Muslim vilification is increasingly becoming a national pastime. This is not surprising, as it has now become part of the national discourse. The mainstream media continues to tom-tom the "great victory" the BJP-led Mahayuti Alliance achieved in Maharashtra. Of course, they don't bother to analyse the depths of incivility to which its leaders stooped to win the election.

When no less a person than Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose unity as his campaign theme, I should have been happy. After all, who wouldn't want the nation to be united? There have been many occasions, such as the 1962 and 1971 wars and the Kargil conflict, when the nation stood as one.

The prolonged freedom struggle also saw people, cutting across religious and caste divides, joining hands to fight the alien forces. Do I even need to mention the one group that chose to remain aloof from the freedom struggle, believing that their main enemy lay within, not without?

For the last hundred years, they have been readying their muscles and lathis to fight imaginary enemies. To a large extent, they have succeeded in their mission, as the state machinery is now almost wholly in their hands. It's the "Final Solution" they seek—something akin to what Hitler implemented in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

In Maharashtra, Modi frequently raised the slogan, Ek Hai Toh Safe Hai (We are safe if we are united). True, he didn't mention Muslims directly—he's too clever a politician for that. Back when he campaigned in Gujarat post-Godhra, he would attack left and right "Mian Musharraf," as if the Pakistani president were a candidate in the elections there.

The voters knew exactly whom he was targeting when he attacked Musharraf. Similarly, the people of Maharashtra knew who he meant when he stressed the need for unity to safeguard against "someone else." Modi's slogan was, at least, more refined compared to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's "batenge toh katenge" (if we divide, we will be cut). Think about it—both hold constitutional positions, and yet this is the kind of politics they indulge in.

In Jharkhand, the ruling party was more blunt. Muslims make up a negligible percentage of the population there. Yet, BJP leaders like Home Minister Amit Shah focused their campaigns on attacking "infiltrators". I watched a party video showing a group of men in "Muslim dress" taking over a middle-class family's house.

Though the Election Commission asked the BJP to remove the video from YouTube, I was able to view it a few days ago. The creators of the video were not punished; the commission didn't even enforce the law against them.

The BJP's constant refrain was that Bangladeshi infiltrators were "swarming" the state, marrying local women, and occupying Adivasi land. Yet, they have provided no evidence to support these claims.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that Jharkhand is teeming with infiltrators. The BJP has been in power at the Centre for the last ten years, and even before that, it completed a full term. If Bangladeshis are infiltrating, whose fault is it? Is this a failure of our armed forces and the Border Security Force? What does the Indian Army have to say about this?

By the way, why would a Bangladeshi infiltrate into India? On many social indices—infant mortality, literacy, healthcare spending—Bangladesh outperforms India. Their economic growth rate has also been higher. No American infiltrates into Mexico. Can the same be said about India? Ironically, we often hear about people from Amit Shah's state finding ingenious ways to infiltrate the USA.

Birsa Munda, the young tribal leader who studied in a Christian school, fought not only the British but also outsiders exploiting the tribals. He lamented how tribals were losing their ancestral lands. Today, tribals are a minority in Jharkhand. When the BJP formed the government, it gave the chief ministership to someone Birsa Munda would have called a "Dikku" (outsider). Left to themselves, the BJP would have named the state Vananchal, not Jharkhand. They call adivasis (aborigines) vanvasis.

On the mistaken assumption that it would win tribal votes, Amit Shah renamed the Sarai Kale Khan bus terminus in Delhi after Bhagwan Birsa Munda. It is a different matter that he did not even consult the State government. This fits the BJP's broader pattern: ever since they came to power, Muslim names of roads, buildings, and places are being changed with alarming speed. Before long, there may be no trace of the Muslim rulers who once governed this country.

Sarai Kale Khan was a Sufi saint who lived in what is now the National Capital Region. A word about Sufism is in order. It is a mystical movement within Islam that seeks divine love and knowledge through a personal experience of God.

Contrary to the common belief that Islam spread through the sword, its appeal was largely due to Sufi saints. In Kashmir, for example, Islam spread significantly under Hindu rulers, primarily because of Sufism's message of love and inclusivity. In Kerala, too, Islam spread because, under Hindu rule, the lower caste people were deprived of even civic rights like, for instance, the right to walk on public roads. The Vaikom Satyagraha was initiated by TK Madhavan of the Congress mainly to assert the common man's right to walk on the roads and not to enter any temple.

It's worth noting that the Wahhabi brand of Islam disapproves of Sufism. In Pakistan, many Sufi shrines have been vandalised. In India, however, Sufi saints are still held in great esteem.

Among the Sufi saints, none is more famous than Mu'in al-Din Chishti, also called Khwaja Gharib Nawaz. Born in Persia in the 13th century, he moved to the Indian subcontinent during Sultan Iltutmish's reign. Later, he settled in Ajmer, Rajasthan, where he passed away.

It's my eternal regret that I never visited his Dargah (tomb), though I once drove past the area. Millions visit the Dargah, offering chadars (blankets) to honour him. Even Emperor Akbar and his descendants, like Shahjahan and Aurangazeb, visited Ajmer Sharif.

It is believed that Akbar and his Hindu wife visited the Dargah to seek blessings for a child. It's not just Muslims who visit the shrine. The Maharaja of Baroda built its roof, and dignitaries like Queen Victoria, Barack Obama, Narendra Modi, and Rahul Gandhi have all paid their respects.

The saint's death anniversary, or Urs, is celebrated with week-long festivities, marking the day he is believed to have reached his Creator. Interestingly, the Dargah closes for the night only after a soulful song is sung, much like Kerala's Sopanam tradition in temples. It was my friend, the late Prof Leela Omchery, who collected all the Sopanam songs in Kerala as part of her post-doctoral thesis. She also published them in a book form I reviewed at that time.

The Dargah was supported, among others, by the Sikh community. As mentioned earlier, the week-long Urs brings people from many countries, like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and regions like West Asia. Nobody knows how the Urs will be celebrated this year.

The question mark arose when Vishnu Gupta, who claims to represent the Hindu Sena, filed a petition in the local court at Ajmer. He alleged that a Sankat Mochan Mahadev temple pre-existed at the site and that the Dargah was built using its debris. He further claimed that a Jain temple also pre-existed there, citing a 1911 book to support his petition.

Ordinarily, such a petition should have been dismissed outright under the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which froze the status of all religious structures as they were on August 15, 1947, i.e. the day India attained Independence. The only exceptions were the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, and the Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura. Even for these structures, the Act did not permit new demands.

However, the judge deemed it appropriate to issue notices to the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and the Dargah Committee. Ironically, the ASI has no jurisdiction in the matter. The court has set December 20 as the next date for hearing.

This raises an important question: how did the judge find the courage to accept the petition when an Act of Parliament bars him from doing so? The root of the problem lies in a precedent set by a former Chief Justice of India.

A petition was previously filed by some women who claimed they wanted to worship in a portion of the mosque in Varanasi. They also demanded that the water tank there be examined, alleging that Muslims had thrown their deities into it. A local judge took cognisance of the petition and directed the ASI to investigate. When the ASI reportedly recovered a piece of stone claimed to be a Shivling, alarm bells rang.

The Muslim group approached the Supreme Court, citing the Places of Worship Act 1991, enacted during the regime of PV Narasimha Rao. The law was not changed by any of the successive governments, including that of AB Vajpayee and Modi. Unfortunately, the apex court ruled that the Act did not prohibit the survey or study of religious structures. This seemingly innocuous interpretation paved the way for the judge in Ajmer to entertain Gupta's petition.

This sets a dangerous precedent. Tomorrow, anyone could file a petition claiming that the Humayun's Tomb or the Safdarjung Tomb in Delhi were built on sites where Krishna and Brahma temples once stood.

This is not a hypothetical concern. Recently, five people lost their lives in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, following a district judge's order to survey the Jama Masjid, a Mughal-era structure protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904. Unlike the Ajmer judge, he ordered the survey without even seeking the opinion, let alone approval of the masjid committee.

Beyond Varanasi's Gyanvapi Mosque and Mathura's Shahi Idgah, courts are now entertaining petitions about the Bhojshala Mosque in Madhya Pradesh and Teelewali Masjid in Lucknow. The floodgates have truly been opened, allowing anyone to claim that any mosque was built on the debris of a temple. Similar claims have even been made about the Taj Mahal, Delhi's Jama Masjid, and the Qutub Minar.

Adding to these challenges is the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 8. The Bill's stated purpose is to evaluate whether Waqf properties align with the principle of "one nation, one law." However, the Sangh Parivar has used false propaganda to malign the Waqf system, claiming that Waqf Boards are the third-largest landowners in India after the Railways and Port Trusts.

Consider the actual data: "the total area of Hindu religious institutions in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana is 47,800 acres, 465,000 acres, and 87,235 acres respectively. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam alone adds 7,123 acres, bringing the total to over 1,037,358 acres in these three states—a figure that surpasses the private land donated by pious Muslims to the Waqf Boards".

"The amendments to the Waqf Act include Section 3A, which mandates that only lawful owners can create a Waqf—a requirement already in line with Islamic principles. Another amendment, Section 3(r)(iv), specifies purposes like the maintenance of widows, divorced women, and orphans. While this is commendable, such welfare initiatives were already implied under Muslim law". (Olav Albuquerque, FPJ, Nov 29).

Waqf properties have historically ensured that orphans had homes, food, education in madrasas, and dignified burials. The critical question is whether the new Bill strengthens Waqf Boards or undermines them. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.