|
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) conspicuous silence regarding Madhya Pradesh Minister Vijay Shah’s Islamophobic comments directed at Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in the context of “Operation Sindoor” is not merely an oversight; it is a calculated display of the party’s deeply ingrained ideology and its adept manipulation of divisive rhetoric for political expediency. Shah’s remarks, delivered while ostensibly praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi's response to alleged “terrorists,” were not a spontaneous gaffe but a deliberate deployment of prejudice intended to resonate with a specific segment of the electorate. His emphasis on Modi’s supposed brilliance in utilizing Colonel Qureshi, whom he referred to indirectly as “a sister from the community of the terrorists themselves,” unveils the BJP’s disturbing strategy of exploiting religious identity as a tool for garnering political advantage and solidifying its power base. The implications of this strategy are far-reaching, contributing to an environment of heightened religious polarization and discrimination against Muslims in India.
Shah, evidently impressed by what he perceived as a political “masterstroke”—the deployment of a Muslim woman to seemingly endorse India’s military action against Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim nation—reiterated his sentiments multiple times, albeit in subtly varying forms. He meticulously avoided explicitly naming Colonel Qureshi or uttering the word “Muslim,” yet the implicit message was unmistakable. This tactic exemplifies the BJP's mastery of the “dog whistle,” a method honed over the past decade, allowing the dissemination of prejudiced messages while maintaining a veneer of plausible deniability under the law. The intended audience, already primed with existing biases, readily deciphers the insinuation, reinforcing pre-existing prejudices without exposing the speaker to direct legal repercussions. The subtlety and calculated nature of these remarks underscore the BJP's understanding of the power of suggestion and its willingness to exploit religious fault lines for political gain. This approach not only reinforces existing societal divisions but also creates a climate of fear and suspicion for minority communities.
Colonel Sofiya Qureshi rose to prominence following India’s launch of “Operation Sindoor,” a military offensive against Pakistan purportedly in retaliation for the killing of 26 civilians in Pahalgam by unidentified gunmen. The attackers, according to reports, selectively targeted tourists based on their religious affiliation, specifically identifying them as Hindu. The government's narrative surrounding the incident was heavily laden with symbolism, framing the killings as an assault on Hindu marital identity and Hindu womanhood. The deliberate invocation of the image of wives being robbed of their sindoor, the vermilion worn by married Hindu women primarily in North India, further amplified the emotional resonance of the incident within the Hindu community. This symbolic framing served to mobilize public sentiment and justify the subsequent military action.
While the nation ostensibly sought the identification and apprehension of the actual perpetrators of the Pahalgam killings, the government swiftly attributed the attack to cross-border elements, implicitly pointing the finger at Pakistan. Simultaneously, within Kashmir, the government implemented a series of repressive measures, including the illegal demolition of homes belonging to suspected militants, the apprehension of thousands of local residents, and the deportation of Pakistanis, even those who had resided in India for decades. This heavy-handed response extended beyond Kashmir, with Kashmiri students facing harassment in various cities across India. Furthermore, Bengali-speaking Muslims throughout the country were subjected to eviction, detention, and public humiliation, such as being paraded through the streets of cities like Ahmedabad. This pattern of collective punishment clearly demonstrated that Muslims across India were becoming the target of state-sanctioned retribution for an act of terror perpetrated by unknown individuals. The broad scope of these actions and their disproportionate impact on the Muslim community raise serious concerns about the erosion of due process and the rise of discriminatory practices.
The naming of the military action against Pakistan as “Operation Sindoor” further emphasized the government’s deployment of symbolic messaging. Prime Minister Modi’s deliberate emphasis on the term “sindoor” in explaining the operation’s name explicitly linked the military response to Hindu identity and Hindu womanhood. This rhetoric framed the operation as a means of avenging the perceived challenge to “Hindu blood” and “Hindu maleness” that occurred in Pahalgam, through the humiliation of “Muslim masculinity.” The narrative constructed by the government and amplified by the BJP sought to equate the killing of Hindu civilians with an attack on the honor and dignity of the Hindu community as a whole.
In this carefully constructed context, the deployment of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, a Muslim woman, to seemingly justify the military action became a potent, albeit deeply manipulative, tool. Colonel Qureshi, presented as “a sister from their own community,” was strategically positioned to broadcast the narrative of Pakistani/Muslim defeat, with the terms often conflated in BJP rhetoric. This strategic deployment of a Muslim woman within a narrative of military action carries significant symbolic weight, especially within the context of the BJP's broader political agenda.
The carefully curated image of Colonel Qureshi standing alongside Vyomika Singh, representing the official Indian perspective, was loudly and widely interpreted as a demonstration of India’s inclusive secularism, presented as a stark contrast to Pakistan. However, for the BJP’s core constituents, the message was far more insidious. The image was designed to convey the notion of a Muslim woman seemingly validating Indian/Hindu action against Muslim adversaries. This subtle manipulation of imagery reinforces existing prejudices and strengthens the BJP's support base among those who subscribe to a Hindu nationalist ideology.
Vijay Shah’s remarks offer a revealing glimpse into the BJP’s ideological and semiotic framework. The party has consistently employed the trope of the oppressed Muslim woman to demonize Muslim men. The enactment of the law banning triple talaq, for instance, was framed as a move to liberate Muslim women from the perceived tyranny of Muslim patriarchy. The BJP's narrative consistently portrays itself as the champion of Muslim women against “evil Muslim manhood.” This framing allows the party to position itself as a protector of vulnerable individuals while simultaneously reinforcing negative stereotypes about the Muslim community.
This strategy, in essence, mirrors the historical practice of symbolically capturing the women of the defeated in war and using them against their own community. There is, therefore, an implicit and unsettling satisfaction in the idea that Vijay Shah explicitly sought to convey to his audience. The manipulation of gender and religious identity serves to activate anti-Muslim sentiment among Hindutva adherents. For years, Muslims have been portrayed as predatory figures luring Hindu women, fostering a sense of sexual inferiority among Hindus, which the BJP seeks to “avenge” through such symbolic reversals. The continuous reinforcement of these stereotypes and the deliberate manipulation of historical narratives contribute to a climate of fear and distrust between communities.
This aligns seamlessly with the inherent misogyny of the Hindutva ideology. Narendra Modi’s repeated jibes at Sonia Gandhi and the numerous Islamophobic and misogynistic remarks made by other BJP functionaries demonstrate a consistent pattern. While Muslims have become accustomed to such rhetoric, its intensification during times of conflict serves to galvanize the party’s support base. It became particularly crucial after the unexpected ceasefire announcement, which confused and demoralised many of the party’s supporters who had been whipped into a frenzy of a full-fledged war and Indian victory. This suggests that the BJP uses inflammatory rhetoric strategically to maintain its political base and rally support during times of uncertainty or perceived weakness.
Furthermore, the image of Sofiya Qureshi had also inadvertently sown confusion in the core BJP support base. Was the party succumbing to “secular temptations”? Was the Hindutva ideology being compromised? Vijay Shah’s explanation provided a reassuringly bigoted interpretation that would satisfy the Hindutva mindset; that Sofiya Qureshi’s presence was not a symbol of Muslim agency but rather the ultimate symbol of Muslim powerlessness—their own women announcing their defeat. This demonstrates that the BJP is not only concerned with attracting new supporters but also with maintaining the loyalty of its core constituency by reinforcing its ideological principles.
The BJP, through Shah’s remarks, has effectively turned Qureshi into a Muslim object used to insult and diminish the Muslim community. The Jabalpur High Court and the Supreme Court have expressed their strong disapproval of Vijay Shah’s vile comments and the police’s initial inaction. Yet, the BJP leadership’s continued silence and lack of disciplinary action against him suggest a tacit endorsement of his stance, a silence that allows his message to permeate to their support base. The lack of accountability for such inflammatory remarks sends a clear message that the BJP condones the targeting of the Muslim community.
Any future reprimand of Shah by the BJP is likely to be a mere slap on the wrist, perhaps framed as a concession to judicial pressure rather than a genuine acknowledgement of wrongdoing. This will likely be spun by the party’s support base as an unjust act against a leader standing up for Hindu pride, further bolstering his popularity. Vijay Shah’s statement, regardless of any superficial consequences, has already served its intended, poisonous purpose. The likely outcome is that Shah will emerge even stronger within the party, further emboldening those who espouse similar views and perpetuating a cycle of divisive rhetoric and discrimination.
Source: Why BJP is Silent on Minister’s Islamophobic Comments About Colonel Sofia During Operation Sindoor