Modi / BJP policy (India)
India’s ruling BJP under PM Narendra Modi
A cluster of measures — a religion-conscious citizenship law, “infiltrator/termite” rhetoric, deadly Delhi riots, and punitive “bulldozer” demolitions — is widely documented as targeting Muslims, while the government frames each as immigration control, law-and-order, or anti-encroachment.
“Infiltrators are termites” rhetoric
2018–2019Genuinely contestedWhat happened
BJP president (later Home Minister) Amit Shah repeatedly described undocumented Bangladeshi migrants — framed in Muslim terms — as “infiltrators” who are “like termites,” pledging to strike them from voter rolls, while promising citizenship to Hindu and Buddhist refugees.
“Illegal infiltrators… like termites, they have eaten the future of the country.”
Under each definition
Insect dehumanization of a group read as Muslim is classic racialized anti-Muslim hostility.
The “infiltrator” frame targets perceived Muslimness (Bangladeshi Muslim migrants).
Dehumanizing anti-Muslim rhetoric is Islamophobic on the broadest test.
The target is framed as illegal migrants (not Islam-as-idea) but is widely coded Muslim; secular readers split on animus vs. immigration politics.
Who called it Islamophobic
Opposition parties, human-rights groups, and commentators who called the “termite” metaphor dehumanizing and communal.
The defense
Shah and the BJP framed it as targeting illegal immigration, not Muslims per se, tied to national security.
Outcome
The rhetoric became emblematic of the CAA-NRC period; Shah became Home Minister and piloted the CAA.
In their words
The illegal immigrants are like termites. They are eating the grain that should go to the poor, they are taking our jobs.
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) + NRC
Dec 2019Genuinely contestedWhat happened
Parliament passed the CAA, fast-tracking citizenship for non-Muslim irregular migrants (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians) from three Muslim-majority neighbors — explicitly excluding Muslims. Combined with a proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens, critics warned millions of Indian Muslims could face statelessness.
Under each definition
A citizenship regime that singles out Muslims for exclusion is institutional anti-Muslim discrimination.
The excluded category is defined by (non-)Muslimness.
State discrimination against Muslims is Islamophobic on the broadest test.
The CAA grants (not strips) citizenship and names religions rather than criticizing Islam; secular readers divide over animus vs. bounded refugee provision.
Who called it Islamophobic
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN experts, and protesters who called the CAA discriminatory for making religion a criterion for citizenship.
The defense
The government said the CAA only grants citizenship (takes none away) and is a humanitarian measure for persecuted minorities; it denied targeting Indian Muslims.
Outcome
Nationwide protests (2019–2020); the CAA rules were notified in March 2024. UN experts and rights groups continued to call it discriminatory.
In their words
The government’s adoption of the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019 led to weeks of peaceful protests across India.
Delhi 2020 riots
Feb 2020Broad consensusWhat happened
During anti-CAA protests, communal violence erupted in northeast Delhi. Hindu mobs armed with swords, sticks, and gasoline attacked Muslim neighborhoods, burning homes, shops, and mosques. Of 53 people killed, 40 were Muslim. Amnesty and HRW alleged Delhi police were at times complicit and later disproportionately prosecuted Muslim activists.
Under each definition
Mob violence disproportionately killing Muslims with alleged state complicity is anti-Muslim racism in action.
Victims were targeted as Muslims.
Anti-Muslim mass violence is Islamophobic on the broadest test.
Lethal violence against Muslims as people is exactly what the strict test covers.
Who called it Islamophobic
Amnesty International, HRW, the Delhi Minorities Commission, and opposition figures who said Muslims bore the brunt and police were biased.
The defense
Authorities framed the violence as two-sided communal rioting and defended police conduct and investigations as lawful.
Outcome
Rights groups documented biased investigations; Muslim activists were charged under anti-terror law, while cases against BJP-aligned instigators lagged.
In their words
Hindu mobs, armed with swords, sticks, and bottles filled with gasoline, targeted Muslims in several neighborhoods… Forty of the 53 people killed in the violence were Muslim.
“Bulldozer” demolitions
2022–2024Genuinely contestedWhat happened
Following communal violence and protests, several state governments demolished at least 128 properties — Muslim homes, businesses, and places of worship — often within days, using bulldozers, without due process. Amnesty found the demolitions were “instigated by senior political leaders,” concentrated in Muslim communities, and functioned as collective punishment.
“The Indian government’s de-facto policy of punitively demolishing Muslim properties… amounts to forced eviction and collective and arbitrary punishment under international law.”
Under each definition
State destruction of Muslim homes as collective punishment is institutional anti-Muslim racism.
Targeting is by (perceived) Muslim community membership.
State-sponsored anti-Muslim punishment is Islamophobic on the broadest test.
The “illegal encroachment” framing gives secular readers a facially non-religious rationale to weigh against Amnesty’s finding of selective targeting.
Who called it Islamophobic
Amnesty International and rights advocates who called “bulldozer justice” collective, extrajudicial punishment of Muslims.
The defense
State officials framed demolitions as routine action against “illegal” or “encroaching” construction, denying religious targeting.
Outcome
The Supreme Court of India (Nov 2024) mandated due process and compensation, curbing the practice.
In their words
The targeted demolitions were instigated by senior political leaders and government officials and impacted at least 617 people.
The verdicts above are how each framework would most likely treat this case — illustrative guidance, not official rulings. The frameworks diverge most on speech and ideas: the OIC “defamation of religion” lens and the secular/free-speech position often reach opposite conclusions on the same act. See the Definition tab for each framework’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.