Najmuddin A. Farooqi.
In a constitutional democracy, governments are not supreme; the Constitution is. Criticizing government policies, decisions, or actions is neither anti-national nor an act of disloyalty to the motherland. The right to question those in power is an essential feature of democratic governance. Likewise, crimes against the nation are punishable under the law irrespective of the religion of the accused. Therefore, Indian Muslims should not feel compelled to repeatedly prove their patriotism or loyalty to their country.
I firmly believe in zero tolerance for violence in all its forms. Every act of violence, whether minor or grave, must be condemned without reservation. Recently, in Ghaziabad the brutal murder of a young man by having his throat slit shocked all of us. The perpetrators, whether one or several, unquestionably deserve the severest punishment permissible under the law.
However, justice is not merely about punishment; it is also about due process. The legal systems of India and most democratic nations are founded upon the principle that every accused person is entitled to a fair trial before conviction, regardless of the gravity of the allegations against them. Unfortunately, in this particular case, that principle appears not to have been followed. The police administration displayed remarkable speed in identifying the suspect within hours of the crime, only for the accused to be killed in an alleged encounter before the judicial process could begin.
Equally concerning was the reaction of large sections of the mainstream media. Instead of questioning whether due process had been observed, much of the coverage focused on applauding the swift police action, creating the impression that justice had been delivered instantaneously. Such an approach risks undermining the very foundations of the rule of law, where guilt is determined by courts and not by summary actions.
I wish to make a candid appeal to Indian Muslims: neither intimidate others nor allow yourselves to be intimidated. Citizens of a democratic republic must live with dignity, confidence and respect for the law. At the same time, many among the community perceive that offences allegedly committed by Muslims often attract extraordinarily swift administrative and political responses, particularly when the incident has the potential to generate public outrage or political repercussions. Conversely, there is a widespread perception that when the victims are Muslims or when the circumstances are reversed, the urgency and intensity of official action are not always comparable.
Whether such perceptions are entirely accurate or not, they have contributed to a growing sense of alienation and mistrust. Addressing these concerns requires lawful, democratic and organized civic engagement rather than emotional reactions.
The question, therefore, is: what should Indian Muslims do to effectively counter anti-Muslim rhetoric, discrimination, or instances of administrative high-handedness ? The answer lies in institution-building and collective civic action.
At the district level, standing committees comprising respected social leaders, professionals, legal experts, retired civil servants and community representatives should be established. Their role should be to monitor cases involving crimes against Muslims, instances of discrimination and allegations of excesses by government authorities or fringe groups. These committees should function strictly within the framework of the Constitution and the law.
District committees should report to state-level bodies, which in turn should be coordinated by a national umbrella organization. Such a structured network would ensure consistency, accountability and effective advocacy across the country.
Whenever a serious incident occurs, a delegation of five to ten responsible members should promptly meet the relevant administrative authorities. In addition to presenting their concerns firmly and respectfully, they should submit written memoranda documenting the facts and demands for action. Thereafter, systematic follow-up should be maintained to monitor the progress of investigations and the redressal of grievances.
Furthermore, regular representations should be sent to elected representatives and constitutional authorities, including Members of Parliament, Governors, the Union Home Minister and the Prime Minister. Every communication should be fact-based, constitutional in spirit and focused on seeking justice, accountability and equal treatment under the law.
In a democracy, lasting change is achieved not through fear or confrontation but through organization, persistence, documentation and constitutional engagement. The most effective response to prejudice or injustice is not despair but a disciplined commitment to democratic institutions and the rule of law.
