Edward Ahmed Mitchell on Violence Against Indian Muslims

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/01

CAIR Bio: Edward Ahmed Mitchell is a civil rights attorney and former journalist who serves as the National Deputy Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States.

Mr. Mitchell also currently serves as President of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers (NAML), a member of the Georgia Association of Muslim Lawyers, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Islamic Community Center of Atlanta.

Mr. Mitchell served as the Executive Director of CAIR-Georgia from 2016 to 2020. During that time, the civil rights group resolved numerous cases of anti-Muslim discrimination, opened its first office, and expanded its staff to include a paralegal, a staff attorney, legislative aides, and a communications director. In 2016, the chapter received CAIR National’s Chapter of the Year award.

Before joining CAIR-Georgia, Mr. Mitchell practiced law as a criminal prosecutor for the City of Atlanta. He has also worked as a freelance journalist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Mr. Mitchell is a 2009 graduate of Morehouse College, where he served as captain of the school’s American Mock Trial Association team, president of the Honors Program Club, and editor-in-chief of the campus newspaper. 

He received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center, where he won first place in the law school’s annual Trial Advocacy Competition, served as editor-in-chief of The Georgetown Law Weekly, and was elected president of the Muslim Law Students Association.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I will take one step back. Violence against religious minorities in India was brought to my attention by a Kashmiri Indian Muslim friend, Mir Faizal. He considers himself part of the Quranist tradition and is a cosmologist at one of the prominent universities in Canada. I have written for one Indian publication, and when I received an email about the work CAIR is doing to highlight the violence against religious minorities in Northern India. I thought it would be good to cover. To start with the big picture, what is the primary concern from CAIR’s perspective regarding religious minorities and violence in India?

Edward Ahmed Mitchell: India is one of the most diverse countries in the world, and one of the largest. The population is predominantly Hindu, but there is a massive number of Indian Muslims and other religious minorities. For decades, religious minorities have been able to live in relative comfort in India despite some discrimination and secondary status issues. However, since the rise of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva movement, which has been around for decades, minorities have gone from being in comfort to being concerned and are now, in some cases, in mortal danger. The Hindutva movement, with roots in the RSS and inspired partly by the Nazi movement, believes in Hindu supremacy. It promotes the idea that India is only a Hindu country, that Muslims are invaders and should not be welcomed nor fully participate in society, and that it is acceptable to use force to exclude such religious minorities. Our primary concern is that what we’re seeing now, whether it’s the destruction of mosques, harassment, or the infamous cow lynchings where Muslims are murdered in the street for allegedly transporting or eating beef, are preludes to something much worse. We hope it doesn’t come to that, but we are concerned that this is the beginning of a potential mass extinction event aimed at Indian Muslims and other minorities.

Jacobsen: Coming from a Canadian perspective, even from an American perspective, what comparable case to this might be a more natural analogy for a North American audience?

Mitchell: It’s difficult to make a proper analogy because what’s unique about India is the massive numbers of religious minorities there. When you think of what’s happening to the Uyghurs in China, the numbers are relatively small compared to the overall Chinese population. Similarly, in Nazi Germany, the percentage of Jews was tiny compared to other Germans. But in India, you have around 100 million Muslims, so we’re talking about very large numbers of people on both sides. It’s a unique situation to worry about a genocide with such large populations involved. I hesitate to draw analogies because every genocide threat stands on its own. However, if you think back to any country where something horrific happened, whether in Rwanda, Nazi Germany, or China with the Uyghurs, genocides, typically, start with lower-scale discrimination and violence tolerated or encouraged by the government, which then slowly builds into something horrific. In India, we have pieces of a potential genocide:

• a charismatic, extremist, bigoted leader with a history of allowing mass murder;
• a massive movement of extremist supporters inspired by the Nazis;
• current incidents of discrimination and violence.

It’s disturbing and the first step toward something much worse.

Jacobsen: Do you see any distinctions being made between Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, Christians, and the non-religious in terms of the discrimination people are experiencing, whether in degree or style?

Mitchell: Muslims are absolutely at the forefront of discrimination and threats of violence in India. Christians and other minorities also face discrimination, as do Hindus of lower castes. However, Muslims are the primary target for Narendra Modi.

In a campaign speech during this most recent election, he claimed that if the other party wins, then they are going to let the ‘invaders’ use up India’s natural resources. Everyone knew he was referring to Muslims because they are often called “invaders.” Most of the hate crimes, lynchings, and destruction of houses of worship have targeted mosques and Muslims. Therefore, Muslims are certainly at the forefront of this discrimination and bigotry.

We have seen reports of discrimination against other communities as well, but nowhere near the same level of attention or scale as against Muslims. Additionally, we do not see any distinction in the targeting between Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, or any other people who identify as Muslim.

As we have had more time to study violence, including cyberbullying, we have also cataloged an increase in cyberviolence against Muslims and others. The Indian government and the Hindutva movement have a significant presence on social media, with many followers of Mr. Modi being very active online. Many of them threaten extreme violence against critics of Mr. Modi. Numerous journalists, Muslim and otherwise, have reported receiving private messages threatening to rape them, kill their mothers, and do other horrific things. We are certainly familiar with a campaign of hate on social media led by some supporters of Mr. Modi. These threats, although often empty and meant to harass, bully, and frighten people into silence, still constitute threats of violence in the cyber sphere.

Regarding any moderation of this hate speech coming from Prime Minister Modi, there are areas of internal pressure on the country and from international affairs that may have an effect. India is a global player, especially economically, with strong connections to the United States, China, and many Muslim-majority countries, including the Arab world. As an American, my main focus is convincing our government to pressure the Indian government. We have called on the State Department to designate India as a country of particular concern, meaning a country identified as a violator of religious freedom. Such a designation puts pressure on the Indian government to address lynchings of Muslims, discrimination against Muslim women, and threats of mass violence and destruction of mosques.

Beyond that, our government needs to call out the Indian government for its inflammatory rhetoric, destruction of mosques, and violence against individual Indian Muslims. There should also be criticism from our government about what is happening. Moreover, Muslim-majority nations have a role to play in pressuring the Indian government to respect religious minorities, including Indian Muslims. Unfortunately, we do not see the United States or some Muslim countries making this effort, with some exceptions like Pakistan, which is outspoken about these issues. We need more people worldwide to speak out against this early on to prevent something horrible from happening rather than responding only after the fact.

We didn’t see this coming, and it’s not good. You want to stop it, nip it in the bud before it escalates to the point of mass communal or other violence. 

Jacobsen: Are there groups in the United States trying to exacerbate the situation?

Mitchell: Some groups in the United States are supportive of what we would call the Hindutva movement and supportive and defensive of Narendra Modi’s government. These groups exercise their rights as people in America to advocate for policies they believe are good, call on our government to support Mr. Modi, and metaphorically cross swords with those critical of Mr. Modi. I don’t begrudge anyone the right to advocate for this dangerous government if they so choose, but it’s not a morally good thing to do. It’s not good for Americans, the people of India, or ultimately the Indian government. These groups are active just like those that advocate for the Israeli, Saudi, and UAE governments. Every government has lobbyists and supporters; the Indian government is no exception.

Jacobsen: What about Hindu groups in the United States that are allied with CAIR in condemning these violent acts?

Mitchell: I think most people of most religions oppose the kind of horrific violence aimed at religious minorities in various countries. Many Indian Americans who are Hindu do not support what Mr. Modi is doing or threatening to do. One prominent group, Hindus for Human Rights, plays a leading role in speaking out against the violence occurring in India against religious minorities, and there are others like that.

Jacobsen: Within India, does the constitution mandate a secular government or state?

Mitchell: Yes, in writing, India is a secular nation, meaning it guarantees religious freedom and does not uphold any one particular religion as dominant in its law. However, India is unique because it allows religious groups considerable freedom and recognizes religion in law to some extent. For example, Indian Muslims and other religious minorities can govern certain affairs according to the laws of their religion. Marriage, divorce, and similar matters can be managed with Islamic courts, allowing Muslims to govern themselves according to Islamic law to some extent. The same applies to people of other religions.

India is secular, but not in the way the United States or many European countries are. In theory, people are allowed to practice their religion without state interference. However, Mr. Modi is trying to cut back on this, which is why we’ve seen efforts to ban Muslim women in schools from wearing the hijab. This would have been unquestionably allowed not only during the modern Indian Republic’s history but even before that, during the British colonial period and earlier when Muslims controlled India. The crackdown on religious freedom is a unique development because religious freedom has been commonplace in India for centuries.

Even when Muslims controlled India for 700 years, they governed the Muslim community according to Islamic law, but Christians were allowed to govern themselves according to Christian law, and Hindus according to Hindu law. Muslim rulers sometimes allowed Hindus to engage in conduct that Muslims would find incredibly objectionable, but that was their right as Hindus to follow their faith. Muslim governments protected religious freedom for them. This has been the story of India until very recently when it was under the Modi administration.

Jacobsen: Does the Hindutva movement exceed Modi, considering our democratic governance? People go through election cycles, and at some point, their terms end. Do you see this kind of rhetoric and violence continuing to the same degree after Modi’s government?

Mitchell: The Hindutva movement certainly predates Mr. Modi, though he has been a lifelong adherent and supporter. You can trace this movement back to the 1920s and 1930s, during the push to expel the British. Some people believed that India should be a solely Hindu country, dominated by Hindus and that Muslims and other minorities were invaders and not welcome. The RSS, a paramilitary group, took some inspiration from the Nazis in terms of their belief in supremacy and were impressed by what the Nazis were doing. This movement was responsible, in some ways, for the rhetoric that led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, an advocate of reconciliation and peace between Muslims and Hindus, who was murdered for that.

Fast forward decades, and the RSS movement redeveloped into a political party, the BJP, which is Mr. Modi’s party. It is a semi-sanitized version of the RSS but maintains the same ideology, many of the same goals, and many of the same people or their descendants. If Mr. Modi were to lose an election, and he did lose some seats in the most recent election, the movement would not necessarily go away. However, the benefit of his eventually leaving office would be that the movement would no longer control the levers of government and could no longer use governmental power to execute its worst goals. This means that if it wants to commit genocide, it would have to do so horizontally, person to person, rather than vertically, using governmental power. The movement does not end with Mr. Modi, but it is more dangerous when it controls the levers of power, including the military and, in some ways, the judiciary. This makes it far more dangerous than if it were not in power.

Jacobsen: Regarding the ideology of the RSS and its incorporation of some elements from the National Socialist ideology of the Germans, was there also an anti-Semitic flavour?

Mitchell: That I’m not sure of, but what I do know is that in modern times, the Indian government and followers of the Hindutva movement are very enthusiastically supportive of the Israeli government. The Hindutva movement hates Muslims first and foremost, and because most Palestinians are Muslims, the Indian government’s most extreme supporters enthusiastically support the horrific war crimes being committed against Palestinians. I do not know of any history of anti-Semitism in the modern BJP movement, and there aren’t many Indian Jews, so they wouldn’t be able to target them in any case. But beyond that, I don’t know.

We’d probably have to ask someone with more expertise, but I have not heard of that from the modern movement. Now, of course, if a movement is inspired by or sympathetic to Nazi Germany, then inherently, there’s anti-Semitism there, and that’s a problem and incredibly dangerous and disgusting. But, in the decades since then, I don’t know if they have had any dog whistles or references to that aspect of their history in terms of the anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany.

Jacobsen: Prime Minister Modi reiterated a call for a uniform civil code. Several religious leaders, tribal leaders, and some state officials have claimed that this is essentially a project to create a “Hindu Rashtra” or Hindu nation. What are some of the details around this?

Mitchell: I’m not too familiar with that part of it. In theory, a uniform legal code would make sense for many countries. In practice, in India, what everyone suspects Mr. Modi is trying to do is create a new system of law in which he can formalize what is favourable to him and his movement, get rid of existing legal precedents that allow religious minorities to function and flourish, and take India one step closer to being a one-party state dominated by the extremist Hindutva movement. So, no one should trust Mr. Modi to lead the creation of a uniform civil code because many people fear it would erase the rights of minorities and empower the government to endanger further Muslims and other religious groups who are not part of the dominant ideology in India.

Jacobsen: Are there particular areas of the country where we see spikes in violence more than others, like West Bengal, Bihar, Haryana, and Maharashtra? Are there certain areas where we should expect more violence based on the national ideology?

Mitchell: Muslims in many places in India live in concentrated areas where they are a dominant group, which acts as a shield and provides some protection because it’s hard for outsiders to come in and harm them. But it is also true that all over India, Muslims and others live as minorities in mostly Hindu areas. Most of them are still safe because most Hindus are not engaging in violence against their Indian Muslim neighbours. However, Muslims in areas where they are not a significant dominant or large presence in terms of numbers are at greater risk. In rural areas where the police may not have as much control, there have been more lynchings, like the so-called cow lynchings. Such incidents are unlikely to occur in major metropolitan cities for obvious reasons. However, in rural areas with less control, people can more quickly take justice into their own hands without being stopped or without a police force that wants to stop them. There’s greater danger there.

Jacobsen: What other organizations help provide a united front to the American government to say what is happening is wrong? 

Mitchell: We have status in the international community to do something. We can put pressure on the BJP, PM Modi, and Indian culture as a whole, to some degree, to right wrongs or at least correct the direction of wrongs against primarily Muslims and others affected by Hindutva violence.

Two major organizations in America leading the push to prevent discrimination and violence from escalating are Hindus for Human Rights and the Indian American Muslim Council, among many others. We must also recognize major secular groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They’ve played a major role in documenting and calling out the human rights abuses of the Indian government.

Those organizations are critical in spotlighting what’s happening and advocating for our government to change course, ensuring that what we see stops and doesn’t escalate into something far worse. 

Jacobsen: What is preventing the advocacy from getting out more? What are the roadblocks?

Mitchell: Every country in the world has what it views as its national interest, and sadly, sometimes, that national interest is indifferent to human suffering and life. It prioritizes the dollar as the bottom line, which means economic and financial success and military power. Because of India’s place in the world geographically, historically, politically, and economically, many Western governments are incredibly deferential to the Indian government. They want to ignore what Modi is doing because they want to maintain and strengthen economic and military ties with India. If that means ignoring Muslims being lynched, discrimination against women wearing hijabs, and discriminatory laws, they will do that because they want to benefit from the financial and military relationship with the Indian government.

The biggest roadblock to putting external pressure on Modi is the perceived economic interests of these governments. But this to them: if you believe in human rights, you should act accordingly. If you don’t believe what you’re saying and it’s just a talking point, then say that and stop pretending otherwise. Moreover, if India descends into civil war or genocide, it will be disastrous for your economic relationship with India. Even from an economic perspective, you should want people to live, work, worship, and function in peace without experiencing discrimination, much less a potential genocide.

There are very good reasons why governments around the world should pressure Modi to stop what he’s doing and rein in his extremist followers. If they don’t do that and continue to prop him up on the international stage, giving him a blank check to do what he wants without consequences, they will also be responsible for what happens.

Jacobsen: What are you primarily hearing from American Muslims of Indian descent who may not be getting into the mainstream media? Other than the obvious wrongness of the violence and the nationalization of political religion, what are some nuances that may not be coming to the surface? Maybe we can close on that note.

Mitchell: One of the concerns I hear from Indian American Muslims is not only about what’s happening to their relatives, friends, and their home country, India but also about their safety here in America. There was an incident in Canada where the Indian government was allegedly responsible for assassinating a dissident. This raises concerns about the reach and influence of the Indian government beyond its borders.

You’ve had numerous incidents of threats being made online against Indian Americans who speak out about what’s happening. That includes Indian American Hindus. The Indian government has a presence here in the United States, and in the Western world, so there’s deep concern among Indian Americans about the physical safety of the diaspora who speak out against what’s happening.

Beyond that, there is concern about Modi’s movement strengthening its lobbying power in the United States and gaining influence in a harmful way, similar to how the Israeli government has developed strong lobbying power, as have certain Middle Eastern governments and others. There is worry about the growth of this movement, its lobbying power, and its ability to pressure our politicians to support what is happening.

Jacobsen: How can people get involved through donations, expertise, or time?

Mitchell: I encourage all Americans to know that what happens overseas impacts us at home. They should ensure that our government does not enable bad things to happen. We’re not saying we want our government involved in everything overseas, but to the extent that our government has connections with foreign governments and is enabling them somehow, we need to make sure our government is pursuing just policies. This includes holding the Indian government accountable for the abuses it is allowing and making sure the Indian government does not expand those abuses into something even more horrific.

We encourage the American people to look up the Indian American Muslim Council, Hindus for Human Rights, and other groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to learn more about what’s happening in India. Also, check what their elected officials are saying or doing about it. If their elected officials are not involved, that’s fine. But if their elected officials are expressing support for the Modi government and building ties with it, they should be called out, and there should be a change in course.

Jacobsen: Excellent, Edward. Thank you very much for your time today.

Mitchell: Thank you, Scott. Appreciate it. Nice to meet you.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.