India Must Reject Dhimmitude; No Case For Two-Tier Policing In "Muslim Areas"

The murder of Ram Gopal Mishra in Bahraich by a Muslim group is noteworthy not just for its brutality but for the essential dhimmitude of the Indian state.

The details of who provoked whom during a Durga Puja procession are immaterial here, for the police seemed keen to suggest that if any Hindu procession passes through a “Muslim area” or plays loud music in front of a mosque, it is essentially a provocation to Muslims.

Hear what the local police chief said to explain the events that led to communal tension and mob fury over Mishra’s killing. A Mint report quoted Bahraich Superintendent of Police (SP) Vrinda Shukla as saying that the procession in Mahasi Maharajganj was passing by a mosque “through a Muslim area... The groups argued on some issues... A person from the Hindu community died after bullets were fired at him... At various places, visarjan (immersion) was stopped.”

So, immersions by the majority community have to be suspended to appease a belligerent minority.

Forget what the groups were arguing about. The question is, who has any business designating any area of India as Muslim or Hindu when this is supposed to have stopped after partition?

Just last month, the Supreme Court threw an apoplectic fit when a Karnataka High Court judge referred to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as “Pakistan.” The concerned judge apologised, but one has not seen such alacrity in standing up for Hindus whenever the roles were reversed.

In May 2021, the Madras High Court ruled that no one can object to another community’s use of public roads merely because the area has more people from one community (in this case a Muslim majority). 

But the SP of Bahraich, who represents the state, clearly has internalised the idea that any Hindu procession or event near a Muslim-dominated locality or structure must be seen as a no-go area, or one requiring the acquiescence of the local majority.

This is dhimmitude, brought on by centuries of walking on eggshells around Muslim sentiments, which are often backed by a willingness to resort to violence. Over time, the state learns to privilege Muslims' sentiments over those of Hindus and other communities. 

A dhimmi is a non-Muslim living as a second-class citizen under Muslim rule; dhimmitude is the subservient attitude of non-Muslims to Muslim demands, whether under Muslim rule or otherwise.

The Indian state, from the time of the Khilafat movement, when Mahatma Gandhi accepted the Muslim demand for the restoration of the Caliphate in Turkey as he thought that this was how he could build Hindu-Muslim unity. On another occasion, Gandhi refused to condemn the Muslim who killed Swami Shraddhananda of the Arya Samaj. He also did not have a harsh word to say about the brutal Moplah assault on Hindus, which included forced conversions in Kerala.

Gandhi’s dhimmitude rubbed off on all “secular” leaders in post-independence India, the justification being that after partition Muslims needed to feel safe here. But as the Muslim population proportion grew in India and diminished in the neighbourhood, and even as Muslims proved to be a dependable vote bank for “secular” parties, dhimmitude and appeasement have become the norm. 

In today’s India, despite the fact that some states are ruled by the allegedly “Hindu nationalist” Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the police forces tend to deal with Muslim recalcitrance with kid gloves. Many policemen privately accept that there are some no-go areas dominated by Muslims where they require a large force to make arrests or restore law and order. 

However, dhimmitude is not confined to India. In the United Kingdom (UK), there is widespread belief that the law is enforced lightly for Muslims and more strictly for the majority white population. It’s called two-tier policing. 

In Europe, right-wing politicians have long alleged the existence of no-go areas for the police, which are largely populated by Muslim minorities. Former German chancellor Angela Merkel has, in the past, acknowledged that there were no-go areas in Germany where the law’s agents were hesitant to venture.

As I noted in an earlier Swarajya article, “Muslim ghettoes… exist in Belgium, France, Sweden and Denmark too… Clearly, there is a problem with Muslim self-segregation in many parts of the world and it is not allegedly ‘Islamophobic India’ that is some kind of exception. If modern European countries with competent police forces, and even the exceptional Nordics, now face a problem with Muslim immigrants who they once welcomed with open arms, surely one cannot lay the blame largely on the societies that host these Islamic minorities.”

The sad truth is that dhimmitude in the face of Islamic violence has effectively sanctified the idea of Muslim no-go areas — or simply “Muslim areas,” where the law will treat criminals with kid gloves.

The state must refuse to accept this mental classification, which is resulting in a willingness to put up with violence if it emanates from one community. The law must apply equally to all, and public spaces do not belong to any one community just because it shows a willingness to indulge in violence.