A fresh political controversy has erupted in India after senior BJP leaders, including Union Minister Giriraj Singh and MP Pragya Singh Thakur, made remarks widely condemned as communal and inflammatory. The comments, made during campaign rallies in Bihar ahead of the upcoming assembly elections, have drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties, civil society groups, and constitutional experts, who accuse the ruling party of polarizing voters along religious lines.
At a rally in Arwal district, Giriraj Singh referred to certain voters as “namak haram” (ungrateful), a term he appeared to direct at Muslims who, according to him, benefit from government welfare schemes but do not vote for the BJP. “I told the Maulvi Saheb, I don’t want the votes of the namak haram,” Singh said, recounting a conversation with a cleric. Despite the backlash, Singh defended his statement, claiming it was meant to highlight the moral obligation of beneficiaries to support the government that provides for them.
Adding fuel to the fire, Pragya Singh Thakur reportedly stated that she would “not allow namaz” in public spaces and made further controversial remarks about interfaith relationships, suggesting that daughters visiting “non-believers’ homes” should have their “legs broken”.
🧠 Key Highlights of the Controversy
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Main Figures Involved | Giriraj Singh, Pragya Singh Thakur |
| Controversial Remarks | “Namak Haram”, “Won’t allow namaz”, “Break her legs” |
| Context | Bihar Assembly Election Campaign |
| Political Fallout | Condemnation from opposition, civil society, legal experts |
| BJP’s Response | No official censure as of October 20, 2025 |
| Legal Implications | Demands for EC action and FIRs |
The remarks have triggered calls for intervention from the Election Commission of India (ECI), with opposition leaders demanding disqualification of the MPs for violating the Model Code of Conduct.
📊 Timeline of Events
| Date | Event Description |
|---|---|
| October 18 | Giriraj Singh makes “namak haram” remark in Arwal |
| October 19 | Pragya Thakur’s “namaz” and “legs” comments surface |
| October 20 | Opposition demands EC action, legal notices filed |
| October 21 | Civil society groups plan protest in Delhi |
The controversy has overshadowed key electoral issues in Bihar, shifting focus to communal rhetoric and hate speech.
🗣️ Reactions from Political Leaders and Civil Society
- Tejashwi Yadav (RJD): “This is not just hate speech, it’s a threat to India’s secular fabric.”
- Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM): “Giriraj Singh’s words are unconstitutional. The PM must act.”
- Kapil Sibal (Independent MP): “Such language violates the spirit of the Constitution.”
| Stakeholder Group | Reaction Summary |
|---|---|
| Opposition Parties | Demanding FIRs and EC action |
| Civil Rights Groups | Planning legal petitions and protests |
| BJP Leadership | Silent or deflecting criticism |
| Election Commission | Yet to issue formal notice |
Legal experts argue that the remarks may fall under Sections 153A and 295A of the IPC, which deal with promoting enmity and outraging religious feelings.
🧾 Legal and Electoral Implications
| Law/Code | Possible Violation | Penalty/Action |
|---|---|---|
| IPC Section 153A | Promoting enmity between groups | Imprisonment up to 3 years |
| IPC Section 295A | Outraging religious feelings | Imprisonment up to 3 years |
| Model Code of Conduct | Hate speech during elections | Warning, disqualification |
| Representation of People Act | Corrupt practices in elections | Disqualification, FIR |
The National Commission for Minorities and NHRC have also been urged to take suo motu cognizance of the remarks.
🧭 What to Watch in the Coming Days
- ECI’s Response: Whether formal notices or penalties are issued
- Legal Action: Filing of FIRs and court petitions by civil society
- Political Fallout: Impact on BJP’s campaign in Bihar
- Public Mobilization: Protests and media scrutiny across states
The controversy underscores the growing concern over hate speech in Indian politics, especially during election cycles, and the need for stronger institutional checks.
Disclaimer
This news content is based on verified media reports and public statements as of October 20, 2025. It is intended for editorial use and public awareness. The information does not constitute legal advice, political endorsement, or official commentary and adheres to ethical journalism standards.
