There are moments in history when silence is interpreted not as prudence, but as acquiescence. The ongoing treatment of religious minorities in India is one such moment.
For several years, international human rights organizations, academics, diplomats, journalists, and faith leaders have documented a deteriorating climate for Muslims and Christians in India. Reports describe mosque demolitions, restrictions affecting religious expression, mob violence, the use of anti-conversion laws against Christian communities, and growing concerns over legislation affecting Muslim religious endowments (waqf properties). The Indian government, for its part, maintains that its actions are directed at enforcing the law, removing illegal encroachments, combating unlawful conversions, and ensuring equal application of legal standards. These competing narratives deserve careful examination, but they also demand moral engagement rather than silence.
India’s constitutional identity has long rested on the promise of a secular democracy in which people of every faith could live as equal citizens. That vision is increasingly being questioned by observers across the world.
Among the most controversial developments are demolition drives targeting structures alleged to have been built illegally. Critics argue that Muslim homes, businesses, and places of worship have been disproportionately affected and that many demolitions have proceeded without adequate due process. Government officials reject accusations of discrimination, insisting that these are lawful enforcement actions against unauthorized structures. Any comparison with Israel’s demolition drive of Palestinian and Lebanese structures would seem valid.
Equally contentious are changes affecting waqf administration. Critics fear that reforms may weaken the protection of Muslim religious and charitable assets, while supporters argue they introduce transparency and accountability. Whatever one’s legal interpretation, such measures inevitably affect the confidence of a religious minority regarding the security of its institutions.
Christians have likewise reported increasing hostility in several regions. Human rights advocates have documented incidents involving attacks on churches, disruption of worship services, intimidation of clergy, and violence allegedly carried out under the pretext of enforcing anti-conversion laws. Many communities have also reported social exclusion and obstacles to conducting basic religious practices, including burials.
These developments have not escaped international scrutiny. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and numerous United Nations Special Rapporteurs have repeatedly expressed concern regarding religious freedom, due process, and the protection of minority rights in India. Former U.S. President Barack Obama also cautioned that India’s long-term unity depends upon protecting the rights of its religious minorities, warning that failure to do so risks “pulling apart” the social fabric of one of the world’s most diverse democracies.
Understanding the present also requires understanding the ideological currents that shape it.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded in 1925, serves as the ideological parent organization of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Historians have noted that some early RSS leaders expressed admiration for aspects of European nationalist movements of the 1930s and 1940s, including writings that referenced ethnic homogeneity. Contemporary RSS leaders reject comparisons with fascism and describe the organization as a cultural nationalist movement committed to Indian civilization. Nevertheless, many scholars continue to debate the influence of majoritarian ideology on contemporary politics, particularly regarding minorities.
Organizations associated with the broader Sangh Parivar, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), have frequently been linked by critics to campaigns promoting aggressive religious nationalism. Supporters argue these groups defend Hindu interests, while critics contend that their rhetoric has contributed to an atmosphere in which religious minorities experience heightened insecurity.
This debate is not merely an internal Indian matter.
In an interconnected digital world, narratives rarely remain confined within national borders. Anti-Muslim misinformation, inflammatory religious content, and highly coordinated propaganda circulate rapidly across social media platforms. Guyana has not been immune. Local social media increasingly reflects imported narratives that inflame religious tensions, often drawing from overseas ideological ecosystems. Similar dynamics have emerged in many plural societies, demonstrating how digital extremism can cross borders far more easily than governments can regulate it.
Guyana’s greatest strength has always been its remarkable religious and ethnic diversity. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and people of other faiths have generally found ways to coexist despite our political and cultural differences. That harmony should never be taken for granted.
Precisely because Guyana values religious coexistence, our religious organizations have an important moral responsibility. Speaking against injustice abroad does not diminish national unity at home. On the contrary, principled consistency strengthens it.
This brings me to the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG) and the Guyana Islamic Trust (GIT).
Both organizations have long spoken on issues affecting Muslims locally and internationally. Their voices carry influence beyond the Muslim community. Yet many Guyanese Muslims perceive a prolonged silence regarding the documented challenges confronting Muslims and Christians in India. Whether that silence reflects diplomatic caution, strategic restraint, or a desire to preserve interfaith harmony, it risks being interpreted as indifference.
Speaking out need not mean embracing inflammatory rhetoric or partisan politics. It does not require hostility toward India, a country with a rich civilization, vibrant democracy, and countless citizens, including many Hindus, who themselves advocate vigorously for pluralism, constitutional rights, and religious freedom. Indeed, many of the strongest voices defending India’s secular ideals are Indians themselves.
Rather, speaking out means affirming universal principles: that every mosque, church, temple, synagogue, or other place of worship deserves legal protection; that no citizen should fear discrimination because of religious identity; that due process must be respected; and that violence, intimidation, and collective punishment have no place in a constitutional democracy.
Human rights lose their moral force when they are defended selectively. If Muslims expect solidarity when they are persecuted, they must also stand for Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, and every other community facing injustice. Likewise, Christians who defend persecuted believers should also defend Muslims whose rights are threatened. Religious freedom is indivisible.
The Qur’an commands Muslims to “stand firmly for justice, as witnesses for God, even against yourselves, your parents, or your relatives” (Qur’an 4:135). Justice in Islam is not conditional upon geography, ethnicity, or political convenience. It is a universal obligation.
The question before Guyana’s Islamic leadership is therefore not whether India is a friend or an ally, nor whether criticism is politically comfortable. The question is whether moral leadership requires speaking when fundamental freedoms appear to be under strain.
History has consistently judged institutions not only by what they opposed, but also by what they chose to ignore.
I therefore respectfully call upon the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG) and the Guyana Islamic Trust (GIT) to break their silence. Issue a principled statement supporting religious freedom, constitutional equality, and the protection of all minorities in India: Muslims, Christians, and every vulnerable community. Condemn hatred wherever it arises, reject imported extremism that threatens Guyana’s social cohesion, and reaffirm that justice is a universal value.
The Qur’an itself provides a powerful framework for this responsibility. In Surah Al-Hajj, Allah reminds humanity:
“Had Allah not repelled the aggression of some people by means of others, destruction would surely have claimed monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s Name is often mentioned. Allah will certainly help those who stand up for Him. Allah is truly All-Powerful, Almighty” (Qur’an 22:40).
Remarkably, the verse does not speak only of mosques. It explicitly includes monasteries, churches, and synagogues, underscoring Islam’s recognition that the protection of religious worship and religious communities is a sacred trust. The defense of faith is not confined to defending one’s own community; it extends to safeguarding the rights and dignity of all people to worship God freely and without fear.
For Muslims, therefore, speaking against the destruction of places of worship, the erosion of religious freedoms, and the persecution of minorities is not merely a political act, it is a Qur’anic obligation rooted in justice and moral courage.
Silence may preserve comfort for a season.
But principled voices preserve history, and, as the Qur’an teaches, they also help preserve the sanctity of every house in which the name of God is remembered.
I submitted letters to the editors of the Guyana Chronicle, Kaieteur News, Stabroek News, and Guyana Times, but disappointingly, none of them has published my letter on the issue.
