Sanjauli mosque row rooted in anti-minority sentiment

AS I walked through Shimla one morning, a sanitation worker, Vinod (name changed), remarked, “Inn Mullon ne Shimla mein gandh daal rakha hai,” (Muslims are causing a nuisance in Shimla). His comment reflected the widespread hatred fuelled by the controversy over the Sanjauli mosque in the town. He claimed that the mosque was illegally built. Ironically, Vinod’s house is on government forest land, a fact I was well aware of from my time as deputy mayor when policies were introduced to provide basic utilities to residents like him. When I asked him about the legality of his house compared to the mosque, he fell silent. This highlights that the issue is not just about legality but also has a strong religious undercurrent, and thus a different narrative is being built.

Across Indian cities, the distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ is often blurred. Legality isn’t just about land ownership but also about compliance with sanctioned building plans. Any settlement on government land is illegal unless legalised by special laws passed by the government. Even if a structure is built on privately owned land, it may still be illegal if it exceeds building plan limits.

Government authorities, however, possess vast powers to convert illegal sites or structures into legal ones. Examples include the new Parliament building in New Delhi, where a designated district land use was changed and the building was constructed on it, and the entire Central Vista project. In Shimla, similar transformations include the state secretariat, the HP High Court and the lawyers’ chambers there, Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital’s 14-storey building and a building of a Hindu right-wing organisation at Nabha.

Shimla’s relationship with legality is complex. Built by the British, the town has one of the oldest municipalities in India, dating back to 1851. Over time, numerous land-use changes have occurred. While several areas merged into the municipal corporation are governed by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1979, other areas in old Shimla still operated under the Interim Development Plan till the Shimla Development Plan was finalised recently. Despite regularisation drives, an estimated 15,000 houses in Shimla remain classified as illegal.

Religious buildings, particularly Hindu temples (mandirs), gurdwaras and mosques, are often found violating the law of the land. The Sanjauli mosque stands on land owned by the Waqf Board, but additional floors were constructed without authorisation. The famous Ram Temple in Shimla stands over 140 ft tall, with no regularisation certificate and an encroachment on municipal land.

Other religious buildings face similar issues. The Summer Hill temple, where 20 people were killed in a landslide in 2023, is built on forest land without permission. The bus stand gurdwara and the temple next to Dhalli police station also lack the necessary approvals; in fact, the temple is on government land. The temple between Tutikandi bus stand and crossing is likewise on forest land, violating numerous laws. This pattern underscores how even religious spaces fall in the ambiguous zone of legality.

In her seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism, political philosopher Hannah Arendt noted, “Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism. The masses have to be won by propaganda.” This is relevant to India today, where both elites and mobs have justified attacks on minorities.

The controversy over the Sanjauli mosque is just one of the many recent incidents rooted in anti-minority sentiment, and part of the totalitarian design. A Netflix series, Leila, shows a dystopian future where Hindutva extremism merges with technology to segregate society.

The definition of what is legal or illegal is relative. Anything constructed by minorities is often labelled illegal. A study by students from the School of Planning and Architecture in Delhi, which I guided, examined how the State forced Muslims into ghettos over the last century. It found that Muslims were pushed into shanty towns and slums, occupying whatever land was available.

This isn’t unique to Muslims — large sections of the urban working class have also been relegated to slums due to exclusive city planning. However, under BJP rule since 2014, the situation has worsened, particularly for Muslims.

A striking example comes from a 1977 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) pamphlet on the Delhi Squatters Resettlement Project: “The urban poor live in dilapidated settlements that cling precariously to hillsides, line smelly canals, block roadsides, or crowd inner-city alleys. In their tattered misery, they mock the aspiration of all those who yearn to make their cities sophisticated and modern.” The pamphlet clearly dehumanised the urban poor, especially migrants.

Archives of the Delhi Municipal Corporation’s Slum Development Department mention the Turkman Gate massacre during the Emergency, when Muslims were targeted under the guise of a slum clearance drive and a sterilisation campaign. Jagmohan, then Vice-Chairman of the DDA, was allegedly asked whether displaced Muslims could be resettled in a new colony. His chilling response was, “Do you think we are mad to destroy one Pakistan to create another?” This mindset persists today, particularly against the Muslim community.

In her book Accumulation by Segregation: Muslim Localities in Delhi, Ghazala Jamil argues that Muslim ghettoisation is driven by neoliberal development policies and targeted persecution. Anything a Muslim builds is labelled illegal, and this justifies its demolition by the State. It’s not just the physical structures that are being targeted — the goal is to attack the very idea of Muslim asset creation.

Rising Islamophobia, encounters with legal prohibitions, and a deepening sense of insecurity have led many Muslims to seek refuge in ghettos. This self-segregation further alienates them from urban development processes, exactly what the Hindutva forces desire. A few days ago, the Muslim community in Shimla offered to raze unauthorised portions of the Sanjauli mosque. Will such a proposal ever be made by the committees of temples, some of which are built on government land?

Unfortunately, this is the narrative behind the mobilisation at Sanjauli and other places.