There is something deeply disturbing about the manner in which certain political and religious groups rush to manufacture a narrative of “Muslim victimhood” every time a serious criminal allegation surfaces against an individual belonging to the community. Instead of allowing the law to take its course, the entire discourse is cleverly diverted toward “targeting Muslims,” “harassment of educated minorities,” and “communal witch-hunts.” The latest controversy involving Nida Khan, also referred to in reports as Nida, is a glaring example of this dangerous and irresponsible politics. The allegations against Nida are not minor. This is not about social media outrage or ideological disagreement. The accusations involve an alleged religious conversion racket, coercion, and even sexual exploitation linked to a TCS-associated BPO unit in Nashik. These are grave criminal charges that deserve a thorough and impartial investigation. Yet, instead of cooperating with the authorities and helping establish the truth, sections of the AIMIM have chosen to play the communal victim card. What exactly is AIMIM trying to suggest here? That being “educated” places someone above suspicion? Does holding a degree become a licence to allegedly manipulate vulnerable individuals, target Hindus for conversion, or participate in exploitative practices? Education is supposed to create responsible citizens, not provide political immunity. The attempt to communalise an investigation merely because the accused belongs to a minority community is not only dishonest but dangerous. It weakens the credibility of genuine cases where minorities may indeed face discrimination. By crying wolf every single time, parties like AIMIM are effectively trivialising real concerns and converting criminal probes into political theatre. Even more shocking are allegations that an AIMIM corporator from Mumbai, Matin, provided shelter or protection to the absconding accused. If true, this raises serious questions. Why would an elected representative risk political credibility for someone who claims innocence but refuses to face investigators? If Nida believes she is being framed, why abscond? Why evade questioning? Why not stand before the law and dismantle the allegations with evidence?
Absconding does not strengthen the claim of innocence; it only deepens suspicion. In any democracy governed by the rule of law, the principle must remain simple and non-negotiable: investigate the crime, not the religion of the accused. If tomorrow a Hindu, Christian, Sikh, or anyone else is accused of running a coercive conversion racket or exploiting employees sexually, the law must act with equal firmness. Selective outrage based on religious identity is precisely what corrodes institutions and destroys public trust. Unfortunately, AIMIM’s politics has long thrived on this strategy — portraying every legal action involving a Muslim accused as an assault on the entire community. It is a cynical formula aimed at consolidating vote banks through fear and insecurity. But such politics ultimately harms ordinary Muslims the most. It sends a disastrous message that the community’s leadership is more interested in shielding accused individuals than upholding justice and accountability. The issue here is not Islam. The issue is alleged criminality. The issue is whether vulnerable individuals were manipulated in the name of religion and subjected to exploitation. The issue is whether political connections were used to shield an accused person from investigation. These are questions that must be answered through evidence, interrogation, and due legal process — not emotional speeches and manufactured outrage. India’s Constitution guarantees religious freedom. It also guarantees equality before the law. That means nobody can be targeted because of faith — but equally, nobody can escape scrutiny because of faith either. If AIMIM truly respects democracy and constitutional values, it should stop issuing politically charged statements and instead urge full cooperation with investigators. Defending due process is one thing; shielding an absconding accused by wrapping them in the cloak of community victimhood is something entirely different. The country has seen enough of this selective secularism where criminal allegations suddenly become “communal targeting” only when convenient. Justice cannot wear religious colours. A crime is a crime, irrespective of who commits it. And no political party, however loud its rhetoric, should be allowed to stand between the law and the truth.
