Matribhumi Samachar English
HASTINAPUR: The Central Trust Board (Kendriya Pranyasi Mandal) of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) held its meeting at Jambu Dweep, Hastinapur, from December 17 to 19, 2025, during which two resolutions were adopted. The resolutions addressed what the VHP termed “jihadi challenges in the country and their solutions” and the “need for a proper and logical definition of religious minorities”.
Resolution 1: Jihadi challenges in the country and their solutions
In its first resolution, the VHP stated that the world today is facing what it described as a jihadi mindset arising from superstition and fanaticism among a section of Muslims. Referring to the terror attack at Sydney’s Bondi Beach in Australia on December 14, the resolution said the incident confirmed that jihadi terrorism is no longer limited to Bharat but has become a serious and continuously growing threat to the entire world, including the United States.
The resolution claimed that Bharat has been facing this challenge for centuries and alleged that jihadi terrorists are often portrayed as uneducated or illiterate, whereas incidents across Bharat and the world have shown the involvement of educated professionals such as doctors, engineers and professors. It mentioned figures such as Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Afzal Guru and Dr Umar-un-Nabi as being highly educated.
The resolution also referred to recent cases in Bharat, including the arrest of Professor Dr Muzammil of Al-Falah University in Faridabad on charges related to alleged terror activities and explosive material, and the arrest of several doctors, including Dr Shaheen Shahid, by security agencies. It further claimed that educated and professional Muslims form a section that is more rigid in pursuing jihad and is dangerous not only for Bharat but for the world.
The VHP resolution said there is a need to understand what it described as the core directives of Islam as written in religious texts, stating that those who believe in Islam are considered “Momin” and those who do not are termed “Kafir”. It also cited a 1981 Delhi court observation regarding Quranic verses allegedly spreading enmity.
The resolution listed six forms of jihad mentioned in Hadith, according to the document:
- Jihad al-Nafs – ideological hatred, nurturing animosity towards non-believers;
- Jihad bil Kalam – propaganda, including the use of social media;
- Jihad bil Mal – providing financial support;
- Jihad bil Lisan – through speech or writing, including what it called provocative speeches and articles;
- Jihad bil Amaal – implementing jihad in practice, including terms such as “love jihad,” “land jihad,” and “education jihad”;
- Jihad al-Qital – armed attacks and direct violence such as bombings, massacres, attacks during festivals, cow slaughter and stone pelting.
The resolution said this sequence of jihad poses a grave threat to global humanity, Bharat’s Constitution, social balance, national security and social integrity.
The VHP Central Trust demanded that the Central and state governments:
- Bring madrasas alleged to promote jihadi mentality under full government control, monitor curricula and teachers, shut illegal madrasas and mosques, audit their finances, stop financial aid, and introduce nationalist education in place of madrasa education;
- Ban what it called Islamic extremist literature and investigate alleged anti-national activities in Islamic institutions, taking immediate action against those found guilty;
- Expel Bangladeshi, Rohingya and other Muslim infiltrators from the country;
- Impose strict controls on what it termed jihadi financial networks and take action against Islamic banking and the halal economy;
- Implement a Uniform Civil Code.
The resolution also appealed to Hindu society to ensure that the Hindu birth rate does not decline, report any alleged anti-national or anti-Hindu incidents to authorities, inculcate Hindu values in children to make them patriotic, strengthen awareness and ideological training through social organisations, temples, educational institutions and cultural platforms and counter what it called false and provocative propaganda against Hindus on social media.
It stated that jihad is not merely a law-and-order issue but a religious belief accepted by a large section of Muslims, and that ideological struggle is required, asserting that the path of violence does not align with modern human values and needs reform.
The resolution was proposed by Vijay Shankar Tiwari of Ghaziabad and seconded by Ravi Kumar of Vijayawada.
Resolution 2: Need for a proper and logical definition of religious minorities
The second resolution said there is a need to clearly understand the concept and justification of religious minorities. It stated that in Bharat, certain communities have been granted special facilities and rights based on religion, but alleged that some groups misuse these for separatist and anti-national activities, citing Al-Falah University in Faridabad as an example.
It said minority status should not be limited only to the identity of trusts running institutions and suggested that under the Right to Education, a majority of students in such institutions should belong to the minority community concerned.
Referring to the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, the resolution said that unlimited freedoms and facilities have been provided, and claimed that lack of government control over places of worship, education centres and curricula has led to vote-bank politics, creating a crisis for national unity and integrity.
The resolution asserted that Bharat is a nation based on the principle of “one people, one nation”, and claimed that minorities in Bharat enjoy more rights than the general population, leading many groups to seek minority status for additional benefits.
It listed points stating that the Constitution does not define “minority”, that Christians and Muslims have not faced discrimination in Bharat, that communities with higher population growth rates cannot be considered minorities and that dividing society into majority and minority is unjustified when equal rights are guaranteed.
It further stated that communities which are globally in majority, such as Christians and Muslims, multinational religions, those whose population is increasing in Bharat and globally and those who have not faced religious persecution cannot be considered minorities.
The VHP called for a proper and logical definition of minorities, citing that even the Supreme Court had earlier urged the government to define the term and warned against the dangers of minorityism. It demanded that the benefits under Article 30 of the Constitution be extended to all religious communities in line with the principle of “one people, one nation”.
The resolution urged intellectuals to deliberate on the issue and appealed to the Government of India and Parliament to define the term “minority” logically. This resolution was proposed by Ashok Tiwari of Haridwar and seconded by Manikandan of Tamil Nadu.
Credit : Organiser Weekly
