‘I Love Muhammad ﷺ’ Protests Spark Calls for Tougher Blasphemy Law

– Mohd. Naushad Khan

In recent weeks, India has witnessed a surge of controversy, legal actions, and protests connected to the slogan “I Love Muhammad,” placed on banners during Muslim religious processions. What began as a local dispute in Kanpur has rapidly ballooned into a nationwide debate touching on religious freedom, law and order, and demands for stronger legal protections for the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the push for stricter blasphemy type legislation in India.

The spark was lit during a Milad-un-Nabi procession in Kanpur, UP, when a banner bearing the words “I Love Muhammad” was displayed. Some Hindu groups alleged this constituted the introduction of a “new custom,” which they claimed was impermissible under local norms or administrative rules. Police action followed: FIRs were filed against several people, and what had begun as a local issue spread to other districts.

What followed were processions, protests and more banners in other areas, with authorities registering FIRs in multiple districts not only in UP but also in Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and elsewhere. Law enforcement agencies are said to be using various methods, including facial recognition and other surveillance means, to identify and charge participants.

According to a recent report by the APCR, as of September 23: 21 FIRs filed, 1,324 Muslims booked/accused, and 38 persons arrested. Many FIRs list numerous accused, some unidentified, making arrests a gradual process.

Many Muslim members and organisations argue that existing legal provisions for “outraging religious feelings” or for promoting enmity between religious groups are inadequate, poorly enforced, or unevenly applied.

The slogans “I Love Muhammad” have become symbolic of asserting respect for the Prophet and safeguarding the community’s dignity. In this context, the demand is that the law more forcefully penalise speech or actions judged to insult or defame the Prophet.

Civil society groups concerned about communal harmony argue that absence of stronger deterrents emboldens provocations or actions that hurt religious sentiments; they demand clearer laws specifically defining blasphemy or insulting the Prophet so that both the boundaries and penalties are unambiguous.

Justice-loving people make the following demands:

1. Statutory Blasphemy Law: Instead of relying on general IPC sections (e.g. 153A, 295A), there are calls for a distinct, comprehensive law that defines and penalises blasphemy in relation to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, religious symbols, scriptures, etc.
2. Higher Penalties and Faster Justice: Harsher punishments, including possibly incarceration, fines, or other penalties, with faster trial processes to deter repeated incidents.
3. Clarity in Definition: Clear guidelines on what constitutes insult, mockery, irreverence, etc., to prevent arbitrary application.
4. Protection for Religious Processions: Ensuring that religious expressions during processions, decorations, banners, etc. are legally safeguarded, as long as they do not incite violence or hatred.
5. Prevention of Mob Vigilantism: Measures to ensure enforcement agencies respond impartially, protect accused’s rights, prevent extrajudicial action by mobs or community members.

India does not currently have a law explicitly called a “blasphemy law.” However, several provisions of the IPC are often used in these contexts:

• Section 295A IPC (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) is the most cited when it comes to hurting religious sentiment.
• Section 153A IPC (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.)
• Other provisions like those against hate speech, public order offences, or criminal trespass, etc. are invoked depending on circumstances.

The demand now is to either strengthen these provisions, make them more specific, or enact new ones that remove ambiguities and ensure stronger protection for certain religious sentiments.

• Kanpur: Starting point of the “I Love Muhammad” banner controversy. FIRs filed, protests in multiple districts followed.
• Kashipur, Uttarakhand: A procession turned violent (according to police), allegations of protesters vandalising property, and arrests made (including named individuals). Use of facial recognition, video surveillance mentioned.
• Other states (Gujarat, Maharashtra) have cases with far fewer people booked or arrested but contributing to the sense of a spreading trend and now very recently in Bareilly.

Why the Demand for Stricter Laws Escalating

There are several reasons:

• Perception of threat to religious dignity: Many Muslims in India feel that current laws do not sufficiently preserve reverence for Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and that criticism or mockery goes unpunished.
• Precedents of hurt sentiments: Past incidents – speech, posts, remarks attributed to individuals – fuel demands that the legal framework respond more swiftly.
• Social media proliferation: With rapid spread of content, even old or marginal remarks can go viral, leading to public outrage and demands for action. Supporters thus argue preventive or clearer liability is needed.
• Political environment: As communal tensions are often high, there can be pressure from both religious communities and political actors to appear “protective” of religious identities. In such a setting, calls for stricter laws can gain traction.

The majority of FIRs and bookings related to “I Love Muhammad” banners or slogans have been in Uttar Pradesh.

The push for a formal blasphemy law in India would require:

• Legislative action either at the Parliament level or through state assemblies (if states seek to supplement central law, though criminal law is largely central).
• Careful drafting to define what constitutes blasphemy vs what is public order vs what is hate speech, etc., to avoid overbroad interpretations.
• Constitutional scrutiny: any new law must be consistent with Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (free speech), 21 (life and personal liberty), 25 & 28 (religious freedoms).
• Mechanisms for accountability: ensuring law enforcement doesn’t misuse power, and accused persons receive due process.

Some argue that improving enforcement of existing laws may suffice if done impartially, transparently and with judicial oversight, rather than enacting entirely new, possibly draconian laws.

The “I Love Muhammad” controversy has become a flashpoint in India for debates over religious expression, law enforcement, and the protection of religious sentiments.

The support for stronger protection is considerable among communities feeling their faith and Prophet’s dignity is under threat. The legal actions indicate a serious response by authorities. The demand for stricter blasphemy type laws reflects both a reaction to recent events and a wish to pre-empt further irritants and social conflict.

At the same time, the potential for misuse and for these laws to conflict with constitutional freedoms is real. Any move toward a formal blasphemy law would need to balance respect for religious feelings with freedom of speech and due process.

If India opts for such legislation, the key will be ensuring clarity, legal safeguards, and oversight so that the law does not become a weapon against vulnerable individuals or minority communities.