Hindutva is no longer shaping only India’s political rhetoric. For millions of Muslims, its influence is increasingly being felt in the streets, in state institutions and at the doors of mosques, madrasas and homes. From mob violence and hate speech to demolitions, displacement and administrative action, documented cases are pointing to a pattern of persecution that is becoming harder to dismiss and increasingly difficult to separate from the warning signs that atrocity-prevention frameworks are designed to identify.
Under the influence of Hindutva politics, documented attacks against Muslims are raising increasingly urgent questions about whether discrimination and violence are becoming embedded within India’s political and administrative landscape.
The latest warning has come from the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, one of India’s major Muslim organisations. Following a meeting of its Working Committee, Jamiat president Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani questioned what he described as unilateral administrative action against Muslims and raised concerns over mosques, madrasas and places of worship.
Jamiat said its meeting examined mob lynchings, bulldozer actions and the demolition of mosques and madrasas. Madani warned that when a particular community faces unilateral action and believes it cannot obtain effective legal protection, the consequences extend far beyond individual cases.
“If unilateral action is taken against a particular community and it receives administrative patronage, it is a matter of serious concern,” Madani said.
His warning comes against a documented record of violence and discrimination.
Human Rights Watch’s 2026 World Report said Hindu nationalist rhetoric and attacks against Muslims increased in India during 2025. It documented Hindu mob attacks against Muslims, including Kashmiri students, vendors and workers in different states, with victims facing intimidation, threats and assault.
Following the April 2025 attack in Pahalgam, where gunmen killed 26 people, mostly Hindu tourists, Human Rights Watch recorded at least 64 incidents of anti-Muslim hate speech during the first 10 days that followed.
The violence was not limited to intimidation or street attacks.
Human Rights Watch reported that a Muslim man was shot dead in Uttar Pradesh after a Hindu man claimed the killing was retaliation for the Kashmir attack. In Karnataka, a Muslim man was killed after allegedly shouting pro-Pakistan slogans during a cricket match. In Mumbai, police registered a case against nine BJP workers accused of assaulting Muslim hawkers.
The organisation also documented the mass displacement and expulsion of Bengali-speaking Muslims.
In 2025, authorities in BJP-run states expelled hundreds of Bengali-speaking Muslims and Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh on allegations that they were illegal immigrants. Bangladeshi authorities reported that more than 1,500 people were expelled during May and June, while some were later found to be Indian citizens.
In Assam, the consequences were particularly severe. Human Rights Watch reported that at least seven demolition drives in July and August displaced more than 5,000 families, the majority of them Bengali-speaking Muslims. During one eviction drive in Goalpara, authorities fatally shot a 19-year-old man after clashes broke out.
These developments give greater weight to Jamiat’s concerns over what it describes as “bulldozer actions”.
The organisation has also challenged the September demolition of the historic Collectorate Mosque in Saharanpur, arguing that affected parties must be given an opportunity to defend their rights before drastic administrative action is taken.
The concern extends beyond individual buildings.
Mosques, madrasas and dargahs form part of the religious, educational and social infrastructure of Muslim communities. Their destruction or targeting can therefore carry consequences far beyond the physical loss of property.
The wider question is what happens when political rhetoric, communal violence and administrative power begin operating within the same environment.
Human Rights Watch has described India’s governing BJP as Hindu nationalist and reported that government policies and rhetoric have contributed to the vilification of religious minorities. It has called for an end to discriminatory policies, hate speech and unlawful action against Muslims and other minorities.
For atrocity-prevention advocates, this trajectory warrants serious attention.
Mass atrocities do not begin only when mass killing occurs. Prevention frameworks examine processes including dehumanisation, persecution, polarisation and systematic discrimination because such conditions can increase the risk of much greater violence.
That does not establish that genocide has occurred in India. But it does mean that warning signs cannot simply be dismissed because the country has not reached the stage of mass extermination.
Madani himself has urged Muslims not to surrender to fear or abandon constitutional avenues.
“We have to continue our struggle for our rights with determination, courage and through constitutional means,” he said. “This is our country and we are equal citizens of this country.”
For India’s Muslims, the issue is therefore not merely whether one demolition was lawful or whether one attack can be treated as an isolated crime.
It is whether repeated attacks, discriminatory measures, inflammatory rhetoric and the targeting of Muslim institutions are becoming normalised.
The warning signs are increasingly being documented. The question is whether India’s institutions and the international community will respond while prevention is still possible.
