The post Police, Bajrang Dal and the Making of Anti-‘Love Jihad’ Squad in Madhya Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through a critical analysis of media narratives, state interventions, and cultural rhetoric, the article examines how the term “Love Jihad” taps into historical anxieties about caste boundaries and sexual control over Hindu (upper-caste) women. Additionally, it highlights how this narrative operates within a broader framework of Hindutva politics that seeks to maintain socio-religious boundaries and reinforce patriarchal control, therefore, its impact on the everyday lives of women in society.

Locating the violence

Behind the meticulous task of monitoring and verifying hate crime cases compiled by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), integral to the organisation’s ‘Hate Hatao’ program across India, a trend can be discerned over the past four to six years. This regular monitoring is reflected in the Nafrat ka Naqsha (map) that meticulously depicts such classified incidents for ready reference. There have been multiple cases of crimes related to disrupting interfaith marriages, attacking Muslim men for “hanging out with Hindu women,” and vice versa by accusing couples involved in this association of “love jihad.”[1] For instance, on January 20, 2023, in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, a 24-year-old Hindu woman was celebrating her birthday with her friends when a mob, allegedly comprised of Bajrang Dal men, barged into the house and started assaulting the Muslim men on allegations of “Love Jihad.”[2] These Muslim men were later taken to the MIG Colony police station, where they were put in custody. The video of this incident went viral the next day.

In another case, on June 30, 2024, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal members[3] created a disturbance outside a Police station in protest against an interfaith marriage between a Hindu and Muslim couple after they applied to register the marriage in Uttar Pradesh’s Bijnor. A Hindu woman and a Muslim man had decided to get married and followed the appropriate legal procedure by applying for their marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act of 1954. As soon as the news of the couple’s application to register their marriage spread,[4] an appropriately readied mob hit the streets, staging aggressive demonstrations and making inflammatory statements to stop the marriage. The mob accused a couple of engaging in ‘love jihad,’ a conspiracy theory propagated by Hindu right-wing organisations to convey that Muslim men are luring Hindu women into both marriage and conversion. The mob threatened the police with aggravating communal tensions in the city if the marriage was not stopped! The couple had followed all legal procedures, submitting the necessary documents to the authorities in a move that should have been straightforward. However, their decision to marry was met with outrage from local right-wing Hindu groups. This incident also highlights the fragility of communal relations and the deep-seated biases that persist within Indian society.

In a fictional world, back in 2020, the jewellery brand Tanishq, part of the esteemed Tata Group, created an advertisement titled “Ekatvam,” a Sanskrit term that translates to “Unity.” The ad showcased the story of an interfaith couple, specifically, a Hindu woman who had married into a Muslim family. The narrative unfolded around a baby shower ceremony organised by the Muslim in-laws to honour their Hindu daughter-in-law, highlighting themes of acceptance, harmony, and the blending of different cultural practices. The advertisement was intended to convey a message of inclusivity, celebrating the unity of cultures through gestures of love and familial support. However, the ad faced a significant backlash on social media, particularly from organised right wing trolls associated with specific segments of Hindu nationalist groups and right-wing activists, who accused the brand of promoting an agenda referred to as “love jihad,” the alleged encouragement of Muslim men to marry Hindu women to convert them.[5]

This criticism so far escalated (or was made to escalate!) on social media — hashtags like #BoycottTanishq began to trend—leading to panic in the corporate entity that had put out the ad, attempting a message of social cohesion. With calls for a boycott of the brand gaining momentum online, Tanishq was forced to withdraw the advertisement in response to the mounting pressure. The entity issued an official apology, clarifying that they had aimed to spread a message of peace and togetherness, not “to provoke or offend.” In a post truth India, messages of harmony and cohesion are considered offensive! The same ultra-nationalists who had previously admired Tata’s philanthropic contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic, even dubbing the Tata group “true nationalists” saw no problem in this violent and stark reaction to the Tanishq ‘Ekatvam’ ad, an ad which aimed to promote social harmony through the portrayal of a Hindu-Muslim family. Despite Tata’s well-crafted reputation for supporting communities in need, some viewers criticised Tanishq’s message of cultural inclusivity, viewing it through the lens of ‘Love Jihad.’ A similar controversy emerged after the series ‘The Suitable Boy’ aired on Netflix, which has the lead character, a Hindu girl called Lata, passionately kissing a Muslim boy against the backdrop of a temple. Politician Gaurav Tiwari from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) youth wing had claimed that this scene “hurt religious sentiments” of Hindus and demanded Netflix to remove the ‘objectionable’ scene and apologise for encouraging ‘love jihad.’ He also called for a boycott of the Netflix streaming platform.[6]

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has documented several cases illustrating the growing controversy and societal tension surrounding interfaith relationships in India as part of its Hate Watch initiative across India. Monitoring, acting on hate complaints and depicting trends is core to this programme. All these cases reveal a concerning trend in which couples from different faith backgrounds face increasing hostility, driven by strong currents of intolerance and division within society. This hostility is not isolated; instead, it reflects an organized and systematic effort to stigmatize and communalize interfaith unions. This article examines these patterns and explains the ideological connections to Brahmanical patriarchy behind such divisive societal practices.

‘Love Jihad’ and the organised nature of anti-Muslim hate narrative:

It is a well-established fact that interfaith and inter-caste marriages, regardless of the religion of the individuals involved, have been vehemently opposed in India. This opposition is not limited to Hindu-Muslim marriages. There are numerous instances where couples belonging to different faiths, including Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Sikhs, Jains, and also sub-castes of the same religion faced difficulties going ahead with their interfaith and inter-caste relationships. In 2009, the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council (KCBC),[7] a prominent body within Kerala’s Catholic Church, played a significant role in amplifying the narrative of ‘love jihad.’ The KCBC claimed that approximately 4,500 Christian women had been manipulated or ‘conned’ into relationships that resulted in their conversion to Islam.[8] These assertions by the Catholic Church in Kerala became a central point in discussions around the ‘love jihad’ controversy, contributing to its prominence in both state and national discourse. The BJP and various Hindutva organisations have escalated this issue by terming it a systematic agenda of the Muslims as a religious community to lure Hindu women and convert them to Islam as part of their larger goal of achieving demographic imbalance in South Asia through Ghazwa-e-Hind.[9]

Going back to its origin, the term “love jihad” first came into prominent public discussion in the states of Karnataka and Kerala. The “Hindu Janajagruti Samiti,” a Hindu nationalist organisation, first used the term “love jihad” in the year 2007 during their campaign of policing interfaith couples in public places.[10] However, it was not very popular in public discourse. After the cases emerged from Kerala in the year 2009, where two non-Muslim girls were converted after marriage to their respective Muslim partners, the term “love jihad” resurfaced. In those cases, girls who eloped with their Muslim partners initially expressed their desire to remain with their respective partners; later, they changed their statements and wished to return to their parents. This was the first time the term got an official mention of judicial proceedings while hearing the bail petitions of two Muslim youths involved. The judge ordered a police investigation to know in detail about the alleged “love jihad” movement.[11] However, the police inquiry did not find any substantial evidence proving the alleged “love jihad” movement among Muslims. These attempts to revive “love jihad” as a conspiracy theory did not gain much currency until 2014.

After the BJP came into power in 2014, they (and their offshoot organisations who work as the ‘brown shorts of the regime’) started utilising selective incidents of gender violence to divide the communities further and polarise them on communal lines for the political advantages, where victims belonged to the Hindu community and accused Muslims. In the recent past, in 2022, in Shraddha Walkar’s case- the gruesome murder of Shraddha Walkar by her live-in partner Aftab Poonawala in Chattarpur, Delhi, political leaders were seen peddling the conspiracy theory of “love jihad.” Poonawala admitted his crime in which he strangled Walker, chopping her body into 35 pieces, storing them in a refrigerator, and dumping them in the Mehrauli forest for 18 days.[12] Politicians like Giriraj Singh, BJP MP from Bihar, while referring to Walkar’s case, said, “Under a conspiracy, non-Muslims and Hindu girls are being targeted through love affairs, and if they refuse religious conversion, they face the fate that Shraddha faced. This is a heinous crime, and such incidents have forced the people of India to think.” Another BJP politician, Ram Kadam, an MLA from Maharashtra, wrote a letter to the Delhi Police Commissioner, seeking a proper inquiry into Shraddha’s case, investigating a possible ‘love jihad’ angle.

In another incident, Nitesh Rane, also a BJP MLA from Maharashtra, was also seen giving hate speeches after the tragic death of Yashashree Shinde, a Dalit girl from Uran, Maharashtra, who was a victim of gender violence committed by a Muslim youth, Dawood Shaikh.[13] Yashashree’s case also reveals how incidents involving Hindu-Muslim dynamics are manipulated for political purposes, but often in selective and inconsistent ways. In her case, the accused was a Muslim man, which initially sparked interest among Hindutva leaders and right-wing groups. In his inflammatory remarks, Rane has called for the “elimination” of Muslims who are involved in relationships with Hindu women, painting Muslims broadly as a threat to Hindu women’s safety, connecting and blaming the entire community for the crime committed by an individual.

By framing incidents of gender violence within a Hindu-Muslim narrative, political leaders like Giriraj Singh, Ram Kadam, and Nitesh Rane capitalise on communal fears (these are also regularly stoked and based on irrational misgivings), side-lining the actual issues of gendered violence and social justice. Human rights lawyer Asim Sarode has pointed out on his social media post that once the Yashashree case began receiving (and had a socially disruptive impact) attention for its Hindu-Muslim angle, Hindutva leaders exploited it to polarise communities and further fuel communal tensions. That is until the case remained a “hot topic of discussion” in a pliant and un-discerning media. Subsequently, no Hindutva leader cared for the individuals affected; the case was “dropped” with no consistent follow-up and financial help to the victim’s family. In fact, Sarode’s consistent follow-up ensured the government released help grants to the victim’s family.[14]

This pick-and-dispose attitude for propaganda purposes, followed by abandonment, reflects these leaders’ selective concern, often guided more by communal interest than genuine empathy or a commitment to justice for the victim. Yashashree’s case, especially in light of the selective outrage demonstrated by Hindutva leaders, rather than addressing the underlying issues of gender violence or caste-based discrimination, is exploited for political advantage, amplifying religious and communal divides. This approach highlights the instrumental use of gender violence cases within a polarising agenda that focuses less on justice and more on advancing communal agendas.

Hate speeches by influential right-wing leaders, politicians, and organisations have fuelled this rhetoric, painting Muslims as predators and stirring up fear among Hindu families about the safety and honour of their daughters. Such speeches often emphasise “protecting Hindu daughters,” drawing on the cultural symbolism of women as bearers of community honour. This narrative feeds into long-standing communal stereotypes and pre-existing biases, deepening societal divisions. These speeches deliberately aggravate tensions, fostering mistrust and hostility between communities. This rhetoric not only vilifies Muslim men but also contributes to a culture where Hindu women are seen as needing “protection” from supposed threats outside their community.

This trend of prevalent insecurities among parents over their daughter’s choice to marry Muslim men can also be observed in the case of Hadiya, formerly Akhila Asokan, a Hindu-born medical student from Kerala who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man named Shafin Jahan. Hadiya became a focal point of the “Love Jihad” controversy in 2017, the discourse around denying her both agency and autonomy.[15] After Akhila Asokan adopted Islam and her new name, Hadiya, her father, K M Asokan, contested her marriage in the Kerala High Court, alleging that she had been coerced into conversion. In response, the court “invalidated Hadiya’s marriage” and placed her in her parents’ custody, against her wish, a decision that reflected a broader societal suspicion toward interfaith marriages involving Muslim men and rejecting the agency for women to make decisions in her life.

Shafin Jahan took the matter to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that Hadiya had converted and married him to her wish. In a landmark ruling in March 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court’s decision, asserting Hadiya’s right to freedom of religion and choice in marriage. However, the Supreme Court’s directive for an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the alleged “love jihad” aspect further highlighted the alarming trend of public pressure on judicial and investigating agencies rooted in the upper caste anxieties around interfaith relationships in India. Significantly, in October 2018, the NIA found no evidence of a coordinated conspiracy aimed at converting non-Muslim women to Islam through marriage. Therefore, ‘love jihad’ is very systematically created categories by right-wing ideologies across the religious and political spectrum, who presently enjoy proximity to those in power, in the union, and several states.

Love Jihad Laws: criminalising personal choices through state-endorsed Islamophobia.

In a widely shared video on social media, Pravin Togadia, president of the far-right extremist group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), is seen administering an oath to hundreds of Hindus. The offender in the video uses Hate Speech when addressing a big audience and saying that they need to work on getting a Population control law, a “love jihad” law, and kicking out Bangladeshis (often a reference to Muslims) out of India. The incident was reported in the Palwal district of Haryana on 24^th January 2023.[16] Members of Hindu Janakrosh Morcha held three public rallies and processions in February 2023 in Maharashtra’s Vashi, Solapur, and Vasai towns, raising slogans in demand of “Hindu Rashtra” and making calls for laws against ‘love jihad’ and also raised slogans demanding capital punishment for interfaith marriages and alleged forceful conversions by calling “Hang Love Jihadis” repeatedly amidst a busy street.[17]

This narrative framed around the allegation that Muslim men are systematically converting non-Muslim women through marriage has become a powerful political tool, and its influence was evident in the judicial and legislative responses, which are not limited to one region or state; it has a more profound impact and consequences across the country. Such tales of organizing protest marches and mobilizing people around fake narratives of ‘love jihad’ to influence the state have paved the way for a slew of new State laws that penalise interfaith marriages under the guise of preventing forced conversions despite no credible evidence to support the prevalence of “love jihad.” The BJP-ruled states brought out laws that restricted individuals from converting to marry someone from other religions. The acts passed by the states of Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh were the first to introduce a clause regarding marriages. Uttarakhand’s Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 prohibits conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage. Its punishment ranges from a jail term of one to five years and a fine, making it a non-bailable offense. Himachal Pradesh also passed a similar law in 2019. These laws are popularly called “love jihad” Laws.

Interestingly, legal history points to the fact of the existence of the Freedom of Religion Acts passed by different State governments in India at various points in time before BJP-ruled States passed these ‘love jihad’ laws. For example, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act came into existence in 1967, the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act in 1968, the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act in 1968, and the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act in 1978. These acts, brought in at the time of the United Front governments, including the Jan Sangh in the 1960s, were limited to the issue of proselytization and conversion. They did not enter the terrain of the private lives of individuals. Recently passed laws directly violate fundamental freedoms and interfere with people’s choice of marrying someone from a different faith and religion.

In this context, the right to choose (and autonomy) of every other adult woman who either cohabited or married by choice, either through conversion or not, to another faith is prone to be questioned to the point that these choices are even criminalized. They are deemed invalid by the state and judiciary, which not only negates their right to marry but also places women under their parents’ custody. In December 2020, a video clip that showed a group of men, with orange scarves draped around their necks, mocking a woman in Moradabad town in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh went viral. “It’s because of people like you that this law had to be enacted,” one of the men scolds her. The hecklers were from Bajrang Dal, a hardliner Hindu group that supports the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The law they were talking about was the ‘Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance,’ which the Uttar Pradesh state has recently brought in to target ‘love jihad.’ The incident in the video took place on 5^th December. The Bajrang Dal activists handed over the 22-year-old woman, her husband, and his brother to the police, who then sent her to a government shelter and arrested the men.[18]

These legal enactments, all brought in by states governed by the BJP, restrict the movement and have forced adult women to live against their own will. Such laws reflect an implicit bias. They also reflect the patriarchal mind-set of our system that believes women cannot convert nor marry off their own free will, violating their fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution. Such policy interventions underscore the tendency for state bodies to act paternalistically in cases of interfaith relationships, mainly where the individuals involved belong to a Muslim minority group and a Hindu majority group. Such proceedings set a troubling precedent that individual autonomy can be overruled if society or family alleges coercion, especially when the decision involves crossing religious boundaries.

Hadiya’s legal struggle brings to light the deep-seated challenges surrounding individual autonomy and fear of losing the honour of the family and the community due to interfaith relationships in India, mainly when such relationships involve religious conversion. However, her case symbolised the broader debate on the right to personal choice versus societal and familial pressures. This conflict has only intensified with the rise of the “love jihad” narrative.

On December 15, 2020, a 32-year-old labourer named Nadeeb faced accusations of “trapping” a married Hindu woman in a “net of love” with the intent of converting her. The Allahabad High Court stepped in, temporarily halting the arrest of a Muslim man from Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, under the state’s newly implemented anti-conversion law. In its ruling, the court asserted that both Nadeeb and the woman are adults who possess a “fundamental right to privacy” and are fully aware of the implications of their alleged relationship. The court further highlighted that “Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees all individuals the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, along with other provisions specified in Part III of the Constitution, which encompasses fundamental rights.”[19]

Such Court rulings, including the one in Hadiya’s favour, were a landmark for personal freedom, affirming the right to religious and marital choice. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to involve the National Investigation Agency (NIA) added a layer of surveillance and complexity. By directing India’s top counter-terrorism agency to investigate Hadiya’s marriage for any “love jihad” motives, the Court acknowledged, though indirectly, the influence of the “love jihad” discourse. This move illustrated how easily personal choices, such as conversion and marriage, can be transformed into matters of national security under a climate of Islamophobia, where Muslim motives are scrutinised under the assumption of potential threat. Despite the NIA’s eventual conclusion that there was no conspiracy, the investigation itself highlighted the extent to which individual relationships can become subject to governmental scrutiny when framed within communal narratives.

Legislative and judicial responses in such cases represent the struggle between individual rights and social or political agendas. When state and legal mechanisms are influenced by narratives like “love jihad,” personal freedoms, specifically for individuals from minority communities, are compromised under the guise of protecting societal interests. This politicisation of personal decisions reflects a government-endorsed Islamophobia that subtly sanctions anti-Muslim biases in the guise of public order, using such cases to fuel stereotypes and communal distrust. These “love jihad” cases stand as a reminder of the precarious position of individual autonomy within a framework where interfaith relationships become fodder for divisive narratives, affecting the personal lives of countless individuals. They also illustrate the potential for personal decisions, such as religious conversion and marriage, to become politicised under a climate of State-endorsed Islamophobia. These cases underscore the impact of “love jihad” narratives, which, despite lacking substantiation, have influenced state policies and judicial proceedings.

Love Jihad: upholding caste endogamy to preserve caste hierarchies by opposing conversion through marriage

The narratives surrounding interfaith marriages, often referred to as “love jihad,” and the associated anti-conversion campaigns aim to restrict social mobility by opposing conversions that arise from these marriages. Stemming from Hindutva ideology and its non-missionary religious practices, the antipathy of privileged sections to depressed castes who have historically converted (aspiring to a life of dignity) is evident. Historically, religious conversion among marginalised communities has been problematized and questioned. Though an act of active real and spiritual affirmation, ‘conversions’ have been reduced to acts of allurement.’ Caste being a brute reality of Hindu faith and practice, the historical notion of conversion is anathema as the act of conversion would snatch away the power of dominant caste hierarchies to maintain a cruel and exclusivist status quo. At the root of the resonant insecurities and accusations stems, therefore, from the non-missionary nature of the Hindu religion.

In the Hindu fold, there is no option of becoming part of the faith through conversion, and the only way to be Hindu is to be born in one of the thousands of castes that are segregated and placed in vertical hierarchies. Any individual leaving this religious order by quitting their caste membership and joining some other religious order directly affects the existence of Hinduism as a religion. Therefore, the religious conversions to other missionary religions, such as Islam and Christianity in the Indian context, are termed “violent acts” and are accused of “disturbing the social fabric and age-old traditions and culture in local communities.” Conversion has also been described as a conflict between “local and foreign religions.” These arguments try to portray Hinduism as a peaceful, non-missionary religion that never disrupts the socio-cultural fabric of other religious faiths, as it is alleged that other missionary religions do to Hinduism.

Arguably, however, defending the non-missionary nature of Hinduism is like effectively enforcing caste-based hierarchies, as there is no other way to transcend these caste boundaries within Hinduism. These narratives position Hinduism as a “non-missionary” religion and portray missionary religions as violent disruptors of local culture; they, however, conveniently overlook the violence and oppression inherent in enforcing caste and the social order it sustains. The claim of Hinduism as a non-missionary religion, rather than being peaceful, serves as a tool to confine individuals to their birth-determined caste and religion, ensuring no opportunity for social mobility or escape from marginalized positions. The politically coined ‘ghar wapasi’ (return to the fold) concept coined by a militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is a product of the 1990s. It is also an effort to bring back converted Hindus to their “home” religion, but again to their respective caste. Inter-caste and interfaith marriages are ways people could transgress these rigid boundaries. Therefore, this rigidity of opposing inter-caste and interfaith marriages favours those born into privileged castes, as it reinforces their social advantage while keeping lower castes in a disadvantaged role.

In this context, Hindutva’s stance against “love jihad” and religious conversion extends beyond claims of cultural preservation; it represents a deliberate strategy that limits individual freedoms, mainly targeting those seeking dignity and equality outside the traditional caste framework. By framing interfaith relationships and conversions as threats, this stance works to preserve the status quo of caste hierarchies, blocking pathways for social mobility and preventing individuals from escaping their designated social roles. This restriction is incredibly oppressive for women, who are often cast as the bearers of the family’s honour. Within this ideology, a woman’s body, choices, and movements are policed to ensure she remains within the bounds set by her family and community, reinforcing control over her autonomy. Their decisions—especially in choosing life partners or religious identities—are scrutinized and, when seen as violations, are punished severely.

In India’s rigidly hierarchical caste structure, the “upper caste,” for instance, has often taken extreme measures to prevent alliances that would challenge caste boundaries. Numerous tragic cases reveal the extent to which upper caste families are willing to go to “protect” their caste’s perceived honour, with parents or other relatives sometimes resorting to the ultimate violence of honour killings of the low caste men. In March 2024, a couple belonging to the dominant Vellalar Gounder caste in Erode, Tamil Nadu, attempted to murder their Dalit son-in-law, J Subhash- an Adi Dravidar Man. The Vellalar Gounder couple Chandran and Chitra rammed their pick-up truck into a Dalit man’s bike while he was out to drop his younger sister Harini to school, intending to kill him for marrying their daughter, and ended up killing his sister.[20] In another case, on 14^th July 2024, a Dalit man, Amit Murlidhar Salunkhe, was attacked with sharp weapons by his father-in-law and brother-in-law belonging to the dominant OBC caste in the Sambhaji Nagar city of Maharashtra. He was immediately admitted to a local hospital, where he passed away on July 25.[21] His wife, Vidya Kirtishahi, told the police that her parents had cited the plot of the popular Marathi-language film Sairat while warning her against the marriage. Nagraj Manjule’s film, released in 2016, tells the story of a dominant-caste girl who falls in love with and eventually marries a lower-caste boy. They are hacked to death by members of the girl’s family in retaliation.

Though these instances frequently target low-caste men for marrying upper-caste women, there are also cases in which both partners have been killed for defying caste boundaries; in one of the cases where the whole Jat village of Ballah in Haryana is proud of the “honour killing” of a young couple. It was a dreadful killing of 21-year-old Sunitha, who was three weeks pregnant, and her 22-year-old husband, Jasbir Singh.[22] Their bodies, half-stripped, were laid out on the dirt outside Sunita’s father’s house for all to see, a sign that the family’s “honour” had been restored by their cold-blooded murder. An entire village stands united behind the act, proud and defiant, to teach the lesson to the couples thinking of entering into marital ties with upper-caste women of the same village.

In another case, in September 2024, a couple from the same upper castes married each other in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The 19-year-old woman had to pay the price for it as her family members allegedly murdered her, as they disapproved of her relationship with a man who belonged to the same community and village as theirs. It is considered taboo for a man and woman of the same village to marry. Although the couple were unrelated, they were considered brothers and sisters in the community to which they belonged. The Kanbha police booked five people, including the woman’s father, uncles, and cousins, for not only killing her but also for trying to dispose of her body by secretly burning it in their Bakrol village in Daskroi tehsil.[23]

While honour killings are often associated with rigid practices among certain upper-caste families, similar cases have also been documented among so-called lower-caste and non-Hindu tribal communities. Recently, in September 2024, a tragic incident took place in the Koppal district of Karnataka, where the in-laws of a 21-year-old woman from the Madiga community, classified as Scheduled Caste (SC), was killed by poisoning her food.[24] This cruel act, which occurred after her marriage to a man from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community, was unequivocally an act of honour killing that must be condemned. Such heart-breaking incidents are one of many reminders of the deep-seated violence women face, often rooted in the oppressive structures of a patriarchal society. While caste-based discrimination played a role in this case, the underlying issue speaks to a broader societal problem: the control exerted over women’s autonomy and choices in a male-dominated culture.

Like inter-caste marriages, interfaith marriages also challenge societal norms and religious boundaries, often provoking similar violent responses. The tragic case of Yagnik Dudharejiya, a Hindu man from the Devbhumi Dwarka district of Gujarat, exemplifies this. Yagnik was reportedly murdered by the relatives of his Muslim wife, who disapproved of their union.[25] Incidents like this highlight the difficulties young couples face in defying traditional expectations. Inter-caste and interfaith marriages, therefore, irrespective of one’s identity, have long been symbolic of the courage required to bridge societal divides and challenge entrenched norms. These unions are often seen as bold steps toward a more inclusive society, where individuals are free to marry based on love and personal choice rather than the constraints of caste, religion, or community expectations. However, these choices can come with profound challenges and risks of honour killing. Such deaths underscore the intense social pressures and familial opposition when they choose to defy traditional expectations, especially in conservative communities where boundaries between caste and religious identities remain deeply entrenched.

These incidents shed light on a broader societal issue: the resistance to relationships that cross religious or caste lines, driven by cultural traditions, fear of community backlash, and the perceived threat to family honour revolving around women. For such families, preserving cultural purity is women’s duty. It outweighs the importance of their personal happiness or individual choice. Couples who cross these lines have to endure social ostracism, harassment, and even violence, highlighting the intense polarization that persists around matters of marriage. Such violent reactions reflect a broader resistance to relationships that cross perceived social and cultural boundaries, demonstrating that the outrage often ascribed to “love jihad” is part of a larger pattern of controlling individual choices in the name of preserving the community’s “honour.” In reality, both interfaith and inter-caste couples challenge rigid social structures. They are met with hostility, suggesting that the fundamental resistance is to individual autonomy and choice, irrespective of religious affiliation. By selectively framing only interfaith relationships involving Muslim men as a “threat,” the “Love Jihad” narrative manipulates public sentiment and leverages communal tensions, ultimately side-lining the rights and autonomy of individuals. In this context, it becomes clear that “love jihad” is not a genuine social issue but rather a political farce designed to incite fear and demonize a particular community, obscuring the deeper societal problems that perpetuate discrimination and violence in the name of honour and tradition.

Conclusion:

Both interfaith and inter-caste couples present a challenge to entrenched social structures, facing hostility and violence for asserting their autonomy. This hostility symbolizes the fundamental resistance to individual freedom, irrespective of religious affiliation. The framing of “love jihad” as a threat allows for the selective targeting of Muslims while deliberately ignoring genuine issues of social and caste-based discrimination. In reality, the “love jihad” narrative serves as a political tool rather than a social issue, designed to fuel division, incite fear, and demonize Muslim communities while concealing the systemic caste-based hierarchies that restrict social mobility and perpetuate inequality. By branding conversion and interfaith marriage as threats, the Hindutva agenda seeks not to protect cultural values but to reinforce a caste-based system that ensures the continued subordination of marginalized communities, ultimately privileging the status quo under the guise of defending Hinduism.

Women from all social locations, irrespective of caste or class and religion, endure oppression and abuse due to the pervasive influence of patriarchy. A woman’s desire to make choices, especially in interfaith marriage, often faces fierce resistance from those who view her autonomy as threatening traditional power structures. In this case, the people’s choice of marriage out of faith was deemed unacceptable by right-wing political forces, highlighting how, for many women, the right to choose a life partner remains conditional on external approval. This serves as a sad reminder of the compounded barriers faced by women at the intersection of caste, gender, and religion, underscoring the urgent need for societal change to end these cycles of violence and discrimination.

[1] The term jihad, itself, within Islamic religious discourse signifying a positive struggle forward, was politically perverted after the Taliban amplified their ugly politics by the blowing up of the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan in March 2001.

[2] https://sabrangindia.in/article/bajrang-dal-barges-birthday-celebration-thrashes-muslim-friends-hands-them-over-police

[3] VHP and Bajrang Dal, both are right wing organizations indulged in far-right politics, identify themselves with conservatism and ultra-nationalism.

[4] This itself draws attention to Para 47 of the 2021 single bench judgement in Safiya Sultana v/s State of Uttar Pradesh, where the High Court (Allahabad) had mandated that while giving notice under Section 5 of the Act of 1954 it shall be optional for the parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage Officer to publish or not to publish a notice under Section 6 and follow the procedure of objections as prescribed under the Act of 1954.

[5] https://theprint.in/india/after-severe-backlash-tanishq-pulls-down-ad-accused-of-promoting-love-jihad/522593/

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/netflix-india-version-vikram-seth-novel-stirs-love-jihad-suspicions-rows

[7] Kerala Catholic Bishops Council is an apex body of the Bishops of the various catholic rites in Kerala.

[8] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/now-catholic-priest-warns-against-ignoring-love-jihad/articleshow/73648625.cms

[9] https://t.me/hindutvawatchin/495

[10] https://www.outlookindia.com/national/the-roots-and-evolution-of-the-myth-of-love-jihad-in-kerala-news-277712

[11] https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-love-jihad-conspiracy-theory/

[12] https://www.newsclick.in/Shraddha-Murder-Case-Turns-Communal-Right-Wingers-Term-Love-Jihad

[13] https://swarajyamag.com/society/love-jihad-case-dawood-shaikh-arrested-for-brutally-killing-hindu-girl-in-navi-mumbai-was-accused-under-pocso-act

[14] https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10161905258640185&set=a.10152241411140185

[15] Krishnan, S. (2023). Carceral domesticities and the geopolitics of Love Jihad. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 41(6), 995-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758231212767

[16] https://sabrangindia.in/article/hundreds-can-be-seen-repeating-communal-and-anti-muslim-oath-administered-pravin-togadia

[17] https://sabrangindia.in/article/maharashtra-vasai-navi-mumbai-solapur-3-rallies-held-hindu-jan-aakrosh-morcha-demanding

[18] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55314832

[19] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/15/indias-love-jihad-laws-another-attempt-to-subjugate-muslims

[20] Couple arrested for attempting to murder their Dalit son-in-law, fatally running over his sister in Erode – The Hindu

[21] Maharashtra: Dalit man killed by in-laws, wife says parents cited plot of movie ‘Sairat’ as warning

[22] Upper Caste Village in Northern India Proud of “honour Killing” of Couple

[23] 19-year-old woman murdered in Gujarat honour killing; father among 4 arrested | Ahmedabad News – The Indian Express

[24] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/woman-killed-by-in-laws-in-hate-crime-say-cops-101725391190659.html

[25] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/man-killed-by-wife-s-kin-over-interfaith-marriage-101722882513212.html

The post 2024: Love Jihad – A Socio-Political Weapon: Caste, Endogamy, and Hindutva’s Grip on gender and social boundaries in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Among the attendees, Daya Shankar (name changed) stood out. He showed great interest in the subject and posed numerous questions, some of which were sharp and thought-provoking. He communicated fluently and was highly articulate and argumentative in his approach.

During the talk, I left the podium and walked toward him. He was sitting on a bench in the back row with three other students. Our one-on-one conversation continued for a considerable time. Eventually, the professor who had organised the lecture had to intervene, saying, “Sir, Daya Shankar’s questions are endless.” Upon hearing this, many in the audience laughed. Although the formal session had ended, we continued our conversation outside the hall. Before leaving, we exchanged phone numbers, and since then, Daya Shankar and I have remained in touch.

Daya Shankar, an undergraduate student of English, belongs to the Marandi Adivasi group in Jharkhand, which is part of the larger Santhal community. The Santhals are considered one of the largest Adivasi groups in Jharkhand and West Bengal by population. “They have a legacy of anti-colonial struggles against the Zamindari system in the mid-19^th century”.

In addition to Jharkhand and West Bengal, the Santhals also reside in Bihar, Odisha, Assam, Tripura, Nepal, and Bangladesh. The Santhals predominantly speak Santali, a language belonging to the Austroasiatic family.

According to the 2011 Census, Adivasis, officially classified as Scheduled Tribes (ST), make up 26.3% of the population in Jharkhand, compared to 8.3% at the national level. Around 8.6 million Adivasis live in Jharkhand, comprising 32 different ST groups. Jharkhand has the 12th largest tribal population in India, with significant concentrations in districts like Simdega, West Singhbhum, Khunti, and Dumka. The Santhal Pargana division, which borders West Bengal, has a higher Muslim population at 22%, compared to the state’s overall Muslim population of just over 14%.

A few days ago, I wrote an article on the targeting of innocent Muslims in BJP-governed states, where their homes and shops are being demolished by bulldozers as a form of state punishment. I referred to these illegal acts as “bulldozer terrorism” because no provision in the Constitution or any law permits the demolition of a person’s home, whether they are accused or convicted, as a collective punishment. Human rights organisations have already documented the gross violations occurring in BJP-ruled states, where large numbers of Muslims have been forcibly rendered homeless. Recently, the Supreme Court has also spoken out against these bulldozer actions, placing a stay on them.

In hearing several petitions related to these demolitions, the apex court emphasized that India, as a secular country, cannot allow discrimination based on religion. The court also mentioned that it would soon issue nationwide guidelines to prevent such actions.

In this context, I wrote my article and shared it with my friends. Daya Shankar was one of the first to respond, offering criticism of both my work and my approach. Showing little concern for the bulldozer demolitions, Daya Shankar’s broader argument was that Muslims are the aggressors and that they refer to Hindus, including myself, as “kafirs.”

He went on to claim that my writings are often “pro-Muslim,” while, in his view, Muslims are exploiting Adivasi lands in Jharkhand and forcibly converting them to Islam. He also accused me of being “less concerned” about Adivasi issues and of prioritizing Muslims as the only minority group. Daya Shankar, an Adivasi student, further remarked that Islam fosters terrorism. In response to his comments and questions, I promised him I would address his points in writing.

I believe Daya Shankar’s opinion is largely shaped by the dominant Islamophobic discourse in the state. In the upcoming Jharkhand Assembly Elections, the BJP is playing the communal card, attempting to fracture Adivasi and Muslim unity to secure votes. Communal forces, with the support of the media, are constructing a narrative that Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslim infiltrators are encroaching on Adivasi lands in the Santhal region and converting Adivasis to Islam through coercive methods, including the so-called ‘Love Jihad.’

Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has raised this issue at electoral rallies in Jharkhand, raising the specter of Muslim infiltrators taking over Santhal tribal lands. At a recent rally in Jamshedpur, the Prime Minister made baseless and highly communal remarks aimed at polarizing voters along religious lines: “Infiltrators entering the state is a big issue… The state high court recently instituted an inquiry by an independent panel into such incidents. But the JMM government here is not ready to accept that illegal immigration is taking place in Jharkhand. In Santhal Pargana and Kolhan, infiltration by Bangladeshis and Rohingyas is a big threat. The identity and demography of this region is changing very fast” (The Economic Times, September 15).

What follows is my commentary on Daya Shankar’s criticisms of my work. I am choosing to share my reply publicly because of the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the Adivasi regions of Jharkhand. For a long time, the Hindu Right has been working to create divisions between Adivasi and minority communities, such as Christians and Muslims. I fear that the poison of anti-Muslim hatred, which has already pervaded caste-based North India, is now spreading to the Adivasi regions. A symptom of this is the way Daya Shankar has developed a prejudice against Muslims. His questions do reflect this prejudice.

Daya Shankar: It seems like you have a strong affinity for Muslims, sir. I’ve noticed many of your posts tend to support or express sympathy toward them. Why is that?

Abhay: What’s wrong with having a strong affinity for Muslims? Would you deny the fact that India is a home to people of multiple religions and faiths? A large number of people who don’t follow any institutionalized religion are no less Indian. Take the Adivasi community, to which you belong, as an example. I have seen with my own eyes that rigidity about religious practices is least found among the Adivasi community. Unlike members of institutionalised religions, they hardly fight over religious structures. Similarly, there is no history of bloodshed over the correct interpretation of a holy text.

There are also groups of atheists who deny the existence of God and don’t accept that God is outside history. They, too, are equal citizens of India, and our Constitution grants them formal equality. But a negative trend is emerging in India with the rise of the Hindu Right, where a particular religious community is seen as the true Indians and loyal sons of the soil, while the rest—particularly Muslims and Christians—are viewed as belonging to non-Indic religions and therefore deemed untrustworthy.

The process of “othering” Muslims has a history of more than one hundred years in India. During colonial times, Hindu revivalist movements redefined the nation in terms of Brahmanical culture. When these revivalists realized that modern politics is based on numbers—put simply, that the majority community would rule over the minority—they sought to popularize Brahmanism by rebranding it as Hinduism. However, the upper-caste Hindu revivalists were only interested in tokenism, seeking to gain the support of the lower castes to defeat Muslim leadership and label them as “communal.”

It is true that our nationalist movement had many currents, including a strong secular one. However, Hindu nationalists managed to penetrate secular organizations and, under the guise of nationalism, promoted the interests of the upper-caste minority. In my view, the Partition of the country wasn’t engineered by any one leader. History often tends to cast one person as the hero and another as the villain, but we should avoid such simplifications.

Discrimination against Indian Muslims at the hands of the state is systemic. Governments have come and gone, but Muslims remain backward. Their representation in Parliament, legislative assemblies, and both public and private sector jobs is much lower than their share of the population, yet they are overrepresented in jails. They also suffer from communal riots, and their history and culture are not adequately represented in school textbooks. Even their homes are being demolished using bulldozers as punitive measures in BJP-ruled states.

Tell me, should we not demand justice for Muslims? Are they not equal citizens of India? Can our country progress if Muslims are kept backward? In a democratic and secular setup, no one should be discriminated against based on religion. If I have shown affinity for Muslims, and if my writings and activism have helped even a single Muslim, I would consider my life successful.

Daya Shankar: When a Muslim’s house is bulldozed, you express sympathy for them and their community. But don’t you also see how some Muslim extremists are mistreating and killing Hindus?

Abhay: Democracy is built on the rule of law. It cannot survive without secularism and respect for minority rights. Nowhere in a democracy is it justified to demolish the house of an accused or even a convicted person as a form of punishment. If I commit a crime, how could my family be made homeless? The law states that punishment must be proportional to the crime. For example, if I commit theft, I cannot be punished for murder. Numerous incidents have been recorded where houses and workplaces of Muslims have been bulldozed by BJP-ruled states as a punitive measure.

Human rights activists have documented that many victims of these bulldozer actions were those who had protested against government policies. The Constitution and the Supreme Court clearly state that peaceful protests cannot be suppressed. Dissent is a sign of a vibrant democracy. Yet, Muslims have been jailed, and their homes razed to the ground, simply for dissenting. How can anyone justify such bulldozer actions?

Well-known human rights organisations like Amnesty International have shown in recent reports that these actions violate both national legal procedures and international human rights standards. In most cases, victims were not given enough time to pursue legal remedies; their houses were demolished quickly, their family members beaten, and their lives ruined. The Supreme Court has intervened, placing a stay on these actions, and has promised to introduce nationwide guidelines to ensure no community is unfairly targeted.

Have I done anything wrong by speaking against bulldozer actions? You, as an Adivasi, can likely relate to this issue because Adivasis have been the most displaced people in the name of development since Independence. Whether it’s for dam construction, mining, or industrialisation, who is being displaced? We know the answer: it’s the Adivasis. Have you ever seen the houses of the rich being demolished? No, because they are powerful. Muslims’ homes are being demolished because they have been rendered powerless. These actions are designed to send a message to the minority community: if you raise your voice, you will be punished.

Let me make my point clear: a country cannot progress if any section of its society is mistreated or discriminated against. As a journalist, when I write about the issues facing marginalised communities, including Muslims, I am not doing charity. It’s the job of a journalist to highlight the struggles of the downtrodden.

As for your claim that Muslims consider you or me a “kafir,” that’s simply not true. Let me share my experience. I spent four years living in Sabzi Bagh, Patna, a predominantly Muslim area, during my graduation days. I never heard a Muslim call me a “kafir.” I’m not saying there aren’t a few Muslims who may believe this, but should we take them as representatives of the entire Muslim community? Likewise, many Hindus hold prejudices against Muslims, but should they be considered the spokespersons for all Hindus? I’m sure your answer is no.

I’ve even read the Quran, and it clearly teaches its followers not to disrespect people of other faiths, lest they, in turn, speak ill of Islam. The Quran emphasizes both worship of God and service to humanity, including non-Muslims, on numerous occasions. Islamic history shows that the Prophet Muhammad formed alliances with non-Muslims and advocated for fair treatment of all. Even during Muslim rule, with a few exceptions, minorities were protected.

I disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that Hindus are being killed by Muslims on a large scale. Show me any reliable source that proves Hindus are being persecuted. Yes, there are cases where a Muslim may kill a Hindu, or vice versa, but these are rare incidents. And in such cases, the law acts against the murderer. Your claim that Hindus are being killed by Muslims on a large scale simply isn’t true.

Daya Shankar: There is terrorism associated with Islam, and there are terrorists within the faith. I believe there is something fundamentally wrong here. Otherwise, why are so many terrorists emerging from just one religion?

Abhay: Terrorism is not connected to any particular religion. Terrorists can belong to any faith, or they may be atheists. There is no study proving that all terrorists are Muslims. Likewise, there is no reliable data showing that Muslim-run terrorist organizations are more numerous globally than those run by non-Muslims. In fact, Muslims are among the worst victims of terrorism.

If you examine the concept of terrorism, its definition is still not universally accepted. Historically, the image of a terrorist is dynamic. Someone seen as a terrorist today could be regarded as a freedom fighter tomorrow, and vice versa. Similarly, a freedom fighter in one country might be seen as a terrorist in another. Many scholars agree that the portrayal of Muslims as terrorists gained traction after the Cold War.

To truly understand terrorism, you need to explore its historical, political, and economic dimensions on both national and global levels. Viewing terrorism solely through a religious or cultural lens will not deepen your understanding. You also need to examine the link between terrorism and the arms industry. Ask yourself: Who benefits most from perpetuating a regime of insecurity?

Even in Adivasi areas, those fighting to protect their land and resources are often arrested by the state and charged under anti-terror laws. Do you consider them terrorists just because they are fighting for their rights?

I also disagree with your view that Islam is inherently violent. I have read the Quran many times, and nowhere does it instruct its followers to kill others. The core of the Quranic teachings revolves around the worship of God and the service to humanity.

Look at the life of the Prophet Muhammad. He always sought to build peace and avoid war. He only engaged in warfare when forced to, and even then, only in self-defense. Beyond self-defense, the Quran does not endorse violence. If you doubt my words, I encourage you to read the Quran yourself. I would be happy to provide you with a copy.

Daya Shankar: Are Muslims the only minority? What about Adivasis? Aren’t they minorities too? What have you done for the welfare of Adivasis and tribal communities?

Abhay: I have never claimed that Muslims are the only minority. Legally, minorities are often defined in terms of religion, and religion is certainly an important criterion. However, my understanding of minorities is influenced by the works of Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar. In his small book States and Minorities, written around the time of Independence, Ambedkar offered a broader definition of minority. He argued that to consider a community a minority, one must assess its “social, economic, and educational condition.”

By Ambedkar’s definition, I firmly believe that Adivasis are a minority. Government data consistently shows that Adivasis are lagging behind on almost every development index. Worse still, misguided development policies have severely impacted their lives, livelihoods, and cultures. Their resources are being seized by the corporate-state alliance. Over the past 80 years, the demographic makeup of Adivasi regions has changed, with outsiders increasingly taking control of their resources.

However, there is no evidence to suggest that these outsiders are exclusively Muslims, nor is there any proof that Muslim outsiders have displaced Adivasis. Contrary to the claims of the Hindu Right, the history of Jharkhand shows that Adivasis and Muslims have shared a strong bond and lived in peace for a long time. In fact, most Muslims in Jharkhand are Pasmanda Muslims, who belong to the backward castes. The Ansari community, a large group within the Pasmanda Muslims, has traditionally been weavers, making fabrics for Adivasi regions.

Sociologically, Pasmanda and Dalit Muslims share many cultural practices with Adivasis, and there is no history of significant conflict between them. The rise of Hindu nationalist forces has injected the narrative of Islamophobia into this peaceful coexistence. The Hindu Right is eager to hold on to power in Adivasi regions to facilitate corporate exploitation of their resources. They understand that unity between Adivasis and Muslims is a major barrier to their political ambitions.

That’s why there’s a deliberate effort to create misunderstandings between Adivasis and Muslims. Weakening this unity not only undermines the prospects of secular parties but also opens the door for the Hindu Right to seize power. As defenders of the dominant interests in society, they often scapegoat Muslims, portraying them as a threat to the well-being of non-Muslims.

Daya Shankar: Adivasi lands are being grabbed by Muslim settlers, leading to the displacement and marginalization of the Adivasi people. What’s your take on this?

Abhay: As I mentioned earlier, the dominant forces in society often deflect attention from the real sources of exploitation by presenting Muslims as a threat. You’ve likely noticed that BJP leaders are focusing on supposed Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration in Jharkhand as the central issue in the assembly elections. Let’s assume for a moment that there is indeed infiltration from Bangladesh and Myanmar into Jharkhand. Should we blame the state government, led by an Adivasi chief minister, or the BJP-led Prime Minister Modi?

If foreign infiltrators are entering Jharkhand, what are our security agencies doing at the borders? Border security falls under the responsibility of the Union Government, which is led by Prime Minister Modi. Shouldn’t the focus be on what the Central Government is doing about this, rather than turning it into an election issue? There is no official data or statement to confirm this alleged infiltration in Adivasi areas.

I’m not denying that there could be isolated conflicts between some Adivasis and Muslims at the local level, but these are not part of a grand political design, nor do they pose a threat to national security. The narrative of Muslim infiltrators grabbing Adivasi land, abducting women, and forcing conversions is often amplified during election seasons to undermine the Adivasi chief minister and sway voters.

Daya Shankar: There have also been reports of Adivasis being coerced into converting to Islam. Will you ignore these issues?

Abhay: There is no credible evidence to suggest that Muslims are coercing Adivasis into converting to Islam. We live in a democracy—do you truly believe that, in such a system, a minority community could forcefully convert members of the majority? Have you met anyone personally who has complained of being forced to convert by Muslims?

If Muslims didn’t force Adivasis to convert during their rule before colonialism, do you think they are in a position to do so in post-independent India, when they are one of the most marginalized and discriminated-against communities? The media often spreads rumors about forced conversions by Muslims but remains silent on the long-standing efforts of the RSS to assimilate Adivasis into Hinduism.

If Adivasis were allowed to declare their religion in the Census, why is there no provision for this in a secular country? Have you ever considered that? Many Adivasis do not wish to be assimilated into Hinduism and are demanding official recognition of their Sarna religion in the Census. Yet, their demands have not been accepted. Isn’t this a more pressing issue?

Daya Shankar: Adivasi communities have faced violence, threats, and intimidation from certain Muslim groups. Will you deny these facts?

Abhay: As I mentioned earlier, there may indeed be local-level conflicts between Adivasis and Muslims. These situations can arise, for example, if an Adivasi is a landless laborer and a Muslim is a landowner—class conflict would naturally occur. Similarly, if a Muslim mason is constructing a house for an Adivasi, disputes over wages could happen. These types of conflicts stem from economic and class struggles, not religious differences.

I am not denying the existence of these occasional conflicts, but they are not indicative of a larger systemic problem between Adivasis and Muslims. What is often overlooked is the shared cultural and social realities between these two communities. Both Adivasis and Muslims are largely marginalized and underprivileged in states like Jharkhand, and both are victims of exploitation by the upper-caste elites.

There is no credible evidence or data suggesting that Muslims are the primary source of threats or violence against Adivasis. The bigger reality is that both Adivasis and Muslims face state discrimination and are victims of corporate exploitation. The focus should be on addressing these shared struggles rather than pitting one marginalized group against another.

Some Clarifications

Before I conclude, let me clarify that my response to Daya Shankar’s question is not exhaustive. Instead of delving into details, I have attempted to outline the broader issue. Some critics may argue that by addressing Daya Shankar’s case, I am unintentionally reinforcing the BJP’s narrative that Adivasis feel threatened by Muslims. To such critics, I would like to emphasize that I do not consider Daya Shankar to be representative of the entire Adivasi voice in Jharkhand. As I mentioned earlier, the Adivasi community is made up of several tribes, each with its own diversity. The BJP, too, is pushing the narrative of Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration more in the Santhal regions than in other parts of Jharkhand.

My aim in responding to Daya Shankar’s misunderstanding about Muslims and Islam is to highlight the larger communal discourse propagated by the Hindu Right and its media allies. In recent years, the influence of the Hindu Right has grown significantly in Jharkhand, and manufactured communal conflicts have become more frequent. My argument is that these anti-Muslim narratives are spreading quickly in Adivasi regions, and young people like Daya Shankar are falling prey to them. Therefore, the need of the hour is not to deny these negative trends but to actively work to counter them. We must highlight the shared cultural bonds between Adivasis and Muslims to challenge Hindutva propaganda.

I also want to clarify that this article is not intended to “educate” the Adivasi community about secularism and composite culture. I am fully aware of the limitations of my own identity as a Brahmin male raised in a caste-based society. My response should not be seen as didactic, but rather as a reflection of a particular moment. Nowhere am I claiming to teach Adivasis any lessons on secularism. On the contrary, I believe that Adivasi cosmology offers hope and wisdom for a society that is losing its way.

(Dr. Abhay Kumar is an independent journalist. His broad interests include minority rights and social justice. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com)

Related:

Redefining Indian Tradition Minus Christianity & Islam is Intellectual Dishonesty

Christians face escalating attacks as far-right Hindu groups intensify persecution

Temple Management & Tirupati: the ‘WHYs’ behind temple regulation explained

The post On the Muslim question: A dialogue with an Adivasi Youth appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The arrests took place following accusations made by the local Hindutva group Sarva Hindu Samaj. Responding to this, the Education Minister of the state’s BJP-led government Madan Dilawar reportedly immediately took action and suspended the two government school teachers, Mujahid and Khan, over suspicions of alleged involvement in religious conversion attempts and also “love jihad” activities at the   government senior secondary school which is   reportedly located in Khajuri Od Pur village in Sangod block of Rajasthan. The group also accused them of allegedly abducting a girl student.

According to Mint news, the education minister promised that strictest actions against the suspended teachers “In the Khajoori village of Sangod Panchayat Samiti in Kota district, the religion of a girl in senior secondary school was mentioned as ‘Islam’ in the transfer certificate of a girl despite her being a Hindu. A conspiracy of religious conversion and ‘love jihad’ is happening there, Hindu girls are being forced to offer namaz – this has come to our notice.”

On Thursday, a government order instructing action against the teachers was issued by the Kota district education officer (secondary), after receiving the directive from the education minister.

However, according to Siasat News numerous students from the same school in Kota have raised their voices against the suspension of two Muslim teachers. They have stated that unfounded accusations have been levelled against them. Videos have emerged featuring students in school uniforms speaking to government officials, and determinedly opposing the suspension of their teachers. In one of the videos, one girl student can be seen saying, “Who will educate us now? The ones who gave false statements or the suspended teachers?”

In the video, a student states, “False statements are being forced upon children.” Another student question also stated that they were threatened to make certain statements, and the teachers who were suspended were ‘good’. The child also stated, “Kuch namaz nahi padhaya jaatha tha. Teachers bhi ache the. Kuch nahi hota tha school mein. Humko damkakar bola gaya tha ki aap aise bolo.”

Meanwhile, the Urdu Shikshak Sangh’s national president in Rajasthan, Amin Kamkhayani, has denounced these allegations, and has stated said, the suspensions are for “political appeasement.” The   state president of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Mohammad Nazimuddin has called it a one sided action, and blames the regime change (with BJP getting elected) for these “polarisation tactics.”   He also demanded a fresh enquiry in the case.

Related:

Rajasthan: Muslim students barred from school, called ‘Chambal ke Daaku’ for wearing hijab

Dalit boy humiliated, forced to drink urine and liquor in Ajmer, Rajasthan

Rajasthan: State Education Minister warns of bulldozer action against teachers

Muslim youth from Bihar beaten to death in Rajasthan

The post Rajasthan: Muslim teachers suspended for ‘love-jihad’, as students allege they were made to falsely testify appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This bill has been formulated after months of consultations with various individuals and organisations.

Talking to reporters recently, Sarma said, “The bill to ban polygamy will be placed on the floor of the Assam assembly which will commence from February 4.”

The chief minister had earlier said that some points would be incorporated in the bill with the objective to stop ‘love jihad’ in the state. This is clearly an indirect way to target free choice among couples across faiths snd castes choosing to co-habit.

Officials said that the state government had received as many as 149 suggestions in response to a public notice seeking feedback on the proposed law to ban the practice of marrying multiple times.

Out of these, 146 suggestions were in favour of the bill, indicating strong public support, they said. Three organisations have expressed their opposition to the bill.

The state government had issued a notice on August 21 inviting public opinion on banning polygamy.

The notice requested people to submit their views by August 30 through email or by post.

Besides, an expert committee was also formed by the state government to examine the legislative competence of the state legislature to enact such a law in Assam.

The committee submitted its report to Sarma after consultations with a number of people and organisations, affirming that the state legislature is competent to enact such a law.

Related:

Family of Purola minor denies religious motive, says it never was a ‘love jihad case’, Uttarakhand

RW mobilises masses; people get on streets to demand “love jihad” law

The post Targeting free choice in marriage, ‘Love Jihad’ clause likely in bill to ban polygamy: Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The video shows a mob of individuals, chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram,’ brutally assaulting a youth dressed in a maroon shirt. The attackers accused him of being involved in a case of ‘love jihad,’ alleging that he had eloped with a minor Hindu girl. Despite the onslaught of punches and kicks, the girl, concealed in a black burqa, is observed to have attempted to shield the youth from the mob’s aggression.

Location: Bandra, Mumbai, Maharashtra

Hindu far-right supporters brutally thrashed a Muslim youth for having an interfaith relationship. pic.twitter.com/iyEcrmPtIU

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) August 15, 2023

According to the Indian Express, the incident took place after the youth and the teenage girl reportedly fled their homes in Ambernath, Thane, seeking refuge in Mumbai. Their disappearance prompted the girl’s family to file a kidnapping case with the Ambernath police. Authorities discovered that the duo was planning to leave the city from the Bandra railway station.

On the fateful day, a mob arrived at the Bandra terminus, where with Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel was allegedly present at the departure platform of a Lucknow-bound train. As more individuals converged at the terminus, the situation escalated. The mob forcibly removed the Muslim youth and the girl from the station premises, claiming they were taking the pair to the Nirmal Nagar police station. As of now, Sabrang India has no news of whether there is any step by the RPF or any other authorities against the mob which assaulted the young boy and girl at the station.

Meanwhile, the Ambernath police intervened, taking the Muslim youth into custody under the suspicion of kidnapping. However, the youth since he stated he was a minor himself compelled the police to transfer him to a child correctional facility.

The incident has sparked outrage and discussions about religious intolerance, vigilante violence by Hindutva groups, and the need for immediate police intervention in cases of public assault. Prominent political leader Waris Pathan, from the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), shared the video on Twitter, questioning the lack of police action until the video’s viral spread.

I have been informed that this incident happened around 21/22nd July. At Bandra railway station which comes under Nirmal nagar p stn. But video was viral on social media today Then what was police doing till date,why no investigation or complaint registered by police who was… https://t.co/8nsvYcE0Iy

— Waris Pathan (@warispathan) August 15, 2023

Related:

Far right, Hindutva leaders stoke communal fires across India

Independence Day celebrations across India marred by hate-fuelled events

Bail not Jail for Bajrang Dal man, Bittu who posted a provocative video on day of Nuh clash

Suresh Chavhanke’s hate filled rhetoric leaves behind a trail of violence

The post Arrest of Muslim Minor Following Mob Assault at Mumbai’s Bandra Station appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In response to the disturbing statistics of crime against women in the state, the CM has stated that the Assam government is planning to introduce legislation to legally establish the marriageable age for all communities and put an end to multiple marriages.

However, amidst these efforts, a noteworthy aspect is the absence of ‘Love Jihad’ as a recognised criminal offence. Despite the rhetoric surrounding the term, the Modi government, in official communications and Parliament replies, has repeatedly denied having any specific definition or data on ‘love-jihad’ cases. In 2014, when the then Home Minister Rajnath Singh was asked about ‘love jihad’ cases, he had said, “What is love jihad? I need to understand its definition.”

Moreover, an RTI response to Ashoka University professor Aniket Aga, revealed that the National Commission for Women (NCW) does not maintain any specific data under the category of complaints related to ‘love-jihad.’ This absence of concrete data raises questions about the basis and implications of associating the term with criminal activities.

While the concerns of ‘love-jihad’ are being addressed at the state level and intended for becoming part of public policy, the prevailing crimes against women in Assam remain an urgent challenge. The state has sadly retained the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of crime against women in India for the 5th consecutive year, according to the latest National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) figures for 2021. The rise in dowry-related crimes, including a stark increase in dowry deaths, as well as instances of acid attacks, paint a distressing picture.

One concerning trend is the rise in dowry-related crimes. Cases of dowry deaths have seen an increase in recent years. In 2021, 198 women lost their lives due to dowry-related incidents, compared to 150 cases in 2020. Additionally, there were nine reported cases of acid attacks on women in the same year.

The data reveals that out of the total reported cases of crime against women in Assam last year, 12,950 were related to cruelty by the husband or his relatives under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The state also recorded 5,866 cases of kidnapping and abduction of women, with 3,362 of them being cases where the abductions were carried out to compel marriage.

The CM of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, has also recently stated that while he wants peace between Hindus and Muslims, ‘love-jihad’ should not occur, and cited cultural differences between the communities as the reason for his stance against the alleged phenomenon. Never mind that such a statement violates basic tenets and principles established in Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

Love-jihad is a supposed trope that Hindutva politicians have birthed, they claim that there is a conspiracy against Hindus hatched by Muslims to marry or lure Hindu women by coercion or persuasion. However, while love jihad is not regarded as an actual phenomenon, many hardliner extremists in India have misused to blame Muslim men and persecute people in interfaith marriages or those who convert to different faiths. In fact, it has often been the case where the bogey of love-jihad has been used to accuse people, in certain cases, the family of the people accused has denied outrightly that this is a false concoction, such as in the case of an alleged abduction of a minor in Uttarakhand. The alleged incident was used to stoke communal fires, however the uncle of the child denied any religious motivation or angle as was being claimed by right-wing forces.

Civil society has challenged these false claims by legal measures. For instance, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has filed a petition challenging anti-conversion laws which are often utilised to target cases of conversion and inter faith marriages in 9 states in India, which include Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Karnataka. In fact, the amended petition has included states which have legislation that make religious conversion by marriage illegal in the four states of Uttarakhand, UP, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.

In the case of hard evidence to substantiate these claims and legislature, there is to date no substantial evidence to display on the alleged phenomenon of forced conversions by Muslim and Christian groups or individuals. The Modi government itself was asked thrice about forced conversions in parliament, however the government gave inconclusive replies or gave a denial in parliament in 2021 itself.

Related:

Anti-conversion law of Uttar Pradesh: a litany of misuse

Hatebuster: Is it Love Jihad or just love?

Love Azaad: CJP’s map tracking hate crimes against those who dare to love

Shraddha Murder Case Turns Communal, Right-Wingers Term it Love Jihad

The post Love-Jihad now part of public policy in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Prosecution had levelled serious charges against all four accused, alleging that they engaged in activities that posed a threat to the nation’s interests. Their purported actions involved orchestrating large-scale conversions of individuals within the state of Uttar Pradesh, persuading them to convert from Hinduism to Islam through extensive promotion of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, the appellants are said to have provided rehabilitation and support to the converted individuals.

It was in 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) arrested these individuals and accused them of generating a substantial fund to finance their conversion activities, which constitutes an offense under the ambit of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. They were also charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 153-B (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 417 (punishment for cheating), 298 (uttering words with the deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 121A (conspiring to commit certain offenses), 123 (concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war), and the Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

After hearing the arguments presented by both parties and thoroughly examining the case records, the Court observed that during the initial stage, an FIR was filed against three specific accused individuals and several unidentified persons in connection with the alleged racket. Notably, the four appellants were not mentioned in that same FIR. The Court further took note of the fact that, upon the conclusion of the investigation, a police report in the form of a charge sheet was submitted before the competent court. Subsequently, the court took cognisance of the matter and framed charges against the appellants and other co-accused persons, and the trial is currently underway.

Considering these circumstances and taking into account the fact that their co-accused have already been granted bail by both the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Court granted bail to the appellants based on their pleas.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law, currently under challenge in the Supreme Court, is a clear infringement on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Disguised as a measure to maintain public order, the law, first enacted as an ordinance has severely diluted the essence of Article 25, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Moreover, it directly violates Article 21 of the Constitution, encroaching upon the right to marry, the right to privacy, and the right to personal autonomy. One of the most troubling aspects of the statute is its presumption of guilt rather than innocence. In India’s legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but this ordinance reverses that principle by presuming those involved in proselytization as guilty from the outset. Furthermore, when applying tests of hostile discrimination and manifest arbitrariness, it becomes evident that the ordinance fails to treat all citizens equally before the law. It creates a discriminatory environment where certain vulnerable groups, such as economically weak, marginalized, and privileged women, are assumed to be susceptible to conversion. This presumption not only perpetuates stereotypes but also violates Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law undermines the foundational principles of the Constitution, including the right to freedom of religion, the right to personal autonomy, and the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

It also displays discriminatory tendencies, particularly against women, and thus raises serious concerns about its constitutionality and adherence to the principles of justice and equality, the act also violates the judgments of supreme court in following cases: Hadiya Judgment 2017[16 SCC 368, AIR 2018]: The matters of dress, food, ideas, ideologies, love, and partnership form the core aspects of an individual’s identity.

The State and the law cannot impose or restrict choices in selecting partners or impede a person’s freedom to decide on these vital matters. The K.S. Puttaswamy or ‘Privacy’ Judgment 2017[2017 10 SCC 1]: The autonomy of an individual encompasses the ability to make decisions concerning crucial aspects of life that directly concern them. Lata Singh Case 1994: The apex court recognized that India is undergoing a crucial transformative phase, and preserving the strength of the Constitution relies on embracing the richness of our diverse culture.

In cases of inter-religious marriage, relatives dissatisfied with the union should opt for peacefully cutting off social relations instead of resorting to violence or harassment (Soni Gerry case, 2018[SLP NO 6237/2017): The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned judges against assuming the role of “super-guardians” and making decisions based on sentimental or egotistical factors of parents.

Since its enactment in 2020, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has resulted in the registration of at least 433 cases by the Uttar Pradesh police. Among these cases, 184 victims have come forward to confess that they were forcefully converted to a different faith, while 66 cases involve minors who were subjected to such conversions.

Notably, the Bareilly police zone has seen the highest number of registrations, with 65 cases reported. Providing insight into the progress of these cases, Prashant Kumar, the Special Director General of Law and Order, stated that charge sheets have been filed in 339 cases, and investigations are still ongoing in 47 cases. Additionally, final reports have been filed in four cases.

The total number of individuals named in these 433 cases amounts to 1,229. Throughout the investigation process, the role of 124 accused individuals could not be established, leading to their release. Moreover, approximately 70 individuals named in the cases have voluntarily surrendered themselves in court.

The cases in Moradabad and Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, serve as stark examples of how anti-conversion laws can be prone to abuse. The case of a Christian priest in Azamgarh named pastor Nathaniel is accused of propagating and intimidating people to convert to Christianity. The complainant in the case was not any attendee of his prayer service, rather his neighbour a local BJP leader Sudhir Gupta who cannot be the complainant as per the law as section 4 of the Act. This section (4) explicitly stipulates that any individual who has been subjected to forceful or fraudulent conversion, as well as their blood relatives or family members, hold the right to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) concerning such conversion. In essence, this section clarifies that the complainant in such cases can be either the person who experienced coercion into conversion or any of their blood relatives or family members.

There is, however, a pattern being noticed across the districts where non-affected third party complaints to the police or they follow the channel of involving Hindutva vigilante groups to read further [The Quint, April 2023].

Although the law was ostensibly intended to uncover instances where religious conversion is solely for the purpose of facilitating marriages, the UP law has failed to effectively communicate its objectives, leaving no clear roadmap for identifying such cases. Consequently, there is a heightened risk of misuse of the law. In such a scenario, the burden of upholding justice and safeguarding individual rights falls heavily on the judicial system.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently upheld the principle of personal liberty for individuals who have attained the age of majority, and this responsibility becomes all the more crucial in light of the potential for misuse of the law.

Based on these observations, it is evident that the Uttar Pradesh legislation unjustly encroaches upon the constitutional right of individuals to marry the person of their choice.

This law could potentially undermine the principles laid out in the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 and, even more importantly, the original vision of the Constitution’s framers for a Uniform Civil Code.

An immediate intervention is necessary to repeal laws like these as forced conversion is already proscribed, and introducing additional laws would only further erode the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Moreover, it is crucial to prevent other states from following suit and enacting similar legislation that may compromise individual freedoms. To safeguard the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in the Constitution, it is essential to take prompt action and ensure that such restrictive laws are abolished, allowing every citizen to exercise their right to marry freely and protect their constitutionally upheld rights.

The recent judgement may be read here

[i] https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_states/uttar-pradesh/

https://theprint.in/india/1-year-of-up-anti-conversion-law-108-cases-chargesheet-filed-in-72-lack-of-proof-in-11/770763/

Related:

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

The post Anti-conversion law of Uttar Pradesh: a litany of misuse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A dear friend who fearlessly took to the stage, exposing her vulnerability as a Muslim and unwavering resolve to fight against the looming threat of fascism. Through her powerful play, Her courageous act is archiving her and her community’s vulnerability; in the theatre, I argue that love makes hope divisible and also additive.

A friend, a mathematician, for whom parenting is transformative in times of hate. Observing his interactions with his son, I witness the poignant beauty that arises when love takes root and blossoms. In these moments, love transcends mere sentimentality and becomes a tangible force intricately woven into the fabric of their relationship. His parenting is his rebellion, a gentle nudge to brush the hate aside.

Two friends, a Hanuman Bhakt, is married to the daughter of a Communist party worker. At home, love and logic take turns to make decisions about travel, food and politics; the dynamic between passion and reason weaves a rebellious tapestry within their home. It challenges societal norms and expectations, embracing a unique blend of spirituality and ideology. Their interactions are marked by a delicate balance of emotional connection and rational thinking, enabling them to navigate various aspects of life together. Their daughter becomes the embodiment of their hopes for a brighter future. Through their loving and logical upbringing, she grows up with a compassionate spirit and a strong sense of justice. Their household becomes a beacon of hope, demonstrating that embracing the heart and mind can challenge the status quo and inspire positive change. Not surprisingly, their daughter is called Meera.

A friend and her partner also take enormous pleasure in parenting. They are like a “zariwala“.A master zariwala is full of dexterity, skillfully working with stitches, boundaries, needles, and saree borders. The zariwala‘s nimble fingers dance across the surface, creating a harmonious blend of craftsmanship and artistry. This inter-religious couple stitch stories of hope and love into their parenting, like the detailing they give to the immaculate curation of their house. Their children embody a love that comes with rebellion.

Their world reminds me of a story by Basheer. The story is set in 1940s Kerala and revolves around Keshavan Nair, a Hindu bank employee, and Saramma, a Christian woman who lives in a house owned by Saramma’s father. Keshavan Nair and Saramma, fall in love.

Keshavan Nair and Saramma playfully decide on a name for their child by placing selected objects in a container, mixing them up, and drawing two chits without looking. The chits read “Sky” and “Toffee.” They combine the two names and ultimately decide to name their child “Skytoffee,” feeling excited about their choice. “Skytoffee” embodies a sense of wonder and delight. It symbolises the boundless expanse of the sky and the sweetness of life.

V and S had the task of naming the child; the name of the child has the burden to carry an entire “culture”; it is aspirational, it is identity, cultural, and it could reflect country, religion, social status and family values; yet when V and S decided that they would call their children Abeer and Meer, contrary to the family idea, there is a rebellion, the rebellion is born amid love, and love is not divisible here but expansive, Meer calls V Ammi. I do not know for sure if they will become Poets of Words, but I know they will be poets of thoughts; the rhythm of poetry cannot escape when you are born amid love and rebellion.

bavrese is jahan mein bawra ek saath ho

is saayani bheed mein bass haathon mein tera haath ho

bavrisi dhun ho koi bavra ek raag ho

bavrisi dhun ho koi bavra ek raag ho

bavrese pair chahe bawre tarano ke bavarese bol pe thirkana

bavra mann dekhne chala ek sapna

Parenting in the midst of hate is the biggest rebellion.

Bavra mann dekhne chala ek sapna (My wandering mind sets out to behold a dream,)

Poets like Kabir, Akka Mahadevi, and Basava defied conventions through their verses, advocating unity, equality, and spiritual awakening. Kabir’s poems transcend caste and religion, Akka Mahadevi’s songs emphasise inner love, and Basava’s verses call for social justice.

My colleague K has decided to marry M; she is breaking the caste barrier, like Akka Mahadevi and Basava; love is rebellion, and K and M’s rebels are who are building a paradise.

इंक़लाब, इश्क़ है,

इश्क़ इबादत है,

इबादत ही जन्नत है।

Revolution is love, Love is worship, Worship is paradise.

(Venkat Srinivasan is a financial professional with a master’s degree in economics. I am intensely interested in the arts, academia, and social issues related to development and human rights)

Related:

Lord Ram, in my sixth letter I appeal to your diverse forms

First Letter to Lord Ram: To Lord Ram, a letter of remorse and resolve

Second Letter to Lord Ram: To Lord Ram, I write again for hope

Third Letter to Lord Ram, we must talk spirituality and politics

Fourth Letter to Lord Ram, Anantatma & Anantaroopa, the Infinite Soul & who has infinite forms

Fifth Letter to Lord Ram,  Perfect Lord and Imperfect Bhakthi

The post इंक़लाब, इश्क़ है, Love is rebellion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“There were attempts from the first hour to make this a communal issue. Right-wing activists even prepared a police complaint for us on their own, but the police didn’t accept it. It was never a love jihad case, but a regular crime. Those that committed it, are behind bars. The judiciary will now decide,” he reportedly told the Hindustan Times. The identity of the man is being withheld to avoid identification of his niece, the report said.

The man also said he has been approached by several right-wing groups, but he is firm on not joining the agitation being led by the Devbhoomi Raksha Abhiyan and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). “I have turned them down every time. Their attempts to reach me have made my life hell. I can’t even go out. I understand all they want to do is to create communal tension and their only aim is raising slogans. I have stopped responding to calls from unknown numbers and have even bought a new number,” he said.

Close to a month ago, on the afternoon of May 26, the man’s niece sought directions from Ubed Khan, 24, and Jitendra Saini, 23, when they allegedly attempted to bundle her into an auto-rickshaw, the Hindustan Times reported. “They took the girl away from the main market area near a petrol pump and called an auto-rickshaw to the spot. Locals saw the girl being made to sit in the rickshaw and raised an alarm. The accused then fled from the spot,” Purola police station in-charge Khajan Chauhan said.

A case was registered on the same day at the Purola police station under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl) of the Indian Penal Code and sections of the POCSO Act, and the next day both men were arrested.

This act, a simple crime, was used to single out the identity of one of the perpetrators and unleash an unholy month of terror on the lives of Muslims of Purola and neighbouring towns.

While the man remains grateful to the police for the prompt arrest of the two men, the man said he was unhappy that the incident was “used” to make Muslims leave, the report said.

“I wanted to extend my support for Muslims but was afraid that it wouldn’t be taken positively in this atmosphere. Every time I open Facebook, most news-related videos say this was a case of love jihad. It makes me depressed. Nobody asks me what the real story is,” he said.

Over the past fortnight, over 40 of the 45 Muslim families among Purola’s 8,000 residents have either left for Dehradun or Uttar Pradesh, the Hindustan Times reported. “Those who left should have never gone. I want them back. The whole community shouldn’t be targeted for the offence of one,” the girl’s uncle said.

The motivated communal strife in Purola and neighbouring areas ensued after right-wing groups began calling the incident a ‘love-jihad’ case and forced Muslims to shut their shops or flee the town.

Uttarakhand police were stark in their inaction when these developments took place. In fact only after concerned citizens moved the Supreme Court and then the High Court, was Section 144 imposed to stop the potentially harmful and inflammatory Mahapanchayat planned and announced by extreme right wing groups on June 15.

According to media reports, at least 30 shops owned or rented by Muslims were attacked on May 29 and four days later, on June 3, another procession was carried out with at least 25 more shops attacked in Barkot, the Hindustan Times reported.

A letter by these organisations actually threatened and declared their intent. Besides, sinister posters warning Muslim shop owners to leave the town by June 15 or face consequences surfaced ahead of a proposed ‘mahapanchayat’. A case was registered on June 5 under sections 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The mahapanchayat was not allowed to be organised but there have been no arrests at all so far, of those making hate speeches and promoting communalism, the report said.

The 40-year-old man also said that the law had taken its course but now believed that he may not even have filed a complaint if the accused had apologised. “We now keep her (girl) inside the house. It has left a psychological scar on her. She is good academically, but now remains concerned all the time about her future,” the girl’s uncle said.

Related:

Stop UttarakhandMahapanchayat, could lead to targeted communal violence: Petitions urge CJI

Uttarakhand HC must stop the June 15 Mahapanchayat and assure protection to all citizens

The biggest exodus of the decade: Muslims leave Uttarkashi amidst threats, hate speech

Muslim Mahapanchayat in Uttarakhand to raise concerns over targeting of community

Uttarkashi: Cross marks, “leave” threats on Muslim shops, hatred spreads to other towns: Uttarakhand

Oath for economic boycott of minorities administered in Chhattisgarh

Marginalising the already marginalised: Economic Boycott Targeting Muslims

Are increasing calls for economic boycott of Muslims a sinister precursor to something worse?

Hate Watch: Indians reject #BoycottMuslims call

The post Family of Purola minor denies religious motive, says it never was a ‘love jihad case’, Uttarakhand appeared first on SabrangIndia.