Mosque Profiling Drive in Kashmir Sparks Political, Religious Backlash
Why a Police Data Exercise Has Reignited Fears of Surveillance, Stigmatization, and Erosion of Religious Freedom in the Valley
By: Javid Amin | 13 January 2026
A Data Exercise That Set Off Alarm Bells
What began as a police “data-gathering exercise” has rapidly escalated into one of the most sensitive governance controversies in Jammu and Kashmir in recent months.
The Jammu and Kashmir Police’s mosque profiling drive, carried out across multiple villages in the Valley, has triggered sharp political criticism and rare unanimity among religious bodies, with leaders warning that the move crosses a red line between security administration and religious freedom.
At the heart of the controversy are multi-page forms circulated through village-level officials, seeking detailed information on mosques, madrassas, clerics, finances, and even ideological affiliations. Critics argue that the exercise amounts to intrusive surveillance of religious life, while authorities maintain it is aimed at maintaining updated institutional records.
The backlash has been swift and vocal — from political figures like Ilitija Mufti to the influential Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU) — exposing once again the fragile trust between the state and citizens in Kashmir.
What the Mosque Profiling Drive Entails
The Scope of the Forms
According to copies of the forms circulated at the village level, the profiling exercise seeks:
-
The number and location of mosques and madrassas
-
Names and personal details of imams, muezzins, and clerics
-
Information on management committees
-
Sources of funding and financial details
-
Records of activities conducted in religious institutions
While authorities describe this as routine documentation, the breadth and depth of the information sought has raised concerns.
Ideological Classification Raises Red Flags
One of the most controversial aspects of the exercise is the requirement to categorize mosques by Islamic school of thought, including:
-
Barelvi
-
Hanafi
-
Deobandi
-
Ahle-Hadith
For many clerics and scholars, this classification is deeply problematic.
They argue that:
-
Such distinctions are theological, not administrative
-
The state has no constitutional mandate to catalogue religious ideology
-
It risks creating hierarchies of suspicion within the Muslim community
This ideological labeling, critics say, transforms a purported administrative exercise into religious profiling.
Political Response: ‘Collective Suspicion’
Ilitija Mufti’s Intervention
Ilitija Mufti, daughter of former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the drive.
She described the profiling as:
-
Unconstitutional
-
A form of collective suspicion against Kashmiri Muslims
-
Lacking transparency and legal clarity
Questioning the intent behind the move, she asked whether similar exercises were being conducted for other religious institutions, or whether Muslims alone were being singled out.
Her remarks resonated widely on social media and were amplified by civil rights advocates who view the exercise as part of a broader pattern of over-securitization of civilian life in Kashmir.
Religious Opposition: MMU Calls It a Violation of Rights
Who Is the MMU?
The Mutahida Majlis-e-Ulema (MMU) is Kashmir’s largest and most influential umbrella body of Islamic scholars, representing a broad spectrum of religious schools of thought.
When the MMU speaks, it does so with significant moral authority across the Valley.
MMU’s Statement
The MMU issued a strongly worded statement condemning the profiling drive as:
-
“Intrusive”
-
“Threatening”
-
A violation of fundamental rights and privacy
The body demanded the immediate withdrawal of the exercise and warned that continued interference in religious affairs would deepen alienation.
Notably, the MMU framed the issue not as a political disagreement but as a constitutional and moral question, emphasizing freedom of religion as a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Local Reaction: Fear, Anger, and Confusion
An Unprecedented Exercise
Many local clerics and residents described the profiling as unprecedented in scale and detail.
Village officials tasked with collecting the information reported discomfort, noting that:
-
They lacked clarity on the legal basis of the forms
-
Clerics were reluctant to share personal data
-
Communities viewed the exercise with suspicion
For ordinary worshippers, the forms were not seen as neutral paperwork but as signals of increased monitoring of religious spaces.
Erosion of Trust
In a region already marked by prolonged conflict and heavy security presence, the profiling drive has intensified fears of:
-
Shrinking civic space
-
Criminalization of religious expression
-
Institutional mistrust
Several residents questioned whether cooperation with authorities might later expose clerics or institutions to scrutiny without due process.
Police Position: ‘Routine Data Collection’
The Official Explanation
Police sources have maintained that the exercise is merely a data compilation effort intended to:
-
Maintain updated records
-
Prevent misuse of religious spaces
-
Support broader security objectives
From the official perspective, mosques and madrassas are public institutions, and documenting their existence and management is portrayed as a governance necessity.
The Communication Gap
However, analysts note that:
-
The absence of a publicly notified order or legal framework
-
Lack of consultation with religious bodies
-
Ambiguous objectives
have created a communication vacuum, allowing fear and speculation to flourish.
In governance, perception often matters as much as intent — a lesson repeatedly underscored in Kashmir.
Legal and Constitutional Questions
Freedom of Religion and Privacy
India’s Constitution guarantees:
-
Freedom of religion
-
Protection of personal liberty and privacy
Critics argue that asking for ideological classification and personal data of clerics tests the limits of these protections, especially in the absence of a clearly articulated law.
Due Process Concerns
Legal experts point out that:
-
Surveillance-like exercises require clear safeguards
-
Data collection must specify purpose, retention, and use
-
Arbitrary documentation can be challenged as disproportionate
Without these safeguards, the profiling drive risks being viewed as administrative overreach.
Security vs Civil Liberties: A Familiar Kashmir Dilemma
The Security Narrative
Authorities often justify expanded monitoring by citing:
-
Long-standing militancy
-
Attempts to misuse religious platforms
-
The need to dismantle “ecosystems” that support extremism
This argument resonates with national security frameworks but remains deeply contested locally.
The Civil Liberties Counter
Civil society groups counter that:
-
Blanket profiling undermines targeted intelligence work
-
Collective suspicion alienates communities
-
Security achieved at the cost of rights is unsustainable
The mosque profiling controversy thus reflects a structural tension between security imperatives and democratic norms.
Why This Issue Resonates So Deeply in Kashmir
Historical Context Matters
In Kashmir, religious institutions are not merely places of worship; they are:
-
Social anchors
-
Community support systems
-
Spaces of identity and continuity
Any perceived intrusion into these spaces is therefore interpreted through a historical lens of control and mistrust.
Symbolism Over Substance
Even if the administration views the exercise as procedural, its symbolism is powerful — and in Kashmir, symbolism often outweighs administrative explanations.
Political Fallout and Governance Implications
Rare Convergence of Voices
The profiling drive has led to:
-
Political leaders and religious scholars speaking in unison
-
A broad-based critique cutting across ideological lines
Such convergence is rare and signals deep discomfort with the policy.
Risk to State–Society Relations
If not addressed transparently, the episode risks:
-
Further erosion of trust
-
Strengthening narratives of alienation
-
Complicating governance in an already sensitive environment
What Comes Next?
Possible Outcomes
The administration faces several choices:
-
Clarify the legal basis and scope of the exercise
-
Withdraw or modify the forms
-
Engage with religious bodies to rebuild trust
Each option carries political and administrative consequences.
A Test Case for Rights-Based Governance
More than a policing issue, the mosque profiling controversy has become a test case for how governance is exercised in Jammu and Kashmir — whether security-first approaches can coexist with constitutional sensitivities.
Conclusion: More Than a Form, a Fault Line
The mosque profiling drive has revealed a fundamental truth about Kashmir: governance decisions, however technical, are inseparable from history, identity, and trust.
For the police, the exercise may have begun as an administrative task. For many Kashmiris, it represents something far more troubling — a step toward normalizing surveillance of religious life.
How the administration responds will determine whether this episode becomes another point of rupture or an opportunity to recalibrate policy with sensitivity and transparency.
In a region where trust is scarce and symbolism is powerful, even a form can become a flashpoint.
