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.

The first and foremost basic right is the right to live and respect human life. The holy Quran lays down: “Whosoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind”.

On April 22, India witnessed the unprecedented terror attack that led to the death of 26 innocent civilians in the Baisaran Valley (Kashmir). The five terrorists who were involved in the firing were members of the Resistance Front (TRF), a unit of Laskar-e-Taiba. The group claimed that the attack was in response to the government policy of the Indian government in Kashmir.

In response to the cowardly attack on the civilian, the Indian government has suspended the Indus treaty, expelled Pakistani advisors, cancelled SAARC visas, and closed the Attari border for Pakistani citizens.

The whole country stood in solidarity with the victims and condemned the terror attack in a single voice irrespective of religion or any differences. The prime minister said that ‘India will pursue Kashmir attackers to the end of the earth.’ He further said that the biggest strength in the war against terrorism is the unity of the country and the solidarity of 140 crore Indians.

The Home Minister, Amit Shah, called an all-party meeting to explain the incident and status in the Kashmir Valley. The whole opposition united and gave their unprecedented support to the government, demanding a strict punishment for the terrorist.

The government in the meeting had accepted that there was a security lapse that led to the unprecedented attack that killed 26 civilians and injured more than 20. Since 2019 i.e. after revocation of Article 370, the Modi government has argued Kashmir was returning to normalcy, the attack exposed loopholes in its approach.

The Discrimination faced by Muslims after Pahalgam attack

The whole issue has been diverted to the Hindu-Muslim, Muslim-Pakistan issue in social media. The major reason that needs to be debated on national TV should be what led to this incident, instead of discussing these problems and questioning the security lapse on the part of the government, the whole burden of attack has been shifted on the shoulders of the Muslims.

A post was uploaded on social media ‘X,’ previously Twitter, by the official account of the ruling party BJP’s Chhattisgarh state unit, making a Ghibli image of a woman mourning the death of her husband at the attack site with the caption “Dharm pucha Jaati nahi.”

The rising tide of polarization in India has created an environment where Muslims are often targets of discrimination and hate speech. The question of their faith, religion, and nationalism subjected them to public humiliation.

Various videos and images surfaced on social media wherein hatred was spread against the Muslims and especially the Kashmiri Muslims, portraying them as the accomplices of the attack.

As Indian government forces continue to hunt for the attackers in Kashmir’s dense jungles and mountains, Kashmiris living across India, especially students, have reported heckling, harassment and threats by far-right Hindu groups – or even their classmates.

From Uttarakhand, Punjab, to Uttar Pradesh, landlords are pushing Kashmiri tenants out; and shopkeepers are refusing to trade with them. Several Kashmiri students are sleeping at airports as they try to make their way home.

Areeba, 22 years Kashmiri student said (Reported by Article 14) “we are stuck”. We can’t go outside, and we can’t go home. Even booking a cab to the airport feels like risking our lives,” “I feel like a prisoner here, just because I’m Kashmiri, just because I’m Muslim. This flat that was once my home feels like a cage now.”

A video was released by Hindu Raksha Dal leader Lalit Sharma warning the Kashmiri students to leave the state within the stipulated time or face consequences. The Jammu and Kashmir Students Association (JKSA) claimed that the students received mass threats from the right-wing organization.

Another incident occurred in Kolkata wherein a doctor refused to give treatment to a pregnant Muslim woman, saying, “After the Kashmir incident, I’m not going to treat any Muslim patients.”

All these incidents, led to the brewing of hatred against the Muslims, especially the Kashmiris, across the country, which subsequently led to the atrocities against the Muslims.

Pahalgam Attack casts big shadows on Kashmir’s tourism economy

Kashmir was slowly rebuilding its image as a peaceful tourist destination and bring large investment in the valley after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. When Kashmir valley should have encroaching with the laughter of tourist, it was silenced by the gunfire. The attack on innocent civilians on April 22 didn’t just end lives, it ended the season of hope.

Kashmir, which was on the path of development and innovation from conflict to calm, has once again been dragged back by the same old shadows; it’s not just silenced the people but the whole economy of Kashmir.

The right wing openly criticized and boycotted the Kashmiri goods and vendors across the country. The Congress president, Mallika Arjun Kharge, and other MPs from the opposition have raised the similar issue that there are several social media handles that are raising such false narratives against Muslims and Kashmiris, which must be tackled with a hard hand.

Kashmir has been affected by tourism, which is the lifeline of the Kashmiri people. The government of India must provide financial assistance to the local people of Kashmir. In case of unemployment and poverty, the people of Kashmir will lose confidence in the democracy and turn back to militancy once again. If this were to be the case, the objective of repealing Article 370 will fall short in just a minute.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a prominent freedom fighter and first Education Minister of Independent India, while standing on the stairs of Jama Masjid Delhi, addressed the Muslims planning to leave India for Pakistan at the time of partition and said, “Jo chala gaya usey bhool ja, Hind ko apni Jannat bana!  (Forget all those who had left/Treat India as your only trust.”). Muslims are very much Indian by birth and by choice; they have a double claim over the country. The question of their faith and love for this country will weaken the social fabric of this country.

Khan Obaida & Mohd Saem Ansari, currently in his 4^th year pursuing B.A.LL.B from Aligarh Muslim University

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

The post Terrorism’s Shadow: Rising hatred against Indian Muslims after Pahalgam terror attack 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.

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.

Singh, already facing several criminal complaints for his alleged inflammatory speeches, has been booked for obstructing a public servant from performing his duties, criminal intimidation and intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace in one First Information Report (FIR), and disobeying a lawful order issued by a public servant and public nuisance in another. The cases were registered on April 8 and 6 respectively, at Mangalhat police station.

According to the Hyderabad police, the BJP MLA said during a speech near Balram Galli said in Telugu, “Na mundu unna police laki oka nivedika, bandi aapu bandi aapu koddiga, okka karyakarthalaki lathi kodithe manchiga undadu yadi pettuko, ade lati tho nenu kuda kodatha, na guddala dammu vundi yadi pettuko ardam ainda, Naku BP Penchoddu” which is roughly translated as “Here’s a statement to the police in front of me: Stop the vehicle, stop the vehicle a little bit, it won’t be good if you hit the activists with a baton, remember that. I will also hit you with the same baton, remember that I have the guts. Don’t raise my BP.”

In yet another case, the BJP MLA is said to have violated or disobeyed the orders of Vikram Singh Mann, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, and for using more number of heavy vehicles and high-volume sound emitting systems (D.J) for the procession, causing inconvenience to the public and disrupting free flow of traffic.

On April 6, a Sunday, the Ram Navami Shobha Yatra procession started at Akashpuri Hanuman Temple and proceeded to Hanuman Vyayamshala, RamKoti, Hyderabad via Anita Tower-Puranapool Gandhi Statue, Jummerath Bazaar, Chudi Bazaar, Begum Bazar Chatri, Swastik Mirchi, Begum Bazaar Siddiamber Bazar Masjid, and Gowliguda Gurudwara Koti Women’s College, Sultan Bazaar.

The Hyderabad police had granted conditional permission to the legislator to hold the procession with prohibition on DJ sound systems, drone shooting and bursting of firecrackers.

Background

T Raja Singh, BJP’s MLA from Goshamahal in Hyderabad, is notorious for his controversial and often polarising views. His speech at the Deccan Summit in Pune on February 8, 2025, only further reinforced his reputation. Singh stirred the pot by promoting the divisive conspiracy theory of “Ghazwa-e-Hind,” falsely claiming that Muslims were plotting to turn India into an Islamic nation.

Divisive narratives

“They have another Pakistan inside India, these land jihadis.”

Singh had in that speech, as the complaint by Citizens for Justice and Peace, to the Maharashtra police states, gone on to misrepresent historical events and figures, wrongly alleging that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had declared that Muslims had the first right to India’s resources. The narrative and rhetoric also targeted religious educational institutions, especially Madrasas, and he called for the construction of temples in historically disputed locations like Kashi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal, where Mosques stand at the moment. In his mind, these temples, built after destroying the current Islamic religious structures, would “remove the stains” from these sacred sites, promoting the idea of religious purity while targeting Islamic places of worship.

Last July, 2024, the Citizens for Justice and Peace sent three separate complaints to relevant authorities of Maharashtra against three separate incidents of hate speeches delivered by BJP MLA Raja Singh in the month of May of that year. The speeches had been made on May 3, 14   and 26. In all the three incidents highlighted in the complaint, BJP MLA Raja Singh can be heard delivered provocative and inflammatory statements against the Muslim community at events organised by the Sakal Hindu Samaj.

Through these complaints, CJP has urged the authorities to take action against Singh, who is a Hyderabad resident and MLA from Goshamahal Assembly constituency. It is essential to note that Singh has been booked multiple times for making inflammatory remarks against Muslims. He has more than 40 criminal cases registered against him, and in 36 of these cases, the offence under IPC Section 153(A) has been invoked.

In addition to the transcriptions of the offending sections, the complaints had provided details of the multiple incidents of hate speeches by Raja Singh that had come forth in the year 2024 itself, many of which were in the state of Maharashtra. As per the details provided, in the month of January in 2024, Singh had been booked by the Mumbai police for delivering the anti-Muslim inflammatory speech in Solapur rally. In March of 2024, Karnataka police had booked Raja Singh for delivering a speech containing inflammatory remarks against Muslims at an event which was reportedly organised by Janatha Seva Group.

Highlighting the recent judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts that detailed the steps that the authorities are required to take while dealing with the issue of hate speeches being delivered at events, the complaint also provided the laws that have been violated by the said speeches under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Related:

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

BJP MLA Raja Singh uses anti-Muslim slurs, targets Muslims, encourages violence at rally permitted by Bombay High Court

The post 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 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vaibhav Chaurasia of the Rouse Avenue Courts orally remarked, “this means FIR,” indicating that the court’s directive for further investigation effectively necessitates the registration of a First Information Report against Mishra. The judge observed that a cognizable offence had been established concerning one of the incidents detailed in the complaint, warranting deeper scrutiny.

The court stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly placed Mishra at the scene and that “all the things were corroborating.” It further noted that Mishra, during interrogation, admitted to being in the area and acknowledged that people had gathered around him, many of whom he knew. This admission, the court stated, “fortifies the allegations of the complainant.”

Significantly, the court pointed out that Mishra’s statement was not framed in terms of support for or opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) but rather in explicitly communal terms. The court noted that Mishra “had not framed his statement under ‘Pro-CAA or Anti-CAA’ but rather ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM’ with the distinction of us and them, wherein them is ‘DUSRI TARAF MUSLIM.’” The judge remarked that such rhetoric “clearly establishes sides and requires investigation to unearth the truth.”

As per a report in LiveLaw, the court further observed that Mishra’s presence in North-East Delhi a day before the riots, which he himself admitted, could not be ignored. Additionally, it directed that senior police officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya be examined, following allegations by the complainant that Surya had threatened protesters, saying, “If you did not stop this protest, then consequence will happen here that you will be killed.” The judge stressed that “his personal interrogation is necessary,” adding, “The series of events reveals that perhaps, if allegations of complainant are found to be true, then DCP Ved Prakash Surya knows something which this Judiciary does not.”

At the same time, the court stated that if the complainant’s allegations were proven false, the Delhi Police would be at liberty to take action under Section 182 of the IPC for filing false information. It also directed the DCP of North-East Delhi to ensure that the order for further investigation was sent to the appropriate police station within its jurisdiction. Failure to comply, the court warned, would hold the DCP legally accountable.

The Delhi Police has been ordered to file a compliance report by April 16, 2025, the next date of hearing. Petitioner Mohammad Ilyas was represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha, while Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi Police.

This directive represents a major step towards accountability in the 2020 Delhi riots case, even if it is beginning 5 years down the lane. Despite the political climate and prior reluctance to act against influential figures, the court’s insistence on further investigation highlights the need for an impartial and thorough probe into the events leading to the communal violence.

Details of the complaint against Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra

A Delhi court was hearing a complaint filed by Mohammad Ilyas, seeking an investigation into the alleged role of BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The plea, however, was met with strong opposition from the Delhi Police, who argued that Mishra was being falsely implicated as part of a “well-planned conspiracy.”

The complainant, Mohammad Ilyas, sought the registration of an FIR against Mishra, along with then SHO of Dayalpur police station and five other individuals, including BJP MLA Mohan Singh Bisht and former BJP MLAs Jagdish Pradhan and Satpal Sansad.

According to Ilyas, on February 23, 2020, he personally witnessed Mishra and his associates blocking a road and destroying the handcarts of street vendors. He also alleged that the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (North-East) and other officers were present alongside Mishra as he issued warnings to anti-CAA protesters, demanding they vacate the area or face dire consequences.

Ilyas had moved the court in December 2024, urging an inquiry into the roles of Mishra and six others in the riots, which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. In March 2025, the Delhi Police reiterated their stance, arguing that Mishra’s role had already been investigated and “nothing incarcerating” had been found.

In his petition, Ilyas specifically named Mishra, Mustafabad MLA and Deputy Speaker Mohan Singh Bisht, the then DCP (North-East), the then SHO of Dayalpur police station, and former BJP legislator Jagdish Pradhan, holding them responsible for inciting the riots. As reported by The Hindu, Ilyas stated that he saw Mishra and his associates obstructing a road in Kardampuri and damaging street vendors’ stalls. Additionally, he alleged that the former North-East DCP and several police officers stood by as Mishra issued threats to anti-CAA demonstrators.

Ilyas also accused the former Dayalpur SHO and others of vandalising mosques across North-East Delhi, further intensifying concerns over the role of law enforcement in the communal violence.

Delhi Police opposes plea seeking FIR

On March 6, 2025, the Delhi Police filed a written submission before a Delhi court, opposing a plea that sought the registration of an FIR against BJP leader and Delhi Minister Kapil Mishra for his alleged involvement in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

The police contended that the complaint, filed by Mohammad Ilyas, was part of a “well-planned conspiracy” to falsely implicate Mishra in the riots. They asserted that the BJP leader had no role in the violence and was being deliberately framed.

As part of their argument, the prosecution referred to conversations from various WhatsApp groups, including the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG), alleging that certain individuals had orchestrated a social media campaign against Mishra. The police claimed that the hashtag #ArrestKapilMishra was being used strategically to construct a misleading narrative around his involvement in the riots.

Additionally, the Delhi Police maintained that Mishra’s alleged role had already been investigated and that no incriminating evidence was found against him. In an earlier submission from October 2024, the police argued that the riots were the outcome of a “pre-planned conspiracy” designed to incite violence in Muslim-majority areas, particularly around mosques and religious sites. The goal, they claimed, was to escalate “protests” into “Chakkajaam” (road blockades) once a critical mass of demonstrators had gathered.

The police further stated that misleading WhatsApp messages were circulated at the time, falsely alleging that a mob led by Mishra had initiated the violence. They insisted that these claims were part of an attempt to create a false narrative and implicate him in the riots.

Opposition demands resignation of Kapil Mishra following court’s order

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Congress on April 1, 2025, demanded the resignation of Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra after a city court directed the registration of an FIR to investigate his alleged role in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.

Addressing a press conference, Delhi AAP president Saurabh Bharadwaj stated that sufficient evidence of Mishra’s involvement was already in the public domain and called for his immediate arrest. “Mishra should resign and be arrested, as the court has ordered an FIR to probe his role in the riots. For the sake of morality, he should step down, just as others accused in the case have been arrested,” Bharadwaj asserted.

As per the report of Times of India, Bharadwaj further criticised the delay in legal proceedings, pointing out that it took over five years for the judicial system to act on the case. Bharadwaj also alleged that a judge who had previously directed the police to take action in the case was transferred to another state.

AAP’s chief spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar echoed the demand, questioning why Mishra was being treated differently from others accused in the riots. “Every other accused in the Delhi riots case has been arrested. Why is Kapil Mishra an exception?” she asked.

Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav also called for Mishra’s resignation, citing the court’s findings. “The Rouse Avenue court has established that there is a cognisable offence against him. This is a serious matter, and if there is any sense of morality left, he should resign immediately to allow for a fair and independent investigation,” Yadav said.

Delhi riots case and Mishra’s incendiary speech

The 2020 North-East Delhi riots: The 2020 Delhi riots, which took place between 24 and 26 February, led to significant violence in North-East Delhi, resulting in 53 deaths, over 500 injuries, and extensive property damage. Ironically, while a majority of those killed and harmed were Muslims, most of those who have been arrested for their role during the riots are also Muslims. Several student leaders and activists, including Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, were accused by the police of conspiring to incite the riots. These remain in jail, with the trial yet to begin. However, a fact-finding team formed by the Delhi Minorities Commission concluded that the violence was “planned and targeted” and held BJP leader Kapil Mishra responsible for triggering it.

Mishra’s alleged role in inciting violence: Delhi Cabinet Minister and BJP leader Kapil Mishra is accused of provoking violence through a speech delivered at Maujpur Chowk on February 23, 2020. In his speech, he issued an ultimatum, demanding that the police clear anti-CAA protest sites within three days or risk intervention by his supporters.

The fact-finding report had noted that “violence started in different pockets almost immediately after the short speech of Shri Kapil Mishra on 23 February, 2020, at Maujpur, in which he openly called for forcefully removing the protestors at Jafrabad in North-East Delhi.” It further highlighted Mishra’s explicit warning: “After that, we will not listen to the police if roads are not cleared after three days…”

The committee criticised the Delhi Police for failing to act against Mishra, despite senior officer DCP Ved Prakash Surya standing beside him during the speech. The report stated that “the open admission of ‘not listening’ to the police and extra-legal tactics should have been seen by the authorities as inciting violence.” The committee concluded that by not apprehending Mishra, the police “failed to take the first and most immediate preventive step needed to avoid violence and protect life and property.”

Legal challenges against Mishra and other political leaders: Multiple legal petitions have been filed seeking an FIR against Kapil Mishra for inciting violence. Human rights defender Harsh Mander had petitioned for an FIR against Mishra under Section 153 of the IPC (provocation for riot) and Section 125 of the Representation of People’s Act (causing ill will between communities for electoral purposes). These sections do not require prior government sanction.

Similarly, CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat has been pursuing legal action against politicians whose speeches allegedly incited violence against anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protestors. She approached the Delhi High Court after her plea to register an FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and BJP MP Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches was dismissed by a trial court on technical grounds. The trial court had ruled that a prior sanction from the central government was required before proceeding. Karat challenged this ruling, arguing that such procedural objections should be addressed early to prevent unnecessary delays in cases involving hate speech. (Details may be read here.)

Related:

Kapil Mishra delivers anti-Muslim statements, targets activist Harsh Mander in his speech

Kajal Hindusthani, Kapil Mishra, amongst others, target Muslim religious minorities, calls for their “erasure” and “Ghar Wapasi” unchallenged

Did Kapil Mishra’s Ram Navami speech incite communal violence, demolition drive in Khargone?

I have no regrets, if need be, I’d do it again: Kapil Mishra

CJP moves MEITY against Kapil Mishra’s communal social media posts

The post “This Means FIR”: Delhi Court orders further investigation, FIR against BJP leader Kapil Mishra five years after Delhi riots appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Outside the auditorium, a long queue assembled in the lobby of the O’Brien Science Building. Most of them were Indian students. Eventually, I began conversing with the person ahead of me and we found seats together. He was in his late twenties, doing his masters, and had previously worked at a large e-commerce MNC (multi-national company) before moving to Ireland. I asked him why he was attending today’s talk by the foreign minister. He said that he was a big admirer of Dr. S. Jaishankar and his work, as well as ‘other leaders’ like him.

According to him, Dr. Jaishankar was a ‘smart’ and ‘bold’ person who cared for the country’s interests and how Indians were represented abroad. Challenging his point, I brought up the recent deportations of illegal Indian immigrants from the United States and the minister’s tepid response to the matter. He replied saying the immigrants had committed a crime by being in the States illegally and therefore it was right they were sent back. ‘In chains?’ I added. No, he said. ‘That went too far. But America will be America.’

As for those ‘other leaders’ he said, ‘the thing I like about this government is that they put the country first. The country comes first and then everything else.’ I found this interesting. By putting the country first, he was referring to the government’s unwavering focus on growth and development. I said that not all Indians saw this growth. In fact, most Indians still suffered gruelling poverty, malnutrition, and unemployment. Becoming aware of my political outlook and wanting to avoid further argument, he finally said, ‘everyone has their opinions. And everyone’s opinion matters.’

Meanwhile, the auditorium filled to its capacity. The students were visibly excited to see the Foreign Minister. Observing them, I became aware of the possibility that many students here may share my friend’s views. Since coming to Ireland, I’ve had mixed feelings encountering large groups of Indians. Many of them expect you to speak in Hindi, even in a foreign land, which as a South Indian I am not eager to oblige. Then there’s a cautionary feeling; one that comes with being a minority in India. I first gauge the political leanings of the people I interact with, some of whom under the guise of being ‘non-political’, defer in favour of the ruling party.

Here in Ireland, I am far away from the religious violence at home. Yet I find it strange carrying on conversations with supporters of the ruling party, pretending their views shouldn’t affect the pleasure of their company.

Why beat around the bush? I thought. I asked him frankly what he thought about the divisive politics of the government — the remaking of India as a Hindu nation, and the rise of hate speech and violence against Christians and Muslims. In response, he said that every government had its own variety of politics. Hindu-Muslim was just the ruling party’s version of it. In the end it was about winning elections, in other words — power. I was oddly relieved to hear this answer. It seemed analysed from a neutral but nevertheless, ruthlessly pragmatic standpoint.

‘But,’ he continued. ‘There must be a balance of power. Hindus have nowhere else to go in this world. What if something were to happen to us? There must be mutual respect. We respect all religions. But they should also respect us.’ By ‘they’ he meant Muslims, whom he perceived as a looming threat to the existence of Hindus.

I asked, in a country of 1.4 billion, where the majority was Hindu, Hinduism being the third largest religion in the world after Christianity and Islam, how were Muslims in India a threat to Hindus? Who lived in the constant fear of having their houses demolished, or being lynched by a mob driving home from work? In Ireland, a homicide makes it to the front page of every major publication in the country. In India, crimes against Muslim Indians and Dalits are hardly ever reported. With first-hand experience, we both laughed at the irony of this reality. In Ireland people were valued as human beings.

Most of all, I wanted to tell my friend that as a Christian I no longer felt safe in India, neither did I feel I belonged. That I was tired of being called a rice bag, a cultural traitor, with an insane desire to go around evangelizing and converting people. That it had become difficult seeing churches attacked and burnt, and parishioners beat up during our festivals. That I had grown up with Muslims, and watching their mere existence demonised with repeated calls for their slaughter was painful. That if it was Muslims bearing the maximum brunt of hatred now, it would be the Christians next. That his reasons for leaving the country and mine were very different. That I worried about my family and felt guilty I had left them behind. Did he know that feeling?

He seemed to agree with everything I was saying, yet there was something immutable in his stance. Who was I anyway, to come one day and challenge his views? Like he said, all opinions were personal and had no bearing on the other. But his opinion did matter. We were sitting in a foreign country where I considered myself safe. Because I didn’t feel safe in India, and that was directly because of his opinion and a good number of Indians who shared it.

To diffuse the tension, he laughed and said that he personally did not believe in religious discrimination, and had close Muslim and Christian friends. He apologetically repeated his first point, ‘people do anything for power. At the end the day, the powerful man rules. It’s sad, but it is the way it is.’

Forty-five minutes late, Dr. Jaishankar arrived dressed in a grey suit and tie, green for the occasion. Walking down the aisle, he was received with thumping applause. The meeting was attended by Irish and Indian ambassadors Kevin Kelly and Akhilesh Mishra as well as higher-ups and academics from UCD. The title of his lecture was ‘India’s View of the World’; an interesting topic in a time afflicted with polarisation, several major conflicts, and rising inequality. Yet apart from mentioning the developed world’s failure to meet SDGs (sustainable developmental goals), and vaguely reaffirming India’s neutrality on the Russia-Ukraine war, Dr. Jaishankar said little about what India thought of the world.

The talk seemed more about presenting India as a global superpower — robust growth, soon to be third largest economy, increasing number of airports, digitalised economy, and technological adeptness, were points he stressed on. Similarly, talk of global workplaces and collaboration in highly niche sectors like AI, drone manufacture, datacentres, and space exploration delivered in a ‘you need us more than we need you’ tone, took up most of the lecture.

Even the Q&A seemed curated with pre-selected questions to bolster this progressive and dominating image of the country.

The students were not disappointed. Every attempt at humour in the minister’s measured manner was met with laughter and delight. Every word clung to with rapt attention. My new friend laughed especially hard and clapped the loudest at the end of the talk. Looking around the audience, projecting my nausea for Dr. Jaishankar’s undeserved adulation, I realised a lot of the students were just happy to see someone in their corner. An hour before, while I waited in the queue outside the auditorium, I remembered being struck by the attire of the students around me. Most Indian students wear very basic winter jackets here. They come in dull colours, are of flimsy material, rarely fit, and are worn for the sake of warmth rather than style.

It’s not easy for Indian students studying abroad. Unlike the diversity focused college brochures, the study abroad experience for Indians is usually a lonely one, where students find themselves struggling to integrate into a new culture. They pay extraordinarily high fees (on loan) in a highly disparate currency, work stressful part-time jobs, and are for the most part broke the entire time. Their courses are chosen not out of passion, but to match the country’s Critical Skills List for the prospect of securing relevant jobs and permanent residence. They endure years of hardship to achieve one objective — making it, in a developed nation. In such conditions, symbolic gestures such as Dr. Jaishankar’s visit don’t go unappreciated.

Students cheered when Dr. Jaishankar called for a friendly visa-policy in the EU, and considered increasing shorter flights from Delhi to Dublin. These things matter to students. Hate politics, massive inequality, and upheaval of constitutional institutions back home aren’t relevant to their aspirations. If they manage to secure high-paying jobs and pay off their loans, then for all purposes, real or inflated, the government has done its work. Effectively, the government’s politics are benign and can be overlooked as long as growth, or at least the illusion of it, continued. It is selfish, wilfully ignorant, and prejudiced, but it works.

For the Indian diaspora there is another level of complexity, which is an internal feeling of cultural and racial insecurity. Indians want to be seen at par with everyone else. They wish to shed the timid, shy, thickly accented, English fumbling, and impoverished image the world has of them. Hence, the obsession with representation.

It was enough that Dr. Jaishankar was a high ranking minister, a charming man in a suite who spoke with erudition and was highly educated (He is an author of several books and has a Ph.D in International Relations). He deserved adulation not because of what he said or did, but because of what he represented to us on that stage. Speaking in front of Irish officials and university authorities, he represented what Indians could be — powerful and respected.

The BJP’s idea of development and progress is the same — symbolic gestures that indulge the aspirations and deep insecurities of the Indian psyche. The Vande Bharat train, grand airports, the perfunctory language of globalism, high growth, data, drones, and AI, are developmentally symbolic efforts to make India worthy of itself in the Western gaze. India’s view of the world is really India’s view of itself. To the Indian student subsisting on supermarket bought sandwiches and renting a dingy room in the suburbs, the narrative of the unstoppable Indian is something to draw hope and inspiration from. It validates their struggle.

The humiliating spectacle of Indian citizens handcuffed, shackled at their feet and dragged through a runway, and the governments’ failure to address it, is a case for cosmic irony. What can India say against ill-treatment of Indians overseas when it has itself become a model for far-right nationalism under the Hindutva project? Disdain for DEI policies in American Companies (which affect Ireland as well), curtailing H1Bs, and the ‘Normalise Indian hate’ climate currently unfolding in the Trumpian dystopia hurts Indians abroad. India has lost its moral ground in voicing out against racism because of what it does to its own, because nationalism is based on the consolidation of identities and suppression of all others. As countries progress toward the right and ire against immigrants rises, India shouldn’t be surprised when it points the finger and finds three pointing back — Muslim, Dalit, and Christian.

I don’t think my friend hated minorities. But the privilege of not being at the receiving end, occupied in his own aspirational struggle led him to have a certain blindness. In this case, we’ll call it prejudice. It doesn’t occur to him that Indians do well regardless of the hype of supremacy, because we are a brilliant people, and succeed wherever we go.

(The author is a student at the University College Dublin-UCD)

Related:

Why is the Govt of India silent on the spurt of attacks on Muslims, Adivasis?

Targeted attacks continue as Bajrang Dal’s disturbing trend of violence against Muslims goes unchecked

Multiple incidents of Muslims being targeted by extremist reported, attacks included hate speech and discrimination

The post The paradox of nationalism & Indian representation abroad: S. Jaishankar’s visit to my university appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The case stems from a telephonic conversation that took place on February 25, 2025, during which Koratkar allegedly made both contentious and intimidating remarks to Indrajit Sawant, a historian. The incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

On Tuesday, February 25, soon after the reported telephonic threats, historian Sawant shared on social media a six-minute, 30 second audio recording of a phone conversation between (a man named) Koratkar and himself. With this recording he posted, “A man named Prashant Koratkar, who calls himself a Parashurami Brahmin, is making threats in the name of the honourable chief minister. I have received such threats before but I am sharing this recording to show how hatred and disrespect for Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj persists among some people. I want the Maratha and Bahujan communities to realise this. Koratkar from Nagpur—neither he nor anyone else can scare a true follower of Shivaji Maharaj. Jai Shivray!”

Concerned about the nature of the threats made against him, Sawant recorded the conversation and shared it on social media before filing a police complaint. Inspector Sanjiv Kumar Zade of Juna Rajwada police station confirmed that an investigation had been launched, with police teams prepared to travel to Nagpur if necessary to track down Koratkar. Koratkar in the recorded conversation has, while lashing out at Sawant for his views, threatened him with the “present return of Brahmin rule in Maharashtra.”

Sawant has been vocal in his criticism of the film Chhaava, arguing that it distorts history by portraying Maharani Soyarabai as a villain while ignoring the role of Annaji Datto. Citing historical sources such as the writings of François Martin, the former French governor of Pondicherry, Sawant has contributed to the ongoing debate by revealing how it was Brahmin clerks had betrayed Sambhaji Maharaj to the Mughals. He also demanded the removal of incorrect historical information from Wikipedia to prevent misinformation.

Unable to stomach this rendering of historical facts, Koratkar reportedly threatened Sawant in the aforesaid phone conversation. His perceived proximity with politically powerful figures in Maharashtra today has led to the debate around his continued non-arrest and protection.

Protests erupted from last month itself following the transcript of the audio going viral. On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. Protesters also went to the Kolahpur police station to ensure action against him.

On March 1, the Kolhapur court had initially granted Koratkar interim protection from arrest, on the condition that he appear before the police and surrender the mobile phone and SIM card used during the call. However, responding to pressure and outrage over Koratkar’s remarks, the Maharashtra government challenged this interim relief before the Bombay High Court, which subsequently directed the Kolhapur sessions court to prioritise the hearing and decide on the bail application after considering all parties’ arguments.

During the final hearing, Koratkar’s legal counsel argued that he had been cooperating with the authorities and, therefore, should be granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution, however, strongly opposed the plea. Public Prosecutor Vivek Shukla asserted that the accused had tampered with key evidence—the mobile phone from which the alleged call was made—by erasing its data. He further argued that Koratkar had failed to comply with the conditions set by the court while granting interim relief, thereby forfeiting his right to seek further protection. Shukla also questioned why the journalist was seeking anticipatory bail instead of surrendering, stating that freedom should not be misused to evade legal scrutiny.

Asim Sarode, representing the complainant, further alleged that Koratkar had misled the court by falsely claiming his mobile phone had been hacked. He pointed out that instead of appearing before the police as directed, the accused had sent his mobile phone through his wife, raising concerns about his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Sarode urged the court to invoke Section 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with the destruction of evidence, to ensure accountability for the alleged tampering.

Despite the court’s rejection of his bail plea, Koratkar remains un-arrested, intensifying public protests led by the Sakal Maratha community.

Bombay High Court intervenes, directs Kolhapur Court to hear all parties

On March 11, the Bombay High Court had reviewed the Maharashtra government’s plea challenging the Kolhapur sessions court’s interim protection order. A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil directed the lower court to ensure that all parties, including the state government, were heard before making a final decision on Koratkar’s bail application.

During the proceedings, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the state, argued that the Kolhapur sessions court had passed its earlier order granting interim relief without giving the prosecution an opportunity to present its case. He highlighted that Koratkar had failed to surrender his phone as per the court’s directions, instead sending it through his wife. Upon examination, it was found that all data had been erased, raising suspicions of evidence tampering. Venegaonkar maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover any deleted data that could be critical to the investigation.

The prosecution further pointed out that the sessions court had made certain observations about Koratkar’s social media accounts being hacked and donations being collected in his name before the case was registered. The state government contended that these findings were made without proper scrutiny and without hearing all parties, which was a violation of due process.

Koratkar’s defence, on the other hand, challenged the maintainability of the state’s plea, arguing that the interim relief order was legally sound. Meanwhile, the complainant’s lawyer, Asim Sarode, also raised objections, stating that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard before the sessions court granted Koratkar protection from arrest.

After hearing the arguments, the Bombay High Court clarified that it would not interfere with the merits of the case but expected the Kolhapur sessions court to decide the matter independently and in accordance with the law. The high court disposed of the state’s plea, reiterating that its observations should not influence the final decision of the lower court.

Mass protests and political pressure for arrest

On February 28, 2025, the Sakal Maratha community and supporters of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj staged demonstrations across Maharashtra, demanding Koratkar’s immediate arrest. Protesters assembled outside his residence in Nagpur, denouncing his alleged remarks and accusing him of attempting to sow social discord. A delegation, including community leaders Prakash Khandagale, Amol Mane, Swapnil Kale, Alok Rasal, and Deepak Ingle, met Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Rashmitha Rao, who assured them that Koratkar would be arrested within 24 hours. However, when no action was taken by the next day, another protest erupted outside Beltarodi police station, with demonstrators urging authorities to file an FIR against Koratkar in Nagpur in addition to the existing case in Kolhapur.

Amid mounting pressure, former royal and community leader Raje Mudhoji Bhosale led a delegation to the Nagpur police commissioner’s office, demanding that Koratkar be charged under sedition laws. Protesters also accused Koratkar of attempting to create caste tensions by referencing the caste of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. The Citizen Action Committee warned that if Koratkar was not arrested, they would file complaints against him at multiple police stations.

With tensions running high for over 72 hours, the Sakal Maratha community has called for an urgent meeting to determine further action if authorities fail to act swiftly.

Political reactions and demand for swift action

The delay in Koratkar’s arrest has drawn criticism from political figures. On March 4, Kolhapur MP and descendant of Shivaji Maharaj, Shahu Shahaji Maharaj, questioned why the police had not yet acted against Koratkar. Speaking during an official visit to Nagpur, Shahu Maharaj stated that he would take up the matter with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis during his upcoming visit to Kolhapur.

Former Maharashtra minister Anil Deshmukh also criticised the inaction, suggesting that Koratkar was being shielded by influential figures. “His whereabouts are unknown, but how is that possible when police personnel were stationed outside his house? How did he disappear despite a security presence?” Deshmukh asked.

Amravati MP Balwant Wankhade echoed these concerns, stressing that individuals who insult revered historical figures should face strict consequences. “Those who make offensive statements against figures deeply respected by the people must not be spared. The government must take prompt action,” he asserted.

With pressure mounting from political leaders, civil society, and protest groups, the demand for Koratkar’s arrest has intensified. The coming days are expected to see further action from both the authorities and the protesting groups as tensions continue to escalate.

Maharashtra government’s silence, Koratkar’s political ties, and the systematic distortion of history

The Maharashtra government’s two-faced response – on the one hand appealing protection granted to him from arrest but on the other its reluctance or failure to arrest Prashant Koratkar– despite the overwhelming evidence against him and the widespread public demand for accountability, has exposed the double standards in law enforcement. Even as protests intensify across the state, top echelons of the government have chosen to remain silent, raising serious questions about whether political patronage is shielding Koratkar from arrest. The speculation is not baseless—recent visuals showing Koratkar in close proximity to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and senior police officials — have only reinforced allegations that the ruling establishment is protecting him. This selective application of the law is in stark contrast to how dissenters and activists are swiftly arrested, often on flimsy charges, while those with political connections continue to evade legal scrutiny.

These visuals have been taken from Dr. Prashant Koratkar – Facebook / https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.448369837294425

The larger controversy surrounding Koratkar is not just about one individual’s remarks but is emblematic of a broader ideological project to distort Maharashtra’s history. The ongoing “Brahmanisation” of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj is a deliberate attempt to whitewash the historical record and erase their true legacy. Sambhaji Maharaj, long regarded as a fearless warrior who resisted Mughal rule, is now being forcefully rebranded within a narrow caste framework to suit present-day political narratives, with attempts to paint him as a Brahmin leader rather than a Bahujan leader. At the same time, the erasure of historical nuances surrounding figures like Aurangzeb is being used as a tool to fuel communal tensions and stoke resentment.

The recent outbreak of violence in Nagpur over the portrayal of Chhatrapati Sambhaji and Aurangzeb underscores the dangerous consequences of this systematic distortion. The deliberate rewriting of history is not an academic exercise—it has real-world implications, as it foments hatred, deepens social divides, and often leads to violence. The Maharashtra government’s failure to act against Koratkar while allowing these tensions to escalate suggests that it is complicit in this divisive agenda. (A detailed report regarding the outbreak of violence may be read here.)

As the demand for Koratkar’s arrest grows louder, the government’s inaction is becoming increasingly indefensible. If he continues to evade arrest, this will only confirm what many already allege—that the law in Maharashtra does not apply equally to all, but is instead wielded as a weapon against the powerless while offering protection to those who enjoy political favour. The coming days will be a test of whether the government prioritises justice or remains beholden to its ideological allies at the cost of social harmony.

Background of the case

On February 26, 2025, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Prashant Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station for allegedly threatening historian Indrajit Sawant and making statements that could incite communal tensions. According to the police, the incident took place on February 25 when Sawant received a threatening call at 12:03 am from an individual identifying himself as Koratkar as mentioned above. The caller allegedly made derogatory remarks about Shivaji Maharaj and the Maratha community, using offensive language aimed at provoking caste-based conflict.

Following the backlash of widespread protests, Koratkar denied any involvement, insisting that he had no connection with Sawant and that the voice in the audio clip was not his. He criticised Sawant for publicly naming him without verification, stating that he had since received multiple threats. Koratkar announced plans to file a defamation complaint and approach the cyber cell for redress.

A case had been registered against Koratkar under sections 196, 197, 299, 302, 151(4), and 352 of the BNS, and investigations are ongoing.

In response, the Kolhapur police registered a case against Koratkar at Juna Rajwada police station under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to police officials, Koratkar’s comments were aimed at provoking caste-based tensions. Sub-inspector Santosh Gawade is leading the investigation, and technical evidence is being gathered with assistance from the cyber cell.

Koratkar has denied all allegations, claiming that the voice in the viral audio clip is not his. He accused Sawant of defaming him without verification and asserted that he had been receiving threats since the controversy erupted. Koratkar had further announced plans to file a counter-complaint with the police and the cyber cell.

Related:

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

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

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

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

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

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