A major political row erupted on Saturday after Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) chief Maulana Mahmood Madani made strong remarks alleging “organised efforts” to establish the supremacy of one group in India, along with pointed comments on the judiciary, the Babri Masjid verdict, Waqf laws and the national song Vande Mataram. His statements, delivered at a JUH governing body meeting in Bhopal, triggered a sharp response from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which criticised his assertions as divisive and urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of his comments targeting the judiciary.

Madani, one of the most prominent Muslim clerics and a leading voice in Islamic organisations in India, spoke at length about what he described as systemic attempts to marginalise minorities. According to him, “organised efforts are being made to establish the supremacy of a particular group,” carried out through actions such as bulldozer demolitions, mob lynching incidents, economic boycotts, weakening of Muslim Waqf institutions and negative campaigns against madrassas and Islamic reforms. He argued that these developments were part of a broader strategy to leave certain communities “legally helpless, socially isolated and economically disgraced.”

Elaborating on these issues, Madani said that Muslims in particular were being subjected to defamation, deprivation and targeted hostility. He claimed that practices such as selective demolitions, vigilante violence and campaigns against Waqf properties reflected deeper political motives. He emphasised that religious identity was being portrayed as unnecessary or undesirable, creating an atmosphere where minority existence itself appeared to be under strain. According to him, these actions were not isolated but part of a coordinated narrative to push certain groups into a corner economically, socially and politically.

One of the most controversial statements he made pertained to the judiciary. Madani claimed that public perception of courts being under government pressure had grown significantly in recent years, citing the Babri Masjid verdict as well as other rulings that, according to him, had eroded confidence in judicial independence. In a rare direct criticism of the Supreme Court, he said that the apex court “will remain to be called Supreme till the time it sticks to its duty,” adding that if it failed to adhere to constitutional principles, it “does not deserve to be called supreme.” Such remarks drew immediate attention, as direct criticism of judicial functioning by prominent religious or political leaders often triggers institutional and political reactions.

Madani also expressed strong disapproval of recent legislative changes pertaining to Waqf properties. He described Waqf as “the inheritance of our ancestors,” asserting that attempts to interfere in its functioning were unacceptable. He argued that the new law brought by the government had caused damage to both the ideals and operational framework of Waqf institutions. The JUH, he said, had opposed the legislation in the Joint Parliamentary Committee and would continue to resist efforts that, according to them, interfered with religious activities. He vowed that the struggle against such policies would continue “till the last breath,” a phrase the BJP later objected to on grounds that it invoked the concept of jihad.

The BJP reacted strongly to Madani’s statements, accusing him of pushing a divisive agenda. BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra criticised him for his remarks on Vande Mataram, saying that the national song was not linked to any particular religion but represented the essence of India’s motherland, for which countless individuals had sacrificed their lives. Patra noted that the nation was celebrating the 150th anniversary of Vande Mataram, written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1875 and given national song status in 1950. He asserted that speaking against Vande Mataram and instigating people amounted to encouraging divisive forces. He called Madani’s comments part of a larger “divisive policy” and demanded strong condemnation.

Patra also criticised Madani’s use of the word “jihad,” calling it irresponsible and provocative. According to Patra, such terminology went against the spirit of inclusive development embodied in the slogan “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas and Sabka Prayas.” He added that national leaders should refrain from using language that could create social tension or sharpen divisions among communities.

On the issue of the judiciary, Patra urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of Madani’s statements, arguing that they undermined public trust in judicial impartiality. He stressed that the court did not take religion into account while deciding cases and that casting aspersions on its independence was dangerous for democratic institutions. Patra emphasised that remarks suggesting courts were acting under government influence could weaken respect for the judiciary and damage the faith of citizens in the constitutional system.

The controversy surrounding Madani’s remarks reflects a wider and ongoing political debate about religious freedom, minority rights and the role of state institutions in India. His statements tapped into longstanding concerns within sections of the Muslim community regarding safety, representation and property rights, particularly concerning Waqf lands. At the same time, the BJP’s sharp reaction underscored the party’s insistence that national symbols such as Vande Mataram must be respected, and that criticism of state institutions like the judiciary should not cross constitutional boundaries.

Madani’s assertion that the government was interfering in religious affairs through laws and administrative actions resonated with JUH’s broader position on issues like madrassa regulation, Waqf reforms and minority rights. The organisation has historically opposed what it considers state encroachment on religious institutions. His criticism of “negative campaigns” against madrassas and reforms was in line with JUH’s longstanding view that educational and religious institutions must remain free from political targeting.

However, the BJP rejected these claims, framing Madani’s statements as part of a pattern of politicising religious issues. For the BJP, Madani’s speech represented an attempt to generate fear and division by alleging systemic persecution, while ignoring the government’s claims of development, economic upliftment and equal treatment for all citizens.

The political storm triggered by these remarks is likely to continue, especially with the BJP’s call for Supreme Court intervention and the sensitivity surrounding issues of religious identity, judicial independence and national symbols. At a time when national discourse is highly polarised, Madani’s comments and the subsequent reactions highlight the ongoing contestation over how religious, judicial and cultural narratives should be shaped in contemporary India.