The “I Love Muhammad” campaign has exposed India’s escalating state-sanctioned repression and the erosion of civil liberties under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. What began as a peaceful religious expression during Eid Milad-un-Nabi was deliberately reframed by authorities as a communal provocation, legitimizing coercive state action.
The subsequent crackdown centered in Uttar Pradesh but replicated nationally embodied a convergence of religious persecution, authoritarian governance and political intimidation. Through mass arrests, property demolitions and communication blackouts, the state transformed expressions of Muslim faith into perceived security threats, institutionalizing collective punishment as an instrument of control and deepening India’s descent into majoritarian authoritarianism.
Criminalizing Muslim Identity under the Pretext of Security
The events in Kanpur and Bareilly demonstrate the alarming extent to which religious identity has become securitized in India. A simple declaration of reverence—“I Love Muhammad”—was treated as seditionary symbolism. Over 1,300 Muslims were booked nationwide, with more than 20 FIRs filed across Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Maharashtra. Clerics such as Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, leader of the Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC), along with family members and associates, were detained in operations characterized by intimidation and procedural opacity.
This mass targeting reflects a broader ideological strategy: to redefine expressions of Muslim piety as subversive acts against the Indian state. The selective criminalization of faith—where even peaceful slogans are cast as threats—exposes the institutionalization of Hindutva as both policy and policing principle.
Perhaps no symbol better encapsulates the Adityanath administration’s approach than the bulldozer. Ostensibly a machine of urban regulation, it has been transformed into a weapon of collective reprisal. Homes of alleged protesters were demolished without due process, their families rendered destitute in acts of visible humiliation.
These extrajudicial demolitions punish dissent and symbolize Hindutva’s coercive power, violating constitutional and human rights norms. Under the guise of “instant justice,” the bulldozer embodies India’s transformation of governance into ideological violence and collective intimidation.
The suspension of Internet services in Bareilly for 48 hours exemplifies how technology is weaponized to isolate and suppress Muslim communities. By obstructing communication and concealing police abuses, authorities controlled the narrative, recasting peaceful protests as “communal unrest.” This orchestrated repression, justified through security rhetoric, normalizes criminalizing Muslim religious expression and transforms legitimate dissent into a punishable act of sedition.
Politicizing Faith, Institutionalizing Bias
Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s framing of the protests as “well-orchestrated attempts to disrupt social harmony” is revealing in its selective outrage. Hindu nationalist mobilizations, often accompanied by hate slogans or violence, are rarely subjected to such punitive scrutiny. The asymmetry underscores the deep-seated communal bias permeating the state apparatus. Opposition voices—such as those from the Samajwadi Party and civil rights organizations like the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR)—have condemned these tactics, but their dissent is drowned out by an increasingly authoritarian media and political ecosystem.
At its core, this campaign is less about public order and more about political control. By equating Muslim identity with instability, the state consolidates its majoritarian base, transforming religious polarization into electoral capital. What emerges is not governance but governance through fear—a systematic dismantling of democratic pluralism.
National Spread and International Implications
The crackdown has spread nationwide—from Shahjahanpur to Byculla—reflecting a uniform pattern of coercion. Peaceful activists like Sumaiya Rana face detentions and property threats, while globally, India’s systematic persecution of Muslims undermines its democratic image, exposing the widening gulf between its proclaimed pluralism and the authoritarian realities of Hindutva governance.
The Normalization of State Terror
The “I Love Muhammad” crackdown is not an isolated episode—it is the latest manifestation of a political ideology that seeks to recast India’s identity along exclusionary religious lines. The coordinated use of law enforcement, administrative machinery and propaganda reflects the transformation of governance into a mechanism of ideological control.
In contemporary India, being Muslim has become a condition of suspicion and vulnerability. Tools like FIRs, bulldozers and Internet shutdowns now serve as instruments of state terror. If unchecked, India risks devolving into a majoritarian police state where faith itself is criminalized and democracy reduced to performance—exemplified by Bareilly’s systematic persecution of Muslim identity.
Tofeeque Ahmed is an Islamabad based freelancer and media activist, writes on political developments and security issues with special focus regional affairs.