There is growing, informal pressure against Muslims occupying visible or influential roles. Those who counter this discrimination—corporate leaders, professionals, ordinary citizens—are swiftly targeted. Social media, instead of being a platform for dialogue, often becomes a theatre of orchestrated outrage. Hate seeks to silence nuance and enforce conformity.
Mohammad Kafeel Qasmi
The developments surrounding Namita Thapar and Dipak Kumar are not isolated social media incidents; they are symptomatic of a deeper unease shaping the contours of contemporary Indian democracy.
When Namita Thapar recently spoke about the mental and physical benefits of namaz- a practice that, beyond its religious essence, involves discipline, mindfulness, and physical movement- her remarks could have been received as a simple acknowledgement of wellness practices embedded in faith traditions. Instead, they triggered a wave of backlash from sections of the hardline Hindutva ecosystem. The reaction was not merely disagreement; it was marked by hostility, suspicion, and an attempt to delegitimise even a neutral or positive reference to Muslim practices.
A similar pattern emerged in the case of Dipak Kumar, who chose to stand up for a small business owner targeted by a mob for naming his shop “Baba Garments”. What should have been a straightforward defence of fairness and basic decency turned into a lightning rod for online abuse. The message sent was chillingly clear: dissent from a majoritarian narrative, even in defence of ordinary livelihoods, will invite intimidation.
Taken together, these episodes raise a troubling question: where has Indian democracy arrived?
At its constitutional core, India is envisioned as a plural, inclusive republic, one that safeguards not only the rights of minorities but also the freedom of individuals to speak, work, and exist without fear. Yet, what we increasingly witness is an atmosphere where professional spaces are not immune to ideological policing. There appears to be a growing, albeit often informal, pressure against Muslims occupying visible or influential roles in corporate and public life. This is not codified policy, but it manifests through social intimidation, whisper campaigns, and reputational attacks.
More concerning is the parallel trend: those who attempt to counter this discrimination, be they corporate leaders, professionals, or ordinary citizens, are swiftly targeted. Social media, instead of being a platform for dialogue, often becomes a theatre of orchestrated outrage. Hate, amplified through coordinated trolling, seeks to silence nuance and enforce conformity.
This dual dynamic, marginalisation on one side and suppression of dissent on the other, creates a narrowing space for democratic engagement. It fosters a climate where fear replaces freedom, and where silence becomes a survival strategy.
It would be intellectually dishonest to view these developments in isolation from the broader political climate. The normalisation of such hostility does not occur in a vacuum. It thrives in an environment where polarisation serves electoral calculus, where identity-based mobilisation becomes a tool of political sustainability. When divisions deepen, they can be leveraged; when anxieties rise, they can be redirected. But this short-term political gain comes at a long-term cost to the social fabric of the nation.
The real casualty, therefore, is not just a few individuals facing backlash; it is the very ethos of coexistence that has historically defined India.
Yet, this trajectory is neither inevitable nor irreversible.
Civil society must reclaim its role as a moral counterweight. Intellectuals, journalists, and educators need to articulate, with clarity and courage, the principles of constitutionalism and pluralism. Corporate leaders must ensure that merit, not identity, governs professional spaces. Most importantly, ordinary citizens, across religious and social divides, must resist the temptation of passive spectatorship. Silence, in times like these, is not neutrality; it is acquiescence.
Building bridges requires conscious effort: engaging in interfaith dialogue, challenging misinformation, and refusing to participate in the casual normalisation of hate. Social media, too, must be used responsibly, to amplify voices of reason rather than mobs of resentment.
India’s strength has always lain in its diversity, not merely as a demographic fact, but as a lived experience of shared spaces, mutual respect, and cultural interweaving. To allow that strength to erode under the weight of suspicion and hostility would be a historic disservice.
The moment demands introspection as much as action. Democracies do not collapse overnight; they erode gradually, through the normalisation of what once seemed unacceptable.
To arrest this erosion, a collective reaffirmation is needed, of fairness over prejudice, of dialogue over intimidation, and of humanity over hatred.
Only then can the idea of India, in its fullest and most inclusive sense, endure.
The writer is an Islamic scholar, columnist and academic strategist
ka*************@***il.com