1. Lai Mohammed rejects the claim of a Christian genocide in Nigeria, noting that Boko Haram has killed more Muslims than Christians.
2. The violence in Nigeria stems from a mix of extremism, criminality, governance failures, and socio-economic issues, not simply Muslim–Christian tensions.
3. The group began by attacking Muslims who opposed its extremist ideology, showing its takfiri
4. Its actions such as killings, kidnappings, and opposition to education go against core Islamic principles, making it an adversary rather than a representative of Islam.
5. The “genocide” narrative oversimplifies reality and can mislead international responses, highlighting the need for a more accurate and nuanced understanding.

In an era shaped by rapid information flows and polarised narratives, conflicts are often reduced to simplistic binaries; frequently framed along religious lines. Recent remarks by Lai Mohammed, former Minister of Information and Culture of Nigeria, offer a timely intervention in correcting one such narrative: the claim of a targeted “Christian genocide” in Nigeria. Speaking at Abbey College Cambridge, Lai Mohammed argued that insurgent violence, particularly by Boko Haram, has claimed more Muslim lives than Christian ones, challenging widespread assumptions about the nature of the conflict.

This assertion does not seek to minimise the suffering of any community. Rather, it compels a more comprehensive understanding of Nigeria’s security crisis: one rooted not in religious extermination, but in a complex web of extremism, criminality, governance challenges, and socio-economic distress.

The Misleading Simplicity of Religious Framing

The tendency to interpret violence in Nigeria as a straightforward Muslim-versus-Christian conflict has gained traction in global discourse, particularly in parts of the Western media and advocacy circles. Yet, as Lai Mohammed pointed out, such a framing risks distorting reality. Boko Haram, whose name loosely translates to “Western education is forbidden,” did not begin as an anti-Christian movement. Its early targets were, in fact, Muslims, particularly those who embraced modern education and rejected extremist interpretations of Islam.

This internal targeting reveals a critical truth: Boko Haram’s ideology is fundamentally takfiri, meaning it declares other Muslims as apostates and legitimate targets. In its formative years, the group’s violence was directed overwhelmingly inward, against Muslim communities that did not conform to its rigid worldview.

Over time, the group widened its scope of attacks to include Christians, driven less by theological motives and more by strategic intent. As Lai Mohammed frankly noted, assaults on Christians tend to draw greater international attention. In a media-driven age, the spectacle of interfaith violence heightens visibility, attracts funding, and enhances the notoriety of extremist organisations.

Terrorism Without Theology

To understand Boko Haram solely through a religious lens is to misunderstand its nature. As highlighted in earlier scholarly critiques, the group’s actions—from mass killings to the abduction of schoolgirls in Chibok—stand in stark contradiction to Islamic teachings. Renowned Islamic scholars and institutions worldwide have unequivocally condemned such acts as un-Islamic.

Islam’s foundational principles emphasise the sanctity of life, the pursuit of knowledge, and the dignity of women. These are the values that Boko Haram systematically violates. Its campaign against education, especially for girls, directly opposes the very first Qur’anic revelation: “Read.” Similarly, practices such as forced marriages and abductions have no legitimacy within Islamic jurisprudence.

Thus, Boko Haram is not merely a violent group operating under religious pretexts; it is, in many ways, an adversary of the very religion it claims to represent. It exploits religious language while undermining its ethical core.

Banditry and the Politics of Crime

Lai Mohammed’s remarks also addressed another critical misconception: the religious interpretation of banditry in northern Nigeria. He argued that these acts are primarily criminal, not ideological. The perpetrators and victims often share the same ethnic and religious backgrounds, predominantly Hausa-Fulani Muslims.

This observation underscores a broader point: much of Nigeria’s violence is driven by economic desperation, weak state capacity, and organised crime rather than doctrinal conflict. Cattle rustling, kidnapping for ransom, and territorial disputes are manifestations of governance gaps, not religious wars.

Reducing these issues to religious persecution not only obscures their root causes but also risks inflaming tensions that are otherwise manageable within Nigeria’s historically pluralistic society.

A Tradition of Coexistence

Despite its challenges, Nigeria has long been a model of interfaith coexistence. Lai Mohammed pointed to the example of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his wife, representing a Muslim-Christian household, as emblematic of the country’s social fabric. Across Nigeria, interfaith marriages, shared communities, and everyday interactions reflect a lived reality far removed from the narrative of existential religious conflict.

As Lai Mohammed aptly noted, ordinary Nigerians are more likely to disagree over economic issues than theological ones. This insight is crucial. It suggests that the primary concerns of citizens, jobs, security, and stability, transcend religious identity.

The Danger of “Fake News” in Conflict Zones

Labelling the “Christian genocide” narrative as “fake news,” Lai Mohammed raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: how do misinformation and selective reporting shape international perceptions?

In conflict zones, narratives can be weaponised. Advocacy groups, political actors, and even well-meaning observers may inadvertently amplify incomplete or skewed accounts. While highlighting human rights abuses is essential, doing so without context can lead to policy missteps and deepen divisions on the ground.

A more responsible approach requires distinguishing between targeted persecution and indiscriminate violence. In Nigeria’s case, the latter is far more representative of reality.

None of this is to deny the severity of Nigeria’s security crisis. Boko Haram remains a brutal insurgency responsible for thousands of deaths and widespread displacement. Its atrocities against Muslims and Christians alike demand urgent and sustained action.

However, effective responses must be grounded in accurate diagnosis. Mischaracterising the conflict as a religious genocide risks diverting attention from the structural issues that sustain violence: poverty, corruption, weak institutions, and lack of education.

The international community, therefore, has a responsibility to engage with Nigeria based on evidence rather than assumption. This includes supporting counter-terrorism efforts, strengthening governance, and investing in education and economic development, especially in the country’s most vulnerable regions.

The tragedy of Boko Haram is not that it represents Islam, but that it distorts it. The greater tragedy would be if the world, in its haste to categorise, fails to see this distinction. Lai Mohammed’s remarks serve as a reminder that truth in complex conflicts is rarely convenient. Nigeria’s crisis is not a story of one religion targeting another; it is a story of extremism preying on vulnerability, of criminals exploiting chaos, and of a nation striving, despite immense challenges, to preserve its pluralistic identity. Recognising this complexity is not an exercise in denial. It is the first step toward meaningful solutions.

A regular Columnist with NewAgeIslam.com, Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi is a Classical Islamic scholar with a Sufi background and English-Arabic-Urdu Translator.

Courtesy: newageislam.com

The post Beyond the Narrative of “Genocide”: Understanding Boko Haram, Religion, and Reality in Nigeria appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Though often overlooked in official narratives, Shariati remains one of the most influential intellectual figures behind the Iranian Revolution. His ideas, which linked Shi’ism with modern revolutionary theories drawn from thinkers such as Frantz Fanon and Jean‑Paul Sartre, helped shape the ideological climate that culminated in 1979.

Revisiting his legacy is essential not only for understanding Iran’s modern history but also for examining the broader intersections of religion, social justice, and political transformation in the Muslim world.

Born in 1933 in Mazinan, Shariati grew up in a religious household during a turbulent era. The 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and the Shah’s subsequent modernization drive—perceived by many as an attempt to erase cultural and religious roots in favor of Western approval—formed the backdrop of his intellectual evolution. Shariati’s activism led to imprisonment, and later, study in Paris, where exposure to existentialist and anti‑colonial thought profoundly shaped his worldview. He rejected Marxist materialism but embraced its critique of inequality, reinterpreting Islamic history to highlight figures such as Abu Dharr al‑Ghifari as symbols of resistance and social equality.

From this synthesis emerged Shariati’s concept of “Red Shiism,” a dynamic, activist Islam rooted in sacrifice, justice, and resistance, inspired by the legacy of Karbala. His slogan “Return to the Self” urged Muslim societies to break from blind imitation of the West and rediscover their intellectual heritage. His lectures and writings reframed Islam not as a passive spiritual refuge but as a force for liberation, capable of mobilizing the masses against tyranny. By the late 1970s, his ideas circulated widely among students and activists, laying the intellectual foundations of revolution.

Shariati’s critique extended beyond Marxism to liberalism and existentialism, which he faulted for neglecting the spiritual dimension of humanity. In works such as Marxism and Other Western Fallacies: An Islamic Critique, he argued that Islam offered its own emancipatory paradigm, distinct from Western secular traditions. He did not seek to make Islam socialist but rather employed Marxist sociological tools to galvanize Muslims into revolutionary action. His criticism of Iran’s Marxist Tudeh Party underscored his insistence on adapting political thought to Iran’s cultural and religious context.

Although Shariati died in 1977, two years before the revolution, his intellectual imprint was unmistakable. Pakistani writer Mukhtar Masood recorded that Iranians across social strata identified Shariati as the architect of the movement. Yet, as the revolutionary state consolidated power, charismatic leadership overshadowed intellectual activism, and Shariati’s role receded into obscurity. His story illustrates how revolutions often celebrate political victories while neglecting the thinkers who shaped their ideological foundations.

Shariati’s legacy endures as a reminder that religion, when reinterpreted through the lens of justice and resistance, can become a powerful agent of social transformation. His vision of Islam as a force for liberation continues to resonate in debates over faith, identity, and political change across the Muslim world.

Author is freelance journalist.

Courtesy: CounterView

The post Faith recast as social justice? Revisiting Shariati’s vision of Islam as liberation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

be a tree sated with fertility, be a tree.

And if you are not a tree, my love, 

be stone saturated with humidity, be stone.

And if you are not a stone, my love, 

be a moon in the dream of your beloved one, be a moon.

(So spoke a woman to her son at his funeral.)

 Mahmoud Darwish, State of Siege (2002)

Mahmoud Darwish

To sit with these lines for five years is to realise that Mahmoud Darwish was not writing a poem. He was drafting an ontology of indestructibility. Written during the 2002 Siege of Ramallah, when Israeli forces confined him to his apartment under tanks and demolition orders, these verses are not an elegy. They are a war manual for the soul. A mother at her son’s funeral refuses to grieve as the world expects. Instead, she issues commands. She transforms her dead son into a landscape that cannot be evicted. This is the purest expression of “Sumud” (refusing to be erased or to leave one’s home), the Palestinian art of remaining, not as an act of passivity but as a furious, creative, and elemental refusal to vanish. The Arabic word “Sumud” is a crucial concept in Palestinian identity and resistance. It is often simply translated as “resilience”; it carries a much deeper meaning that bridges the gap between endurance and political defiance. At its core, “Sumud” is the act of maintaining a normal life under abnormal conditions, and refusing to be erased.

The repetition of “be” (the Arabic imperative kun) is not just a request; it is a command of creation. In the Quran, God creates the universe with the phrase “Kun fa-yakun” (“Be, and it is”).

By having a mother use this imperative at a funeral, Darwish is portraying a subversive act of creation. She is refusing to let her son vanish into nothingness. If he cannot exist as a human, his soul will be refashioned into the landscape by the power of language.

The Anatomy of a Siege: Beyond the Blockade

A siege is not merely a military act or tactic. It is a slow erasure of a people’s future. In Palestine, the “plight” is concrete. In the Palestinian context, this “plight” manifests as the systematic and brutal killing of children and young people, the uprooting of ancient olive groves, the restriction of water (the “rain” of the poem), the fragmentation of families by concrete walls, and the fragmentation of bodies by checkpoints. But Darwish teaches us that a siege is also metaphysical. It aims to reduce the human being to bare life, a hungry, terrified, statistically invisible creature stripped of history, name, and narrative.

For the Iranian people, the siege wears a different mask: economic sanctions and diplomatic strangulation. It is a blockade of medicine, knowledge, and global conversation. Yet the Zionist logic is identical: isolate, impoverish, and make the people beg for their own humanity. In both cases, the besieged are told they are temporary. Darwish’s mother replies: You have confused death with disappearance.

Global Sumud Flotilla For Palestine

The Alchemy of Elements: Resistance as Metamorphosis

When the human form is rendered illegal, when a son can be shot and his name erased from a registry, the mother refuses nothingness. She performs alchemy. She reincarnates her son into three elemental forms, each a higher degree of defiance.

The Tree (Rootedness as Land Title):

When the Zionist regime uproots ancient groves to plant Jewish settlements, the mother says: Be a tree. Not just any tree, but one “sated with fertility”, heavy with olives, with memory, with the sweat of ancestors. This is the ultimate rebellion. The tree does not hold a deed; it is the deed. Its roots argue with the bulldozer in a language that predates all modern borders. To become a tree is to say: You cannot deport geography.

The Stone (The Pulse Beneath the Weapon):

The stone is the icon of the Intifada. But Darwish does something extraordinary. He adds, “saturated with humidity.” Humidity is the breath of the living earth, the sweat of the farmer, the moisture that turns dust into clay. This is not the dry, dead stone of a ruin. It is the wet, resistant stone that grows moss and holds the coolness of the morning. For the Palestinian youth facing a military tank, or the Iranian student enduring a morality squad, the stone is the hard reality they throw back at power. But the humidity is their poetry, their cinema, their whispered jokes in the back of a taxi, the life that persists within the hardness.

The Moon (The Unreachable Sovereignty):

If the tree is cut and the stone shattered, the mother sends her son to the moon. Not the moon of astronomy, but a moon in the dream of your beloved one. This is the interior fortress. You can occupy a city, but not a dream. You can sanction a country, but not a lover’s memory. The moon represents a light that requires no passport, no fuel, no permission. It is the sovereignty of the inner life, the space where a displaced family still sings the old songs, where a Tehran artist paints in a basement, and where a refugee draws the key to a house that exists only in the mind.

Aftermath of a bombed area in Palestine

From Ramallah to Tehran: The Shared Geography of the Soul

What unites the Palestinian and Iranian resistance is not a shared history but a shared architecture of survival. Both people have learned that when the external world is blocked, you build inward and downward.

For Palestine, “Sumud” is literal: staying on the land, harvesting the olives under a military curfew, planting a sapling where a home was demolished. It is the insistence that even if the map is redrawn by force, the poetry remembers the original names.

For Iran, resilience takes the form of a cultural fortress. Facing decades of sanctions and ideological isolation, Iranians have turned to a deep well: Rumi, Hafez, and the cinema of Kiarostami and Panahi. They produce art that does not seek Western validation. They prove that their humanity is not a commodity to be granted or withheld by embassies, but a historical fact, an unbroken civilisation that has outlasted every invader, from Alexander to the narcissist Trump.

In both cases, the besieged become metamorphic. They change shape faster than the siege can adapt.

Image from the 2026 Protests in Iran

Art as the Final Frontier: The Ghazal as a Weapon

Darwish weaponises the traditional ghazal, a form of love poetry, for a funeral. He addresses a dead son as “my love”. This is not sentimentality. It is a radical humanisation. The occupier wants the dead son to be a number, a martyr statistic, a security threat even in the grave. The mother says: No. He was the rain I waited for. He was the moon in someone’s dream.

By using the intimate, erotic language of the ghazal, Darwish smuggles tenderness into a war zone. He reminds the world that every political casualty is first a beloved person. The siege cannot calculate grief, and that is its fatal weakness.

The Invincible Landscape

The final reveal: (So spoke a woman to her son at his funeral)- is the most devastating line. It reframes the entire poem as a whisper over a grave. But it is also the ultimate act of defiance. The mother tells the occupier: You have killed a man, but you have given birth to a landscape.

The son is no longer a body that can be buried. He is a tree that will keep fruiting, a stone that will keep striking, a moon that will keep haunting every dream. The siege, for all its military tanks and sanctions, cannot kill what can become something else.

Whether it is the farmer in Gaza planting saplings under drone surveillance, or the student in Tehran memorising Hafez in a blacked-out apartment, they are all following the mother’s command. They are becoming the rain, the tree, the stone, the moon. They are proving that the architecture of survival is not made of concrete and steel. It is made of metamorphosis. And that is why they are impossible to ignore and even more impossible to conquer. The mother in the poem is not just a mourner; she is the custodian of a history the occupier can’t erase. She is the pillar of strength and the stream of the nation’s collective sorrow. The poem is ultimately about refusing the silence of death. In a “State of Siege”, where people are threatened with erasure, the mother performs a ritual of metamorphosis. She ensures her son is never gone, but simply translated into the rain, the trees, and the stone of the home they are defending.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post The Metamorphic Resistance: Mahmoud Darwish, Resilience (Sumud), and the Architecture of Survival appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Excerpts from the India section of the 2026 Annual Report:

“In 2025, religious freedom conditions in India continued to deteriorate as the government introduced and enforced new legislation targeting religious minority communities and their houses of worship. Several states undertook efforts to introduce or strengthen anti-conversion laws to include harsher prison sentences. Indian authorities also facilitated widespread detention and illegal expulsion of citizens and religious refugees and tolerated vigilante attacks against religious minority communities.

“Throughout the year, Hindu nationalist mobs across several states harassed, incited, and instigated violence against Muslims and Christians with impunity. In March, violence erupted in Maharashtra after a hard-line Hindu nationalist group, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), called for the removal of the tomb of Aurangzeb, a 17th-century Mughal ruler. Subsequent riots injured dozens of people and resulted in a curfew, fuelled by rumours from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) officials that Qur’ans were desecrated in VHP-led protests. In June, a Hindu nationalist mob attacked 20 Christian families in Odisha after they refused to convert to Hinduism. The attacks, which did not prompt police intervention, left eight people injured and hospitalised.

“In April, three gunmen attacked a group of predominantly Hindu tourists in the Muslim-majority territory of Kashmir, killing 26 people. The perpetrators reportedly asked the victims to recite the Kalma, an Islamic verse, and killed those who were unable to do so. The attack sparked a five-day conflict between India and Pakistan and intensified anti-Muslim sentiment in India, including targeted attacks. Muslims were reportedly killed in Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh in alleged hate crimes following the attack.

“In Uttar Pradesh, self-professed members of a Hindu nationalist group reportedly shot and killed a Muslim restaurant worker, vowing to avenge those killed in the Kashmir attack. The Indian government also seized the aftermath of the attack to justify deportations of religious minorities it considers “illegal” migrants.

“In May, Indian authorities detained 40 Rohingya refugees, including 15 Christians, all of whom were transported into inter-national waters near the coast of Burma and forced to swim to the Burmese shore with nothing more than life vests. In July, Indian authorities expelled hundreds of Bengali-speaking Muslims from Assam to Bangladesh despite being Indian citizens. Officials from the ruling BJP accused those expelled of being Muslim “infiltrators” from Bangladesh, threatening India’s national identity. To further facilitate the crackdown in alleged “illegal migration,” the government passed a new set of rules and orders for the Foreigners Act in September.

“The order expands the authority of Foreigner Tribunals to issue arrest warrants and send those suspected of being “foreigners” to holding centres without due process.

Throughout the year, the government also continued to target houses of worship to bring them under state control.

“In May, India’s Parliament passed the Waqf Bill, which adds non-Muslims to the boards that manage Waqf land endowments that are traditionally staffed by Muslims. These endowments include religious sites, such as mosques, seminaries, and graveyards. In response to the bill, deadly protests erupted in the state of West Bengal, leaving three people dead. In September, the Supreme Court suspended key provisions of the bill, including one in which the government can decide whether a disputed property is Waqf or not. The court further limited the number of non-Muslim members of the federal board to four. The same month, Uttarakhand’s legislative assembly passed the State Authority for Minority Education (USAME) Act, which dissolves the Madrasa Board and brings madrasas and other educational institutions for Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians under state control.

The USCIRF has made the following recommendations to the US government:

• Designate India as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, for engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations, as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA);
• Press India to allow US government entities such as USCIRF and the U.S. Department of State to conduct in-country assessments of religious freedom conditions;
• Impose targeted sanctions on individuals and entities, such as India’s Research and Analysis Wing and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), for their responsibility and tolerance of severe violations of religious freedom by freezing those individuals’ or entities’ assets and/or barring their entry into the United States;
• Link future U.S. security assistance and bilateral trade policies with India to improvements in religious freedom; and
• Enforce Section 6 of the Arms Export Control Act to halt arms sales to India based on continued acts of intimidation and harassment against S. citizens and religious minorities.

The U.S. Congress should:

• Reintroduce and pass the Transnational Repression Reporting Act of 2024 to require the annual reporting of acts of transnational repression by the Indian government targeting religious minorities in the United

Related:

USCIRF signals alarm in India’s ‘Increased Transnational Targeting’ of religious minorities 

Umar Khalid’s incarceration: USCIRF Commissioner expresses concern over use of anti-terrorism laws to silence activists

USCIRF recommends India be designated Country of Particular Concern for third straight year!

The post Religious Freedom: How the USCIRF continues to designate India as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This matters deeply.

For years, those of us who have spoken out against Hindutva have been told that we are overreacting, being divisive, or unfairly naming an ideology and its institutions. But what communities on the ground, journalists, scholars, and human rights advocates have documented again and again is that the assault on religious freedom in India is not random. It is not marginal. It is not merely the work of a few extremists acting alone. It is structural, ideological, and sustained. USCIRF’s naming of the RSS makes clear that this reality can no longer be dismissed as rhetorical excess or partisan framing.

The RSS is not a fringe body. It is one of the central engines of Hindu nationalist ideology and organizing in India. Its influence has helped shape a political climate in which Muslims, Christians, Dalits, Adivasis, Sikhs, and dissenters of many kinds face deepening exclusion, fear, and vulnerability. When a U.S. government body focused on religious freedom calls for sanctions on the RSS by name, it is acknowledging something many have paid a high price to say aloud: that religious freedom violations in India are being enabled and normalized by powerful institutions, not just individual bad actors.

It is important to be precise. USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan advisory body; its recommendations are not automatic policy. But that does not make this symbolic or disposable. These reports shape policy conversations, public understanding, and the terms of international scrutiny. The fact that USCIRF now recommends targeted sanctions on the RSS marks a new threshold in how the crisis in India is being recognized.

There is also a deeper moral truth here. Religious freedom is too often invoked selectively, stripped of context, or reduced to a talking point. But religious freedom means very little if it does not include the courage to name systems that terrorize minorities while wrapping themselves in the language of tradition, nation, and civilization. What is at stake in India is not simply abstract pluralism. It is whether people can live, worship, organize, speak, love, and dissent without fear. It is whether democracy can survive the steady sanctification of exclusion.

For those committed to a liberatory, plural, and ethical vision of Hinduism, this moment should not be read as an attack on Hindus. It is a warning about the consequences of allowing Hindu identity to be captured by supremacist politics. Hindutva does not speak for all Hindus, and the RSS does not represent the only possible Hindu public life. Many of us have spent years insisting that a faith rooted in dignity, interdependence, and moral courage must stand against domination, not sanctify it.

USCIRF’s recommendation does not deliver justice on its own. But it does mark something important: a widening refusal to look away. It tells us that the stories communities have carried, the abuses people have risked so much to document, and the warnings advocates have repeated for years are breaking through denial.

Now the real question is whether policymakers will act, whether media will take this seriously, and whether international civil society will finally reckon with the scale of what religious minorities and democracy defenders in India have been facing.

This should not pass quietly. It should be read, shared, and understood for what it is: a major acknowledgment that the machinery of religious freedom violations in India includes powerful institutions that must be named and challenged.

Read the report here:https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/USCIRF_2026_AR_3326_NEW.pdf

Related:

USCIRF signals alarm in India’s ‘Increased Transnational Targeting’ of religious minorities 

Umar Khalid’s incarceration: USCIRF Commissioner expresses concern over use of anti-terrorism laws to silence activists

USCIRF recommends India be designated Country of Particular Concern for third straight year!

The post USCIRF’s Call for Sanctions on the RSS Is a Major Moral and Political Marker appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At a protest by varied citizens under the banner of Sanjha Sanskriti Manch, Varanasi, a silent hunger strike was observed on Saturday March 7, protesting the US-Israel’s unprovoked war on Iran.

At the protest a strong statement was issued. This may be read here:

“We strongly condemn the military action carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran during the holy month of Ramadan and pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives. The attack, carried out deceitfully in the midst of peace negotiations mediated by Oman, without any formal declaration of war, resulted in the killing of Iran’s national and religious leaders and strikes on a school and Gandhi Hospital. These actions led to the deaths of more than one hundred and fifty young girls. We consider this a grave violation of human rights. This attack by Trump and Israel has created a serious threat to international peace and stability.

“Similarly, unilateral military intervention and political pressure on Venezuela are contrary to the sovereignty, independence, and the fundamental spirit of the United Nations Charter.

“At the same time, open threats such as occupying Greenland, taking complete control of the Panama Canal, turning Canada into the 51st state, and transforming Gaza into an “American Riviera” reflect the undemocratic and authoritarian policies of the United States.

“The demand by U.S. President Trump that India stop importing Russian oil, the threat of tariffs in connection with trade agreements, and his repeated claim that he prevented an India-Pakistan war by threatening a 200 percent tariff are not isolated incidents but part of the same imperialist chain of actions.

“The weak stance and compromises shown by the Government of India under this pressure have caused significant damage to our independent foreign policy, energy security, economic sovereignty, and national dignity. The national freedom struggle led by India under the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru symbolized an unwavering struggle against imperialism and the ideals of unity in diversity and equal respect for all religions. Our Constitution and this tradition of thought and struggle not only freed India from the chains of colonial rule but also inspired more than fifty nations across Africa, Asia, and the world to achieve independence.

“After independence, the Constitution of India—particularly Article 51—clearly directs the state to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations among nations, and foster respect for international law. India’s foreign policy has historically remained steadfast in principles of non-interference, respect for sovereignty, and peaceful coexistence.

“More than nine million Indians live in Iran and the Middle East, and thousands of students study there. Over six thousand Indian workers are currently in Israel, many of whom were sent under agreements by the present government. Our 38 cargo ships are also stranded. The devastation caused by war will severely damage our economic condition; inflation will rise, and shortages of oil and gas have already begun.

“We strongly condemn this inhumane and undemocratic action by the United States and express our concern and sympathy for the loss of lives and destruction caused by the war.

“As citizens of the land of Mahatma Gandhi, we appeal for an immediate end to the war and for peaceful coexistence among all nations and peoples.

“We are deeply saddened by the military action of the United States and Israel. Therefore, during the holy month of Ramadan, when bloodshed is taking place, we will instead connect ourselves with the spirit of harmony during Holi, maintain love for our neighbours, and pray to God to grant wisdom to the United States and Israel.”

Several organisations under the banner of Banaras Civil Society, Sauhard Peace Centre, Sanjha Sanskriti Manch and the National Alliance for Social Justice are signatories to this.

Related:

India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran

US-Israel War on Iran sees spirals in Hate against Muslim Americans: CSOH

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

The post Varanasi, UP: No to war, we want peace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since the start of 2026, harmful content targeting Muslims across social media platforms has escalated at an alarming pace. For much of January and February, Islamophobic posts maintained a steady and persistent presence, continuing the deeply hostile climate that has built since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza in October 2023.

The onset of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, says the study, has accelerated this trend sharply, sending Islamophobic content targeting Muslim Americans to new extremes.

Political rhetoric has compounded the crisis. Senior Trump administration officials and some members of Congress have framed the war in overtly religious terms, drawing on Christian nationalist narratives, and inflaming anti-Muslim hatred. Secretary of War (a term coined to replace the more accepted, Secretary of Defence) Pete Hegseth even described Iran as driven by “prophetic Islamic delusions.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a US watchdog group, has reported receiving complaints that military commanders told service members the war with Iran was “all part of God’s divine plan” and suggested it would “cause Armageddon.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, while referring to Iran, stated that “we’re the Great Satan in their analogy and their misguided religion.” Muslim civil rights groups have condemned such language as dangerous and inflammatory. Political leaders at the highest levels framing a military campaign in language that indicts an entire faith and draws on Christian nationalist rhetoric contributes to an environment in which Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim become targets of suspicion, hostility, and violence.

On March 1, a mass shooting in Austin, Texas, further intensified the online discourse. A gunman with a reported history of mental health issues opened fire at a bar, killing three and wounding fifteen. The shooter was reportedly wearing clothing referencing Iran and Islam.

The combined effect of the US-Israel war on Iran and the Austin shooting resulted in an explosion of anti-Muslim content across social media platforms.

An Analysis of the Data

To assess the scale of Islamophobic discourse online, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) analysed posts on X (formerly twitter) using a comprehensive query designed to capture language associated with dehumanisation, incitement, and exclusionary rhetoric targeting Muslims.

The dataset includes original posts, quote posts, and replies containing Islamophobic content from January 1 through March 5, 2026.  The data reveals a sharp spike beginning on February 28, the day the US-Israel war on Iran began.

Between February 28 and March 5, a total of 25,348 Islamophobic posts targeting Muslims were recorded on X.

Figure 1: Volume of Islamophobic Posts on X (Original Posts, Quote Posts, and Replies), January 1 – March 5, 2026

However, the reach of these posts expands significantly once reposts are included. Reposts dramatically amplify the visibility of harmful content, allowing it to spread far beyond the original accounts that generated it.

When reposts are counted, the total mention volume of Islamophobic content rises to 279,417, representing an 11-fold amplification of the harmful original posts.

Figure 2: Volume of Islamophobic Posts on X (Including Reposts), January 1 – March 5, 2026

This amplification is illustrative of how relatively lower volumes of explicitly harmful content can reach extremely large audiences through network effects and platforms’ engagement-driven algorithms. While the volume of Islamophobic content has shown some decline from its initial peak, the underlying conditions that fuelled this surge remain firmly in place.

What are the Patterns of Harmful Content

A qualitative review of the dataset reveals several recurring patterns of harmful discourse. These are not exhaustive categorizations of the full dataset but representative samples that illustrate the nature and severity of anti-Muslim content circulating on X and other social media platforms.

One of the most deeply disturbing patterns running through the posts we reviewed is the use of dehumanizing language, referring to Muslims as “rats,” “pests,” “vermin,” and “parasites.” Such language has historically preceded and enabled the most extreme forms of violence against targeted communities.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as “rats“}

The prevalence of dehumanising language targeting Muslims should be recognized as a significant indicator of escalation risk.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as “vermin”}

Closely related to dehumanisation is the framing of Muslim communities as an “infestation.” Posts using this narrative portray Muslims as a spreading contagion threatening American cities and institutions.

This framing mirrors historical propaganda used against numerous minority communities, in which the targeted group is depicted as a disease or infestation that must be eradicated.

_{Examples of posts referring to Muslims as an “infestation”}

Beyond dehumanisation, we found posts that cross the line from hatred into explicit incitement to violence, including direct calls to exterminate Muslims. Some posts frame the elimination of Muslims as an act of self-defense or civilizational survival, lending a veneer of patriotic duty to the genocidal rhetoric. In the current climate, this content functions as a call to action directed at a community that is already experiencing rising rates of bias, harassment, discrimination, and hate-fuelled violence.

_{Examples of violent and eliminationist posts}

Some of the most extreme posts advocate placing Muslim Americans in internment camps. Others call for the creation of a “Muslim Exclusion Act,” proposing that Muslims be barred entirely from entering the US.

_{Examples of internment camps posts}

A large volume of posts demand the removal of all Muslims from the US. The rhetoric ranges from blanket calls to “deport all Muslims” to specific calls for stripping citizenship from Muslim Americans through mass denaturalization. This category of content is significant not only for its volume but for the way it blurs the line between extremist fantasy and policy advocacy. Many of these posts are framed as actionable demands directed at elected officials.

_{Examples of mass deportation posts}

The CSOH also found posts advocating the destruction of mosques, treating Muslim houses of worship as enemy infrastructure. These posts frame mosques as “mini military bases” and “terrorist centres.”

Mosques in the US have long been targets of arson, vandalism, threats, and shootings. The circulation of content that frames them as legitimate targets increases the risk of violence against Muslim communities and religious institutions.

_{Examples of posts calling for the destruction of mosques}

Failure to Enforce Platform Rules

As part of this analysis, we reported 30 posts featured as examples in this brief to X using the platform’s own reporting categories, including “Violent Speech” and “Hate, Abuse or Harassment.”

These posts included language describing Muslims as “rats” and “vermin,” calls for extermination, demands for internment camps, and calls to destroy mosques. Of the 30 posts reported, 11 were removed. The remaining 19 remain live on the platform as of March 9.

This enforcement gap underscores a critical disconnect between platform policies and their application, particularly when it comes to combating dehumanization and incitement targeting Muslims. The failure to act proactively and to leave up violating content even after it has been reported suggests that existing enforcement mechanisms are either inadequate or inconsistently applied.

Recommendations

The findings in this brief illustrate an environment of anti-Muslim hate and incitement that, while already volatile, has reached a critical tipping point due to the convergence of several factors. These developments underscore the need for urgent action across multiple fronts.

Platform Accountability: Social media companies must strengthen enforcement against harmful content that dehumanizes or incites violence against Muslims. Much of the content documented in this brief appears to violate existing platform policies but remains widely accessible and amplified. Platforms must ensure that enforcement mechanisms respond quickly and consistently during periods of geopolitical crisis, when harmful online content tends to surge.

Establish a Trusted Flagger Network: Platforms should establish Trusted Flagger status for Muslim civil rights organizations with a dedicated reporting channel for flagging mass incitement and threats, bypassing slow standard reporting queues that allow harmful content to spread unchecked during crisis periods.

Political Responsibility:  Public officials must exercise extreme caution in how they frame geopolitical conflicts. Language that conflates a military confrontation with a religious or civilizational struggle, or draws on Christian nationalist narratives, risks inflaming domestic hostility toward minority communities. Political leaders have a responsibility to ensure that their rhetoric does not endanger Americans by framing global conflicts in ways that stigmatize entire religious communities.

Community Protection: Civil society organizations, law enforcement agencies, and community leaders should increase monitoring of threats against Muslim communities and institutions. With the heightened risk of targeted violence, there is an urgent need for increased protection of mosques, Islamic centres, and Muslim community organizations across the country.

Stakeholder Briefings and Information Sharing: Relevant stakeholders, including elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and social media companies, should engage with researchers studying Islamophobia to better understand emerging trends in online hate and incitement. Briefings on findings such as those presented in this data brief can help facilitate accurate and timely information sharing. Such engagement can support more informed responses to online narratives and incidents that have the potential to translate into violence targeting Muslims, individuals perceived to be Muslim, and their institutions.

(This data brief represents an initial analysis of an ongoing crisis. CSOH will continue to monitor social media platforms for anti-Muslim incitement, and subsequent briefs will follow.)

Related:

India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran

Wars Fought in The Name of Women’s Rights

Hegemony by might: Gaza, Iran and the failures of nuclear power politics

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

The post US-Israel War on Iran sees spirals in Hate against Muslim Americans: CSOH appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Human rights—especially the liberation of women—have long been invoked as moral justification for military interventions aimed at regime change in countries deemed hostile to the West’s vision of global order. As we witness the slow demise of the liberal international global order, with the retreat of USA from multilateral internationalism and the implementation of Trump’s grand plan of a US-led imperial order where both war and peace will be orchestrated by the same actors (especially with Trump’s favourite genocide-loving buddy state, Israel), one realises some vestiges of the moral rhetoric of the dying order persist. While Trump himself appeared unsure which rationale to foreground for the unlawful war on Iran, he nevertheless echoed his predecessors—who cloaked interventions in the faux benevolence of democracy—by announcing that for Iranians, “the hour of their freedom is near”. His friend, Bibi Netanyahu, in Israel’s 2025 attack on Iran, had more clearly invoked the rights of Iranian women to justify the unjustifiable. In an interview with Iran International, he had said, “They have impoverished you, they have given you misery. They have given you death, They shoot down your women, leaving this brave, unbelievable woman, Mahsa Amini, to bleed on the sidewalk for not covering her hair”. In the brutal genocide committed by Israel on Gaza, we had seen how ‘pinkwashing’ was deployed as a justification to attack the Palestinians, which led queer Palestinians to assert that ‘there is no pride in occupation’.

The ‘Us vs Them’ rhetoric, which Netanyahu had used against Palestine, terming them as modern-day Amalek, the nation which is depicted in Torah as having gone to war against the Israelites, is now extended to describe Iran. However, the ‘Us Vs them’ rhetoric was also deployed in his address to the protesting Iranians as a decoy to incite support for regime change through foreign invasion. Women’s rights have now reemerged in discussions and debates on the legitimacy of the war. There is widespread reporting in American media on the celebrations by Iranian women on Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death. However, Iranian activists are also putting forward nuanced arguments that refuse to couple their struggle for rights in Iran with the US-Israel-led invasion. Recently, the video of Spanish politician Manuela Bergerot, vehemently arguing against the depiction of war on Iran as being a magnificent victory for feminism, has been shared widely by feminists and others alike. She asserts that her position against the war is being put forward as a feminist. She joins a long line of feminists who have opposed the “imperialist feminist” position—the claim that certain wars are morally justified because they supposedly rescue women in the “rest” of the world from oppressive states. The imperialist feminist position, which coopts the conceptual language of feminism to justify the current war on Iran as saving the Iranian women from a repressive government, is by no means a new strategy. It was used with disastrous results in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars which had grossly misused the rhetoric of human rights, especially women’s rights and democracy promotion, to justify invasions. This rhetoric of rescuing women is a close corollary of the practice of terming countries as ‘failed’ states and ‘rogue’ states, as well as the earlier colonial use of the ‘Women’s Question’ to justify colonialism, which Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak had described as “white men saving brown women from brown men.”

It is useful to remember the ‘War Against Terrorism’ launched against Afghanistan with huge domestic support in the US, support which was garnered by the use of the rhetoric of women’s rights and the support of women’s organisations in the US. In a widely cited Radio address, Laura Bush had announced that “The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women”. Such ‘Rescue’ narratives tend to depict women in non-Western societies as passive, non-agential beings who need to be saved. Anthropologist and feminist scholar Lila Abu Lughod wrote, questioning this logic in her influential article ‘Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?’, which went on to become a prescribed text in most courses on feminism and gender studies. She urges us in her work to move beyond the rhetoric of saving and instead pay attention to and appreciate the differences among women in the world, including their different conceptions of freedom, choice, and justice. To assess how deceptive the rhetoric of women’s rights was in justifying the war in Afghanistan, one just has to look at the contemporary condition of Afghan women’s rights, most recently further eroded by the new Criminal Procedural Regulation. The war fought, citing the presence of active Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (active only in the imagination of the USA), was no different. Bush had back then exhorted the Iraqi women to be the midwives of a new liberated Iraq. After more than twenty years of the invasion, as Nadje Al- Ali, Iraqi feminist and scholar, describes, women have come out as the biggest losers of the invasion. While before the invasion, Iraqi women had enjoyed the highest levels of education, labour force participation, and a certain degree of political involvement, women in post-invasion Iraq have seen a steady erosion of their rights along with a rise in conservatism.

The selective nature of caring for women’s rights in countries where the USA wants regime change is no coincidence. Also, the saving women rhetoric is a strategic diversion from not dealing with women’s rights within the USA. Like Bush who talked about the rights of women in Iraq and Afghanistan, but cut off funding to international family planning organisations that offered abortion and counselling services, Trump who talks about caring for Iranians, announcing to Iranians in his social account about ‘Making Iran Great Again’ has systematically cut down the rights of many American citizens under the guise of ‘Making America Great Again’. In In the Name of Women’s Rights: The Rise of Femonationalism, Sara Farris shows how women’s rights have been co-opted by anti-Islam, anti-migration, and xenophobic campaigns to justify exclusionary policies—diverting attention from the real violence faced by women and the erosion of their autonomy. The withheld Epstein files that incriminate Trump have been released and are beyond horrific in what it reveals, while ICE has detained immigrant women in detention in deplorable conditions. In contrast, feminists who have spoken against the stereotyping of non-Western women have not been silent on the issues of women or held back in their criticism of repressive regimes they live in, but as Abu-Lughod has written, “is mindful of complex entanglements in which we are all implicated, in sometimes surprising alignments.” Iranian activists who were on protests deserved support and engagement from around the world, including from the USA, but they definitely didn’t need a US-Israel invasion that ended up bombing an elementary school for girls. Egyptian feminist Nawal el Saadawi had famously suggested, when asked what the people in the US can do to support the revolution in Egypt, “Make your own revolution and change your government for us”. It is perhaps time feminists and citizens in the United States heed her advice.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Wars Fought in The Name of Women’s Rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is already five days, since the United States and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February. There seems to be no letting up, as the war continues to escalate. Everything seems to be going out of control; the entire world seems to be affected in some way or the other. When the US attacked Iran, President Donald Trump did so without the mandatory Congressional approval; he did not consult with the United Nations, and the US does not have the support of their traditional allies. Many are condemning the unjustifiable attacks on Iran. Spain has been outright in this condemnation with the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez referring to the attacks as “unjustifiable” and “dangerous”. In a televised nationwide address on 4 February, he said that Spain’s position was “no to the war” adding that “this is how humanity’s great disasters start … The world cannot solve its problems with conflicts and bombs.”

António Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, wasted no time in issuing a statement, unequivocally stating, “I condemn today’s military escalation in the Middle East. The use of force by the United States and Israel against Iran, and the subsequent retaliation by Iran across the region, undermine international peace and security. All Member States must respect their obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter clearly prohibits “the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” I reiterate that there is no viable alternative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes, in full accordance with international law, including the UN Charter. The Charter provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

The United States/Israel axis has succeeded in killing the Supreme leader of Iran. On March 1,  the Iranian State Television reported that  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in US-Israel airstrikes; also killed were Iran’s chief of army staff and defense minister and several other high ranking officials. Most of the world has condemned these murders stating that the US/Israel had no right to kill the head of State/ Government of another country. The world knows that this war on Iran, has nothing to do with the alleged nuclear weapons of Iran; it has everything do so with the Epstein files (a cover-up for Trump and the other big names); of the desperate need of the US to have oil from Iran to complement (and to thin) the crude oil they have robbed from Venezuela. Then, on the other hand, we have Netanyahu: his falling ratings in Israel, coupled with his war crimes against the Palestinian people! (For which is his a ‘wanted’ person in most parts of the world!)

The missiles attacks also destroyed a girl’s primary school in Minab, southern Iran, killing around 150(mainly girl students) and wounding several others. UNESCO expressed deep alarm at the impact of the military attacks. It also noted that pupils in a place dedicated to learning are protected under international humanitarian law, and that “attacks against educational institutions endanger students and teachers and undermine the right to education.”

Are the bullies of this world listening? Whose war is it, anyway? Several world leaders (not India) have condemned the attacks on Iran and the killing of their Supreme Leader and of innocent people.  Millions all over the world have come out on the streets, to protest, demanding that the war stops immediately! There is an outrage everywhere, as people rightly target the US and Israeli regimes and their military! Obviously, a good percentage of the media – controlled by the warmongers, will not highlight this reality (they are not reporting of how as a retaliatory measure, Iran has also destroyed several US bases in parts of the Middle East). There is enough of evidence and factual data, to show who the perpetrators of these terrible crimes against humanity are! There are cries for peace – underlining the painful reality, that in any war, the greatest victims, the people who suffer the most – are the poor, the vulnerable and marginalised; those who have to eke out a living; whose very existence is on their meagre daily earnings. Many of them have lost everything. Powerful nations (like Israel and the US) and their crony capitalist friends, unfortunately justify every attack, every bombing, and every killing! No one is looking at the consequences of war: of how reality irreversibly changes for the victims; how there is irreparable devastation and wanton destruction of both of life and property.

Endless debates have begun everywhere on this current war – and of who is winning! The plain truth is that no one is winning: our world is just becoming more insecure and unsafe! Thousands of travellers (particularly the international ones) are stranded everywhere! Several questions are being asked at every level: who decides whether any nation has the right to go to war, or attack the sovereignty of another nation? What about the role and responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? The IAEA was established in 1957 – in the wake of what took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is an international organization that aims to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent its use for military purposes; it serves as a global forum for scientific and technical cooperation in the nuclear field. The IAEA’s work includes monitoring nuclear facilities, reporting on nuclear activities, ensuring safety, and fostering diplomacy. Why do nations, particularly the United States and Israel, not pay heed to these universal monitoring bodies? After the entire world said “Never Again!” post-World War II, and signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 – can the world’s people afford World War III?

Then there is the role of the arms and ammunition industry. President Dwight D. Eisenhower popularised the term ‘military- industrial complex’. In his farewell address on January 17, 1961, Eisenhower highlighted how the combination of a permanent military establishment and a large arms industry could lead to significant societal and political consequences. During his tenure as President, Eisenhower became increasingly convinced that corporate interests were beginning to monopolize national interests. This is exactly what is happening today. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) publishes annually a very objective and accurate data- base on military spending the world over and on the key corporations that make huge profits because of war. War, is a lucrative business!

Late Pope Francis minced no words in taking on the arms and ammunition industry saying that they promoted a ‘culture of death’ In September 2025, whilst addressing a joint sitting of the US Congress he stated unequivocally, “being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world… Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?” He answered it himself saying, “sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.” No one of course paid heed to his urgent plea!

In his path-breaking Encyclical (October 2020) ‘Fratelli Tutti’ (Brothers and Sisters All) he devoted an entire section titled ‘The injustice of war’ (#256-262). Among the several critical and urgent issues, which he raises, he states, “since conditions that favour the outbreak of wars are once again increasing, I can only reiterate “war is the negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment. If we want true integral human development for all, we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and peoples.  We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! We are experiencing a “world war fought piecemeal”; since the destinies of countries are so closely interconnected on the global scene…Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging defeat before the forces of evil. With the money spent on weapons and other military expenditures, let us establish a global fund that can finally put an end to hunger and favour development in the most impoverished countries, so that their citizens will not resort to violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave their countries in order to seek a more dignified life.” These incisive statements from official Church teaching, is a call to immediate, substantial action!

Pope Leo XIV has been consistently bringing to the attention of world community the futility of war and why peace must be pursued and should triumph immediately.  On Sunday 1 March, during the Angelus message referring to the current war, he said, “stability and peace are not achieved through mutual threats, nor through the use of weapons, which sow destruction, suffering, and death, but only through reasonable, sincere, and responsible dialogue.” On 4 March, speaking informally to a group of journalists he said, “Pray for peace, work for peace, less hatred. Hatred in the world is constantly increasing.”

Mahatma Gandhi once famously said, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” These words are so true today! In May 1969, in Montreal, Canada, Beatle John Lennon composed and sang the song together with Yoko Ono, ‘Give Peace a Chance’. It soon became an anthem of the anti-war movement during the 1970’s; thousands marched everywhere and sang

“All we are saying is give peace a chance

All we are saying is give peace a chance”

In the wake of the terrible war that has engulfed the world today,  we must not only sing song of peace and come out on the streets, but we all need to do all we can to Stop the War – IMMDIATELY!

March 5, 2026

(The author is an internationally renowned human rights, reconciliation and peace activist. He is also a prolific writer. Contact cedricprakash@gmail.com)  

Related:

India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran

Hegemony by might: Gaza, Iran and the failures of nuclear power politics

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

The post STOP the War, NOW! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Within the country, India, opposition to the US-Israeli war has not only come from left parties, but also mainstream opposition. The Indian National Congress (INC), India’s main opposition party, said in a statement on Sunday, March 1 “The targeted use of force to destabilize the leadership and governing structures of the sovereign state-whether in Iran or earlier in Venezuela-signals a disturbing revival of regime change doctrines and coercive unilateralism.” INC leaders called the Indian government’s failure to issue condemnation against the assassination of Khamenei “shameful and political cowardice.”

Chief of the Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP), Sonia Gandhi in a powerfully worded Op-Ed in The Indian Express On Tuesday, March 3, was damning. Titled, Government’s silence on killing of Iran leader is not neutral, it is abdication, the article states, “India has long invoked the ideal of vasudhaiva kutumbakam — the world is one family. That civilisational ethos is not a slogan for ceremonial diplomacy; it implies a commitment to justice, restraint and dialogue, even when doing so is inconvenient.”

Most vocal, in action and deed, have been the left, the Communist parties in India also issued condemnation to Israeli-US aggression and demanded the Indian government to take a proactive stand against the war. Besides, the left parties organized protests in different parts of the country to oppose the Israeli-US aggression against Iran and demanded the Indian state take a clear stand in support of UN Charter and international law. The protesters urged people to “stand against the attack” and express solidarity with the Iranian people.

Shia Muslims take to the streets in protest

Ordinary people, Shia Muslims and masses of people took to the streets in anti-war demonstrations in Srinagar and Kargil in the north, to Hyderabad and Chennai in the south. One of the largest demonstrations was recorded in the northern city of Lucknow, the capital of India’s largest state Uttar Pradesh. The Hindistan Times, The New Indian Express and The Hindu have reported these protests.

On February 28 and March 1, the US and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Tehran in what they called a pre-emptive attack — Operation Epic Fury and Operation Lion’s Roar respectively.

Khamenei was killed at his workplace in the early hours of Sunday, and Iran’s Tasnim News Agency and state television confirmed this. Thereafter, Iran declared 40 days of national mourning and launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes, targeting 27 American military sites according to the IRGC.

Delhi

On Tuesday, March 3, it was the left parties that held a protest at Jantar Mantar against the US-Israel attack on Iran and the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, accusing the Union government of maintaining silence on the issue.

At the protest, Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat said that through the protest they were raising their voice against United States President Donald Trump’s “imperialist bullying” and against “Zionist Israel’s aggression”. Brinda Karat also questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel a day before the strike on Iran.

“Why is Narendra Modi silent regarding Trump’s imperialist aggression towards Iran? Why is he quiet about the attack carried out on Iran? Holding the bloodstained hands of Netanyahu of Israel, he said this is the voice of the people of India. Which people’s voice is this? Did you go to Israel to offer support? Moreover, within 24 hours, there was an attack on Iran. Did you go there to give India’s approval stamp to it?” Karat said. She added that India’s foreign policy is guided by certain principles and that Modi should view foreign relations from the perspective of national sovereignty.

All leaders in the protest have also urged people to express solidarity with Iranians.

“The silence of the government over (U.S. President Donald) Trump’s imperialist hooliganism, the attack on Iran… Why is Narendra Modi quiet,” asked CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat. “He held (Israel Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu’s bloodied hands and said it is the voice of the people of India… How is this the voice of the people? You went to Israel to help a genocide,” she said. Ms. Karat said the attack on Iran came within 24 hours of Prime Minister Modi’s return from Israel. “Did you go there to give a stamp of approval,” she asked.

“We are raising our voices against the bullying of the U.S. and Zionist Israel,” she said, adding that Mr. Modi should look at foreign relations from the perspective of national sovereignty. “You (Mr. Modi) have bowed to Trump, and (are) silent over the issue. This is pro-imperialist foreign policy,” she said.

“We demand that the government of India take steps to stop the war and restore peace… Modi ji was in Israel, the war started after he returned. It is our responsibility to ensure India has no role in this war,” Mr. Bhattacharya said.

He said the war will “impact India” as many Indians work in West Asian countries. “Iran is an ancient civilisation with friendly and cultural relations. This has happened with Palestine, and now with Iran. It is clear Iran is ready to fight back,” he said, adding that the people of India stand with Iran. In the context of Modi’s visit to Israel, he said the Indian government must immediately take steps to stop the war and work towards peace.

“We know that Modi ji went to Israel. He came back and the war started. Therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that there is no partnership with India in this war. In Iran, we saw that the Supreme Leader was assassinated. The Supreme Leader of Iran is not only the leader of Iran but also a religious leader for the Shia community worldwide,” he said. These Left leaders alleged that the United States was “shedding crocodile tears in the name of women”.

“We saw that in Iran, women are fighting for their freedom. In the same Iran, more than 100 girls were killed in a primary school. America and Israel did it. Thousands have lost their lives in the last four days in Iran. This war will have a severe impact on India after Iran, as many Indians work in West Asian countries,” Bhattacharya said.

In Delhi, the Imam of Shia Jama Masjid, Maulana Mohd Ali Mohsin Taqvi, warned of a dangerous new precedent. “Every person in favour of justice and sovereignty of a country is deeply saddened today. The world is about to witness worse days. The President of any country can be abducted; any country’s leadership can be killed with bombs. It was Iran today, tomorrow it may be Türkiye, Saudi Arabia.”

Taqvi described Khamenei as “a simple man and a major scholar of the Islamic world who never bowed in front of the oppressors”, and announced a condolence gathering at the mosque.

The Iranian Embassy in New Delhi lowered its flag to half-mast. The J&K Shia Association stated: “We mourn the martyrdom of the family members of Imam Khamenei. Our prayers are with the Leader and the people of Iran.”

Hyderabad

The CPI-M also held protests at Hyderabad, capital of Telangana against the US-Israel attacks on Iran. On Monday, March 2, the CPI-M organised a protest rally at Sundarayya Vignana Kendra here, condemning the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran. At the protest rally, addressing the gathering, CPI(M) Politburo member B V Raghavulu alleged that the US had turned into an “international terrorist force” by carrying out aggressive actions against several countries. Raising slogans against American imperialism and war hysteria, party activists expressed solidarity with the Iranian people. CPI-M State Secretary John Wesley, also accused the US of destabilising nations, destroying economies and violating international law, citing attacks on Gaza, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. He also criticised the union government for remaining silent on the attacks and questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s stance, calling for intensified protests to pressure the Centre.

Besides, CPI(M) leaders R. Arun Kumar, T. Jyothi, M. Eshwarayya and several state and mass organisation leaders participated in the protest.

Protest rally, mourning over death of Iran’s Khamenei in Hyderabad’s old quarters

Meanwhile, also in Hyderabad, Shiite muslims mourn the death Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a demonstration against US and Israel forces attack on Iran, organized by Tanzeem-e-Jafferi from Mazaar-e-Ibne Khatoon, Purani Haveli, in Hyderabad on Sunday, the very next day after the Us-Israel attacks.

A wave of grief spilt onto the streets of Hyderabad’s old quarters as the news of the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei spread in the morning. By afternoon, summoned by social media messages, hundreds of men, women and children in black turned up near the grave of Ibne Khatoon. Some men wailed as they addressed their gathering, while others shouted “Shahdat, shahadat” (martyrdom, martyrdom); reported The Hindu.

“The U.S. is mistaken if it thinks Iran is finished with this bomb attack. Iran is alive, and we are with Iran. America murdabad,” shouted one speaker as reported by The Hindu. “He is our spiritual leader. That is why there is so much grief. That’s why I have turned up here,” Mujahid, a resident of Dar ul Shifa. The protest in the afternoon was organised by Tandem-e-Jafferi.

Later in the evening, post-Iftaar, there were two similar protests in the locality with hundreds of other protesters and grief-stricken residents marching beating their chest with their right arm. The protest started from Ibadan Khan and culminated near Alawa-e-Sartouq in Darulshifa at 8 p.m..The Dar ul Shifa area is an old quarter with many residents living from the time Hyderabad was designed and built.

The Hindu also recalled how Hyderabad has cultural ties to Iran that go back to the foundation of the city. One of the architects of Hyderabad, Mir Momin, an Iranian emigre, who became the prime mover during the rule of Mohammed Quli Qutb Shah in the 1590s, called the city, ‘Isfahan-e-Nau’ or a new Isfahan, the Iranian city known for its architecture. Incidentally, Iranian city of Isfahan was hit by the American missiles on Saturday.

Kashmir

The Times of India reported on widespread protests in Kashmir against killing of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei in US‑Israel strike.

In several parts of Kashmir, especially Srinagar, the US-Israel killing of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israel strike, led to widespread protests. Hundreds of demonstrators, particularly from Shia-majority areas, took to the streets, marching peacefully while raising anti-US and anti-Israel slogans, as reported by news agency PTI. Gatherings were seen at Srinagar’s Lal Chowk and the capital’s Saida Kadal area. Protests also were observed at Budgam, Bandipora, Anantnag and Pulwama. In some locations, the police had reportedly used lathi charge against protesters. In Budgam district, hundreds of women and children joined marches shouting slogans against Israel and US.

Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, urged protesters to remain calm and “avoid any actions that could lead to tension or unrest”. Demonstrations were also reported in Sonawari, Bandipora, and Baramulla, where men and women marched peacefully carrying portraits of Khamenei, raising black flags, and leading traditional lamentation processions known as Nauha.

Former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti and Kashmir’s chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq also condemned the strikes.

Lucknow, Aligarh, Meerut, Bhopal, Raipur, Ajmer, Ludhiana

In Uttar Pradesh’s Lucknow, protesters chanted slogans against the US and Israel. “They kept deceiving with talks and threatened about war, but our leader did not get afraid and did not bow,” one demonstrator told ANI. “A thousand Khameneis will rise. Trump cannot win easily.”A leader of India’s Shia community leader Syed Samar Kazmi said: “He was killed only because he raised his voice for the killings in Palestine while the world was silent.”

‘Try America in the World Court’

All India Imam Association President Sajid Rashidi demanded international accountability: “America has killed Iran’s Supreme Commander Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They should be tried in the World Court and convicted. America does whatever it wants, whenever it wants.”The Shia community has declared a three-day mourning, during which people will wear black, hoist black flags at their homes and organise special prayers, Abbas added.

In Aligarh, it is reported that a large number of people gathered near the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and held a demonstration against the attack on Khamenei.The protesters, who were joined by many students from the AMU, submitted a memorandum addressed to the president of India, demanding that India express its clear protest against the brutal killing of dozens of schoolchildren in Iran by the US military.

Former AMU student leader Mehboob Alam told reporters, “Ayatollah Khamenei was not only the spiritual leader of the Shia community but also the voice of all those who stood against the imperialist forces posing a serious threat to world peace. His death is a grave loss to humanity.” In western Uttar Pradesh, around 200 km away in Muzaffarnagar, thousands of Shia Muslims marched with Khamenei’s photographs from Kidwai Nagar to Fakharshah Chowk, and submitted a memorandum to the district magistrate addressed to the president of India.

In Meerut, also in western UP, members of the Shia sect, including women and children, staged protests at Abdullahpur, Railway Road, Mansabiya and Zaidi Farm, mourning the killing of Iran’s supreme leader. Prayer meetings were also held at the Imam Bargah Panjetani and Darbar-e-Hussaini in Zaidi Farm.

A similar protest was witnessed in Jhansi, where a large number of Shia Muslims gathered at Masjid-e-Imamiya in Mewatipura to mourn the killing of Khamenei, calling it an attack on world peace. Cleric Haider Zaidi told the media, “Our community opposes any form of oppression. The military action (in Iran) is a form of bullying and against humanity. We will continue to raise our voice in a non-violent manner.” Reports of protests also came from Ambedkar Nagar, Rampur, Barabanki, Shahjahanpur and Ghaziabad.

In Bhopal, a mass condolence meeting and protest were held by Shia Muslims to mourn and condemn Khamenei’s death reported The Indian Express. The condolence prayers were held at the Shia Mosque in Bhopal’s Karond area, where Imam Syed Bankar Hussain and prominent religious leader Syed Azhar Hussain Rizwi said Khamenei’s “martyrdom” in the holy month of Ramadan and his contributions to Islam would be remembered. After the meeting, more than 100 members of the community took out a protest march, raising slogans against the United States and Israel.

Punjab, which has a small Muslim population, saw protests and effigies being burnt in Ludhiana. Shahi Imam Maulana Mohammad Usman Rahmani Ludhianvi, who led the protest, demanded that the central government declare a week-long national mourning.Rehmani urged Muslims worldwide to unite against such challenges, terming Khamenei a great martyr and condemning his killing in the strongest terms.

The Shia community in Ajmer also announced the observance of a three day mourning over the killing of Khamenei, said The Indian Express. The announcement was made by Syed Asif Ali, a community leader, who appealed to members of the Shia community to observe mourning and refrain from celebrations during the period. Media reports also said that condolence meetings were also organised at Dargah in Dorai and Taragarh in Ajmer, where members of the community offered prayers and expressed grief over the incident.

Alipur, Karnataka

The most unique form of mourning was reported in Alipura town, 75 km from Bengaluru turned gloomy and declared a three-day mourning. Located in Karnataka’s Chikkaballapur district of Karnataka where Khamenei once visited, observed silence, and shops and commercial establishments voluntarily closed.

Residents of the town, Alipur, located in Karnataka’s Gauribidanur taluk, speaking to The New Indian Express, emphasised the region’s deep spiritual, cultural, and educational ties with Iran. They said the area is also known as ‘Mini Iran’ or ‘Baby Iran’ for boasting a 25,000-strong Shia population. To voice protest against Khamenei’s killing, the residents carried out a march wearing black dresses on Sunday. Some were seen sobbing in grief while holding onto the photo of Khamenei. Also, shops in Alipur shut their shutters to mark their protest. Locals recalled that Khamenei himself visited Alipur in 1981-82 to inaugurate a hospital built with Iranian government support. Many from this town have been to Iran to pursue education, and some are still stranded in Iran. Many locals also run businesses in Tehran. Media reported how the district police deployed additional force and also held meetings with local Muslim community leaders. Chikkaballapur Superintendent of Police Kushal Chouksey visited the village. “The Shia Muslim population is about 90 per cent, and the rest are Hindu families. We have held a meeting with Anjuman-e-Jafaria Committee members. They held a prayer after the procession in which 3,000 people participated. The situation is under control, and the protests were peaceful,” Chouksey told media.

Related:

Hegemony by might: Gaza, Iran and the failures of nuclear power politics

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

Israel bombs Iran, targets nuclear facilities, military leaders, scientists; US claims it’s not involved

The post India: Left at the forefront, opposition & people protests US-Israel attacks on Iran appeared first on SabrangIndia.