Hindus in Bihar asked to halt Holi celebrations and stay away from mosques citing Jumma
Darbhanga, Bihar, India 
11 March, 2025
Case Summary
The Muslim Mayor of Darbhanga, Anjum Ara, urged Hindus to pause Holi celebrations for two hours (12:30–2:00 pm) on March 14, 2025, to accommodate Jumma Namaz, stating that Namaz timings "cannot be extended" and citing the holy month of Ramzan. She also advised Hindus to maintain distance from mosques during the festivities. The directive, issued after a peace committee meeting, drew sharp criticism, with many accusing her of appeasement and selectively imposing restrictions on Hindu festivals. Critics pointed out that such requests rarely go the other way, where Muslim practices are adjusted for Hindu festivals. "Jumma time cannot be extended, so there should be a two-hour break on Holi. This would enable people from both faiths to carry out their respective practices without any hassles. We understand that Holi comes only once in a year. But we also need to keep in mind that for Muslims, it is the holy month of Ramzan," she said. Many saw Ara's appeal as an attempt to reinforce Islamist entitlement, where Hindu traditions are expected to be compromised to avoid provoking Muslim sentiments. The demand was compared to past instances, such as West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee’s restrictions on Durga Visarjan to accommodate Muharram. Following public outrage, Ara later expressed "regret," but many dismissed it as a hollow attempt at damage control. The incident reignited concerns about the increasing trend of restricting Hindu religious expressions while pandering to demands from a section that expects continuous concessions.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category of- Restrcition/ban on Hindu practices. The first sub-category selected is- Restriction on expression of Hindu identity. An example of the state-affected prejudicial and targeted orders against the Hindu community would be a government denying the right of a Hindu or a group of Hindus to hold a religious procession owing to the animosity of non-Hindu groups. Denial of the religious right of the Hindus to assuage the non-Hindu group which harbours animosity to a point where it could lead to violence against Hindus is not only a failure of law and order but is a prejudicial order against Hindus, denying them their fundamental rights to express their religious identity. An example of a hate crime against Hindus by a non-Hindu would be a non-Hindu institution forcing its Hindu employees to abandon religious symbols that a Hindu would wear as an expression of faith owing to inherent prejudice against the faith professed by the victim or a non-Hindu group of people restricting a Hindu group from constructing a place of worship simply because the demography of the area in which the temple is being built is dominated by non-Hindus. Such actions are driven by religious animosity and/or prejudice against Hindus and their faith and would, therefore, be categorized as a hate crime. The second sub-category selected is- Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. The directive issued by Darbhanga's Muslim Mayor, Anjum Ara, singling out Holi celebrations for a two-hour pause to accommodate Jumma Namaz, reflects a clear attempt to curtail Hindu religious expression while prioritizing Islamic religious practices. By asserting that Jumma timings "cannot be extended" but Holi must be paused, the mayor placed the onus on Hindus to modify their celebrations, reinforcing the pattern of institutional bias where Hindu festivals are restricted while Muslim religious gatherings remain untouched. The selective nature of this request becomes even more apparent considering that such adjustments are rarely demanded of Muslim festivals in deference to Hindu traditions. This move follows a pattern of Islamist entitlement, where demands are made to limit Hindu religious freedoms under the guise of “communal harmony,” yet Muslim religious practices are never expected to accommodate Hindu festivals in the same way. Furthermore, by advising Hindus to "maintain distance from mosques" during Holi, the mayor implied that Hindu religious practices inherently pose a problem, reinforcing the Islamist mindset that Hindu celebrations must be contained to avoid offending Muslims. This normalization of Hindu subjugation in public spaces adds to the perception that Hindu religious practices are treated as secondary, while Islamic religious events enjoy state-backed protection and priority. This incident, therefore, constitutes a blatant act of religious discrimination and a hate crime, where Hindu religious practices were deliberately curtailed in favor of Muslim demands.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
