Tanya Arora | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/content-author-28800/ News Related to Human Rights Mon, 24 Mar 2025 13:04:15 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Tanya Arora | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/content-author-28800/ 32 32 Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement https://sabrangindia.in/demolition-of-fahim-khans-house-a-political-message-disguised-as-law-enforcement/ Mon, 24 Mar 2025 13:04:15 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40723 Maharashtra Government deploys bulldozer crackdown in Nagpur violence case, demolishes two houses of accused defying legal norms and Supreme Court guidelines

The post Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On Monday, March 24, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC), under heavy police security and drone surveillance, demolished the home of Fahim Khan, a leader of the Minority Democratic Party (MDP) who has been charged with sedition in connection with the March 17 communal violence in Nagpur. As per multiple media reports, three JCB machines were deployed at 10:30 am to bring down Khan’s residence in Sanjay Bagh Colony, Yashodhara Nagar, in what has now become a disturbing pattern of extrajudicial punitive action targeting Muslims in BJP-ruled states.

 

Demolition of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, also an accused in the Nagpur violence case, was also reported on the same day.

It is essential to note that the Municipal authorities have claimed the demolition was carried out under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, citing “unauthorised construction” as the reason. However, the selective and arbitrary nature of such demolitions raises serious questions about due process and the rule of law. Khan, who remains in judicial custody, is among more than 100 individuals—mostly Muslims—arrested in connection with the violence. Local residents have accused the police of bias and indiscriminate arrests, further deepening fears of state-sponsored communal targeting. The suggestions of there being biased enquiry into this violence can also viewed from the fact that the 11 members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who had allegedly burnt the effigy of Aurangzeb as well as a chadar from a local Dargah to demand the removal of the tomb of Aurangzeb, had been given bail hours after surrendering to the police.

In regards to the demolition of Fahim Khan’s house, Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s deputy engineer, Sunil Gajbhiye, asserted that the demolition was conducted after an “investigation” and a 24-hour notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. However, the absurdity of such rapid enforcement—especially when encroachments by politically influential individuals often remain untouched for decades—suggests that this was less about urban planning and more about political retribution.

While Indian law does not permit property demolitions as a punitive measure, the BJP has increasingly used this tactic as an extrajudicial weapon against Muslims, particularly in cases of communal violence. Despite a Supreme Court stay on such measures, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis brazenly justified the “bulldozer action,” declaring on March 22 that it would be used “wherever required.” He further stated that damage caused during the violence would be recovered from the accused, failing which their property would be seized and auctioned. The CM also alarmingly suggested that those accused of inciting violence through social media would be treated as co-accused, raising concerns about potential misuse of state power to silence dissent.

The government’s rhetoric has been disturbingly violent, with Maharashtra minister Pratap Sarnaik openly advocating for extrajudicial violence, stating, “The bulldozer should be run over him, not his house, if anyone is involved in such violent activities.” His remarks, reported by the Deccan Herald, reflect the growing normalisation of state brutality and the erosion of legal safeguards.

The pattern of bulldozer politics, seen recently in Sambhal and other BJP-governed regions, is not just a violation of legal norms but a deliberate strategy to intimidate and collectively punish Muslims. That such actions continue despite the Supreme Court’s directives underscores the growing impunity of state actors who use communal violence as a pretext to enforce their majoritarian agenda.

With at least 105 individuals arrested and multiple FIRs registered, the situation in Nagpur reveals a deeply disturbing reality: rather than upholding the principles of justice and accountability, the state is resorting to bulldozers and arbitrary punishment, sending a chilling message about whose rights matter in today’s India.

Lifting of curfew, multiple arrest and a fatality

It is also crucial to provide here that the communal violence that erupted in Nagpur on March 17 has now resulted in the death of a 38-year-old man, Irfan Ansari, who succumbed to his injuries at Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital on March 23. A welder by profession, Ansari had left home to catch a train to Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh but was caught in the chaos near Central Avenue. He was brutally attacked by a mob, sustaining severe head injuries. His family was informed only after the police took him to the hospital, where he briefly regained consciousness before succumbing to his wounds.

The Nagpur police have arrested a total of 105 individuals in connection with the violence, including 14 people, among them 10 minors, who were detained earlier this week. According to Deputy Commissioner of Police Lohit Matani, 13 cases have been registered, and multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed. Assistant Public Prosecutor Megha Burange confirmed that 19 accused individuals had been remanded in custody until March 24.

The violence occurred just hours after Hindutva groups held a demonstration demanding the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. In response, authorities imposed prohibitory orders across 11 police station jurisdictions. While restrictions were gradually eased in some areas by March 21, the curfew was fully lifted on March 24, with police continuing to patrol sensitive localities.

Communal narratives and unverified claims of ‘Bangladeshi’ links

On Sunday, March 23, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Nirupam had made unverified claims about the involvement of individuals linked to Bangladesh in the recent violence in Nagpur. At a press conference, Nirupam alleged that the unrest was “pre-meditated” and part of a larger conspiracy. He also accused one of the arrested individuals of using social media to fund “Mujahideen activities,” without providing any substantial evidence.

His statements took a political turn as he attacked the rival Shiv Sena (UBT), insinuating that its leaders were aligning with extremist elements. “Is the Sena (UBT) aligning itself with the Mujahideen? Are the Thackerays and (Sanjay) Raut supporting them?” he asked, attempting to stoke communal and political divisions. Furthering his rhetoric, he claimed that Uddhav Thackeray’s residence, Matoshree, would soon display a photo of Aurangzeb alongside those of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj—an inflammatory remark aimed at discrediting the opposition.

The political exploitation of the violence has been evident in the statements of BJP allies like Sanjay Nirupam, who, instead of addressing the root causes of communal tensions, have chosen to push unverified claims of a “foreign hand” in the violence. His remarks, along with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ endorsement of punitive bulldozer actions, signal a dangerous trend of targeting minorities under the pretext of law enforcement.

The use of such rhetoric not only undermines due process but also diverts attention from the failure of law enforcement to prevent the violence in the first place. The events in Nagpur mirror a broader pattern of state-sponsored impunity, where accountability is selectively applied, and majoritarian politics dictate justice.

Police action, alleged mastermind and multiple FIRs

The Maharashtra Police have booked six individuals, including Minorities Democratic Party leader Fahim Khan, on charges of sedition and spreading misinformation on social media. The accused are among 50 others named across four FIRs.

Authorities have charged primary suspect Fahim Khan with sedition, among other offences. Police records indicate that Khan allegedly coordinated a demonstration outside a Nagpur police station on March 17. His criminal history includes charges of electricity theft and participation in protests during 2023-2024.

According to the FIR, Khan led a group of 50 to 60 individuals who illegally assembled outside Ganeshpeth police station on Monday to submit a memorandum opposing an earlier Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) protest. Officials stated that Khan and eight others later went to the Bhaldarpura area, where they found 500 to 600 people gathered near Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, which led to his arrest.’

Besides the sedition case, a separate FIR has been filed against individuals accused of editing videos of the protest against Aurangzeb, allegedly “glorifying violence” and circulating them online. Another case pertains to video clips allegedly made to incite communal clashes, while a third concerns social media posts that further fuelled tensions.

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Cyber Cell) Lohit Matani stated that misinformation was initially spread on social media, triggering the violence, followed by more videos that glorified it. “He [Fahim Khan] edited and circulated the video of the protest against Aurangzeb due to which the riots spread,” ANI quoted Matani as saying. “He also glorified violent videos.”

More than 120 people, including 11 minors, have been taken into custody, according to Commissioner Singal. Additionally, on March 19, Commissioner Singal had confirmed that investigations were ongoing to identify additional assailants and determine the involvement of individuals mentioned in the FIR regarding Khan’s suspected role in orchestrating the violence.

It is also being reported that the law enforcement has established 18 dedicated teams to pursue and capture those responsible for the unrest in Nagpur. According to a senior official, the police have identified 200 suspects and are working to determine the identities of 1,000 more individuals recorded on CCTV during the violence. Authorities have lodged five First Information Reports (FIRs) at Ganeshpeth and Kotwali police stations, naming 200 accused persons. Officials confirmed that they are reviewing CCTV recordings to identify additional participants.

As per a report of the Hindustan Times, Nagpur Commissioner of Police Dr Ravinder Kumar Singal briefed journalists about the special teams, which include personnel from Ganeshpeth, Kotwali, and Tehsil police stations, along with the Crime Branch. These teams are working in conjunction with the cyber cell to support the identification of suspects.

Aurangzeb’s tomb covered by tin sheets

In a related development, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the night of March 19 had installed tin sheets around Aurangzeb’s tomb, following orders from the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar district administration.

“The green net covering two sides of the tomb was in bad shape, and the structure was visible to those visiting the nearby Khwaja Syed Zainuddin Chishti grave,” an ASI official told PTI. “So we have installed tin sheets.”

The demand for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb has been intensifying in recent weeks, with Hindutva groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, claiming that the structure is a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

 

Congress response to the violence and reports of state bias

On March 20, Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal had informed the media about forming a team of party leaders to visit the riot-affected areas of Nagpur. The delegation includes senior leaders such as Manikrao Thakare, Shomati Thakur, Hussain Dalwai, and Sajid Pathan. Nagpur district Congress chief Thakare will serve as the convenor, while AICC Secretary Praful Gudade Patil has been appointed as the coordinator.

Meanwhile, Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi, a cleric from the Barelvi sect, had written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking a ban on the film Chhava, alleging that it incited communal tensions and was directly responsible for the Nagpur violence.

Sequence of events and aftermath

The violence in Nagpur erupted hours after Hindutva groups held a protest in the city demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb. The clashes broke out at 7:30 pm in central Nagpur’s Chitnis Park, where stones were thrown at the police amid rumours that a cloth bearing the Islamic declaration of faith, known as the Kalma, had been burned during a Hindutva-led agitation.

Unidentified Bajrang Dal office-bearers told The Indian Express that its members had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb during the protest. However, another clash erupted in Hansapuri, close to Chitnis Park, between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. The violence soon spread to Kotwali and Ganeshpeth areas, prompting the police to fire tear gas shells and resort to lathi charges to disperse the mobs. Prohibitory orders barring public gatherings were imposed within the limits of 11 police stations.

A preliminary survey found that over 60 vehicles were damaged in the violence, including 20 two-wheelers and 40 four-wheelers. Two cranes were also set on fire, with a construction company reporting a loss of Rs 70 lakh. Authorities announced that individuals whose vehicles were fully damaged would receive Rs 50,000, while those with partially damaged vehicles would be compensated with Rs 10,000. The said compensation is said to be given to the victims on March 25.

(A detailed report may be read here and here)

A disturbing precedent

The Nagpur violence and the state’s response underscore a disturbing trend of bulldozer justice, arbitrary arrests, and communalised governance. The punitive demolition of Fahim Khan’s house—while the state turns a blind eye to Hindutva organisations inciting violence—reveals a stark bias in law enforcement. Statements from ministers and ruling party leaders openly endorsing extrajudicial action further normalise the idea that the law can be bypassed when dealing with minorities.

This particular incident of demolition of the house of an accused belonging to a minority religious community is not the first incident that has taken place in Maharashtra after the BJP has formed the state government. On February 23, (Sunday) during the highly anticipated India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match 2025, a local passer-by, owing allegiance to the Vishwa Hindu Parisha (VHP), accused a 15-year-old boy from a Muslim scrap metal trading family of shouting “anti-India” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match. This event took place reportedly around 9:30 pm on February 23. Varadkar, while the complainant one Sachin Varadkar, was on his bike riding to a friend’s house and claimed to have overheard the boy and a group of others shouting what he described as “anti-India” slogans. Later that evening, when passing by the area again, Sachin Varadkar reportedly saw the boy cycling and chose to confront him. What initially seemed like a minor disagreement quickly escalated, with Varadkar allegedly taking the matter to the authorities.

The situation intensified three days later when the boy was apprehended, his parents arrested, and their scrap shop demolished following complaints from locals. Just like in Nagpur, state sponsored illegal action in the name of demotions had taken place Muslim accused with following the due procedure of law. (Detailed story on the Malvan demolition may be read here.)

The broader context of the Nagpur violence reflects an alarming state strategy: use communal tensions as a pretext for aggressive law enforcement against one community while shielding provocateurs from accountability. This pattern not only erodes faith in the justice system but also contributes to deepening social divisions in Maharashtra and beyond.

 

Related:

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

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

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

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

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

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

 

 

The post Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur https://sabrangindia.in/how-communal-unrest-was-stoked-misinformation-rumours-ignited-unrest-in-nagpur/ Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:16:35 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40620 Nagpur, Maharashtra erupts in communal violence after Aurangzeb Tomb protest by VHP-Bajrang Dal which itself followed weeks of hate speeches, based on misinformation, around the issue: vehicles were torched, security forces attacked, and over 50 arrested amid heavy police deployment

The post How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Violent clashes erupted in central Nagpur late on Monday night, March 17, leading to the arrest of at least 50 individuals after protests demanding the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb from Maharashtra escalated into widespread unrest. The situation quickly spiralled out of control, resulting in injuries to dozens of people, including security personnel, as mobs engaged in arson and attacks on public property.

 

 

According to multiple media reports, the violence stemmed from a demonstration organised by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal near the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Nagpur’s Mahal area. The protesters gathered to demand the relocation of Aurangzeb’s tomb, which is situated in Khultabad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district (formerly Aurangabad). During the protest, slogans were raised, and demonstrators allegedly burned a photograph of Aurangzeb along with a “symbolic grave wrapped in a green cloth filled with grass.” Police sources indicate that the act of burning the green cloth reportedly sparked rumours, as many believed it contained sacred verses, leading to heightened tensions.

Following this, a group of around 80 to 100 people, allegedly from the religious minority community, reacted violently, pelting stones at the police and setting multiple vehicles ablaze. An alleged clash then took place between the Muslims and the protesting Hindus. The unrest led to serious injuries, including those sustained by security personnel attempting to control the mob. Among the injured are 10 anti-riot commandos, two senior police officers, and two fire department personnel. A constable remains in critical condition. The violence also resulted in large-scale destruction, with rioters torching two bulldozers and approximately 40 vehicles, including police vans.

To restore order, law enforcement resorted to using force, employing lathi-charge and tear gas to disperse the mob. In response to the deteriorating situation, Nagpur Police Commissioner Ravinder Kumar Singal imposed a curfew in several areas of the city under Section 163 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The curfew applies to the jurisdictions of Kotwali, Ganeshpeth, Tehsil, Lakadganj, Pachpaoli, Shantinagar, Sakkardara, Nandanvan, Imamwada, Yashodharanagar, and Kapilnagar police stations. The restrictions will remain in effect until further notice.

Authorities have confirmed that the situation is now under control. However, the scale of the violence, the number of injured, and the damage caused highlight the deep-seated tensions surrounding the issue. A PTI report states that at least four civilians have been injured, while more than a dozen police personnel sustained injuries during the clashes. Security forces remain deployed in the affected areas to prevent further escalation.

Misinformation and rumours ignite unrest in Nagpur

The violence in Nagpur on the night of March 17 was largely fuelled by misinformation and rumours that spread rapidly on social media. The unrest followed a demonstration organised by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) near the statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in Mahal at around 8:30 pm. Protesters had gathered to demand the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb from Maharashtra and burned his effigy as part of their demonstration.

Hours later, tensions flared when rumours began circulating that activists from Hindu groups, including VHP and Bajrang Dal, had burned a piece of cloth inscribed with the holy kalma (Islamic prayer) and had also set fire to a copy of the Quran. According to police reports, videos of the Bajrang Dal demonstration quickly spread across social media, leading to outrage within the Muslim community. What police authorities did when and while such rumours flew fast is however, unclear. A formal complaint was subsequently lodged at the Ganeshpeth police station, alleging that a holy book had been desecrated. However, Bajrang Dal office-bearers refuted these claims, stating that they had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb and had not targeted any religious text.

As news of the alleged Quran burning spread, anger intensified. The situation escalated when reports surfaced that VHP-Bajrang Dal protesters had also burned a religious chadar near Shivaji Putla Square at Mahal Gate, a location just 2 km from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) headquarters. Clearly this was an act meant to provoke and it is not at all evident that action was initiated by the police against these miscreants. In response, a large group gathered in protest, demanding immediate action against those responsible. The protest soon turned violent, resulting in stone-pelting, arson, and violent clashes with the police.

Officials confirmed that social media played a significant role in spreading misinformation, fuelling tensions between communities. As the unrest escalated, security forces deployed riot-control measures, including water cannons and tear gas, in an attempt to disperse the crowd. Several officers were injured in the process, including Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) Archit Chandak and Niketan Kadam. Firefighters attempting to douse burning vehicles were also caught in the violence.

Eyewitnesses reported that the clashes started around 7:30 pm in the Chitnis Park area of Mahal, where groups hurled stones at the police, leaving six civilians and three officers injured. The violence then spread to other parts of the city, including Kotwali and Ganeshpeth, intensifying as the evening progressed. A resident, Sunil Peshne, told ANI that a mob of 500 to 1,000 people engaged in stone-pelting and torched multiple vehicles. He claimed that around 25-30 vehicles were damaged or destroyed during the chaos.

The timing of the unrest was particularly sensitive, as Monday marked the birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the Maratha warrior-king. It also coincided with the holy month of Ramzan, further heightening religious sensitivities. The call for the demolition of Aurangzeb’s tomb at Khuldabad in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar had gained traction on this day, adding to the charged atmosphere.

Authorities are currently reviewing CCTV footage and video clips to identify those involved in the violence. An FIR has been registered, and police teams are actively working to track down the culprits. Officials reported that the Chitnis Park to Shukrawari Talao road belt was among the worst-affected areas, where multiple four-wheelers were torched by rioters.

Residents of the Old Hislop College area near Chitnis Park spoke to PTI and claimed that a mob entered their locality around 7:30 pm, hurling stones at homes and vandalising parked cars. At least four cars were damaged, with one vehicle completely burnt. The rioters also destroyed water coolers and shattered windows before fleeing. Some residents attempted to control the fires themselves by arranging water to douse the burning vehicles.

A resident of the Hansapuri area, Sharad Gupta, recounted how his four two-wheelers, which were parked outside his home, were set ablaze by the mob between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. He suffered injuries in the attack and said the rioters also vandalised a neighbouring shop. He further alleged that the police arrived only an hour after the incident, by which time significant damage had already been done.

Fearing for their safety, some residents locked their homes and fled to safer locations in the middle of the night. A PTI correspondent witnessed a couple leaving their house at 1:20 am, seeking refuge elsewhere. Meanwhile, Chandrakant Kawde, a local resident involved in preparations for the Ram Navami Shobha Yatra, reported that the mob burned all his decoration materials and pelted stones at homes in the vicinity.

Angry residents have called for immediate police action against those responsible for the violence. While the situation is currently under control, tensions remain high as authorities continue their investigation.

 

 

Police crackdown and heightened security measures

In response to the escalating violence in Nagpur, Police Commissioner Ravinder Singal deployed over 1,000 officers and imposed prohibitory orders in key areas, including Mahal, Chitnis Park Chowk, and Bhaldarpura, to restrict movement in high-risk zones. According to a Times of India report, key roads were sealed, while additional reinforcements and intelligence teams were brought in to prevent further clashes. Despite the heavy police presence, sporadic incidents of stone-throwing continued late into the night, keeping security forces on high alert.

To maintain order, authorities utilised surveillance vehicles equipped with CCTV cameras to monitor the situation in real time. Public address systems were also used to issue warnings and instruct citizens to remain indoors. Local peace committees were activated, with law enforcement urging community leaders to play a role in de-escalating tensions and preventing further violence.

Meanwhile, security around Aurangzeb’s tomb in Khuldabad has been significantly tightened following threats against the monument. Visitors are now required to register their details and provide identification before entering the site. Additional forces, including the State Reserve Police Force (SRPF), local police, and Home Guard personnel, have been deployed in the vicinity to prevent any attempts at vandalism or desecration. Authorities remain on high alert as they continue to monitor the situation and work towards restoring normalcy.

Statement by the law enforcement authorities

Amid the volatile situation, Nagpur Police Commissioner Dr Ravinder Singal provided an update, asserting that law enforcement had responded swiftly to restore normalcy. He clarified that tensions escalated following the burning of a photograph, which led to protests and growing unrest.

“A photo was burned, leading to a group gathering and raising concerns. We intervened immediately, and some individuals visited my office to discuss the matter. I assured them that an FIR had already been filed based on the names they provided, and appropriate legal action will follow.”

Dr Singal also provided details regarding the extent of the violence, noting that the incident unfolded between 8:00 and 8:30 pm. While stone pelting and arson took place, he stated that the damage was not as widespread as initially reported.

“The destruction is relatively limited—so far, two vehicles have been set on fire. We are continuing to assess the full extent of the damage. Combing operations are underway to identify and arrest those responsible.”

To prevent further disturbances, Section 163 of the BNS, which prohibits gatherings of four or more people, has been imposed in the affected area. The Police Commissioner urged people to avoid unnecessary outings and refrain from taking the law into their own hands.

“We strongly advise citizens not to step out unless necessary and to refrain from spreading or acting upon false information. Other parts of Nagpur remain peaceful, with only the affected area under heightened security.”

Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Archit Chandak attributed the unrest to miscommunication and misinformation, confirming that the situation was now under control. He reassured the public that security measures had been strengthened to prevent any further escalation.

“We have deployed a strong security presence, and the situation is currently under control. I appeal to everyone to avoid engaging in violence, including stone-pelting.”

During the clashes, several police personnel allegedly sustained injuries, including DCP Chandak himself, who was struck in the leg. Despite this, he reaffirmed the commitment of law enforcement to maintaining order.

“The Fire Brigade was immediately called in to extinguish the fires, and prompt action was taken to disperse the crowds.”

A senior Nagpur Fire Brigade official confirmed that multiple vehicles had been torched, particularly in the Mahal area.

“Two JCBs and several other vehicles have been damaged due to arson. Unfortunately, one of our firefighters sustained injuries while trying to control the fire.”

While the immediate violence has been contained, authorities remain on high alert to prevent any recurrence. However, it has been reported that the VHP further signalled that their agitation could intensify and expand beyond Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, potentially spreading across Marathwada and other districts if their demands were not met. Their statements suggest a widening of communal tensions, raising concerns about further unrest and polarisation in the region.

Speeches prior to the clashes

The communal clashes were preceded by escalating demands for the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb, a call that gained momentum among right-wing Hindu nationalist groups, particularly the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The organisation submitted a memorandum to Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, asserting that the tomb symbolised oppression and referencing Aurangzeb’s execution of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj and his destruction of Hindu temples. Protests in support of this demand had already taken place in Nagpur and suburban Mumbai, intensifying communal tensions in the state.

BJP MLA and Cabinet Minister Nitesh Rane’s call for Hindutva action: On the eve of the clashes, Maharashtra Minister Nitesh Rane invoked the demolition of the Babri Masjid, calling upon Hindutva groups to take matters into their own hands while assuring that the government would fulfil its role. Speaking at Shivneri Fort in Pune district on the occasion of Shivaji Maharaj’s birth anniversary, Rane made his position clear:

“The government will do its part while Hindutva outfits must do theirs. When Babri Masjid was being demolished, we did not sit and talk to each other. Our karsevaks did what was appropriate.”

His statements came as the VHP staged protests at government offices across Maharashtra, demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb and warning that if the government failed to act, they would march to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar district and demolish the grave themselves.

Rane further sought to reshape historical narratives, denouncing any portrayal of Shivaji Maharaj as a secular king.

“We must continuously emphasise that Shivaji Maharaj was the founder of Hindvi Swarajya. This identity must be reiterated repeatedly so that the attempts of certain groups to portray him as a secular king can be thwarted by true devotees of Shivaji Maharaj,” he declared.

He insisted that Shivaji Maharaj’s army never included Muslim soldiers, claiming that the British themselves had recognised him as a “Hindu General.” Rane referred to historical documents that allegedly portrayed the Maratha ruler’s conflict with the Adil Shah dynasty as a religious battle, stating that “the spread of Islam was hindered during Shivaji Maharaj’s reign.”

He also referenced the film Chhaava, which depicts the torture and execution of Sambhaji Maharaj by Aurangzeb, using it to reinforce his narrative that the conflict was driven by religion.

“Aurangzeb demanded that Sambhaji Maharaj convert to Islam. Those who argue that their battle was not against Islam, how do they explain this? If it wasn’t a fight for religion, then what kind of war was it?” he asked.

Rane concluded with a veiled call to action, stating, “This is a significant day. As a minister, I have limitations on how much I can openly say, but you all know my views. Today, I am a minister, tomorrow I may not be, but until my last breath, I will remain a Hindu.”

Statements by CM Devendra Fadnavis and other BJP leaders: Earlier on the day of the clashes, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, while inaugurating a temple dedicated to Shivaji Maharaj in Bhiwandi, reiterated that the government would protect Aurangzeb’s grave but would not allow its “glorification.”

“It is unfortunate that we have to protect Aurangzeb’s grave since it was declared a protected site by the ASI 50 years ago. Aurangzeb killed thousands of our people, but we have to protect his grave,” he said in response to calls for its removal.

In Pune, right-wing groups gathered outside the district collector’s office, raising slogans and submitting a memorandum addressed to Fadnavis, insisting that the tomb should be removed as it was a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

The issue gained further traction when Fadnavis, on March 15, 2025, explicitly stated that he and his party believed that Aurangzeb’s grave should be removed from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, formerly Aurangabad. However, he acknowledged that since it was a protected monument under the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), any action must be taken in accordance with the law.

Fadnavis’ remarks were in response to BJP MP Udayanraje Bhosale’s demand to demolish Aurangzeb’s grave in Khuldabad. Bhosale, a descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, had openly called for its destruction. “What is the need for the tomb? Bring in a JCB machine and raze it down. Aurangzeb was a thief and a looter,” he declared. His statement followed a heated debate sparked by Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi, who had earlier defended Aurangzeb as a “good administrator,” dismissing claims that he forcefully converted Hindus. Azmi’s comments led to his suspension from the state assembly for the remainder of the budget session.

BJP MLA T. Raja Singh’s open call to violence: The communal atmosphere further deteriorated when Telangana BJP MLA T. Raja Singh, speaking at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal in Pune, tore a picture of Aurangzeb and called for violence against his admirers.

“The way I tore this poster, you should tear up those Aurangzeb lovers. We won’t stop; we will create history,” he declared.

He directly incited violence, stating, “Just like we broke Babri, now we will erase Aurangzeb’s tomb. We are ready to do this; we are ready to get our heads chopped and chop the heads of those terrorists.” He continued, “We are not scared to kill our enemies.”

Singh asserted that all Indians wanted Aurangzeb’s grave demolished and framed his demand within the broader goal of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. Though facing several criminal charges including in Maharashtra, this elected representative has not been once arrested in Maharashtra.

“I want to make India a Hindu Rashtra and fight a war for that. I want to create ‘Hindu Veers’ (militias) and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb. I don’t care if the BJP expels me for this. A bulldozer needs to be used on that tomb.”

Deputy CM Eknath Shinde’s Remarks on ‘Traitors’: Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, speaking at an event commemorating ‘Shiv Jayanti’ in Thane district, described those who continued to praise Aurangzeb as “traitors.”

“Aurangzeb came to seize Maharashtra, but he faced the divine power of Shivaji Maharaj. Those who still sing his praises are nothing but traitors,” he declared.

Shinde contrasted Aurangzeb’s “oppression” with Shivaji Maharaj’s legacy, portraying him as a “divine force” who symbolised bravery, sacrifice, and Hindutva. He stated, “Shiv Chhatrapati is the pride of a united India and the roar of Hindutva. Shivaji Maharaj was a visionary leader, a man of the era, a promoter of justice, and a king of the commoners.”

The climate of hostility and mistrust: These speeches, delivered in the weeks and days leading up to the clashes, fostered an environment of mistrust, communal polarisation, and incitement to violence. By framing the issue of Aurangzeb’s tomb as a direct affront to Hindu pride and linking it to historical grievances, political leaders and right-wing groups stoked tensions, encouraging hostility and, in some cases, explicitly calling for extra-legal action. The convergence of these narratives created a volatile atmosphere where communal violence became not just a possibility but an almost inevitable outcome.

Understanding the Nagpur communal clash through the “Pyramid of Hate”

The communal clash in Nagpur unfolded through a series of events—beginning with a movie distorting history followed by hate speeches promoting the historical distortion and giving it a communal angle, a planned protest, rumour-mongering, and culminating in violent clashes. This progression aligns with the “Pyramid of Hate”, which explains how intolerance grows in society, starting from implicit biases and eventually leading to violent consequences.

The Pyramid of Hate teaches us that violence is never sudden—it is a process often occurring after a systemic build-up. The Nagpur incident demonstrates how communal intolerance spreads step by step, from biased portrayals in media to unchecked hate speech, discriminatory institutional responses, and eventual clashes. To prevent such violence, it is crucial to intervene early in the pyramid—countering hate speech, debunking misinformation, and ensuring impartial law enforcement. Hate must be confronted at its roots—before it manifests in bloodshed.

  1. Biased Attitudes: The role of media and stereotyping

At the foundation of the Pyramid of Hate lie biased attitudes, which include stereotyping, micro aggressions, and unchecked prejudices. In this case, the movie “Chhaava” triggered the controversy of the fight between Aurangzeb and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj to be about the fight between two people of different faith, wherein Aurangzeb tortured the Maratha ruler because he refused to convert to Islam, the said movie, with its violent representation, allegedly contained misrepresentations or one-sided portrayals of the Mughal ruler, which was then used to reinforce existing biases against Muslims. Films have historically, and more often recently, played a role in shaping public perception, and when a narrative demonises a group, it provides fertile ground for hateful ideologies to take root. This leads people to see the “other” as inherently different or dangerous, setting the stage for further hostility.

  1. Acts of Prejudice: Hate speeches and protest

As biased attitudes become more socially acceptable, they manifest in acts of prejudice, which include hate speech, social exclusion, and dehumanisation. In the Nagpur incident, hate speeches followed the release of the film, with individuals and organisations openly expressing hostility toward Muslims, deeming them to be followers of Aurangzeb and “traitors”. These speeches did not occur in isolation; they were meant to provoke reactions and mobilise groups around a shared sense of grievance.

The subsequent protest further escalated tensions. While protest itself is a legitimate form of expression, it often turns into a platform for inflammatory rhetoric. In this case, the demonstration was not just about dissent; it became a catalyst for heightened communal sentiments, reinforcing the idea that one group was under threat from another.

  1. Discrimination: Institutional neglect and selective action

Hate does not spread in a vacuum; it requires institutional tolerance. Discrimination, the third stage of the Pyramid, involves systemic inequities in policies and enforcement. In many instances of communal conflict in India, law enforcement is accused of being slow to act or biased in its response. If authorities fail to curb hate speech, misinformation, or mob violence, it signals tacit approval of discrimination.

In Nagpur, the law enforcement allowed the hate speeches and protests to go unchecked in case of BJP MLA T. Raja Singh, it contributed to the escalation. Additionally, with the State CM and Deputy CM also echoing the same divisive sentiment by indulging in inflammatory diatribe against Aurangzeb and his tome, other influential leaders also got the leeway to make offensive statements. Failure to counter false narratives spread through rumour-mongering further alienated communities and deepened mistrust. This selective action—or inaction—allowed prejudice to turn into active hostility.

  1. Bias-Motivated Violence: The clashes

As tensions continued to rise, the situation eventually escalated into violent clashes. This stage of the Pyramid—bias-motivated violence—includes assaults, arson, and attacks on property or individuals based on identity. At this stage, hate is no longer just a belief or rhetoric; it translates into direct harm.

The violence in Nagpur was not spontaneous; it was the culmination of escalating intolerance. The clash was a symptom of the deep-seated communal divisions that had been nurtured through earlier stages. When rumours spread unchecked and violence is justified in the name of retaliation, the possibility of a full-scale riot increases.

  1. Genocide: The extreme end of the Pyramid

At the very top of the Pyramid lies genocide—the systematic destruction of a group. While the Nagpur clash did not reach this extreme, history shows that unchecked hate can escalate to large-scale atrocities. Incidents like the 2002 Gujarat riots, the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom, and the 2020 Delhi riots all followed a similar trajectory, beginning with hate speech and rumours before descending into mass violence.

CM Fadnavis and Union Minister Gadkari appeal for calm

In the wake of communal violence in Nagpur, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Union Minister Nitin Gadkari have urged residents to remain calm and not be swayed by misinformation. Highlighting Nagpur’s legacy as a city known for communal harmony, Fadnavis called upon citizens to support law enforcement efforts and refrain from spreading or acting on rumours.

“Nagpur has always been a symbol of peaceful coexistence. I appeal to all residents not to fall for false information and to cooperate with the police in maintaining order.”

Union Minister and Nagpur MP Nitin Gadkari echoed similar concerns, attributing the unrest to rumour-mongering. Stressing the importance of upholding the city’s tradition of peace, he appealed for restraint.

“Certain rumours have created a situation of religious tension in Nagpur. However, our city has always demonstrated unity in such circumstances. I urge everyone not to believe or spread misinformation and to ensure peace prevails.”

Criticism of the state government’s handling of Nagpur violence

While the administration sought to de-escalate tensions, the Maharashtra government faced sharp criticism from the opposition over its handling of the situation. Shiv Sena (UBT) spokesperson Anand Dubey held the government responsible for its failure to prevent the violence, pointing to a collapse in law and order. Expressing deep concern, he remarked,

“Maintaining law and order is the fundamental duty of any state government. The violence in Nagpur is highly regrettable—vehicles have been torched, stones have been thrown, and the situation has spiralled out of control. This is a city where people of all communities have historically lived in peace. The government has clearly failed to foster unity and prevent such unrest.”

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray took to X, stating, “The law and order of the state has collapsed like never before. Nagpur, the home city of the CM and Home Minister, is facing this.” His remarks underscored the irony of unrest unfolding in the stronghold of Maharashtra’s Chief Minister and Home Minister.

Supriya Sule, Lok Sabha MP from the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), also condemned the violence, calling it unfortunate. She urged citizens to “not believe in any rumours” and appealed for mutual harmony, reminding people that Maharashtra has always been a land of progressive ideas.

Congress leader Pawan Khera pointed out that Nagpur has not witnessed riots in 300 years, suggesting that recent events were a deliberate attempt to stoke historical divisions for political gains. “Over the last several days, attempts were being made to weaponise 300-year-old history and use it now to create divisions, distractions, and unrest. These clashes expose the real face of the ideology of the ruling regime—both at the Centre and in the state,” he stated.

Leader of Opposition in the Maharashtra Assembly, Congress MLA Vijay Waddetiwar, went a step further, alleging that the violence was “government-sponsored”. He demanded a ban on Telangana BJP leader T Raja in Maharashtra, accusing him of instigating communal tensions. He also questioned why the BJP government, despite being in power both at the state and central levels, was protesting over the Aurangzeb issue instead of governing effectively.

Similarly, Ambadas Danve, Leader of Opposition in the Maharashtra Legislative Council, blamed CM Devendra Fadnavis and his government for the unrest, asserting that the BJP was deliberately fuelling communal disharmony in the state.

Shiv Sena (UBT) Rajya Sabha MP Priyanka Chaturvedi also slammed the ruling party, warning that the Maharashtra government was “ruining the state for political opportunism and leading it towards a violent implosion.” She pointed out that the violence occurred in Nagpur, the constituency of both the Chief Minister and the Home Minister, making their failure to control the situation even more glaring.

The opposition’s critique highlights growing concerns over state-sponsored communal polarisation, the failure of law enforcement, and political machinations aimed at deepening religious divides in Maharashtra.

 

Related:

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

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

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

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

 

The post How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state https://sabrangindia.in/surviving-communal-wrath-women-who-have-defied-the-silence-demanded-accountability-from-the-state/ Sat, 08 Mar 2025 03:49:14 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40442 On Women’s Day 2025, March 8, we honour the survivors who became warriors - documenting atrocities, challenging power, and demanding justice in the face of unspeakable brutalities

The post Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On International Women’s Day, March 8, while the world celebrates achievements in gender equality, it is equally important to honour the women whose courage and resistance have shaped the struggle for justice in the face of systemic oppression. These are women who, despite being victims of unspeakable brutality, refused to be silenced. They bore witness chroniclers, and were the seekers of justice after independent India’s most horrific communal conflicts. From the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984, the Gujarat genocidal carnage of 2002 to the Delhi violence of 2020, women have not only endured the worst forms of gendered violence but have also led the battle to document the truth and hold perpetrators accountable.

Their testimonies have been crucial in exposing state complicity, resisting the erasure of history, and demanding accountability. Yet, their pursuit of justice has been met with intimidation, legal obstruction, and, in some cases, criminalisation. Across these three instances, a grim pattern emerges: the deliberate targeting of women, the systemic failure of institutions meant to protect them, and the extraordinary resilience with which they have fought back.

1984 anti-Sikh pogrom: Survivors bore became the voice of the battle for justice

The anti-Sikh riots of 1984 resulted in the targeted killings of close to 3,000 Sikh men in Delhi alone though the all-India figures are higher. The targeted violence left behind a generation of widows who not only survived brutal gendered violence at the time, but also bore the burden of documenting the atrocities and seeking justice for over three decades. These women, who were often left to fend for themselves by a cruel state apparatus, after witnessing the murders of their male relatives, rose out of the tragedy to become among the strongest voices to reclaim memory and assert the cries for justice. It was their collective voice that ensured that the history of the massacres was not erased. Their testimonies and persistent legal battles formed the backbone of efforts to hold the perpetrators accountable.

The Sikh women who survived the 1984 riots had to overcome the dual trauma of sexual violence and the loss of their families. Many were raped in front of their own children, while others were kidnapped and tortured for days. Their homes were looted and burned, leaving them homeless and destitute. The legal system and government, rather than offering justice, attempted to silence them through intimidation and bureaucratic neglect. Yet, these women refused to let the world forget what had happened.

Women like Nirpreet Kaur, who was 16 when she witnessed her father being burned alive, dedicated their lives to collecting evidence, documenting survivor testimonies, and ensuring that cases against the perpetrators remained alive. Kaur, despite facing police torture, years of imprisonment under false charges, and the loss of two husbands, continued to fight for justice. She meticulously gathered witness statements, encouraged other widows to testify, and resisted repeated offers of bribes and compensation meant to buy her silence.

Similarly, many widows who had lost their husbands and sons stood as the primary eyewitnesses in court. Their testimonies were critical in exposing the involvement of political leaders who had orchestrated the violence. Women who had lost everything, such as Pappi Kaur, who saw 11 of her male relatives burned alive, and Bhaagi Kaur, who was left to raise her children in abject poverty, took the stand despite threats and intimidation. Their courage ensured that the narratives of rape, murder, and destruction remained central to the legal battle.

The state machinery worked relentlessly to suppress the voices of Sikh women. Many were offered financial compensation to withdraw their cases, while others faced direct threats to their lives and families. Witness protection was virtually non-existent, with police officers themselves leaking information to the accused. In one instance, police allegedly warned a witness that her children would be killed if she continued to testify.

Despite these threats, Sikh women continued to push for legal accountability. They filed affidavits, attended court hearings, and worked with human rights lawyers to challenge the impunity granted to perpetrators. Their efforts led to the reopening of cases, the formation of commissions, and, after decades of struggle, the eventual conviction of senior politicians such as Sajjan Kumar in 2018.

The importance of women’s testimonies in the Sikh pogrom

The testimonies of Sikh women were instrumental in revealing the premeditated nature of the violence. Unlike the state’s claim that the riots were spontaneous, these women detailed how mobs were armed with chemicals, iron rods, and torches; how police officers either stood by or actively participated; and how political leaders directed the killings. Their statements also underscored the targeted sexual violence inflicted on Sikh women as a means of communal humiliation.

At the time, after the mob set Darshan Kaur’s husband ablaze, she gathered her three children, the youngest just 15 days old, and ran. In the frenzy, the baby slipped from 19-year-old Darshan’s hands. But there was no time to stop. For the next three days, she and the remaining two children ran from the police station to gurudwara searching for a safe place. Yet she has not given up and remains the haunting yet strong figure for justice for the survivors of 1984.

The fight for justice was long and arduous. It took 26 years for the trial of Sajjan Kumar to even begin, and even then, convictions came only after relentless pressure from survivors like Nirpreet Kaur. Many Sikh widows, facing extreme poverty, had to make painful choices—some accepted financial compensation in lieu of pursuing legal battles, while others withdrew their cases due to fear. Yet, those who persisted forced the legal system to reckon with the atrocities committed in 1984.

Some women were denied even dignified rehabilitation. There is Satpal Kaur, 13 years old and the eldest of four girl survivors at the time. Suddenly from living a normal middle-class life, on November 1, 1984 everything changed. Four members of their family, their father, mother, brother and uncle, were killed and only the four sisters were left alive. As the eldest, Satpal Kaur, was 13 and the youngest girl only four years old at the time, and finally it was Advocate HS Phoolka who helped the legal battle for custody of the girls that was given to the grandfather. Another story about 21 widows, all from one family, who lived in the Sagarpur area of West Delhi near the Delhi Cantonment. On November 1, 1984 a resident of the area suggested that the male members of the family should all take shelter in a tube well room located near their house. The men were locked up in the room ostensibly to save their lives but later the mob was informed of their whereabouts. They came and set fire to the room, roasting the men alive. The youngest of these 21 widows, Manjit Kaur, was just 20 years old and had only been married for two years when tragedy struck. She had no children and after this traumatic incident, did not marry again. For the two and a half decades thereafter, she tried to get a government job to no avail.

The Sikh women who survived the 1984 riots not only bore the weight of personal tragedy but also became the torchbearers of justice. Their documentation of crimes, unwavering testimonies, and refusal to be silenced ensured that the massacre was not forgotten. Though justice came late and in fragments, their fight set a precedent for future struggles against state-sponsored violence. Their resilience remains a powerful testament to the strength of survivors who refuse to let history be rewritten by those in power.

Gujarat 2002: Testifying against unimaginable horror

The Gujarat riots of 2002 marked one of the darkest chapters of communal violence in India. Amidst the widespread bloodshed, women not only bore the brunt of gendered violence but also led the struggle for accountability, documenting atrocities and seeking justice. These women, many of them victims themselves, stood against systemic apathy and intimidation to ensure that the truth was recorded and the perpetrators were held accountable. Their determination played a crucial role in exposing the extent of sexual violence during the riots, despite efforts to erase or suppress these accounts from official records. In one of its shining moments the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo moto action in Gujarat 2002. The seminal report followed by path-breaking interventions in the Supreme Court of India ensured, in some measure, that other institutions responded with some seriousness.

The gendered violence during the Gujarat riots was unparalleled in its brutality. Women were raped, mutilated, and killed, often in broad daylight; their bodies used as battlegrounds for communal hatred. The systemic nature of these crimes was evident in the way women were specifically targeted, often in public settings, as a means of humiliating the entire community. Survivors, however, refused to let these crimes be erased from history. According to officially admitted records, documented by Citizens for Justice and Peace, 97 women eye-witnesses played a critical role in criminal trials related to the massacres. Despite immense pressure, intimidation, and threats, they deposed before courts, describing the horrifying acts of sexual violence and targeted attacks in explicit detail. State Intelligence Bureau figures admitted to 99 cases of gendered violence though citizen’s efforts put the figure at twice the number.

In cases such as the Naroda Patiya massacre, where over 110 people were killed, and the Gulberg Society massacre, where at least 69 lives were lost, women testified about the gruesome acts of violence they witnessed or endured. These testimonies included accounts of gang rape, public stripping, and the killing of pregnant women and infants. Women described how mobs used iron rods, swords, and petrol bombs to attack them, often displaying a sadistic violent brutality in each of the attacks. The testimonies highlighted the premeditated nature of the mob violence as also the utter complicity of the state, from local police to other authorities.

The struggle to document sexual violence was particularly difficult, as official records often downplayed or omitted these accounts. Women survivors and activists persisted, ensuring that evidence of rape and brutalisation was included in legal proceedings and public records. Forensic reports were often manipulated or withheld, and in many cases, there was an absence of medical documentation due to the fear instilled in victims and their families. Despite these hurdles, women continued to speak out, determined to create a historical record that could not be erased.

Women who stepped forward to testify faced relentless harassment. Many were forced to relocate multiple times due to threats from the accused and their supporters. In some cases, male relatives were pressured to withdraw cases or dissuade women from testifying. Police officers and local authorities often refused to file FIRs or conducted deliberately flawed investigations, further victimising survivors. Women were denied legal representation, forced to relive their trauma in hostile courtrooms, and subjected to humiliating questioning by defence lawyers who sought to discredit their accounts.

Among those who played a pivotal role in this documentation were women like Bilkis Bano and Zakia Jafri, who recently passed away. As survivors, they turned their personal tragedies into a relentless pursuit of justice, ensuring that accounts of gendered violence were not buried under political pressure. Bilkis Bano’s testimony became instrumental in exposing the extent of sexual violence during the riots, as she recounted how she was gang-raped while her family members, including her infant daughter, were murdered. Zakia Jafri, despite losing her husband, former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, in the Gulberg Society massacre, fought for years to hold state officials accountable for their complicity in the violence. Their struggles, alongside those of many other unnamed women, challenged state complicity and legal apathy, fighting in courts for years to establish the truth. CJP was among the leading groups that persisted over two decades with legal aid for survivors like Zakia Jafri, Rupa Mody, Saira Sandhi (Gulberg case), Bashirabi and others (Sardarpura case) and Farida bano, Shakila Bano and others in the Naroda Patiya case.

Despite multiple attempts to derail these cases, the persistence of women survivors led to rare convictions in some instances. The Supreme Court eventually intervened to move key cases, including the Best Bakery case, outside Gujarat due to concerns over bias and threats to witnesses. This was a direct result of the relentless efforts of women who refused to back down despite knowing the risks involved.

The importance of women’s testimonies in the Gujarat riots

The documentation of violence by women played a crucial role in countering the official narrative that sought to dismiss or minimise the scale of gendered atrocities. In many cases, the state machinery attempted to frame the violence as spontaneous riots rather than a coordinated attack. Women’s testimonies dismantled this argument by providing detailed accounts of how mobs were armed, how attacks were systematically carried out, and how law enforcement agencies either stood by or actively participated in the violence.

The legal battle that followed the riots was long and fraught with challenges. The initial investigations were deliberately botched, with crucial evidence being destroyed or tampered with. Public prosecutors appointed by the state were often affiliated with the ruling party and acted in ways that favoured the accused. Women survivors, however, continued to file petitions, demand re-investigations, and push for special hearings. Their relentless legal advocacy forced the courts to acknowledge the specific targeting of women during the riots and set legal precedents for future cases of communal violence.

One of the most significant impacts of women’s documentation efforts was the recognition of sexual violence as a weapon of communal conflict. Their testimonies became part of a larger movement that called for reforms in how gender-based violence was prosecuted in mass crimes. Women’s organisations, both within and outside Gujarat, used these testimonies to demand accountability at national and international levels, submitting reports to bodies such as the United Nations and the Supreme Court.

The Gujarat riots of 2002 showcased the brutalisation of women, but they also highlighted their resilience. In the face of unspeakable horrors, women survivors fought relentlessly, not just for their own justice but for a historical record that would not allow their suffering to be forgotten. Their testimonies and legal battles remain a testament to the power of resistance, ensuring that gendered violence in communal conflicts does not fade into obscurity. The documentation of these crimes by women survivors forced India’s legal system to confront the role of sexual violence in communal conflicts and laid the groundwork for future legal battles. Their fight continues to inspire generations to confront hate with courage and demand accountability, even against the most formidable adversaries.

Delhi 2020: The weaponisation of the state against women

The communal violence that unfolded in northeast Delhi between February 23 and 26, 2020, was not a spontaneous riot but an orchestrated attack. The violence, which resulted in the deaths of 53 people—40 of them Muslim—was a brutal response to the anti-CAA protests that had mobilised thousands across the country, led significantly by Muslim women. While the state and the media sought to rewrite the narrative, blaming protestors for the violence, women who had witnessed and experienced the attacks fought to document the truth and seek justice. Unlike past instances of communal violence, where survivors slowly found avenues for legal battles, the women of the Delhi riots faced an unprecedented challenge: criminalisation, incarceration, and continued suppression by the state.

The anti-CAA protests, particularly the Shaheen Bagh movement, symbolised peaceful resistance led by Muslim women. However, these women soon became targets. In Jaffrabad, one of the protest sites, women were on the frontlines, protesting discriminatory citizenship laws when mobs, emboldened by political leaders’ inflammatory speeches, launched targeted attacks. Homes and shops were torched, mosques vandalised, and people lynched. Women who led protests, like Ishrat Jahan, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Safoora Zargar, and Gulfisha Fatima were arrested under draconian laws, accused of conspiring to incite the violence they had, in reality, been victims of.

Unlike previous instances of communal violence, where women fought prolonged legal battles for justice, in Delhi, they were pre-emptively branded as conspirators and jailed. Gulfisha Fatima, an MBA graduate and grassroots activist, was arrested under FIR 48, initially granted bail, only to be re-arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), ensuring her prolonged incarceration. To date, she remains in jail, a stark reminder of how the state weaponised the legal system against Muslim women who dared to resist. Gulfisha remains under arrest as an undertrial, without bail to date, five years later.

Similarly, Safoora Zargar, arrested while pregnant, was accused of being a key conspirator despite a lack of evidence. Ishrat Jahan, a former municipal councillor, was denied bail for years, and when granted, it was seen as an exception rather than a norm. Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, founding members of Pinjra Tod, were arrested and re-arrested on multiple charges, illustrating the state’s relentless pursuit of women activists.

Even those who weren’t arrested faced systemic suppression. Police dismissed the testimonies of women who had lost family members and refused to investigate cases that implicated Hindutva extremists. In courts, victims found their cases delayed indefinitely, while those accused of instigating the riots walked free. The judiciary, instead of upholding justice, repeatedly sided with the state’s narrative, making it nearly impossible for Muslim women to seek legal redress.

The importance of women’s testimonies in countering false narratives

The role of women in documenting the 2020 Delhi riots goes beyond legal battles—it is about preserving the truth against deliberate erasure. The mainstream narrative continues to blame Muslim activists for the violence, while the actual instigators remain shielded by the state. The testimonies, photographs, and first-hand accounts collected by women protestors and survivors challenge this state-sponsored narrative and ensure that the history of these attacks is not rewritten.

In contrast to past instances of communal violence, where survivors eventually found some measure of justice after decades of struggle, the women of the Delhi riots face an ongoing battle where justice remains entirely out of reach. With Gulfisha Fatima still in jail after four years and many others continuing to fight baseless charges, their struggle is far from over. Their resistance, however, ensures that their stories remain alive, refusing to let the truth be buried under propaganda and state repression.

The women of the 2020 Delhi riots fought not just against targeted violence but against a state determined to criminalise their very existence. Their documentation of the attacks, their refusal to remain silent, and their continued struggle for justice in the face of legal persecution exemplify resilience. In a system that punishes those who seek accountability, their fight is one for survival, memory, and truth. Their resistance stands as a testament to the unyielding spirit of women who refuse to let history be rewritten by those in power.

Women and their unyielding fight for truth

Women who have fought for justice in the aftermath of communal violence in India have done so against overwhelming odds. They have defied a state machinery that actively seeks to erase their suffering, a legal system designed to delay and deny, and a society that too often treats them as collateral damage. Their fight has not only been about personal justice but about exposing the larger structures of power that enable such violence.

Despite decades of struggle, justice remains a distant dream. In Gujarat, where a handful of convictions took place, the state machinery ensured that most perpetrators walked free. In 1984, justice came too late for many survivors, with key political figures being convicted only after decades of relentless legal battles. And in Delhi, justice is yet to arrive—Muslim women who dared to protest against discriminatory laws remain imprisoned while the instigators of violence roam free.

The stories of these women force us to confront an uncomfortable truth: the state is not merely a bystander in communal violence but an active participant, shielding perpetrators and punishing those who seek accountability. Their resilience in the face of such repression is a testament to their courage. But their continued struggle also serves as an indictment of a system that has failed them at every level. This International Women’s Day, their fight must not only be remembered but actively supported—for justice, for truth, and for the right to resist oppression without fear.

Related:

This women’s day CJP celebrates all women in resistance

The women of CJP: Resilient and resolute in their mission to advocate for the rights of all and counter prejudice

Oh, what a year to be a woman! IWD 2023: CJP lists some advocates who paved the way for women’s rights

Wounds still linger

Remembering 1984

The post Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention https://sabrangindia.in/marked-for-deportation-denied-due-process-ajabha-khatun-among-the-63-facing-detention-in-assam-seeks-supreme-courts-intervention/ Fri, 28 Feb 2025 04:53:51 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40345 Stripped of her rights, detained without proof—Ajabha Khatun’s battle exposes the deep flaws in Assam’s citizenship determination process and the urgent need for judicial intervention.

The post Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On February 25, 2025, Khatun, assisted by the legal aid organisation Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), intervened in the ongoing case of Rajubala Das v. Union of India, seeking her impleadment as a party petitioner and additional directions regarding the constitutional and human rights violations arising from her detention. This intervention follows the February 4, 2025 hearing of the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, which instructed Assam to commence deportation proceedings against individuals declared foreigners, including Khatun, despite the absence of concrete proof of their foreign nationality and addresses.

During the hearing of February 25, the case of Ajabha Khatun was mentioned before the court, with senior advocate Aparna Bhat stating that the challenge against the Foreigner Tribunal’s order declaring Khatun to be foreigner remains pending in the Gauhati High Court. She emphasised that since the High Court has yet to consider her case, any final order of deportation against her would be legally untenable. The counsel further argued that without the exhaustion of legal remedies, deportation would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the Tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acknowledged that Khatun’s case is still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. Given this, while the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim relief at this stage, the case has been kept pending. Moreover, the SC and asked the counsel for Khatun to seek the appropriate orders from the High Court itself. Consequently, no formal notice was issued in her case. However, the order serves as an important legal nudge, as it can now be used to urge the Gauhati High Court to expedite hearing of her appeal from the order of the Foreigner’s Tribunal. The interim relief sought is stay her deportation until her case is fully heard. This is critical because a wrongful deportation, even before judicial review is complete, would violate fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary state action.

The court stated in its order that “The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that the name of the        applicant figures at serial no.18 on the list submitted by the Government of Assam of the foreigners who are to be deported. She states that the applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal declaring her as a foreign national by filing a writ petition before the High Court. If that be so, it is for the applicant to seek appropriate interim relief from the High Court in that behalf. Therefore, at this stage, we are not passing any order on this Application.”

In the original Rajubala Das v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court directed the Assam government to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. This directive underscores the need for transparency in the process and ensures that the state accounts for each detainee’s status before proceeding with any deportation.

SG Tushar Mehta had, during the hearing, requested for some time to provide the Court with the decision of the executive in regards to the issue of deportation. The case is now scheduled for a further hearing on March 21, 2025, where the fate of many, including Ajabha Khatun, will be closely examined.

In the order, the Bench stated “Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states that the issue of deportation of the foreigners which arises in this Petition is being dealt with at the highest executive level and if time is granted, he will place on record the decision taken by the appropriate authority. We grant him time till 21st March, 2025.”

The order of February 25, 2025 may be read here.

Download PDF

 

Senior counsel Aparna Bhat argued the matter in the Supreme Court assisted by advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Sanjana Thomas. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta leads the CJP’s team in Assam and is arguing the matter in the Gauhati High Court.

Why was this impleadment essential?

The case of Ajabha Khatun exposes the deep flaws in Assam’s citizenship determination process, where individuals are arbitrarily declared foreigners and detained without substantive proof. Khatun, a resident of Assam, has been held at the Matia Detention Camp despite a lack of evidence linking her to any foreign country. She is among the 63 detainees the Assam government claims are foreigners and must be deported—a claim that has been challenged for its lack of legal and evidentiary basis.

The state’s affidavit, submitted in court, asserts that 270 persons, including 63 from Bangladesh, are currently detained at Matia. In past hearings, including one on January 22, 2025, Assam has repeatedly argued that none of these detainees are Indian and that deportation is warranted. However, when directly questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about the country of origin of these detainees, the Assam government’s counsel erroneously insisted that all were declared foreigners—a claim that lacks evidence and legal credibility.

Khatun’s case is part of the broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. The original petitioner, Rajubala Das, had sought directives preventing Assam authorities from detaining individuals without demonstrating a realistic possibility of deportation. Ajabha Khatun, detained in Matia Detention Camp, has filed both an Impleadment Application and an Application for Directions to challenge the order facilitating her deportation. She argues that she is an Indian citizen and that the Tribunal’s decision was marred by procedural and evidentiary irregularities.

Denial of fundamental rights in Ajabha Khatun’s case

Ajabha Khatun’s case, once again, highlights the systematic denial of fundamental rights to individuals declared foreigners by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). In her case, her denial of rights began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for Barpeta Assembly Constituency doubted her citizenship and forwarded her case to SP Barpeta (Competent Authority) under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act, 1983/The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. The Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta district passed its order declaring her non-Indian on February 8, 2019. She was arrested, however, only in September 2024 after which CJP has assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. It was only after the state filed an affidavit in the original Rajubala case, providing a list of 63 detainees on February 3, 2025, through which the government erroneously informed the Court were foreigners that the CJP team found Ajabha to figure on the list (serial number 18).

Since her citizenship had been doubted and the question of whether the said Ajabha Khatun was a citizen of India or not remained unanswered, her right to cast a vote has been put in abeyance. Notably, while her constitutional rights to vote were snatched away, the ERO inquiry report which does not record any reasons for the arbitrary action in striking her name of the electoral rolls raised more questions than it answers.

From the moment a notice was issued against her, in 2017, she was deprived of procedural fairness—a core component of natural justice. During the FT proceedings despite the proffering of witness testimony and crucial documentary evidence, a misplaced application of burden of proof was applied, her father’s evidence deposing that she was his daughter was disregarded and she was declared non-Indian.

Additionally, it is essential to highlight that an investigation report was submitted by Local Verification Officer Dipankar Baruah to the Election Registration Officer (ERO), 43 No. Barpeta LAC. This report, marked as Annexure-A, formed the basis for the reference made against the Opposing Party. However, points 15 and 16 of Annexure-A expose glaring inconsistencies:

  • Point 15 explicitly asks whether the Opposing Party (Ajabha Khatun) migrated to Assam (Yes/No), yet the LVO fails to provide any response.
  • Point 16 further inquires that, if the Opposing Party did migrate—about the place of origin (State or Country) and the time frame of migration (before January 1, 1966, between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971, or after March 25, 1971). Both these critical fields are left entirely blank in the investigation report.

This omission makes it undeniably clear that the LVO had no basis in fact to substantiate the allegation of migration against the Opposing Party. If the investigating officer himself did not raise any doubts, on what basis did the ERO and Superintendent of Police (SP) initiate this reference?

With no substantive claim or evidence against the Opposing Party, the reference is arbitrary, baseless, and legally unsustainable. Ajabha’s challenge against the order of the Tribunal remains is now pending before the Gauhati High Court.

Beyond these substantive and procedural violations, Khatun’s detention at Matia Detention Camp amounts to an infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Arrested in September 2024, she has been confined for an indefinite period without a criminal charge, in conditions the Supreme Court itself has recognised as deplorable. Furthermore, her right to equality under Article 14 has been denied, as citizenship determination processes disproportionately target marginalised communities, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. The denial of her right to reside and settle in India (Article 19) further compounds this injustice, as she faces the possibility of deportation despite having lived in Assam her entire life.

Besides, since 1997, her access to receive the benefit of government schemes has been limited, due to non-issuance of Aadhar cards. Since her unique identity card has not been issued by the government, basic welfare facilities, such as ration, has been out of bounds for her.

This case is further crucial because it exemplifies the larger crisis of wrongful citizenship determinations in Assam. If Khatun were to have been deported despite the absence of substantive evidence, it would have set a dangerous precedent where individuals, particularly the poor and marginalised, can be stripped of their citizenship arbitrarily. The state’s approach in this case—ignoring due process, misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court, and failing to establish any real connection between detainees and a foreign country—exposes the structural failures of the FT system. Ensuring that Khatun’s rights are upheld is not just about her case; it is about holding the state accountable for its unconstitutional and inhumane treatment of individuals declared foreigners.

More broadly, the case underscores why every person under the threat of deportation must be allowed to exhaust all legal remedies before any steps are undertaken. Deportation is an irreversible action with life-altering consequences, often resulting in statelessness, separation from families, and denial of basic human rights. Ensuring access to legal recourse safeguards against wrongful expulsions and upholds the rule of law. Given the well-documented flaws in the FT process, the judiciary must act as a check on executive overreach, ensuring that no individual is deprived of their rights without rigorous scrutiny.

Key issues in the case

  1. Arbitrary declaration as a foreigner: The applicant was declared a foreigner without substantive proof.
  2. Violation of procedural fairness: The Foreigners Tribunal failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for her to prove her citizenship.
  3. Lack of material linking the applicant to another country: The State has failed to establish any connection between the applicant and a foreign country.
  4. Impact of wrongful deportation: Deportation could lead to statelessness and irreversible human rights violations.

Legal grounds for impleadment and directions

The applicant’s legal claims are twofold:

  1. Impleadment as a necessary party: Given the direct impact of the Supreme Court’s deportation order, Ajabha Khatun must be impleaded to protect her fundamental rights as her case remains pending in the Gauhati High Court and her legal remedies have not been exhausted.
  2. Application for Directions to stay the deportation order: The applicant seeks judicial intervention to halt her deportation, arguing that the Tribunal’s decision was unlawful. Since there had been no grant to interim relief by the Gauhati High Court, the applicant urged the Supreme Court to ensure that no action is taken against her till she is heard and her proofs of citizenship are appreciated.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

  1. Article 14 (Right to Equality): Discriminatory treatment in citizenship determination processes disproportionately affects marginalised communities.
  2. Article 19 (Right to Reside and Settle in India): Deportation without due process violates her constitutional right to reside in India.
  3. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Arbitrary detention and wrongful deportation violate her right to live with dignity.

Lack of evidence for proving foreign nationality:

  1. The Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration was based on procedural flaws and lacked substantive evidence. The Tribunal did not appreciate the voter rolls presented as evidence, containing her father’s name, her husband’s name as well as her own name.
  2. The FT ignored her father’s testimony which flies in the face of the primary rules of Evidence under the Evidence Act.
  3. The State’s assertion that her nationality is “known” –in one set of documents –while keeping that category “blank” in another —contradicts both the facts and the Tribunal’s failure to identify any foreign connection. While her name figured in the name of the 63 deemed worthy of deportation by the state, her legal remedies have yet to be exhausted and she only has a FT order against her.

Pending legal challenge before Gauhati High Court:

  1. The applicant’s challenge before the Gauhati High Court (WP(C) 6626/2024) is at the motion stage.
  2. Proceeding with deportation while the case is sub judice violates principles of judicial fairness.

Analysis of the Foreigners Tribunal proceedings

The Foreigners Tribunal 1st Barpeta, Assam, in its order dated February 8, 2019, declared Ajabha Khatun a post-1971 foreigner based on alleged failure to prove Indian citizenship. However, it is the argument of the applicant that the order reveals severe procedural and evidentiary flaws:

  • No independent investigation appears to have been conducted to verify her citizenship before the notice was served to her and her name struck off the electoral rolls
  • Documentary evidence was disregarded without justification.
  • The burden of proof was misapplied under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

It is essential to note that the following evidence had been submitted by Ajabha Khatun to prove her citizenship:

  • Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 showing her grandfather, father, and herself as registered voters.
  • Gaonburah certificates confirming familial relationships.
  • Affidavits and cross-examinations corroborating her Indian lineage.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal rejected this evidence based on hyper-technical objections, without addressing the substantive proof of her citizenship. Further issues with the decision of the FT are:

  • The inquiry report forming the basis of the allegations was not served on the applicant.
  • The report merely stated a “suspicion” of foreign nationality without any concrete evidence.
  • The ERO’s report striking her off the electoral rolls has also been from the documents available been the result of a conclusion reached without any investigation or inquiry.
  • The Tribunal’s approach was inconsistent with established judicial principles requiring prima facie material before declaring a person a foreigner.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal’s decision stands in direct violation of established precedents, as it fails to establish a prima facie case. In legal proceedings, the necessity of demonstrating an initial case with sufficient evidence is fundamental to ensuring due process. By neglecting this requirement, the Tribunal undermines the legitimacy of its decision-making process. Furthermore, the absence of substantive evidence renders the declaration legally untenable. Without concrete proof to support its conclusions, the decision lacks a firm legal foundation and is susceptible to challenge. Such a deficiency not only weakens the authority of the ruling but also raises concerns about its adherence to principles of justice and fairness. The IA provides the following judicial percent’s that were violated by the FT while declaring its order:

  1. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer [(1995) 3 SCC 100] – Due process requires disclosure of reasons before removing a person from voter rolls.
  2. State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013 SCC OnLine Gau 1) – Tribunals must ensure prima facie material exists before issuing notices.
  3. Haidar Ali v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Gau 683) – Recognised the perfunctory and arbitrary manner of Foreigners Tribunal proceedings.
  4. Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695) – Authorities must have substantive grounds for suspecting foreign nationality.

Conclusion and prayer

The case of Ajabha Khatun exemplifies the systemic failures in citizenship determination in Assam. If the Supreme Court proceeds to direct deportation of those “”declared to be foreigners”, without acknowledging that at least 20 of the 63 inmates have cases pending at various Constitutional Courts, and without considering Ajabha Khatun’s case, it will result in violation of constitutional and international human rights norms. The applicant, through her interventions, had requested the Supreme Court to:

  1. Implead her as Party Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 234 of 2020.
  2. Stay the deportation order until her case before the Gauhati High Court is resolved.
  3. Scrutinise Foreigners Tribunal procedures to prevent arbitrary declarations of foreign nationality.

This case underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in citizenship determination to prevent wrongful deprivation of fundamental rights.


Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Debate around Section 498A: Misuse or inappropriate application? https://sabrangindia.in/the-debate-around-section-498a-misuse-or-inappropriate-application/ Thu, 13 Feb 2025 04:08:53 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40121 As Section 498A transitions into Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the debate over its misuse and necessity continues - can reforms strike the right balance?

The post The Debate around Section 498A: Misuse or inappropriate application? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was introduced in 1983 in response to the alarming rise in domestic violence and dowry-related harassment faced by married women. Recognising the widespread abuse women endured within marriage, the provision sought to offer them a legal remedy against cruelty inflicted by their husbands and in-laws. It was meant to serve as a deterrent, ensuring that perpetrators of domestic violence faced serious legal consequences. However, in the decades since its enactment, Section 498A has become the subject of intense debate, often framed through allegations of ‘misuse’ rather than its ‘necessity as a protective measure’.

With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalised cruelty against married women, has been retained with minor modifications. Now listed as Section 85 of the BNS, the provision continues to address domestic violence and harassment, particularly in cases involving dowry-related cruelty. Despite its crucial role in protecting women, concerns over its alleged misuse have persisted, prompting calls for legal safeguards to prevent false cases while ensuring justice for genuine victims. This necessitates a balanced approach that upholds the law’s intent while incorporating necessary reforms to prevent its exploitation.

The primary criticism levelled against Section 498A is that it has been exploited by some women to file false complaints, leading to wrongful arrests and harassment of innocent individuals. This concern has been echoed in various Supreme Court and high court rulings, which have called for caution in its application. Yet, a crucial question remains largely overlooked: Is the problem rooted in the law itself, or is it the failure of institutions responsible for its implementation? This piece argues that the so-called misuse of Section 498A is not a reflection of the law’s inherent flaws but rather a consequence of systemic failures by law enforcement, the legal fraternity, and district court judges. Their lack of diligence, patriarchal biases, and procedural lapses often result in either wrongful prosecutions or the dismissal of genuine cases, creating an illusion of widespread abuse of the provision.

Understanding section 498A and its intent

Section 498A was specifically designed to protect women from cruelty, which includes acts that endanger their physical or mental well-being, harassment for dowry, and behaviour that could drive them to suicide. The provision is broad in its scope, recognising that cruelty manifests not only in physical violence but also in emotional and psychological abuse. Despite its protective intent, the law has been portrayed as a tool for harassment, with critics arguing that false cases are filed to settle personal scores. However, such claims often fail to acknowledge the larger reality—domestic violence and dowry-related abuse remain rampant in India, as consistently reflected in National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data.

The Supreme Court has addressed concerns regarding the misuse of Section 498A in several key judgments. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988), the Court held that the demand for dowry itself constitutes cruelty, reaffirming the necessity of stringent legal measures against such practices. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007), the Court elaborated on the concept of mental cruelty, recognising that humiliation, emotional neglect, and lack of support could all amount to cruelty in matrimonial cases. The judgment in Savita Bhatnagar v. V.K. Bhatnagar (2014) further underscored that cruelty is not limited to physical violence but also includes psychological harm. More recently, in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013), the Supreme Court acknowledged that filing false criminal complaints could itself amount to mental cruelty, which has often been cited in discussions about alleged misuse of the law. However, these cases highlight the need for better procedural safeguards, not the redundancy of Section 498A itself.

The necessity of Section 498A is further underscored by real-life cases of cruelty. In Ram Kishan Jain & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a woman was unable to meet dowry demands, leading to her being administered sedatives and ultimately attempting suicide by cutting her veins. In Surajmal Banthia & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, a woman was subjected to prolonged ill-treatment, denied food, and harassed to the point of death. Such cases illustrate the horrifying realities that necessitate strong legal protection under Section 498A. The provision does not solely address dowry-related violence but also encompasses any wilful conduct that endangers a woman’s health or safety. Yet, in cases such as Ashok Batra & Ors v. State, where a deceased woman’s letters detailing harassment were disregarded, the judiciary’s failure to treat such evidence seriously highlights the systemic shortcomings in the law’s implementation.

Use of section 498A

Section 498A has been instrumental in providing legal recourse to women who face cruelty and abuse within their matrimonial homes. In numerous cases, it has been a crucial tool in holding perpetrators accountable. For instance, in Ram Kishan Jain & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a woman was subjected to extreme cruelty when she was administered sedatives and later attempted suicide after being unable to meet dowry demands. Similarly, in Surajmal Banthia & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, the victim was ill-treated, denied food, and mentally tortured for days before succumbing to abuse. Cases like these highlight the persistent and grave nature of domestic cruelty, underscoring why Section 498A remains necessary.

The provision not only addresses dowry-related harassment but also extends to broader forms of cruelty, including emotional and mental abuse. In Ashok Batra & Ors v. State, the courts failed to give due weight to letters left behind by the deceased woman detailing her harassment, ultimately granting the accused the benefit of the doubt. Such instances demonstrate how, despite the presence of evidence, judicial reluctance sometimes leads to injustice for victims. Section 498A serves as a legal safeguard against such oversights, ensuring that complaints of cruelty are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.

The real problem: systemic failures, not the law

The discourse on the misuse of Section 498A often fails to scrutinise the role of those responsible for its enforcement. Law enforcement officers frequently act arbitrarily—either making indiscriminate arrests without investigation or, conversely, dismissing genuine complaints due to entrenched biases or corruption. Legal professionals, too, contribute to the problem, with some exploiting procedural loopholes to either misuse the provision for personal gain or to shield accused individuals from accountability. District court judges, who preside over most of these cases, often lack the necessary gender sensitisation, leading to inconsistent verdicts where both wrongful convictions and unjust acquittals occur.

There are key elements to Section 498A that dictate its implementation. For an offence to be recognised under this section, the woman must be married, must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment, and such acts must have been perpetrated by her husband or his relatives. Additionally, situations that warrant immediate legal intervention include medical evidence of abuse, the refusal to return a woman’s assets under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), and threats or coercion that endanger her life. However, rather than conducting thorough investigations, police officers often either act hastily or dismiss complaints altogether, further complicating the issue.

Judicial interventions have sought to regulate the use of Section 498A by setting guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests and ensure due process. However, such rulings should not be misinterpreted as evidence that the law itself is flawed; rather, they highlight the need for better enforcement mechanisms to ensure that both victims and the wrongfully accused receive justice.

Recent judgment lamenting “misuse of Section 498A”

Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra (2024)

In October 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC, ruling that there was no substantive evidence against him. The appellant, the brother-in-law of the deceased, had been accused of harassing and torturing her over dowry demands, alongside her husband and sister-in-law. However, he challenged the High Court’s decision upholding his conviction, arguing that the alleged dowry demand took place in January 2010, whereas his marriage to the deceased’s sister-in-law occurred later in October 2010.

The Supreme Court found “no scintilla of evidence” linking him to the alleged cruelty and criticised the indiscriminate implication of family members in Section 498A cases. The bench emphasised that courts must be vigilant in identifying instances of over-implication to prevent innocent individuals from enduring unwarranted legal consequences. The judgment highlighted concerns over exaggerated accusations in 498A cases, cautioning against their misuse.

Payal Sharma v. State of Punjab (2024)

In November 2024, the Supreme Court cautioned lower courts against the unnecessary implication of distant relatives of a husband in Section 498A cases. The case arose after the complainant, the wife’s father, lodged an FIR shortly after the husband-initiated divorce proceedings. The complaint not only named the husband and his parents but also included the husband’s cousin and his cousin’s wife, alleging dowry harassment and cruelty. When the implicated relatives sought to have the case quashed, the High Court rejected their plea, citing the filing of the chargesheet.

On appeal, the Supreme Court criticised the High Court’s approach, stating that it was obligated to assess whether the inclusion of distant relatives was an instance of over-implication or exaggeration. The Court noted that the accused relatives resided in a different city from the complainant’s daughter, raising questions about the credibility of the allegations. Additionally, the Court clarified that while Section 498A does not explicitly define “relative,” the term should be understood in a common-sense manner, typically referring to immediate family members such as parents, children, siblings, and their spouses. It stressed that if allegations extend to individuals not directly related by blood, marriage, or adoption, courts must carefully scrutinise whether the claims are exaggerated. The judgment reinforced the need for judicial vigilance to prevent unwarranted prosecutions under Section 498A.

Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024)

In the said case, the Supreme Court raised concerns over the potential misuse of Section 498A IPC and its equivalent provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), namely Sections 85 and 86. The Court urged Parliament to reconsider these provisions in light of the “pragmatic realities” surrounding allegations of cruelty in matrimonial disputes. The case involved a husband who had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court refused to quash an FIR filed against him under Sections 323, 406, 498A, and 506 IPC. The FIR had been lodged by his wife following his decision to initiate divorce proceedings on grounds of cruelty.

The Supreme Court held that if an FIR, when read in its entirety, suggests that criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive to harass the accused, the High Court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case. The judgment cautioned law enforcement against the mechanical application of Section 498A in every case of marital discord, stating that police authorities should ensure that the provision is not used as a tool to exert undue pressure on husbands. The Court also emphasised that trivial disputes or day-to-day quarrels between spouses should not automatically be classified as cruelty under the law.

Expressing serious apprehensions over the misuse of Section 498A, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra called upon the Legislature to reassess the provisions under the BNS before they took effect. The Court noted that while Sections 85 and 86 of the BNS largely replicate Section 498A IPC, the explanation defining “cruelty” has been structured as a separate provision under Section 86. The ruling reinforced the need for judicial scrutiny in matrimonial disputes and warned against indiscriminate prosecutions under the guise of protecting women’s rights.

Dara Lakshmi Narayana & others v. state of Telangana & another (2024)

On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court once again cautioned against the indiscriminate use of Section 498A IPC, stressing that it should not be misused as a tool for personal vendetta. While quashing a domestic cruelty case against a husband and his in-laws, the bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh criticised the growing tendency to implicate all members of a husband’s family in cases arising from matrimonial disputes. The Court noted that such misuse of the law distorts its original intent, which was to protect women from cruelty inflicted by their husbands and in-laws.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the wife after her husband sought the dissolution of their marriage. The Telangana High Court had refused to quash the domestic cruelty case, prompting the appellants—comprising the husband and his family—to approach the Supreme Court. Examining the complaint, the Court found that the allegations were vague and generalised, with no clear prima facie case against the accused. The Court observed that while genuine cases of cruelty must be taken seriously, frivolous and retaliatory complaints undermine the law’s credibility and burden the judicial system.

Justice Nagarathna, authoring the judgment, highlighted that while the provision was enacted to curb cruelty and ensure swift state intervention, its misuse has become increasingly common in matrimonial conflicts. The Court reiterated that Section 498A should not be weaponised to coerce or intimidate husbands and their families into submission. It also warned lower courts against mechanically prosecuting accused persons without scrutinising the legitimacy of complaints. In this case, the Court found that the wife had lodged the complaint as a counterblast to the husband’s divorce petition, thereby misusing the provision.

While quashing the proceedings, the Court clarified that its observations should not discourage women from filing genuine complaints under Section 498A when they have actually suffered cruelty. However, it stressed that cases lacking specific allegations should not be entertained, as they undermine the law’s purpose and erode trust in the legal system.

Digambar and another v. the State of Maharashtra and another (2024)

On December 20, 2024, the Supreme Court quashed a domestic cruelty case under Section 498A IPC against a husband’s parents, ruling that the case was filed with an ulterior motive to pressure their son into consenting to a divorce. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, set aside the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench decision, which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings.

The complainant alleged that her in-laws forced her to consume adulterated food, causing her miscarriage. She also accused them of mental and physical cruelty for not bearing a male child, leading to charges under Sections 312/313 IPC in addition to Section 498A. However, the Supreme Court noted that the complaint regarding the miscarriage and cruelty was made to the police two years after the alleged incident, with no supporting evidence that the appellants were aware of the complainant’s pregnancy or administered any harmful substances. The Court ruled that a mere allegation of cruelty does not constitute an offence unless it is shown to have been committed with the intent to cause grave injury, drive the victim to suicide, or inflict severe harm.

Justice Gavai, authoring the judgment, observed that the allegations were vague and lacked specific details of cruelty or misconduct. The only injury-related allegation mentioned that the complainant’s husband used to beat her, but no direct accusation was made against the appellants. Additionally, the Court pointed out the complainant’s failure to include these serious allegations in the ongoing divorce proceedings, raising doubts about her intentions. Given the two-year delay in filing the FIR, the Court inferred that the complaint was a retaliatory measure to exert pressure during the divorce case.

By quashing the proceedings, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that matrimonial disputes should not be weaponised through criminal complaints. It stressed that while genuine cases of domestic violence and cruelty must be taken seriously, courts should remain vigilant against attempts to misuse legal provisions for personal advantage.

Geddam Jhansi & Anr. v. the State of Telangana & Ors (2025)

On February 7, 2025, the Supreme Court quashed criminal charges of cruelty, dowry demand, and domestic violence against certain family members of the accused husband, emphasising the dangers of invoking criminal law in domestic disputes without specific allegations or credible evidence. The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, observed that family relationships are deeply rooted in social and cultural values and should not be disrupted by indiscriminate criminal proceedings. The Court stressed that while it is essential to protect victims of domestic violence, allegations must be scrutinised to prevent misuse of the law.

The case involved a complaint under Section 498A IPC, Section 506 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, filed against the husband’s mother, his mother’s younger sister, and her brother-in-law. The appellants had sought to quash the proceedings, but the High Court refused, stating that a prima facie case had been made out against them. Challenging this decision, they approached the Supreme Court, which carefully examined the charge sheet and witness statements. The Court found that the allegations of harassment were based on information provided by the complainant to her parents rather than direct witness accounts. Additionally, claims of physical abuse by the husband and relatives were not mentioned in the complainant’s statement but had been added later by her parents, raising doubts about their credibility.

The Court further noted inconsistencies in the testimony of panchayat elders, who claimed to have attended meetings in Chennai despite residing in Telangana. It underscored that while specific allegations against the husband and mother-in-law existed, the accusations against the present appellants were vague. The Court warned against the tendency to implicate extended family members without clear evidence of their active participation in domestic violence. It clarified that merely failing to intervene in an abusive situation does not equate to perpetrating cruelty unless direct involvement is established.

Striking a balance, the Court reaffirmed that genuine cases of cruelty and violence must be addressed with sensitivity, ensuring that true perpetrators face consequences while preventing an indiscriminate legal dragnet. It held that there was no prima facie case against the appellants, as the evidence relied solely on the complainant’s allegations without specific roles attributed to them. Consequently, the criminal proceedings against them were quashed, with the Court making it clear that its findings would not affect the prosecution of other accused persons in the case.

Section 498A IPC: Addressing misuse without dilution

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was enacted to protect women from cruelty, particularly in the context of dowry-related harassment. However, debates around its alleged misuse have intensified over the years. While some argue that the law is frequently misused for personal vendettas, others assert that this narrative is largely exaggerated and has led to calls for dilution that could harm genuine victims. The reality is that the law is neither inherently flawed nor unnecessary; rather, its misuse stems from systemic weaknesses in enforcement, legal procedures, and societal attitudes.

Misuse of Section 498A does not occur in isolation. It involves various actors, each playing a role in how the law is applied or misapplied. A closer look at these factors reveals the need for reform in its implementation rather than weakening its protective provisions.

  1. Complainants: False or exaggerated allegations: While Section 498A is a crucial legal safeguard for women facing domestic abuse, concerns about false or exaggerated complaints cannot be ignored. In some cases, women or their families may misuse the provision to settle personal scores, gain leverage in divorce or custody disputes, or pressure the husband’s family into financial settlements. The law’s stringent nature, which allows immediate arrest without preliminary investigation, can be misused in such situations.
  2. Role of legal professionals: Some legal advisors contribute to the misuse of Section 498A by encouraging clients to file fabricated or exaggerated complaints. This is often done to strengthen matrimonial disputes, secure favourable financial settlements, or harass the husband’s family. Lawyers who prioritise winning cases over ethical considerations play a key role in enabling such exploitation.
  3. Law enforcement and investigating agencies: The police, as the primary enforcers of the law, play a crucial role in its potential misuse. In some cases, officers arrest accused individuals solely based on complaints, without conducting a proper investigation. This may stem from external pressures, fear of being accused of negligence, or even corruption. Investigating agencies also contribute to wrongful prosecution when they fail to verify allegations thoroughly, sometimes due to inadequate resources or bias. The lack of proper scrutiny at this stage can lead to wrongful arrests, reinforcing the perception that Section 498A is frequently misused.
  4. Judicial system and its role: The judiciary has acknowledged the possibility of abuse and issued guidelines to prevent wrongful prosecutions. However, inconsistencies in the application of these safeguards remain a challenge. The cognizable and non-bailable nature of the offence means that accused individuals can be arrested and face social stigma even before their case is heard in court. This reinforces the argument for stricter procedural safeguards while ensuring that genuine victims receive justice.
  5. Societal and cultural influences: Deeply entrenched patriarchal norms contribute to the complex dynamics surrounding Section 498A. On one hand, families sometimes use the law as a weapon in dowry disputes or personal conflicts. On the other, societal conditioning discourages women from reporting domestic abuse, fearing social backlash. The stigma associated with marital discord often forces women to endure years of cruelty before seeking legal recourse, making it imperative that Section 498A remains a robust legal protection.
  6. Lack of procedural safeguards: The absence of sufficient procedural checks has made Section 498A vulnerable to both misuse and under-enforcement. The law allows for immediate arrest without the need for preliminary verification, which can lead to wrongful detentions. At the same time, genuine victims often struggle to navigate the legal system due to patriarchal biases in law enforcement and the judiciary. Strengthening procedural safeguards—such as mandatory preliminary inquiries before arrest—could help balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect victims.

Strengthening implementation instead of dilution

Justice Dr Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court, speaking at an event on February 8, 2025, asserted that Section 498A is not misused but widely misunderstood. She noted that while some women may misuse the provision, this should not justify treating all cases under it as frivolous.

“I can confidently say that Section 498A is not being misused; rather, it is being misunderstood by everyone. It is now the responsibility of both the Bar and the Bench to rise to the occasion and offer appropriate legal guidance to clients,” she remarked, as per LiveLaw.

Justice Gokhale highlighted how societal attitudes discourage women from reporting domestic violence, citing a 2003 government report that found over 30% of married women in India experience physical, sexual, or emotional abuse at the hands of their husbands or in-laws. However, due to societal pressures, many cases remain unreported. She also addressed concerns regarding over-implication in complaints, where women sometimes name distant relatives to pressure the husband’s family into financial settlements.

Acknowledging this, she cautioned that overuse of Section 498A risks discrediting real victims.

“On the bench, we may see ten cases in a day where the ingredients of Section 498A are not met due to over-implication. But what about the eleventh case, which may be a genuine one? Unfortunately, such overuse affects the credibility of real victims, and this is deeply concerning,” she observed.

Re-orienting the application of Section 498A

Rather than advocating for dilution, efforts should focus on improving the implementation of Section 498A. The following reforms could help strike a balance between preventing misuse and ensuring justice for genuine victims:

  • Stronger investigative protocols: Law enforcement agencies should be required to conduct a preliminary inquiry before making arrests in Section 498A cases, as recommended by the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma v. State of UP (2017). This would help filter out false complaints while ensuring that genuine victims receive immediate protection.
  • Legal accountability: Lawyers who misuse procedural gaps to encourage false cases should face disciplinary action. Legal professionals must prioritise ethical advocacy over strategic litigation tactics.
  • Judicial sensitisation: District court judges must receive gender sensitisation training to distinguish between routine marital discord and legally recognised cruelty. This will help ensure fair adjudication without bias against either party.
  • Public awareness campaigns: Educating women on their rights and legal options can reduce unnecessary litigation while encouraging victims of genuine abuse to seek justice.

 

Related:

India’s struggle to end manual scavenging continues

Supreme Court: Calls for legal protections for domestic workers

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

Strengthening safeguards against arbitrary arrests, Supreme Court bars WhatsApp & Email notices under Section 41A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS

Noise Pollution Ban: Unequal standards for diverse practices?

 

The post The Debate around Section 498A: Misuse or inappropriate application? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest https://sabrangindia.in/manipur-chief-minister-n-biren-singh-resigns-amid-political-turmoil-and-ethnic-unrest/ Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:20:45 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=40059 BJP leader steps down following Supreme Court scrutiny, internal rebellion, and mounting opposition pressure as ethnic tensions continue to grip the state

The post Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> N Biren Singh tendered his resignation as Manipur’s chief minister on Sunday, February 9, bringing an end to his embattled tenure nearly two years after ethnic violence erupted in the state. His resignation followed days of internal dissent within the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) state unit and an impending no-confidence motion in the assembly. Singh submitted his resignation to Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla at Raj Bhavan in Imphal around 5:30 pm, just a day before the scheduled budget session, which was later scrapped. In his resignation letter, Singh expressed gratitude to the union government for its “timely actions, interventions, and developmental work,” while also listing key policy measures, he hoped would continue, including territorial integrity, border security, and counter-narcotics efforts.

Singh was accompanied by BJP’s northeast in-charge Sambit Patra, state party president A Sharda, and 19 MLAs. Patra remained in Imphal to assist in selecting Singh’s successor. His resignation came after a meeting with Union home minister Amit Shah in Delhi on Saturday, amid growing pressure from both BJP legislators and opposition parties. Reports suggested that several BJP MLAs had threatened to sit in the opposition during the no-confidence motion if Singh continued as chief minister.

Supreme Court intervention and allegations of instigating violence

Singh’s resignation followed a Supreme Court directive ordering a central forensic laboratory to investigate leaked audio recordings that purportedly feature the chief minister admitting to having instigated the ethnic violence in Manipur. These tapes, allegedly recorded by a whistle-blower, have been at the centre of fresh legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court, while refusing to draw immediate conclusions, has asked for a forensic report by March 25.

The opposition seized on this development to criticise both Singh and the BJP’s handling of the crisis. Congress leaders accused the BJP of acting only when political survival was at stake rather than addressing the root causes of the ethnic conflict. Senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi stated on X (formerly Twitter) that Singh had “instigated division in Manipur” while Prime Minister Narendra Modi allowed him to continue despite the violence and loss of life. Gandhi accused Modi of turning a blind eye to the suffering in Manipur, saying, “The people of Manipur now await a visit by our Frequent Flier PM who is off to France and the USA—he has neither found the time nor the inclination to visit Manipur in the past twenty months.”

Congress MP Udit Raj also criticised the delay in Singh’s removal. “When the Congress was demanding his removal at the right time, he was not removed. Now, after everything has been ruined, it makes no sense,” he said. Manipur Congress chief K Meghachandra Singh called the resignation a “belated decision” and argued that Singh’s failures had led to “anarchy and a crisis of governance” in the state.

The opposition also pointed to the BJP’s political compulsions as the primary reason behind Singh’s resignation. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh noted that the BJP removed Singh not out of concern for Manipur’s people but to avoid embarrassment in the assembly and prevent a government collapse. Meanwhile, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] issued statements condemning the BJP for allowing Singh to remain in power for so long.

Ethnic conflict, polarisation, and Singh’s role

The resignation also deepened divisions between the Meitei and Kuki communities, both of whom reacted differently to Singh’s exit. Singh, a Meitei leader, was criticised by Kuki groups for his alleged role in the ethnic violence that began on May 3, 2023, and led to over 250 deaths and the displacement of thousands. The Kuki-majority Indigenous Tribal Leaders Forum (ITLF), which had been demanding Singh’s resignation since the violence erupted, said his exit was long overdue. However, the ITLF reiterated that their agitation would continue unless the union government granted a separate administration for the Kuki community. ITLF spokesperson Ginza Vualzong stated, “We believe he knew he would be voted out in the no-confidence motion, and to save his face, he resigned.”

In contrast, Meitei nationalist groups lamented Singh’s resignation. Jeetendra Ningomba, former coordinator of the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (Cocomi), argued that Singh’s exit was ill-timed. “I don’t think it was the right moment for Singh to step down. His resignation will only strengthen Kuki separatist forces in Manipur,” he said.

BJP’s internal rebellion and legislative fallout

Singh’s position within the BJP had been eroding for months, with several MLAs distancing themselves from his leadership. The BJP holds 32 seats in the 59-member Manipur assembly, but it had been losing allies and internal support. Reports suggest that 5-10 BJP MLAs, including ministers, had resolved to switch to the opposition rather than continue backing Singh. Some of the BJP’s own Kuki MLAs, who had withdrawn support for Singh earlier, welcomed his exit. BJP MLA Paolienlal Haokip bluntly reacted to the news, saying, “Good riddance.”

Singh’s rigid stance on the conflict had also alienated the BJP’s partners within the North-East Democratic Alliance (NEDA). Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma’s National People’s Party (NPP) withdrew support for Singh’s government in November 2024, citing its “complete failure to restore normalcy.” Mizoram Chief Minister Lalduhoma went further, declaring Singh a “liability” for both Manipur and the BJP, even suggesting that President’s Rule would be preferable.

With the loss of support from its allies and internal rebellion brewing, Singh’s resignation became inevitable. His departure averted what would have been a politically damaging no-confidence motion for the BJP government. Following Singh’s exit, Governor Bhalla issued a notification cancelling the budget session of the assembly.

Manipur’s uncertain future and lingering security concerns

Despite Singh’s resignation, tensions in Manipur remain high. On the night of his departure, unidentified gunmen raided an India Reserve Battalion (IRB) outpost in Thoubal district, looting several SLR and AK rifles. The attack underscored the fragile security situation in the state, where armed groups continue to operate amid the ethnic conflict.

The Supreme Court’s investigation into the leaked tapes adds another layer of uncertainty. If the tapes are authenticated, Singh could face legal consequences, further complicating Manipur’s political landscape. The opposition has vowed to continue pressing for accountability, with Congress leaders reiterating their demand for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into Singh’s alleged role in instigating violence. (Detailed report on Supreme Court’s proceedings may be read here)

While Singh’s resignation marks a turning point, it does not resolve the deep-rooted ethnic tensions and governance failures that have plagued Manipur. The BJP now faces the critical task of appointing a new chief minister who can navigate the complex political and ethnic landscape, restore stability, and prevent further deterioration of law and order. However, with unresolved demands from both the Meitei and Kuki communities and an emboldened opposition, Manipur’s political crisis is far from over.

 

Related:

2024: Peace, a distant dream for Manipur

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

“Leaked Intelligence report” on alleged Kuki militants entering Manipur from Myanmar sparks panic, later retracted by authorities

The post Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Constitutional ideals vs. public order: SC delivers split verdict on Christian burial rights, fails to confront structural discrimination https://sabrangindia.in/constitutional-ideals-vs-public-order-sc-delivers-split-verdict-on-christian-burial-rights-fails-to-confront-structural-discrimination/ Tue, 28 Jan 2025 05:35:44 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=39845 While the immediate burial dispute is resolved, the Court’s failure to address the discriminatory nature of segregated burial grounds reveals a reluctance to challenge systemic religious biases, leaving an unresolved question about the right to dignity and equal treatment in death

The post Constitutional ideals vs. public order: SC delivers split verdict on Christian burial rights, fails to confront structural discrimination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a significant split verdict in a case that underscored the tension between constitutional freedoms, religious identity, and societal discrimination. The case revolved around a plea by Ramesh Bhaghel, a tribal Christian from Chhattisgarh, who sought the court’s intervention to bury his father either on his private land or in the traditional tribal burial ground of his village. The opposition to his request stemmed from his father’s conversion to Christianity, with the village gram panchayat and local community asserting that Christians were not entitled to use the burial ground reserved for their Hindu tribal ancestors. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld this exclusion, effectively relegating the petitioner to a distant Christian burial ground. This appeal, therefore, became a litmus test for the judiciary’s commitment to addressing systemic religious discrimination and balancing individual rights against societal norms.

The case presented a complex legal challenge at the intersection of Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution, raising questions about equality, religious freedom, and the right to dignity in death.

With the Supreme Court’s two-judge bench issuing divergent opinions, the matter brought to light the judiciary’s struggle to reconcile competing interests. Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a progressive opinion firmly rooted in constitutional values, calling out the State and local authorities for perpetuating discrimination against Christians and emphasising the secular fabric of India.

In contrast, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s opinion prioritised public order and adherence to regulatory norms, reflecting a more conservative approach that arguably overlooked the structural inequities at play.

The court’s eventual compromise, directing the burial at a designated Christian graveyard under Article 142, addressed the immediate dispute but left broader constitutional questions unresolved, raising critical concerns about the judiciary’s handling of systemic discrimination.

Justice BV Nagarathna’s opinion: A strong defence of Constitutional values

Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a strongly worded opinion, criticising the State and the gram panchayat for perpetuating discriminatory practices against Christians and undermining constitutional principles. She described the refusal to allow the burial in the village graveyard as “unfortunate, discriminatory, and unconstitutional,” explicitly highlighting its violation of Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion), and 21 (right to dignity, which includes dignity in death).

As per the report of LiveLaw, Justice Nagarathna noted that the village panchayat’s actions and the affidavit submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), which opposed the burial, “betray the sublime principle of secularism.”

She observed:

“The refusal to bury the deceased in the ancestral village graveyard violates Articles 21 and 14 and furthers discrimination on the grounds of religion. The State cannot deny equality before the law.” 

According to the LiveLaw report, Justice Nagarathna further criticised the State for failing to act against discriminatory attitudes, asserting that it had abdicated its duty to foster fraternity and ensure equality. It was her opinion that the attitude of the village panchayat gave rise to hostile discrimination, and such an approach betrays the secular fabric of our nation and the duty of every citizen to foster fraternity.

“How could ASP Bastar could give such an affidavit and what was the authority? It betrays the sublime principle of secularism. Secularism along with fraternity is a symbol of brotherhood between all faith and essential for the social fabric of our country and duty is to foster fraternity among different sections,” her opinion said as per Bar and Bench.

Justice Nagarathna proposed a pragmatic solution by allowing the burial on the family’s private agricultural land, emphasising that such a decision would not set a precedent for future claims. She directed the State to provide security to ensure that the burial could proceed peacefully and issued an additional directive requiring the State to earmark burial grounds for Christians across all districts within two months.

“The State must act to ensure that designated burial grounds for Christians are available throughout the State to avoid such controversies in the future.”

Justice Nagarathna invoked the Supreme Court’s past observations on secularism and fraternity, quoting Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s iconic statement in the Bijoe Emmanuel case:

“Our tradition teaches tolerance, our Constitution teaches tolerance, let us not dilute it.”

In short, through her opinion, Justice Nagarathna made the following key observations-

  • Upholding secularism: Justice Nagarathna invoked the secular ethos of the Constitution, condemning the exclusionary practices of the gram panchayat and the State’s endorsement of such discrimination. She stressed that secularism entails equal treatment of all faiths and criticised the affidavit submitted by the State police, which explicitly denied burial rights to Christians in tribal burial grounds.
  • Right to dignity in death: Justice Nagarathna’s recognition of the right to dignity in death as a part of the broader right to life under Article 21 is a crucial highlight. By directing the burial on private land, she sought to balance individual rights with practical considerations, though this move might inadvertently dilute the case’s central question of access to public burial spaces.
  • Critique of Gram Panchayat: Her rebuke of the gram panchayat for “taking sides” underscores the growing politicisation of local governance bodies in communal disputes. However, her reliance on the private land solution, while pragmatic, could be criticised for sidestepping the long-term structural issue of discriminatory burial practices.
  • Mandating systemic reforms: Justice Nagarathna directed the State to demarcate burial grounds for Christians across all villages within two months, a step that, while commendable, reflects a reactive rather than proactive approach by the judiciary in addressing systemic inequities.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma’s opinion: Balancing rights and public order, no matter the cost

In contrast, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma took a more conservative stance, focusing on public order and adherence to existing regulations. He upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision to deny burial in the village graveyard and ruled that the deceased should be buried in the designated Christian burial ground located 20–25 kilometres away. Justice Sharma argued that burial rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion) must be subject to reasonable restrictions, including public order and State regulations.

“There is no reason why there should be an unqualified right to burial. Sweeping and illusionary rights can lead to public order disruption. Maintenance of public order is in the larger interest of society.”

As per the report of Bar and Bench, Justice Sharma also dismissed the argument that burial in the village graveyard was a constitutional entitlement, stating:

“The right to religious freedom under Article 25 cannot be stretched to claim a blanket right to be buried in grounds earmarked for another religion.”

Justice Sharma, according to LiveLaw, reasoned that the availability of a designated Christian burial ground nearby was sufficient to satisfy the petitioner’s rights, noting that burial grounds are traditionally designated for specific communities to avoid conflicts.

“To claim Article 25 rights to burial in areas designated for another faith would be stretching the right beyond reasonable limits. The State can frame regulations to maintain public order.”

Justice Sharma’s opinion ultimately prioritised regulatory uniformity and social harmony over addressing systemic discrimination, a perspective criticised for lacking sensitivity to the petitioner’s plight and the broader implications for minority rights. In short, through his opinion, Justice Sharma made the following key observations-

  • Deference to local practices: Justice Sharma’s reliance on the High Court’s reasoning—that burial grounds are designated for specific communities—risks legitimising exclusionary practices rooted in social prejudice. By framing the dispute as a matter of public order, his judgment arguably prioritised societal biases over constitutional values.
  • Regulatory formalism: His rejection of burial on private land and insistence on using the designated Christian burial ground in Karkapal highlights a strict adherence to regulatory frameworks. However, it also underscores a reluctance to question systemic discrimination in such frameworks, even when they conflict with fundamental rights.
  • Public order vs. individual rights: While public order is a valid constitutional limitation under Article 25, Justice Sharma’s reasoning effectively places an undue burden on minority communities, forcing them to accept segregationist practices. This approach risks emboldening majoritarian pressures, particularly in deeply polarised societies.

Article 142 directions: A compromise that misses the larger picture

The Supreme Court’s decision to invoke Article 142 to direct the immediate burial of the deceased at the designated Christian graveyard in Karkapal reflects a pragmatic approach to resolving the immediate dispute.

While this direction ensured that the petitioner could proceed with the burial without further delay, it falls short of addressing the deeper constitutional and social issues raised by the case. The Court’s reliance on Article 142 to avoid a prolonged legal battle highlights an attempt to balance competing interests, but it also exposes significant gaps in judicial engagement with structural discrimination.

One of the most troubling aspects of this compromise is the Court’s avoidance of the core constitutional issues at stake. Instead of referring the matter to a larger bench to decisively address whether the denial of burial rights in the village graveyard amounted to unconstitutional discrimination, the Court settled for an ad hoc resolution. This avoidance not only leaves the fundamental question of the constitutionality of such practices unanswered but also risks setting a precedent where urgent cases involving marginalised communities are reduced to temporary, case-specific solutions. By failing to engage with the broader principles of equality and secularism, the Court missed an opportunity to lay down a robust precedent that could guide future disputes of a similar nature.

The compromise also reinforces the marginalisation of minority voices. By directing burial at a designated Christian graveyard far from the petitioner’s village, the Court effectively sidelined the petitioner’s plea for equal treatment and dignity. This resolution sends a message that minority communities must navigate systemic biases rather than challenge them outright. The petitioner’s demand for burial in the village graveyard was not just a logistical issue but a symbolic assertion of equality and belonging. The Court’s failure to address this demand perpetuates the notion that minorities must acquiesce to discriminatory practices, thereby entrenching their exclusion from shared communal spaces.

While the invocation of Article 142 served to bring an end to the immediate crisis, the compromise falls short of delivering substantive justice. It highlights a judicial tendency to focus on expediency at the expense of confronting structural inequalities, leaving marginalised communities to grapple with the long-term consequences of systemic discrimination.

Critical reflections: Judicial challenges in addressing discrimination

The Supreme Court’s handling of the burial dispute raises important concerns about the judiciary’s approach to balancing constitutional values against public order, systemic discrimination, and local governance. A closer examination of the case reveals troubling trends that demand critical scrutiny.

First, Justice Sharma’s emphasis on maintaining public order over upholding individual rights reflects a growing judicial inclination to privilege peace and harmony over addressing the legitimate grievances of marginalised communities. While public order is undoubtedly an important consideration, prioritising it in this manner risks reinforcing entrenched biases rather than dismantling them. In cases involving historically marginalised groups, such an approach undermines the transformative potential of the Constitution by legitimising social hierarchies under the guise of pragmatism.

Second, the Court’s avoidance of structural issues highlights a broader hesitation to confront systemic inequities. By focusing on short-term solutions, such as imposing a two-month deadline for demarcating burial grounds for Christians, the Court addressed only the immediate logistical concerns without tackling the underlying issues of social exclusion and prejudice.

The decision stops short of questioning whether the segregation of burial grounds is constitutionally permissible, thereby missing an opportunity to challenge practices that perpetuate discrimination.

Third, the case underscores the politicisation of local governance bodies, which often act as enforcers of communal divides rather than mediators of inclusive policies. Instead of protecting the rights of all citizens, these institutions have increasingly become instruments of exclusion, driven by majoritarian pressures. The judiciary must play a more active role in holding local governance bodies accountable to constitutional principles, ensuring they act as facilitators of inclusion rather than agents of division.

Finally, the intersection of caste, religion, and conversion brought to light by this case reveals the persistent hostility faced by tribal Christians. These individuals often occupy a precarious position, trapped between their ancestral identity and their chosen faith. Conversion to Christianity frequently becomes a basis for denying them access to ancestral land or communal spaces, exacerbating their social exclusion.

The judiciary must ensure that constitutional protections extend to all citizens, irrespective of their faith or choice to convert, and that conversion does not become an excuse for perpetuating discrimination.

Together, these reflections highlight the need for a more proactive and transformative judicial approach to address structural inequalities and protect the rights of marginalised communities.

Broader implications: The judiciary’s role in addressing systemic discrimination

The split verdict in this case underscores the judiciary’s ongoing struggle to reconcile constitutional principles with the realities of an increasingly polarised society. Justice Nagarathna’s dissenting opinion serves as a vital reminder of the judiciary’s fundamental duty to uphold constitutional values and protect the rights of marginalised groups. Her emphasis on equality and non-discrimination reflects the transformative vision of the Constitution, which seeks to dismantle systemic inequities and foster inclusivity.

However, the lack of a decisive resolution on the fundamental issue of discriminatory burial practices reveals the judiciary’s limitations in confronting entrenched societal biases. By failing to refer the matter to a larger bench or deliver a definitive ruling, the Court has missed an opportunity to provide clarity and enforce constitutional safeguards against discrimination.

This case also brings to light the pressing need for legislative reforms aimed at ensuring equal access to public burial grounds for all communities, irrespective of caste, religion, or conversion status. The judiciary’s reliance on public order as a justification for discriminatory practices risks normalising exclusionary behaviour, allowing prejudices to persist under the guise of maintaining peace. Legislative intervention is critical to prevent such misuse of public order and to establish clear, enforceable guidelines that uphold the principles of equality and secularism.

In a country as diverse as India, disputes of this nature challenge the foundational ideals of the Constitution, particularly secularism and equality.

The resolution of such cases serves as a litmus test for the judiciary’s commitment to addressing systemic discrimination and safeguarding the rights of marginalised groups. While pragmatic solutions may provide immediate relief, they fail to address the deeper social and institutional barriers that perpetuate exclusion. To truly uphold constitutional ideals, the judiciary must adopt a more assertive stance, one that not only resolves individual disputes but also challenges the systemic biases that underlie them.

 

Related:

Sambhal Custodial Death: A systemic failure exposed

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Eradicating Stigma: A Landmark Judgment on Manual Scavenging and Justice for Dalits

The post Constitutional ideals vs. public order: SC delivers split verdict on Christian burial rights, fails to confront structural discrimination appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Shadows on Karnataka’s Coast: Report provides the communal flashpoints that defined the region in 2024 https://sabrangindia.in/shadows-on-karnatakas-coast-report-provides-the-communal-flashpoints-that-defined-the-region-in-2024/ Sat, 11 Jan 2025 06:44:01 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=39590 Documenting the rise of communal incidents in Karnataka's coastal districts, a report compiled by Suresh Bhat B. highlights incidents and patterns of hate speech, vigilantism, and moral policing in 2024

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

]]> The coastal districts of Karnataka have long been a microcosm of India’s complex communal dynamics, marked by sporadic tensions and incidents that reveal deep-seated divisions. The year 2024 was no exception, with a total of 48 communal incidents recorded in the Dakshin Kannada and Udupi region, as per a report compiled by Suresh Bhat B., a member of the Karnataka Communal Harmony Forum and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Mangalore. The report, named “A Chronicle of Communal Incidents in the Coastal Districts of Karnataka in 2024”, contains the details of these incidents that span a broad spectrum, ranging from moral policing and allegations of religious conversion to hate speech and the desecration of places of worship.

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

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

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

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

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

Incidents of moral policing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patterns emerging from the incidents

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

Incidents of religious conversions

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

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

Patterns emerging from the incidents

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

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

Incidents of cattle vigilantism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patterns emerging from the incidents

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

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

Incidents of hate speech/crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patterns emerging from the incidents

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

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

Incidents of hate speech on social media

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patterns emerging from the incidents

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

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

Incidents of desecration of religious places

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

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

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

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

Patterns emerging from the incidents

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

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

Other communal incidents

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

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

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

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

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

Patterns emerging from the incidents

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

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

Report for 2022 can be accessed here.

The complete report may be read below:

Download PDF

A comparative table may be viewed here:

Download PDF

Related:

Is Mandya becoming the new right wing capital of Karnataka?

Development project threatens the livelihood of port village in Karnataka

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

Hindu Janagaruti Samiti (HJS) & Karnataka links

 

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

]]> Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases https://sabrangindia.in/uttar-pradeshs-new-tactics-for-harassment-electricity-theft-charges-strategic-revival-of-temple-opening-up-of-1978-sambhal-communal-riots-cases/ Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:15:01 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=39258 In a shift from demolition drives and religious surveys, the UP government targets Muslim-majority areas with electricity theft accusations, leading to fines, power cuts, and allegations of politically motivated harassment, particularly against Muslim opposition figures like MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq.

The post Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Amid increasing scrutiny from the Supreme Court over illegal demolitions as well as the recent stay on petitions over surveys of religious places, the Uttar Pradesh government appears to have shifted its strategy to harass Muslim communities through other means, with electricity theft accusations emerging as a new tactic. In Sambhal, a Muslim-majority district, the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL) has launched an aggressive crackdown under the pretext of curbing electricity theft. The campaign, backed by heavy police presence, has led to dozens of FIRs against Muslim residents, including Samajwadi Party MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq.

The raids, conducted primarily in Muslim-dominated areas, have been criticised by all as biased and vindictive. Local Muslims describe the operation as a “witch hunt,” accusing the authorities of targeting their community under the guise of law enforcement. So far, the UPPCL claims to have uncovered power theft in numerous households, levying fines amounting to ₹1.3 crore. Several homes have had their power connections severed, leaving families in distress. Danish, a businessman from the area spoke to Maktoob media and voiced the community’s frustration: “Earlier, they used to demolish houses of Muslims. Now they are accusing us of power theft. They don’t want us to live peacefully.” 

Allegations against SP MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq- first rioting, now electricity theft

The most high-profile case involves Samajwadi Party MP Zia-Ur-Rahman Barq, whose home in Sambhal’s Deepa Sarai locality was raided by UPPCL officials accompanied by police. According to the authorities, Barq’s three-storey house was operating with two electricity meters, each with a capacity of just two kilowatts (kW), despite a load requirement of at least 16.5 kW. The electricity department alleged that the meters were tampered with, showing zero or minimal readings over the past six months. These discrepancies led to the disconnection of power and a hefty fine of ₹1.9 crore imposed on the MP.

Santosh Tripathi, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the electricity department spoke to multiple media houses and said, “A house of this size, equipped with air conditioners, refrigerators, and other electrical appliances, cannot function on such a low load. During inspections, we found that the meters registered zero consumption for six months.” Tripathi also alleged that solar panels installed at Barq’s residence were non-functional, further questioning the family’s explanation of their electricity usage.

However, Barq’s lawyer, Qasim Jamal, has rejected these allegations, asserting that the residence operates on two 4-kW meters, supplemented by a 10-kW solar panel and a 5-kW generator. “We will present all this evidence in court,” Jamal stated. Despite this defence, the authorities maintain their stance, with Additional Superintendent of Police Shrish Chandra affirming that evidence of tampering and unauthorised load has been documented.

Another threat FIR Against MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq- another layer of targeted action

Pursuant to the electricity raid, The Uttar Pradesh police have lodged an FIR against Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rahman Barq and his father, Mamlook-ur-Rahman, accusing them of threatening and intimidating officials from the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). According to the complainants, UPPCL engineers V.K. Gangal and Ajay Sharma, who were inspecting the residence, faced threats from Mamlook-ur-Rahman. They allege that Mamlook told them he was recording their actions and warned that they would face consequences when the government changes. The engineers also claimed that the household was drawing over 16 kilowatts (kW) of power despite only being authorised for a 2-kW connection.

Notably, MP Barq denied the allegations, calling them politically motivated. He stated that the Yogi Adityanath government was targeting him for raising concerns about police violence during a controversial court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid on November 24, which had resulted in the deaths of four Muslims. “I was not in Sambhal that day, yet the police booked me for instigating the mob. Now, they have filed another FIR against me. There is no power theft in my house; this is a false and motivated allegation,” Barq told reporters.

The FIR against Barq adds another dimension to the state’s actions against him. Already named in an FIR for allegedly instigating violence during the mosque survey, Barq has denied those charges as well, maintaining that he was not present in Sambhal at the time of the incident. He has challenged the accusations in the Allahabad High Court. However, the state has escalated its actions, first accusing him of power theft and now of threatening public servants.

The Shahi Jama Masjid survey itself has been a flashpoint in Sambhal, as it purportedly sought to determine whether the mosque was built by demolishing a temple during Mughal rule. The survey led to clashes between police and locals, with five Muslims killed and many others injured. Barq has been vocal in demanding justice for the victims, a stance he believes has made him a target for retribution.

Detailed reports on Sambhal may be read here and here.

This latest FIR reflects a pattern of suppressing dissent through legal and administrative means. For Barq, it underscores how opposition figures, particularly those raising issues affecting Muslim communities, are increasingly vulnerable to state-backed harassment. As he continues to contest these charges in court, the allegations against him and his family raise broader concerns about the use of legal mechanisms to silence critics and intimidate minorities.

Community concerns and broader implications

For the Muslim community in Sambhal, these allegations come amid heightened tensions following recent police violence. Many residents fear that the power theft crackdown is merely a continuation of the state’s efforts to marginalise them. The timing of these actions has further deepened suspicions. Shortly before the crackdown over electricity theft, a Hindu temple in Sambhal was reopened, with right-wing groups demanding surveys of surrounding areas and the removal of Muslim homes. Many have argued that the power theft raids and the accompanying media narrative serve to vilify Muslims and distract from the systemic targeting of their community.

The impact on residents has been severe. As per the report of the Indian Express, Idreesa, whose son was among those killed in November’s violence, has now been accused of power theft and fined ₹8,000. “They don’t want us to live peacefully,” said Zohaib, another resident, who noted that such actions are unprecedented in the region’s recent history.

The systematic nature of these raids, coupled with heavy police deployment, suggests an orchestrated effort to intimidate and harass the community. As demolitions face judicial oversight, electricity theft allegations are becoming a new weapon in the state’s arsenal, raising critical questions about the abuse of administrative power and the deepening marginalisation of minorities in Uttar Pradesh.

The strategic revival of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal: A questionable timeline

The reopening of the Shiv-Hanuman temple in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, has raised serious concerns about the government’s intent and the communal implications of its actions. Uncovered during an anti-encroachment drive, the temple had reportedly been locked since 1978 following communal riots that displaced the local Hindu community. Now, decades later, its “rediscovery” has been celebrated by BJP leaders and the state administration as a reclaiming of “heritage,” yet this timeline raises critical questions about its timing and motive.

Notably, following the Supreme Court’s recent stay on surveys of religious places, which was issued to prevent further exacerbation of communal strife, the focus seems to have shifted. Instead of directly targeting contested religious structures, the administration has pivoted to reviving claims over existing sites like the Shiv-Hanuman temple. This new approach suggests an effort to sustain the communal polarisation agenda while adhering to the legal restrictions imposed by the apex court.

The temple’s reopening has been accompanied by heavy security, symbolic gestures, and an intensified narrative of reclaiming lost heritage. Political leaders like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and other BJP figures have positioned the event as a moment of historical justice. Statements about idols being destroyed and houses being built over the temple land are being amplified, with little evidence provided to substantiate these claims. These assertions are deeply polarising and appear designed to pit communities against each other, especially when made in the backdrop of ongoing administrative action against Muslims in the region.

The disturbing cycle of targeted actions continues

This temple revival is not an isolated incident. It coincides with an intensified crackdown on Muslim communities in Sambhal under the pretext of anti-encroachment and electricity theft drives. These actions are not just administrative measures but appear to be a systematic strategy to marginalise and intimidate Muslims in the region. Several houses and mosques in Muslim-majority areas were accused of electricity theft, with officials alleging they found numerous appliances connected to meters that were switched off. Heavy fines have been imposed, and power connections severed, further destabilising these communities.

Residents have called these actions targeted harassment. They argue that the state government is finding new ways to exert pressure after the Supreme Court barred arbitrary demolitions and surveys of religious sites. As provided by a report of Times of India, Muslim residents in the area, fearing the loss of their homes and belongings, have begun demolishing their own houses, which the administration claims were built on “encroached temple property.” Residents have expressed their helplessness, stating that self-demolition allows them to salvage some possessions before inevitable action by the authorities. This grim scenario highlights the disproportionate burden placed on vulnerable communities, who are left with no choice but to dismantle their lives under the shadow of state-sanctioned aggression. 

A pattern of marginalisation and state attempts to create division- UP government to revisit 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases

The Uttar Pradesh government’s plan to re-open the 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appears to be another instance of selectively reviving historical incidents to fuel contemporary communal narratives. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s statements linking Sambhal’s communal history to a broader pattern of victimisation of Hindus reinforce a polarising narrative that risks deepening existing tensions.

Adityanath’s claim that 209 Hindus were killed in communal riots in Sambhal since independence is framed to underline alleged historical injustices, but it sidesteps the broader and more complex realities of communal violence in the region. His assertion that the opposition has remained silent on Hindu casualties while showing concern over recent events not only politicises communal tragedies but also diverts attention from the need for accountability in handling current conflicts.

The decision to revisit the 1978 riots, while ostensibly aimed at ensuring justice, coincides with a series of administrative and legal measures in Sambhal that disproportionately target the Muslim community. Together, these actions create an atmosphere of communal antagonism rather than reconciliation.

Rather than fostering communal harmony or addressing systemic issues, re-opening the 1978 cases risks becoming a tool for perpetuating divisive narratives. Such a move underscores the need for caution and sensitivity in addressing communal histories to prevent further polarisation and escalation of tensions.


Related:

Supreme Court urges UP government to maintain peace and harmony in Sambhal, prohibits the trial court from taking any further steps till January

Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh

Sambhal’s darkest hour: 5 dead, scores injured in Mosque survey violence as UP police face allegations of excessive force

Supreme Court issued stay on suits on survey against religious places, interventions had highlighted the Act’s intent to preserve India’s secular character

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

 

The post Uttar Pradesh’s new tactics for harassment: Electricity theft charges, strategic revival of temple, opening up of 1978 Sambhal communal riots cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh https://sabrangindia.in/sambhal-violence-state-crackdown-intensifies-thousands-accused-and-allegations-of-police-misconduct-ignite-a-political-and-communal-crisis-in-uttar-pradesh/ Fri, 29 Nov 2024 07:21:55 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=38976 As families of the 5 dead Muslims mourns its dead, the state government faces criticism over aggressive tactics and arbitrary arrests, communal targeting, victim threatening and political scapegoating

The post Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On November 24, 2024, the peaceful town of Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, was thrown into chaos as a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, a Mughal-era Mosque, sparked violence in the area, with protestors having to face the brunt of the high-handed and aggressive measures of the Uttar Pradesh police. The violence, which resulted in the deaths of five Muslim young men and left several others injured, has ignited a firestorm of controversy. While the police have maintained that the deaths were caused by gunfire exchanged between members of the mob, eyewitnesses, including Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the mosque’s managing committee, have alleged that the police themselves were responsible for firing on the crowd. Ali’s testimony contradicted the police’s version of events, claiming that he witnessed police officers firing bullets and carrying country-made weapons, a stark contrast to the police’s claims of using only non-lethal methods such as tear gas and rubber pellets.

The violence erupted as an aftermath of the survey conducted on the Mosque premises based on a petition that was filed in the UP court urging for ASI survey of the mosque, claiming it had been built on the site of a Hindu temple. Tensions had been brewing in the area since the court directed the survey, which was initially conducted on November 19. A second survey, scheduled for November 24, led to protests as rumours spread that the mosque was being desecrated. The protests quickly escalated into violent clashes with the police, who responded with force, resulting in the deaths of the four victims. The police have insisted that the violence was a result of confrontations between the protestors, but the post-mortem reports confirmed that the victims died of gunshot wounds, and the allegations against the police have continued to mount.

In the aftermath of the violence, a slew of arrests has been made, including of political figures and activists. Samajwadi Party MP Ziaur Rahman Barq and the son of a local MLA, Sohail Iqbal, have been named in FIRs, accused of instigating the violence. The administration has deployed extensive efforts to track down and arrest the culprits, including offering rewards for information. Meanwhile, political leaders, including Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, have raised serious concerns about the role of the state government in the incident, with some claiming that the violence was orchestrated and that the police were acting under political pressure. Allegations of threats against the families of victims, including the forced thumb impressions taken by police from the relatives of the deceased, have further complicated the situation, drawing calls for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation.

With conflicting reports from the police, local witnesses, and political figures, the situation in Sambhal has highlighted deepening divisions, questions of police accountability, and concerns over the administration’s handling of communal tensions in the region. As investigations continue, the community and political leaders alike are demanding justice for the victims and transparency in the probe.

Previous report may be read here.

Aggressive measures in Sambhal after violence

The Uttar Pradesh government is taking aggressive measures in response to the violent clashes in Sambhal on November 24, during the second round of the Shahi Mosque survey. The incident resulted in five deaths and many injured, which included a few police personnel’s, exposing deep fissures in the state’s handling of communal and political tensions.

As per media reports, A.K. Singh, Moradabad Divisional Commissioner, has now announced that authorities have identified 75 suspects through CCTV footage and videos, with ongoing efforts to identify more individuals. To aid their search for the suspects, their photographs will be displayed publicly on hoardings to solicit assistance to UP police in tracing and arresting them. Singh added that the administration also plans to recover damages caused to public property from those identified as perpetrators.

Heavy-handed measures: The Uttar Pradesh government’s response, which includes naming individuals in FIRs and publicly displaying photographs of suspected rioters, has raised serious concerns about due process and the implications of public shaming. The deployment of such measures suggests a push for rapid action but risks creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.

At least 25 individuals, including three women, have been arrested, with seven FIRs filed against 25 named individuals and around 3,000 unnamed ones. Among the accused are high-profile figures, including Samajwadi Party MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq and Sohail Iqbal, son of seven-time MLA Iqbal Mehmood. While the state asserts that these measures aim to restore order and accountability, the move is being criticised as politically motivated and disproportionately harsh.

A government spokesperson confirmed that posters of the accused would be displayed in public, adding that rewards might be announced for information leading to their arrests. “The administration is committed to recovering damages and taking strict action against those responsible,” the spokesperson stated. However, critics argue that this approach risks stigmatising entire communities and escalating communal tensions.

Political fallout: The incident has sparked significant political outcry, particularly from the Samajwadi Party (SP). MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq alleged that his inclusion in the FIR was part of a deliberate attempt to silence dissent and deflect from administrative failures. “The police are trying to scapegoat me to hide their incompetence. I will continue to fight for the rights and justice of my people,” Barq declared while speaking to Indian Express.

SP MP Dharmendra Yadav called for a Supreme Court-monitored probe, citing widespread mistrust in the state administration. “This investigation cannot be left to those who are complicit in the violence. Only an independent inquiry under judicial supervision can ensure justice,” he argued to the IE.

The state government’s stance has also drawn criticism from opposition MPs in Parliament. SP MP Dimple Yadav accused the administration of inhumane behaviour and demanded a full discussion on the Sambhal violence. “We will not allow this issue to be swept under the rug,” she said.

Allegations of involvement of political undertones: Adding to the complexity is the narrative pushed by the BJP-led state government, which attributes the violence to long-standing rivalries between two prominent families in Sambhal—the Barqs and the Khans. Minister Nitin Agarwal framed the incident as a “Turk vs Pathan” conflict, claiming that the violence stemmed from political dominance struggles between these communities.

The Barq family, descendants of the Turk community, and the Khan family, representing the Pathans, have been political adversaries for decades, as per the explanation provided by a member of the Yogi government. Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, the current MP, and Iqbal Mehmood, the MLA from Sambhal, represent these rival factions within the Samajwadi Party. This narrative, amplified by sections of the vernacular Hindi media, shifts the focus from administrative failures to communal rivalries, a move critics say is a calculated political distraction.

“The Turk-Pathan dispute has disrupted peace and endangered the safety of ordinary citizens,” Agarwal stated while taking to social media, commending the police for their swift action. However, this framing has been criticised for oversimplifying a complex situation and stoking communal divisions.

A pattern of escalation: The Sambhal violence is not an isolated incident but part of a broader trend of communal tensions in Uttar Pradesh. The state government’s reliance on aggressive policing, public shaming, and property recovery measures underlines a pattern of punitive action often disproportionately affecting minority communities. While these actions are framed as necessary for maintaining law and order, they also reveal a lack of trust in judicial and investigative processes.

The decision to suspend internet services in affected areas and maintain heavy police deployment underscores the administration’s precarious control over the situation. Despite claims of normalcy, these measures indicate a fragile peace, with tensions simmering beneath the surface.

The violence has exposed critical gaps in governance, including the lack of preventive measures and the failure to address underlying communal and political tensions. Instead of fostering dialogue and trust, the state’s response risks alienating communities further and exacerbating the divide.

The administration’s attempts to portray the incident as a product of local rivalries fail to address broader systemic issues. It also deflects accountability for law enforcement’s role in escalating tensions, a concern highlighted by opposition leaders and local residents alike.

Without a transparent and impartial investigation, the state risks deepening divisions and eroding public confidence in its ability to maintain peace and justice. The crackdown in Sambhal raises pressing questions about the balance between maintaining order and upholding democratic values, questions that the Uttar Pradesh government must confront with urgency and accountability.

Details about the FIRs file by the state police

A total of seven First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered in connection with the violence that broke out in Sambhal, of which five are in Sambhal Kotwali and two in Nakhasa police station. Among those named in the FIRs are SP MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq and Sohail Iqbal. Both are accused of inciting the mob violence that resulted in the deaths of four individuals and left many others, including police personnel, injured.

Incident and FIR Details: Advocate Qamar Hussain, who is involved in the case, spoke to SabrangIndia and provided them with details regarding the FIRs filed in the case. The FIR filed by Deputy Collector Ramesh Babu (FIR 336 filed in Sambhal PS) on November 24 describes the situation as follows: “Around 9:10 am, while the survey was being conducted in compliance with a directive from the court, a crowd of 800-900 unidentified individuals arrived at the Jama Masjid, reportedly armed with deadly weapons. The police and administrative officials, including Babu, tried to engage with the crowd and informed them that the survey was being conducted under a court order and that the mosque would not be harmed in any way. Despite these assurances, the crowd refused to disperse and continued to escalate the situation. The mob allegedly stole weapons and ammunition from the police, including a 9mm pistol, cartridges, a box of rubber bullets, and plastic pellets, which were reportedly used during the scuffle.”

Inspector Tomar, in FIR 337 filed in Sambhal PS, described the mob as “chanting religious slogans and moving towards the mosque with the intent to disrupt the survey.” Tomar also noted that the police attempted to reason with the crowd, but they were met with aggression and resistance. He further claimed that when the police declared the assembly unlawful and warned of the use of force, the mob began firing at the officers, leading to an intense confrontation. Tomar reported that many police officers were injured in the exchange, and the mob also damaged public and private property, including government vehicles. To control the situation, the police resorted to using water cannons, followed by the deployment of tear gas shells and rubber bullets, in line with orders from the District Magistrate to use “non-lethal force” in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

As provided by Advocate Qamar Hussain, in the two FIRs filed in the Nakhasa PS (FIR 304 and 305), three Muslim women have been identified in one and 6 Muslim men have been identified in the other, with a total of 350 people having been booked unidentified.

In FIR 334 of Sambhal PS, 800 unidentified people have been booked.

When asked by SabrangIndia if any case had been filed by the police against the group of people shouting the slogan of “Jai Shri Ram” while accompanying the survey team, Advocate Hussain said “there is no mention of these people anywhere. What can we even do? All the people accused and arrested are Muslims”.

Arrests and legal charges: As of now, 25 individuals have been arrested in connection with the violence, which includes 3 women and at least 3 minors. with charges under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) BNS including Section 190 (vandalism), Section 191 (rioting), Section 132 (assaulting a public servant), Section 109 (attempt to murder), and Section 326-f (mischief by fire or explosives). Additionally, charges have been filed under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, for the intentional destruction of property using fire or explosives, and the Arms Act, 1959, for the illegal possession and acquisition of firearms.

The ongoing investigation is being closely monitored, and authorities are considering the invocation of the stringent National Security Act (NSA) against those involved in the violence. Moradabad Divisional Commissioner Aunjaneya Kumar Singh confirmed that efforts are being made to identify and arrest all the perpetrators of the violence, with a heightened focus on accountability for those who caused damage to public property.

SP MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, condemned the survey and claimed that the violence was a premeditated attack against Muslims. He alleged that the survey was part of a broader effort to target the Muslim community, citing the way in which the Places of Worship Act had allegedly been violated. In his statement to the media, Barq argued that such actions were part of a wider pattern of marginalising Muslims in India. “People were stopped from offering Namaz, and the survey was conducted hastily without understanding the community’s concerns,” Barq stated. He also questioned the necessity of conducting a second survey, suggesting that the entire incident was orchestrated to inflame tensions.

Continuing investigation: The FIRs have named Barq and Sohail Iqbal, alongside 2,750 other unnamed individuals. The authorities are currently working to identify and apprehend more individuals involved in the violence. The investigation is still ongoing, and police are conducting further searches to gather evidence and identify additional suspects. The situation remains volatile, and the outcome of the investigation will likely have significant implications for both local governance and communal relations in the region.

Akhilesh Yadav’s criticism of Sambhal violence and police actions

Samajwadi Party (SP) chief and Kannauj MP, Akhilesh Yadav, has strongly criticised both the administration and the petitioners involved in the events that led to the violence in Sambhal on November 24, 2024. Yadav has accused the administration of mishandling the situation, which led to unnecessary bloodshed. As per reports, Yadav alleged that the police responded to stone-pelting by local residents by firing bullets from both their official and private weapons, an incident that he claimed was captured on video. Yadav’s accusations point to a grave misuse of power by the police, further aggravating the already volatile situation in Sambhal.

Political allegations and arrests: The violence has also sparked a political row, with several members of the Samajwadi Party, including MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, being arrested. Despite Barq’s absence from the scene, his name was included in the FIRs, which Yadav described as politically motivated. He questioned the integrity of the investigation, claiming that Barq had not even been in Sambhal during the violence. Yadav’s statement implies that the government is using these arrests as a means of political targeting rather than addressing the root causes of the violence.

Threats to victims’ families: One of the most disturbing allegations made by Yadav concerns the treatment of the families of victims. Yadav urged the Supreme Court to take cognizance of claims that the Uttar Pradesh Police had threatened the family members of Naeem, one of the five victims. According to media reports, around 20 policemen visited the family on the night of November 25, warning them against speaking to the media about the incident.

Naeem’s brother, Tasleem, who spoke to the Quint, claimed that the police had taken his thumb impression on a blank piece of paper. Tasleem, who is illiterate, expressed fear that the authorities might write something incriminating on the blank paper. Yadav condemned this action as a criminal act and called for immediate judicial intervention, urging the Supreme Court to hold those responsible accountable.

Naeem, a sweetmeat shop owner, was out buying groceries when the violence erupted as per the report of the Observer Post. His brother, Tasleem, has stated that Naeem was unaware of the clashes and was simply going about his daily routine when he was shot and killed by the police. Tasleem’s account paints a picture of an innocent man caught in a tragic and unnecessary escalation of violence, further fuelling the claims of police misconduct.

In his statements, Yadav underscored the need for judicial scrutiny of the entire incident, demanding accountability from the authorities and calling for the intervention of the Supreme Court to ensure that justice is served to the victims and their families. He concluded by expressing hope that the court would take cognizance of the situation and prevent such incidents from recurring in the future.

Questioning the survey and role of BJP activists: Yadav further questioned the necessity of conducting a second survey of the mosque, given that the first survey, conducted on November 19, had gone without incident. He argued that if a second survey was deemed necessary, the local administration should have consulted with the community to prevent unnecessary tensions. The lack of dialogue, according to Yadav, contributed to the violence.

Additionally, Yadav speculated that BJP activists may have been involved in the violence, suggesting that they were present during the second survey and were seen raising provocative slogans. He raised concerns about the administration’s failure to address these provocations, which, according to him, led to the escalation of the situation. Yadav’s comments highlight what he believes is a deliberate attempt by the administration to ignore the provocations and prevent the violence from being defused.

Yadav’s statements also carried a veiled criticism of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. He suggested that there is a political rift within the BJP leadership, particularly between the central leadership in Delhi and the state leadership in Lucknow. Yadav implied that this rift is exacerbating tensions in the state, with both factions engaged in a competition for political dominance. He criticized the BJP for using divisive tactics that undermine communal harmony, which he believes directly contributed to the unrest in Sambhal.

Arbitrary arrests

On Sunday night, Uttar Pradesh Police arrested Muslim activist Javed Mohammed for a Facebook post he shared regarding the recent violence in Sambhal, which resulted in the deaths of six Muslims. Mohammed’s post was reportedly critical of the police’s use of force during the protests against the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal. The authorities accused him of spreading unrest and took action under Sections 126, 135, and 117 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertain to various offenses related to public order and incitement.

Mohammed was arrested from his rented residence in Prayagraj, a city in Uttar Pradesh. After his arrest, the police forced him to delete the Facebook post in question. Despite his arrest, he was granted bail on the next day itself, but he spent an additional day in custody due to his failure to meet the bail conditions. Specifically, he was unable to provide the required bail bond and two sureties at the time. Mohammed was then released on November 26, 2024, once he satisfied these bail requirements.

Javed Mohammed, 58, has a history of being a vocal critic of the Uttar Pradesh government, particularly its handling of Muslim issues. Notably, in June 2022, he was accused of being the “mastermind” behind a protest in Prayagraj that was sparked by derogatory remarks made by BJP leaders about Prophet Mohammed. The protest led to widespread unrest, and Mohammed was arrested on June 10, 2022, in connection with the event. He was imprisoned for 21 months before being granted bail in March 2024. In a related development, Mohammed’s family was allegedly subjected to mistreatment during his recent arrest. His wife and daughter were reportedly “illegally detained” by the police on the night he was taken into custody. According to reports, the police released them only after they were coerced into giving assurances that they would not return home or interfere with the demolition of their house, which was scheduled for the following day.

It is essential to note that Mohammed has vehemently denied all the allegations against him, asserting that they are politically motivated. He has also taken legal action against the demolition of his house, challenging it in court, calling the destruction of his property unlawful and an act of retaliation.

Claims of protestors firing at each other false: Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the Shahi Jama Masjid’s managing committee

On November 25, the administration in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, further found itself embroiled in controversy after Zafar Ali, the chairperson of the Shahi Jama Masjid’s managing committee, publicly accused the police of firing bullets at the crowd during the violent clash. Ali’s claims directly contradicted the police’s official narrative, which maintained that they had used only non-lethal methods such as tear gas, lathi-charge, and rubber pellet guns to disperse the crowd. Ali’s statements added to the tension, as they suggested the police were responsible for the deaths, not the protestors as the police had suggested.

Zafar Ali’s allegations and police response: Ali, in a press conference on November 25, had claimed that he had witnessed the police firing at the crowd during the chaos that erupted over the survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid. As per the report of The Wire, Ali had stated, “I saw that the police were firing bullets. It happened right in front of me. There was no bullet fired from the public in my presence.” This assertion directly contradicted the police’s statement, which claimed that the deaths were a result of gunfire from country-made weapons used by members of the mob. The police further suggested that the situation was chaotic, with individuals firing on each other, and assured that a magisterial probe would clarify the circumstances.

Following his public accusations, the police summoned Ali for questioning. The authorities also held their own press briefing, calling his allegations “misleading” and accusing them of being “politically motivated.” Despite the backlash, Ali was allowed to return home after his questioning, with the police clarifying that he had not been detained or arrested.

Police claims vs. Ali’s eyewitness account: The violence resulted in the deaths of four Muslim men, all of whom died from gunshot wounds. The police have suggested that the injuries were caused by bullets from country-made weapons, commonly known as “desi kattas,” which were reportedly in the hands of the protestors. However, Ali maintained that the police were armed with similar weapons and were the ones responsible for firing at the crowd. He further added that the police had also vandalised and set fire to their own vehicles near the mosque, casting doubt on the police’s account of events.

Ali’s account has raised questions about the authenticity of the police’s narrative. He questioned the logic behind the claim that protestors shot at each other, stating, “If they had to fire, they would have fired at the police and not the public. This is something to think about.” This contradiction between Ali’s statement and the police’s version has led to heightened scepticism regarding the actions of law enforcement on that day.

The lead-up to the violence- Rumours and miscommunication: In addition to his claims about the police’s actions during the incident, Ali also provided further context regarding the days leading up to the violence. He revealed that on the night of November 23, he had been informed by Sambhal’s Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Vandana Mishra, and Circle Officer (CO) Anuj Kumar Chaudhary, that a second survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid would take place the next morning. Ali stated that he had not given a “No Objection” to the survey, yet it went ahead regardless the following day.

The morning of the survey saw the area heavily surrounded by police, and Ali claimed that the SDM insisted on draining the water from the Hauz (water tank) even though the Superintendent of Police (SP) and District Magistrate (DM) had suggested that a simpler measurement could be taken with a stick. Ali’s description of the situation indicated a lack of coordination and communication between the local authorities and raised concerns about the handling of the survey.

Ali also pointed to the spread of a damaging rumour that claimed the Jama Masjid was being dug up without the court’s permission. This rumour caused panic in the community, and soon, large crowds began to gather near the mosque. According to Ali, this rumour sparked the violence and chaos that ultimately led to the deaths and injuries. The misinformation surrounding the mosque’s survey may have been a key factor in escalating the situation from a routine survey to a violent confrontation.

The conflicting statements from Zafar Ali and the police have only added to the tension and confusion surrounding the incident. While the police have promised a thorough investigation, including a magisterial probe, the allegations against them remain unresolved. Ali’s eye-witness testimony, combined with the rumoured causes of the violence, calls into question the transparency and fairness of the police’s actions during the event. As the investigation continues, the community and the wider public await further clarity on the role the police played in the tragic events of November 24.

Addressing the fault lines- Need of the hour

The Sambhal violence serves as a stark reminder of the deep communal, political, and administrative fissures in Uttar Pradesh. The state government’s aggressive response—ranging from arrests and FIRs to public shaming and punitive measures—underscores its prioritisation of swift action over due process. However, these tactics risk further alienating communities, exacerbating tensions, and eroding public trust in the justice system.

The framing of the violence as a result of local rivalries, while politically expedient, deflects attention from the systemic failures in governance and law enforcement. Allegations of police misconduct, coupled with the narrative of communal rivalries, reveal a troubling pattern where accountability is side-lined in favour of divisive rhetoric.

Calls for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation highlight the widespread mistrust in the state administration’s ability to impartially handle the situation. Without a transparent, unbiased inquiry into the events leading up to and during the violence, the cycle of mistrust and division is likely to persist.

The Sambhal incident is not an isolated case but part of a broader trend of escalating communal tensions and heavy-handed responses in Uttar Pradesh. For long-term peace and stability, the state must address the underlying causes of these tensions, foster dialogue, and rebuild trust in democratic institutions. Balancing law and order with the protection of constitutional rights is essential to prevent such incidents from becoming recurring flashpoints in an already polarised environment.

 

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court orders security, condemns hate speech over Uttarkashi Mosque

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Rajasthan HC finds no caste intent in words like ‘Bhangi’, ‘Neech’, ‘Bhikhari’, ‘Mangani’, drops SC/ST Act charges

The post Sambhal Violence: State crackdown intensifies, thousands accused, and allegations of police misconduct ignite a political and communal crisis in Uttar Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>