In the midst of a bitter winter, in 2023, I was invited by a college located in the Adivasi belt of Jharkhand to deliver a lecture on post-colonialism. The event was organised by the English department, but students from other disciplines also showed interest. I was thrilled to see the enthusiasm of the undergraduate students, both girls and boys. Many of them demonstrated impressive comprehension and communication skills during the discussions.
Among the attendees, Daya Shankar (name changed) stood out. He showed great interest in the subject and posed numerous questions, some of which were sharp and thought-provoking. He communicated fluently and was highly articulate and argumentative in his approach.
During the talk, I left the podium and walked toward him. He was sitting on a bench in the back row with three other students. Our one-on-one conversation continued for a considerable time. Eventually, the professor who had organised the lecture had to intervene, saying, “Sir, Daya Shankar’s questions are endless.” Upon hearing this, many in the audience laughed. Although the formal session had ended, we continued our conversation outside the hall. Before leaving, we exchanged phone numbers, and since then, Daya Shankar and I have remained in touch.
Daya Shankar, an undergraduate student of English, belongs to the Marandi Adivasi group in Jharkhand, which is part of the larger Santhal community. The Santhals are considered one of the largest Adivasi groups in Jharkhand and West Bengal by population. “They have a legacy of anti-colonial struggles against the Zamindari system in the mid-19th century”.
In addition to Jharkhand and West Bengal, the Santhals also reside in Bihar, Odisha, Assam, Tripura, Nepal, and Bangladesh. The Santhals predominantly speak Santali, a language belonging to the Austroasiatic family.
According to the 2011 Census, Adivasis, officially classified as Scheduled Tribes (ST), make up 26.3% of the population in Jharkhand, compared to 8.3% at the national level. Around 8.6 million Adivasis live in Jharkhand, comprising 32 different ST groups. Jharkhand has the 12th largest tribal population in India, with significant concentrations in districts like Simdega, West Singhbhum, Khunti, and Dumka. The Santhal Pargana division, which borders West Bengal, has a higher Muslim population at 22%, compared to the state’s overall Muslim population of just over 14%.
A few days ago, I wrote an article on the targeting of innocent Muslims in BJP-governed states, where their homes and shops are being demolished by bulldozers as a form of state punishment. I referred to these illegal acts as “bulldozer terrorism” because no provision in the Constitution or any law permits the demolition of a person’s home, whether they are accused or convicted, as a collective punishment. Human rights organisations have already documented the gross violations occurring in BJP-ruled states, where large numbers of Muslims have been forcibly rendered homeless. Recently, the Supreme Court has also spoken out against these bulldozer actions, placing a stay on them.
In hearing several petitions related to these demolitions, the apex court emphasized that India, as a secular country, cannot allow discrimination based on religion. The court also mentioned that it would soon issue nationwide guidelines to prevent such actions.
In this context, I wrote my article and shared it with my friends. Daya Shankar was one of the first to respond, offering criticism of both my work and my approach. Showing little concern for the bulldozer demolitions, Daya Shankar’s broader argument was that Muslims are the aggressors and that they refer to Hindus, including myself, as “kafirs.”
He went on to claim that my writings are often “pro-Muslim,” while, in his view, Muslims are exploiting Adivasi lands in Jharkhand and forcibly converting them to Islam. He also accused me of being “less concerned” about Adivasi issues and of prioritizing Muslims as the only minority group. Daya Shankar, an Adivasi student, further remarked that Islam fosters terrorism. In response to his comments and questions, I promised him I would address his points in writing.
I believe Daya Shankar’s opinion is largely shaped by the dominant Islamophobic discourse in the state. In the upcoming Jharkhand Assembly Elections, the BJP is playing the communal card, attempting to fracture Adivasi and Muslim unity to secure votes. Communal forces, with the support of the media, are constructing a narrative that Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslim infiltrators are encroaching on Adivasi lands in the Santhal region and converting Adivasis to Islam through coercive methods, including the so-called ‘Love Jihad.’
Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has raised this issue at electoral rallies in Jharkhand, raising the specter of Muslim infiltrators taking over Santhal tribal lands. At a recent rally in Jamshedpur, the Prime Minister made baseless and highly communal remarks aimed at polarizing voters along religious lines: “Infiltrators entering the state is a big issue… The state high court recently instituted an inquiry by an independent panel into such incidents. But the JMM government here is not ready to accept that illegal immigration is taking place in Jharkhand. In Santhal Pargana and Kolhan, infiltration by Bangladeshis and Rohingyas is a big threat. The identity and demography of this region is changing very fast” (The Economic Times, September 15).
What follows is my commentary on Daya Shankar’s criticisms of my work. I am choosing to share my reply publicly because of the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the Adivasi regions of Jharkhand. For a long time, the Hindu Right has been working to create divisions between Adivasi and minority communities, such as Christians and Muslims. I fear that the poison of anti-Muslim hatred, which has already pervaded caste-based North India, is now spreading to the Adivasi regions. A symptom of this is the way Daya Shankar has developed a prejudice against Muslims. His questions do reflect this prejudice.
Daya Shankar: It seems like you have a strong affinity for Muslims, sir. I’ve noticed many of your posts tend to support or express sympathy toward them. Why is that?
Abhay: What’s wrong with having a strong affinity for Muslims? Would you deny the fact that India is a home to people of multiple religions and faiths? A large number of people who don’t follow any institutionalized religion are no less Indian. Take the Adivasi community, to which you belong, as an example. I have seen with my own eyes that rigidity about religious practices is least found among the Adivasi community. Unlike members of institutionalised religions, they hardly fight over religious structures. Similarly, there is no history of bloodshed over the correct interpretation of a holy text.
There are also groups of atheists who deny the existence of God and don’t accept that God is outside history. They, too, are equal citizens of India, and our Constitution grants them formal equality. But a negative trend is emerging in India with the rise of the Hindu Right, where a particular religious community is seen as the true Indians and loyal sons of the soil, while the rest—particularly Muslims and Christians—are viewed as belonging to non-Indic religions and therefore deemed untrustworthy.
The process of “othering” Muslims has a history of more than one hundred years in India. During colonial times, Hindu revivalist movements redefined the nation in terms of Brahmanical culture. When these revivalists realized that modern politics is based on numbers—put simply, that the majority community would rule over the minority—they sought to popularize Brahmanism by rebranding it as Hinduism. However, the upper-caste Hindu revivalists were only interested in tokenism, seeking to gain the support of the lower castes to defeat Muslim leadership and label them as “communal.”
It is true that our nationalist movement had many currents, including a strong secular one. However, Hindu nationalists managed to penetrate secular organizations and, under the guise of nationalism, promoted the interests of the upper-caste minority. In my view, the Partition of the country wasn’t engineered by any one leader. History often tends to cast one person as the hero and another as the villain, but we should avoid such simplifications.
Discrimination against Indian Muslims at the hands of the state is systemic. Governments have come and gone, but Muslims remain backward. Their representation in Parliament, legislative assemblies, and both public and private sector jobs is much lower than their share of the population, yet they are overrepresented in jails. They also suffer from communal riots, and their history and culture are not adequately represented in school textbooks. Even their homes are being demolished using bulldozers as punitive measures in BJP-ruled states.
Tell me, should we not demand justice for Muslims? Are they not equal citizens of India? Can our country progress if Muslims are kept backward? In a democratic and secular setup, no one should be discriminated against based on religion. If I have shown affinity for Muslims, and if my writings and activism have helped even a single Muslim, I would consider my life successful.
Daya Shankar: When a Muslim’s house is bulldozed, you express sympathy for them and their community. But don’t you also see how some Muslim extremists are mistreating and killing Hindus?
Abhay: Democracy is built on the rule of law. It cannot survive without secularism and respect for minority rights. Nowhere in a democracy is it justified to demolish the house of an accused or even a convicted person as a form of punishment. If I commit a crime, how could my family be made homeless? The law states that punishment must be proportional to the crime. For example, if I commit theft, I cannot be punished for murder. Numerous incidents have been recorded where houses and workplaces of Muslims have been bulldozed by BJP-ruled states as a punitive measure.
Human rights activists have documented that many victims of these bulldozer actions were those who had protested against government policies. The Constitution and the Supreme Court clearly state that peaceful protests cannot be suppressed. Dissent is a sign of a vibrant democracy. Yet, Muslims have been jailed, and their homes razed to the ground, simply for dissenting. How can anyone justify such bulldozer actions?
Well-known human rights organisations like Amnesty International have shown in recent reports that these actions violate both national legal procedures and international human rights standards. In most cases, victims were not given enough time to pursue legal remedies; their houses were demolished quickly, their family members beaten, and their lives ruined. The Supreme Court has intervened, placing a stay on these actions, and has promised to introduce nationwide guidelines to ensure no community is unfairly targeted.
Have I done anything wrong by speaking against bulldozer actions? You, as an Adivasi, can likely relate to this issue because Adivasis have been the most displaced people in the name of development since Independence. Whether it’s for dam construction, mining, or industrialisation, who is being displaced? We know the answer: it’s the Adivasis. Have you ever seen the houses of the rich being demolished? No, because they are powerful. Muslims’ homes are being demolished because they have been rendered powerless. These actions are designed to send a message to the minority community: if you raise your voice, you will be punished.
Let me make my point clear: a country cannot progress if any section of its society is mistreated or discriminated against. As a journalist, when I write about the issues facing marginalised communities, including Muslims, I am not doing charity. It’s the job of a journalist to highlight the struggles of the downtrodden.
As for your claim that Muslims consider you or me a “kafir,” that’s simply not true. Let me share my experience. I spent four years living in Sabzi Bagh, Patna, a predominantly Muslim area, during my graduation days. I never heard a Muslim call me a “kafir.” I’m not saying there aren’t a few Muslims who may believe this, but should we take them as representatives of the entire Muslim community? Likewise, many Hindus hold prejudices against Muslims, but should they be considered the spokespersons for all Hindus? I’m sure your answer is no.
I’ve even read the Quran, and it clearly teaches its followers not to disrespect people of other faiths, lest they, in turn, speak ill of Islam. The Quran emphasizes both worship of God and service to humanity, including non-Muslims, on numerous occasions. Islamic history shows that the Prophet Muhammad formed alliances with non-Muslims and advocated for fair treatment of all. Even during Muslim rule, with a few exceptions, minorities were protected.
I disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that Hindus are being killed by Muslims on a large scale. Show me any reliable source that proves Hindus are being persecuted. Yes, there are cases where a Muslim may kill a Hindu, or vice versa, but these are rare incidents. And in such cases, the law acts against the murderer. Your claim that Hindus are being killed by Muslims on a large scale simply isn’t true.
Daya Shankar: There is terrorism associated with Islam, and there are terrorists within the faith. I believe there is something fundamentally wrong here. Otherwise, why are so many terrorists emerging from just one religion?
Abhay: Terrorism is not connected to any particular religion. Terrorists can belong to any faith, or they may be atheists. There is no study proving that all terrorists are Muslims. Likewise, there is no reliable data showing that Muslim-run terrorist organizations are more numerous globally than those run by non-Muslims. In fact, Muslims are among the worst victims of terrorism.
If you examine the concept of terrorism, its definition is still not universally accepted. Historically, the image of a terrorist is dynamic. Someone seen as a terrorist today could be regarded as a freedom fighter tomorrow, and vice versa. Similarly, a freedom fighter in one country might be seen as a terrorist in another. Many scholars agree that the portrayal of Muslims as terrorists gained traction after the Cold War.
To truly understand terrorism, you need to explore its historical, political, and economic dimensions on both national and global levels. Viewing terrorism solely through a religious or cultural lens will not deepen your understanding. You also need to examine the link between terrorism and the arms industry. Ask yourself: Who benefits most from perpetuating a regime of insecurity?
Even in Adivasi areas, those fighting to protect their land and resources are often arrested by the state and charged under anti-terror laws. Do you consider them terrorists just because they are fighting for their rights?
I also disagree with your view that Islam is inherently violent. I have read the Quran many times, and nowhere does it instruct its followers to kill others. The core of the Quranic teachings revolves around the worship of God and the service to humanity.
Look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad. He always sought to build peace and avoid war. He only engaged in warfare when forced to, and even then, only in self-defense. Beyond self-defense, the Quran does not endorse violence. If you doubt my words, I encourage you to read the Quran yourself. I would be happy to provide you with a copy.
Daya Shankar: Are Muslims the only minority? What about Adivasis? Aren’t they minorities too? What have you done for the welfare of Adivasis and tribal communities?
Abhay: I have never claimed that Muslims are the only minority. Legally, minorities are often defined in terms of religion, and religion is certainly an important criterion. However, my understanding of minorities is influenced by the works of Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar. In his small book States and Minorities, written around the time of Independence, Ambedkar offered a broader definition of minority. He argued that to consider a community a minority, one must assess its “social, economic, and educational condition.”
By Ambedkar’s definition, I firmly believe that Adivasis are a minority. Government data consistently shows that Adivasis are lagging behind on almost every development index. Worse still, misguided development policies have severely impacted their lives, livelihoods, and cultures. Their resources are being seized by the corporate-state alliance. Over the past 80 years, the demographic makeup of Adivasi regions has changed, with outsiders increasingly taking control of their resources.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that these outsiders are exclusively Muslims, nor is there any proof that Muslim outsiders have displaced Adivasis. Contrary to the claims of the Hindu Right, the history of Jharkhand shows that Adivasis and Muslims have shared a strong bond and lived in peace for a long time. In fact, most Muslims in Jharkhand are Pasmanda Muslims, who belong to the backward castes. The Ansari community, a large group within the Pasmanda Muslims, has traditionally been weavers, making fabrics for Adivasi regions.
Sociologically, Pasmanda and Dalit Muslims share many cultural practices with Adivasis, and there is no history of significant conflict between them. The rise of Hindu nationalist forces has injected the narrative of Islamophobia into this peaceful coexistence. The Hindu Right is eager to hold on to power in Adivasi regions to facilitate corporate exploitation of their resources. They understand that unity between Adivasis and Muslims is a major barrier to their political ambitions.
That’s why there’s a deliberate effort to create misunderstandings between Adivasis and Muslims. Weakening this unity not only undermines the prospects of secular parties but also opens the door for the Hindu Right to seize power. As defenders of the dominant interests in society, they often scapegoat Muslims, portraying them as a threat to the well-being of non-Muslims.
Daya Shankar: Adivasi lands are being grabbed by Muslim settlers, leading to the displacement and marginalization of the Adivasi people. What’s your take on this?
Abhay: As I mentioned earlier, the dominant forces in society often deflect attention from the real sources of exploitation by presenting Muslims as a threat. You’ve likely noticed that BJP leaders are focusing on supposed Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration in Jharkhand as the central issue in the assembly elections. Let’s assume for a moment that there is indeed infiltration from Bangladesh and Myanmar into Jharkhand. Should we blame the state government, led by an Adivasi chief minister, or the BJP-led Prime Minister Modi?
If foreign infiltrators are entering Jharkhand, what are our security agencies doing at the borders? Border security falls under the responsibility of the Union Government, which is led by Prime Minister Modi. Shouldn’t the focus be on what the Central Government is doing about this, rather than turning it into an election issue? There is no official data or statement to confirm this alleged infiltration in Adivasi areas.
I’m not denying that there could be isolated conflicts between some Adivasis and Muslims at the local level, but these are not part of a grand political design, nor do they pose a threat to national security. The narrative of Muslim infiltrators grabbing Adivasi land, abducting women, and forcing conversions is often amplified during election seasons to undermine the Adivasi chief minister and sway voters.
Daya Shankar: There have also been reports of Adivasis being coerced into converting to Islam. Will you ignore these issues?
Abhay: There is no credible evidence to suggest that Muslims are coercing Adivasis into converting to Islam. We live in a democracy—do you truly believe that, in such a system, a minority community could forcefully convert members of the majority? Have you met anyone personally who has complained of being forced to convert by Muslims?
If Muslims didn’t force Adivasis to convert during their rule before colonialism, do you think they are in a position to do so in post-independent India, when they are one of the most marginalized and discriminated-against communities? The media often spreads rumors about forced conversions by Muslims but remains silent on the long-standing efforts of the RSS to assimilate Adivasis into Hinduism.
If Adivasis were allowed to declare their religion in the Census, why is there no provision for this in a secular country? Have you ever considered that? Many Adivasis do not wish to be assimilated into Hinduism and are demanding official recognition of their Sarna religion in the Census. Yet, their demands have not been accepted. Isn’t this a more pressing issue?
Daya Shankar: Adivasi communities have faced violence, threats, and intimidation from certain Muslim groups. Will you deny these facts?
Abhay: As I mentioned earlier, there may indeed be local-level conflicts between Adivasis and Muslims. These situations can arise, for example, if an Adivasi is a landless laborer and a Muslim is a landowner—class conflict would naturally occur. Similarly, if a Muslim mason is constructing a house for an Adivasi, disputes over wages could happen. These types of conflicts stem from economic and class struggles, not religious differences.
I am not denying the existence of these occasional conflicts, but they are not indicative of a larger systemic problem between Adivasis and Muslims. What is often overlooked is the shared cultural and social realities between these two communities. Both Adivasis and Muslims are largely marginalized and underprivileged in states like Jharkhand, and both are victims of exploitation by the upper-caste elites.
There is no credible evidence or data suggesting that Muslims are the primary source of threats or violence against Adivasis. The bigger reality is that both Adivasis and Muslims face state discrimination and are victims of corporate exploitation. The focus should be on addressing these shared struggles rather than pitting one marginalized group against another.
Some Clarifications
Before I conclude, let me clarify that my response to Daya Shankar’s question is not exhaustive. Instead of delving into details, I have attempted to outline the broader issue. Some critics may argue that by addressing Daya Shankar’s case, I am unintentionally reinforcing the BJP’s narrative that Adivasis feel threatened by Muslims. To such critics, I would like to emphasize that I do not consider Daya Shankar to be representative of the entire Adivasi voice in Jharkhand. As I mentioned earlier, the Adivasi community is made up of several tribes, each with its own diversity. The BJP, too, is pushing the narrative of Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration more in the Santhal regions than in other parts of Jharkhand.
My aim in responding to Daya Shankar’s misunderstanding about Muslims and Islam is to highlight the larger communal discourse propagated by the Hindu Right and its media allies. In recent years, the influence of the Hindu Right has grown significantly in Jharkhand, and manufactured communal conflicts have become more frequent. My argument is that these anti-Muslim narratives are spreading quickly in Adivasi regions, and young people like Daya Shankar are falling prey to them. Therefore, the need of the hour is not to deny these negative trends but to actively work to counter them. We must highlight the shared cultural bonds between Adivasis and Muslims to challenge Hindutva propaganda.
I also want to clarify that this article is not intended to “educate” the Adivasi community about secularism and composite culture. I am fully aware of the limitations of my own identity as a Brahmin male raised in a caste-based society. My response should not be seen as didactic, but rather as a reflection of a particular moment. Nowhere am I claiming to teach Adivasis any lessons on secularism. On the contrary, I believe that Adivasi cosmology offers hope and wisdom for a society that is losing its way.
(Dr. Abhay Kumar is an independent journalist. His broad interests include minority rights and social justice. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com)
Related:
Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty
Christians face escalating attacks as far-right Hindu groups intensify persecution
Temple Management & Tirupati: the ‘WHYs’ behind temple regulation explained