Biases of Mosque Demolitions in India by Awaab Mousa

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

As exemplified in recent times, the treatment of Mosques in India revelas that there are always differing perspectives, but Mosque demolitions in India specifically include show patterns of politicization, justification, and religious targeting. In Pakistan, an Indian missile strike in Muridke, which was a site historically associated with a banned terrorist group, was justified by officials in India because it was meant to take out “terrorist infrastructure” (Hussain). The incident illustrates how religious sites with potential ties to the past can be perceived as security threats by one state, but then defended as civilian institutions by another, reflecting the overall tensions between the nations narratives and international perceptions. In India’s religiously diverse but largely Punjab state, a separate incident that involved the rumors of a Mosque being demolished in Gurdaspur led to a political outrage. Opposing leader Partap Singh Bajwa described the event as “a direct assault on religious freedom” (Rana), but police and Waqf Board investigations concluded that “there was no Mosque on the site” (Rana), but rather a “dilapidated structure… where piles of garbage and dead animals accumulated” (Rana). The case revelas how false claims in the political area can allow the accusers to capitalize on religious sensitivities and communal tensions despite the lack of evidence. In contrast, a Mosque and seminary demolition with evidence in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, lead to deadly protests and widespread unrest. According to The New York Times, “the demolition… led to deadly clashes and an internet shutdown,” (Sameer) including death and dozens injured, including police officers. The event unfolded within what seemed to be a larger agenda. The article explains that “Muslim sites have become a broader target of the Hindu right wing” (Sameer), indicating that religious identitity is intertwined with political agendas. When taking all three of these examples into consideration, I can make a comparison greater than Mosques in South Asia function not only as places of worship but highly politicized places. The conclusion I can now make is that there is always multiple sides to a story, and there doesn’t necessarily have to be a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ side. Each side gets justified in its own way, whether its through legislation, historical past, or simply in the means of protection, there is always a reason and a narrative behind each side of the story.

Pakistan's View on India's Missile Strike

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

Citation

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

Hussain, Abid. “Inside Muridke: Did India Hit a “Terror Base” or a Mosque?” Al Jazeera, 8 May 2025, www.aljazeera.com/features/2025/5/8/inside-muridke-did-india-hit-a-terror-base-or-a-mosque. Accessed 23 May 2025.

What perspective/bias does this take?

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

When breaking down the article, it is evident that there is a Pakistani/pro-muslim bias. Although the article isn't as outright bias as some others, when looking into its word choice and choice of quotes and sources its bias is apparent.

Bias by Word Choice

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

The article had a seemingly large amount of vocabulary that is emotionally charged. When describing the attack, they used the word “retribution“ in favor of India, making it seem as though the article had taken a turn and was now approaching neutrality. Although, when describing the Pakistani perspective words such as “blast,” and “collapsed” were used, emphasizing the destruction. In addition to that, the outlet went deeper than simply stating the mosque was for religious purposes, but also that it was an “educational centre for children” to help paint a sympathetic picture of the place. Lastly, the article describes the place as “still radiating heat,” once again emphasizing the impact of the area, but also making it seem larger than it is. For example, the last time I heard a bombing attack described as “still radiating heat” was in class, when speaking about the nuclear bomb attack on Japan. So, the phrase frames the attack as being larger than it is.

Bias by Source and Quote

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

Most quotes within the article come from Pakistani’s, whether they’re officials, residents, or religious figures, to skew the narrative. On the contrary, there are no direct quotes from any Indian figures, but to slightly hide the bias there is indirect citing of words as well as paraphrasing. This can be seen all throughout the article with the constant use of direct quotes with the name of who they come from for Pakistani’s, but when speaking about the Indian perspective the phrase constantly used is “indian officials insisted.” Not only does this omit information, but it also paints all of India as having one opinion.

India Debunking Being Accused of Demolishing a Mosque

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

Citation

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

Rana, Yudhvir. “Mosque “Demolished” in Punjab, Cops Refute Partap Singh Bajwa’s Charge.” The Times of India, Times Of India, 29 Mar. 2025, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/mosque-demolished-in-punjabs-gurdaspur-district-cops-refute-partap-singh-bajwas-charge/articleshow/119722521.cms. Accessed 23 May 2025.

Central Arguement/Claim

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

The central argument is that the reports of a mosque in Punjab being demolished during Ramadan are false. The entire event was a misunderstanding and misinformation, and the Waqf police Board and police department have sufficient evident to prove its all a misunderstanding. This claim is constantly backed up whether its through word play, evidence choice, or even image to make sure that the audience can only come to one conclusion, that not only was no mosque destroyed, but there wasn’t a mosque present in the first place. It also enforced the idea that the event was actually a good thing, a neighborhood clean up with the goal of ridding the place of hazardous material.

What perspective/bias does this take?

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

The article takes on the perspective of high ranking Indians, which is evident through its bias in image selection and word choice. The article simply gives slight backstory on the accusatory claims, and then focuses entirely upon debunking them.

Bias Through Images

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

The article only includes one image, and it’s a distorted image of Partap Singh Bajwa. Despite the fact that the internet is full of high quality well-depicted images of him, for this article a bad one was chosen. The picture features a background that looks almost like a building falling apart, due to cracks in the walls. The picture is also vertically stretched, allowing the audience to see that Bajwa is wearing a thobe, native Muslim clothing. I feel like the image was purposely stretched because since Bajwa is a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, they are trying to depict him as having muslim bias by his clothing to disprove his claims.

The Destruction of a Mosque and the Response

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

Citation

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

Sameer, Yasir. “Demolition of Muslim Properties Sets off Deadly Violence in India.” The New York Times, 9 Feb. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/02/09/world/asia/india-demolition-muslim-properties.html?searchResultPosition=2. Accessed 23 May 2025.

What perspective/bias does this take?

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

The article takes on a neutral perspective with its inclusion of both the Muslim/Pakistani side and Indian side both being mentioned and justified. Using a recent event that occurred, the article sufficiently explained both actions taken by India and actions taken by muslims, as well as why both sides had fair reasoning to take action in the way they did.

Potential audience

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:15:47 UTC

The obvious answers is that the audience is Western countries, maybe even America specifically since the publisher is New York Times, and the original language that it’s written in is English. But it could also be for a broader audience that includes any individuals that are learning about the rights of minorities, especially within democracies. I also believe that due to its neutrality, the article may not necessarily be targeted towards the entire world, but can be read as so. It allows third party countries with no relationship to see what’s going on within the country, as well as countries who may be related to some of the tension and conflict see both sides of the story.

Potential Audience

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:35:11 UTC

Although originally seeming as though the audience is specific to Pakistan, the lack of extreme bias widens the audience to all foreign countries. The reason I believe it widens the scope is because the article acknowledges that Pakistan has fault in the situation, and even includes information of the Indian narrative. In fact, the article spends an almost equal amount of time describing both India’s reasoning and the effect it had on Pakistan. Although, the bias is slight enough that when choosing things such as images, vocabulary, and quotes, it builds a narrative that the Pakistani people are innocent and the attack was inhumane. Ultimately, due to the bias not being so over the top in favor of Pakistan but minimal enough to still favor Pakistan, as well as humanizing Pakistani victims allowing for an indirect dehumanization of India, the audience is enabled to all foreign countries.

Central Arguement/Claim

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:43:42 UTC

The article’s central argument is whether there is legitimacy behind the targeting of Indias missile strike in Muridke, by highlighting the civilians affected by it, casualties, and the importance of the mosque. Despite acknowleding the sites controversial history with Laskar a Taiba, it focus and emphasizes its current use as an educational and health facility run by the state. The central claim is that the strike may have targeted a location with a controversial background, but the civilian casualties and affect it had on non-terroristic groups and people raise doubts about the morality behind the attack

Bias Through Word Choice

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:56:02 UTC

When speaking upon the Muslim/Pakistani perspective, it describes the claims and ideals as “mischevious,” “false information,” and “rumours.” By using words that negatively depict something, the claims are depicted as not just false, but immature and outlandish. Then, when justifying the reason for the clean up in the area, it is backed up saying that the goal was to remove “dead animals,” and “drug syringes” used by “drug addicts.” By making the clean up of the area that was claimed to have previously been land of a mosque, seem to have the goal of making the area safer, the tidying seemed necessary and also indirectly claimed the place to be hazardous.

Potential Audience

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:56:57 UTC

The audience is most-likely urban/middle class indians as well as allies of the country. The reason I believe this is because elites in India will either dismiss it, or have known a mosque truly was demolished and helped cover it up. The reason I believe it also applies to allies of the countries is because the article is not in Pakistani nor Hindu, meaning it could be meant for foreign readers.

Central Arguement/Claim

28amousa — 2025-05-30 12:59:34 UTC

The article claims that the demolition of properties belonging to muslims in Haldiwini is not just a legal issue, but part of a larger pattern of discrimination due to religious tension under the current leadership in Indian politics. The discrimination is what is largely contributing to violence, unrest, and even the ruin of India’s ‘secular’ identity. In addition, the government-led demolitions in Muslim areas may serve political and ideological objectives, not just legal enforcement.

Lack of Bias Through Headline

28amousa — 2025-05-30 13:03:55 UTC

The headline is descriptive, factually accurate, and straight to the point. It acknowledges the fact that deadly violence has been set off and begun, but it includes that it’s because of the destruction of Muslim property. So although it does admit the violence the muslims have caused, it also justified it by admitting the cause of it was the destruction of their property.

Lack of Bias Through Video and Caption

28amousa — 2025-05-30 13:05:12 UTC

There are no photos, but there is a sub thirty second video with a caption that states “Protests broke out in the town of Haldwani, India, after officials and the police arrived to demolish a mosque and a Muslim seminary.” Although at face value the video seems to be biased for India and against Pakistan/muslims due to only showing the after effect of a protest, the direct caption of “after officials and the police arrived to demolish a Mosque and Muslim seminary” emphasize/justify the reason for the protest and the extreme measures that were taken.