Does Bajrang Dal Qualify as a Terrorist Organisation?
The question of whether Bajrang Dal, a Hindu nationalist youth organisation linked to the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), qualifies as a terrorist organisation has long been debated in India’s political, legal, and social discourse. To approach this question, it is important to examine definitions of terrorism, incidents attributed to Bajrang Dal, and comparative classifications by governments and watchdogs.
Defining Terrorism
Globally, terrorism is generally defined as:
Use of violence or threat of violence against civilians.
Political, ideological, or religious motivation behind such acts.
Intention to create fear in a broader community beyond immediate victims.
India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) defines a terrorist act as one intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in people through death, injuries, or damage to property.
Thus, the benchmark for qualifying as a terrorist organisation is not simply violence but violence with the intent of terror and destabilisation.
History and Activities of Bajrang Dal
Formed in 1984 during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Bajrang Dal was envisioned as the youth wing of the VHP. Over the decades, it has grown into a significant force in India’s Hindutva politics.
Documented Incidents
Communal Violence: Bajrang Dal cadres have been repeatedly accused of involvement in anti-Muslim and anti-Christian riots, including the 2002 Gujarat riots and the 2008 Kandhamal violence in Odisha.
Attacks on Minorities: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented attacks on churches, mosques, and minority communities.
Moral Policing: The organisation has been linked with violent “Valentine’s Day” crackdowns, assaults on interfaith couples, and vigilante acts against what they call “love jihad.”
Arms Training Camps: Media investigations have revealed Bajrang Dal’s role in organising self-defence and weapons training programs for Hindu youth, which critics describe as paramilitary in nature.
Legal and Governmental Stance
Despite recurring allegations, Bajrang Dal has not been banned under UAPA or any other anti-terror law in India. The organisation is legally registered and operates openly.
However:
The U.S. State Department’s 2004 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom listed Bajrang Dal among “religious militant organisations.”
Several commissions of inquiry into communal violence in India have identified Bajrang Dal cadres as perpetrators of organised violence.
Arguments For Classification as Terrorist
Pattern of Violence: Repeated involvement in communal riots, mob lynchings, and attacks on minorities suggests systematic use of fear.
Ideological Radicalisation: The group explicitly promotes militant Hindutva ideology, positioning violence as defence of faith.
Organised Training Camps: Reports of arms drills and paramilitary-style activities blur the line between cultural activism and militant mobilisation.
International Precedent: Comparable organisations with such records have been banned in other democracies.
Arguments Against Classification as Terrorist
Political Backing: Bajrang Dal enjoys support from major political actors and is part of the Sangh Parivar ecosystem, making a ban politically complex.
Selective Violence vs. Terrorism: Critics argue its actions, while violent, are not equivalent to terrorism because they are episodic and not aimed at overthrowing the state.
Grassroots Base: The organisation also engages in social service, religious mobilisation, and community work, making it more than a militant outfit.
Legal Threshold: Without direct evidence of intent to destabilise the sovereignty of India, legal classification as a terrorist group may not hold in court.
Conclusion
Whether Bajrang Dal qualifies as a terrorist organisation depends on interpretation of terrorism itself.
If terrorism is defined broadly as any group that uses fear and violence against minorities to enforce ideological goals, then Bajrang Dal’s record of communal violence and vigilantism arguably fits the label.
If terrorism is defined narrowly as organised armed campaigns against the state, Bajrang Dal may not meet the threshold, instead fitting the category of violent extremist or militant vigilante group.
Ultimately, the absence of a ban reflects India’s political realities, where Hindutva organisations have substantial influence. Internationally, however, Bajrang Dal continues to attract scrutiny and criticism as a radical, violent, and potentially terror-linked group.
Final Note: The debate is less about legal terminology and more about India’s struggle between secular democracy and majoritarian politics. Whether Bajrang Dal is formally classified as a terrorist organisation or not, its actions have undeniably fostered fear among minorities and deepened communal divides in the country.
Personal take: Yes.
