The BJP government in UP is ‘strong’. Then why do some vigilante groups seemingly enjoy impunity?

By the most common measures, the government led by Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh is deeply empowered. The CM enjoys a decisive electoral mandate and is widely seen as being hard on crime by his supporters. He has deployed this political capital to push through an ideological agenda that includes legislation on matters such as “love jihad” and cow slaughter, as well as extended support to the police on extra-judicial killings, colloquially called “encounters”. He has, in essence, ushered in an era of BJP dominance in what was, for decades, a multipolar political landscape.

Yet, for all its electoral and ideological success, can the UP government take political risks to fulfil the most basic function of the state? Can a sarkar that gives up the monopoly over violence – that allows a cottage industry of vigilantism to flourish — be considered a “strong” one?

At the close of 2025, the karyakartas of the Hindu Raksha Dal (HRD) — an outfit that is not banned, but whose members face several criminal charges — were the stars of a viral video. In Ghaziabad, they were distributing swords, calling for violence against minorities and, in essence, creating a climate of fear. The HRD members speak to the camera, clearly confident in the political capital they enjoy. After outrage over the video, several arrests have been made, although the HRD’s national president, Pinky Chaudhary, remains at large.

On the face of it, laws have been broken, and many of the accused arrested. Shouldn’t that be enough? Isn’t this the essence of due process? Such a view, while tempting, elides the differences in how important politics and identity have become where crime and criminals are concerned. In some cases, the threats are made by the political class and, often empowered by such statements, the police as well. Just three months ago, the state’s police force arrested people for wearing t-shirts that said “I love Muhammad”, and even framed charges under the draconian UAPA. CM Adityanath said that “denting and painting must be done” for those who habitually break the law.

A display of religiosity – a fundamental right, in fact, under the Constitution – does not challenge the state’s authority. Yet, it invites a strong political reaction that is arguably directed at a particular community. But when members of a group that has frequently undermined the rule of law call for extra-judicial violence and distribute weapons, there is little political reaction against this brazen undermining of the state’s power. Nor is there any assurance to citizens from the leadership that they are safe from the tyranny of an extremist outfit that claims to speak for the majority, without any basis.

To give meaning to a mandate, to show that the UP government is truly “hard on crime” it must show that it can prosecute and punish anyone who calls for violence and provides people the weapons to carry it out. It must be – whatever the politics and religion of the alleged criminals – able and willing to see that justice is done.

For, might that is deployed against the weak, and retreats against a political challenge — especially one that can be perceived as being from the ruling party’s own “camp” — isn’t strength. It is just bullying.

There is, of course, a case for realpolitik in such a scenario; a cynical reading of silence as a form of “strategic” silence. After all, politicians rarely alienate their base, and staking political and ideological capital for first principles may well be a fool’s errand. Such an argument, however, is myopic and can backfire.

Take, for example, the mixed messages last week: the Prime Minister attended Christmas Mass at one of Delhi’s most iconic churches. The PM has visited churches and attended Mass on multiple occasions as well. This could have been a moment, in a polarised society and polity, to celebrate harmony and diversity. That’s not what happened. Instead, it invited questions of hypocrisy and the motive behind the visit. An alleged assault by a BJP leader on a visually impaired Christian woman in Jabalpur, attacks on Christmas celebration and even the odd conflation of Santa Claus with religion were met with silence from the highest political offices in the country.

In the aftermath, the PM’s church visit was discussed threadbare, and its purpose was seen by many as cynical. Was it a signal to Western capitals, some of whom may be uncomfortable with the Hindu far-right’s attacks on Christians? Or was it meant to woo the floating “Christian vote” ahead of the upcoming Kerala assembly elections?

Whatever the purpose of the PM’s church visit, it was scuppered. A strong government would have spoken out against such attacks, and ensured that vigilantes of every colour – saffron included – do not usurp its power.

As the BJP and its governments ask Indians to shed their “colonial mindset,” they would do well to remember the zamindari system imposed by the British. That system was feudal, where revenue, law and order were, by and large, farmed out to local lords and the state washed its hands of the people. In law and order, it’s time to shed the new zamindari system, where lumpen outfits run their own fiefdoms. Silence in the face of their actions looks too much like endorsement.

The writer is Deputy Associate Editor, The Indian Express. aakash.joshi@expressindia.com