For more than a month now, Himachal Pradesh has been simmering with communal tension. For a State where Muslims form just 2.18 per cent of the population, the scope to engineer or foment unrest was hitherto limited. In 6 of the State’s 12 districts, the Muslim population is less than 1 per cent. In Shimla, it is 1.45 per cent according to the 2011 Census.

On August 31, a skirmish between a resident and some labourers in Malyana, near Sanjauli town in Shimla district, over payment of wages ended up as a conflict with communal overtones.

On September 11, members of fraternal Hindu organisations took out a march from Malyana to Sanjauli and submitted a list of demands, which included the abolition of the State Waqf Board, the identification of all illegal migrants and illegal mosques and structures belonging to Muslims, and the demolition of the “illegal” mosque at Sanjauli.

The march was taken out despite the imposition of prohibitory orders. Flouting these orders, the protesters identified shops with Muslim names and called for their social and economic boycott. Sources said that rallies were held in Kullu, Paonta Sahib, Sunni, Ghumarwain, and Palampur, and calls for State-wide protests were given.

Also Read | Modi magic wanes in Himachal and Rajasthan

The protest called for the abolition of the Waqf Board, which was accused of encouraging illegal activities. An outfit calling itself the Dev Bhoomi Sangharsh Samiti, along with some local supporters, called for the demolition of the Sanjauli mosque, claiming it was illegal.

Sangh Parivar in action

The outfit’s strength on the ground, according to sources, was derived mainly from existing supporters of the BJP and the Sangh Parivar. One of its fraternal outfits, the Dev Bhoomi Jagran Manch, distributed pamphlets asking people to participate in a “jan jagran abhiyaan” (public awareness campaign) on September 30 at a Hanuman temple. The pamphlet “requested” people to keep an eye on migrants and exhorted them not to rent out homes or shops to them; to boycott dealings with migrant painters, saloon owners, artisans, and so on; to not buy food items from those who engaged in cow slaughter; and to get clothes stitched only by Hindu tailors. Despite the divisive nature of the pamphlet, the State government is yet to register any case against the outfit.

For Himachal Pradesh, all this was very new. The campaigns also alleged that the demographic balance of the State was sought to be compromised with by the influx of migrants, Rohingyas, and others from Bangladesh. There is zero evidence to back these claims.

While it was no surprise that such statements came from right-wing outfits, the response of two senior Ministers in the Congress government was shocking.

Ministers’ statements

On September 4, Anirudh Singh, Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, speaking in the Assembly, questioned the legality of the Sanjauli mosque. Singh, who represents the Kasumpti seat, alleged that four storeys had been built without permission from authorities. He also claimed that the land belonged to the government, implying that the mosque was in illegal possession of the land. He also voiced concerns about the mosque’s location, which according to him was surrounded by temples, schools, and educational institutions with 99 per cent of people belonging to other religions.

On September 26, Public Works Department Minister Vikramaditya Singh issued an order directing all eateries to publicly display the names of owners and staffers out of respect for the dietary preferences of pilgrims and to maintain law and order.

At a meeting, he said that all shopkeepers and vendors should display their identification. He drew parallels with the system in Uttar Pradesh where a similar directive was issued during the Kanwar yatra, where Kanwariyas (mostly male pilgrims) trek to Haridwar to carry Ganga water back to their villages.

What the Minister conveniently forgot was that in July the Supreme Court stayed the Uttar Pradesh government’s directive. The court held (Association for the Protection of Civil Rights v. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors) that while food sellers may be required to display details of the food they were serving, they must not be forced to display the name and identity of owners and employees of establishments.

The Minister’s move put the Congress in a tough position as it had opposed such directives in BJP-ruled States. The Congress high command sought an explanation from Vikramaditya Singh. But his directive had not been officially withdrawn until the time of this report going to press, although its implementation was on hold.

Congress infightng

The Congress government, which will complete two years in office in December, has been riven by factionalism ever since it assumed office. The party could not win a single seat in the recent Lok Sabha election in the State. More importantly, the rift between Pradesh Congress Committee chief Pratibha Singh, who is also Vikramaditya’s Singh’s mother, and Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu is well known. At one point Pratibha Singh was openly critical of Sukhu’s functioning.

There were attempts early on to destabilise the government after a few legislators defected to the BJP, threatening to reduce the Sukhu government to a minority. But the plan failed. In the subsequent byelections necessitated following the defections, the Congress retained control of most of the seats.

The government has been seen as not having done enough to send a strong message to those seeking to disrupt communal harmony. Barring an all-party meeting, the government has demurred from invoking the law against disruptive elements. A “sadbhavana” (goodwill) rally was conducted by Left parties and progressive organisations. Despite such moves, the efforts to polarise people on communal lines continues.

Petition seeking Court intervention

Tikender Panwar, former Deputy Mayor of Shimla, filed a petition in the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking its intervention to “restore peace and constitutional values”.

Panwar, who is also an urban expert and Senior Visiting Fellow of the Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI) in Delhi, said in his petition that the Minister’s directive had a detrimental impact on Shimla’s traditionally harmonious social fabric and its vital tourism economy.

The petition further said that the directive was issued ostensibly to preserve hygiene and food safety, but the “compelled disclosure of the proprietors’ and the staff’s names served as a proxy for revealing their religious identity”. He added that this had created a climate that was “conducive to a socially enforced economic boycott of Muslim-owned businesses”.

The petition also sought a court directive to the government to, among other things, appoint a senior police officer in every district to take measures to prevent intimidation, harassment, and violence and constitute a Special Task Force to procure intelligence reports about people likely to commit communal intimidation and disseminate hatred and fake news.

Government apathy

Sources told Frontline that no case had been registered against any leader who had openly issued inflammatory statements and carried out protests targeting Muslims, despite video and other evidence.

In Palampur district, the Muslim community gave a representation to the tehsildar on September 14 stating that they feared for their security following incidents of violence, looting, and vandalism against their community members. This intimidation, they said, occurred under the pretext of a protest rally by certain organisations.

In Mandi district, members of a Hindu outfit converged on a Muslim tailor’s shop and warned people not to get their clothes stitched by him. But no action was taken against the leaders of the protest.

A senior lawyer in the Himachal Pradesh High Court told Frontline that none of the minority community members was confident of approaching the courts owing to fear of reprisal. No individual would sign on the representation since it would ultimately be in the name of the “whole Muslim community”. He was surprised that the government had done little to clamp down on communal elements despite Supreme Court orders.

Also Read | BJP faces uphill battle in Himachal Pradesh as local issues eclipse national sentiments

In 2022, a bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna ordered (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Sanjay Hegde) that even if no complaint had been made, suo motu action should be taken to register cases in instances where any speech or action had taken place that attracted offences under Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, or 505 of the Indian Penal Code.

An order on similar lines was passed in a writ petition in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India and Ors where the petitioners had raised the issue of hate speeches against the minority community.

Sanjauli mosque

In the case of the Sanjauli mosque, the entire dispute over the “illegal” floors came to nought when the custodians of the property offered to demolish the additional floors on their own. On October 5, the Shimla Municipal Commissioner’s Court directed the Himachal Pradesh Waqf Board and the Muslim Welfare Committee to demolish the top three floors of the mosque on the grounds that they were unauthorised.

The mosque finds a mention in the Gazetteer of 1970. The total area is around 4,590 square feet and the mosque has been constructed on about 1,700 sq ft. There were three Muslim and seven to eight non-Muslim tenants who had petty shops as well. Frontline learnt that the non-Muslim tenants had not paid any rent since 1970 and that had emerged as a bone of contention, which was exploited by sectarian elements.

The Congress government cannot afford to have a lackadaisical attitude to the issue as it is evident that if it gives sectarian elements a free run, keeping an eye on votes, it will take a toll on the social fabric in the State.