Context and allegations

According to the complaint filed by Eshwari Padmunja of Puttur taluk, Bhat’s address to the gathering contained statements that were inflammatory, derogatory toward women, and targeted religious minorities, especially Muslim women, in a way alleged to incite communal disharmony. The complaint says that in the speech, Bhat stated that Hindu women who had more than two children were derided for “giving birth like dogs”, whereas Muslim women having larger families apparently were not subject to the same remarks. He reportedly urged Hindu women to have at least three children, rhetorically asking: “If we don’t have children, who will go to the temples?” He also cited a supposed “survey” in which a Muslim woman aged 46-47 had borne 13 children and was pregnant again—this apparently to invoke fear of demographic threat. He additionally made reference to voter demographics and comparative fertility of communities in a manner the complainant argues was calculated to provoke communal tension.

In consequence of the complaint, the Puttur Rural Police registered a case (FIR) on 25 October under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — namely Sections 79 (insult to the modesty of a woman), 196 (promoting enmity between groups on religious/linguistic grounds and prejudicial to harmony), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 302 (deliberate wounding of religious feelings) and 3(5) (criminal act by several persons in furtherance of a common intention). The registration of the FIR followed media reports of a video of the event being circulated, in particular via the YouTube channel “Kahale News”.

Legal developments and court order

In reaction to the FIR and the consequent police notice summoning Bhat for questioning, Bhat filed a petition before the Puttur Sessions Court. He argued that the FIR is motivated by malice, politically influenced, and lacks genuine merit. He claimed the case is a tool to silence his freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and to stifle the ideological work of the RSS.

On October 28, the Court accepted his petition at the interim stage and directed no coercive action against him until the next hearing on October 29; it also issued notice to the police, asking them to respond to Bhat’s petition and the allegations in the FIR. In effect, the court has placed a stay on arrests or detentions relating to the case until further order.

Political and institutional reactions

Following the case, the Karnataka Government, through its Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Minister Priyank Kharge, publicly criticised Bhat’s remarks and questioned whether any individual is “above the law or the Constitution.” He specifically referenced the RSS’s plan to hold a “padayatra” (march) on November 2 in Chittapur, stating that permission from the court is required and that any attempt to proceed without lawful approval will invite action under law. He emphasised that people who disturb communal peace through public speeches will face FIRs under existing law.

On the other side, leaders of the BJP and RSS have accused the Congress-led state government of using state machinery to intimidate Hindu organisations and single out Hindu activists under the guise of “hate speech” policing. Some have alleged the FIR and summons against Bhat reflect “appeasement politics” and a selective targeting of Hindu voices in coastal Karnataka.

Historical Pattern and Background

This is not the first FIR registered against Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat. The present case builds on a pattern of complaints and FIRs involving Bhat and the RSS in the coastal Karnataka region, raising larger questions about law-enforcement, freedom of speech, communal harmony and political discourse.

Over the past decade, Bhat has been named in multiple police complaints and FIRs across Dakshina Kannada, often for statements made at public rallies, religious gatherings, and Sangh Parivar events. His speeches—typically invoking themes of Hindu unity against “anti-national” or “communal” forces—have repeatedly crossed into language that demonises Muslims, Christians, and women.

• 2018: Civil society groups filed complaints after Bhat’s inflammatory address during a Hindu Samajotsava in Mangaluru, where he allegedly said that Hindus must “teach a lesson” to those who “betray the nation.” The speech triggered widespread criticism and a petition before the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission. No prosecution followed.
• 2019: Another complaint was filed in Udupi after Bhat referred to Muslim traders as “enemies of dharma.” The police acknowledged receiving the complaint but cited lack of “direct incitement” to justify inaction.
• 2022: Following the Udupi hijab controversy, Bhat addressed several rallies supporting uniform restrictions, where he allegedly described the hijab as a “symbol of separatism.” A complaint under Sections 153A and 295A IPC was filed by a local activist collective, but the FIR was not registered.
• 2023: In the wake of communal tensions in Belthangady, video clips of Bhat’s speeches circulated online, showing him calling for a “strong Hindu response” to “love jihad.” Again, while fact-checking portals verified the authenticity of the clips, the local police treated the speech as “political expression,” and no FIR was lodged.
• February 2024: Following a speech in Bantwal, where Bhat allegedly said that “those opposing the Ram Mandir should not live in India,” local organisations filed complaints before the Puttur and Sullia police stations. Both complaints were acknowledged, but no arrests were made.

Across these incidents, a clear procedural pattern emerges: FIRs are delayed or not registered, magistrate cognizance is deferred, and when cases are filed, they tend to stagnate without charge-sheets. No case has yet resulted in prosecution or conviction.

Conclusion

Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat’s record illustrates how hate speech prosecutions in India often collapse at the intersection of political patronage, institutional hesitation, and legal ambiguity. The recurring cycle of complaint, delay, and deflection has allowed incendiary speech to thrive unchecked — particularly when uttered under the banner of “religious mobilisation.” As the Puttur FIR inches forward under judicial scrutiny, the question remains whether Karnataka’s justice system will finally break that cycle, or replay the familiar pattern of rhetorical accountability without consequence.

Related:

Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat booked for Babri Masjid demolition play in school

Karnataka Police’s massive crackdown on habitual hate offenders in Dakshina Kannada region

Can majoritarian societal pressure re-write the rulebook? The illegality behind forced non-veg shutdowns during festivals

CJP flags casteist, anti-Dalit videos on YouTube targeting CJI Gavai; seeks urgent takedown

From Words to Bulldozers: How a Chief Minister’s rhetoric triggered and normalised punitive policing in Bareilly

The post Court stays proceedings against RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat over alleged derogatory remarks targeting Muslim women appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by The Telegraph, it was Giriraj Singh, the BJP’s MP from Begusarai, who told a poll rally in Arwal district on Saturday that “citizens who accept government welfare have a moral obligation to vote for the ruling party.” Twisting perversely the very fundamentals of republican democratic governance, he clearly appeared to use the term for Muslims who are beneficiaries of the schemes declared by the current regime at the Centre but do not support the BJP.

In a video of the speech, Singh recounted a reported conversation with a cleric. “So I told him that one who doesn’t acknowledge help is called a namak haram,” the minister is heard saying.

“I told him, ‘Maulvi Saheb, I don’t want the votes of the namak haram’,” he said.

Despite facing criticism on Sunday (October 19), Singh stood by his remarks, telling reporters he meant only to highlight that government welfare schemes were non-discriminatory.

The comments drew strong and immediate criticism.

Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut demanded the minister’s removal, asking, “If someone doesn’t vote for you, does that make them namak haram?” The Bihar Congress called Singh “mentally unstable.”

The BJP’s main ally in Bihar, the Janata Dal (United), was more cautious in its response. Spokesperson Rajeev Ranjan said voters “make decisions beyond such comments,” while another party leader defended Singh.

The minister’s provocative statement was the most high-profile of several communally charged incidents involving BJP leaders over the weekend. In Pune, on Sunday, Rajya Sabha MP Medha Kulkarni led a protest organised by the Patit Pavan Sanghatna and other Hindu outfits at the historic Shaniwarwada fort, reported The Indian Express.

After a video showed Muslim women offering prayers at the site, Kulkarni and activists “purified” the spot with cow urine and performed a Hindu ritual. “We will not allow ‘namaz’ in Shaniwarwada, Hindu community has now become awakened,” she tweeted before the protest. She later defended the action, stating, “It is a symbol of Hindavi Swaraj… We cannot allow anyone to offer namaz here. It is not a mosque.”

The move was slammed by political opponents as an attempt to polarise voters ahead of local civic polls. Sachin Sawant of the Maharashtra Congress noted the fort’s diverse history, adding, “The BJP MP is also protesting against the ‘dargah’ outside Shaniwarwada. When the Peshwas had no problem, what is her problem?”

Separately, a video showed BJP leader Pragya Thakur urging parents to use violence to control their daughters, reported The Financial Express. She warned that girls welcomed as “Lakshmi or Saraswati” grow up to become “mianin” (a derogatory term for a Muslim man’s wife).

“Strengthen your mind, and make it so strong that if our daughter does not obey us, if she goes to a non-believer’s house, leave no stone unturned in considering breaking her legs,” Thakur said.

She added that parents should not “step back” from beating their children for their own good! These incidents come as Bihar prepares for elections, with the first phase of polling on November 6, the second on November 11, and counting on November 14.

Related:

Unifying cultural celebration weaponised: Ganesh processions turned into stages for hate speech & moral policing

India’s Hate Speech Crisis: 1,165 cases recorded in 2024, up 74.4% from 2023

CJP files three complaints against pro-right-wing leader and BJP Minister Nitesh Rane over alleged hate speech in Maharashtra

The post Bihar Elections Build-up: ‘Won’t allow namaz’, ‘namak haram’, BJP MPs’ communal hate-filled remarks draw fire appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complaint, addressed to NCM Chairperson Iqbal Singh Lalpura, seeks urgent intervention under Section 9(1)(d) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, requesting a full inquiry, registration of FIRs against hate speech offenders, and preventive directions to curb vigilante activity and incitement.

Background: The hate campaign after “Operation Sindoor”

According to the complaint, the rise in hate speech is not random but follows a pattern of political and administrative hostility that began after the launch of Operation Sindoor in April 2025. CJP states that post the said operation, arbitrary action officially framed as a crackdown on illegal immigration has increased, degenerating into a campaign of ethnic profiling and arbitrary expulsions, resulting in over 1,500 people being “pushed out” into Bangladesh between May and July 2025 without legal verification by Foreigners Tribunals or access to legal aid.

CJP warns that these actions have created a climate of fear among Bengali-speaking Muslims, especially migrant workers in cities like Mumbai, Delhi, and Ahmedabad, who now face harassment, eviction, and assault under the guise of “protecting the state from infiltrators.”

Scope of incidents documented

The complaint meticulously catalogues over two dozen hate speech incidents between June and September 2025, with supporting links from mainstream and independent media as well as verified social media posts.

• Assam: The epicentre of anti-Muslim rhetoric

CJP identifies Assam as the focal point of the hate campaign. Under the banner of the “Miya Kheda Andolon” (“Expel the Miyas Movement”), local organisations and political figures have launched public drives to evict Bengali-speaking Muslims, often with violent undertones.
Among those named are:

• Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who made inflammatory remarks alleging that “newly arrived Muslims” weaponise beef consumption and have built mosques near Satras “to drive out Hindus.”
• Situ Barua of Jatiya Sangrami Sena and Milan Buragohain of All Tai Ahom Students’ Union, both accused of stopping buses and threatening Muslim labourers to “vacate Upper Assam.”
• Bir Lachit Sen, whose followers reportedly conducted door-to-door “document checks” and forced evictions.

CJP documents 18 rallies and nine incidents of targeted violence across 14 districts of Assam in just three weeks (July 9–30, 2025), pointing to a coordinated effort to normalise vigilantism against Bengali-origin Muslims.

• Bihar: Hate speech for electoral gain

As the Bihar Assembly elections approach, CJP notes a strategic deployment of hate speech to polarise voters. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Union Minister Giriraj Singh, and several BJP leaders including Jagannath Sarka and Samik Bhattacharya are cited for using communal rhetoric in public rallies. CJP highlights a disturbing pattern — speeches describing Bengali-origin Muslims as “demons,” “Rohingya infiltrators,” and “threats to Hindu women” — all couched in the language of demographic panic and cultural invasion.

The complaint underscores that no voter deletions have occurred on the basis of foreign nationality in Bihar’s updated electoral rolls, exposing the falsehood behind the “infiltrator” narrative. Instead, the rhetoric has dehumanised entire groups of internal migrant workers.

• Hate speech spreading nationwide

The complaint lists similar hate-laced incidents across Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and Maharashtra, including:

• Kapil Mishra’s speech at Delhi’s PGDAV College claiming a “Rohingya and Bangladeshi settlement conspiracy.”
• Nitesh Rane’s rally in Navi Mumbai urging Hindus to avoid “goltopis and dadiwallas.”
• Mahadev Baba’s hate-filled tirade in Lucknow describing Muslims as “cannibalistic infiltrators.”
• A mob attack at the Constitution Club of India that disrupted a civil society event on Assam’s detention and eviction crisis with chants of “Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko.”

Legal and constitutional analysis

CJP’s complaint goes beyond documenting hate speech — it situates these acts within the framework of criminal and constitutional law, citing the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 196, 197, 352, 353) and Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The organisation argues that these offences are cognisable and non-bailable, and must invite suo motu action by police in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2023).

The complaint draws on key judicial precedents:

• Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan (2014) – defining hate speech as an act of marginalisation and de-legitimisation of vulnerable groups.
• Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) – directing states to curb vigilante violence and appoint nodal officers to monitor hate crimes.
• Amish Devgan (2020) – establishing a higher standard of responsibility for influential figures in public life.

CJP contends that the repeated participation of ministers and legislators in inflammatory campaigns represents a violation of constitutional morality and betrays the secular fabric of the Indian state protected under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25–30 of the Constitution.

CJP’s key demands to the NCM

The complaint calls upon the Commission to:

1. Take legal cognisance under the NCM Act and initiate an inquiry.
2. Direct registration of FIRs against individuals and organisations spreading hate.
3. Curb vigilante activity by outfits like Bir Lachit Sen and All Tai Ahom Students’ Union.
4. Ensure police compliance with Supreme Court orders on suo motu action.
5. Enforce preventive measures, such as videographing rallies and banning repeat hate offenders.
6. Urge social media platforms to remove hateful content.
7. Launch a fact-finding mission on the profiling, harassment, and eviction of Bengali-origin Muslims nationwide.

Conclusion

CJP’s complaint represents one of the most exhaustive compilations of hate speech documentation in recent months, combining legal precision with humanitarian concern.
It frames the current climate not as a communal clash but as a “systematic campaign of hate speech that slurs, stigmatises, and instigates violence against lawful citizens.”

By appealing to the National Commission for Minorities, CJP has sought to reclaim the constitutional promise of equality and secularism, urging that the language of hate not become the language of governance.

The complete complaint may be read below:

Related:

CJP calls for action by NCM against hate speeches at Dharam Sansad and Trishul Deekha events, files 2 complaints

CJP moves NCM against arms training camps, weapon distribution events in Assam and Rajasthan

CJP complains to NCM over Uttarakhand Muslim exodus; seeks urgent action

CJP moves NCM against Shiladitya Dev for targeting the ‘Miya Muslim’ community of Assam

The post CJP urges NCM action against hate speech campaign vilifying Bengali Muslims as ‘Infiltrators’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In no uncertain terms, the division bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Anuradha Shukla delivered a stinging rebuke to the State, noting that the FIR had been crafted in a manner designed not to prosecute, but to protect. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR—expected to lay out the minister’s actions and how they constituted the offences alleged—merely reproduced the concluding paragraph of the Court’s own order from the previous day, while omitting all factual and legal reasoning. This omission, the Court warned, opened the door for the FIR to be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (the successor to Section 482 CrPC), effectively nullifying the judicial process.

What emerged from the May 15 hearing was the Court’s growing scepticism about the willingness of the State police to independently and impartially investigate a sitting Cabinet Minister. The bench did not shy away from calling out the subversion of process and the appearance of executive shielding. While stopping short of naming officials responsible for what it called a “clumsy attempt,” the Court made it clear that further proceedings would examine the chain of command involved in drafting the FIR.

To safeguard the integrity of the investigation, the Court took the extraordinary step of directing that its entire order from May 14 be treated as part of the FIR. It also announced that it would now monitor the investigation to ensure that the case is not quietly buried under bureaucratic evasions or political pressure. This order is not just a procedural correction—it is a firm statement that the judiciary will not tolerate the erosion of accountability when hate speech and communal slander are weaponised by those in public office.

Details of what transpired in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, along with the Supreme Court, are below.

May 15- Madhya Pradesh High Court slams state police for ‘Gross Subterfuge’ in FIR

I. The Hearing: Sharp rebuke to state over subversion of process

On May 15, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the state police for the manner in which it had complied with the Court’s earlier order to lodge an FIR against sitting BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for his offensive remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla made it unequivocally clear that the Court would not allow the investigation to be derailed or diluted.

According to the report of LiveLaw, the High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the contents of the FIR, criticising it for being drafted in a manner so skeletal and vague that it invited quashing. “I’m sure you’ve read it,” the bench remarked to the Advocate General. “It has been drafted in such a way that it can be quashed. Where are the ingredients? Who drafted this?” The bench questioned how an FIR could be considered valid when it lacked any specific mention of the minister’s actions or how those actions fulfilled the ingredients of the offences invoked.

While the Advocate General submitted that the state had complied with the Court’s May 14 direction and even handed over a copy of the FIR, the bench was not convinced. The Court pointed out that paragraph 12 of the FIR — which should have detailed the accused’s actions and how they constitute the alleged offences — was nothing more than a mechanical reproduction of the Court’s earlier order. Crucially, it failed to reflect the parts of that order that laid out the specific conduct of the accused and the legal basis for charging him under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The bench called this omission a deliberate design, a “gross subterfuge” meant to weaken the case and insulate the minister from future prosecution. “This FIR has been registered in such a manner…so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS), it may be quashed,” the Court noted sharply, as per the report of LiveLaw,

Despite submissions by Advocate General Prashant Singh assuring the Court that the state had no intention to shield the minister and would comply with all directions, the Court made clear that intent alone could not cure procedural sabotage. It remarked that it would be forced to monitor the investigation, not to interfere with the agency’s independence, but to ensure that the probe was not tainted by extraneous influences or politically motivated pressures.

II. The Order: Blistering indictment and judicial safeguards

Later that evening, the High Court’s written order laid bare the extent of its disapproval. In no uncertain terms, the bench described the FIR as an exercise in deliberate obfuscation, aimed at frustrating the judicial process.

“This Court has examined paragraph-12 of the FIR, which must necessarily lay down the ingredients of the offence by connecting it to the act of the offender. The FIR is brief. Having gone through the FIR in its entirety, there is not a single mention of the actions of the suspect, which would satisfy the ingredients of the offences which have been registered against him,” the Court noted in the FIR.

Notably, Section 152 of the BNS, notably, criminalises any speech or act that incites secessionist sentiments or undermines national unity — an offence punishable with up to life imprisonment. Sections 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) further address attempts to incite communal disharmony and acts against national integration. These provisions relate to acts endangering India’s sovereignty and integrity, disturbing communal harmony, and undermining national integration — all serious charges triggered by Shah’s remarks describing Colonel Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists”.

However, the FIR, the Court noted, was drafted to look superficially compliant while omitting essential content that could withstand judicial scrutiny. In a scathing indictment, the bench wrote:

“This FIR has been registered in such a manner leaving sufficient space open so that if it is challenged under erstwhile section 482 of Cr.P.C (section 528 BNSS), the same may be quashed because it is deficient in material particulars of the actions which constitutes each of the specific offences. This is gross subterfuge on the part of the of the State. The FIR has been drawn in a manner so as to assist the suspect Mr. Vijay Shah to be able to have the FIR quashed on a later date.”

The Court declined, for now, to name those responsible for what it termed a “clumsy attempt” to dilute accountability, but made clear that it would examine this further in subsequent proceedings.

“At this juncture this Court desists from embarking on a journey to find out as to who was responsible in the chain of command of the State police for this clumsy attempt. This Court shall endeavour to find out the same in future proceedings.”

To safeguard the case from being derailed, the Court issued a unique direction:

“However, in order to ensure that said subterfuge is nipped in the bud, this Court directs that the entire order of 14.05.2025 shall be read as part of paragraph 12 of the FIR for all judicial, quasi-judicial and investigating process henceforth.”

This directive ensures that the contents of the Court’s earlier order — including its detailed reasoning on how Shah’s remarks constitute criminal acts — are deemed to be part of the FIR itself, immunising it from legal infirmities arising from the police’s omissions.

Lastly, recognising the sensitivity and seriousness of the matter, the Court announced that it would continue to monitor the investigation. While clarifying that this would not impinge on the police’s autonomy, the bench made it clear that judicial oversight was now essential to ensure a fair and unbiased probe.

“In view of the nature of the case and the manner in which the FIR has been registered, which does not inspire confidence of this Court, and the Court is of the opinion that if the case is not duly monitored, the police would not investigate fairly in the interest of justice in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, this Court feels compelled to ensure that it monitors the investigation without interfering in the independence of the investigating agency but only to the extent of monitoring that it acts fairly in accordance with law without being influenced by any extraneous pressures or directions.”

The matter is scheduled to be listed immediately after the vacation, ensuring continuity in judicial supervision.

Key findings of the Court through its order:

1. Failure to articulate offence

The Court unequivocally states that the FIR, while brief, omits the essential content required to constitute a valid FIR under law. Paragraph 12 of the FIR, which should describe the suspect’s actions in terms of legal ingredients, is merely a reproduction of the final operative part of the Court’s own order from May 14 2025.

2. Strategic deficiency and subterfuge

The Court goes beyond identifying technical gaps and alleges intentional subversion of judicial direction, and does not merely suggest incompetence; it attributes intent—asserting that the FIR was drawn up in a way designed to assist the accused in securing a quashing of the FIR at a later date.

3. Postponed attribution of responsibility

While noting that the drafting of the FIR amounted to a “clumsy attempt,” the Court refrains from immediately naming those responsible within the police hierarchy. However, it clearly reserves its right to do so in the future.

4. Judicial incorporation of prior order into FIR

In a decisive move to prevent the FIR from being rendered legally ineffective, the Court directs that its order dated May 14, 2025 be treated as part of the FIR. This step is unusual and noteworthy. Courts typically do not rewrite executive documents. By judicially supplementing the FIR with its own prior reasoning, the Court ensures that the FIR now contains the essential legal and factual ingredients to support the investigation and prosecution.

5. Judicial monitoring of investigation

The Court, expressing a clear lack of confidence in the police to act fairly without oversight, announces its intention to monitor the investigation. One should note that the same is not interference with investigative autonomy but a supervisory mechanism to preserve the integrity of the process. The Court’s language carefully respects the institutional independence of the police while simultaneously asserting the necessity of judicial vigilance.

The complete order may be read below.

May 15- Supreme Court declines interim relief to BJP Minister Vijay Shah

On May 15, the Supreme Court declined to grant interim relief to BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah in connection with the FIR registered against him for his inflammatory remark referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists.” The FIR had been filed following a suo motu direction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The matter came up through an urgent mentioning by Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, representing Shah, who questioned the maintainability of the High Court’s suo motu order and urged the apex court to intervene. However, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, heading the bench along with Justice AG Masih, refused to interfere at this stage. CJI Gavai made a pointed observation:

“A person holding such an office is expected to maintain a certain standard. Every sentence uttered by a minister carries responsibility.”

Makhija informed the bench that Shah had already issued an apology and claimed his remark had been widely misinterpreted and taken out of context by the media. She requested that no coercive action be taken against him until he is heard.

However, as per the report of LiveLaw, the Court was told that an FIR had already been registered. In response, the bench declined to pass any interim orders and directed Shah to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for appropriate relief, noting:

“Go and apply to the High Court. We will have it tomorrow.”

The Supreme Court thus refused to stay the proceedings or provide protection at this stage, keeping the door open for judicial review by the High Court. The matter is likely to be taken up again shortly.

May 14– MP HC orders FIR for hate-laden remarks against Col. Sofiya Qureshi

I. The Hearing: Unparalleled judicial censure against BJP Minister’s “disparaging” speech

On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of a highly offensive remark made by BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah. The Court acted swiftly and firmly, ordering the immediate registration of an FIR against the Minister under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The division bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anuradha Shukla, unequivocally condemned the Minister’s statement as not only “disparaging” and “dangerous” but also constituting “language of the gutters.” It held that the remarks went far beyond personal insult and, in fact, were a grave denigration of the Indian Armed Forces as an institution.

The Court emphasised the importance of the armed forces as perhaps the country’s last bastion of integrity, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, and courage—qualities which any patriotic citizen must hold dear. It noted with particular gravity that Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Wing Commander Vyomika Singh had been the visible face of the armed forces’ briefing to the media and the nation during Operation Sindoor, the military operation against Pakistan. Therefore, the Minister’s remarks targeted not just the officer but the very honour and dignity of the armed forces. The Court described Shah’s comments as “unpardonable” innuendo aimed squarely at Colonel Qureshi.

On the legal front, the Court carefully examined the prima facie applicability of the offences alleged against Shah under the BNS, 2023. It held that Section 152, which criminalises acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, was clearly attracted. The Court reasoned that by labelling Col. Qureshi—an officer who is Muslim—as the “sister of terrorists,” Shah implicitly encouraged separatist sentiments and suspicion against Muslims, thereby endangering national unity. The remark, the Court observed, imputes a separatist identity to anyone belonging to the Muslim faith, a dangerous insinuation with the potential to undermine the country’s sovereignty.

Further, the Court found that Section 196(1)(b), which punishes acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups, was triggered. It observed that deriding Col. Qureshi on communal grounds could disturb the delicate social fabric and public tranquillity. By invoking her religious identity in a disparaging way, Shah’s remarks risked fuelling communal tensions.

The Court also held that Section 197(1)(c) was prima facie attracted. This provision criminalises any assertion or plea that causes or is likely to cause enmity or ill-will between communities. The Court noted that the Minister’s comments had the clear “propensity” to stir disharmony and hatred between members of the Muslim community and others, regardless of the selfless service of individuals like Col. Qureshi.

In light of these serious prima facie findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to register an FIR against Minister Shah forthwith—no later than that very evening. It warned that failure to comply would lead to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the DGP. The Advocate General was instructed to immediately transmit the Court’s order to the police authorities and ensure compliance.

The report of the LiveLaw provided that Justice Sreedharan, while addressing the Advocate General during the hearing, expressed impatience with any delay, stating with striking urgency:

“Register, register right now… I may not be alive tomorrow… I am giving you four hours… Let this order be stayed by the Supreme Court, or be complied with by tomorrow.”

When the Advocate General suggested that the Court’s findings were based mainly on media reports and that the statements might have been misunderstood or taken out of context, the Court decisively rejected this. It said it had itself reviewed the video of the remarks and would incorporate the YouTube links into the order, explicitly calling Shah’s speech “venom” and underscoring the seriousness with which it was treating the matter.

This unequivocal and stern order demonstrated the Court’s resolve to uphold the sanctity of the armed forces and the rule of law against hate speech, especially when it emanates from individuals holding public office. By acting suo motu and invoking relevant provisions of the BNS, the Court sent a clear signal that communal slander, particularly from politicians, will not be tolerated and must be met with swift judicial action.

The Court’s approach also underscored the constitutional principle that freedom of speech carries responsibility—especially for public figures whose words can inflame division and undermine national integration. This decision reinforced the judiciary’s role as a vigilant guardian against hate speech and communal disharmony, affirming that the armed forces deserve the highest respect and protection from defamatory and incendiary remarks.

II. The Order: A constitutional rebuke against hate and slur by a Minister

In its order dated May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a powerful and unequivocal direction to register an FIR against BJP Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for publicly calling Colonel Sofiya Qureshi a “sister of terrorists.” Triggered by media reports and publicly available video footage, the Court acted suo-motu, viewing the Minister’s speech as not only deeply offensive but also a prima facie criminal act under the BNS 2023.

At the heart of the order is the Court’s scathing assessment that Shah’s words were more than a personal insult—they amounted to an attack on the institutional honour of the Indian Armed Forces. The bench described the Minister’s language as “scurrilous,” “disparaging,” “dangerous,” and “language of the gutters.” The Court further held that the attack was not isolated but directly aimed at a senior military officer who was publicly representing the armed forces during a sensitive national operation, Operation Sindoor.

“The armed forces, perhaps the last institution existing in this country, reflecting integrity, industry, discipline, sacrifice, selflessness, character, honour and indomitable courage with which any citizen of this country who values the same can identify themselves with, has been targeted by Mr. Vijay Shah who has used the language of the gutters against Col. Sofia Quraishi.” (Para 2)

Drawing from news reports and video material, the Court found that Shah’s reference to Col. Quraishi as the “sister of terrorists” who killed 26 Indians at Pahalgam was not vague or general—it was a clear innuendo directed at her, as she was the only person who matched the description in the speech. The Court remarked that Shah had, in effect, suggested that the Prime Minister had “sent the sister of terrorists to sort them out,” a statement that it found both incendiary and deeply damaging to public confidence in the armed forces.

“At that public function, he has referred to Col. Sofia Quraishi as the sister of the terrorists who carried out the killings of 26 innocent Indians at Pahalgam. Further, the newspaper reports and a plethora of digital material available on the internet in which the speech of the minister is clear and unequivocal, where he has referred to the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, for having sent the sister of the terrorists to sort them out. His comments are disparaging and dangerous, not just to the officer in question but to the armed forces itself.” (Para 3)

In its legal analysis, the Court invoked three provisions of the BNS and held that all three were prima facie attracted.

Section 152 BNS, which deals with acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, was the first invoked. The Court found that by insinuating that a Muslim Army officer was affiliated with terrorists, the Minister had encouraged feelings of separatist activity and undermined national unity. The Court emphasised that imputing separatist sentiment to Muslims serving in the armed forces is both unconstitutional and subversive:

“Prima facie, the statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feeling to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India.” (Para 6)

Section 196 (1)(b) BNS, which penalises acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different communities, was the second provision cited. The Court noted that the Minister’s remark could give rise to the perception that Muslims, regardless of their loyalty or contribution to the nation, remain forever suspect. This, the Court held, was likely to disturb public tranquillity and reinforce religious fault lines.

“Prima facie, this section would be applicable as Col. Sofia Quraishi is an adherent of the Muslim faith and deriding her by referring to her as the sister of terrorists may be prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religions groups as it has the propensity to fuel an impression that irrespective of the selfless duties of a person towards India, such a person could still be derided only because that person belongs to the Muslim faith. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the offence under Section 196(1)(b) is also committed.” (Para 8)

Section 197(1)(c) BNS, which criminalises assertions likely to cause disharmony between religious groups, was also found to be applicable. The Court stated that the Minister’s remarks had the potential to deepen religious division and provoke hostility between communities, especially by invoking a communal stereotype in a public and inflammatory setting.

“The statement made by Minister Vijay Shah prima facie has the propensity to cause disharmony and feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between the members of the Muslim faith and other persons who do not belong to the same religion.” (Para 10)

On the strength of these findings, the Court directed the Director General of Police to register an FIR against Vijay Shah under Sections 152, 196(1)(b), and 197(1)(c) BNS forthwith, by the evening of May 14. It made clear that non-compliance would invite contempt proceedings.

“On the basis of what has been observed herein above this Court directs the Director General of Police of Madhya Pradesh to register forthwith an FIR against Minister Vijay Shah for offences under Sections 152, 196(1)(b) and 197(1)(c) of the B.N.S. The same must be done by today evening, failing which tomorrow, when the matter is listed, the Court may contemplate proceeding against the Director General of Police of the State for contempt of this Order.” (Para 11)

Further, the Court directed the Advocate General’s office to transmit the order immediately to the DGP and asked the Registrar (IT) to collect and place on record the video links of Shah’s speech for the next day’s proceedings.

Key findings of the Court through its order:

1. Use of suo-motu powers to uphold constitutional integrity: The Court acted on its own motion, recognising that the matter was too serious to wait for a formal complaint. This reinforces the judiciary’s role in addressing hate speech by those in public office.
2. Characterisation of the armed forces as a constitutional institution under attack: The Court positioned the armed forces as a symbol of national values, and it viewed any attempt to denigrate them—especially by communalising their members—as a grave constitutional breach.
3. Identification of communal intent and legal applicability of BNS provisions: The Court methodically applied new penal code provisions and found that Shah’s statement not only offended basic decency but, prima facie, satisfied the legal requirements for offences threatening national integrity and communal harmony.
4. Urgency and judicial accountability: The Court gave the State police a same-day deadline for FIR registration and made clear that non-compliance would be treated as contempt of court. This reflects a demand for immediate accountability from state institutions.
5. Condemnation of political hate speech: The order sends a strong signal that hateful, communal rhetoric by elected representatives—especially when directed at uniformed officers—is not protected political expression, but punishable criminal conduct.

The order stands as a significant constitutional moment: a court drawing the line where political speech turns into criminal propaganda, and affirming that even the highest offices must answer to the law.

The complete order may be read here.

Background

On May 14, 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took up the matter on its own motion after coming across disturbing reports in multiple newspapers and digital platforms. News items published in Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar (Jabalpur edition), and Nai Duniya on the same date, along with video footage circulating online—including a YouTube link cited by the Court—revealed that a sitting minister in the Madhya Pradesh government, Vijay Shah, had made an offensive and communal remark during a public function held in Raikunda village, Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow.

The remark in question was aimed at Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a senior officer in the Indian Army. Referring to her indirectly but unmistakably, Minister Shah called her the “sister of the terrorists” responsible for the killings in Pahalgam, in an apparent reference to her role as one of the Army’s spokespersons during Operation Sindoor. The Court noted that the language used was not only scurrilous and derogatory but also carried dangerous communal undertones. It held that the speech did not merely target an individual officer, but amounted to a broader attack on the armed forces—an institution that, the Court observed, still embodies values such as discipline, sacrifice, and integrity.

In view of the serious nature of the comment and the threat it posed to communal harmony and institutional dignity, the Court initiated proceedings without waiting for a formal complaint.

Related:

Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire

Trolled for Duty: Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri locks X account amid right-wing abuse over India-Pakistan ceasefire

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

The post FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the complaint, Chetan Patel delivered a public speech on April 23, between 7:30 and 8:00 pm at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, a prominent location in Alibaug, District Raigad. The speech followed the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, in which several innocent Indians lost their lives. Despite the Muslim community in Alibaug publicly condemning the attack, Patel’s speech reportedly vilified the Muslim community as a whole. In his address, Patel allegedly denounced those who advocated for communal harmony, labelling them “so-called secular bugs,” and called upon Hindus to economically boycott Muslims by refusing to conduct business with them or purchase goods from them.

The complaint asserts that Patel’s speech was not an isolated act but part of a larger attempt to foment hatred and enmity between religious communities. A video clip of the speech was recorded and subsequently circulated on social media platforms, including WhatsApp and Facebook, further amplifying its divisive content. Notably, the clip was uploaded by Suhas Ghanekar on the Facebook group “Me Alibagkar,” thereby extending the reach of Patel’s message and allegedly inciting communal disharmony.

SabrangIndia has a copy of the complaint. In light of these actions, the complainants have sought the registration of a case under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), specifically Sections 196 (offence promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion), 353 (statements that could incite mutiny, disregard of duty, or public fear, potentially leading to violence), and Section 3(5) (common intention or constructive liability in criminal cases). The complaint emphasises that both Patel and Ghanekar have played active roles in creating an atmosphere of distrust and hostility, thus endangering the social fabric of the region.

This complaint reflects growing concerns over hate speech and its dissemination via both physical and digital platforms, particularly in the aftermath of traumatic national events. The deliberate targeting of a minority religious community despite its public condemnation of violence raises serious questions about the motivations behind such inflammatory rhetoric. It also highlights the role of social media in rapidly spreading hate, thereby posing new challenges for law enforcement agencies tasked with maintaining communal harmony.

Details of the speech made by Chetan Patel

Chetan Patel, the Raigad district president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), delivered a deeply troubling speech during a gathering in Raigad, Alibaug. In his address, Patel called for the social and economic boycott of Muslims, labelled secular-minded individuals as “worms” who must be crushed, and encouraged the use of violence and public humiliation against those advocating communal harmony. Referring to the situation as a “dharma yudh” (religious war), he invoked dangerous communal imagery, urging Hindus to tighten economic controls and sever ties with minorities. His statements not only vilified an entire community but also encouraged vigilantism and collective punishment, striking at the very foundations of India’s constitutional commitment to secularism and equality.

Transcript of the violent derogatory speech:

“In Alibaug, the town of ‘dead’ Hindus, to see so many of you gathered, I feel happy. Every time, instead of acting, we sit at home and curse some Salim, Maqdoom, or whoever, blaming them. Don’t blame them. Spot and single out the ‘secular worms’ among us, in our society, in your society — get them, crush them.”

“These are the people who have taken on the mantle (the vakalatnama) and constantly say, “All Muslims are not like this,” and so on. Catch hold of them and ask them: who gave you this vakalatnama? If we want this to end, we must first crush these ‘secular worms’ among us. Single them out. Socially boycott them. If they are making these arguments anywhere, slap them, fling cow dung on them. This has to stop. Until this stops, such incidents will continue happening.”

“Most critically, cut off their economic lifeline. This started during the Nagpur riots. Things in Nagpur are hawa tight (they have been taught a lesson). It has started in Nashik too. I know that in Alibaug squeezing them economically is tougher, but we must try and crush them economically.”

“Every rupee you spend on their business will be used against you. No one was asked over there whether you are Agri, Mali, or of any particular caste. They were simply asked to read the kalma, their pants were stripped, and then they were shot dead. They attacked only Hindus. Make them feel ashamed.”

“From tomorrow itself, when you are purchasing anything, at least practice an economic boycott. (Claps from five or six people.) Ask the names of those you are buying from. Until this starts, every month we will be meeting here for a shradhanjali (condolence meeting).”

“If we want to escape this cycle, economic boycott is the way. Every path has its method — not every person needs to brandish a sword. This should not be announced publicly, but it must sometimes be said. All of you assembled here — spread this message to your neighbours.”

“Purchasers too: look at whom you are buying from. If he is giving it for two rupees less, why can’t you? Start this. Tighten their economic strings. Squeeze them. Start now.”

“Cursing PM Modi or any Prime Minister or Home Minister every morning is not enough. This is a dharma yudh (religious war). Understand the 350-year-old history. Stand united, or else we will be chopped like potatoes and onions!”

“Forget brotherhood and harmony. A person who is not a brother to his own cousin sister, how can he be a brother to you?”

“Be ready for war. Economic boycott is the only way.” (Claps; around 15 onlookers present.)

Following the circulation of the video on social media, several concerned citizens raised complaints against Patel, highlighting the incendiary and divisive nature of his remarks. In response to mounting backlash, Patel issued a video apology, attempting to limit the scope of his comments by claiming they were directed solely at those supporting terrorism and foreign forces. He further stated that his intention was to preserve communal harmony in Alibaug. However, his original speech remains deeply problematic: it normalised hate speech, promoted unlawful actions like economic boycotts and violence, and severely undermined efforts to foster peace and unity. Even the subsequent apology fails to meaningfully address the dangerous consequences of the original call to action, which risked legitimising discrimination and communal violence in an already volatile environment.

Transcript of the apology:

“Namaskar. Jai Shri Ram. A video of mine has gone viral on social media. In order to prevent any misuse or misunderstanding, I wish to clarify that my words and opinions were not directed against any patriotic Indian citizen. They were aimed solely at those who, directly or indirectly, support the heinous act that took place in Pahalgam on April 22. My words were against those forces — from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or individuals associated with them — who should not be economically empowered. In my peaceful Alibaug, nothing should happen to disturb political, communal, or inter-religious harmony. It is with this intent that I am issuing this second video statement. If any Indian citizen’s religious sentiments have been hurt by my previous statement, I sincerely apologise. Jai Hind.”

Detailed piece about other such attempts including Alibaug may be read here.

Related:            

Echoes of Hate: Online anti-Muslim hate spreads against Muslim businesses and workers after Pahalgam attack

Pahalgam attack sparks nationwide turmoil, Kashmiri students face a chilling wave of hate across India

SC leads the nation’s legal fraternity as it unites in grief & outrage over Pahalgam terror attack

The post Complaint filed against VHP’s Chetan Jagdish Patel for inflammatory speech in Alibaug appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The effect of this orchestrated online hate campaign is multi-faceted and deeply damaging. Socially, it fosters an environment of fear and distrust, further polarising communities and entrenching existing prejudices. The constant barrage of hateful content online normalises discrimination and can incite real-world violence and ostracisation. This digital propaganda effectively weaponises social media, turning it into a platform for disseminating prejudice and enacting a form of collective punishment due to stereotypes.

In Dombivli, protesters called for economic boycott of Muslim vendors

While a protest was organised in Dombivli city of Thane district ostensibly to condemn the Pahalgam terror attack, disturbing elements within the gathering have surfaced, raising serious concerns about the underlying motivations and potential for communal incitement. A video from the event reveals a man addressing the assembled crowd, and instead of solely focusing on denouncing terrorism, he openly called for the economic boycott of non-Hindus within the area. This inflammatory rhetoric specifically targeted the livelihoods of fruit sellers and local vendors, effectively painting an entire community with the brush of suspicion and demanding their economic marginalisation.

This shift in focus from condemning a specific act of violence to targeting an entire religious demographic for economic strangulation is deeply alarming. It highlights how events intended to express national solidarity and condemnation of terrorism can be hijacked by individuals seeking to propagate divisive agendas and incite discriminatory practices against minority communities, turning grief and anger into tools for economic coercion and social exclusion within the local sphere of Dombivali.

The insidious nature of online hate lies in its ability to spread rapidly and anonymously, leaving a lasting scar on the social fabric and hindering any prospects of reconciliation and understanding.

Nine BJP workers booked for ‘abusing, assaulting’ Muslim hawkers in Dadar

Similarly, Mumbai police have registered a case against nine BJP workers, including Akshata Tendulkar, president of Mahim Assembly, for allegedly abusing and assaulting Muslim hawkers in the Dadar market area, following a complaint filed by hawker Saurabh Mishra. The case is being handled by the Shivaji Park police.

The Indian Express reported that the incident happened on Thursday evening. Tendulkar and his eight associates reached Dadar market area opposite Rangoli store and allegedly asked hawkers if they were Muslims, the complaint read. Mishra added that they assaulted one of the Muslim workers who work under him.

“They asked my worker Sofiyan Shahid Ali his name and then abused and assaulted him. When Ali ran away from the place, they chased him and again assaulted him,” Mishra said

In a separate account, Tendulkar, speaking to a news channel, defended the group’s actions by asserting they were pressing for police intervention against alleged Bangladeshi nationals using forged Indian documents. He claimed that their repeated complaints about illegal immigrants selling produce in the area had been consistently ignored by law enforcement.

“We had requested police to take action against those Bangladeshi nationals who have created fake Indian documents and were selling fruits and vegetables as hawkers. We and local residents were angry over the matter. Local residents were asking us what the BMC and police are doing? On Thursday we had gone on a round to check where all Muslim people works and what (solution) can be done” Tendulkar said, reported the Indian Express.

DCP Zone 5 Ganesh Gawde stated that the Shivaji Park police station has registered a case against the nine accused under sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as sections 37(1) and 135 of the MP Act. He confirmed that the investigation into the matter is currently underway

BJP’s national spokesperson, Shehzad Poonawalla, offered a similar narrative, using the same platform to urge a different kind of boycott. He took to X, stating, “Dear Hindus Jaat ke naam pe batoge, Toh Dharm ke naam pe katoge Telling you this as an Indian Muslim, Jo tumhe jaati me baante – take a pledge to boycott such people forever #PahalgamTerroristAttack.”

Dear Hindus

Jaat ke naam pe batoge
Toh Dharm ke naam pe katoge

Telling you this as an Indian Muslim

Jo tumhe jaati me baante – take a pledge
to boycott such people forever #PahalgamTerroristAttack

— Shehzad Jai Hind (Modi Ka Parivar) (@Shehzad_Ind) April 23, 2025

Muslim worker removed from temple job by right-wing group

In a disturbing manifestation of the heightened communal tensions, a Muslim youth named Shahid reportedly faced the abrupt termination of his employment at a temple. The sole reason cited for his dismissal was his religious identity, with the tragic incident in Pahalgam being used as a pretext. Shahid’s case starkly illustrates the insidious reach of communal prejudice, where an individual’s established work within a place of worship became irrelevant in the face of generalised suspicion directed towards an entire community.

A user while sharing the video of incident, wrote o X that “Hindus are no longer in a mood to tolerate. After #PahalgamTerrorAttack, an economic boycott has begun, removing them from business and labour roles. Finally, Hindus are uniting”

Hindus are no longer in a mood to tolerate. After #PahalgamTerrorAttack, an economic boycott has begun, removing them from business and labour roles.

Finally Hindus are uniting pic.twitter.com/E6CylqrTlj

— Voice of Hindus (@Warlock_Shubh) April 24, 2025

Indore doctor refused to treat a Muslim patient in response to the Pahalgam attack

The ripple effects of the Pahalgam terror attack tragically extended into the realm of healthcare, as evidenced by a deeply concerning incident in Madhya Pradesh’s Indore. Dr. Neha Arora Verma, a medical professional, reportedly refused to treat a Muslim patient, explicitly citing the terror attack as the reason for her denial. The doctor went so far as to share a screenshot of her message, in which she callously informed the Muslim woman, “I’m sorry, we are no longer taking any patients at our centre.”

This act of blatant discrimination, seemingly motivated by collective punishment and prejudice, highlights the dangerous ways in which fear and communal animosity can permeate even essential services like healthcare.

In #MadhyaPradesh‘s #Indore, a doctor refused to treat a #Muslim patient in response to the #PahalgamTerrorAttack.

Dr. Neha Arora Verma shared a screenshot of her message in which she declined to consult a Muslim woman, stating, “I’m sorry, we are no longer taking any patients… pic.twitter.com/H9i2twYiE7

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) April 28, 2025

While Dr. Verma subsequently deleted the post, the initial message served as a stark and disturbing illustration of how the aftermath of a terror attack can be shamefully exploited to deny fundamental rights based solely on religious identity, further fracturing the social fabric of the community.

Hate banners surface in Punjabi Bagh calling for economic boycott

Shockingly, hate-filled boycott banners have surfaced in Punjabi Bagh, openly targeting an entire community and inciting economic ostracisation. This blatant display of prejudice, in a public space, sends a chilling message, fostering an atmosphere of fear and distrust. The banners represent more than just isolated incidents; they are a symptom of a larger, more insidious problem.

Adding fuel to the already raging online propaganda advocating for the economic boycott of Muslims in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, a right-wing organisation identifying as Sanatan Hindu Ekta Vichar Manch amplified this divisive rhetoric on X. Their post explicitly called for a sweeping boycott, urging followers to “Boycott everything from which even one rupee goes to terrorists or has the possibility of going,” before listing a wide array of targets including “Films, Tourism, Hotel business, Street vendors, Shops, Building material, Anything at all.”

हर उस चीज का वहिष्कार करो जिसमें से एक रुपए भी आतंकियों को जाता हो या जाने की संभावना हो
चाहे फिल्म हो
पर्यटन हो
होटल व्यवसाय हो
रेहड़ी पटरी हो
दुकान हो
बिल्डिंग मैटर हो
।
कुछ भी हो #BoycottDotandKey #छलनी_हिंदू_आत्मा#PahalgamTerroristAttack pic.twitter.com/i3HlSaGzNG

— सनातन हिंदू एकता विचार मंच (@SanatnEktaMunch) April 24, 2025

Inflammatory Speech by VHP leader in Alibaug

Chetan Patel, the Raigad district president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), delivered a deeply troubling speech during a gathering in Raigad, Alibaug. In his address, Patel called for the social and economic boycott of Muslims, labelled secular-minded individuals as “worms” who must be crushed, and encouraged the use of violence and public humiliation against those advocating communal harmony. Referring to the situation as a “dharma yudh” (religious war), he invoked dangerous communal imagery, urging Hindus to tighten economic controls and sever ties with minorities. His statements not only vilified an entire community but also encouraged vigilantism and collective punishment, striking at the very foundations of India’s constitutional commitment to secularism and equality.

Following the circulation of the video on social media, several concerned citizens raised complaints against Patel, highlighting the incendiary and divisive nature of his remarks. In response to mounting backlash, Patel issued a video apology, attempting to limit the scope of his comments by claiming they were directed solely at those supporting terrorism and foreign forces. He further stated that his intention was to preserve communal harmony in Alibaug. However, his original speech remains deeply problematic: it normalised hate speech, promoted unlawful actions like economic boycotts and violence, and severely undermined efforts to foster peace and unity. Even the subsequent apology fails to meaningfully address the dangerous consequences of the original call to action, which risked legitimising discrimination and communal violence in an already volatile environment.

Transcript of the violent derogatory speech:

“In Alibaug, the town of ‘dead’ Hindus, to see so many of you gathered, I feel happy. Every time, instead of acting, we sit at home and curse some Salim, Maqdoom, or whoever, blaming them. Don’t blame them. Spot and single out the ‘secular worms’ among us, in our society, in your society — get them, crush them.”

“These are the people who have taken on the mantle (the vakalatnama) and constantly say, “All Muslims are not like this,” and so on. Catch hold of them and ask them: who gave you this vakalatnama? If we want this to end, we must first crush these ‘secular worms’ among us. Single them out. Socially boycott them. If they are making these arguments anywhere, slap them, fling cow dung on them. This has to stop. Until this stops, such incidents will continue happening.”

“Most critically, cut off their economic lifeline. This started during the Nagpur riots. Things in Nagpur are hawa tight (they have been taught a lesson). It has started in Nashik too. I know that in Alibaug squeezing them economically is tougher, but we must try and crush them economically.”

“Every rupee you spend on their business will be used against you. No one was asked over there whether you are Agri, Mali, or of any particular caste. They were simply asked to read the kalma, their pants were stripped, and then they were shot dead. They attacked only Hindus. Make them feel ashamed.”

“From tomorrow itself, when you are purchasing anything, at least practice an economic boycott. (Claps from five or six people.) Ask the names of those you are buying from. Until this starts, every month we will be meeting here for a shradhanjali (condolence meeting).”

“If we want to escape this cycle, economic boycott is the way. Every path has its method — not every person needs to brandish a sword. This should not be announced publicly, but it must sometimes be said. All of you assembled here — spread this message to your neighbours.”

“Purchasers too: look at whom you are buying from. If he is giving it for two rupees less, why can’t you? Start this. Tighten their economic strings. Squeeze them. Start now.”

“Cursing PM Modi or any Prime Minister or Home Minister every morning is not enough. This is a dharma yudh (religious war). Understand the 350-year-old history. Stand united, or else we will be chopped like potatoes and onions!”

“Forget brotherhood and harmony. A person who is not a brother to his own cousin sister, how can he be a brother to you?”

“Be ready for war. Economic boycott is the only way.” (Claps; around 15 onlookers present.)

Transcript of the apology:

“Namaskar. Jai Shri Ram. A video of mine has gone viral on social media. In order to prevent any misuse or misunderstanding, I wish to clarify that my words and opinions were not directed against any patriotic Indian citizen. They were aimed solely at those who, directly or indirectly, support the heinous act that took place in Pahalgam on April 22. My words were against those forces — from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or individuals associated with them — who should not be economically empowered. In my peaceful Alibaug, nothing should happen to disturb political, communal, or inter-religious harmony. It is with this intent that I am issuing this second video statement. If any Indian citizen’s religious sentiments have been hurt by my previous statement, I sincerely apologise. Jai Hind.”

The digital firestorm following the Pahalgam terror attack has tragically ignited real-world flames of discrimination. Online calls for economic boycotts against Muslim businesses, amplified by right-wing groups and reflected in localised protests like the one in Dombivli, have chillingly materialised into tangible acts of prejudice. The assault on Muslim hawkers in Dadar by BJP workers, explicitly targeting their religious identity, and the discriminatory dismissal of a Muslim youth from his temple job, alongside the denial of medical care to a Muslim patient in Indore, paint a grim picture of collective punishment and eroding social trust.

Related

‘End discriminatory regimes of colonial era,’ SC declares provisions of State Prison Manuals unconstitutional

SC asks States to improve prison conditions, address the issue of overcrowding in prisons in its latest rebuke to States for not following its previous directives effectively

Indian Prison Condition and Monitoring

The post Echoes of Hate: Online anti-Muslim hate spreads against Muslim businesses and workers after Pahalgam attack appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Glad to report: The Mumbai Police has now registered an FIR against the organisers of this Ram Navami rally. https://t.co/i0HxGHuh2I

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) April 12, 2025

Purohit, who was present at the procession near the Airport Road metro station, posted the videos on April 7, capturing disturbing scenes of participants engaging in inflammatory speech. The footage showed chants such as “Aurangzeb Ki Kabr Khudegi, Maa Ch*degi, Maa Ch*degi,” along with other offensive lyrics that openly incited violence against Muslims

Spent a few hours in #RamNavami processions outside Mumbai’s International Airport:

*Slogans like ‘Aurangzeb Ki Kabr Khudegi, Maa Ch*degi, Maa Ch*degi’.
*Songs with words: Bharat Mein Jo Desh Drohi Hai, Unki Ma Ka Bh*sda.
*Songs that threaten brutal violence against Muslims. pic.twitter.com/3AnpzlTdtQ

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) April 7, 2025

The procession, attended by thousands, featured a crowd mostly consisting of young men in their 20s and 30s, but also included some women and older individuals. Purohit described how the songs were widely known, with the crowd singing along to the chants, and the energy escalating whenever a song specifically targeted Muslims. The event was filled with repeated slogans calling for violence, including calls for the expulsion of Muslims from the country. Despite the presence of numerous police officers, Purohit observed no action taken to intervene or curb the hateful rhetoric being broadcasted publicly.

While the police were present in large numbers throughout the procession, it took the authorities several days to take action. The FIR against the organisers, filed on April 12, includes charges under sections 296 and 3(5) of the BNS Act, which address the use of offensive and inflammatory language during public events. Speaking to IndiaToday, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone 8, Maneesh Kalwaniya, confirmed that the case has been registered, but authorities have not yet disclosed whether they have identified or arrested the individuals responsible for leading the slogans.

This delay in filing the FIR raises important questions about the role of law enforcement in addressing hate speech, as well as the challenges faced by the authorities in responding to such incidents swiftly. The incident also highlights the growing concern over the lack of accountability for those who incite communal hatred in public spaces, even as law enforcement has been slow to act.

While Purohit’s videos led to action against organisers, Purohit had previously shared a screenshot from X (formerly Twitter), revealing that the Mumbai police had requested the platform to take down the videos, which depicted the hate speech and violence.

Dear @MumbaiPolice: fight hate, not journalism.

Received this notice from @X about taking down my videos of Mumbai’s hate-filled #RamNavami rally.

Documenting hate is journalism. I won’t be taking down these videos.

I have asked @Support to provide me a copy of the notice. pic.twitter.com/Ef0tgpmvQV

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) April 11, 2025

Kunal Purohit refuses to remove videos, calls out police action

In a separate development, Purohit has been at the centre of controversy over Mumbai police’s attempts to remove his posts documenting the hate speech during the Ram Navami procession. On receiving a takedown notice from X, the social media platform, Purohit took to X (formerly Twitter) to share his defiance, calling out the police’s attempt to suppress journalism. He posted:

“Dear @MumbaiPolice: fight hate, not journalism. Received this notice from @X about taking down my videos of Mumbai’s hate-filled #RamNavami rally. Documenting hate is journalism. I won’t be taking down these videos. I have asked @Support to provide me a copy of the notice.”

Purohit’s response underscores his belief that his role as a journalist is to document events like these, especially when they involve hate speech that can incite violence. He argued that removing these videos would only serve to suppress the truth and prevent the public from understanding the full extent of the rhetoric that unfolded during the procession. His decision to stand firm on this issue highlights the growing tension between the criminalisation of journalism and the need to combat hate speech in public discourse.

This episode raises important questions about the role of law enforcement and social media platforms in the fight against hate speech. While the police are tasked with taking action against hate speech, the suppression of journalism in the process could send a chilling message to those documenting and exposing hate. Purohit’s stance also draws attention to the increasingly polarised nature of media reporting in India and the potential risks faced by journalists who report on sensitive or controversial topics.

Broader Implications: Law enforcement, journalism, and free speech

The case involving the Ram Navami rally organisers and the removal of Purohit’s videos highlights the ongoing struggles between ensuring public safety and protecting journalistic freedoms. It also raises questions about the broader impact of these actions on the media landscape in India. As journalists increasingly face pressure to remove content that challenges prevailing narratives or exposes hate speech, the role of media in documenting and holding those in power accountable becomes ever more important.

At the same time, the police’s delayed action in addressing the hate speech at the Ram Navami rally — despite the presence of law enforcement officers during the event — points to a larger issue regarding the failure to curb hate speech in a timely manner. This incident serves as a reminder of the urgent need for law enforcement to take a proactive approach to tackling hate speech and promoting accountability in cases where harmful rhetoric incites violence or division.

Related:

From Protectors to Perpetrators? Police assaulted women, Children, Christian priests in Odisha: Fact-finding report

Telangana BJP MLA Raja Singh booked for threat remarks against police during Ram Navami rally: ‘I’ll hit you with the same baton’, he has several, previous FIRS on hate speech

Bombay HC directs two police commissioners to personally examine videos of speeches delivered by BJP MLA Nitesh Rana, Geeta Jain and T. Raja Singh

Another case filed against T Raja Singh as he calls for fighting war against religious conversion

The post Mumbai Police file FIR against Ram Navami rally organisers over hate speech, target journalist Kunal Purohit’s videos separately appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Violent punishment by mobs to the suspects of cow slaughter was justified to either a “great” or “some” extent. Close to two in every five respondents –police personnel surveyed across 18 states — (that is a 38% of the total of 8,276 subjects) also believed this, that violent punishment by mobs to “suspects of cow slaughter” was somewhat justified. This is similar to the finding from a previous survey of police personnel published in the Status of Policing in India Report 2019 where a similar question was asked about their support for mob violence in cases of cow slaughter—35 percent of police personnel justified such mob violence (15% “to a large extent” and 20% “to some extent”) (SPIR, 2019). More than a quarter of the police personnel surveyed (see details below), who from IPS-level ranks supported mob violence to a great degree (Figure 2.8, Table 2.8)

These are only some of the worrying findings from a recent study on the ‘Status of Policing in India Report’ (SPIR 2025) conducted by Lokniti, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in collaboration with Common Cause that read together, shed light on this grim reality. The study, which analysed responses from 8, 276 police personnel across 82 locations in 17 States including Delhi, provides insights into the culture of abuse behind closed doors.

When asked if it is acceptable for the police to use violence against suspects of serious offences for the greater good of society, nearly two out of three police personnel (63%) surveyed, agreed. Of them, 22% strongly agreed and 41% moderately agreed. A notable 35% of the officers opposed the idea. Support for violence against suspected serious offenders remained consistent across ranks.

When surveyors asked policemen and women about torture, a significant number of police personnel expressed strong support for its use in interrogations across various crime categories. The highest support was for cases related to national security, such as terrorism, with 42% strongly backing torture. Over a third (34%) also strongly supported its use in cases of rape, sexual assault, and serious violent crimes such as murder (Table 2.6). Additionally, 28% strongly agreed that torture must be used against history-sheeters.

Mob violence involves targeted acts of violence perpetrated by a large group of individuals who perceive that they are administering punishment to a suspected wrongdoer, bypassing the rule of law entirely. It is very alarming that such a significant proportion of police personnel justify mob violence. For law enforcement officers to support open violence which entails suspension of the law itself, as a means of delivering so- called punishment to a person, is an absolute negation of the constitutional oath they swear to uphold. Similar to the support shown by police respondents to impermissible measures towards crime control, this significant support for mob violence signals police propensities towards violence and unbridled power. Incidents of the police not only overlooking such violence, but their active complicity have been reported on multiple occasions.[1]

Among other key findings in the over 200 page study are that

• One in 10 police personnel believes that couples displaying affection in public places should be detained!!
• More than half of the police personnel believe that hijras/transgenders/ homosexual people are a bad influence on society and the police need to deal with them strictly.

• Police personnel strongly support the use of more preventive arrests of ‘anti-social elements’ (48%) and forming special squads that can detain people indefinitely (43%). Both measures disregard legal standards.
• Twenty-percent of the police personnel feel that it is very important for the police to use tough methods to create fear amongst the public, another 35 percent think it’s somewhat important.
• One in four police personnel strongly justify mob violence in cases of sexual harassment (27%) and child lifting/kidnapping (25%). Across various categories of crime, constabulary and IPS officers are the most likely to justify mob violence, and upper subordinate officers are the least likely to do so. Police personnel from Gujarat showed the highest support, while those from Kerala showed the least support for mob violence.
• Twenty-two percent police personnel feel that the rich and powerful are “naturally prone” to committing crimes to a great extent, and 18 percent feel that Muslims are “naturally prone” to committing crimes to a great
• The survey was conducted across 17 states and UTs. State-level trends mirrored the all- India findings of the highest number of arrests in minor offences, also falling foul of the law. Police personnel in Odisha reported the highest proportion of arrests (46%) for the crimes of theft and extortion, followed by Nagaland (38%) and West Bengal (37%). The data further shows that police respondents from Punjab (60%) reported the most arrests – that is, six in every ten – against the crime of loitering and public nuisance, distantly followed by Nagaland and Maharashtra (29% and 25% respectively)
• The police responses also reveal that the highest proportions of arrests conducted for bodily crimes (such as murder, assault and kidnapping) were reported in Assam (30%), closely followed by Gujarat (28%), Maharashtra (26%) and Jharkhand (26%). Further, as per the survey, police personnel from Uttar Pradesh (UP) reported the highest proportion of arrests (25%) for crimes against women, followed by West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradesh in equal proportions (22% each). In terms of arrests, the official data corresponds with the survey finding that the highest proportion of arrests for crimes against women was made in UP (1,01,754, as per Crime in India 2022).
• Almost half of the police respondents believed that mob violence was justified to either “a great extent” or “some extent” in the cases of sexual harassment and assault (49%), child lifting or kidnapping (47%) and petty theft like pick-pocketing or chain-snatching (46%).

As was evident in studies conducted in previous years, anti-Muslim bias is high among police personnel with the corresponding disregard for due process and justification for mob violence. In keeping with attitudes towards contempt for due process (preventive detention, procedure during arrests), coercion (torture, a large section of policemen and the officers of law enforcement agencies appear to have communal bias in their perception about Muslims, who they believe are “naturally prone” towards committing crime to a great extent. This is yet another finding of the “Status of Policing in India Report-2025” (SPIR), released in New Delhi recently, which has pointed to a clear display of prejudices among the police personnel.

In this extensive survey and analysis, the SPIR-2025 has explored the nature, causes and factors that contribute to the perpetuation of police violence and torture in the country. It seeks to understand the police’s attitudes towards torture and the normalisation of its use and includes the perspectives and experiences of other accountability actors, such as doctors, lawyers, and judges.

Previous studies may be read here and here.

In the study, a large number of police personnel in Delhi, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat believe that Muslims have been analysed as naturally prone towards committing crime to a great extent. One in every five (19%) among the Hindu police personnel feels that to a “great extent”, Muslims are naturally prone to commit crimes, while one-thirds (34%) feel the same to “some extent”, while Sikh police officers were least likely to hold this opinion.

Out of the surveyed states, more than two-thirds of the police personnel in the states of Rajasthan (70%), Maharashtra (68%), Madhya Pradesh (68%), West Bengal (68%), Gujarat (67%) and Jharkhand (66%) held the opinion that the Muslim community is likely to be naturally inclined to committing crime to either a “great” or “some” extent. Police personnel from Delhi (39%) were most likely to believe that Muslims are naturally prone to committing crimes, followed closely by Rajasthan (35%), Maharashtra (34%) and Gujarat (34%).

The study also found that caste, religion, and political affiliation often play a decisive role in shaping the outlook of the police perception and influencing their actions. This bias not only shapes initial interactions but can also affect decisions on investigation, enforcement, and legal proceedings. The report according to the parameters of the study published in the report, surveyed a broad spectrum of law enforcement personnel, including constables, upper subordinate officers ranging from assistant sub-inspectors to deputy superintendents of police, and senior officials from the Indian Police Service (IPS).

The SPIR-2025 pointed out that Muslims are identified as one of the marginalised communities which are common targets of torture. Academic scholarship cited in the report suggested that torture tactics employed by the police against Muslim men suspected of terrorism deliberately target their religious identity and masculinity to humiliate the entire community.

Police respondents in states with harsh cow slaughter laws, such as Gujarat, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, showed high support for mob punishment in such cases. Besides, despite a significant proportion of police personnel believing that Muslims are predisposed to crime, a considerable percentage also perceive that Muslims are likely to get justice to a “great extent”.

Meanwhile however, the study also cautions that these are the police’s perceptions, which may be marred by pre-existing biases and could be contrary to the lived realities of Muslims. Independent analysis of prison statistics indicates the over-incarceration of Muslims, suggesting potential biases within the criminal justice system.

Disregard for due process

The report also highlights a significant disregard for the rule of law among a notable section of the police. Nearly one-third (28%) of police personnel believe the criminal justice system is too weak and slow, with a preference for extrajudicial measures over due process. Alarmingly, almost two out of five (38%) feel that for minor offences, police should give minor punishment instead of following legal trials.

One in four police personnel strongly justified mob violence in cases of sexual harassment (27%) and child lifting or kidnapping (25%). This suggests that about a fourth of India’s police personnel support the idea of the mobs acting as the judge, jury and executioner in matters they consider grave.

Across various categories of crime, constabulary and IPS officers are the most likely to justify mob violence, and upper subordinate officers are the least likely to do so. Police personnel from Gujarat showed the highest support, while those from Kerala showed the least support for mob violence.

Ignorance, lack of compliance for legal procedures

There also appeared to be a lack of compliance towards arrest procedures across states, according to the study. Only 41% of police personnel said these procedures were “always followed”, while 21% admitted to “rarely” or “never” complying with them. Karnataka fared the worst, with a staggering 70% of its officials acknowledging they “rarely” or “never” follow prescribed procedures, while Kerala police demonstrated the highest compliance, with 94% of officials adhering to proper arrest protocols.

Gujarat: high bias against marginalised

In Gujarat, police exhibited the highest level of bias in their perception of Dalits and Adivasis, who they believed were “naturally inclined to commit crimes”. Among its personnel, 68% hold this view about Dalits, while 56% believe the same about Adivasis. Among Delhi’s police, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, a worrying 62% believe that Muslims are more “naturally inclined” towards crime.

About 30% of police personnel said that ‘third-degree methods’ are justified towards the accused in serious criminal cases, while 9% said they are justified in petty offences. IPS officers and those respondents who often conduct interrogations are the most likely to justify the use of third-degree methods. Besides, 11% of the police personnel feel that hitting or slapping family members of the accused is absolutely justified, and 30% said that it is sometimes justified.

Interviewees said that the victims of torture are mainly people from poor and marginalised communities. A lawyer described it as “all the faceless and voiceless” are targeted. The following groups are the common targets of torture: Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, people who cannot read and write, and slum dwellers.

The report concluded with a strong call for strengthening institutional safeguards and fostering a greater commitment to the rule of law within the police force. It recommended more active engagement and interaction between Judicial Magistrates and arrested persons, along with ensuring medical examinations during custody. The study also underscored the urgent need for more comprehensive and consistent data collection on police torture and custodial violence.

How the police view and even justify custodial torture

Police personnel were also asked how justified is the use of certain coercive and violent acts towards the accused so that criminal cases can be solved. The data reveals a troubling acceptance of coercive tactics, ranging from verbal abuse and threats to slapping and third-degree methods. Nearly

Almost half (49%) said that verbally abusing or threatening suspects in cases of minor offences such as theft is justified, with 32% endorsing slapping and 9% even supporting the use of third-degree methods. Support for such violent methods increased dramatically in cases of serious crimes. Three in ten (30%) police personnel justified third-degree methods in cases such as rape and murder, while half (50%) approved of slapping suspects and more than half (55%) endorsed verbal abuse or threats.

Threats and slapping or using light force are common. About a quarter (26%) of police personnel said that suspects are threatened often, while 34% said that this happens sometimes. Similarly, nearly two in 10 (18%) said that slapping or using light force is common, with 28% saying it happens occasionally.

Regarding third-degree methods, one in 10 police personnel admitted that such extreme violence occurs often, and 16% said it happens sometimes. Additionally, one in three respondents reported that investigating officers frequently use coercive tactics.

The findings reveal that close to half, that is nearly four in 10 police personnel believe that reporting of custodial torture should be mandatory, while a similar proportion supported it being mandatory in some cases. Around one in 10 felt it should never be mandatory. While a majority supported mandatory reporting, the fact that the largest group favoured it only ‘sometimes’ suggests a level of hesitation or conditional acceptance. The data also shows that officers at the police station level favour mandatory reporting more than their senior counterparts.

When asked if junior police personnel would feel comfortable fi ling a complaint against their seniors for the use of violence, provided legal protection, over four in 10 of police respondents strongly agreed, while 36% agreed moderately.

Seventy percent of police personnel who have a high propensity to justify torture also believe that training on the prevention of torture is very important. (Table 6.8)

The entire report may be read here

Sabrangindia and Communalism Combat before that, have been assiduously analysing and campaigning around the issue of both representation of Indian Muslims in the police force and administration and also the attitudes of men in uniform Vis a Vis India’s largest minority.

An introduction to the Justice BN Srikrishna Commission Report into the Bombay 1992-1993 brute anti-minority pogrom published an introduction by journalist, educationist and activist, Teesta Setalvad. She has researched the various judicial commission reports into anti-minority violence. This section. Anti-Minority Bias in the Police Force may be read here. Ex-IPS officer, KS Subramanian’s essay ‘Babri Masjid 1992 – Gujarat 2002 – Kashmir 2016: How the Sangh Parivar has wrecked India’s secular social fabric by sustained anti-minority violence’ may be read here.

In February 1995, in the cover story of Communalism Combat (www.sabrang.com) Vibhuti Narain Rai gave an interview that turned the searchlight within, on the Indian Police Force. Setalvad had met him at the National PoliceAcademy where I had been asked to become part of a training given my work in the post Babri-Masjid demolition Bombay violence. In this explosive interview he had argued, cogently and with statistics about the deep-rooted bias within the Indian police. “No riot can continue for more than 24 hours unless the state wants it to continue,” he had said in an interview, that, after it appeared in the February 1995 issue of Communalism Combat was reproduced by 35 Indian publications in different languages. This seminal interview may be read here.

This poor representation of various sections of India’s marginalised, make it almost impossible for the social issues and crimes most plaguing the country today, to be taken seriously by the police. In fact, one witnesses that in many instances the police collude with the majoritarian community, namely Upper caste class Hindu male to perpetuate even more violence on those who are already persecuted.

Though some progressive judgments such as the one in which the SC upholds Karnataka law on Reservations in Promotions for Govt. employees provide a glimmer of hope, the implementation on the ground remains questionable.

[1] See civil society reports on mob lynching that document police apathy and complicity in cases (Citizens Against Hate, 2018 and Human Rights Watch, 2019).

Related:

Anti–minority bias in the Indian Police
Mayhem in Malegaon: A fact-finding team of human rights activists and lawyers that visited riot-hit Malegaon returns with disturbing evidence of a “complete communal-isation of the police and paramilitary forces”
Local Jharkand Police Used Communal Slogans: NCM on Latehar Hangings
Controversy: DIG claims he never said ‘Muslims follow religion of terrorists’

The post Mob violence, police torture justifiable practices feel a significant section of India’s police: Study appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One of the most poignant representations of Holi’s true spirit came in 2019 when Unilever’s Surf Excel released an advertisement under its ‘Daag Achhe Hain’ campaign. The ad featured a young Hindu girl riding a bicycle through a neighbourhood, allowing herself to be drenched in Holi colours to protect her Muslim friend, who needed to reach the mosque for prayers. The tagline ‘Agar kuch achha karne mein daag lag jaaye, toh daag achhe hain’ (if stains are acquired while doing something good, then stains are good) beautifully encapsulated the essence of Holi—not just as a festival of colour but as a celebration of love and kindness. The parting words of the girl, “Baad me rang padhega!” (I will colour you later!), reinforced a powerful message of unity in diversity.

Despite its heart-warming message, the advertisement faced backlash from right-wing groups who falsely accused it of promoting ‘love jihad.’ The orchestrated outrage exposed the growing intolerance and the weaponisation of Hindu festivals against minorities. Instead of seeing the advertisement for what it was—a message of inclusivity—it became another excuse to stoke communal tensions.

Courageous & Amazing Holi Ad In New India

Save This Ad First, maybe the Company will be forced to remove the Ad.#Holi2025 #INDvsNZ #ChampionsTrophy2025 #BuyNothing3aOnFlipkartNow pic.twitter.com/xJ3wqJAVPr

— তন্ময় l T͞anmoy l (@tanmoyofc) March 11, 2025

Political leaders fuelling divisiveness

This calculated push to divide communities through festivals is now openly endorsed by political figures. BJP leaders have increasingly made inflammatory statements about Holi and Muslim participation in public life. Raghuraj Singh, a BJP leader, went as far as suggesting that Muslim men should wear tarpaulin hijabs if they wished to avoid Holi colours. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath defended a police officer who told Muslims to stay indoors if they did not wish to be smeared with colours, rather than condemning such open communal bias. His words further reinforced the idea that India’s religious minorities are expected to either assimilate into the dominant narrative or be excluded from public spaces.

In Sambhal, Deputy Superintendent of Police Anuj Kumar Chaudhary suggested that since Holi coincided with Jumma namaz, Muslims should refrain from coming out onto the streets if they did not wish to be coloured. “There are 52 Fridays in a year, but Holi comes only once. Hindus wait for Holi just as Muslims wait for Eid,” he argued, implying that one festival was more important than another. Such statements, rather than ensuring communal harmony, deepen the divide and send a clear message—minorities must conform or be side-lined.

BJP MLA Haribhushan Thakur Bachaul echoed this sentiment, suggesting that Muslims should simply stay indoors if they did not wish to be smeared with colours. His dismissive remarks about the religious practices of Muslims, particularly during Ramadan, reveal an underlying disdain for the coexistence of multiple faiths. His rhetoric was amplified by the Dharam Raksha Sangh, a Hindutva outfit based in Vrindavan, which called for a ban on Muslim participation in Holi celebrations in key pilgrimage towns like Mathura and Barsana, falsely portraying Muslims as a threat to the festival’s sanctity.

Calls for exclusion and hatred

The situation escalated further when Dinesh Sharma, a Hindutva hardliner, penned a letter in his own blood to Yogi Adityanath, urging a ban on Muslim participation in Braj’s Holi celebrations. His letter contained baseless allegations that Muslims ‘spit on sweets’ and ‘adulterate colours,’ playing into dangerous and unfounded stereotypes designed to alienate the community further. He argued that just as restrictions were imposed on Muslim vendors during the Mahakumbh, similar measures should be implemented for Holi to ‘preserve its sanctity.’ These extremist narratives are not only divisive but also seek to erase the long history of shared traditions between Hindus and Muslims in India.

Opposition pushback and the struggle for harmony

Despite the rising tide of communal rhetoric, voices of reason continue to push back. Opposition leaders such as Tejashwi Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) condemned BJP leaders for their divisive statements, questioning their authority to dictate who could or could not step out during Holi. “Who is he to say such things? Does this country belong to his father?” Yadav asked, highlighting the audacity with which right-wing politicians seek to control public spaces.

Congress MLA Anand Shankar also slammed BJP leaders, likening them to ancient forces of evil who tried to interfere in religious rituals for their gain. “This country runs on the Constitution, not on their divisive politics,” he asserted. Bihar Minority Affairs Minister Zama Khan assured that no harm would come to any community and that the administration had been instructed to ensure peace during the festival.

Festivals should unite, not divide

India has always thrived on its shared celebrations. Holi, much like Eid, Lohri, Diwali and Christmas, is a time when communities come together to forget differences and embrace one another. Yet, the increasing communalisation of festivals has put this cherished pluralism at risk. The statements by right-wing leaders and organisations reflect a broader attempt to redefine Indian identity along exclusionary lines—wherein minorities are made to feel unwelcome, their traditions dismissed, and their presence in public spaces questioned.

It is imperative to reject this divisive rhetoric and embrace the true spirit of our festivals—where colours do not mark religious boundaries but symbolise the joy of shared existence. The Surf Excel ad, despite the backlash, reminded us of an India where kindness transcends religious divides. That is the India we must strive to protect—one where festivals are moments of unity, not battlegrounds for political agendas.

Related:

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

Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state

Leaders and the spread of divisive narratives

The post Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The speech and the full incident

On Tuesday, March 11, Suvendu Adhikari, speaking to reporters outside the West Bengal Assembly, accused the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) government of being a “communal administration” and likened it to “Muslim League 2.” He went further, stating that if the BJP comes to power in 2026, they would remove all Muslim MLAs of the TMC from the assembly. His remarks, laced with communal undertones, sparked immediate outrage, with many terming it a direct attack on constitutional democracy.

The controversy erupted just a day after BJP’s Haldia MLA Tapasi Mondal defected to the TMC. The TMC swiftly condemned Adhikari’s remarks, with spokesperson Kunal Ghosh calling them “dangerous, provocative, and depraved.” Ghosh further stated, “In Parliament or state assemblies, there can be debate and arguments. But to rake up religion and target MLAs belonging to a specific community is contrary to the principles of the Constitution. It’s also a criminal offence.” The state BJP, however, remained silent, neither endorsing nor disowning the comments.

The incident occurred against the backdrop of Adhikari’s suspension from the assembly until March 18, 2025 for allegedly insulting the Speaker’s chair. Earlier in the day, BJP MLAs had staged a protest inside the assembly, tearing official documents after the Speaker denied their adjournment motion over alleged attacks on Hindu temples. The Speaker, Biman Bandyopadhyay, in response, directed the assembly secretary not to provide BJP legislators with any further documents related to House proceedings.

In a further escalation, Adhikari and his party members staged a demonstration outside the assembly, alleging that the ruling party was suppressing the opposition’s voice. He claimed that Hindus were being attacked in various districts of Bengal, that Hindu shop owners and houses had been set on fire, and that the state police were acting in a communal manner by restricting Holi celebrations on March 14, as it coincided with a Friday prayer day. He alleged that in Birbhum district’s Santiniketan, police had instructed people to finish Holi celebrations by 11 AM due to Friday prayers. He also claimed that in Uluberia, those celebrating India’s victory in the Champions Trophy were attacked, with even a local police officer being injured. Adhikari framed these incidents as proof that the TMC government was catering to Muslim interests at the cost of Hindus, further inflaming communal sentiments.

Inciting hate, undermining the Constitution

Adhikari’s statement is not merely hate speech—it is a direct assault on the constitutional framework of India. The Constitution guarantees equal rights and representation to all citizens, irrespective of religion. His words suggest an intention to exclude a specific religious community from legislative representation, violating the core tenets of democracy and secularism. Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination based on religion) are fundamental principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and Adhikari’s remarks trample upon them with shocking impunity.

This is not an isolated instance of Adhikari’s communal rhetoric. His earlier dismissal of BJP’s ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’ slogan, replaced with a divisive “Jo hamare saath, hum unke saath” (We are with those who are with us), was a clear indication of his supremacist ideology. Such statements, if left unchecked, normalise religious discrimination and stoke communal polarisation.

A case for immediate action

The Trinamool Congress (TMC) has rightly condemned Adhikari’s comments as “dangerous, provocative, and depraved.” Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee responded strongly, condemning Adhikari’s remarks as a blatant attempt to sow communal discord. “This is not just hate speech, this is an open threat to democracy. Bengal will never accept such divisive politics. I challenge him to try and throw out a single MLA—he will see the power of the people’s mandate,” she said.

Given the gravity of his statements, mere condemnation is insufficient. Adhikari was earlier suspended from the assembly for the remainder of the budget session due to his misconduct, but this latest episode warrants far more serious consequences.

1. Legal action: His remarks could potentially be prosecuted under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups) and 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. Expulsion from the Assembly: The West Bengal Legislative Assembly must consider a more severe disciplinary measure—either extending his suspension indefinitely or expelling him altogether. The Speaker has the authority to take such action in cases of grave misconduct.
3. BJP’s accountability: The silence of the state BJP leadership on this matter is deeply telling. If the party does not dissociate itself from Adhikari’s remarks and take internal disciplinary action, it is complicit in endorsing such unconstitutional rhetoric.

A dangerous precedent

If Adhikari is allowed to get away with such statements, it sets a dangerous precedent for Indian politics. Normalising calls for religious exclusion from legislative bodies not only weakens democracy but also emboldens other leaders to follow suit. West Bengal has a long history of communal harmony, and allowing such hate speech to fester threatens the social fabric of the state.

India cannot afford to treat such explicit communal threats as mere political rhetoric. There must be an unequivocal rejection of these unconstitutional utterances, backed by swift legal and parliamentary action. Anything less would be a failure to defend the democratic ideals upon which the nation stands.

Related:

Hindu festivals and sectarian nationalist politics

Manipur tensions escalate over free movement policy: Kuki-Zo resistance and government crackdown

Uttarakhand: Relentless Anti-Muslim Campaign Continues in Holy Month of Ramzan

Month-old Muslim infant allegedly crushed during police raid in Alwar: No arrests made; three cops booked on murder charges

The post WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence appeared first on SabrangIndia.