Hyderabad: Rising Tensions Between Hindu and Muslim Communities
The current situation in the country is becoming increasingly dangerous, with growing incidents of vandalism and violent attacks against Hindus and their deities by extremist groups. In response, some Hindu groups have retaliated with force. This ongoing conflict is a major concern for the country.
The blame for this escalating violence can be placed on the government, which has failed to uphold constitutional rights and maintain law and order. Both the central and state governments are avoiding responsibility, using the excuse that law and order is a state matter. However, the central government has the power to step in and manage such situations. It’s time for both governments to take responsibility and act.
The rise in communal violence shows that the Hindu and Muslim communities have become deeply polarized along religious lines. The idea of “Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai” (brotherhood) no longer holds, and both communities are openly pushing their agendas. The possibility of resolving these issues through peaceful discussions seems to have passed, as people have lost faith in their political leaders.
Recent activities, such as the Hindu unity yatra led by Union Minister Giriraj Singh and the formation of Ram Sena by BJP MLA T Raja Singh, highlight the growing demand for a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). Although the BJP has distanced itself from this demand, the push for a Hindu Rashtra is gaining momentum. Meanwhile, some Muslim hardliners are also preparing for conflict, making a violent clash seem inevitable.
There is a fear that this internal strife could develop into a civil war-like situation, which external enemies like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China might exploit to threaten India’s sovereignty. The government must act quickly to stop violence and assure citizens that their lives and properties will be protected.
—
Supreme Court Upholds Section 6-A of Citizenship Act
On October 17, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 2024, is constitutional. This section balances humanitarian concerns with the interests of local people.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dr D Y Chandrachud, along with Justices Surya Kant, J B Pardiwala, M M Sundresh, and Manoj Mishra, delivered this decision with a 4:1 majority. Justice J B Pardiwala dissented from the majority opinion.
Section 6-A outlines three situations: people who were in Assam before January 1, 1966, are Indian citizens; those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, can seek citizenship if they meet certain criteria; and those who arrived after March 25, 1971, are considered illegal migrants. The court has directed the central government to identify and deport illegal migrants.
—
MP High Court Imposes Unique Bail Conditions
On October 15, while granting bail to an accused under Section 439 of CrPC, the Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed some unusual conditions. The accused, Afzal, who has a history of 13 previous offenses, was granted bail but with strict terms.
The conditions include posting a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, appearing regularly before the trial court, checking in at the police station twice a month, and saluting the national flag 21 times while shouting “Bharat Mata Ki Jay” each time. The court warned that if any condition is violated, the bail will be canceled immediately.
—
Life Imprisonment for ‘Love Jihad’ Case
In Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, a Fast Track Court sentenced a man named Mohd. Ali Ahmed to life imprisonment for deceiving a non-Muslim woman into marriage by hiding his religion. He had concealed his Muslim identity, posed as a Hindu named Anand Kumar, and married the woman. After marriage, he pressured her to convert to Islam.
The judge explained that this case was an example of “love jihad,” where the intent is to change demographics and create tensions, driven by radical elements within a religious group.
—
Telangana High Court on Arrest Procedures
In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court clarified that the 24-hour time limit for producing an accused before a magistrate should be calculated from the moment the person is apprehended, not from the official time of arrest.
The court emphasized that failing to follow this rule would be a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights.
