Backdrop: 20 demolition actions against Muslim establishments recorded between June 2024 and February 2026. Sixty-nine Islamic religious sites were bulldozed or declared illegal. In Sambhal, villagers armed with tools and a bulldozer demolished a mosque after the Allahabad High Court refused relief. The Supreme Court declared “bulldozer justice” unconstitutional in November 2024, yet authorities in Kushinagar proceeded to demolish part of the Madni mosque in egregious contempt of the top court’s order.
Between January and July 2025, 334 documented incidents of systematic targeting of Christians occurred across India. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) recommended shutting all government-funded madrasas nationwide, while Allahabad High Court struck down the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Act of 2004 as unconstitutional. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has been accused of systematic bias, amid allegations of over 100,250 “fake voters” in a single Assembly segment alone.
Given the facts, “Ibn Khaldun” Bharati’s opinion piece in The Print represents a masterclass in sophistry: selectively deploying empirical data while wilfully ignoring the lived reality of India’s minorities. The Print says it allows Ibn Khaldun Bharati as a pseudonym because it knows him well. Well, well, well. Enter the veil, is it?
The Muslim situation is ‘good’
The author’s central claim that “the lot of the Muslim has been more or less the same as that of Hindus across every comparable category and socio-economic index” is not merely false; it is dangerous in its erasure of systematic discrimination. Careful analysis dismantles each of the article’s pillars, exposing the “delusional equivalence” that the author himself projects onto liberals, while documenting the institutional collapse that renders such claims indefensible.
The myth of economic prosperity, contrasted with the Masjid demolitions and arbitrary state action, reveals hidden faultlines.
‘Mushrooming madrasas’
Bharati cites “mushrooming madrasas” and “pervasive construction of swanky mosques” as evidence of Muslim prosperity. This is the equivalent of measuring a community’s well-being by counting how many hospitals are bulldozed per capita.
Between June 2024 and February 2026, The Quint documented 20 demolition actions against Muslim establishments, of which 11 were triggered by complaints or Public Interest Litigations (PILs) alleging “illegal construction.” In 2025 alone, 69 Islamic religious sites were either bulldozed or declared illegal, as per a report by the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).
The author conveniently omits the modus operandi: a PIL is filed, often by activists who have publicly identified over 2,500 mosques and shrines as allegedly illegal and built narratives of “land jihad” across media. Courts warn against misuse of PILs, but demolitions continue unabated. In Sambhal, a mosque and a 30,000-sq-ft marriage hall erected a decade ago were razed by bulldozers under heavy police presence. The Allahabad High Court refused to stay the demolition, and villagers later completed the demolition themselves after the High Court refused relief.
Desperation or resilience?
The author’s argument that Muslims are prospering because they build mosques is akin to arguing that a community whose homes are being bulldozed is prospering because they keep rebuilding them. What is called prosperity is actually resilience born of desperation.
The judiciary’s majoritarian capture and the failure of suo motu action are a case in point.
Bharati claims that Muslims “live under the illusion of being co-rulers” but are now “worried about India’s falling GDP.” This inversion of reality is breathtaking. The real illusion is the author’s belief that the judiciary remains an impartial arbiter. The Supreme Court declared “bulldozer justice” unconstitutional on November 13, 2024, ruling that “if a property is demolished only because a person is accused, it is wholly unconstitutional” and that “heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.”
Yet, only months later, authorities in Kushinagar proceeded to demolish part of the Madni mosque, prompting the Supreme Court to issue contempt notices, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. If the Supreme Court’s explicit declaration cannot prevent demolitions, what does that say about the rule of law? “They have eyes, but they cannot see, they have ears, but they cannot hear,” declares the Quran, and perhaps it applies to some writers.
Madrasas vs Vedic schools
The judiciary’s internalisation of majoritarian norms extends beyond inaction. The Allahabad High Court struck down the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Act of 2004, declaring it unconstitutional. A PIL before the Supreme Court challenges Sections 1(4) and 1(5) of the Right to Education Act, which exempt madrasas and Vedic pathshalas from its purview, claiming they violate equality.
The NCPCR issued sweeping recommendations to shut all government-funded madrasas, transfer students to mainstream schools and dissolve madrasa boards entirely. While the Supreme Court stayed these recommendations, the political message is unambiguous: eliminate minority educational institutions under the guise of compliance. Some eyes seem unable to see the surreptitious siege.
Judgments suggest something quite the reverse of a neutral Judiciary, and illustrate how Indian courts have either internalized majoritarian norms or failed to protect minorities from state and mob violence:
The Allahabad High Court refused to stay the demolition of the Sambhal mosque, asked the masjid committee to approach the trial court and legitimised executive action against religious structures without adequate judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s issuance of contempt notice to UP authorities for violating Supreme Court’s “bulldozer justice” ruling in Madni mosque was merely procedural, for demolitions had already occurred, demonstrating executive impunity.
FIR not quashed
The Uttarakhand High Court in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) functionary lynching case, 2025, rejected the FIR quash plea and observed that FB Live incited unrest: a rare instance of judicial pushback, but conviction remains pending. The Allahabad High Court struck down the UP Madrasa Act as unconstitutional, a step that directly threatened minority educational rights, attempting to centralise education under majoritarian norms. The Supreme Court referred the constitutional validity of the RTE exemption to a larger bench, which is already a signal that minority institutional rights may be further curtailed.
Supreme Court (Bulldozer Justice ruling, November 13, 2024) declared extra-judicial demolitions as unconstitutional, saying “executive cannot become judge,” yet despite the ruling, demolitions continued, revealing an enforcement gap that is not seen as an accident or coincidence.
These judgments, while occasionally offering procedural relief, have systematically failed to provide structural protection for minorities. In only one known instance, the Uttarakhand High Court’s rejection of a BJP functionary’s plea to quash a lynching FIR, did a court explicitly call out incitement. Even there, the court deferred to investigators, and convictions remain uncertain.
Foreigner bogey
The bogey of the “foreigner” and the assault on Christians are ever-present, and while Bharati’s article focuses exclusively on Muslims, the assault on Christians follows an identical pattern, proving that this is not about any single minority but about a majoritarian vision that tolerates no dissent.
According to data from the United Christian Forum (UCF), there were 834 attacks on Christians in 2024, averaging nearly 70 incidents per month, up from 151 in 2014: a fivefold escalation. Between January and July 2025, 334 documented incidents of systematic targeting of Christians occurred. The EFIRLC report notes “the systematic nature of this targeting is evident in timing patterns, with many incidents strategically occurring during Sunday worship services.”
Christians under attack
In Odisha, a mob of Bajrang Dal activists attacked five Catholic priests and nuns holding a memorial service on allegations of forced conversion. Christian burials are obstructed; bodies exhumed; pastors arrested under anti-conversion laws. The UCF recorded 23 burial-related incidents in 2025, including 19 in Chhattisgarh. In Nabarangpur, Odisha, the burial of a man called Saravan Gond was obstructed; the body was later exhumed and burned, forcing the family to flee their village.
The assault on educational autonomy to eliminate Madrasas is a loud and clear message. Only, some writers’ ears are ears that do not hear, and eyes that do not see.
Bharati cites “mushrooming madrasas” as evidence of prosperity. The reality is that madrasas are under existential threat. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in 2024 recommended shutting all government-funded madrasas, dissolving madrasa boards and transferring students to mainstream schools. The Allahabad High Court struck down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, as unconstitutional.
A PIL before the Supreme Court challenges the RTE Act’s exemption for madrasas and Vedic pathshalas, claiming they violate equality. The petitioner argues that “Sections 1(4) and 1(5) undermine this constitutional design by exempting minority-managed institutions, madrasas, Vedic pathshalas and other schools imparting religious instruction”.
The argument is a classic majoritarian move loaded with ulterior intent: insist on “uniformity” as a neutral value, while knowing full well that uniformity, when enforced by a hostile state, means dissolution of minority identity. This is not “applying the Right to Education Act”: this is misusing a welfare legislation as a cudgel to eliminate minority educational institutions.
The irrelevance of State Institutions is glossed over. Bharati’s article is about elections and representation. What he fails to mention is that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has been rendered so irrelevant under this political dispensation that allegations of systematic electoral fraud no longer elicit credible investigations. The ECI faces unprecedented charges of pro-government bias. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged that over 100,250 “fake voters” were included in the electoral roll of one assembly segment alone, Mahadevapura, and that the ECI was colluding with the BJP to “steal seats and elections.”
Question mark over integrity
A top US think tank probe questioned the ECI’s institutional integrity and democratic fairness. Political activist Yogendra Yadav stated that “any credible election commission would investigate the charges, fix the list, and punish the guilty. Instead…” The ECI has dismissed such serious allegations, provided voter lists in unsearchable image PDFs, restricted independent audits and refused to provide data in machine-readable formats. It is rather obvious as to why. Still, some eyes do not see…
When institutions fail, mobs take over. In Odisha, under BJP rule, 54 incidents of communal riots and seven cases of mob lynching were reported since June 2024. The CM told the Assembly that chargesheets were filed in less than 50 per cent of cases. In Odisha’s Balasore district, a 35-year-old Muslim man was beaten to death on suspicion of cow smuggling; his family accused Bajrang Dal workers of the assault.
Mob takes over
In Mangaluru, a youth was lynched by a mob on the charge of raising pro-Pakistan slogans during a cricket match. In Dehradun, a BJP functionary went live on Facebook during a mob attack, calling for a “Kranti,” inciting a large mob gathering; the High Court observed that this was “condemnable.”
Even Kerala, a state not known for mob violence, saw the lynching of a migrant worker from Chhattisgarh, accused of being “Bangladeshi”, before being beaten to death. The police in most states have responded by making some arrests, but convictions remain rare, and the political leadership has failed to condemn the ideology that fuels such violence.
The rewriting of history and judicial internalization are another problem. Bharati scoffs at the idea that Muslims face “othering” in India’s political atmosphere. But when a Union Minister can publicly state that India’s Muslims and Christians are “foreign races” because their “holy land” is not in India, and when this view is not repudiated but tacitly endorsed by the ruling party, that is the very definition of othering.
The author dismisses the idea that history is being rewritten. Yet, textbooks are being revised; the Mughal period is being reframed as a time of “Islamic tyranny”; the very idea of India as a pluralistic civilization is under assault from the same ideology that finds nothing wrong with bulldozing mosques and shutting madrasas. This majoritarian view seems internalized by the judiciary, as evidenced by the Allahabad High Court’s willingness to strike down the Madrasa Act, and the Supreme Court’s inability to prevent demolitions even after declaring them unconstitutional.
Trailer of future India?
Bharati ends his piece by claiming that “Modi is that enlightened leader, and the BJP is the party that you visualise for preserving Indian secularism.” This is not a conclusion: it is a confession. The author is not describing India: he is describing a fantasy.
The poster boy is oblivious to the real India: one where a Muslim man is beaten to death on suspicion of cow smuggling and his family accuses Bajrang Dal workers, an India where a youth is lynched for shouting a slogan, an India where 834 Christians are attacked in a single year, an India where madrasas are shut and mosques bulldozed, an India where the Election Commission is accused of systematic fraud and fails to credibly investigate, an India where the police file chargesheets in less than half of communal riot cases and an India where the judiciary, the last hope of the marginalized, issues contempt notices while demolitions proceed regardless, and refers the constitutional validity of minority educational rights to a larger bench, signalling that even those rights may soon be extinguished.
Bharati accuses liberals of mourning their own irrelevance. But the tragedy is not liberal irrelevance. It is the systematic dismantling of every institution that once protected minority rights, and the silent acquiescence of those who claim to speak for the nation.
Rights of majority
The India of the future that Bharati celebrates is an India where the only rights that exist are those granted by the majority, and where minorities exist not as equal citizens but as supplicants, forever having to prove their loyalty while their places of worship are bulldozed and their children are denied education in their own institutions.
If the celebration is substituted with cerebration, we see that what we see is not secularism. It is not a democracy. It is majoritarianism dressed in the garb of development, and it should be recognized for what it is. For that to happen, the eyes must be willing to see.
To paraphrase a great mind:
Ae ahl e nazar, zauq e nazar khoob hai lækin
Jo shæ ki haqeeqat ko hi nazar’andaaz karé woh nazar kya?
Jai Hind.
| 
