A viral social media video has added a controversial and politically sensitive layer to the already condemned incident involving Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and the hijab-lifting episode during a government appointment event. While the Chief Minister’s act drew widespread criticism across party lines for being inappropriate and indefensible, the narrative being circulated online now seeks to project the episode through an entirely different—and far more consequential—lens.
According to the viral video’s commentator, the Chief Minister’s conduct was allegedly driven by intelligence inputs suggesting that some individuals attempting to secure government jobs may have submitted questionable credentials, possibly masking their identities under religious attire. The commentator claims that the hijab, in this case, became a cover that raised suspicions about identity verification rather than a religious symbol alone.
It must be stated upfront—and unequivocally—that these claims remain unverified. No credible media organisation, government agency, or official source has corroborated the assertions made in the video. Therefore, any interpretation based on these claims must be treated with caution. Yet, the questions raised by the video cannot be entirely dismissed either, especially given the broader national context in which the incident has unfolded.
India is currently witnessing an intensified drive—both at the Centre and in several states—to identify and deport illegal immigrants, particularly from Bangladesh and Myanmar. Simultaneously, the Election Commission of India is undertaking the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a process that has resulted in the deletion of lakhs of names, including around 64 lakh voters in Bihar alone. This exercise has drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition, which has alleged “vote chori” (vote theft), while the Commission has maintained that the revision is essential to preserve the integrity of the electoral process.
Against this backdrop, the viral video claims that state intelligence agencies in Bihar are re-verifying the antecedents of certain job appointees, particularly where identity verification was allegedly difficult due to face coverings. The commentator further alleges that the woman at the centre of the controversy—who initially protested the Chief Minister’s act and reportedly tore her appointment letter—later conveyed her willingness to join duty. Again, this claim remains unconfirmed and unreported by mainstream media.
The video goes further, asserting that the Opposition’s relative silence on the matter is strategic, born out of fear that deeper scrutiny might expose uncomfortable truths regarding the antecedents of some beneficiaries. Such assertions, if untrue, are deeply irresponsible. If true, they demand urgent institutional scrutiny. Either way, speculation cannot substitute evidence.
This brings us to the crux of the issue: Can identity verification in government recruitment be compromised under any cover—religious or otherwise? And if there are genuine intelligence inputs suggesting misuse of official processes, is it not the duty of the state to investigate them transparently and lawfully?
Equally important is the counter-question: Can such sensitive issues be casually floated through anonymous social media videos without accountability? If the claims are baseless, they risk inflaming communal tensions and eroding trust in public institutions. In such a scenario, the onus lies on competent central agencies—be it the NIA or other authorised bodies—to examine the veracity of these claims. Those found guilty of spreading deliberate falsehoods must face consequences to deter the weaponisation of misinformation.
At the same time, any investigation must scrupulously avoid profiling or targeting individuals based on religion. National security and constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive; both must be upheld with equal seriousness.
The hijab-lifting incident, therefore, cannot be reduced either to a mere political gaffe or to unverified conspiracy theories. It raises uncomfortable but necessary questions about governance, verification mechanisms, and the dangers of allowing social media narratives to outpace institutional truth.
Until verified facts emerge, restraint, transparency, and lawful inquiry—not outrage or conjecture—must guide the discourse. The integrity of public recruitment, electoral rolls, and social harmony all depend on it.
