The Gujarat government appears to be placing the state’s entire Muslim population under surveillance by directing the police to carry out extensive profiling of Muslims, including men who wear beards, women who wear the niqab or burqa, and individuals who use Arabic words in their everyday conversations. Muslims in Gujarat, as well as across the rest of India, commonly use Arabic expressions such as MashaAllah (God has willed it), Alhamdulillah (All praise be to Allah), and Subhan Allah(Glory be to God) in their everyday conversations, just as Muslims do throughout the world.
These Arabic expressions are an integral part of Muslims’ everyday religious and cultural practices, rooted in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. Muslims routinely use them in appropriate contexts during ordinary conversations, discussions, and debates.Despite this, the Gujarat Police have reportedly identified the use of such religious and cultural expressions as potential indicators of radicalisation, treating practices that are routine among Muslims as possible threats to national security.
Based on these myths, the state police, in a set of guidelines spanning over four pages, have suggested running de-radicalisation programmes, on the pattern of the de-radicalisation programmes against Uyghurs and other Muslims conducted by China.
The guidelines issued by the State Intelligence Department have raised concerns among the Muslims in Gujarat as well as the rest of India because it signals treating an entire Muslim community as a security concern rather than ordinary citizens with no religious rights and freedoms. By dubbing the Islamic religious and cultural practices as indicators of radicalisation, the Gujarat police have undermined religious and cultural freedoms and criminalised Islam and Muslims.
The Gujarat police have prepared an SOP for the detection of radicalised Muslim men and women and circulated it to police in all the districts and cities of the state. The district police have been asked to set up Anti-Radicalisation Cells (ARCs) in their respective jurisdictions. The state police have also created 136 vacancies to appoint experts in de-radicalisation at the ARCs.
Several other indicators of radicalisation are part of the guidelines issued by the Gujarat State Intelligence Department on June 19 this year. Even spiritual activities for self-purification, like Itikaf(sitting in seclusion in mosques during the last 10 days of Ramadan) to devote time entirely to prayer and self-reflection while cutting oneself from worldly things, have been mentioned as one of the indications of a person moving toward radicalisation.
These are the basic Islamic cultural practices that Muslims generally follow in their private and collective life. By identifying them as signs of radicalism, the Islamic cultural practices have been criminalised through government institutions that may be used by unscrupulous elements in the police as well as outside, to threaten, harass, and target Muslims even if they hold high positions in the government, politics, business and other areas. So, the entire Muslim community has been presented as a security concern and not as citizens with rights and freedoms.
The indicators presented in the guidelines are so vast that any Muslim can be branded a radical if the police want to trap him or her. The guidelines further propose to initiate action under the stringent UAPA and BNS against the person suspected as a radical Muslim. Former Congress MLA from Ahmedabad, Gayasuddin Sheikh, told this scribe that the guidelines have sent a sense of fear even among Muslim leaders that they can be termed radicals at any moment and be arrested if they fail to toe the government line. “It will cripple political and social activism of Muslim leaders,” said Shaikh.
Surprisingly, the SOP is totally silent about the signs of radicalisation among Hindus and members of other faiths. A senior police officer, when asked by this writer about Hindus having been excluded from the guidelines, said that Hindu was not radical, is not radical and will never be radical. Hence, inclusion of Hindu religious or cultural practices as being indicators of a person’s radicalisation does not arise at all. Requesting anonymity, he categorically refused to give his reactions about whether mob lynching, violence by cow vigilantes, violence by self-appointed vigilantes against friendship and relations between individuals belonging to different faiths, hate speeches against Muslims, demonstrations in front of mosques and Muslim religious places without provocation were also indicators of radicalisation? This means that radicalisation, according to Gujarat police, is associated with the Muslim community alone and other communities are totally free from it. This may be the reason why there is no mention of other communities in the intelligence department’s guidelines.
Who is considered a Radicalised Person as per Gujarat Police’s SOP?
The guidelines assert: “A radical person refers to an individual affecting law and order in the State who, driven by extremist ideologies, engages in anti-national activities to harm the unity and integrity of the nation, creates an atmosphere of fear among the people, and attempts to make people follow their ideology. Furthermore, a radicalised person causes harm to people of other religions, spreads the belief that only their religion is true and other religions are not, and attempts to radicalise vulnerable individuals by propagating their extremist thoughts through social media, newspapers, radio, TV, magazines, and speeches at meetings/conventions.”
If this is the definition of a radicalised person, violence by Kanwarias, delivering hate speeches, cow and other cultural vigilantism, forcing people to raise ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans, making the singing of VandeMataram, loadedwith Hindu religious ideology in educational institutions against the wishes of non-Hindu students could be described as part of radicalism. But the Gujarat police have conveniently left all this out of their guidelines to detect and prevent radicalism. Critics allege that by exempting the radicalism of the Hindu community and criminalising the religious and cultural practices of the Muslim community, the Gujarat police have exhibited that those involved in preparing the guidelines are not impartial and need to be sensitised.
As only the Muslim community has been singled out for detection of radicalism among its members, this circular needs to be challenged in a court of law for violation of constitutional laws. Any indifference on the part of the Muslim leadership will have serious consequences for the entire Muslim community, who may lose their religious and cultural freedoms first in Gujarat where it is being tested, and then can be gradually extended in other states.
Other factors to identify a radical person
The guidelines say that “frequent use of Arabic words, reducing contact with friends and family, expressing intense protests/resentment against events happening to the Muslim community globally, praising terrorists, or showing a change in behaviour after travelling abroad (e.g., Afghanistan, Middle East)” are other traits of a radicalised person. It is a common practice among Muslims all over the world to use words like MashaAllah, Alhamdulillah, and SubhanAllahin their daily conversation. For the Gujarat police, it is a sign of a person’s radicalisation. Even many Hindus working in Gulf countries mention these Arabic words frequently in their daily routine conversations. Shall they be treated as radicals?
There are more than 90 lakh Indians, including Hindus, working in the Gulf countries. If the circular is implemented, all of them, barring Hindus, would become suspects in the eyes of the police and would be included in the list of Muslim radicals. Such persons can be subjected to any kind of harassment and threats by law and order enforcement agencies unless there is legal safeguards for them, which are not available in the guidelines.
Not only this, but the circular also looks with suspicion on those who stay in touch with individuals working in the Gulf. As persons working in the Gulf are in regular touch with their families at home in India, their families can also be treated as radicals.
Even “purchasing fertilisers containing potassium nitrate, sulphur, or ammonium nitrate, acquiring LPG cylinders and making frequent visits to forest-like areas” has been treated as a sign of radicalism. It is the farmers in rural areas who purchase fertilisers for agricultural activities. So, even farmers in remote villages are not exempt from police profiling, identifying, monitoring, investigating, or subjecting rural people to greater scrutiny based on certain characteristics rather than on the evidence of their individual conduct.
The use of encrypted communication applications (e.g., Signal, Element), VPN services, or membership in Telegram groups designated as ‘extremist’, has been treated as a potential indicator of radicalisation.
The circular further states that visiting networks or educational institutionssuch as Arabic colleges or madrasasidentified as ‘extremist’, abruptly leaving education or employment while citing an ‘Islamic duty’ or visiting religious leaders regarded as radical after being released from prison may be treated as potential indicators of radicalisation.
How to Counter Radicalism?
As the Gujarat Police have directed the establishment of ARCs in every district and city, the guidelines recommend compiling a list of individuals suspected of radicalisation and monitoring newspapers, radio, television, magazines, as well as speeches delivered at meetings and conventions by persons identified as radicals.
The guidelines also call for the preparation of a comprehensive list of Maulanas teaching in madrasas and the collection of information regarding any contacts they may have with organisations alleged to hold ‘extremist’ ideologies.
Programme of De-Radicalisation
As part of its proposed de-radicalisation measures, the circular recommends conducting counselling sessions for individuals or groups identified as radicalised, involving local influential figures, family members, religious scholars, psychiatrists, and trained personnel from the ARCs. It also calls for the organisation of monthly seminars and lectures in madrasas, mosques, and other religious institutions with the participation of influential community members. In addition, the circular recommends continuous monitoring of individuals who have undergone de-radicalisation to ensure that they do not become ‘re-radicalised’.
Muslims Scholars and Intellectuals’ Views on Radicalism and How to Curb It?
Muslim scholars and intellectuals working at the grassroots level maintain that efforts to curb radicalisation are legitimate when radicalism poses a genuine threat to law and order, public peace, national security, or the unity and integrity of the nation. However, they argue that such measures must be applied impartially and on the basis of individual conduct rather than religious identity.
They criticise the Gujarat government’s approach on the ground that it appears to single out one particular religious community for heightened surveillance and scrutiny, thereby creating the impression that Muslims are collectively responsible for security concerns. Some critics draw historical parallels with instances in Germany in which Jews were blamed for wider social and political problems, and similarly, Muslims are being held responsible for all the ills plaguing India. They argue that policies based on collective suspicion can deepen alienation and undermine social unity.
According to these scholars, the Gujarat Police’s approach is influenced by stereotypes and narratives propagated by certain groups that portray Islam and Muslims as threats to national security. They contend that such assumptions risk encouraging profiling rather than evidence-based policing, thereby weakening trust between the state and the community.
Instead, they advocate greater dialogue and engagement among people of different faiths. They argue that inter-community communication has steadily declined, leading to mutual suspicion, misunderstanding, and a lack of trust. Rebuilding channels of dialogue, they suggest, is essential for addressing social tensions and preventing alienation.
The scholars further argue that the state should uphold the constitutional principle of religious neutrality and refrain from using official authority to promote the religious practices of any one community. They cite allegations of coercive collection of donations for Ganesh festivals from non-Hindus and instances in which non-Hindus have allegedly been pressured to participate in Holi and other Hindu festivals. If such practices occur, they contend, they are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, and may themselves contribute to resentment and alienation.
They also stress the need for greater sensitisation of police personnel regarding Islam and Muslim communities. In their view, misconceptions about the teachings of the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺshould be addressed through education and training rather than through stereotypes or suspicion.
More broadly, these critics argue that radicalisation cannot be understood solely through the lens of religion. They maintain that its causes are often rooted in a complex combination of political grievances, socio-economic conditions, governance failures, policing practices, and international geopolitical developments. Consequently, they argue that focusing disproportionately on one religious community is unlikely to address the underlying causes of radicalisation.