Police profiling of mosques as crime sites is an attempt to strip Muslims of faith: Mehbooba Mufti

The recent allegations by PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti regarding the police profiling of mosques in Jammu and Kashmir, and the reported summoning of Imams and caretakers to submit extensive personal data, have ignited a significant debate. This issue is not merely a local administrative matter but touches upon fundamental aspects of governance, civil liberties, and the delicate socio-political fabric of the Union Territory of J&K, with broader implications for India's secular ethos and internal security.

**1. Background Context:** Jammu and Kashmir has a complex history marked by conflict, militancy, and significant political changes. A pivotal moment was the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A on August 5, 2019, which revoked J&K's special status and reorganized the erstwhile state into two Union Territories: J&K and Ladakh. This move was followed by a period of enhanced security measures, communication blackouts, and detention of political leaders. The region remains under tight security scrutiny due to ongoing counter-insurgency operations and the persistent threat of terrorism. In this environment, the administration often cites national security concerns to justify various actions. There have been previous instances of authorities attempting to gather data on religious institutions or individuals, often framed as measures to combat radicalization or monitor potential law and order situations.

**2. What Happened:** According to reports, the J&K police are allegedly profiling mosques, and Imams and caretakers are being summoned to police stations to provide detailed personal information. This data collection reportedly includes extensive personal details, potentially extending beyond what might be considered routine administrative or security checks. Mehbooba Mufti, a prominent political figure in J&K, condemned this action, stating it is an attempt to 'strip Muslims of their faith' and instill fear among worshippers. The National Conference (NC), another significant regional party, corroborated the claims, stating that the order for this police verification of mosques originated from the Lieutenant Governor's (L-G) office. The L-G's administration, however, has not officially confirmed or denied such a specific order, or clarified its rationale if it exists.

**3. Key Stakeholders Involved:**

* **Jammu and Kashmir Administration/L-G's Office:** As the executive authority in the Union Territory, it is the primary decision-maker and implementer of policies. Its actions are under scrutiny, particularly concerning human rights and civil liberties.

* **Jammu and Kashmir Police:** The agency on the ground, tasked with implementing the alleged order and conducting the verification process. They operate under the direct control of the UT administration.

* **Mehbooba Mufti (PDP) and National Conference (NC):** These mainstream regional political parties are vocal critics of the administration's actions, advocating for the rights of the local population and expressing concerns about alienation and trust deficit.

* **Muslim Community in J&K:** Imams, caretakers, and worshippers are directly affected. They are the subjects of this profiling, and their sense of security, religious freedom, and trust in the administration are at stake.

* **Central Government:** As the ultimate authority overseeing Union Territories, the central government's policies and directives significantly influence the J&K administration's actions.

**4. Why This Matters for India:** This incident has profound implications for India. Firstly, it raises serious questions about **fundamental rights**. The alleged profiling could be seen as a violation of **Article 25** (Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion), **Article 21** (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty, which includes the Right to Privacy as interpreted by the Supreme Court), and **Article 14** and **15** (Equality before law and Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth). Singling out religious institutions of a specific community for extensive data collection can be perceived as discriminatory.

Secondly, it impacts **secularism**, a foundational pillar of the Indian Constitution. If state actions are seen to target one religious community, it erodes the principle of religious neutrality and fosters communal disharmony. Thirdly, it exacerbates the already fragile **political stability and trust deficit in J&K**. Such actions can further alienate the local population, making it harder to foster mainstream political participation and counter radicalization effectively. It fuels narratives of oppression and discrimination, potentially undermining efforts to bring peace and normalcy to the region. Lastly, it affects India's **international image**, particularly concerning human rights and religious freedom.

**5. Historical Context:** The monitoring of religious institutions is not new in conflict zones globally, often justified by security concerns. In J&K, where religious institutions, particularly mosques, have historically played a crucial role in community life and, at times, in political mobilization (both peaceful and otherwise), surveillance has been a recurring theme. The challenge lies in balancing legitimate security concerns with constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and privacy. Post-Article 370 abrogation, the administration has been keen on integrating J&K more fully into the Indian mainstream, often through stringent security and administrative measures. This latest move can be viewed in that broader context.

**6. Future Implications:** The immediate future may see continued political condemnation and potentially legal challenges if affected individuals or groups approach the courts. This issue could become a significant point of contention in any future elections in J&K, further polarizing the electorate. The long-term implications include a deepening of the trust deficit between the administration and segments of the population, potentially hindering genuine peace-building efforts. It also sets a precedent for how security concerns might override fundamental rights, raising questions about the scope of state surveillance and data collection in a democratic society. A transparent clarification from the J&K administration regarding the alleged order, its purpose, and its legal basis would be crucial to allay fears and restore confidence.