Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Mahmood Madani has ignited a major political storm after declaring that “if there is oppression, there will be jihad,” while alleging that both the government and judiciary are failing to uphold the constitutional rights of minorities. His speech — delivered at a public gathering — has triggered a wave of sharp reactions from the BJP, which has accused him of provoking Muslims and undermining democratic institutions.
Madani argued that recent landmark judgments, including those relating to the Babri Masjid dispute and the abolition of triple talaq, reflect a judiciary that is functioning “under pressure from the government.” He claimed that multiple court decisions in recent years openly violate the provisions meant to safeguard minorities and suggested that the judiciary is no longer fulfilling its duty as the guardian of constitutional values.
He went a step further by questioning the very stature of the Supreme Court, saying that it deserves to be called “Supreme” only as long as it protects the Constitution. According to Madani, court cases allowed to proceed despite the Places of Worship Act, 1991, illustrate troubling deviations from constitutional principles. He further analyzed public sentiment toward Muslims, saying that 10% of citizens support them, 30% oppose them, and 60% remain silent — and urged Muslims to reach out to this “silent majority” before communal polarisation deepens.
On the subject of jihad, Madani rejected the way the term is used in media and political discourse. He objected to phrases like “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “spit jihad,” arguing that they distort a sacred religious concept. According to him, jihad historically refers to a moral and constructive struggle for improving society. While reiterating his controversial remark that “if there is oppression, then there will be jihad,” he added that India’s democratic and constitutional system does not allow violent interpretations and that Muslims in India remain loyal to the Constitution. He insisted that the government carries the responsibility to safeguard the rights of all citizens and is accountable if those rights are violated.
Madani also stirred debate with his comments on Vande Mataram, saying that a community that surrenders its principles becomes a “dead community,” and implying that Muslims should not be compelled to chant it merely to prove their identity or patriotism.
The BJP reacted aggressively. Party MLA Rameshwar Sharma accused Madani of inciting Muslims and attempting to challenge constitutional bodies, calling him part of a new crop of “Jinnah-like figures.” Sharma demanded that the Supreme Court take suo motu cognizance of Madani’s statements and launch action against him. His remarks escalated dramatically as he accused Madani of legitimizing radical and extremist behaviour, alleging links to ideologies such as “love jihad” and “land jihad.” Sharma warned that those who “spread terrorism or kill innocents” cannot expect leniency from the judiciary and should face harsh punishment under stringent laws.
Sharma further stated that India will not tolerate any rhetoric or activity that threatens national security. He said that if Muslims contribute positively — for example, by producing doctors and professionals — the nation will admire them, but those who support violence will eventually face violent consequences themselves. He advised Madani to “stay within limits” and stop questioning the Supreme Court or the Constitution.
The uproar continues to intensify, with Madani defending his remarks as a call for constitutional accountability and BJP leaders portraying them as a threat to national peace and unity. The row has now moved into the wider political arena, and demands for legal action and institutional response are likely to grow in the coming days.
