The election results would reveal to what extent his call influenced the voters and helped the secular alliance. However, his direct involvement in the electoral process by releasing the lists of candidates at a press conference has already been exploited by the BJP to mobilise Hindu voters. It remains unclear how successful the BJP’s efforts were.

Referring to the lists issued by Maulana Nomani, dDeputy Chief Minister and BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis appealed to Hindu voters to consolidate against this move. He did not mince words, stating that the Muslim voter mobilisation (referred to as “vote jihad”) in favour of the secular alliance should be answered by a “religious war” (dharma yudh) from the Hindu side. Speaking to journalists, he outlined the BJP’s strategy: “Although we are seeking votes for our development work, if someone says to engage in ‘vote jihad’ to defeat the BJP, we will respond with a dharma yudh of votes.”

Beyond the BJP’s response, Maulana Nomani’s selection of candidates has also sparked an internal debate within the Muslim community. Supporters of excluded candidates, particularly those from the Muslim community, expressed deep disappointment. This led to questions and a heated debate about the criteria and methods the Maulana used to finalise his “lists”. Some critics went so far as to question the Maulana’s credibility, demanding a public explanation of the selection process.

This controversy feeds into a broader debate about the blurring of the boundary between religion and politics. Parties engaged in majoritarian politics have already eroded much of the separation by mobilising voters on religious grounds, using Hindu religious leaders to consolidate their base. Worse still, leaders of Hindu right-wing parties frequently win elections by campaigning on anti-Muslim platforms, delivering hateful speeches, and spreading anti-minority propaganda before and during elections. These communal and majoritarian trends, fuelled by the involvement of religious leaders, pose a serious threat to our secular republic and must be reversed.

However, the involvement of Muslim religious figures in electoral politics, even with good intentions, could undermine the very goal of preserving secularism. This is the flip side of the story. A Muslim religious scholar, like any other citizen, is free to engage in politics and support any candidate. There is no doubt about this. But political involvement is a public act, and people have the right to agree or disagree with the clergy’s actions. Asking such questions should not be seen as an attempt to demonize or silence Muslim religious leaders. I will return to this point shortly. 

Elections and the clergy

The elections for all 288 assembly seats in Maharashtra were conducted in a single phase on November 20, with results scheduled to be declared three days later, on November 23. In the current political landscape of Maharashtra, the primary contest is expected to be between the opposition MVA (Maha Vikas Aghadi) and the ruling BJP-led Mahayuti alliance. The MVA consists of Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena (SHS-UBT), Sharad Pawar’s NCP (SP faction), and the Congress, supported by the Samajwadi Party, the Peasants and Workers Party of India (PWP), the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and a few independent MLAs. The Mahayuti alliance, on the other hand, includes the BJP, the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction), and Ajit Pawar’s NCP.

In addition to these two major alliances, Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) is another influential player in Maharashtra politics. While AIMIM fielded 44 candidates in the 2019 assembly elections, this time it has announced only 16 candidates, marking a significant reduction in the number of contested seats. Although AIMIM secured only two seats in the previous elections, it now seeks to focus its efforts on fewer constituencies to achieve better results.

Another notable participant in Maharashtra’s political arena is the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), led by former Member of Parliament Prakash Ambedkar, the grandson of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The VBA, which has a strong social base among Dalits, has fielded 51 candidates. In the 2019 General Elections, the AIMIM and the VBA forged an alliance, garnering a combined 14% vote share. Consequently, smaller parties like AIMIM and VBA, which represent some of the most marginalised communities in society, cannot be overlooked. However, most candidates from AIMIM and VBA were excluded from Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s endorsed lists.

The AIMIM, which contested the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly Elections and secured two seats in Malegaon and Dhule City, has been ignored by both the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) and Maulana Sajjad Nomani. However, Owaisi, unlike the allies of the so-called secular MVA, has been more vocal about raising Muslim issues, both in Parliament and beyond. Yet, his party was not included in the Maulana’s list of preferred candidates.

Maulana Nomani has not explained his reasons for excluding AIMIM and VBA candidates. Instead, he released a statement alongside his lists of preferred candidates on his official Twitter account. In the statement, Maulana Nomani—who is a member of the working executive of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the founding chairman of the Rahmani Foundation—claimed that the candidates were selected based on “extensive research, ground surveys, and in-depth analysis.” However, the statement does not provide any details regarding the methodology, sample size, or specifics of his research, survey, and analysis. The statement merely justified the selection, predominantly from the MVA, by emphasizing the significance of the Maharashtra Assembly Elections in the current political scenario. Elaborating further, Maulana Nomani stated, “Each election is a test as well as testimony to the strength of the country’s democracy and our faith in it.” His statement ended with optimism, expressing hope that the elections would result in the formation of “a secular and inclusive government.” This led to questions about whether Maulana’s support for Owaisi-led AIMIM and Ambedkar-led VBA candidates would have made his selection more “secular” and “inclusive.”

Maulana Sajjad Nomani is an eminent Islamic scholar, followed by a section of Sunni Muslims. His association with Deoband, Nadwa, and the Tablighi Jamaat is seen by politicians as political capital, to be leveraged during election campaigns. His religious background is viewed as an asset by those more interested in securing Muslim votes than genuinely working for their welfare. This is something Maulana Nomani needs to be cautious about.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani was born in Lucknow in 1955 and claims ancestral roots in Turkey. His father, Maulana Mohammad Manzoor Nomani, was a renowned Islamic scholar and an alumnus of Darul Uloom Deoband. Maulana Manzoor Nomani authored several influential books, including Islami Kya Hai (What is Islam?), a concise introduction to Islam that remains widely sold and appreciated to this day. While Maulana Sajjad Nomani benefited from his father’s legacy, he has carved his own path as a scholar, author, orator, and expert in Islamic studies.

Maulana Sajjad Nomani pursued his early education at Nadwat Ul-Ulama in Lucknow and Darul Uloom Deoband. Later, he earned a doctorate in Quranic Studies from Madina University in Saudi Arabia. Beyond his scholarly work, Maulana Sajjad Nomani is actively involved in education. He manages educational institutions and serves as the editor of Al-Furqan. In 1995, he founded the NGO Rahman Foundation, which is dedicated to supporting the poor, orphans, widows, and the oppressed. His efforts span across vast areas, with notable contributions in Maharashtra, where he runs madrasas and leads the Khanqah Nomaniya Mujaddidiyah in Neral (Raigad district), about a two-hour journey from Mumbai. Maulana Sajjad Nomani is also active on social media, regularly sharing video lectures that reach a wide audience.

He has never shied away from sharing political platforms or shifting his political loyalties. For a long time, he was associated with Waman Meshram, the national president of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF). Established by former BSP president Manyavar Kanshi Ram, D.K. Khaparde, and Dinabhana in 1971, BAMCEF is an Ambedkarite organization. While Maulana’s speeches at BAMCEF included scathing criticism of secular parties for betraying the causes of Dalits and Muslims, his recent political positions have favoured secular parties. This shift in loyalty may explain his exclusion of AIMIM and VBA candidates. It appears that Maulana has moved away from his earlier political message of forging a Dalit-Muslim alliance to challenge Brahmanical parties.

The Maulana and His critics

While the supporters of Maulana Sajjad Nomani have praised his efforts to release lists of endorsed candidates, calling them “great initiatives” and urging Muslims to follow his “wisdom,” many others have criticized his actions. A section of the Muslim community has expressed frustration with the Maulana for excluding a significant number of candidates from Asaduddin Owaisi-led AIMIM and other political outfits representing marginalized communities. Critics argue that Owaisi, in sharp contrast to the leaders of secular parties, has been far more vocal about the concerns of minorities and other weaker sections. They claim that while secular parties have increasingly leaned toward soft Hindutva to counter the BJP, AIMIM has raised genuine issues. Secular parties, under the guise of adopting a “practical” strategy, have nearly stopped addressing Muslim issues in their manifestos and speeches, offering only symbolic gestures at best. Despite this, the Maulana has expressed support for these secular parties without clarifying whether they have assured him of any concrete measures to address the social, educational, and economic backwardness of Muslims if they come to power.

Notably, the Maulana’s list omits any mention of how the secular alliance has ignored Muslim concerns before or during their campaigns in Maharashtra. Secular parties often assume that Muslims will vote for them by default as the only alternative to communal forces. This contrasts sharply with Owaisi, who, more than most leaders from either secular or communal parties, has consistently spoken as a radical constitutionalist and effectively raised minority issues. Despite this, the Maulana did not give preference to the Owaisi-led AIMIM in his recommendations.

Against this backdrop, a significant section of Muslims has begun questioning Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s approach. Social media platforms are flooded with reactions and comments, casting doubt on the processes and criteria he used to include or exclude candidates. The backlash against the Maulana has been expressed in multiple ways. He has been accused of “selling out” the interests of the Muslim community, and some have questioned his shifting political loyalties, with a few even accusing him of working in favour of communal parties. Others have warned that such actions could damage the prestige and dignity of the Ulama (religious scholars), particularly if their recommendations fail to gain public support.

The criticisms against Maulana Sajjad Nomani also stem from his failure to address the shortcomings of secular parties in defending Muslim interests. Some Muslims have gone so far as to accuse the Maulana of issuing his list of preferred candidates in exchange for monetary benefits. Others allege that he acted as a spokesperson for secular parties under the guise of a religious scholar. Another critique is that Muslim religious leaders often provide “free” services to secular parties out of fear of the BJP. Additionally, some critics have questioned the Maulana’s influence, suggesting that his appeal would go unheard. Allegations of personal gain were also raised, with claims that the Maulana released the list hoping to be rewarded with a Rajya Sabha seat. Beyond releasing the list of candidates, the Maulana has also been criticized for “blessing” politicians ahead of the elections. In some instances, candidates and politicians were reportedly allowed to visit the Maulana’s office and be photographed with him, with these images later shared on social media to influence voters.

Muslim intellectuals, activists, and the secular intelligentsia have also raised concerns about the Maulana’s involvement in electoral politics. Professor Akhtarul Wasey, who taught Islamic studies at Jamia Millia Islamia, opined that the involvement of religious figures from any community is not good for a secular democracy. “The way we have criticized the political use of religious figures by non-Muslims, we should also criticize such acts committed by any Muslim.”

Tanweer Alam, a resident of Mumbai and president of the Aligarh Muslim University Alumni Association (Maharashtra chapter), is highly disappointed by Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s political activities, particularly during the assembly elections. “We need to strongly oppose the involvement of Muslim religious figures in political activities. Our opposition is not because we want to silence any voice or disenfranchise those with whom we disagree. Any religious scholar from the Muslim community who becomes active during elections should be closely observed. My disagreement with the respected Maulana is on two points. First, who has authorized him to speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community? Second, how does the Maulana claim to have political understanding when he makes highly irresponsible statements that can be exploited by communal forces? For example, a viral video is circulating in which he is allegedly heard saying he would boycott those who voted for the BJP. I am not sure if the video is authentic, but if it is, then he has harmed the cause of both Muslims and the country by giving a clear opportunity to communal forces.”

Ahmad Jawed, a senior journalist and former editor of the Inquilab Urdu daily (Patna edition), described Maulana Sajjad Nomani’s actions as “counterproductive.” He elaborated on his position with the following words: “With due respect to Maulana Sajjad Nomani, it should be noted that people issuing so-called fatwa, [legal ruling by Islamic scholars] farman, [order] or appeals have not had any significant impact on the electoral politics of India. A careful analysis of India’s electoral behaviour shows that Muslim voters are not influenced by fatwa, farman, or any such appeal. Each time, Muslim voters have prioritized the interests of the nation, the principles of secularism, and issues of governance, law, and justice”.

Dr. John Dayal, a veteran journalist, writer, human rights activist, ex-member of the National Integration Council (Government of India), and former national president of the All India Catholic Union, is widely regarded as one of the strongest secular voices in civil society. When asked to comment on the matter, he said, “The political party is the direct beneficiary of the support of religious leadership, who in turn enjoy this patronage for their places of worship and for themselves, individually or collectively.”

Some clarifications

While the instances of majoritarian parties politically exploiting religious figures are innumerable—and one of the main planks of their political mobilisation—there are also instances where Muslim religious figures have been drawn into the political arena. Long before Maulana Sajjad Nomani, the ruling elites used Shahi Imams, constructing their image as leaders of Indian Muslims to consolidate Hindu voters. For example, during the 2004 General Elections, Syed Ahmad Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi’s historic Jama Masjid, appealed to Muslims to vote for the BJP in the Gujarat elections, overlooking the 2002 Gujarat riots, which resulted in massive loss of life, primarily among Muslims, under BJP rule. His appeal backfired, and the BJP was voted out of power. Similarly, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Himayat Committee, formed to gain Muslim support with the backing of several Muslim religious scholars, also failed to help the BJP secure an electoral victory. Currently, Hindutva forces have floated the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), whose Muslim members are trained to justify Hindutva agendas using the language of Islam.

However, it is not implied here that Maulana Sajjad Nomani released his list of candidates at the behest of any political party. It’s possible that he issued such a list on his own to draw media attention and place himself at the centre of Maharashtra politics. But the bigger question is how much influence he actually has over the Muslim community. While his influence among a section of Muslims is not dismissed, it is doubtful that he holds sway over the entire Muslim community. It is also uncertain if younger generations of Muslims are inclined to follow a top-down approach in decision-making. Instead, they prefer to weigh multiple factors before choosing their political affiliations.

Let me share a personal example to illustrate this point. On December 15, 2019, a large number of activists gathered at the Delhi Police Headquarters to protest the police crackdown on anti-CAA protesters at Jamia Millia Islamia. Suddenly, a prominent Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind leader appeared at the protest site and tried to discourage the protesters, most of whom were Muslims, from continuing. Muslim youths, however, rejected this advice outright.

Both Muslim religious scholars and the Hindu right often make the mistake of considering the Muslim community as a homogenous group, painting it primarily as a religious bloc because it suits their agendas. However, the sociological reality is that the Muslim community is sharply divided along lines of caste, class, gender, language, and region. While the Holy Quran is universally revered and Prophet Mohammad holds a central place in the Islamic faith, differences emerge in interpretations of Islamic teachings by the Ulama. These differences give rise to various religious sects and schools of jurisprudence within the Muslim community. As a result, no single religious leader can claim the authority to influence the entire Muslim population.

This raises the question of whether it is desirable for any religious leader to speak for the whole Muslim community. A larger concern is how beneficial the involvement of a religious figure—without clear ideological clarification and political strategy—is for the community. Will such appeals by religious figures serve a constructive purpose, or will they be exploited by communal forces to reinforce the myth that the Muslim community is controlled by the clergy? Hindu right-wing and anti-Muslim commentators are likely to overlook the vibrant internal debates and diversity within the Muslim community, focusing instead on such acts to perpetuate stereotypes. This is exactly what the BJP is doing in Maharashtra by citing the Maulana’s list as an example of “vote jihad” against Hindus. However, Hindutva forces conveniently ignore the fact that the Maulana’s actions have drawn significant criticism from within the Muslim community itself.

It is important to note that Islam does not grant clergy an indispensable or centralised authority. However, it is also true that certain members of the clergy play an active role in guiding the community in social, religious, and political matters. When they enter the political domain, however, it tends to erode the boundaries between religion and politics in a democratic polity. While majoritarian symbols and practices are often universalized in the name of national culture and way of life, minority religious symbols are demonized as “alien.” But this cannot justify the instrumental use of religious figures from minority communities for electoral mobilization, as such practices have the potential to undermine the secular-democratic republic.

Let me clarify a point before I conclude. My disagreement with the participation of religious leaders in electoral politics is not an attempt to silence any voice. Nowhere have I argued that a religious scholar should be silenced, nor is my criticism of a religious leader aimed at suppressing minority voices. In fact, my concern over the instrumental use of religious figures stems from a desire to strengthen the genuine voices of the minority community. Just as Maulana Nomani has every right to hold a political opinion, support or oppose any political outfit, and endorse or reject any candidate, we too have the right to seek a public explanation from the Maulana about the methods and processes involved in finalizing his list of candidates. His statements and endorsements are not private affairs; they have public significance, and he should be held accountable for his political actions. As someone involved in the political arena, he should not be immune from criticism.

Let me reiterate that a religious leader has every right to issue a list of endorsed candidates and campaign for their victory, directly or indirectly. However, our disagreement lies in whether a religious scholar’s direct involvement in electoral politics has ever truly advanced the cause of marginalised groups. Likewise, if a religious scholar is free to publicly share a list of endorsed candidates with claims that a proper method was followed in the selection process, is it not reasonable to ask him to explain the criteria for that selection?

Most would agree that the secular foundation of Indian democracy discourages religious mobilisation in electoral politics. While religion has always played some role in elections, efforts should focus on minimising its influence, not validating it. Majoritarian parties have consistently exploited religious sentiments, presenting communalism as nationalism. When such tactics are imitated by secular forces or minority groups, they often prove counterproductive.

In fact, my essay does not aim to target any particular individual, nor the community he or she claims to represent. Rather, it raises important questions and seeks a public debate. For instance, was issuing a list of endorsed candidates at the last moment before the elections truly the best way to serve the minority community? If such a practice is considered “legitimate,” how can the Hindu right—which brazenly uses religion for electoral mobilization and stokes communal tensions—be criticized alone? While Maulana Nomani may be optimistic about transferring his supporters’ votes to his preferred candidates, should he also consider the potential counter-mobilization by Hindutva forces? Ultimately, who benefits the most from the alliance between politicians and religious figures? These pertinent questions demand careful deliberation and cannot be ignored.

(The author holds a PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University. His doctoral research focused on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com; Views expressed are personal)

The post Who stands to gain the most from an alliance between politicians and religious leaders? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dhanteras celebration at Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya Dargah, Delhi

The Dargah of Sufi Saint Hazrat Nizamuddin in Delhi became a symbol of unity on Dhanteras, a Hindu festival dedicated to Lord Dhanvantari, the divine physician and the founder of Ayurveda. This day also marks the beginning of Diwali, the festival of lights. On this occasion, the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM) organized a special prayer ceremony at the shrine, with the aim of fostering brotherhood and harmony among various communities.

Image: Hindus and Muslims lighting diyas and candle at the dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin

The gathering was a beautiful representation of India’s diverse religious and cultural fabric, with people from different faiths coming together in the spirit of shared celebration.

Image: People offering prayers at the shrine of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya 

The ceremony concluded with a collective prayer, highlighting the need for harmony, environmental consciousness, and the protection of communal assets. Through this event, the spirit of cooperation and goodwill resonated, reinforcing India’s strength in its unity amidst diversity.

Diwali fair, Syana, Bulandshahr

The Diwali fair in Syana, Bulandshahr, organized by the Muslim community, has become a shining example of Hindu-Muslim unity. Held annually at the Hapur bus stand, this event brings together people of all ages, fostering a spirit of inclusivity and mutual respect. During its inauguration, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Vandana Mishra highlighted the fair’s significance as a vital part of the town’s cultural heritage, emphasizing the unity it represents between the two communities. Despite the rising tide of divisiveness in the country, this fair continues to stand as a beacon of harmony, bridging religious and cultural divides.

As per ETV report, the fair has earned praise for its role in promoting communal peace, with Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kunwar Bahadur Singh lauding the organizers for their commitment to unity. In addition to Syana, similar acts of interfaith cooperation are seen in other parts of India. In Dhebadhih village, Jharkhand, Muslims help organize the Hindu festival of Kali Puja, working side by side with the local Hindu community. Similarly, in Varanasi, Muslim women from the Muslim Women Foundation and Vishal Bharat Sansthan participate in Diwali celebrations by creating Rangolis, decorating Lord Ram’s idol, and singing prayers for peace—continuing the tradition of Ram Aarti since 2006.

These examples of shared celebrations and collective efforts underline the enduring strength of India’s cultural and religious unity, transcending differences to promote peace and solidarity.

Hindu-Muslim Unity in Diwali, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh)

Bareilly has long been a city where cultures blend seamlessly. Despite occasional tensions, the spirit of unity has always prevailed, with people from diverse communities coming together to celebrate festivals like Holi, Diwali, Eid, and Moharram, transcending caste and religion.

On September 30, during Choti Diwali, yet another beautiful expression of this harmony was witnessed. In Subhash Nagar, the threshold and rooftop of an abandoned house once owned by the Bassi family were illuminated with diyas and candles. The effort was spearheaded by Rashmi Khan and Samyun Khan, with the support of Nitin Sharma, Naresh Rajput, Akbar, Naseem Ahmed, Himanshi Sharma, Naseer Ahmed, and others.

The house had once been home to Anil Bassi’s family, but after his passing, his wife, Poonam Bassi, moved away due to her children’s jobs. Since then, the house had remained vacant. Every year, Samyun Khan’s team adorns the exterior of the house with lights, spreading festive cheer.

On Choti Diwali, they lit a diya at the door, and they planned to return on Diwali to continue the celebrations.

Spreading Joy to the Needy

Samyun Khan, president of the Ek Aas organization, along with her team, distributed diyas, decorative lights, and other festival essentials to those in need. These were families who could not afford to decorate their homes due to financial constraints. In addition to sweets, the team provided Rangoli materials, fireworks, flower garlands, and other festive items. On Dhanteras, the Janseva team distributed 3,500 diyas at Novelty Chowk, spreading light and goodwill to all corners of the city.

Despite the weaponisation of religious slogans and efforts to sow discord, India’s enduring tradition of interfaith harmony remains unshaken. Events like those at Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya’s Dargah, where people from diverse faiths gather to celebrate festivals like Diwali, stand as powerful symbols of unity. Hazrat Nizamuddin’s philosophy of serving every visitor, irrespective of their background, continues to inspire kindness and inclusivity. Similarly, the Diwali fair in Syana, Bulandshahr, and interfaith cooperation in places like Bareilly, Jharkhand, and Varanasi, exemplify the rejection of hate.

These events serve as a vital reminder to anti-social elements with divisive intentions that the spirit of unity, love, and religious tolerance will always prevail, with people standing together, embracing diversity and promoting peace over hate.

Related:

Ganesh Chaturthi: Celebrating unity beyond religious boundaries

Crafting Unity: Muslim artisan’s dedication to Hindu deity sculptures

The other side of Kanwar Yatra: Hindu-Muslim Unity

The post Spreading Light and Love: Diwali festivities unite communities in Bareilly and beyond appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Rationalist Tradition in Islamic Thought

The rationalist tradition in Islamic philosophy emerged in a context where diverse intellectual currents were converging. Philosophers such as Abū Bakr al-Rāzī and Ibn al-Hasan al-Tūsī engaged deeply with the works of Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle and Plato, while simultaneously addressing the unique challenges posed by Islamic theology. This synthesis of Hellenistic philosophy and Islamic thought laid the groundwork for a rich discourse on natural rights and the moral foundations of law.

Among the notable figures is Ibn Bāja (d. 533/1139), who emphasized the importance of reason as a means to understand the divine order. His writings reflect a belief that human beings, endowed with reason, can discern natural laws that govern both the cosmos and human conduct. Similarly, Ibn Rushd(d. 595/1198), known in the West as Averroes, championed the harmony between religion and philosophy. His commentaries on Aristotle were pivotal in promoting rational inquiry as a legitimate path to understanding religious truths.

Another significant thinker, Ibn Tufayl(d. 581/1185), explored the implications of natural law through his philosophical novel Hayy ibn Yaqdhan. The story illustrates how a human being, through reason and observation, can arrive at knowledge of God and moral truths without the need for religious texts. This notion of self-discovery through reason underscores a broader rationalist perspective that transcends dogma.

The Development of Islamic Natural Rights

The contributions of these scholars culminated in the classical natural rights thesis, which posits that rights are inherent to human beings and can be discerned through reason. This idea resonates with contemporary discussions on human rights, highlighting a historical precedent for the recognition of individual dignity and moral agency within Islamic thought.

Rationalist jurists such as Ibn ‘Aqīl (d. 581/1185) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) further enriched this discourse by engaging with the ethical implications of natural law. They argued that justice is not merely a reflection of divine command but can be understood through rational deliberation. This perspective laid the groundwork for a more nuanced interpretation of Sharia that incorporated ethical reasoning alongside traditional jurisprudence.

The School of Illumination, founded by al-Suharwardy (d. 587/1191), introduced a mystical dimension to rationalism, suggesting that intellectual illumination could lead to a deeper understanding of divine truths. This integration of mysticism with rational thought provided a holistic approach to natural law, suggesting that moral truths could be accessed through both reason and spiritual insight.

The Decline of Rationalist Influence

Despite these significant contributions, the influence of rationalist scholars began to wane after the thirteenth century. A combination of political, social, and intellectual factors contributed to this decline. The rise of more dogmatic interpretations of Islam, particularly in the context of the Sunni-Shi‘i divide, led to a diminishing space for rationalist discourse. The establishment of orthodox schools of thought, which prioritized textual authority over philosophical inquiry, further marginalized the rationalist tradition.

During the Ottoman and Safavid periods, while some scholars made noteworthy contributions, their works often remained isolated achievements in an otherwise inhospitable intellectual environment. This is particularly evident in the writings of figures like Mullā Sadrā (d. 1641), who, despite his innovative synthesis of philosophy and theology, struggled to find a broader audience within a predominantly conservative milieu.

Reviving the Islamic Natural Law Tradition: The Role of Progressive Scholars

In recent decades, a new generation of progressive Muslim scholars has emerged, seeking to revive and expand upon the rationalist tradition of Islamic natural law. Figures such as Ebrahim Moosa, Hassan Hanafi, Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, and Mohsen Kadivar  are at the forefront of this intellectual revival, each contributing unique perspectives that reflect a commitment to reason, ethical inquiry, and social justice.

Ebrahim Moosa: Bridging Tradition and Modernity

Ebrahim Moosa, a prominent scholar at the University of Notre Dame, emphasizes the importance of reinterpreting Islamic texts through a contemporary lens. He advocates for a contextual understanding of the Quran and Hadith, arguing that the application of Islamic principles must be responsive to modern ethical challenges. Moosa’s work encourages a return to the rationalist principles of natural law, asserting that human dignity and rights are inherent in Islamic teachings. By engaging with both traditional sources and modern philosophical discourse, Moosa seeks to create a framework for Islamic law that is both relevant and just in today’s world.

Hassan Hanafi: Philosophy and Social Change

Hassan Hanafi, an influential Egyptian philosopher, has been a vocal proponent of a rationalist approach to Islamic thought. His work critiques the rigid interpretations of Islam that have dominated intellectual discourse and advocates for a philosophy of liberation. Hanafi argues that Islamic natural law can provide a basis for social justice, human rights, and democratic governance. By emphasizing the need for a critical engagement with Islamic texts, he seeks to empower Muslim communities to reclaim their intellectual heritage and apply it to contemporary struggles for justice and equality.

Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri: Critical Rationalism

Muhammad Abed al-Jabiri, a Moroccan philosopher, has made significant contributions to the discourse on Islamic rationalism through his critical examination of Arabic thought. Al-Jabiri’s work focuses on the historical and cultural contexts of Islamic philosophy, advocating for a rationalist approach that moves beyond traditional dogmas. He argues that the revival of natural law theories can help Muslims articulate their rights and responsibilities in a modern context. By reinterpreting classical texts and integrating them with modern philosophical ideas, al-Jabiri aims to foster a more dynamic and critical engagement with Islamic thought.

Mohsen Kadivar: The Ethics of Governance

Iranian scholar Mohsen Kadivaroffers a contemporary perspective on Islamic ethics and governance, emphasizing the need for rationality in political and legal frameworks. His work critiques the prevailing interpretations of Sharia that often prioritize authoritarianism over justice and equity. Kadivar calls for a return to the ethical foundations of Islamic law, arguing that a rationalist approach to natural law can provide a robust framework for democratic governance and human rights. By advocating for an interpretation of Islam that prioritizes ethics and reason, Kadivar contributes to the ongoing dialogue about the role of Islam in contemporary political life.

Khaled Abou El Fadl: The Search for Beauty and Reason

Abou El Fadlemphasises the importance of ethical reasoning and the spirit of the law over rigid legalism, advocating for an interpretation of Islam that is both compassionate and context-sensitive.

Abou El Fadl critiques the dogmatic tendencies that can arise from a narrow interpretation of Islamic texts, arguing that such rigidity often leads to harmful consequences for individuals and communities. He encourages Muslims to engage with their faith critically and reflectively, emphasising that authenticity in Islam should be grounded in ethical considerations rather than mere adherence to tradition.

His scholarship highlights the necessity of understanding Islam as a living tradition that evolves with the times, allowing for diverse interpretations and practices that reflect the complexities of contemporary life. By advocating for a more inclusive and humane approach to Islam, Abou El Fadl challenges the notion that authenticity is merely about following established norms or historical precedents.

A Collective Effort Toward Renewal

These scholars represent a collective effort to revitalize the rationalist tradition within Islamic thought. By engaging critically with both classical texts and contemporary issues, they are forging a path that honours the intellectual legacy of earlier rationalists while addressing the complexities of modern life. Their work underscores the enduring relevance of natural law theories in articulating a vision of justice that is consistent with Islamic principles.

As they explore the intersections of faith, reason, and ethics, these progressive Muslim thinkers are not only contributing to academic discourse but also inspiring a broader movement within Muslim communities. Their emphasis on human rights, social justice, and ethical governance resonates with the aspirations of many Muslims seeking to navigate the challenges of the modern world while remaining grounded in their faith.

The Contemporary Relevance of Rationalist Thought

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the rationalist tradition of Islamic thought, with scholars seeking to revive these philosophical insights in the context of contemporary issues. Discussions on human rights, social justice, and ethical governance increasingly draw upon the foundational principles articulated by rationalist jurists. By revisiting their works, progressive Muslim  scholarscan advocate for a vision of Islam that embraces reason and ethical inquiry as central to its moral framework.

Moreover, the global discourse on natural law has opened new avenues for dialogue between Islamic philosophy and Western thought. The principles articulated by rationalist scholars resonate with contemporary debates on universal human rights, challenging the perception that Islamic thought is inherently opposed to rationalism or individual rights.

Conclusion

The rationalist scholars of the Islamic tradition laid the intellectual groundwork for a robust understanding of natural law and human rights in the contemporary period as exemplified by progressive Muslim scholars. Their contributions underscore the importance of reason in ethical deliberation and legal jurisprudence, offering a perspective that remains relevant in today’s discussions on morality and justice. The challenge now lies in fostering an intellectual environment that allows for the flourishing of reasoned discourse, ensuring that the legacy of these scholars continues to inform and enrich the moral landscape of contemporary Islamic civilization. The efforts of progressive Muslimscholars today further this legacy, demonstrating that the principles of natural law and ethical governance can thrive within the framework of Islam, ultimately contributing to a more just and equitable society.

Checkout Dr. Adis Duderija’s personal website at: https://dradisduderija.com/

A decades old patron of New Age Islam, Dr Adis Duderija is a Senior Lecturer in the Study of Islam and Society, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science; Senior Fellow Centre for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue, Griffith University | Nathan | Queensland | Australia. His forthcoming books are ( co-edited)-  Shame, Modesty, and Honora in Islam  and Interfaith Engagement Beyond the Divide  (Springer)

Courtesy: New Age Islam

The post Progressive modern Muslim scholars reconnect to the rationalist tradition in Islam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thousands of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) aspirants protesting for the third straight day outside the UPPSC office in Prayagraj are struggling to secure necessities, such as food and water reports PTI. Students have been agitating the UPPSC proposal to conduct the review officer or assistant review officer (RO/ARO) and UP provincial civil service (PCS) exams in two shifts. They insist that the multi-shift exams risk unfair normalisation, where scores are adjusted based on variations in test difficulty across shifts. The UPPSC has defended its decision, citing logistical constraints, stating that managing a single shift for 11 lakh aspirants would require significant resources, which are not currently available. According to a source within the UPPSC, the two-shift approach aligns with a June government order mandating multiple shifts for exams with over five lakh registered candidates.

Initially, the protest led to clashes with the police after students gathered at gates 2 and 3 of the UPPSC office premises. Policemen reportedly resorted to lathi-charge to disperse the crowd. Despite the hardships, the exam aspirants have held their ground, spending two nights at the site. Many women aspirants who have joined the protest have, so far, not even informed their families about their participation. The police, claiming to “maintain order”, have assigned a demarcated area near the Civil Lines police station for students to protest peacefully. With posters that read “Na batenge na hatenge (We will not be divided nor back down)”, students are echoing Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s slogan, “Batenge toh katenge (Divided we fall)” to reflect their strong sense of solidarity.

The students’ demands have started resonating beyond Prayagraj. In support, UPSC aspirants in Delhi organised a rally Tuesday evening, and similar protests will likely happen in Patna and Jaipur. Many protesters in Prayagraj have travelled from states such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi. They shared buses and are now sharing rooms to participate in the movement.

More than 11 lakh candidates will appear for the UPPSC RO/ARO exam, initially scheduled for January 29 and February 2 but postponed following a paper leak. According to present schedules, the Provincial Civil Services (PCS) Preliminary Examination will be conducted over two days, on December 7 and 8, while the Review Officer (RO) and Assistant Review Officer (ARO) Preliminary Examination 2023 will be held in three shifts on December 22 and 23. The UPPSC’s recent notification rescheduled the exam for December and introduced the controversial two-shift format, sparking protests among students who feel the structure disadvantages them.

The protests have drawn attention from heavyweight political leaders, with Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi even voicing their support for the protesting students. Meanwhile, Congress has sharply criticised the BJP govt in Uttar Pradesh over ‘police action’ against protesting UPPSC students.  Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said it is unfortunate that ‘lathi charge’ was done on students protesting for their demands in Prayagraj.

Condemning the police “highhandedness”, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav had also termed the BJP government in the state “anti-youth” and “anti-student”.

The Congress on Tuesday, November 12 alleged that police in Prayagraj lathi-charged students raising their voice against the “arbitrariness” of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and claimed that earlier also attempts have been made to suppress the voice of the youth demanding jobs.

Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said it is unfortunate that “lathi charge” was done on students protesting for their demands in Prayagraj.

The students raising their voice against the “arbitrariness” of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) should be heard carefully, he said in a post in Hindi on X. “This is not the first time that BJP is trying to suppress the voice of youth in this way. Earlier also, attempts have been made to suppress their voice for demanding jobs or protesting against recruitment scams and paper leaks,” Ramesh claimed. Understanding these problems of the youth, the Congress party had talked about taking concrete initiatives under the Yuva Nyay Guarantee, he said.

Meanwhile in another twist to the lathi charge offensive on Monday night, Congress leader, Prabal Prabhat Sahi has warned of a dire conspiracy around the by-polls scheduled in UP on November 20. Of the nine by-elections to the state assembly, Phoolpur, Majhawan and Katehari are extremely close to Prayagraj (Allahabad) and he expressed fears that the ‘Rampur model’ where the police will be ‘mis’ used to prevent voters from casting their vote (as happened in 2022 in UP) may repeat. This video released by Congress leader Prabal Pratap Sahi late on November 11, Monday may be seen here

Is the lathi charge of thousands of students at Prayagraj a preparation for a repeat of the Rampur model where voters will be prevented from exercising their vote of November 20?

Related:

Police crackdown on student protesters in Delhi, Kolkata

Student Protest against the RSS invites Police Brutality

A month after student protests, BHU yet to do much to ensure women safety

The post Prayagraj: 11 protesting students arrested, after hundreds lathi-charged on the eve of UP by-polls appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complainant, Ghorpade, had alleged in the complaint that this broadcast violated NBDSA’s regulatory standards, which are designed to prevent content that promotes superstition, glorifies the supernatural, or contributes to religious intolerance. At the heart of the complaint is Shastri’s self-professed supernatural abilities and his inflammatory statements regarding Hindu nationalism and other religions. The program, titled “Baba Bageshwar Exclusive Interview,” is claimed to have allowed Shastri to make statements without adequate disclaimers or counterpoints, which Ghorpade argues could mislead viewers and incite religious disharmony.

The following sections provide a detailed breakdown of the complaint, the broadcaster’s response, the complainant’s counterarguments, and the final ruling by NBDSA.

Issues raised by the complainant

Ghorpade filed the complaint on July 11, 2023, two days after the program aired, citing concerns over how the program presented Shastri’s controversial views without sufficient context or disclaimers. Specifically, Shastri claimed supernatural abilities, stating he could locate missing animals, predict elections, and discover hidden resources, such as diamonds, through mystical means. Additionally, he made bold assertions about converting India into a “Hindu nation” and used language that could be interpreted as inflammatory towards other religious groups.  Ghorpade’s grievance was that News18 India had violated NBDSA’s Code of Ethics by allowing this content, which, he argued, glorified superstition, risked misleading viewers, and potentially incited communal tension.

The complainant raised multiple concerns regarding the nature and content of the broadcast, which, he argued, contained misleading information and reflected bias. He pointed out that the broadcast painted individuals involved in a negative light without sufficient factual basis, potentially damaging their reputations. According to the complaint, the program failed to offer a balanced perspective, choosing instead to highlight certain narratives over others, which resulted in “sensationalism over factual reporting.”

The complaint cited specific examples from the broadcast that allegedly violated NBDSA’s guidelines on impartiality and objectivity. Ghorpade’s submission underscored that the broadcaster’s portrayal was not only inaccurate but was presented in a way that amplified a single viewpoint, neglecting alternative perspectives that were crucial to an unbiased understanding of the issue.

Broadcaster’s submissions

News18 India defended itself by emphasising that the interview with Shastri was live, making it challenging for the anchor to fact-check or control Shastri’s spontaneous statements. The broadcaster argued that the views expressed during the interview were solely those of Shastri and were neither endorsed nor supported by the channel. News18 India also highlighted that Shastri was a prominent figure whose activities had captured public interest, and, as such, there was legitimate news value in covering his perspectives. The channel claimed its anchor made efforts to clarify that Shastri’s claims were personal beliefs and not objective truths.

In addition to this, the broadcaster defended its editorial choices, asserting that the program had been created within the bounds of journalistic freedom and served a legitimate public interest. The broadcaster argued that its intent was to inform viewers about pertinent issues, and it claimed that the broadcast was factually accurate. Furthermore, they maintained that editorial decisions were made in accordance with standard practices, emphasising that the program was not designed to mislead or harm any party involved.

The broadcaster further cited its right to freedom of expression, insisting that its reporting provided a necessary platform for public discourse on critical issues. They claimed that their team had followed due diligence, presenting the story in a responsible manner. According to the broadcaster’s submission, the program’s approach was “consistent with the norms of ethical journalism” and in line with industry standards. 

The complainant’s rebuttal

In response, Ghorpade countered that broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that the content aired on their platforms does not contravene ethical standards, even if made by guests. He argued that News18 India’s decision to feature Shastri—whose controversial views were widely known—without more stringent oversight, violated NBDSA guidelines. Furthermore, he contended that the program’s lack of sufficient rebuttal or critical questioning could lead viewers to accept Shastri’s supernatural claims as credible. Ghorpade requested strict action against News18 India to reinforce that broadcasters are accountable for the statements of their guests, especially when these statements are divisive or irrational.

Decision of the NBDSA

After carefully considering both the complaint and the broadcaster’s defence, the NBDSA ruled in favour of Ghorpade, finding that the broadcaster had indeed violated its standards. The authority concluded that the program “lacked a balanced approach,” a requirement that is integral to fair and responsible journalism. In the order, the NBDSA remarked that while freedom of the press is vital, it must be exercised with responsibility to avoid harm or misinformation.

The NBDSA instructed the broadcaster to issue a public apology to address the misleading aspects of the broadcast. Additionally, it directed the broadcaster to take corrective actions to prevent similar incidents in the future. “This decision,” the NBDSA stated in its order, “should serve as a reminder to all media organisations about the necessity of upholding ethical journalism standards.” The ruling made it clear that sensationalism should never replace factual reporting, and it emphasised the importance of presenting a balanced narrative.

The Authority noted that broadcasters have the editorial freedom to invite guests; however, this freedom is not without limits. NBDSA found that Shastri’s statements promoting superstition and making divisive religious claims were irresponsible and risked promoting communal disharmony. The Authority criticised the broadcaster for not issuing clear disclaimers and not challenging Mr. Shastri’s claims more rigorously.

As a result, NBDSA issued a warning to News18 India, advising against inviting guests likely to promote superstitious beliefs or socially divisive opinions. It also directed the broadcaster to remove the interview from all digital platforms and confirm this action in writing within seven days. The NBDSA stressed the importance of responsible journalism and reminded News18 India of its obligation to adhere to standards that ensure content does not mislead or promote irrational beliefs.

The NBDSA’s decision in this case underscores the vital role of media accountability and ethical reporting standards in protecting public trust. By ruling in favour of Ghorpade, the NBDSA has reaffirmed that journalistic freedom must be balanced with a commitment to integrity and impartiality. This ruling serves as a precedent, reinforcing that media organisations are responsible for avoiding sensationalism and presenting a fair, balanced view to their audiences. The NBDSA’s order not only addresses Ghorpade’s concerns but also sends a clear message to the media industry regarding the importance of upholding credibility and trust in journalism.

The complete order can be viewed here:

Related:

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

BJP spreading sea of hatred on social media before Jharkhand elections, ECI mum – shocking facts revealed in research report

Indore Muharram Poster Misunderstood: right-wing claims ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ message, despite common tribute

The post NBDSA orders News18 India to remove broadcast promoting superstition and religious intolerance based on complaint by activist Indrajeet Ghorpade appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Each of the four instances reflects a serious violation of ethical journalism, highlighting the critical role of the media in shaping informed, unbiased discourse. The NBDSA’s decision to remove the broadcasts and issue stern warnings against the broadcaster is a reminder that media must operate within the framework of fairness, accuracy, and respect for all communities. This victory marks a step forward in holding broadcasters accountable for their content and ensuring that the principles of religious harmony, objectivity, and truth are upheld in every broadcast.

The NBDSA’s firm stance reinforces the importance of responsible journalism and serves as a clear message to all media outlets: ethical standards cannot be compromised in the pursuit of sensationalism or polarising narratives. The action taken in these four cases sets a significant precedent for maintaining the integrity of broadcasting and protecting the public from misleading and harmful content.

1. Order on complaint against ‘Operation Mazaar’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 27, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint to with the NBDSA regarding a debate show that aired on Times Now Navbharat on May 22, 2023, titled ‘धामी सरकार का ‘ऑपरेशन मजार’, ‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ की साजिश के किससे जुड़े तार?’. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, which claimed to provide an analysis of alleged illegal mazaars (Islamic shrines) in Uttarakhand, repeatedly used inflammatory terms like ‘Mazaar jihad’ and ‘land jihad’. The host suggested that these Mazaars were part of a larger conspiracy to change the demographic landscape of Uttarakhand, particularly in Haridwar, by linking them to a Muslim agenda. It was claimed that these Mazaars were built on government land, with the goal of attracting Muslims to encroach upon and settle in those areas.

The show had claimed that Haridwar’s demographic had changed by 39-43% without citing any credible sources. It focused on demolitions of Mazaars on government land by the Uttarakhand government, framing it as part of a broader effort to counter an alleged “Islamic takeover” of the region. However, the hosts and panellists presented these claims without any evidence or reliable sources to back them up, especially when talking about Mazaars in areas like Jim Corbett National Park, which were depicted as having been built in remote places with the intention of attracting large crowds.

The program repeatedly aired provocative phrases such as ‘illegal mazaars’, ‘mazaar jihad’, and ‘land jihad’, despite the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) having previously warned media outlets against using such terms for their communal connotations. The complaint highlighted the potential danger of fuelling religious intolerance and persecution by framing Muslim places of worship as part of a sinister plot to alter India’s religious and demographic fabric. (Details may be read here.)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Factual reporting: NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had the legitimate right to report on the encroachment of government land, which is an issue of public concern. However, the broadcast strayed from factual reporting by using terms like “Mazar jihad” and accusing the Muslim community of changing the demographic makeup.
2. Communal narrative: The terms used in the broadcast, such as “Mazar jihad,” and tickers like “Mazar jihad ka mastermind kaun?“, reinforced a communal narrative, giving an otherwise factual issue a religious and divisive tone. This was seen as an attempt to stir communal sentiments unnecessarily.
3. Violation of Reporting Standards: The broadcast failed to include the version of the other side of the parties, in order to ensure that the reporting remains unbiased, which was a clear violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, specifically regarding impartial and balanced reportage.
4. Previous Offense: NBDSA also noted that this was the second instance of similar communal colouring of a story by the broadcaster, particularly in the context of a conspiracy of government land encroachment.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning issued: NBDSA issued a warning to the broadcaster, stating that such practices would not be tolerated in the future, especially in case of sensitive issues. They emphasised that any similar violations would be dealt with more seriously.
2. Video Removal: NBDSA directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and to delete all associated links. The broadcaster must confirm to NBDSA within seven days that the video has been removed.

The complete order may be read below:

2. Order on complaint against debate show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint against Times Now Navbharat over a problematic news segment titled “बाबा की सनातन शपथ…भड़काऊ पथ पर जमीयत! | Hindu Rashtra | Bageshwar Sarkar Vs Hasan Madni” which aired on May 22, 2023. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, hosted by Himanshu Dixit, centred around a speech by Hasan Madni and turned into a communal debate, where the host and participants propagated a divisive, Hindu-nationalist narrative. The show, as per the complaint, focused on a one-sided promotion of Hindu nationalism instead of presenting a balanced discussion, justifying the idea of a Hindu Rashtra and labelling India as always having been a Hindu nation.

The debate featured four participants: Vijay Shankar Tiwari (VHP representative), Mahant Raju Das (self-identified Hindu saint), Atiq-ur-Rehman (Muslim scholar), and Maajid Haidari (Muslim writer). The two Hindu representatives, especially Mahant Raju Das, engaged in extreme Hindutva rhetoric. They used the platform to attack the Muslim participants and stigmatise the Islamic faith. Notably, Mahant Das pressured Maajid Haidari to say “Jai Shree Ram” and “Vande Mataram” to prove his secularism, suggesting that Haidari’s refusal would mean he did not respect all religions.

The complaint provided that the host, instead of intervening, allowed the communal diatribe to continue without challenging the inflammatory statements. He even prompted a controversial discussion about whether anyone who does not accept Islam is considered an infidel. The segment was further marred by anti-Muslim text being displayed repeatedly, accusing Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind of supporting terrorism, protesting against CAA-NRC, and promoting Islamic education.

CJP highlighted that the show sought to pit the two communities against each other, promoting an anti-Muslim narrative that stigmatised Muslims as engaging in sinister activities. This, they argued, was harmful to India’s social fabric and violated journalistic standards. (Details may be read here)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Freedom of speech to be exercised responsibly: NBDSA recognised that although the broadcaster has the right to debate controversial subjects like the one under discussion, this should not violate ethical broadcasting standards. It was underscored by the NBDSA that the debate on such issues must be conducted responsibly, ensuring that it does not disrupt societal harmony or public peace.
2. Failure to adhere to guidelines: As per the order, the broadcaster violated the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes, which require anchors to maintain objectivity and prevent panellists from propagating extreme, divisive views. NBDSA observed that the anchor failed to curb the communal diatribe, allowing Mahant Raju Das to ask a panellist to prove their secularism by chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, further intensifying the communal undertone.
3. Threat to social harmony: NBDSA highlighted that the broadcast risked disturbing peace and social harmony by providing a platform for communal rhetoric, which could polarise communities.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning and advisory: NBDSA issued a stern warning to the broadcaster, advising them to be cautious when selecting panellists for debates to ensure that discussions do not threaten social peace and harmony. The broadcaster was reminded to strictly adhere to the guidelines for conducting debates and prevent panellists from promoting divisive views.
2. Video Removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the broadcast from its website and YouTube, ensuring that all hyperlinks and access to the video were also removed. The broadcaster was required to confirm this action to NBDSA within seven days.

The complete order may be read below:

3. Order on complaint against ‘illegal madrassas’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace had filed a complaint against the debate show “Rashtravad: मदरसों पर नकेल, नहीं चलेगा विदेशी फंडिंग का खेल?” aired on May 22, 2024, on Times Now Navbharat. The show was based on a survey by the Uttar Pradesh Government, claiming that 8,841 madrassas in the state were illegal and that action would be taken against 4,000 of them.

The complaint highlights the polarised and communal nature of the debate, where speakers not directly related to the issue were invited to discuss it. The host, Pandey, focused on twisting the findings of the government report, making unsubstantiated claims such as madrassas are receiving foreign funding. Furthermore, the host’s questions, such as “Will madrassas with foreign funding be locked down?” and “Why are Maulanas worried about action against madrassas?” were framed in a provocative manner.

As per the complaint, the debate was also marked by the host frequently interrupting speakers supporting the Muslim community, while allowing ideologically aligned participants, like Vinod Bansal (VHP), to make unsubstantiated claims linking madrassas to jihad and terrorism without scrutiny. Clearly, the channel was trying to push this narrative of the madrassa or all madrassas being a/the centre of illegalities. The presentation of the debate, by repeatedly showing the students reading Namaaz at a madrassa. The complaint pointed to one point wherein the host shows data of some people from Muslim community linked with terror outfits, who once studied in these madrassas (presumably).

The show’s tickers, such as “If Yogi is acting on madrassas, why are Maulanas worried?” and “If terrorism is being taught, will madrassas be shut down?” reinforced the inflammatory narrative. The complaint emphasised that the host showed clear bias, failed to remain neutral, and allowed baseless claims to go unchecked, leading to a divisive, polarising debate.

In conclusion, the complaint had argued that the debate lacked focus, with irrelevant participants, and was designed to stir communal tensions rather than provide constructive discussion. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Right to legitimate raise concerns sans misinformation: The broadcaster was within its rights to raise concerns about madrassas based on the Uttar Pradesh Government’s survey of illegal madrassas, however the same should have been done without slanting the findings of the government survey.
2. Distortion of facts: The NBDSA found that the broadcaster distorted the survey’s findings, suggesting madrassas were linked to terrorism without credible evidence.
3. Problematic statements: Statements from the anchor and panellists insinuating madrassas were breeding grounds for terrorism violated principles of impartiality and neutrality.
4. Violation of standards and guidelines: The broadcaster breached broadcasting standards on impartiality, objectivity, and racial/religious harmony.

Decision by the NBDSA

1. Censure: The broadcaster was censured for distorting facts and making unsupported allegations.
2. Advisory: The broadcaster was advised to adhere to principles of impartiality and neutrality in future broadcasts.
3. Content removal: The broadcaster was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and confirm this to NBDSA.

The complete order may be read below:

4. Order on complaint against ‘stay on ASI survey of Gyanvapi Mosque’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On August 16, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) lodged a complaint against the Times Now Navbharat show “Rashtravad | Gyanvapi Survey के बाद ‘ज्ञानवापी आंदोलन”, which aired on July 24, 2023, the same day the Supreme Court of India granted interim protection against the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey at the Gyanvapi Mosque. The complaint raised concerns about the divisive and communal nature of the debate presented during the show.

The complaint emphasised that the host, Rakesh Pandey, presented a one-sided narrative that painted the Muslim community in a suspicious light. Before the debate even began, the host propagated his biased views, suggesting that Muslims were trying to delay the survey because they were “scared of the truth coming out.” The host framed the issue as a battle between the Muslim community and the truth, without any effort to present multiple perspectives. The questions posed by the host to the debate participants were instigating and communal, such as questioning why Muslim parties were afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque, and whether the ASI survey had found evidence of a temple. These questions were criticised for their provocative nature and for creating a polarised environment.

The complaint also pointed out that during the debate, the host allowed Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, a representative of the Hindu parties in the Gyanvapi case, to dominate the conversation. The show gave the impression of promoting a religious or sectarian agenda rather than presenting a balanced news discussion. CJP highlighted how the host repeatedly implied that the Muslim community was obstructing the truth and suggested that the issue was part of a religious confrontation. The host also compared the Gyanvapi case to the Ayodhya case, accusing Muslims of provoking the community by drawing parallels with the Babri Masjid.

Furthermore, the complaint criticised the lack of neutral questioning, pointing out that the host never questioned whether the Muslim parties had the right to approach the Supreme Court or expressed any doubt about the existence of a temple beneath the mosque. Instead, the host consistently implied that the truth would eventually be revealed in favour of the Hindu community.

CJP concluded that the show violated journalistic ethics by promoting a communal agenda and failing to uphold impartiality on a sub-judice matter, as required by the NBDSA. They demanded that the impugned content be removed from all social media platforms of the channel and that a public apology be issued for the communal nature of the reporting. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Editorial freedom and sensitivity: NBDSA acknowledged that while the broadcaster has editorial freedom to conduct debates on any topic, such discussions must be handled with care, especially when they relate to sensitive issues currently under judicial consideration.
2. Failure to adhere to reporting guidelines: The NBDSA observed that the anchor violated specific guidelines related to reporting on court proceedings. The anchor raised conjectural and speculative questions about the motives of Muslims regarding the Gyanvapi Mosque survey, which is sub judice. This violated Guideline 3, which prohibits conjecture and speculation in reports related to ongoing court proceedings.
3. Communal bias: Instead of maintaining an objective and neutral tone, the anchor repeatedly referred to the parties involved as “Hindu Paksh” and “Muslim Paksh,” which contributed to giving the debate a communal slant. This was seen as a misrepresentation of the facts and a violation of broadcasting standards related to racial and religious harmony.
4. Violation of broadcasting ethics: By framing the debate in a communal context, the broadcaster violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, especially the guidelines on impartiality and neutrality when reporting on sensitive matters such as court proceedings.

Decision by the NBDSA:

1. Admonition and censure: The NBDSA decided to admonish and censure the broadcaster for violating broadcasting standards. The broadcaster was advised by the NBDSA to avoid giving a communal slant to sensitive issues, especially when the matter is pending in court.
2. Content removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and delete all hyperlinks to the content. The broadcaster must confirm this action in writing to NBDSA within 7 days of the order.

The complete order may be read below:

In summary, through all these four orders, the NBDSA emphasised the importance of adhering to court reporting guidelines and maintaining neutrality and impartiality in broadcasts, especially on sensitive and ongoing legal matters. The broadcaster was censured for not doing so, along with being asked to remove the impugned video, and corrective actions were mandated.

By ordering the removal of the contentious shows and issuing warnings to the broadcaster, the NBDSA has set a firm precedent for maintaining integrity, impartiality, and responsibility in public discourse. This series of orders highlights a clear message: responsible journalism is essential for fostering an informed society, and breaches that compromise fairness, objectivity, and communal harmony will not go unchecked. The decisive steps taken here reinforce the role of media as a pillar of democracy, entrusted with delivering accurate and unbiased information. As the media landscape continues to evolve, these actions serve as a reminder that accountability and ethical standards are the foundation upon which trustworthy journalism is built.

It is essential to note that the NBDSA also clarified that any statements made by the parties involved in the NBDSA proceedings, whether in response to the complaint or while presenting their viewpoints, as well as any findings or observations made by the NBDSA in these proceedings or in this Order, are solely for the purpose of assessing potential violations of broadcasting standards and guidelines. Hence, these statements are not to be interpreted as admissions by the broadcaster, nor are the findings to be considered as determinations of any civil or criminal liability.

Related:

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for communal bias in their news segment on the arrest of singer Altaf Hussain in Assam

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for broadcasting misleading news on Madrassas

CJP Impact! Two contentious Times Now Navbharat shows directed to be removed by NBDSA

NBDSA: CJP escalates complaint to authorities against Times Now Navbharat debate show

CJP Victory! NBDSA orders removal of contested debate show aired by Times Now Navbharat

CJP complains against 3 shows of Times Now Navbharat

The post Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the last three months, BJP has spent Rs 2.25 crores on political advertisements on Facebook. Half of this money was spent by BJP’s official page where 3100 advertisements were posted that made about 10 crore impressions. At the same time, about 15000 paid advertisements were spread through shadow pages by spending Rs 87 lakh which were viewed about 45 crore times. The research has identified 90 such shadow accounts, the main ones among which are ‘Jharkhand Choupal‘ and other ‘Choupal’ accounts associated with it.

While BJP’s official page pushes out political ads, these shadow accounts mainly post communal and divisive content. Including ads against the Hemant Soren government and alliance parties (details in annexure). Four main types of ads were identified – first, that portray Muslims as the enemy; second, which promote communal divide; third, where the Adivasi chief minister of Jharkhand Hemant Soren is portrayed as a beast with horns on his head; and fourth, with conspiracy theories about ‘infiltrators’. The readers are incited and mobilized against Hemant Soren government and the INDIA parties through these posts.  About 90 such shadow pages are operating across the state that post 5 times the number of ads as BJP and garners 4 times more online impressions. Some examples are attached.

One of the communal videos being circulated on the accounts shows a group of people dressed in saffron clothes as Hindus and a group dressed in green clothes as Muslims. The Hindu group first runs away from the Muslim group. Then the Hindu group unites and runs after the Muslim group. The basic lesson shared through the video is that if Hindus unite, they can finish Muslims.

Interestingly, these Facebook pages do not have BJP’s name or election symbol. But their posts highlight BJP’s communal agenda. Since all the posts are paid for means that Facebook is making money while spreading them. The study also states that the mobile numbers, websites, and address provided on the pages were fake and didn’t exist.

Compared to BJP, other parties have barely spent any money on social media for paid advertisements. The Supreme Court’s order says that the code of conduct and election rules apply to social media as well. But it seems that the Election Commission has given BJP a free reign to use shadow pages to spread communal hatred and polarize voters on religious grounds. A similar indifferent attitude is visible in the speeches of BJP politicians and ministers as well. Even after the implementation of the code of conduct, all the major BJP politicians including Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma are polarizing the voters on religious grounds by delivering hateful and provocative speeches and asking for votes in the name of religion. Himanta Biswa Sarma is doing nothing but this. Despite numerous complaints made to the Chief Electoral Officer against this serious violation of the code of conduct, no action has been taken from his side. It seems that the Election Commission is working like BJP’s party office.

Loktantra Bachao Abhiyan reminds the Election Commission of its constitutional responsibility and dignity and demands the following:

–  All shadow pages working for BJP should be closed immediately and legal action should be taken based on communal and divisive posts shared by them.

–  Polarizing voters by silently spending lakhs on shadow accounts is economic and political corruption. The Election Commission should act against this corruption.

–  The election commission must act on the complaints given by Loktantra Bachao Abhiyan.

Related:

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

BJP Jharkhand manifesto splashes 23 pictures of Modi, neglects party’s Adivasi faces

MCC Violation: Thane police booked hate offender Kajal Hindustani following CJP’s Complaint

CJP Highlights MCC Violation: urges Maharashtra Election Commission to act on Hate Speech

CJP files complaint before Maharashtra Police against serial hate offender Kajal Hindustani

CJP complaints to the Maharashtra Election Commission over communal posters featuring UP CM Yogi Adityanath

The post BJP spreading sea of hatred on social media before Jharkhand elections, ECI mum – shocking facts revealed in research report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Later in October, Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand Swami reportedly expressed his outrage and refused to visit Shimla’s famous Ram Mandir due to the presence of a Sai Baba idol in the temple.

Although not frequent, a constant sort of attack is visible from sections of Hindutva on Sai Baba, the saint of Shirdi. The reason is evident.

Shirdi Sai Baba is the latest symbol of a pluralist Hinduism where each Hindu can have her own connection with the god of her choice. Sai Baba represents a paradigm of Hinduism which the fundamentalists of the religion cannot control. To understand how he came to be revered by crores of people across the country, we will have to understand the emergence of a composite culture in India from 10^th Century to the time of Sai Baba.

Bhakti and Sufi movements in India

Bhakti and Sufi movements in India are vital points of Indian history. They have shaped how Indian society understands and follows religion today. While the Bhakti movement is said to have originated in South India during the 7^th century—Sufi saints, often referred to as fakirs had arrived in India as early as the 12th century, promoting a message of love, devotion, and inclusivity. Their teachings attracted people from various backgrounds, blurring the lines between Islam and Hinduism.[1] Sufi shrines (dargahs) emerged as important centres of social and religious interaction, drawing both Muslims and Hindus seeking spiritual solace and guidance. Meerabai, a Bhakti poet and a devotee of Krishna is a celebrated figure in India today.[2]

These movements were radical when seen against the ritual heavy Vedic religion since they spoke about a personal connection with the god without any middlemen. See the following piece written by Kabir, arguably the most important Sufi saint who some scholars say also have been an influence on Guru Nanak[3]:

मोकों कहाँ ढूँढ़े बंदे, मैं तो तेरे पास में।

(Where do you search for me? I am with you.)

ना मैं देवल ना मैं मसजिद, ना काबे कैलास में।

(I am neither in temple nor in Masjid. Neither in Kaba nor in Kailash.)

ना तो कौन क्रिया-कर्म में, नहीं योग बैराग में।

(I am neither in Karma nor in Yogic Exercises.)

खोजी होय तो तुरतै मिलिहौं, पल भर की तलास में।

(If you search for me, I will be found within a moment of such search)

This personal connection between human and God is radical and represents a powerful departure from the traditional, ritualistic religious practices prevalent during that era. Kabir’s verses emphasize the idea that God is within each individual, accessible without the need for elaborate rituals, idols, or intermediaries. This egalitarian approach of the Bhakti and Sufi movements made them appealing across social strata, reaching out to people marginalized by caste hierarchies and orthodox religious practices.

Both movements held that devotion and sincerity of the heart are the true paths to spirituality, rather than rigid adherence to rituals or scriptures. Bhakti saints like Tulsidas, Surdas, and Tukaram, along with Sufi saints like Nizamuddin Auliya and Moinuddin Chishti, embodied these ideals. They preached in local languages, making their teachings accessible to the common people and creating a new, culturally rich poetic and spiritual tradition.

The simplicity and inclusivity of these messages posed a challenge to the established social order. By focusing on personal piety, the Bhakti and Sufi movements implicitly questioned the authority of the Brahmanical hierarchy and the rigidity of caste, albeit not directly in all cases. Additionally, these movements fostered a sense of unity and tolerance, encouraging people to transcend religious boundaries.

This spirit of inclusivity and devotion influenced later figures, such as Guru Nanak, who drew from both Bhakti and Sufi teachings, ultimately leading to the formation of Sikhism. The legacies of these movements remain significant today, highlighting the enduring value of unity, love, and a direct connection with the divine in Indian spirituality.

Composite secular culture and Sai Baba

Sai Baba’s origins are mysterious, leading to differing beliefs about his background. Some accounts suggest he was born to Deshastha Brahmin parents in Pathri and was entrusted to a fakir as an infant, while others say he was born into a Muslim family under the Nizam’s rule, reflecting Nizam Shahi traditions. Sai Baba himself remained silent on his origins and grew angry when questioned, adding to the intrigue surrounding his identity. In 1858, Sai Baba arrived in Shirdi, Maharashtra, with a wedding procession, where the temple priest Mahalsapathi welcomed him as “Sai.” He embraced the name and spent his early days under a neem tree, later residing in a masjid he named Dwarkamai.[4]

His teachings emphasised love, tolerance, and the unity of all religions. In his book ‘Shirdi Sai Baba—A Practical God, K.K. Dixit writes that Sai Baba believed that every person was free to have faith in any religion or deity they wished to follow. According to Dixit, Sai Baba never compelled anyone to withdraw themselves from their religious beliefs, but instead helped them to develop a deeper faith, whether it was in Krishna, Ram or Rahim.[5]

Sai Baba embodied a blend of Hindu and Muslim traditions, creating a composite culture that welcomed everyone and was influenced by Kabir. Living in a mosque he named Dwarkamai, he maintained a sacred fire, a Sufi tradition, while also observing Hindu customs like blowing conch shells and performing ritual offerings. He celebrated festivals like Ram Navami and Eid with equal enthusiasm, attracting followers from all backgrounds through his simplicity, compassion, and rumored miracles.

By treating everyone equally, Sai Baba promoted inclusivity, welcoming people of all castes and religions, including untouchables and lepers, into Dwarkamai, which he called a “place of shelter for everyone.” His teachings on unity transcended religious labels, emphasizing the shared essence of spirituality and the equality of all beings. When pressed about his religious identity, he reacted strongly, suggesting that his focus was beyond specific labels and centred on spiritual universality.

Sai Baba’s unique blend of spirituality and charisma drew followers, many of whom were Hindu. Although he appeared as a faqīr and resided in a mosque, his Hindu followers wished to worship him in their own ways, sometimes even as a deity. Initially, Sai Baba resisted such worship but eventually allowed and adapted to Hindu rituals. By 1908, his followers began congregational worship with traditional Hindu ceremonies like āratīs and devotional songs. Though he refused a palanquin, he permitted processions with devotees. In 1913, he accepted Hindu customs, like applying sandal paste, and remarked, “As the country, so the custom,” showing his openness to diverse practices.[6]

This later culminated into many Hindus seeing Sai Baba as an incarnation of Dattatreya, a god who is a combination of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva—a supreme being. This information about Sai Baba being an incarnation of Dattatreya is also mentioned in the Shri Sai Satcharita published by the Shir Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi.[7] Sai Baba is revered across India and especially in south India and not many know of this connection of his to Hindu pantheon. He is revered nevertheless.

It is important to note that Sai Baba’s secular teachings were happening in modern India at a time when British was trying to divide and rule the Indian polity. Therefore, the spirit of his teachings—of unity and of finding one’s connection to one’s own god are of importance today too, as fundamentalist forces try to sow divisions in the society

Conclusion

Whether or not one believes Sai Baba to be a god, his contributions to a secular, inclusive view of spirituality are undeniable. His approach—encouraging devotees to honour their own gods—stood in contrast to fundamentalist ideas that promote worship of a single set of deities within Hindu society. This stance is why he faces criticism from fundamentalist forces. In an era of increasing polarization, Sai Baba and his followers serve as powerful examples of pluralism within Hinduism.

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

[1] Mratkhuzina, G.F., Bobkov, D.V., Khabibullina, A.M. and Ahmad, I.G., 2019. Sufism: Spiritual and cultural traditions in India. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 8(3), pp.434-441.

[2] Das, A. and Mittapalli, R., 2023. The Contribution of Akka Mahadevi and Mirabai to Bhakti Literature: A Comparative Study from the 21st-Century Perspective.

[3] Mann, G.S., 2010. Guru Nanak’s Life and Legacy: An Appraisal. Journal of Punjab Studies, 17, pp.1-2.

[4] https://sai.org.in/en/history

[5] Dixit, K. K. Shirdi Sai Baba: A Practical God. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2011.

[6] der Orientalistik, H., Handbook of Oriental Studies. Erste Abteilung. Der Nahe und.

[7] Dabholkar, G.R, Shri Sai Satcharitra, Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi.

Related:

Baba Chamliyal: The Healing Saint of Unity and Faith across Borders

Watch: Sufism and its influence on Indian music

Gujarat 1992: Hindus who saved a dargah in Surat

The post Sab ka Malik Ek: Sai Baba and pluralism within Hinduism 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.

The distinction between the themes of thumbnails and the actual content of video is stark, often serving merely as a trigger to provoke viewers into clicking on sensational videos. This tactic exploits ongoing, contentious issues that evoke curiosity and generate excitement among audiences. Thumbnails designed to capture attention ask questions like, “What will happen next?” This psychological appeal plays into a fundamental human tendency to seek out information about impending developments (and often, accompanied by a sense of apprehension, or doom).

Media channels compete fiercely to deliver the latest updates, often prioritizing sensationalism over accuracy.

For example, when gangster Atiq Ahmad was transferred from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh in Umesh Pal murder case, media outlets sensationalised the event with dramatic thumbnails reading “Encounter” or “Accident,” creating an atmosphere of anticipation.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/zCIOkJVgJBk?si=afQvPRSXq-eq9bgQ

From “Ab Hoga Khel” to “Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai,” the pursuit of engagement in Indian media has increasingly prioritised sensationalism, leveraging eye-catching punctuation like exclamation marks and question marks. This strategy aims to captivate viewers, often at the expense of truth. As headlines grow more dramatic, they foster an environment ripe for misleading news and toxic narratives. Thumbnails designed to grab attention can misrepresent the actual content, leading to a cycle of misinformation. In this race for views, media outlets often harvest hate and divisive content, exacerbating communal and social tensions.

The lure of sensationalism

The YouTube media environment is a bustling arena where competition for viewer attention is fierce. In this race, headlines have transformed into clickbait, carefully crafted to provoke emotional responses rather than inform. The use of punctuation marks like exclamation points and question marks has become a hallmark of this sensationalism. A simple headline can shift from informative to inflammatory with just a few strategic characters.

Take, for instance, the phrase “Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai” (Something Big Is Going to Happen), this phrase evokes curiosity and anticipation, especially for J&K reporting and the issue involves communal agenda. It draws viewers in, promising excitement or drama. When paired with an exclamation mark, the urgency escalates, making it almost impossible for viewers to scroll past without clicking. But what lies behind these headlines often falls short of the promises made, leaving viewers with distorted narratives that can shape their beliefs and attitudes in harmful ways.

Reporting of Bahraich violence

Pertinently, during the recent Bahraich violence, YouTube news channels of several media houses resorted to inflammatory and provocative thumbnails, effectively sensationalising the events to create a dramatic climax. Phrases like “100 Ghanto Main… Encounter Ke Baad, Force Ne Ghera Pura Bahraich! Bhage Musalman! Bhayankar Action Shuru” dominated their narratives, casting the incident in a sensational light that fueled fear and division. Further inflammatory headlines, such as “Bahraich Hinsa par Yogi ka tagda aylaan, sunte hi kamp uthe ‘Musalman’!”, served to criminalize a particular community, reinforcing harmful Islamic stereotypes and framing the narrative as a government versus Muslim conflict.

This approach not only misrepresents the complexity of the situation but also positions UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as a savior figure in the face of alleged threats. Media coverage linked various incidents—from the Durga Puja pandal dispute to the murder of Ram Gopal Mishra and the arrests of suspects—using hate-filled thumbnails to garner mass viewership through sensationalism. By prioritising provocative imagery and sensational headlines, these channels contribute to a divisive atmosphere that undermines community cohesion.

Thumbnails:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/JFt7lrJU6dw?si=5eHeBS6XNlT7MRil

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/80TIOrOTCcQ?si=0KL8V6fIJlc40spw

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/r5_AysKMOZY?si=0-CRcTP6uTqqADoq

How the Waqf board law was analysed

YouTube news channels have manipulated the Waqf Amendment Bill, framing it as a communal battle that amplifies Muslim concerns about its potential consequences. Major media houses have exploited this sensitive issue by using provocative thumbnails featuring banners of the Waqf Board and images of Muslims protesting, effectively narrating a narrative of government versus Muslims. This sensational approach oversimplifies a complex legal issue, overshadowing the genuine concerns of the community with a polarized view.

The subsequent introduction of thumbnails promoting the “Santan Board” as a competing entity further blurs the importance of the amendment in its legal and contextual sense. By reducing a nuanced discussion to a sensationalised spectacle, these channels contribute to an atmosphere of division and fear, undermining the constructive dialogue needed to address the implications of the Waqf Amendment Bill. This manipulation detracts from the real stakes involved, distorting public perception and perpetuating communal tensions.

Thumbnails:

Link: https://youtu.be/cVkeEdN6xnI?si=s7Iv49EKFCGKjtBn

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/rwh_wE8TQ6w?si=TwutaSpz_9C_4wbn

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/akyznFPS9Qo?si=hvUldxA5BSUmqKzL

Link: https://youtu.be/VyK6nQ_hSUw?si=1IMMU3KLmtNdks_g

Insensitivity in reporting J&K news

The use of thumbnails for reporting, particularly concerning Jammu and Kashmir, has become increasingly insensitive and sensationalised, exploiting the region’s struggles with terrorism and other basic necessities in rural areas, for ratings and viewership. As Jammu and Kashmir grapples with ongoing terror attacks that significantly impact the lives of its residents, it is disheartening to see journalists and anchors using these life and death issues as mere fodder for TRP-driven programming.

Many reports on the situation in J&K lack factual context and credible sources, further contributing to a distorted narrative. Sensational thumbnails on platforms like YouTube—such as “Kashmir Main Kuch Bada Bone Wala Hain,” “High alert,” and “Bada Khatra”—illustrate this troubling trend. These phrases not only exaggerate the situation but also foster unnecessary fear and anxiety among viewers.

Moreover, the inclusion of unrelated figures, such as UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in headlines about Kashmir, adds to both the confusion and sensationalism. A thumbnail proclaiming “Kashmir Main Yogi-Shah! Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hain” exemplifies how media channels prioritise clicks over responsible reporting.

This relentless pursuit of sensationalism often features alarming visuals, such as bombs and gunfire, to evoke dramatic imagery in viewers’ minds, disregarding the sensitivity required when discussing the real lives affected by such terror activities. By sensationalising these issues, media houses not only undermine their credibility but also show a blatant disregard for the lives and struggles of the people in Jammu and Kashmir.

Thumbnails:

1 of 6

Link: https://youtu.be/BJgx6hAb_yo?si=WoIDqUaofYdccoA3

Link: https://youtu.be/jpbnR-_A_lM?si=g6QD4MTgaYKdEjET

Link: https://youtu.be/FGbSBnqk6Xc?si=RwR0V8sE4Wf2Bv9T

Link: https://youtu.be/X8gCL-ns6v0?si=d1z4qXBgWucItHYf

Link: https://youtu.be/WQdByDzh2Bs?si=5-zJOYOzX9YuyLgB

Link: https://youtu.be/1DaCKrQydY0?si=VBEbnb1taEzcfXoH

Baba Siddiqui murder and sensational thumbnails

In the current media landscape, misleading thumbnails have proliferated, particularly surrounding the tensions circulated on media between Bollywood actor Salman Khan and gangster Lawrence Bishnoi.

Headlines like “Salman Khan Apologizes to Lawrence Bishnoi” and “Salman Met Lawrence in Jail” attempt to create a dramatic climax to their ongoing saga, often sensationalizing the narrative without factual basis. Other thumbnails suggest absurd scenarios, such as Lawrence “catching” Salman or claiming Yogi Adityanath has launched 5,000 commandos to apprehend him.

Further sensationalism includes claims that Bishnoi will donate a gold crown to the Ram Mandir to garner sympathy from devotees, or that Salman is fleeing to Dubai to evade Bishnoi’s wrath. There are also wild suggestions of a settlement happening in Sabarmati or that Bishnoi is poised to win an election in Mumbai. In an even darker twist, thumbnails hint at Lawrence being killed, adding to the sensational nature of these narratives.

Such thumbnails, used by multiple prominent media houses, are often devoid of substance and context. They prioritise clicks over accuracy, fueling misinformation and contributing to a climate of fear and confusion among viewers.

Thumbnails:

1 of 9

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/Qj5iK16ejfE?si=BIGEENXeJ8m9wkM-

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/vYGaYxEXvRo?si=N-Vf40yVhKrHqc1b

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/4AVy_3hMNGE?si=j_e2sSrqMbAbRF7S

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/YjjkxPFKyyw?si=43g64sQLoRXdnzvj

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/2_XfTCc5IZc?si=ehYGNLO-8I-6MTiU

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/V815BHS_7Kc?si=Out0I3VhQXKzwea0

Link: https://youtube.com/post/UgkxDWyRlittS8DXonMvJWOiDrXkqEWUrTBK?si=ioCxML7OVQ0HpWbu

Link: https://youtube.com/post/UgkxDWyRlittS8DXonMvJWOiDrXkqEWUrTBK?si=ioCxML7OVQ0HpWbu

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/niSOYgZedCg?si=1VG2e7blB9VYb_Dj

Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand Mosques Dispute

In September 2024, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand experienced unexpected communal tensions stemming from disputes and protests over the alleged construction of mosques in Sanjauli (Shimla), Mandi, Kullu, and Uttarkashi. During this volatile period, YouTube channels largely chose to emphasise agenda-driven and communal hate thumbnails like “Land Jihad” “Hindu Jag Gaya”, again “Kuch Bada Hone Wala hai”, which tainted the factual context of these sensitive issues. Instead of advocating for peace and harmony in the affected areas, these channels leveraged sensationalism to attract views, disregarding their responsibility as major news platforms.

With millions of viewers relying on these channels for information, the decision to use inflammatory thumbnails has the potential to escalate tensions further, breeding misinformation and hatred among interfaith communities. Rather than fostering understanding and dialogue, the focus on sensational headlines exacerbates divisions. As media outlets have a crucial role in shaping public perception, it is imperative that they exercise caution and sensitivity in their reporting. Responsible journalism should prioritize factual accuracy and promote community harmony, especially in times of heightened conflict of communal issues.

Thumbnails:

1 of 5

Link: https://youtu.be/o2nYfBiECcM?si=YlMC0fHzMWuaAKKJ

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWwCBHWHQO8&pp=ygUTSU5ESUEgVFYgbGFuZCBqaWhhZA%3D%3D

Link: https://youtu.be/JMqNnlwo610?si=hStAi93bPO8bnEwL

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJpJF7knTA

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1mrZtW5heg

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttXrRxGot_w

Thumbnails for Uniform Civil Code

While the implementation of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) affects every religious denomination, the issue is often singularly focussed on the ‘Muslim reaction.’ For example, a Times Now anchor focused an entire program on what Muslims would supposedly lose with a UCC enforcement. The introduction and thumbnail prominently featured religious symbols and imagery, framing the narrative to suggest that the UCC is designed to curtail the special rights of Muslims compared to other citizens. This portrayal implies that the justification for implementing the UCC hinges solely on limiting the rights of a particular community, rather than discussing the issue in general perspective. Such a skewed representation not only misleads viewers but also fosters division by creating an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding around the UCC’s intentions. In this context, sensationalism overshadows the broader discussions around the UCC, ultimately distorting public perception and dialogue around a crucial legislative issue.

Thumbnails:

1 of 5

Link: https://youtu.be/bl30OoFtK58?si=L72k0TBvJ1gk9a42

Link: https://youtu.be/VeYGGdPveSU?si=8PCQ7faKFUxJ7rx7

Link: https://youtu.be/2371gEjEyig?si=gN4z6Oy2dYITtSBE

Link: https://www.youtube.com/live/h-gZzZ-fkSQ?si=lySZ7GfvrnhdAhD4

Link: https://youtu.be/BpYKKWeOb54?si=6HsCuDltN6CooKGb

YouTube’s Thumbnail policy

Under YouTube’s “Thumbnail Policy,” it is explicitly stated that thumbnails and other images violating the platform’s Community Guidelines are prohibited. This policy encompasses all visual elements, including those used in banners, avatars, community posts, and other features.

YouTube has made it clear that users can report thumbnails or images that breach these guidelines through established reporting procedures. By encouraging active user participation in monitoring content, YouTube empowers its community to help maintain a safer online environment.

However, the responsibility doesn’t solely lie with users; YouTube must also enhance its moderation efforts and algorithms to proactively identify and remove misleading and harmful thumbnails before they reach a wider audience. By prioritising the enforcement of its policies and promoting responsible content creation, YouTube can significantly reduce the impact of sensationalism and misinformation on its platform, fostering a more informed and respectful discourse.

YouTube’s Thumbnail Policy provides that;

Don’t post a thumbnail or other image on YouTube if it shows:

• Pornographic imagery
• Sexual acts, the use of sex toys, fetishes, or other sexually gratifying imagery
• Nudity, including genitals
• Imagery that depicts unwanted sexualization
• Violent imagery that intends to shock or disgust
• Graphic or disturbing imagery with blood or gore
• Vulgar or lewd language
• A thumbnail that misleads viewers to think they’re about to view something that’s not in the video

Although, the above list isn’t complete.

Despite these stated guidelines, sensationalism bordering on targeted hate, persists. The quest for clicks on YouTube channels has transformed the media landscape into one where sensationalism reigns supreme, often at the expense of truth and integrity. Thumbnails designed to provoke curiosity and generate excitement frequently misrepresent actual content, leading viewers down a path of misleading narratives and hate-driven rhetoric. Phrases like “Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai” capture attention but fail to deliver on their negative promises, distorting perceptions around critical issues such as communal tensions and social unrest. This relentless pursuit of engagement encourages the consumption of inflammatory content, exacerbating divisions within society.

Therefore, it is imperative for YouTube and media channels to take a stand against provocative and harmful digital content. They must prioritise the removal of insensitive thumbnails, especially concerning sensitive issues, and commit to responsible journalism that fosters informed discourse rather than sensationalism. By doing so, media outlets can help restore trust, promote social harmony, and contribute to a healthier public dialogue—one that values truth over clicks.

Related:

CJP urges for removal of contentious Aaj Tak show on Hemant Soren, sends complaint to channel

CJP urges for removal of contentious Aaj Tak show on Hemant Soren, sends complaint to channel

CJP Impact: YouTube responds to CJP’s complaint, takes down hate filled content!

The post From ‘Ab Hoga Khel’ to ‘Kuch Bada Hone Wala Hai’: the trap set by thumbnails appeared first on SabrangIndia.