The demolition of houses and buildings belonging to protesters in Uttar Pradesh is nothing but retaliation and mass punishment targeting Muslims. The destruction of the residence of Javed Mohammad, a Welfare Party of India activist and businessman in Prayagraj, soon after he was identified by the police as an alleged conspirator behind the violence during a protest, shows this. The legitimacy attached to the Prayagraj Development Authority’s claim of vacating an illegal building has been blown away by the fact that the demolition notice was addressed to Mr. Mohammad and not to his wife, who owns the property. The allegation of the family cannot be dismissed that the notice was given a day before the demolition and was returned on May 10. It is well known that removal of encroachments or illegal constructions cannot happen without due process, including giving the owner or occupier an opportunity to be heard and to find alternative housing under an existing rehabilitation plan. Officials claimed that Mr Mohammed was served a notice based on local inquiries, indicating that he was merely following orders to demolish the building and did not bother to verify ownership records before taking action. . Earlier, soon after witnessing violence in Kanpur, the development authority of the city demolished a commercial building allegedly belonging to one of the accused in the case.
The latest demolition pertains to the protests that took place in the wake of controversial remarks made by now-suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma on Prophet. While the Center has sought to clarify to Islamic countries that it does not disrespect any religion, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath wants to send a message that he will not protest on the issue. It is now a well-established pattern that buildings whose names are linked to riots or protests, with or without evidence, are selected for demolition. For political purposes, it is presented as stern action against anti-social elements for rioting, and for legal purposes it is portrayed as removal of illegal constructions. It is unfortunate, and a defining feature of these complex times, that some states take so much pride in demolishing buildings that they want bulldozers to symbolize their perceived resolve to keep minorities under control. The Supreme Court has ordered status quo to be maintained with respect to the demolition in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. Six former judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and six senior advocates have appealed to the Supreme Court suo moto Cognizance of destruction. Whether the court acts or not, there is no doubt that demolition is an abuse of power, a challenge to the rule of law and is inherently illegal due to lack of due process or proportionality.
Bulldozers in the open: Hindu editorial on demolition of property of Muslim activists
The demolition of houses and buildings belonging to protesters in Uttar Pradesh is nothing but retaliation and mass punishment targeting Muslims. The destruction of the residence of Javed Mohammad, a Welfare Party of India activist and businessman in Prayagraj, soon after he was identified by the police as an alleged conspirator behind the violence during a protest, shows this. The legitimacy attached to the Prayagraj Development Authority’s claim of vacating an illegal building has been blown away by the fact that the demolition notice was addressed to Mr. Mohammad and not to his wife, who owns the property. The allegation of the family cannot be dismissed that the notice was given a day before the demolition and was returned on May 10. It is well known that removal of encroachments or illegal constructions cannot happen without due process, including giving the owner or occupier an opportunity to be heard and to find alternative housing under an existing rehabilitation plan. Officials claimed that Mr Mohammed was served a notice based on local inquiries, indicating that he was merely following orders to demolish the building and did not bother to verify ownership records before taking action. . Earlier, soon after witnessing violence in Kanpur, the development authority of the city demolished a commercial building allegedly belonging to one of the accused in the case.
The latest demolition pertains to the protests that took place in the wake of controversial remarks made by now-suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma on Prophet. While the Center has sought to clarify to Islamic countries that it does not disrespect any religion, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath wants to send a message that he will not protest on the issue. It is now a well-established pattern that buildings whose names are linked to riots or protests, with or without evidence, are selected for demolition. For political purposes, it is presented as stern action against anti-social elements for rioting, and for legal purposes it is portrayed as removal of illegal constructions. It is unfortunate, and a defining feature of these complex times, that some states take so much pride in demolishing buildings that they want bulldozers to symbolize their perceived resolve to keep minorities under control. The Supreme Court has ordered status quo to be maintained with respect to the demolition in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. Six former judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and six senior advocates have appealed to the Supreme Court suo moto Cognizance of destruction. Whether the court acts or not, there is no doubt that demolition is an abuse of power, a challenge to the rule of law and is inherently illegal due to lack of due process or proportionality.