India’s extremism and the plight of minorities

Dr Lubna Zaheer

India claims to be the world’s largest democracy and repeatedly projects itself as a champion of religious freedom. Its constitution, too, ostensibly guarantees the protection of minorities and freedom of belief. Yet these assertions largely remain rhetorical, confined to paper and political speeches, bearing little resemblance to the realities on the ground. Religious minorities in India appear increasingly distressed by the state’s conduct. Christians feel unsafe, Sikhs live in fear, the lives of Muslims have been made unbearable and even lower-caste Hindus and Dalits struggle merely to survive.

Almost daily, a tragic incident involving one religious minority or another comes to light. These are neither isolated nor random occurrences. Rather, critics argue that such crimes and heinous acts continue in an environment where perpetrators operate with impunity and, at times, under apparent state patronage. The 2002 massacre in Gujarat stands as a glaring example. The riots unfolded during the tenure of then Chief Minister Narendra Modi. The brutality inflicted on Muslims during that period remains unparalleled.

Hundreds were killed, dozens of homes were reduced to ashes, and thousands were subjected to violence and displacement. The oppression in Indian-occupied Kashmir is equally visible to the world. The killings of Kashmiris and the violation of women have become disturbingly routine. India’s war hysteria is such that even children are not spared. Pellet guns have been fired directly into the faces of Kashmiri children, permanently blinding many of them. This is the real face of India; everything else is mere illusion and paperwork.

The latest incident has emerged from Bihar and involves the state’s Chief Minister himself. During a ceremony to award certificates to doctors, Nitish Kumar was present as the chief guest. When a Muslim woman doctor approached the stage to receive her certificate, Nitish Kumar pointed toward her hijab, questioned it, and then reached out and pulled it down, effectively unveiling her. When footage of the incident went viral on social media, it triggered widespread outrage. Serious questions were raised: can a government official behave in such a manner with any citizen?

The act was widely condemned as a violation of women’s dignity and personal safety. Protests erupted, condemnation was voiced within Pakistan, and a resolution denouncing the incident was presented in the Punjab Assembly. Demonstrations were held in various cities. Even within India, voices were raised against Nitish Kumar. Yet he remained unapologetic. Later, when questioned by a journalist about this disgraceful act, he responded arrogantly that he had “only touched the hijab,” adding crudely that had he touched something else, the reaction would have been far worse.

This was not merely the conduct of one individual. It reflects the mindset of a class, a political culture, and indeed the state itself. The message conveyed is deeply alarming: that senior state or government officials can cross any limit when dealing with minorities. It also signals that ordinary citizens are free to mistreat minorities in any manner, secure in the belief that the state will protect such actions and that no accountability will follow, just as no one was held accountable for the Gujarat carnage, and just as the state continues to turn a blind eye to atrocities in Kashmir. The conduct of the Bihar Chief Minister also exposes the grim reality of how women’s dignity is valued in India.

In Pakistan, when we speak in favor of hijab or modest dress, we emphasize that it is a woman’s personal right to choose whether or not she observes it. We neither support forcing a woman to wear hijab nor coercing her into removing it. Viewed in this context, the Indian Chief Minister’s action was profoundly degrading. Had such behavior been displayed by a street thug, it might have been dismissed as an individual’s misconduct. But when a senior government official commits such an act on a public stage, it leaves little doubt that it reflects a broader state mindset.

The reality is that in India, Muslims are alternately targeted over hijab, dupatta, beards, or religious rituals. Other minorities face similar treatment. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the United Nations, and other international bodies have repeatedly pointed out that the space for religious freedom in India is rapidly shrinking. Hate speech, discriminatory laws against minorities, demolition of places of worship, and incidents of arson are all facets of the same disturbing picture. Yet India has consistently refused to acknowledge or attach importance to these reports, dismissing them outright with remarkable obstinacy.

As I write this column on Christmas Day, television news channels are reporting that Hindu extremists in India have attacked members of the Christian community during Christmas celebrations. This is not limited to one location. Across multiple Indian states, extremists prevented Christians from celebrating Christmas, assaulted them, and vandalized their places of worship and decorations. In Kerala, even children participating in Christmas carol groups were attacked and beaten. One can only imagine the conditions under which citizens live when they are unable to perform their religious rituals even in their own country. This is the reality faced by every minority in India. Muslims encounter similar hostility during Eid-ul-Adha, where performing the sacrifice of cattle often puts their very lives at risk.

As a result of this oppressive conduct, more than two dozen small and large separatist movements remain active within India. If I am not mistaken, India hosts the highest number of separatist movements in the world. Internally, the country appears deeply insecure, yet it continues to cling to a rigid and aggressive stance, showing little willingness to reform its behavior. A state that is unwilling to grant full dignity and equality to over 200 million Dalits, labeling them “untouchables” and subjecting them to systemic discrimination, can scarcely be expected to safeguard the rights of Muslims, Sikhs, or Christians.

(The author is a Professor of Media and Communication Studies and a broadcast media expert. She currently serves as Chairperson of the Department of Film and Broadcasting at Punjab University)