‘Love jihad’ returns under the cloak of ‘anti-Romeo squad’

By Raksha Kumar


On January 28, BJP party president Amit Shah announced on national

television that his party would establish an ‘anti-Romeo squad’ to ‘protect’ girls

in Uttar Pradesh, provided his party is voted to power in the upcoming

assembly polls.


Shah’s claim brings back uneasy memories of the ‘love jihad’ controversy that

the BJP had evoked during its campaign in the state for the 2014 Lok Sabha

elections. By using the term ‘love jihad’, the party meant to allege that young

Muslim men were courting Hindu girls with the intent of converting them to



The interview was conducted by Network 18 Group Editor-in-Chief Rahul Joshi, who failed to raise significant counter-questions.


My discomfort with the statement is manifold. First, the misplaced authority

with which Shah assumes the responsibility of ‘protecting’ girls in the state.

While women need protection from miscreants, the issue shouldn’t be

addressed along religious lines.


Also, the focus of the state should be on ensuring that criminals do not

overstep their bounds, rather than solely focusing on protecting women. Such

a lopsided focus will curb women’s freedoms instead.


Second, ‘anti-Romeo squad’ has the ring of a vigilante group to it. Why should

the police not be responsible for women’s safety – why the need for a separate

entity? According to NCRB data from 2015, Uttar Pradesh tops the list when it

comes to crimes against women. Clearly, the men in the state need more



The party swept the Lok Sabha polls in the state in 2014. If it wins the assembly

elections, there is a danger of religious tensions being stoked. In Uttar Pradesh,

which has an 18% Muslim population, ‘love jihad’ is a potentially incendiary

issue. In such scenarios, women and their freedoms are the first to be affected.

Lastly, I am uneasy about the fact that Shakespeare’s tragi-romantic hero is

being evoked by a politician to refer to ruffians. There is a significant difference

between love and deception (and/or violence). But that is a discussion for

another day.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s