cheating, and outraging the modesty of a woman. Not much has been heard of this case since then.

Arrested in year 2017 for inciting communal hatred

On April 12, 2017, Serial hate offender, Suresh Chavhanke was arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Police for inciting communal hatred. He was arrested by the Lucknow Police from Amausi Airport on Wednesday. The head of the Sudarshan channel was charged under Sections 153A(1), 295A, and 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 16 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1955.

On May 9, 2023, a complaint (FIR) was registered by the Jilhapeth Police Station against repeat hate offenders Suresh Chavhanke and Prashant Juvekar for delivering hate speech in Jalgaon on Christmas Day, December 25, 2022, at an event organized by the notorious Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS). During this event, Chavhanke made provocative comments about Christmas, stating, “Christmas of the 2% is being imposed on the 98%,” and criticized Christians, claiming, “Christianity has ruined our intellect.” A nine-minute video of the speech, muted at several points, included stigmatizing remarks about Muslims, using terms like “Land Jihad” and “Love Jihad.” Chavhanke also levelled baseless allegations against madrassas and made unfounded claims about forced religious conversions in Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

On June 23, 2023, an FIR was, yet again, filed against Sudarshan News editor-in-chief Suresh Chavhanke for delivering a “communal speech” in Sangamner on June 6, which had resulted in unrest in the region and the arrest of 17 people, as reported by the Indian Express. The FIR, filed at the Sangamner city police station in Ahmednagar based on a complaint by a police officer, stated that at least two people were injured and five vehicles were vandalized in the violence that followed a rally organized by the Sakal Hindu Samaj, where Chavhanke was a key speaker. Alongside Chavhanke, two other speakers associated with the Bajrang Dal were also booked in the FIR. Clearly for Chavhanke, as also the rest of the extreme Hindutva eco-system, Maharashtra has been the chosen fertile ground for these activities. In June 2022, a politically compliant Maha Yuti government was formed in the state. Several of the new government’s functionaries—including state home minister, Devendra Phadnavis, have themselves been at the forefront of vicious hate-mongering since.

On July 30, 2023, in Rajasthan, a FIR was also registered against the serial hate offender, Suresh Chavhanke for allegedly hurting the sentiments of tribals and Meena community (ST) in the earlier dispute over Amagarh Fort between the Meena community and Hindu groups, as reported the Indian Express.

On July 22, 2022, the Hyderabad police booked a case against Suresh Chavhanke, the Editor-in-Chief and CMD of Sudarshan Television News, for allegedly uploading a morphed video of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen Chief and MP Asaduddin Owaisi on social media. On April 17, 2024, Chavhanke was subsequently booked again by the Cyber Police Station in Hyderabad for allegedly using Owaisi’s photo on social media without proper context.

The video was captioned in Hindi: “Lageh Rahiyeh, Ek Din Aisah Bhi Ayega, Owaisi Bhi Ghar Wapsi Kar Bhajan Gayegah. Har Har Mahadev” (Keep engaged, one day Owaisi will also sing bhajans after returning home).

लगे रहिए, एक दिन ऐसा भी आयेगा… #Owaisi भी घर वापसी कर भजन गाएगा ! हर हर महादेव !! pic.twitter.com/4NAGybLQQa

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) July 21, 2022

Hyderabad: Suresh Chavhanke booked for morphed video of Asad Owaisi

Notably, on October 19, 2024, the Delhi High Court summoned serial hate offender Suresh Chavhanke, Managing Director of Sudarshan News, along with six others, in a defamation case brought by Mohd Tufail Khan. Khan, who runs the Jamia Arabia Nizami Welfare Educational Society, defending itself under purportedly false accusations of being involved in anti-national activities.

These allegations originated from a tweet in 2022 and were subsequently broadcast on Sudarshan TV in 2023. In August 2022, Islamic scholar Mufti Wajahat Qasmi claimed that Jamia Arabia Nizami was involved in such activities, which were then featured in interviews on Sudarshan TV. Khan alleges that false and defamatory accusations against him were broadcast by Sudarshan TV on April 12, 2023, during a segment titled “Madrasa ke naam par bachho se bheek manga rahe hai.” He further informed the court that Suresh Chavhanke, CMD of Sudarshan News, along with another official, Maya Chavhanke, defamed him by organising a separate TV show aired on their channel, titled “Logo ko dafanane wali jagah par banaya Dargah.”

Chavhanke’s call for arms and radicalisation

Suresh Chavhanke’s fixation on weapons and his strategic use of the ‘social media’ have become central to his divisive agenda against minorities. He frequently portrays himself as a self-proclaimed protector of Hindu Dharma, often donning saffron attire and positioning himself as a warrior. Through his speeches and armed photos, Chavhanke promotes a narrative that urges Hindus to be ‘vigilant and prepared’, suggesting that they should keep weapons for self-defence. His rhetoric, which often echoes themes of aggression and confrontation, aims to incite fear and reinforce a sense of victimhood among his followers.

pic.twitter.com/jzz2iUqtlm

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) October 25, 2020

At events like the Asaram Bapu Divas in Pune on February 15, 2023, he explicitly called on Hindus to arm themselves, further fueling a culture of hostility and violence against religious minorities. Chavhanke’s messaging is not merely about self-defense; it is rooted in a broader strategy of spreading hate and shameful propaganda that undermines communal harmony. By fostering an image of a warrior dedicated to a supposedly righteous cause, he seeks to gain attention and rally support for his controversial views, ultimately exacerbating societal divisions and promoting intolerance.

Link: https://www.hindutvawatch.org/far-right-leader-suresh-chavhanke-calls-on-hindus-to-keep-weapons/

UPSC Jihad: a failed attempt of Sudarshan News

Sudarshan News is a pro-Hindutva Hindi channel known for targeting Muslims and promoting hatred against minority communities through its devastating debate shows and provocative reports. Suresh Chavhanke and Sudarshan News emerged centrestage to a controversy in year 2020. They spread an anti-Muslim narrative. At this time, it telecast one of its most polarising shows, originally scheduled to air on August 28, 2020. The show was titled “Naukarshahi me Muslamano ki Ghuspaith ke shadyatra ka bada khulasa” (The Conspiracy Behind Muslim Infiltration in UPSC – The Big Reveal). While the broadcast was ultimately stayed by the Delhi High Court on August 28, 2020, promotional trailers continued to circulate on social media, drawing significant attention. This series faced widespread criticism for its communal broadcasts.

The Editor-in-Chief of the channel and hate offender Suresh Chavhanke in the trailer can be seen as talking about the programme in this video:

#सावधान
लोकतंत्र के सबसे महत्वपूर्ण स्तंभ कार्यपालिका के सबसे बड़े पदों पर मुस्लिम घुसपैठ का पर्दाफ़ाश.

#UPSC_Jihad #नौकरशाही_जिहाद

देश को झकझोर देने वाली इस सीरीज़ का लगातार प्रसारण प्रतिदिन. शुक्रवार 28 अगस्त रात 8 बजे से सिर्फ सुदर्शन न्यूज़ पर.@narendramodi @RSSorg pic.twitter.com/B103VYjlmt

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) August 25, 2020

The trailer highlighted a show that was set to be broadcast on August 28, 2020. In it, Suresh Chavhanke, the channel’s Editor-in-Chief, could be seen asking;

“How has there been a sudden rise in the number of Muslims in IAS and IPS?

What is the secret behind scoring high marks in such a difficult exam?

If Jihadis of Jamia become your Collectors and Chief Secretaries, what will happen then? The big reveal on the Executive being infiltrated.”

The Delhi High Court in its order dated August 29, 2024, while dismissing the vacation of stay from controversial telecast, observed that “Sudarshan News Clip Of ‘UPSC Jihad’ Show Prima Facie Violated the Programme Code”. A bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed that “Prima facie, I find the same to be in violation of the Programme Code set out under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)”.

The Delhi High Court’s order dated August 28, 2020 also directed the Centre to take a decision on the matter. Subsequently, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an order on September 9, 2020, permitting the broadcast of the show, which took effect on September 11, 2020. Following the same, an intervention application had been filed by seven retired civil servants before the Supreme Court seeking an injunction against the telecast of a communally inflammatory show on Sudarshan News, which allegedly discussed a “conspiracy of infiltration by Muslims in Indian civil services.” A petition was subsequently filed before the Delhi High Court challenging this decision, but the court refused to grant a stay and instead issued a notice.

Notably, on September 1, 2020, the members of the Constitutional Conduct Group – numbering 91 in total, submitted a representation to the Home Minister and the Minister for Information and Broadcasting against the Sudarshan tv and its show “Bindas Bol”, pointing out that the said program would “generate hatred towards the largest minority community of the country”, was based on demonstrable falsehoods about the supposed “growth” of Muslim representation in the Civil Services, and had the potential to divide the civil administration of the country on religious line.

Supreme Court restrained Sudarshan Tv to telecast “UPSC Jihad” show

On September 15, 2020, A bench of Justices KM Joseph, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, while considering the potential ramifications from the telecast, restrained Sudarshan TV from telecasting the remaining episodes of the “Bindas Bol” show. The bench also observed that the object of the was to vilify Muslims.

“At this stage, prima facie, it appears to the court that the object, intent and purpose of the program is to vilify the Muslim community with an insidious attempt to portray them as part of a conspiracy to infiltrate the civil services” the bench observed in its order.

Justice DY Chandrachud emphatically conveyed his disapproval of the hate-filled theme and underlying intent of the Sudarshan TV show. He observed that ““This is not a freedom of speech issue. When you say students of Jamia are part of a conspiracy to infiltrate civil services, that is not permissible. You cannot target one community and brand them a particular manner. This is an insidious attempt to malign a community”

Ultimately, Sudarshan News’s attempt to exploit sensitive socio-political issues for sensationalism failed, revealing the legal and moral responsibilities that accompany journalistic endeavours. The case stands as a reminder of the vital role of the judiciary in safeguarding democratic values and protecting marginalized communities from hate-driven agendas.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org.in) has also repeatedly taken steps against Suresh Chavhanke, calling him out for his hate speech masquerading as news.

CJP’s complaint against Sudarshan News for its communal show ‘UPSC Jihad”

On September 1, 2020, CJP moved the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) – now known as News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) against Sudarshan News for airing a communally inflammatory promotional video for its show exploring a “controversy” on “infiltration” of Muslims in public services, while derogatorily terming it ‘UPSC Jihad’. The complaint was also forwarded to the Union I&B Ministry by the authority since Sudarshan TV is not a member of the National Broadcasters Association (NBA).

CJP’s strong intervention prompted the NBSA to forward the complaint to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B). However, the response indicated that “This is to inform you that Sudarshan TV is not a member of the NBA. Hence NBSA cannot take action on the complaint based on NBSA regulations.”

The NBSA also referenced the I&B Ministry in its communication, forwarding the complaint to key officials, including the Joint Secretary and Under Secretary, while advising follow-up on the matter.

Ministry of Information & Broadcasting cautioned the Sudarshan News

Following the same, The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that Sudarshan TV’s UPSC Jihad program was “not in good taste” and had the potential to “promote communal attitudes.” In this context, Ministry through its order dated November 4, 2020 cautioned the channel, led by Suresh Chavhanke, to be “careful in the future.”

The MIB, after examining all the facts and circumstances of the case and balancing the fundamental rights of the broadcaster, cautioned Sudarshan TV Channel Ltd to exercise caution moving forward. The order further indicated that if any future violations of the Programme Code were found, stricter penal action would be taken.

The order was issued in light of the proceedings involving the MIB against Sudarshan TV for its alleged violation of the Programme Code under Rule 6 of the Cable TV Networks Rules, 1994, which were framed under the Cable TV Networks Act, 1995. This action was specifically related to the telecast of the program titled “Bindas Bol – UPSC Jihad.”

Chavhanke’s habitual indulgence in spreading hate and divisive propaganda

Suresh Chavhanke’s derogatory comments during National Education Day revealed a troubling trend in contemporary media discourse. By questioning the legitimacy of a national figure due to his Muslim identity, Chavhanke not only disrespected a revered freedom fighter but also promoted a divisive narrative that undermined India’s secular ethos. His remarks, which implied that non-Hindus could not hold significant national roles, contributed to a broader radical culture of intolerance and exclusion.

Chavhanke’s demeaning comment on Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

In November, 2020, on the occasion of national education day, he was targeted none other than Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the well-known freedom fighter and independent India’s first education minister who was also known as a left-leaning rational Muslim. Since 2008, November 11, every year, is celebrated as the National Education Day in India to commemorate his birth anniversary. A twitter post was put up by the union minister for road transport & highways, Nitin Gadkari honouring Abul Kalam. However, the said twitter post was then re-shared by Chavhanke, along with vile, communal and instigating comments.

Sharing this picture, Chavhanke wrote;

“How can someone become the Bharat Ratna or the Education Minister of India when they are not from India?” (Jo Bharat Ke Nahi the Veh “Bharat Ratna” Ya “Bharat Ke Shiksha Mantri” Kese Banaye Gaye the?)

“How can a country, which has been hunted by the joint conspiracy of the British and jihadis, accept the National Education Day in the name of hunters?” (Angrezo Aur Jihadiyon Ke Sanyukt Shadyantra Ka Shikar Kiya Gaya Desh, Shikari Ke Naam Par Rashtriya Shikha Diwas Kese Mana Sakte Hai?).

He then tagged Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), urging them to “consider changing the decision of the previous government (pichle Sarkar ka yeh nirnay badla jae).”

Attacks on Muslims and Christians

On December 25, 2022, a video surfaced of Suresh Chavhanke delivering a hate speech that targeted and promoted an Islamophobic agenda, while also criticising the Christmas festival. He claimed that “the Christmas of the 2% is being imposed on the 98%.” This incident was reported by the Twitter account “Hindutva Watch,” which tracks hate crimes and speeches by right-wing groups.

In March, 2023, On the occasion of Gudi Padwa, the Maharashtrian New Year, when all people look forward to messages of positivity, hate mongers like Chavhanke were busy injecting hatred. More problematic is the fact that the police and administration allowed this sort of corrosive activity unchecked.

At Anant Kanhere Maidan in Nashik on Hindu New year, March 22, Chavhanke addressed a large crowd at a ‘Hindu Hunkar Sabha’, speaking in Marathi while the entire show was streamed live on YouTube. In his hour-long speech, he resorted to his usual fear mongering, stigmatising Muslims and Christians, referring to them in denigrating terms, gave calls for violence, used the ‘they should be in Pakistan’ trope, made baseless claims of encroachment over temples, made unfounded claims about “love Jihad”, revolved his narrative around attacking the autonomy of women and urged people to take law in their hands.

Further, using the victim card, trying to generate both anger and fear, Chavhanke made some baseless claims about ‘Land Jihad’ around the Navshya Ganpati temple in Nashik. He claimed that he would be going to visit the temple and then the countdown will begin. He said he will gift a bulldozer to CM Eknath Shinde to remove this “encroachment”. This statement evoked a loud applause from the audience. He even attacked Christians. He claimed that Adivasis living in Peth, Harsul, Trambak, Igatpuri, Surgana, Ghoti are being converted “in large numbers”

Nexus with other serial hate offenders

On March 27, 2023, in the same chain of hateful and divisive propaganda, Suresh Chavhanke attended Hindu Ekta Rally organized in Faridabad, Haryana by right-wing extremist Bajrang Dal leader and serial hate offender, Bittu Bajrangi, where multiple right-wing hate offender including Chavhanke delivered hate speeches with deliberate intent to target Muslims and Christians. Hate-peddler Chavhanke through his speech propagated Islamophobic narrative while peddling false conspiracy theories and urged the residents of Faridabad to take action against Muslims so that the district does not see a rise in Muslim population. He also used anti-Muslim slurs and called on factory owner in Faridabad to remove so called “Bangladeshi” workers and ask them for their documents.

On April 14, 2023, this time a new video of hate monger Suresh Chavhanke, surfaced on social media, where he was in conversation with a Hindu monk Devkinandan Thakur and both of them can be heard making calls for repeating the Babri mosque demolition while referring the Mathura and Kashi dispute. Chavhanke openly attacked on Muslim community while saying that “Their mosque say this, pray five times a day, their Allah is the great, then what about our Mahadev, our Lord Krishna? These is beyond our patience. I do not know what to say about this. Till now we could have said that we did not understand what they are saying in Farsi, Arabi or Urdu, but now we know.” He further added that “If my speech is hate speech, then what is being uttered from these mosques, their Azaan, that is the biggest (form of) hate speech.” During the entire show, both the hate mongers, used derogatory slurs against the Muslims while “our Keshav is under the stairs. And upon him, these Mullas (anti-Muslim slur) are walking with shoes. If our government, our constitution is stopping us from taking action, then it is wrong.” The video later removed by the twitter as violative of community standards.

Names of roads in Delhi to be changed to Hindu leaders

Chavhanke has established a pattern of posting communal rhetoric and Islamophobic propaganda on social media, consistently tagging top BJP and RSS leaders to garner attention. As just days prior to the inauguration of new Parliament house, Chavhanke delivered another communal and provocative speech, in which he openly threatened to use force and violence against the minorities in order to make India an undivided Hindu nation. He also urged the government to change the name of the streets in Delhi and rename them to Hindu leaders. The said speech was delivered in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

It is important to highlight that on March 19, 2023, in Maharashtra, when Aurangabad had been renamed as Sambhajinagar, Suresh Chavhanke, along with T. Raja Singh, had given hate speeches which has resulted in to the rampant destruction of public property and pelting of stones.

Incited violence and clash against the Muslim community

In June, 2023, Chavhanke then gave another speech in Sangamner, Maharashtra at an event organised by the right-wing extremist Sakal Hindu Samaj organised Hindu Jan Akroash Morcha where hate monger Suresh Chavhanke demonised Muslims, sexualised Muslim women and called on them to marry Hindus. Prior to the incident, on June 4, 2024, he posted a video about it from Red Fort where he said that he was going to Sangamner to stop the “Islamification” of the city. “The state of affairs in Sangamner is quite bad because the city is turning “green”, there is Love jihad happening against Hindu girls and Hindus are walking in fear on the streets”.

चलो संगमनेर!
संगमनेर का इस्लामीकरण रोकने के लिए।
दिल्ली के लाल क़िले से सुरेश चव्हाणके जी दिया नारा। दिल्ली से भी आयेंगे लोग।
6 जून, सुबह 9 बजे ज़्यादा से ज़्यादा संख्या में सहभागिता करें। pic.twitter.com/8YcUyV0UEM

— TeamHindu (@TeamHinduOrg) June 4, 2023

Repercussions due to Chavhanke’s speech in Sangamner:

After reaching Sangamner, on June 5 he posted another video where he said, “I have seen some WhatsApp forwards saying that we do not have police permission for our rally. But this is a rumour. Basically we do not need permission for such events. When they molest our sisters, they do not take permission. So we do not need permission to speak up against this. The morcha will happen at any cost”.

किसी भी हाल में संगमनेर का भगवा मोर्चा होगा ही। सरकार से सहयोग अपेक्षित @Dev_Fadnavis @mieknathshinde @DGPMaharashtra @NagarPolice pic.twitter.com/S30j1bapvM

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) June 5, 2023

On his Twitter account he even posted a video of the rally showing people had gathered in large numbers for the rally:

महाराष्ट्र के संगमनेर मे “भगवा मोर्चा”में हिन्दुओं का जन सागर। #HinduHunkarSabha
pic.twitter.com/q3HmIAfuSZ

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) June 6, 2023

At the rally he made a speech, during the speech Chavhanke made several controversial claims while discussing the benefits of Muslim girls marrying Hindu men. He suggested that such marriages would spare them from living with a husband’s multiple partners, prevent them from becoming “baby-making factories,” and exempt their children from circumcision. He also claimed that Hindu men treat their female relatives with respect and that women would not face arbitrary divorce through “Talaq.” He asserted that, since promoting these views, 10 lakh Muslim women have married Hindu men. Alongside this, he posted a video showing the aftermath of a mob vandalizing an eatery, highlighting the chaotic scene with food scattered and police present.

महाराष्ट्र, संगमनेर

सुरेश चव्हाणके ने भगवा मोर्चा निकाला था!
भीड़ को उकसा रहा था!

भीड़ ने कई दुकानो पर हमला किया, खूब बवाल काटा!

भीड़ पर तोड़ फोड़ के भी आरोप लग रहे है!

सभी जानते है सुरेश TV से लेकर सड़क तक रोज़ लोगो को धर्म विशेष के प्रति भड़काता है!pic.twitter.com/vl59hkJnnT

— Sadaf Afreen صدف (@s_afreen7) June 6, 2023

The CJP has maintained constant 24/7 vigilance and effort in combating hate speech and incidents of communal division, resulting in complaint filed by CJP on June 12, 2023 with the Sangamner and Ahmednagar police concerning Suresh Chavhanke’s inflammatory remarks and violence provoking speeches delivered on June 6, 2023.

Additionally, Chavhanke is also responsible for stirring controversy by delivering inflammatory speeches demonising Rohingya refugees, and propagating conspiracy theories as he stoked tensions at events in Jhansi and Ujjain in July, 2023.

Accused of propagating fake “Spite Jihad Theory”

Apart from Chavhanke’s usual focus on anti-Muslim rhetoric on Madrassas and Mosques and a broader anti-minority agenda, he also actively promotes his controversial and dangerous narrative of “spit jihad,” which is rooted in provocative and hate-filled speeches against Muslims and Islam. Suresh Chavhanke at an event of “Hindu Hunkaar Sabha” was organized by the right-wing hate propagating outfit, Sakal Hindu Samaj at Kopargaon (Maharashtra).

Chavhanke’s “spit jihad” agenda seeks to harm Muslim businesses by promoting a narrative that encourages people to avoid purchasing from Muslims. This call for a boycott has significantly impacted the economic stability of many families. As a consequence of the propaganda propagated by the serial hate offender like Chavhanke, the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand —both ruled by the BJP—ordered the disclosure of the names of the of Hotel and Dhaba owners during the Kanwar Yatra route, leading to severe difficulties for Muslim hotel operators. (A minister from Congress-ruled Himachal Pradesh also declared that state government’s intention to do the same but was forced to withdraw after a public outcry). This move was a deliberate and shameful attempt by the Uttar Pradesh government to use hate and slur as precursor to effect a boycott Muslim businesses on the basis of their religious identity, illustrating the harmful narratives that hate mongers like Chavhanke aim to promote. Later, the Supreme Court stayed the controversial and discriminating directions of state forcing food sellers to disclose their identity

Shockingly, Chavhanke also called for the application of the “2002 Gujarat Model” in Haryana as violence flared in the state. His reference to the “Gujarat model,” a period marked by communal violence and accusations of deliberate inaction by the state government, raised serious questions about the intentions behind such inflammatory remarks. Since July 31, 2023, Chavhanke had been tweeting seemingly provocative content about Haryana, claiming an alleged conspiracy to ‘eradicate Hindus’ from Mewat. This blatant disregard for legal consequences by individuals like Chavhanke is a significant concern for both the authorities concerned with protection of law and order, citizens and most of all, the targeted community itself.

मेवात में हिंदुओं के ख़ात्मे का क्रम जारी है।
आज तो महाभारत क़ालीन यात्रा को रोक कर कई हिंदुओं को मार डाला है।

गोलीबारी आगज़नी से लेकर बहुत कुछ

आज के बिंदास बोल में रात 8 बजे दिखाऊँगा। pic.twitter.com/rYqEJ4Sg14

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) July 31, 2023

Detailed story by Sabrang India can be read here

Chavhanke and VHP hit out Maharashtra govt for allocating funds to the minority budget

On June 10, the Maharashtra Minority Development Department announced that the Waqf Board would be allocated Rs 2 crore from the Rs 10 crore budget earmarked for minority welfare in the 2024-25 financial year. This directive was issued by Moin Tashlidar, the Deputy Secretary in the Maharashtra government. Chavhanke and the VHP criticized the Maha Yuti government, led by the BJP in Maharashtra, for allocating a grant of Rs 10 crore to the state Wakf Board.

Chavhanke through his video segment, made the following claims,

“Why did the Maharashtra government give a grant of 10 crore rupees to the Waqf Board, which should be buried? To defeat Modi in the Lok Sabha elections, those who did vote jihad are now being given a return gift by Eknath Shinde ji? Does this mean that if Afzal Khan stabs us in the back now he will be rewarded? If you want to give it, give it from your party’s account, the one you separated in the name of Hindutva. We oppose giving money to a board that should be dissolved.” He also invited people to tune into his show and give him support.

जिस वक़्फ़ बोर्ड को कबर में गाड़ना चाहिए उसे महाराष्ट्र सरकार ने १० करोड़ रूपये की ख़ैरात क्यों दी?

लोकसभा चुनाओ में मोदी को हराने के लिए जिन्होंने वोट जिहाद किया, उनको एकनाथ शिंदे जी रिटर्न गिफ़्ट क्यों दे रहें है?

मतलब अब अफ़ज़ल खान पीठ में ख़ंजर मारेगा तो उसका पेट फाड़ने… pic.twitter.com/dElSf5f6ii

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) June 14, 2024

Notably, On December 27, 2021, a complaint was filed by Supreme Court advocates Avni Bansal, Prakhar Dixit, and Prashant Dubey against Suresh Chavhanke. The complaint highlighted that Chavhanke delivered hate speech and incited enmity among different religious groups at an event organized by Hindu Yuva Vahini at Banarsidas Chandiwala Auditorium in Delhi on December 19, 2021. During the event, he administered an oath to a large audience urging “die for and kill” to make India a “Hindu Rashtra”, or a Hindu nation, using inflammatory and provocative language that incited feelings of communal violence and called for violence against individuals in the name of religion, if deemed necessary. The video of the said oath was posted on X (formerly twitter) by Chavhanke himself.

मेरे साथ हिंदू राष्ट्र की शपथ लेते हुए हिंदू युवा वाहिनी के शेर और शेरनियां #HinduRashtra @myogiadityanath pic.twitter.com/AVt1QqHb1x

— Dr. Suresh Chavhanke “Sudarshan News” (@SureshChavhanke) December 19, 2021

Against the backdrop of the communal oath events at the Haridwar Dharma Sansad and the Hindu Yuva Vahini event in Delhi, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)—in 2020-21– was filed by retired High Court judge of Patna High Court, Anjana Prakash and journalist Qurban Ali. In response, the Delhi Police submitted an affidavit specifically addressing the Delhi event, dismissing any claims of hate speech occurring during it. However, on April 22, 2022, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Delhi Police for its affidavit that, shockingly, asserted that no hate speech had taken place at the December 2021 Hindu Yuva Vahini event in Delhi. The Apex Court’s criticism prompted the Delhi Police to declare that it would file a “better affidavit” to address the concerns raised by the Court.

However, on October 20, 2024, in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, at the Ahilyabai Holkar Anniversary celebration, serial hate offender, Suresh Chavhanke, again launched a provocative attack on the LGBTQ community, branding them as a propaganda tool undermining Hindu families and eroding the very fabric of Hinduism, which he labelled “cultural terrorism.” His controversial remarks extended to Christians, whom he accused of orchestrating targeted conversion efforts in Ahmednagar. Chavhanke also described the phrase “Allahu Akbar” as a supremacist statement, intended to provoke Hindus. His speech stirred significant controversy, reflecting deepening cultural tensions within the community.

CJP’s fight against hate events promoted by Suresh Chavhanke

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been unwavering in its fight against the hate events propagated by Suresh Chavhanke. Following his inflammatory remarks at a September 2022 rally in Badarpur, where he urged Muslim women to marry Hindu men, CJP approached the National Commission for Minorities. Chavhanke’s rhetoric, which included promoting a false narrative about Hindu marriages, was part of a broader pattern of Islamophobic speech. In early 2023, CJP filed complaints with Maharashtra authorities, emphasising Chavhanke’s encouragement of rebellion against the Supreme Court. This was compounded by political figures, such as Suraj Pal Amu, inciting violence against anyone opposing Chavhanke. CJP’s advocacy continues to spotlight these dangerous narratives, emphasizing the need for accountability and legal action to protect communal harmony. Their commitment to countering hate speech reflects a broader societal concern for religious tolerance and the safeguarding of minority rights in an increasingly polarized environment.

On September 13, 2022, CJP moved the National Commission for Minorities against the habitual hate offender Suresh Chavhanke for his Islamophobic speech at a rally in Badarpur, Haryana held on September 4, 2022. In this event, he urged Muslim women to marry Hindu men instead of Muslim men. According to a video that surfaced on social media at that time, Chavhanke and his supporters were seen chanting “Jai Shri Ram.” Additionally, Chavhanke was heard saying… “If you marry a Hindu man, he won’t do any kind of injustice to you. I’ll tell you 10 benefits today keeping Hindus as witness, keeping Bhagwan (God) as witness on camera, in the video, I promise that if you get married to Hindu boys and become Hindu, then you won’t have to face talaq. You won’t have to become a baby making factory, you won’t have to give birth to 40-40 children.”

Sudarshan News editor Suresh Chavhanke continues his anti-Muslim hate propaganda unabated acting with impunity. pic.twitter.com/i7QIn5QVfX

— SWAG Report (@SwagReport) September 6, 2022

On January 29, 2023, a video circulated on social media, posted by “Hate Detector” on X, featuring Suresh Chavhanke delivering anti-Muslim hate speeches throughout Maharashtra. He openly instigated individuals to defy the Supreme Court by administering an oath to establish a Hindu nation alongside him. This act further highlighted his role as a serial hate offender.

This is from #Nagar, #Maharashtra. #SudarshanNews owner #SureshChavhanke continues to deliver anti-Muslim hate speeches across various parts of Maharashtra state.#Hindutva #HateSpeech pic.twitter.com/IOCVOAIucu

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) January 29, 2023

CJP continues its tireless fight against the hate and propaganda propagated by Suresh Chavhanke. On February 6, 2023, in response to the January 29 event, CJP approached the DGP Maharashtra and  Superintendent of Police in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, raising concerns about the speech delivered by serial hate offender Suresh Chavhanke, which promoted Islamophobic propaganda. CJP strongly asserted that Chavhanke espoused a harsh, right-wing, exclusionist ideology that transcended mere hate-mongering, actively encouraging others to rebel against the Supreme Court by administering an oath to establish a Hindu nation alongside him. Chavhanke further claimed that any actions taken against him were a result of pressure from the Supreme Court on the Delhi Police, which he labelled as an injustice.

However, in an unlawful and anti-constitutional counter-move, the BJP’s Chief Media Coordinator in Haryana and President of Karni Sena, Suraj Pal Amu, openly called for violence if any action was taken against Sudarshan News editor and hate-peddler Suresh Chavhanke at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

In the said video, Amu addresses a large audience, declaring, “If anybody touches Suresh Chavhanke, will we let them?” (audience shouts NO). He further incites the crowd, asking, “If anybody harasses him, will you spare him?” (audience shouts NO), and warns against any opposition to their agenda of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. This incident highlights the dangerous nexus among hate offenders within political circles. Amu’s rhetoric not only reinforces Chavhanke’s role as a central figure in this hate nexus but also mobilizes support among his followers, declaring, “Suresh Chavhanke is not alone; all of Hindustan’s 1.25 crore Hindus are with him.” He encourages applause for Chavhanke, indicating a collective identity rooted in hate.

CJP’s commitment to combating hate speech remains unwavering. On June 12, 2023, CJP filed another complaint with the Superintendent of Police in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, against serial hate offender Suresh Chavhanke. This complaint addressed the communal and hate-filled speeches he delivered at an event organized by the right-wing extremist group Sakal Hindu Samaj on June 6, 2023. CJP continues to advocate for accountability and justice in the face of rising hate propaganda.

On May 19, 2023, CJP filed a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar against the serial hate offender, Suresh Chavhanke for delivering hate-spewing speech at an event organized by the Rashtriya Sri Ram Sangh (SRS) in Shrirampur (Ahmednagar District), Maharashtra. Chavhanke, at the birth anniversary of Sambhaji Maharaj, fabricated facts and history, and then perpetuated the lie by means shouting anti-Muslim slurs, and referring Aurangzeb for “every broken tile in a temple”. This is not the first time Suresh Chavhanke has crossed a line while addressing an aggressive crowd; he has a recurring pattern of delivering hate speeches and promoting divisive propaganda. His remarks often provoke tension and controversy, raising concerns about their impact on social cohesion and communal harmony.

Chavhanke’s behaviour signals a dangerous shift in public discourse, eroding religious tolerance. His recent speech exemplifies this concerning trend of shouting anti-Muslim slurs in public gatherings. Through his speech he openly said that “A few Muslims got upset with me, a Muslim minister told me a few days ago that they are upset with me. When I asked him the reason behind it, he said that he was upset with me because I used the word l***a (anti-Muslim slur). Tell me, he got upset over the fact that I called Aurangzeb a l***a. If I don’t call Aurangzeb a l***a, then whom should I call a l***a? This video was removed by Twitter for grossly violating community standards.

On August 18, 2023, CJP took a significant step by approaching the National Commission for Minorities regarding the multiple hate speeches delivered by Suresh Chavhanke in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh. These speeches aimed to propagate his hate-filled and communal agenda, posing a serious threat to societal harmony and peace. CJP’s action underscored its ongoing commitment to addressing hate speech and protecting minority rights. By bringing these issues to the attention of the National Commission for Minorities, CJP sought not only accountability for Chavhanke’s actions but also broader measures to counteract the spread of hate speech across the country.

Suresh Chavhanke’s repeated dissemination of hate speech raises critical concerns about accountability and ethics in Indian media. Despite numerous complaints against his communal rhetoric, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has not issued warnings or taken steps to remove his provocative shows. This inaction suggests a troubling tolerance for hate speech within official channels. Furthermore, the police authorities’ failure to initiate suo moto action indicates a lack of commitment to upholding public order and protecting marginalized communities from incitement and violence. This pervasive impunity not only emboldens individuals like Chavhanke but also erodes the foundational values of justice and equality essential for a diverse society.

The moot question is, why, despite overwhelming evidence of communal incitement, does the state remain passive?

Related

CJP moves NCM against Suresh Chavhanke for his Islamophobic remarks

RSS member, Suresh Chavhanke and VHP hit out at Ekanth Shinde government for allocating minority funds

CJP complains to Sangamner, Ahmednagar Police about Suresh Chavhanke hate speech

The post Suresh Chavhanke: The voice of extremism and champion of division media appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In response to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 909 of 2024 filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), a division bench of Justices AR Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi also noted that the notices issued to occupants for proposed demolition did not indicate the number of houses situated on kilometre 38 of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road, that have been authorised for construction.

Though the court did not explicitly stay the demolition in its order and observed that the court have no reason to believe that order passed by the Supreme Court on September 17, 2024 (halting nationwide demolition) shall not be carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the letter and spirit.

The bench observed that “Evidently, unauthorized structures in any public place such as roads, streets, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law are the exceptions to the general rule. In the present case, we find that on kilometer-38, of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road some notices have come to be issued to some persons for raising unauthorized constructions”

According to Live Law, the division bench, however, took strong exception an association’s filing of the PIL, saying that such petitions would have far-reaching consequences.

Background of the case

On October 13, 2024 (Sunday), a violent incident unfolded in Maharajganj, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Tensions escalated when loud music was played near a mosque, leading to gunfire that tragically claimed the life of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, a local resident participating in the procession. This incident ignited widespread violence and communal unrest in the area. In the aftermath, mobs retaliated by vandalising and setting fire to numerous properties, including homes, shops, hospitals, and vehicles. Disturbingly, a video emerged showing Ram Gopal in a heated moment, removing a green flag from a rooftop and replacing it with a saffron flag, moments before he was shot. Authorities quickly responded, arresting five suspects linked to Mishra’s death following an encounter with Uttar Pradesh Police, during which two of the suspects sustained gunshot wounds. The suspects, identified as Mohammad Faheen, Mohammad Sarfaraz, Abdul Hameed, Mohammad Taleem (alias Sabloo), and Mohammad Afzal, were reportedly attempting to flee to Nepal. By October 18, the situation escalated further, with 87 individuals arrested in connection to the riots, and around 1,000 people booked after at least 11 FIRs were registered.

Following this, the families of the accused, along with 23 others, received notices from the Public Works Department (PWD) allowing them just three days to respond before proposed demolition actions against their properties. The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) challenged these notices, arguing they were served illegally and in violation of the Supreme Court’s earlier directive on September 17.

Simultaneously, a petition was also moved before the Supreme Court against the demolition issued by the Uttar Pradesh authorities Bahraich violence.

Unclear whether responded filed any reply or not: HC

While granting the time extension over the impugned demolition notices, the bench also commented on the uncertainty on whether the aggrieved individuals have filed any replies or sought recourse through other forums. Then bench observed that “The notices are issued to the persons concerned for participation in the proceedings through a reply to be submitted by them within three days. It is unclear in the pleadings as to whether the persons aggrieved have filed any reply or have approached any forum or not. In any case, notices issued against a limited number of persons who are to participate in the proceedings cannot be viewed to be a matter of general public importance, which may be taken cognizance of in a public interest litigation unless the vulnerability of an aggrieved person is such that he is established to be the one who is unable to approach the court for availing the remedy available under law”

High court granted 15 days’ time to affected families to file reply

The order is a significant intervention that emphasises the importance of direct involvement from those facing the notices in the proceedings. The bench stressed that those who have been served notices for demolition of the illegal structures on Kundasar-Mahsi-Nanapara-Maharajganj Road in Bahraich, have been directed to file their replies within 15 days and also ordered the State Authorities to consider the said replies and pass ‘speaking and reasoned’ orders on these replies..

“We expect the persons faced with the notices to participate with the proceedings in the meantime. We further provide that in case they file their reply to the notice within a period of 15 days from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order which shall be communicated to the parties aggrieved” the bench directed.

The matter is listed for October 23, 2024 for next hearing.

The order of Allahabad High Court dated October 20, 2024 may be read here:

Related:

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

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

Report: 294 houses demolished on a daily basis in 2023 in India

The post Bahraich Violence: Allahabad High Court grants 15 days to affected persons to respond on demolition notices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Among the attendees, Daya Shankar (name changed) stood out. He showed great interest in the subject and posed numerous questions, some of which were sharp and thought-provoking. He communicated fluently and was highly articulate and argumentative in his approach.

During the talk, I left the podium and walked toward him. He was sitting on a bench in the back row with three other students. Our one-on-one conversation continued for a considerable time. Eventually, the professor who had organised the lecture had to intervene, saying, “Sir, Daya Shankar’s questions are endless.” Upon hearing this, many in the audience laughed. Although the formal session had ended, we continued our conversation outside the hall. Before leaving, we exchanged phone numbers, and since then, Daya Shankar and I have remained in touch.

Daya Shankar, an undergraduate student of English, belongs to the Marandi Adivasi group in Jharkhand, which is part of the larger Santhal community. The Santhals are considered one of the largest Adivasi groups in Jharkhand and West Bengal by population. “They have a legacy of anti-colonial struggles against the Zamindari system in the mid-19^th century”.

In addition to Jharkhand and West Bengal, the Santhals also reside in Bihar, Odisha, Assam, Tripura, Nepal, and Bangladesh. The Santhals predominantly speak Santali, a language belonging to the Austroasiatic family.

According to the 2011 Census, Adivasis, officially classified as Scheduled Tribes (ST), make up 26.3% of the population in Jharkhand, compared to 8.3% at the national level. Around 8.6 million Adivasis live in Jharkhand, comprising 32 different ST groups. Jharkhand has the 12th largest tribal population in India, with significant concentrations in districts like Simdega, West Singhbhum, Khunti, and Dumka. The Santhal Pargana division, which borders West Bengal, has a higher Muslim population at 22%, compared to the state’s overall Muslim population of just over 14%.

A few days ago, I wrote an article on the targeting of innocent Muslims in BJP-governed states, where their homes and shops are being demolished by bulldozers as a form of state punishment. I referred to these illegal acts as “bulldozer terrorism” because no provision in the Constitution or any law permits the demolition of a person’s home, whether they are accused or convicted, as a collective punishment. Human rights organisations have already documented the gross violations occurring in BJP-ruled states, where large numbers of Muslims have been forcibly rendered homeless. Recently, the Supreme Court has also spoken out against these bulldozer actions, placing a stay on them.

In hearing several petitions related to these demolitions, the apex court emphasized that India, as a secular country, cannot allow discrimination based on religion. The court also mentioned that it would soon issue nationwide guidelines to prevent such actions.

In this context, I wrote my article and shared it with my friends. Daya Shankar was one of the first to respond, offering criticism of both my work and my approach. Showing little concern for the bulldozer demolitions, Daya Shankar’s broader argument was that Muslims are the aggressors and that they refer to Hindus, including myself, as “kafirs.”

He went on to claim that my writings are often “pro-Muslim,” while, in his view, Muslims are exploiting Adivasi lands in Jharkhand and forcibly converting them to Islam. He also accused me of being “less concerned” about Adivasi issues and of prioritizing Muslims as the only minority group. Daya Shankar, an Adivasi student, further remarked that Islam fosters terrorism. In response to his comments and questions, I promised him I would address his points in writing.

I believe Daya Shankar’s opinion is largely shaped by the dominant Islamophobic discourse in the state. In the upcoming Jharkhand Assembly Elections, the BJP is playing the communal card, attempting to fracture Adivasi and Muslim unity to secure votes. Communal forces, with the support of the media, are constructing a narrative that Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslim infiltrators are encroaching on Adivasi lands in the Santhal region and converting Adivasis to Islam through coercive methods, including the so-called ‘Love Jihad.’

Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has raised this issue at electoral rallies in Jharkhand, raising the specter of Muslim infiltrators taking over Santhal tribal lands. At a recent rally in Jamshedpur, the Prime Minister made baseless and highly communal remarks aimed at polarizing voters along religious lines: “Infiltrators entering the state is a big issue… The state high court recently instituted an inquiry by an independent panel into such incidents. But the JMM government here is not ready to accept that illegal immigration is taking place in Jharkhand. In Santhal Pargana and Kolhan, infiltration by Bangladeshis and Rohingyas is a big threat. The identity and demography of this region is changing very fast” (The Economic Times, September 15).

What follows is my commentary on Daya Shankar’s criticisms of my work. I am choosing to share my reply publicly because of the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the Adivasi regions of Jharkhand. For a long time, the Hindu Right has been working to create divisions between Adivasi and minority communities, such as Christians and Muslims. I fear that the poison of anti-Muslim hatred, which has already pervaded caste-based North India, is now spreading to the Adivasi regions. A symptom of this is the way Daya Shankar has developed a prejudice against Muslims. His questions do reflect this prejudice.

Daya Shankar: It seems like you have a strong affinity for Muslims, sir. I’ve noticed many of your posts tend to support or express sympathy toward them. Why is that?

Abhay: What’s wrong with having a strong affinity for Muslims? Would you deny the fact that India is a home to people of multiple religions and faiths? A large number of people who don’t follow any institutionalized religion are no less Indian. Take the Adivasi community, to which you belong, as an example. I have seen with my own eyes that rigidity about religious practices is least found among the Adivasi community. Unlike members of institutionalised religions, they hardly fight over religious structures. Similarly, there is no history of bloodshed over the correct interpretation of a holy text.

There are also groups of atheists who deny the existence of God and don’t accept that God is outside history. They, too, are equal citizens of India, and our Constitution grants them formal equality. But a negative trend is emerging in India with the rise of the Hindu Right, where a particular religious community is seen as the true Indians and loyal sons of the soil, while the rest—particularly Muslims and Christians—are viewed as belonging to non-Indic religions and therefore deemed untrustworthy.

The process of “othering” Muslims has a history of more than one hundred years in India. During colonial times, Hindu revivalist movements redefined the nation in terms of Brahmanical culture. When these revivalists realized that modern politics is based on numbers—put simply, that the majority community would rule over the minority—they sought to popularize Brahmanism by rebranding it as Hinduism. However, the upper-caste Hindu revivalists were only interested in tokenism, seeking to gain the support of the lower castes to defeat Muslim leadership and label them as “communal.”

It is true that our nationalist movement had many currents, including a strong secular one. However, Hindu nationalists managed to penetrate secular organizations and, under the guise of nationalism, promoted the interests of the upper-caste minority. In my view, the Partition of the country wasn’t engineered by any one leader. History often tends to cast one person as the hero and another as the villain, but we should avoid such simplifications.

Discrimination against Indian Muslims at the hands of the state is systemic. Governments have come and gone, but Muslims remain backward. Their representation in Parliament, legislative assemblies, and both public and private sector jobs is much lower than their share of the population, yet they are overrepresented in jails. They also suffer from communal riots, and their history and culture are not adequately represented in school textbooks. Even their homes are being demolished using bulldozers as punitive measures in BJP-ruled states.

Tell me, should we not demand justice for Muslims? Are they not equal citizens of India? Can our country progress if Muslims are kept backward? In a democratic and secular setup, no one should be discriminated against based on religion. If I have shown affinity for Muslims, and if my writings and activism have helped even a single Muslim, I would consider my life successful.

Daya Shankar: When a Muslim’s house is bulldozed, you express sympathy for them and their community. But don’t you also see how some Muslim extremists are mistreating and killing Hindus?

Abhay: Democracy is built on the rule of law. It cannot survive without secularism and respect for minority rights. Nowhere in a democracy is it justified to demolish the house of an accused or even a convicted person as a form of punishment. If I commit a crime, how could my family be made homeless? The law states that punishment must be proportional to the crime. For example, if I commit theft, I cannot be punished for murder. Numerous incidents have been recorded where houses and workplaces of Muslims have been bulldozed by BJP-ruled states as a punitive measure.

Human rights activists have documented that many victims of these bulldozer actions were those who had protested against government policies. The Constitution and the Supreme Court clearly state that peaceful protests cannot be suppressed. Dissent is a sign of a vibrant democracy. Yet, Muslims have been jailed, and their homes razed to the ground, simply for dissenting. How can anyone justify such bulldozer actions?

Well-known human rights organisations like Amnesty International have shown in recent reports that these actions violate both national legal procedures and international human rights standards. In most cases, victims were not given enough time to pursue legal remedies; their houses were demolished quickly, their family members beaten, and their lives ruined. The Supreme Court has intervened, placing a stay on these actions, and has promised to introduce nationwide guidelines to ensure no community is unfairly targeted.

Have I done anything wrong by speaking against bulldozer actions? You, as an Adivasi, can likely relate to this issue because Adivasis have been the most displaced people in the name of development since Independence. Whether it’s for dam construction, mining, or industrialisation, who is being displaced? We know the answer: it’s the Adivasis. Have you ever seen the houses of the rich being demolished? No, because they are powerful. Muslims’ homes are being demolished because they have been rendered powerless. These actions are designed to send a message to the minority community: if you raise your voice, you will be punished.

Let me make my point clear: a country cannot progress if any section of its society is mistreated or discriminated against. As a journalist, when I write about the issues facing marginalised communities, including Muslims, I am not doing charity. It’s the job of a journalist to highlight the struggles of the downtrodden.

As for your claim that Muslims consider you or me a “kafir,” that’s simply not true. Let me share my experience. I spent four years living in Sabzi Bagh, Patna, a predominantly Muslim area, during my graduation days. I never heard a Muslim call me a “kafir.” I’m not saying there aren’t a few Muslims who may believe this, but should we take them as representatives of the entire Muslim community? Likewise, many Hindus hold prejudices against Muslims, but should they be considered the spokespersons for all Hindus? I’m sure your answer is no.

I’ve even read the Quran, and it clearly teaches its followers not to disrespect people of other faiths, lest they, in turn, speak ill of Islam. The Quran emphasizes both worship of God and service to humanity, including non-Muslims, on numerous occasions. Islamic history shows that the Prophet Muhammad formed alliances with non-Muslims and advocated for fair treatment of all. Even during Muslim rule, with a few exceptions, minorities were protected.

I disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that Hindus are being killed by Muslims on a large scale. Show me any reliable source that proves Hindus are being persecuted. Yes, there are cases where a Muslim may kill a Hindu, or vice versa, but these are rare incidents. And in such cases, the law acts against the murderer. Your claim that Hindus are being killed by Muslims on a large scale simply isn’t true.

Daya Shankar: There is terrorism associated with Islam, and there are terrorists within the faith. I believe there is something fundamentally wrong here. Otherwise, why are so many terrorists emerging from just one religion?

Abhay: Terrorism is not connected to any particular religion. Terrorists can belong to any faith, or they may be atheists. There is no study proving that all terrorists are Muslims. Likewise, there is no reliable data showing that Muslim-run terrorist organizations are more numerous globally than those run by non-Muslims. In fact, Muslims are among the worst victims of terrorism.

If you examine the concept of terrorism, its definition is still not universally accepted. Historically, the image of a terrorist is dynamic. Someone seen as a terrorist today could be regarded as a freedom fighter tomorrow, and vice versa. Similarly, a freedom fighter in one country might be seen as a terrorist in another. Many scholars agree that the portrayal of Muslims as terrorists gained traction after the Cold War.

To truly understand terrorism, you need to explore its historical, political, and economic dimensions on both national and global levels. Viewing terrorism solely through a religious or cultural lens will not deepen your understanding. You also need to examine the link between terrorism and the arms industry. Ask yourself: Who benefits most from perpetuating a regime of insecurity?

Even in Adivasi areas, those fighting to protect their land and resources are often arrested by the state and charged under anti-terror laws. Do you consider them terrorists just because they are fighting for their rights?

I also disagree with your view that Islam is inherently violent. I have read the Quran many times, and nowhere does it instruct its followers to kill others. The core of the Quranic teachings revolves around the worship of God and the service to humanity.

Look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad. He always sought to build peace and avoid war. He only engaged in warfare when forced to, and even then, only in self-defense. Beyond self-defense, the Quran does not endorse violence. If you doubt my words, I encourage you to read the Quran yourself. I would be happy to provide you with a copy.

Daya Shankar: Are Muslims the only minority? What about Adivasis? Aren’t they minorities too? What have you done for the welfare of Adivasis and tribal communities?

Abhay: I have never claimed that Muslims are the only minority. Legally, minorities are often defined in terms of religion, and religion is certainly an important criterion. However, my understanding of minorities is influenced by the works of Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar. In his small book States and Minorities, written around the time of Independence, Ambedkar offered a broader definition of minority. He argued that to consider a community a minority, one must assess its “social, economic, and educational condition.”

By Ambedkar’s definition, I firmly believe that Adivasis are a minority. Government data consistently shows that Adivasis are lagging behind on almost every development index. Worse still, misguided development policies have severely impacted their lives, livelihoods, and cultures. Their resources are being seized by the corporate-state alliance. Over the past 80 years, the demographic makeup of Adivasi regions has changed, with outsiders increasingly taking control of their resources.

However, there is no evidence to suggest that these outsiders are exclusively Muslims, nor is there any proof that Muslim outsiders have displaced Adivasis. Contrary to the claims of the Hindu Right, the history of Jharkhand shows that Adivasis and Muslims have shared a strong bond and lived in peace for a long time. In fact, most Muslims in Jharkhand are Pasmanda Muslims, who belong to the backward castes. The Ansari community, a large group within the Pasmanda Muslims, has traditionally been weavers, making fabrics for Adivasi regions.

Sociologically, Pasmanda and Dalit Muslims share many cultural practices with Adivasis, and there is no history of significant conflict between them. The rise of Hindu nationalist forces has injected the narrative of Islamophobia into this peaceful coexistence. The Hindu Right is eager to hold on to power in Adivasi regions to facilitate corporate exploitation of their resources. They understand that unity between Adivasis and Muslims is a major barrier to their political ambitions.

That’s why there’s a deliberate effort to create misunderstandings between Adivasis and Muslims. Weakening this unity not only undermines the prospects of secular parties but also opens the door for the Hindu Right to seize power. As defenders of the dominant interests in society, they often scapegoat Muslims, portraying them as a threat to the well-being of non-Muslims.

Daya Shankar: Adivasi lands are being grabbed by Muslim settlers, leading to the displacement and marginalization of the Adivasi people. What’s your take on this?

Abhay: As I mentioned earlier, the dominant forces in society often deflect attention from the real sources of exploitation by presenting Muslims as a threat. You’ve likely noticed that BJP leaders are focusing on supposed Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration in Jharkhand as the central issue in the assembly elections. Let’s assume for a moment that there is indeed infiltration from Bangladesh and Myanmar into Jharkhand. Should we blame the state government, led by an Adivasi chief minister, or the BJP-led Prime Minister Modi?

If foreign infiltrators are entering Jharkhand, what are our security agencies doing at the borders? Border security falls under the responsibility of the Union Government, which is led by Prime Minister Modi. Shouldn’t the focus be on what the Central Government is doing about this, rather than turning it into an election issue? There is no official data or statement to confirm this alleged infiltration in Adivasi areas.

I’m not denying that there could be isolated conflicts between some Adivasis and Muslims at the local level, but these are not part of a grand political design, nor do they pose a threat to national security. The narrative of Muslim infiltrators grabbing Adivasi land, abducting women, and forcing conversions is often amplified during election seasons to undermine the Adivasi chief minister and sway voters.

Daya Shankar: There have also been reports of Adivasis being coerced into converting to Islam. Will you ignore these issues?

Abhay: There is no credible evidence to suggest that Muslims are coercing Adivasis into converting to Islam. We live in a democracy—do you truly believe that, in such a system, a minority community could forcefully convert members of the majority? Have you met anyone personally who has complained of being forced to convert by Muslims?

If Muslims didn’t force Adivasis to convert during their rule before colonialism, do you think they are in a position to do so in post-independent India, when they are one of the most marginalized and discriminated-against communities? The media often spreads rumors about forced conversions by Muslims but remains silent on the long-standing efforts of the RSS to assimilate Adivasis into Hinduism.

If Adivasis were allowed to declare their religion in the Census, why is there no provision for this in a secular country? Have you ever considered that? Many Adivasis do not wish to be assimilated into Hinduism and are demanding official recognition of their Sarna religion in the Census. Yet, their demands have not been accepted. Isn’t this a more pressing issue?

Daya Shankar: Adivasi communities have faced violence, threats, and intimidation from certain Muslim groups. Will you deny these facts?

Abhay: As I mentioned earlier, there may indeed be local-level conflicts between Adivasis and Muslims. These situations can arise, for example, if an Adivasi is a landless laborer and a Muslim is a landowner—class conflict would naturally occur. Similarly, if a Muslim mason is constructing a house for an Adivasi, disputes over wages could happen. These types of conflicts stem from economic and class struggles, not religious differences.

I am not denying the existence of these occasional conflicts, but they are not indicative of a larger systemic problem between Adivasis and Muslims. What is often overlooked is the shared cultural and social realities between these two communities. Both Adivasis and Muslims are largely marginalized and underprivileged in states like Jharkhand, and both are victims of exploitation by the upper-caste elites.

There is no credible evidence or data suggesting that Muslims are the primary source of threats or violence against Adivasis. The bigger reality is that both Adivasis and Muslims face state discrimination and are victims of corporate exploitation. The focus should be on addressing these shared struggles rather than pitting one marginalized group against another.

Some Clarifications

Before I conclude, let me clarify that my response to Daya Shankar’s question is not exhaustive. Instead of delving into details, I have attempted to outline the broader issue. Some critics may argue that by addressing Daya Shankar’s case, I am unintentionally reinforcing the BJP’s narrative that Adivasis feel threatened by Muslims. To such critics, I would like to emphasize that I do not consider Daya Shankar to be representative of the entire Adivasi voice in Jharkhand. As I mentioned earlier, the Adivasi community is made up of several tribes, each with its own diversity. The BJP, too, is pushing the narrative of Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration more in the Santhal regions than in other parts of Jharkhand.

My aim in responding to Daya Shankar’s misunderstanding about Muslims and Islam is to highlight the larger communal discourse propagated by the Hindu Right and its media allies. In recent years, the influence of the Hindu Right has grown significantly in Jharkhand, and manufactured communal conflicts have become more frequent. My argument is that these anti-Muslim narratives are spreading quickly in Adivasi regions, and young people like Daya Shankar are falling prey to them. Therefore, the need of the hour is not to deny these negative trends but to actively work to counter them. We must highlight the shared cultural bonds between Adivasis and Muslims to challenge Hindutva propaganda.

I also want to clarify that this article is not intended to “educate” the Adivasi community about secularism and composite culture. I am fully aware of the limitations of my own identity as a Brahmin male raised in a caste-based society. My response should not be seen as didactic, but rather as a reflection of a particular moment. Nowhere am I claiming to teach Adivasis any lessons on secularism. On the contrary, I believe that Adivasi cosmology offers hope and wisdom for a society that is losing its way.

(Dr. Abhay Kumar is an independent journalist. His broad interests include minority rights and social justice. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com)

Related:

Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty

Christians face escalating attacks as far-right Hindu groups intensify persecution

Temple Management & Tirupati: the ‘WHYs’ behind temple regulation explained

The post On the Muslim question: A dialogue with an Adivasi Youth appeared first on SabrangIndia.