Faith On Trial: How ‘I Love Muhammad’ Exposes India’s Communal Divide – OpEd
In a country that prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, the simple act of expressing one’s faith has become a flashpoint for communal unrest.
The recent uproar in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Maharashtra over posters proclaiming “I love Muhammad” reflects more than a momentary outburst of religious tension — it is symptomatic of a deeper and more dangerous transformation within India’s social and political fabric. At the heart of this controversy is a profoundly disturbing question: Why is it that in a secular republic, saying “I love Modi” is celebrated, but saying “I love Muhammad” can land someone in jail?
The controversy began in early September during the Eid Milad-un-Nabi celebrations, when participants in a procession in Bareilly displayed posters with the words “I love Muhammad.” What should have been an innocuous display of devotion instead provoked outrage from Hindu right-wing groups, who labeled the posters a “deliberate provocation.” Within days, authorities filed a First Information Report (FIR) against 24 individuals. The situation escalated dramatically, culminating in violent clashes outside a mosque, mass arrests, internet shutdowns, and the deployment of heavy security ahead of Friday prayers.
The heavy-handed state response — including the suspension of internet services and large-scale arrests — reveals much about the current climate in India. It is not merely about maintaining law and order; it is about the state’s selective tolerance for religious expression. Asaduddin Owaisi, leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), captured the hypocrisy succinctly: “In this country, one can say ‘I love Modi,’ but not ‘I love Muhammad.’ Where are you taking this nation?”
This selective policing of religious expression is not an isolated phenomenon. It fits into a broader pattern of majoritarian politics that has steadily eroded the secular foundations of the Indian republic. Under the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and figures like UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the state has increasingly blurred the line between governance and ideology.
The fallout from this approach is evident not only in UP but also in Maharashtra’s Ahilyanagar, where protests over “I love Muhammad” graffiti turned violent. The police response — baton charges, arrests, and demolitions of Muslim-owned properties — is emblematic of a broader policy of collective punishment that has become disturbingly common in India. Properties are bulldozed without due process, often on flimsy pretexts, creating an environment where entire communities are treated as suspects based on their religious identity.
Such actions strike at the very core of India’s constitutional promise. Article 25 guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. Yet, the reality on the ground increasingly suggests that this right is conditional — easily suspended when it conflicts with the sentiments of the majority or the political imperatives of those in power. The message to India’s 200 million Muslims is chillingly clear: your faith is acceptable only if expressed within boundaries drawn by others.
Even some within the BJP are uneasy with this trajectory. Jahanzaib Sirwal, a party leader from Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), publicly criticized the “vindictive” attitude of state authorities and called for an impartial investigation. He rightly pointed out that what began as a “simple, heartfelt act of faith” has been met with FIRs, inflammatory rhetoric, and collective punishment — a response wholly disproportionate to the situation and an affront to India’s secular ethos.
The danger of this pattern extends beyond the immediate crisis. By criminalizing expressions of Muslim identity, the state is deepening communal divides and fueling resentment. This plays directly into the hands of extremist elements on both sides, making reconciliation and coexistence harder with each passing day. Moreover, the normalization of such discriminatory practices corrodes the rule of law and undermines the credibility of state institutions, which are increasingly seen as instruments of majoritarian will rather than neutral arbiters of justice.
The “I love Muhammad” controversy should never have been a controversy at all. It was, at its core, an expression of love and reverence — no different in spirit from the slogans and symbols that flood the public sphere in praise of political leaders. That it became a cause for violence, arrests, and repression is a damning indictment of the state of religious freedom in today’s India.
The true test of a secular democracy is not how it treats the majority, but how it protects the rights of minorities. On that test, India is faltering. Unless it corrects course — by ensuring equality before the law, upholding constitutional protections, and rejecting the politics of polarization — the world’s largest democracy risks becoming something far less than the sum of its ideals.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
Public declarations of faith — whether “I Love Muhammad,” “I Love Christ,” or any other simple statement — can be heartfelt and harmless. But how it is done matters. When faith-based messages are plastered everywhere in a charged atmosphere mixed with taunting, they stop being private expressions of devotion are designed to inflame tensions and deliberately antagonize other communities.
Love is indeed best lived in the heart and in everyday actions; shouting on top of the voices from every surface risks turning a personal belief into a public provocation.
Authorities should crack down on deliberate instigation and ensure public safety. In short: cherish faith privately in your hearts.And remember India is the only country where all religions have flurished.