Communal violence is a curse in Indian politics. It has been around for over a century. Most scholars of this phenomenon believe that it is usually orchestrated deliberately. After such violence, conditions for communal polarization arise. Scholars also argue that “the religious polarization resulting from riots benefits political parties that engage in identity-based politics, while harming the Congress.”
They note that such riots typically result in “multi-religious parties like Congress losing electoral ground, while communal parties gain strength and influence.” For this purpose, new pretexts for inciting violence are continually manufactured to secure electoral advantage.
This long list of pretexts keeps growing with new issues being added frequently. Playing loud music in front of mosques, throwing beef in temples, and spreading rumors remain central to this tendency to foment hatred. Issues such as demonizing Muslim rulers, accusing them of destroying temples, spreading Islam by the sword, or the belief that Hindus are becoming a minority due to Muslims having more children, are all part of this process of inciting hatred. In recent decades, we have also seen issues like cows, beef consumption, “love jihad,” and other forms of “jihad” such as Corona Jihad, land jihad, and the recently added “paper leak jihad” being incorporated.
Recently, we have witnessed incidents of violence over the simple slogan “I Love Muhammad.” This started in Kanpur during Milad-un-Nabi, the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, when some people objected to the display of “I Love Muhammad” banners in a procession, arguing that this was a new addition to the religious celebration. Some police personnel present sided with this view and filed FIRs against those holding the banners. Showing respect for one’s Prophet in a peaceful procession was entirely legitimate and did not violate any law. Nevertheless, violence spread across several districts in Uttar Pradesh.
The Kanpur incident was the first, and it was subsequently repeated in Bareilly, Barabanki, and Mau districts in Uttar Pradesh, as well as in Kashipur and other areas in Udham Singh Nagar district of Uttarakhand.
In response, posters were torn down, violence followed, and the atmosphere became toxic. According to information collected by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), 21 FIRs have been filed against 1,324 people, and 38 have been arrested over the “I Love Muhammad” issue. In Bareilly, the internet was shut down for several days, and a local Muslim leader, Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, was kept under house arrest for a week.
He alleged that Muslims were being subjected to mass harassment without investigation and called for a memorandum to be submitted regarding the Kanpur incident, though he did not personally appear. This led to chaos and mass arrests of Muslims.
These events have exposed the hatred toward Muslims. Senior leaders hinted at disapproval, and fringe elements engaged in spreading violence and hatred. Modi has repeatedly acted in this manner, especially around elections. This time, his campaign focuses on the issue of “illegal immigrants.” These developments are extremely distressing for Muslims, particularly in Bihar and Assam. One justification for the SIR (Special Intensive Revision) measures is to validate such actions, with plans to implement them nationwide after Bihar, where 4.7 million voters were disenfranchised.
Uttar Pradesh witnessed the most violent incidents this time, and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath made statements unbecoming of a state leader. He said those raising the slogan “Ghazwa-e-Hind” would have “tickets to hell” cut. But the “Ghazwa-e-Hind” slogan has nothing to do with ordinary Indian Muslims; a section of Indian Muslims were raising “I Love Muhammad,” not “Ghazwa,” which is associated with Taliban-style extremists.
Hindu right-wing elements are holding the entire Muslim community responsible. Moreover, the Qur’an does not mention Ghazwa-e-Hind; a hadith, whose authenticity is doubtful, mentions it, but refers to Basra—not India. Many extremists in Pakistan claim every war against India is Ghazwa.
Yogi also claimed that “I Love Muhammad” posters were being used to create disorder and urged Hindus to beware of anti-Hindu and anti-national activities (Indian Express, Mumbai edition, 29 September, p. 6). This is a deplorable example of inciting hatred against India’s largest minority community. How can this slogan create disorder? How is it anti-national? These statements defy democratic norms, under which citizens have the right to express their feelings peacefully.
The entire “I Love Muhammad” issue is being used to intimidate Muslims and push them to the margins. Expressing love for the Prophet in this manner falls well within the democratic right to free expression. Just as some Taliban elements in Pakistan claim every conflict with India is Ghazwa, our Prime Minister is similarly framing matters. After India’s cricket victory over Pakistan, he described it as part of “Operation Sindoor.”
How should the Muslim community respond under such circumstances? Participating in peaceful processions is entirely justified. By contrast, Ram Navami processions often feature loud DJ music and the hoisting of saffron flags near mosques. Many Hindu festivals are being militarized. Irfan Engineer and Neha Dabhade, in their book Weaponization of Hindu Festivals, demonstrated through fieldwork how Ram Navami processions create panic around mosques and Muslim-majority areas. On the flip side, Muslim festivals are being demonized, with Milad-un-Nabi and the “I Love Muhammad” slogan being a sad example of this.
Such hateful reactions toward Muslim festivals, as seen recently, increase communal hatred, polarize communities, and undermine the values of fraternity enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the statements of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh contradict constitutional morality. The Muslim community must not provide any pretext for Hindu communal elements to initiate violence or further demonize them.
---
The author has taught at IIT Mumbai and is Chairman of the Center for Study of Society and Secularism
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor