Indian authorities have demolished more than 23 mosques, Islamic schools and Eid prayer grounds in just 45 days, all of them in states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
State governments claim that the mosques and schools were “illegal structures”. But Muslims, courts and human rights organisations are asking a different question: why are these buildings being labelled “illegal”, and why do the demolitions appear to overwhelmingly affect Muslim-owned properties?
India is home to around 1.5 billion people, including more than 200 million Muslims, making them the world’s largest Muslim minority. Like other citizens, they are, in principle, entitled to constitutional protections guaranteeing freedom of religion, property rights and equal treatment under the law.
Yet developments in recent years have generated growing concern and raised fundamental questions about the extent to which citizenship rights are being respected, particularly in relation to the Muslim minority.
“The striking contradiction is that these mosque demolitions are taking place almost exclusively in states governed by the BJP, the Hindu nationalist party.”
The demolition of historic schools and mosques can no longer easily be dismissed as isolated or exceptional incidents. Rather, critics describe a systematic pattern in which local authorities send bulldozers into Muslim-majority neighbourhoods and areas, sometimes beginning demolitions under the cover of darkness and at other times in broad daylight, on the grounds that the properties are “illegal structures”.
The striking feature is that such demolitions are occurring almost exclusively in states governed by the Hindu nationalist BJP.
“Bulldozer Justice”
Because the organised demolition of Islamic schools, mosques and historic religious sites is concentrated in BJP-governed states, the first question raised is whether these decisions are political rather than purely legal.
Activists have described the practice as “Bulldozer Justice”.
The concept is both simple and alarming: local authorities use bulldozers to demolish what they describe as “illegal structures”, but in practice the targets appear to be overwhelmingly Muslim areas and Muslim-owned buildings.
In many cases, demolitions are carried out without adequate advance notice, without meaningful opportunities for appeal, and with the judiciary effectively bypassed.
Examples of the Demolitions
Several mosques have been demolished in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state.
Among them was the Zakir Hussain Mosque, which authorities said had been “built on government land”.
In Gujarat, the state where Narendra Modi served as chief minister before becoming prime minister, around 30 buildings were demolished in a single night in the Kutch region.
Among them was the Juna Kandla Mosque.
Numerous Islamic schools and Qur’an memorisation centres located in areas near the Pakistani border have also been demolished, with authorities again citing “illegal construction”.
Muslims Turn to the Courts
Several Muslim organisations, including Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, have condemned the demolition orders.
In separate statements, they described the measures as attacks on constitutional rights and as sectarian targeting.
Their response has not been limited to public condemnation.
The Association for Protection of Civil Rights has filed cases before the Supreme Court of India seeking immediate orders to prevent arbitrary demolitions, require authorities to provide advance notice before issuing demolition orders, and ensure that property owners are given an opportunity to appeal.
“The point is not that every Muslim-owned building is legal. Legal and illegal structures exist in every community. The question is whether the law is applied equally to everyone, or used as an instrument of discrimination.”
The legal demands have also included compensation for demolished properties, reconstruction where possible, and strict legal safeguards to prevent bulldozers from being used as a tool of collective punishment.
Turning to the courts is particularly significant because it moves the confrontation from the street into the legal system.
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution protects freedom of religion and places of worship, while Articles 14 and 15 provide protections related to equality and legal rights. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty.
Taken together, these provisions mean that demolishing property without proper legal procedure can constitute a violation of constitutional rights.
International Human Rights Organisations Raise Alarm
The issue is no longer confined to local or regional concern.
In February, Amnesty International described the demolitions as a punitive campaign of hatred and called on the Indian government to immediately halt the arbitrary destruction of Muslim properties.
The organisation also said bulldozers were being used as a “weapon” in a form of psychological warfare against the Muslim minority.
Other human rights organisations, both inside and outside India, have issued reports documenting what they describe as a recurring pattern: properties being demolished in Muslim areas under legal justifications that appear to be applied very differently in non-Muslim areas.
Again, the argument is not that every Muslim structure is lawful. Legal and illegal construction exists within every religious community.
The central issue is whether the law is being applied with the same standard of justice to everyone, or whether it is being used selectively as a discriminatory instrument.
Why Are Muslims Concerned?
Some may argue that if a building is illegal, the state has the right to demolish it.
In principle, that is correct. Every state has the authority to regulate construction and enforce the law.
But three issues make the current situation particularly contentious.
First is selectivity.
Why are demolitions concentrated in Muslim areas? Is all illegal construction in India owned by Muslims? Clearly not.
The question is whether violations involving Hindu-owned properties are pursued with the same intensity.
Second is procedure.
Some demolitions reportedly take place without prior notice, in the middle of the night, on public holidays or accompanied by an excessive security presence.
Critics argue that this violates basic principles of procedural justice.
The law should require a property owner to be given access to the courts and an opportunity to defend the legality of the property before it is destroyed.
Third is symbolism.
Mosques are not merely buildings. In Islam, they are houses of Allah and collective symbols of Muslim religious presence.
When a mosque or prayer ground is demolished, the psychological impact on the community extends far beyond the monetary value of bricks and cement.
Religious shrines and historic sites also connect communities with their history and identity.
Their destruction is therefore viewed by many Muslims not simply as “law enforcement”, but as conveying an implicit message that they are not welcome.
The Constitutional Position
India’s Constitution is explicit in its protection of fundamental rights.
Article 25 guarantees the right to profess and practise religion freely.
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, meaning that laws should be applied according to the same standard of justice for everyone.
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to shelter and human dignity.
The Supreme Court of India has previously ruled that arbitrary demolitions without proper legal procedure violate the Constitution.
It has also issued directions requiring advance notice and an opportunity to appeal.
The problem, however, lies in implementation, with different states applying those requirements to varying degrees.
Lawyers and activists therefore continue to ask: if these demolitions are purely “legal”, why are illegal structures in non-Muslim areas not demolished with the same intensity?
And why are the demolitions overwhelmingly concentrated in states governed by the BJP?
“When a minority begins to feel that the law has become a tool in the hands of the majority against it, trust, which is the foundation of any democracy, begins to erode.”
How State Governments Defend the Demolitions
State governments and local authorities defend their actions on the basis that “the law is the law and must apply to everyone”.
They argue that demolished structures were built without permits, constructed on government land or violated building regulations.
They also maintain that the demolitions do not target Muslims, but rather “legal violations” wherever they occur.
In principle, that argument is valid.
However, critics say several fundamental questions remain unanswered.
If enforcement of the law is the true motivation, why are thousands of other illegal buildings across Indian cities, belonging to Hindus and members of other communities, not being demolished at the same rate?
Why has the campaign been concentrated in states controlled by a single political party, the BJP?
And why have some operations been characterised by speed and severity, including surprise nighttime demolitions without prior warning?
These questions are not, in themselves, accusations. They are demands for transparency and equal treatment.
A law applied fairly should withstand scrutiny.
The Broader Picture
All indications suggest that the demolition campaign is not taking place in isolation, but against a wider backdrop of growing tensions between India’s Hindu majority and Muslim minority.
These tensions extend from laws affecting Muslim personal status, divorce and religious endowments, to restrictions on wearing the hijab in schools and disputes over historic mosques, from the Babri Mosque to two historic mosques in Varanasi and Mathura.
Taken together, these developments have created a climate of growing anxiety and mistrust.
India is a major country with a deep civilisational heritage and millions of Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian and other citizens who seek to live together in security and peace.
But the repeated demolition of Islamic sacred sites raises a fundamental question: can India’s Constitution, written by founders who envisioned a state for all its citizens, accommodate what is now happening across the country?
Just law builds and elevates nations. Biased law weakens them.
When a minority feels that the law is being wielded by the majority against it, the trust on which democracy depends begins to erode.
And when a mosque that has stood for 60 years, or even a century, is demolished overnight, the message received by hundreds of millions of Muslims is not simply that “the law is being enforced”.
It is that their very presence is under threat.
