Police in the western Indian state of Gujarat have begun implementing a controversial anti-radicalisation programme, raising concerns among civil rights groups that the policy is designed to enable discrimination specifically against Muslims.
The first known implementation has taken place in Jamnagar district, where Police Sub-Inspector M.V. Modhwadia has been appointed to head the local ARC – the newly created Anti-Radicalisation Cells – under the supervision of Superintendent of Police Dr Ravi Mohan Saini.
The move follows a confidential Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), issued by Gujarat’s State Intelligence Bureau on June 19, directing every district and police commissionerate to establish ARC’s and submit monthly reports on their activities.
The Gujarati-language document, marked “Secret”, surfaced on social media earlier this month, offering the first detailed look at how the state intends to identify and monitor people it considers “vulnerable to radicalisation.”
According to the SOP, police are instructed to monitor social media platforms, encrypted messaging applications, online forums and local intelligence networks. Officers are also directed to keep watch on organisations and individuals believed to promote “radical ideas” and to monitor visits by people considered to hold such views.
Defining radicalisation
The document defines radicalisation as a process in which an individual adopts ideas regarded as “anti-national”, threatens India’s unity and integrity, attempts to influence others to adopt similar beliefs, or promotes the view that only one religion is true while others are false.
Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest news and updates from around the Muslim world!
However, experts who have studied the issue have complained of an obsessive focus on religious Islamic behaviours as examples of radicalisation while extremist behaviour common among Hindu groups is largely ignored.
According to a journalists reporting on the story for The Wire, the exact words of the notice read: “a radicalised person refers to an individual affecting law and order in the State who, driven by extremist (‘kattarpant’) ideologies, engages in anti-national activities to harm the unity and integrity of the nation, creates an atmosphere of fear among the people, and try to manipulate a sane/rational person to get them to convert their religion.”
Further, the The Wire alleges examples which the SOP lists as examples of radicalisation: “Suddenly keeping a beard, wearing a niqab, frequent use of Arabic words, reducing contact with friends and family, expressing intense protest/resentment against events happening to the Muslim community globally, praising terrorists, or showing a change in behaviour after traveling abroad (e.g., Afghanistan, Middle East).”
It says such ideas may spread through television, newspapers, radio, magazines, speeches, public meetings and digital platforms.
Other examples listed include social isolation, reduced contact with family and friends, frequent use of encrypted communication services, expressing strong reactions to incidents involving Muslim communities around the world, and praising proscribed armed groups.
Digital indicators include using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), encrypted messaging applications such as Signal and Element, participating in Telegram groups described as extremist, circulating chants including some Islamic nasheeds, and using cryptocurrency without an apparent source of income and communicating with people in Afghanistan through encrypted applications and producing large numbers of videos.
At community level, police are instructed to pay attention to people who regularly associate with individuals labelled as radical, withdraw from organised social activities, leave education or employment, or frequently visit people identified as “radical preachers.”
The document does not explain how officers should distinguish between constitutionally protected religious expression, legitimate use of privacy tools such as VPNs and encrypted messaging services, and conduct that amounts to criminal activity.
Reaction and backlash
Shabnam Hashmi, a prominent civil rights activist, said the framework effectively places routine expressions of Muslim identity under suspicion.
“Under the guise of national security, the Gujarat government is institutionalising communal profiling and weaponising the state machinery to criminalise ordinary expressions of religious and cultural identity.”
Hashmi argued that the document blurs the line between legitimate policing and surveillance of constitutionally protected freedoms.
“Practices such as keeping a beard, wearing a niqab, using common Arabic greetings or performing itikaf during Ramadan are effectively transformed into indicators of radicalisation. This amounts to state-sponsored profiling of an entire community,” she said.
She also warned that people expressing concern over events affecting Muslims globally or choosing religious commitments over education or employment could be subjected to police attention despite those actions being protected under India’s Constitution.
Hashmi further expressed concern over the SOP’s references to coordination with specialised police units and prison authorities, saying broad and subjective indicators could later be used to justify prosecutions under stringent security laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), India’s principal anti-terror legislation.
Mujahid Nafees, convener of the Minority Coordination Committee (MCC), said the organisation had already submitted a representation to the Gujarat government demanding the SOP be withdrawn.
“This is only being done to target Muslims,” he told Maktoob. “The most alarming part is the open-ended use of terms like ‘radical’ and ‘radical organisations’, which can easily be manipulated to persecute an already criminalised Muslim community.”
He said the organisation would approach the Gujarat High Court if the state government failed to respond favourably.
The Anti-Radicalisation Cells were first promised by the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during the 2022 Gujarat Assembly election campaign.
While unveiling the party’s election manifesto in Gandhinagar, BJP president J.P. Nadda said the cells would identify and eliminate threats posed by “anti-national” elements, sleeper cells, terrorist organisations and anti-India forces. The BJP have long been accused of perusing a Hindu nationalist agenda which promotes anti-Muslim hatred as a means of aiding the cause of setting India up as a Hindu rashtra.
The recent rollout of the ARC network appears to be the fulfilment of that election pledge, though its implementation has now sparked a debate over the balance between national security measures and constitutional protections for privacy, religious freedom and equality before the law in India.
