Maharashtra, with a mixed history of intra-community conflict, has in 2024 under a BJP-SS (Eknath Shinde-NCP (Ajit Pawar) regime emerged as a communal hotbed in the year 2024 with the highest number of communal riots and mob lynching incidents. These communal riots claimed 13 lives- three of whom were Hindus and ten of whom were Muslims. The majority of communal riots were triggered during religious festivals or processions, including Pran Pratishthan at Ayodhya Ram Mandir (four riots in January), Saraswati Puja immersions (seven), Ganesh festivals (four), and Bakri Eid (two). This data underscores how religious celebrations are increasingly being exploited as triggers for communal tensions and political mobilisation.

Citizens for Justice and Peace’s Hate Watch programme meticulously monitors day on day such incidents and also gives a visual representation of the same on Nafrat ka Naqsha that can be viewed here.

In addition to the communal riots, 12 incidents of mob lynching were reported in the year 2024, resulting in 10 deaths: one Hindu, one Christian, and eight Muslims. While this represents a decline from 21 mob lynching incidents recorded in the year 2023, the persistence of these attacks remains a concern. Six of these lynchings were linked to cow vigilantism or accusations of cow slaughter. Other cases of lynching were on the pretext of interfaith relationships and assaults targeting Muslims for their religious identity. Geographically, Maharashtra accounted for three lynchings, while Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh each reported two incidents, and Karnataka recorded one.

The data analysed reveals a troubling trend: while mob lynching incidents decreased, communal riots reported as reported in these five newspapers surged by nearly 84%. Together, these developments signify an escalation of communal tensions and the marginalisation of Indian Muslims, further threatening the secular fabric of Indian society. The rise in the number of communal riots can be attributed to the General Elections that were held in April/May in 2024 and state assembly elections in the states of Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Haryana. Similarly, the intervention of judicial interventions — calling upon the state to take action against mob lynching especially after Hindus were victims of mob lynching– have resulted in lesser incidents of mob lynching.

On the basis of its annual monitoring exercise, the CSSS based has released these trends of communal violence in India during 2024. The year saw a disturbing shift towards more institutionalized forms of violence, characterised primarily by attacks on places of religious worship and attempts by fringe Hindu right-wing groups to push for archaeological surveys of historic mosques and dargahs, including the Ajmer Sharif Dargah. These actions reflect a concerted effort to reshape India’s socio-political and cultural landscape.

This trend was accompanied by significant legislative changes, such as the introduction of the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand and amendments to the Waqf Board Act. Additionally, the use of bulldozers to demolish properties owned by Muslims without due legal process continued unabated from 2023, symbolising the (mis) use of state power –where governments belong to the Bharaitya Janata Party (BJP) played a large part [1]–being wielded disproportionately against the Muslim community. Bulldozers in the years 2023 and 2024 have become synonymous with a kind of “collective punishment” meted out to the Muslims. Ironically, bulldozers are used to punish Muslims when they are victims of the same communal riots. Furthermore, an increase in communal riots, particularly during religious festivals, has heightened concerns about the erosion of India’s secular and composite cultural fabric.

A more detailed analysis is expected to follow this brief interim report.

[1] The hill states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh (governed by the Indian National Congress-INC have also witnessed acute communal polarization with the miniscule Muslim minority population being targeted through slurs, hate speech and attacks on places of worship (Sanjauli and Nandi masjids) https://sabrangindia.in/tensions-escalate-in-himachal-and-uttarakhand-multiple-protest-and-rallies-against-mosques/

Related:

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

The post How hate spread in 2024, a report of communal violence in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Communal Riots:

Seven out of the total of ten communal riots took place in the state of Bihar alone around the Saraswati idol immersion. These communal riots took place in north and east of Bihar- in Bhagalpur, Sitamarhi, Siwan, Darbhanga, Jamui, sheikhpura and Saharsa.  Forty-seven persons were injured in Bihar communal riots alone. According to the investigations of CSSS, religious processions in the recent past have used communal slurs and provocative slogans to target the Muslims and incite violence. Religious processions are increasingly used for asserting hegemony of Hindu religion.

The rest of the three communal riots took place in Haldwani in Uttarakhand, Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh and Vadodara in Gujarat. All the four states are ruled by BJP. These communal riots claimed six lives- all six deaths took place in Haldwani communal riots. Two out of these six persons who died were Muslims.

Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh witnessed a communal riot on February 9, when the followers of Islamic cleric and Ittehad-e-Millat Council chief Tauqeer Raza Khan took to the streets after he was detained for giving a call for “jail bharo” over the ongoing Gyanvapi dispute. Stones were pelted at people returning home after participating in a protest organised by Tauqeer Raza Khan in the Shamat Ganj area under Baradari police station limits. The police had to use minor force to disperse the crowd. Soon after the incident, a group attacked and injured two Hindu motorcyclists near the spot where the stone pelting occurred. Three people were injured. Some motorcycles were vandalized.

Another minor communal riot took place in Vadodara in the state of Gujarat. Communal riots took place when a mob of over 150 people assembled to protest against a social media post which was allegedly derogatory against Lord Ram and allegedly posted by one Sahid Patel. The police alleged that the Muslims started stone pelting when the accused was present at the Navapura police station. Three persons were injured and the police have caught 11 persons and 22 persons have been booked.

A major communal riot took place at Haldwani in Uttarakhand on February 8. In the strictest sense this is not a communal riot where there was violence inflicted by one community over the other. In this instance, the Muslim community, provoked to violence due to the demolition of the Abdul Razzaq Zakariya Madrassa and Mariyam Mosque- retaliated against the administration. The hasty action of the authorities in bulldozing the places of worship, while a litigation on the legality or otherwise of the structures was before the High Court, has been questioned.The authorities alleged that the structures were illegal. The residents of Haldwani allegedly hurled petrol bombs and stones at the municipality workers. The police thereafter used excessive force, including indiscriminate firing and brutality during searches and detention. Six persons were killed and over 100 injured during police action. Over five persons were arrested including Patel.

The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) had in an open letter to the Governor brought out detailed facts around the violence. This report may be read here

Discriminatory Laws:

Apart from communal riots, there have been incidents of discriminatory legislations passed by the state which curbed the freedom of religion of Muslims and Christians. These laws aimed at privileging the Hindu religion and discriminate based on religious identity. For instance, Uttarakhand passed the controversial Uniform Civil Code Act which will be applicable to all religious communities in the matters of marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance etc replacing personal laws that are in practice in India. The passage of this law without any discussions with stakeholders has been widely criticised. The personal laws in practice in the rest of India ensure cultural autonomy to the diverse communities. However, with the Uniform Civil Code passed by the state of Uttarakhand has essentially drawn most provisions from Hindu laws and imposing it on diverse communities in a bid to homogenize and hegemonize.

In another instance of such selective policies, the Assam cabinet Assam Cabinet approved the Assam Healing (Prevention of Evil) Practices Bill, 2024, to address the issue of fraudulent magical healing practices in the name of treatment. The Bill prescribes imprisonment and fines for engaging in illegal practices under the guise of treatment or magic healing. This Bill was introduced on the unsubstantiated premise that Christian evangelists are converting Adivasis as elaborated by CM Himanta Biswa Sarma in his statement. He said, “We want to curb evangelism in Assam and in this regard, the banning of healing is an important milestone. We are going to pilot this bill because we believe the religious status quo is very important for a proper balance. Let Muslims remain Muslims, Christians remain Christians, Hindus remain Hindus.” He had added that magical healing is “a dicey subject used to convert tribal people”.

Sarma also promised to bring UCC to Assam along the lines of Uttarakhand. Additionally, the Assam government repealed the Assam Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registration Act 1935. The Chief Minister argued that the decision had been taken to curb child marriage, stating that the Act has a provision that enables the marriage of brides and grooms below the ages of 18 and 21, respectively.

Uttarakhand also proposes to table a bill called, “Uttarakhand Public and Private Property Damage Recovery Bill”. The law if passed will make rioters accountable for damages to government and private property. This law comes in the backdrop of the communal riots triggered by demolition of the alleged illegal Mariyam Mosque and Abdul Razzaq Zakariya madrassa in Haldwani. The premise of this law as cited in other BJP ruled states where this law is operational is that Muslims are rioters and responsible for the damage to public and private property.

The Ministry of Minority Affairs instructed the closure of the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF) ‘at the earliest’ through a notice. The MAEF was meant for the upliftment of minority community members-Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Jains. Founded with the mission of promoting education among the marginalised sections of society, the Maulana Azad Education Foundation was funded by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. Closure of such scholarship to students from minority communities will adversely impact the educational prospects of such students.

The Chhattisgarh government is introducing in the coming days the “Chhattisgarh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Bill” which mandates a person who wishes to convert to another religion to fill a form with personal details at least 60 days in advance and submit it to the District Magistrate. Additionally, following the conversion, a person will have to fill another declaration form within 60 days and present himself or herself before the DM for verification. Such laws tighten restrictions on individuals to convert out of their own free will. Such laws also intrude into personal choices of individuals to choose and practice faith.

In yet another bid to invisibilize the contribution of Islam and Mughal kings to Indian heritage, Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation (UPMRC) has changed the name of Jama Masjid metro station to Mankameshwar.

Hate Speeches:

According to the monitoring of CSSS, four major incidents of hate speeches were reported in the month of February. Three out of the four hate speeches were made by tall BJP leaders. Nitesh Rane, BJP MLA from Maharashtra on two occasions alleged without data or evidence that ‘land Jihad’ and ‘love jihad’ is taking place in Maharashtra. On one instance he accused that the electricity theft to the tune of INR 300 crores is funding terrorist activities in Malegaon. The judiciary had convicted right wing leader Pragya Thakur in the bomb blast case in Malegaon.

These were first covered and monitored by Citizens for Justice and Peace; stories may be read here.

Nitesh Rane in Mumbai in another incident he blamed the BMC and MHADA officials for having facilitated “land jihad” by allowing “Rohingyas” to settle in Govandi and Mankhurd “illegally”. He threatened to demolish all mosques in Govandi and Mankhurd the area if MHADA didn’t demolish them. No effective action is taken against Rane who has a history of making hate speeches.

In another incident, one of the protestors in a rally led by Suvendhu Adhikari, BJP opposition leader in West Bengal called a senior IPS Sikh office as “Khalistani”. The protesters were on way to Sandeshkhali in West Bengal.

In a video emerging from Gujarat, Mufti Salman Azhari, religious leader from Mumbai made a provocative statement. He said, “abhi toh Karbala ka akhaari maidan baki hai, kuch der ki khamoshi hai fir kirane ayega, aaj kutto ka wakt hai kal hamara daur ayega”. His arrests has led to protests and communal riots in Vadodara.

Hate Crimes

A family of three became targets of hate crimes when a mob of about 30 to 40 persons forced Asif Shaikh to say “Jai Shri Ram” in a train from Kankavali to Mumbai in Maharashtra in January. He was traveling with his wife and toddler daughter. The video of the attack on the family went viral. The mob threw hot tea at Asif’s daughter when Asif protested against their force.

Related:

Haldwani: Police allege planned mob attack, as local Muslims state police harassing and detaining family members without evidence

Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty

 BJP MLA Nitesh Rane leads Hindutva Rally in Govandi, demands demolition of “illegal Masjids and Madrasa”

The post February 2024: Report card on communal violence, India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These words were said by Martin Luther King Jr. in the era where the racial segregation was at its peak and the African Americans targeted in the form of lynching. Lynching of the marginalized African American was a hate crime which mirrored the fissures in the American society. However, these words resonate strongly in the present day India where lynching the Muslims, Dalits and the other marginalized is the new ‘normal’.

Innocent citizens are targeted by mobs driven by an ideology which subscribes to hatred for the ‘other’ thus wanting to dehumanize and demonize the ‘other’. Fear of the ‘other’ is instilled within the community through clever propaganda using social media and traditional media. Passions, fear and hatred of the mobs are incited through emotional issues like cow protection; friendship between a male and a female belonging to different religions and stigmatized as “love jihad”. These, ironically are also litmus test for nationalism or creating insecurity and fear that innocent children are be kidnapped or theft is committed. As per data compiled by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 45 persons were killed in 40 cases of mob lynching across nine states between 2014 and 3 March, 2018 (Hindustan Times, 2018).

The extent of this violence can be gauged from the numbers that emerge from the monitoring done by CSSS. CSSS has been monitoring three newspapers – the Mumbai editions of the Hindu, Times of India, and Indian Express. CSSS found based on the reporting of these newspapers that since January 2014 to 31^st July 2018, 109 incidents of mob lynching have taken place in India. These 109 incidents include bovine related vigilantism, “love jihad” vigilantism, vigilantism around the rumours of child lifting, violence related to identity markers like skull caps and also forced to chant Hindu supremacist slogans. Out of the 109 incidents, 22 incidents took place in Maharashtra, followed by Uttar Pradesh (19) and Jharkhand (10) (Table 1). All the three states are BJP ruled states.
 

Table 1: No. of Incidents in top three States

In these 109 incidents, 78 persons were killed and 174 injured (Table 2 & 3). Out of the 78 persons killed, 32 are Muslims, 21 Hindus, 6 are Dalits, 2 STs and in 17 cases the community of the deceased was not specified. Similarly, out of the 174 injured persons, 64 were Muslims, 42 Dalits, 21 Hindus, 6 adivasis injured and the community of the injured in 41 cases was not specified.
 

Table 2: No. of individuals killed in mob lynching incidents from 2014 to 31^st July 2018

Table 3: No. of individuals injured in mob lynching incidents from 2014 to 31^st July 2018

This shows that Muslims and Dalits are targeted more than others in mob lynching violence.

CSSS found that there is a steady increase in the incidents of mob lynching since 2014. The Prime Minister Modi’s mild disapproval of mob lynching incidents did not have effect on those indulging in it (Table: 4). The disapproval was not followed up with adequate actions mandated by law against those indulging in mob lynching, particularly, the BJP ruled states.

Table 4: Year wise incidents of mob lynching

 
This is an alarming trend and shows the increasing impunity enjoyed by the vigilante groups. Not surprisingly, 82 out of the 109 incidents have taken place in BJP ruled states. 9 under the Samajwadi Party regime, 5 under Congress regimes and 4 under Trinamool Congress regime. (Table: 5).

Table 5: Regime wise incidents of mob lynchings

39 of the 109 incidents are related to rumours of child lifting, 39 to bovine vigilantism and 14 related to “inter-religious friendship between a male and a female” (Table: 6).

Table 6: Rumour/accusation for which persons were lynched

Approximately 42% of incidents of mob lynching are related to bovine vigilantism and rumours of child lifting each. Other reasons include rumours or suspicions of theft, refusal to chant Hindu supremacist slogans.

Supreme Court Judgment

In response to this trend, the Supreme Court recently passed a judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union of India on 17^thJuly, 2018. In this judgment, the judges while condemning the acts of lynching laid down certain mechanisms to prevent and punish such acts. The judgment emphasizes on prevention, remedial and punitive measures. The judgment is timely and important for two reasons. Firstly, the judgment unequivocally condemns this trend of spiraling violence and explains how it is unconstitutional, undermining democratic institutions and a threat to pluralism. Secondly, the judgment lays down mechanism to deal with incidents of mob lynching. However, the judgment misses some issues which will be discussed later.

At the very outset the judgment reaffirms the supremacy of law in a civilized society. The judgment critiques the role of the so called self proclaimed protectors of laws who take law in their own hands and dispense ‘justice’ to victims they assume have committed a crime. The judgment pointed out to the seminal principle in law that a person is entitled to be treated as innocent till found guilty after a fair trial. No person, group of persons or community can deny a fair trial to an accused person.

The senior counsel for the petitioner in the case, Indira Jaisingh expressed concern that the incidents of mob lynching are targeting citizens belonging to minority communities and lower strata of the society and that the State / Central government must take steps to ensure such incidents are prevented. The judgment reiterated that it is the duty of the Sate to prevent communal violence and should enquire into the causes of communal unrest and strengthen the fabric of society. Vigilantism could not be tolerated in any form. Juxtaposing the lynching against the Constitution of India, the judgment points out that lynching undermines the legal institutions laid down by the Constitution. The acts of lynching are linked to hate crimes which result from the intolerance, ideological domination and prejudice. The judgment makes it clear that vigilantism including cow vigilantism should not take place in the country and it goes against the very grain of law.

The judgment makes a crucial point about the desirability of diversity and pluralism and states that vigilantism is a threat to pluralism. In a political discourse which is so divisive and intends at polarizing the populace by hate mongering, this judgment reaffirms the saliency of diversity and tolerance and calls them the building blocks of a democratic society. It goes on to note that in a constitutional democracy the right to life and liberty is paramount. It reminds the State that it has a positive obligation to protect the fundamental rights of all individuals irrespective of race, caste, class and religion. The State, it adds, has the primary responsibility to foster a secular, pluralistic and multi-culturalistic social order to allow free play of ideas and beliefs and co-existence of mutually contradictory perspectives. Making a distinction between mob lynching and other ordinary crimes, the judgment points out, that the dominant intent and actual result of the lynching is two-fold. One to usurp the authority of administering justice according to the law of the land and second to deprive the citizens the enjoyment of rights mentioned in the Constitution.
 

Critique of the Judgement

This brings us to the critique of the judgment based on the how the mob lynching takes place. The judgment speaks about the lofty ideals of pluralism and lays down the onus of protecting the citizens’ fundamental rights onto the State irrespective of the caste, class and religion of the citizens. However, the judgement stops short of noting that the mob lynchings are organized crimes patronized by leaders of the ruling regime and dominant political ideology of the ruling party provides justification for mob lynching. This is obvious from the statements of the elected Constitutional functionaries and the consequent negligent action or rather inaction by the police. While some political functionaries undermine the seriousness of the offence, others justify the act. Union Minister Jayant Sinha last month garlanded eight persons convicted of lynching Alimuddin Ansari in Jharkhand last year (Tewary, 2018). Ansari was lynched by these vigilantes accusing Ansari of cow slaughter. Another Union Minister, Arjun Ram Meghwal stated that incidents of lynching will continue with the rise in the popularity of Prime Minister Modi, hinting at conspiracy to defame the BJP (Ahuja, 2018). This displays complete denial by the minister that such monstrosity is taking place when asked his reaction about the lynching of a Muslim man in Alwar. Justifying cow vigilantism, BJP leader, Gyan Dev Ahuja, said,“Cow slaughtering is a bigger crime than terrorism. Terrorists kill two to three people, but when a cow is killed, sentiments of crores of Hindus get hurt (Hindustan Times, 2018).”

Looking at the above statements, it can be safely deduced that the government is not serious about stopping the lynching. The act of lynching is enjoying political patronage and impunity and thus thrives. This aspect is not addressed by the judgment. The cases of lynching are not isolated cases but manifestations of a political ideology and a discourse that is aggressively planted in the social consciousness. The lynching is justified by creating hatred and distrust around symbols like cow and children against marginalized communities. This hatred is normalized when the state machinery and also representatives give it legitimacy by taking no action. The judgment should have clarified that all those who supply any justification for mob lynching, in effect abet the crime and they should be tried for abetment of the offence. Those who prepare alarming videos and fake news to arouse anxieties of ordinary people which then leads to mob lynching; those who circulate these videos and messages on social media have a common intention with those who eventually get involved in mob lynching, and persons having common intention are also guilty of the offence and must be tried for the offence.

It is imperative to cover the political leadership under the purview of any law to effectively stop mob lynching in order to monitor the role of police. The police have been appalling in their response. In many cases the police are seen colluding with the mob. Thus they either take no action to protect the victims or blatantly help the mob to perpetuate violence. Take for example the recent two incidents. In Hapur, the police are seen walking in front of the mob which is dragging the victim while the victim is pleading for help and mercy! In the case of Alwar, the police took over three hours to take the victim to the hospital which was only 5 kilometers away. This cost the victim his life. While it is no secret that police have their own bias, the problem is compounded by the political ideology of the political leadership. Police follow the diktats of their political bosses. Though the judgment orders a nodal officer is to be appointed in each district who will try to prevent mob lynching and in case such incidents take place, take remedial measures, the police can be impartial if they there not under the influence of the political leadership and are aware that any partiality or bias resulting in failure of their duty will attract consequences.

The objective of the judgment to prevent and penalize the culprits of mob lynching and arresting this ghastly trend will not be achieved with the above mentioned lapses and lacunae in the judgment. They are too fundamental to be ignored. Mob lynching with the monstrous proportions is demonizing Muslims and Dalits, tearing the social fabric of the country. Not only does it weaken the social harmony of the country but also undermine democratic and Constitutional institutions which safeguard the life and liberties of the citizens and prevent the spiraling decay of the society to turn into a barbarian one. Mob lynching is not merely a problem of law and order but a henious political tool to exclude and marginalize the vulnerable communities. As rightly pointed out by Irfan Engineer, “Mob lynching seems to be continuation of pattern of low intensity communal violence. The innocuous looking isolated incidents of mob lynching are in fact new pattern of low intensity communal violence. The objectives of sustained communal polarization can now be achieved by this method (Engineer, 2018)”. This politics of hatred must be countered and one hopes that this judgment of the Supreme Court will prove instrumental to stop this insanity and quest for blood. In order to end this article, one can return to this stark and hard hitting poem by Popel which describes the similar bloodthirsty politics in America in the time of apartheid and racial segregation and morbidity and dehumanization that accompanied it and what may be the fate facing Indian society.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag”
They dragged him naked through the muddy streets, a feeble-minded black boy!
And the charge? Supposed assault upon an aged woman!
“Of the United States of America”— One mile they dragged him
Like a sack of meal, A rope around his neck, a bloody ear
Left dangling by the patriotic hand Of Nordic youth! (A boy of seventeen!)
“And to the Republic for which it stands”— And then they hanged his body to a tree,
Below the window of the county judge whose pleadings for that battered human flesh
Were stifled by the brutish, raucous howls of men, and boys, and women with their babes,
Brought out to see the bloody spectacle Of murder in the style of  ’33!
(Three thousand strong, they were!)
 “One Nation, Indivisible”—To make the tale complete they built a fire— What matters that the stuff they burned was flesh—and bone—and hair—And reeking gasoline!
“With Liberty—and Justice”— they cut the rope in bits and passed them out, for souvenirs, among the men and boys!
The teeth no doubt, on golden chains will hang about the favored necks of sweethearts, wives,
And daughters, mothers, sisters, babies, too!
 
* CSSS team includes – Irfan Engineer, Neha Dabhade, Suraj Nair, Siddhi Pendke
 

The post India: The new Lynchdom appeared first on SabrangIndia.