Hateful Words Tear At India’s Secular Fabric – OpEd
When a soldier fights for India, their religion stays behind. This foundational truth of our armed forces—a cornerstone of our national identity—was callously undermined when Madhya Pradesh Minister Kunwar Vijay Shah spoke about Colonel Sofia Qureshi at a public rally in Mhow last week.
Shah, celebrating India’s military response to the devastating Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 innocent lives in April, referred to Colonel Qureshi as “their own sister” sent to fight terrorists. The implication was unmistakable—that her Muslim identity somehow connected her to the terrorists, making her deployment a poetic form of revenge. With that single phrase, Shah reduced a decorated officer’s service to her religious identity, transforming a moment of national unity into a divisive spectacle.
The reaction was swift and rightfully severe. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, acting on its own initiative, condemned Shah’s words as “scurrilous” and “the language of the gutters,” ordering an FIR under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for promoting enmity and hatred. Chief Justice Sanjay Yadav’s bench expressed outrage at the attempt to introduce communal lines into the armed forces—one of India’s last remaining institutions where merit and duty eclipse all other considerations.
Shah’s subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, filed on May 15, has only compounded the controversy. The apex court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, refused urgent relief, chastising Shah for failing to uphold the responsibility expected of a constitutional officeholder. “Every sentence uttered by a minister has to be with responsibility,” the bench declared, underscoring the gravity of his transgression.
What makes this incident particularly troubling is its timing. The Pahalgam attack was a national tragedy, a moment that should have united Indians across all divides in shared grief and resolve. Operation Sindoor, the military response that followed, exemplified the professionalism and courage of our armed forces. Colonel Qureshi, as one of the officers briefing the public, embodied that strength—calm, authoritative, and wholly dedicated to her duty. To see her reduced to a religious caricature is not merely offensive; it betrays the very ideals she has risked her life to defend.
Shah’s attempted defense rings hollow. In a video statement, he claimed his words were misinterpreted, insisting he holds Qureshi in higher regard than his own sister and offering to apologize “ten times” if anyone was hurt. But the footage of his speech, widely circulated on social media, leaves little room for ambiguity. He delivered the remark with emphasis, seemingly relishing the crowd’s reaction. This was not a slip of the tongue but a calculated appeal to communal sentiment—a dangerous game in a nation where religious harmony remains delicate.
The BJP’s tepid response has been equally concerning. While Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav noted that action would be taken in compliance with the High Court’s order, the party has stopped short of meaningful disciplinary measures. Shah was reportedly counseled at the state party headquarters on public conduct, but he remains a cabinet minister. For a party that champions national security and claims reverence for the armed forces, this silence speaks volumes, risking alienation of those who see the BJP as upholders of India’s pluralistic traditions.
Opposition leaders have been unsparing in their criticism. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Samajwadi Party MP Awadesh Yadav have demanded Shah’s dismissal, describing his remarks as “insulting, shameful, and vulgar.” The National Commission for Women has also condemned the comments. Protests have erupted across Madhya Pradesh, with Congress workers burning effigies and the Mahila Congress demonstrating outside Shah’s residence. Yet this extends beyond political theater—it represents a genuine moral outrage at the weaponization of religious identity.
The legal battle now unfolding adds another dimension to this saga. The High Court’s decision to monitor the police investigation, citing deficiencies in the initial FIR that “did not inspire confidence,” suggests a commitment to ensuring justice isn’t subverted through procedural manipulation. The court’s criticism of the FIR—implying it was drafted to facilitate easy dismissal—points to systemic issues in addressing hate speech. Shah’s Supreme Court appeal, scheduled for hearing on May 16, will test the judiciary’s resolve to hold public figures accountable regardless of their position.
This incident is not isolated but reflects a troubling pattern where religious identities are exploited for political gain. The phrase “their own sister” deliberately “others” an entire community, casting Muslims as perpetual outsiders in their own country. Such rhetoric is particularly destructive when India faces external threats demanding unity, not division. Shah’s words have not only insulted Colonel Qureshi but also cast a shadow over countless Muslim officers and soldiers who have served India with distinction—from Havildar Abdul Hamid, who earned the Param Vir Chakra for his supreme sacrifice in 1965, to Major Abdul Rafey Khan, honored for gallantry in 2021.
The BJP’s reluctance to take decisive action risks normalizing such divisive language, suggesting that communal appeals come with minimal consequences. As the ruling party, they bear a special responsibility to uphold constitutional values and protect national cohesion. Chief Minister Yadav’s perfunctory response falls short of what this moment demands—a clear repudiation of Shah’s remarks coupled with tangible disciplinary measures would signal that the party places national unity above political expediency.
Throughout this controversy, Colonel Qureshi herself has maintained dignified silence, letting her service speak for her. This restraint reflects her professionalism but shouldn’t diminish the gravity of Shah’s offense. His words have demeaned not just her but the legacy of every Muslim who has worn the uniform in service to India. Their contributions remind us that India’s strength lies in its diversity—a truth that must be fiercely defended against those who would fracture it for momentary political advantage.
As this situation unfolds, the stakes extend beyond one minister’s fate. The Supreme Court’s ruling will establish important precedent for holding public officials accountable for hate speech. The BJP’s ultimate response will reveal whether it prioritizes political loyalty over constitutional principles. And the public discourse surrounding this incident will shape how we understand the relationship between religious identity and national service.
This moment calls for reflection on the India we aspire to build—one where a soldier’s worth is measured by their courage and commitment, not their faith or community. Colonel Qureshi deserves more than our outrage; she deserves our gratitude and our pledge to rise above the divisiveness that Shah’s words represent. Our armed forces have long stood as a model of secular integration, where Indians of all backgrounds serve side by side, bound by a common purpose. To introduce communal poison into this institution is to strike at the heart of our national identity.
The true measure of patriotism isn’t inflammatory rhetoric but the willingness to defend our country’s foundational values—unity in diversity, respect for all faiths, and equal citizenship regardless of creed. By these standards, Colonel Qureshi has demonstrated far greater patriotism than those who would exploit her identity for political gain.
Shah’s words also reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism and its causes. Terrorism knows no religion; it represents a perversion of faith, not its expression. By implying a connection between Colonel Qureshi’s Muslim identity and the terrorists she fights against, Shah inadvertently echoes the very extremist narrative that India has consistently rejected—that there exists some inherent conflict between being Muslim and being Indian.
The armed forces have repeatedly proven this false. Muslim soldiers have fought and died alongside their Hindu, Sikh, Christian, and Buddhist comrades in every conflict since independence. They have demonstrated, through their sacrifice, that India belongs to all who pledge loyalty to its constitution and values. This is the truth that Shah’s remarks sought to obscure—that patriotism transcends religious boundaries, that service to the nation unites us despite our differences.
In handling this controversy, our institutions face a critical test. Will the judiciary stand firm against attempts to normalize hate speech? Will political parties place national unity above partisan interests? Will the media focus on substantive issues rather than inflammatory soundbites? The answers to these questions will shape India’s trajectory at a time when social cohesion is increasingly fragile.
The Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor remind us of the real threats India faces—external forces seeking to sow division and violence. In such moments, we need leaders who unite rather than divide, who strengthen our social fabric rather than strain it. Shah’s remarks accomplished precisely the opposite, creating internal fractures at a time when solidarity is imperative.
As citizens, we must demand better. We must insist that our public figures uphold the constitutional values they swore to protect—equality, fraternity, and respect for all faiths. We must challenge rhetoric that seeks to marginalize any community or question their belonging. And we must celebrate those like Colonel Qureshi who embody the best of India—courage, professionalism, and unwavering dedication to duty regardless of background.
The ultimate resolution of this controversy will reveal much about contemporary India—about our commitment to secular values, about the health of our institutions, and about our capacity to hold power accountable. Shah’s fate, whether he faces meaningful consequences or emerges unscathed, will send a powerful signal about what we as a society are willing to tolerate.
Colonel Qureshi’s service reminds us of what truly matters—not the divisive rhetoric of politicians seeking advantage, but the quiet heroism of those who put nation above self. In her dignified silence, she offers a powerful rebuke to those who would exploit identity for gain. Her example should inspire us to build an India where such exploitation finds no fertile ground, where service is honored without qualification, and where the armed forces remain a symbol of our unity rather than a battleground for our divisions.
As the legal proceedings continue and public debate unfolds, let us remember what truly makes India strong—not uniformity but unity, not division but diversity embraced as strength. Shah’s words betrayed these values; our response must reaffirm them.
