Tempers flared in New Delhi this week as Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s comments about the rising Muslim population in India ignited a fierce war of words with the Congress party, laying bare the high-stakes political maneuvering ahead of the country’s upcoming elections.
On October 10, 2025, Amit Shah, speaking at an event commemorating the late Dainik Jagran editor-in-chief Narendra Mohan, asserted that the Muslim population in India had increased by 24.6% while the Hindu population had decreased by 4.5% over recent decades. Citing census data from 1951, 1971, 1991, 2001, and 2011, Shah attributed these demographic shifts not to fertility rates, but to what he described as widespread “infiltration” from neighboring countries. "In the censuses conducted in India after independence... In 1951, Hindus 84.1%, Muslims 9.8%. In 1971, Hindus 82.72%, Muslims 11%. In 1991, Hindus 81%, Muslims 12.12%. In 2001, Hindus 80.5%, Muslims 13.4%. In 2011, Hindus 79%, Muslims 14.2%. And if we talk about the growth rate: From 2001-2011, the growth rate in the Hindu population was 16.8%, while the Muslim population grew at a rate of 24.6%. The major reason for the disparity in population growth rates from 1951 to 2011 is infiltration," Shah said, according to ANI.
Shah’s remarks quickly set off a political firestorm. Congress spokesperson and chairman of the party’s Media & Publicity Department, Pawan Khera, wasted no time in condemning the comments. In a post on X (formerly Twitter) and in public statements, Khera accused Shah of deliberately stoking communal tensions for electoral gain. "The Minister of Cooperation said the most uncooperative thing on October 10 to ignite communal tension and influence voters before the polls," Khera charged, as reported by Business Standard.
Khera went further, questioning Shah’s effectiveness and credibility as Home Minister during his 11-year tenure. "If there has been such large-scale Muslim infiltration, what exactly was the Home Minister doing for the last 11 years?" he asked pointedly. Khera also claimed that Shah deleted his social media post referencing the increase in the Muslim population after realizing it could "boomerang" politically. "He quickly realised that he is also the Home Minister and the boomerang he had aimed at Muslims had turned around and found him. So, his post was immediately deleted. But that doesn't delete the truth," Khera argued.
The Congress party’s counterattack didn’t end there. Khera cited official figures to challenge the BJP’s record on deporting undocumented immigrants. He claimed that between 2005 and 2013, Congress-led governments deported 88,792 Bangladeshi nationals, while under BJP rule, fewer than 10,000 have been deported in the past 11 years. "Yet, we never boasted, and the BJP will never shut up. Talking of empty vessels make much noise!" Khera wrote, a jab at what he characterized as the BJP’s penchant for rhetoric over results.
Congress general secretary in-charge of communications, Jairam Ramesh, added fuel to the fire with a sharply worded critique of Shah. Ramesh described the Home Minister as an "indigenously developed Weapon of Mass Disinformation (WMD) and Weapon of Intimidatory Mass Polarisation (WIMP)." This phrase, shared widely on social media, underscored the Congress party’s view that Shah’s statements were designed more to provoke than to inform. "He is an indigenously developed WMD – Weapon of Mass Disinformation – as well as a WIMP – Weapon of Intimidatory Mass Polarisation," Ramesh said, according to ANI.
The BJP, for its part, has stood by Shah’s assertions. During his lecture, Shah questioned why infiltration does not occur along the Gujarat and Rajasthan borders, suggesting that some political parties treat infiltrators as a vote bank. He drew a direct line from the demographic changes to the partition of India, the creation of Bangladesh and Pakistan, and subsequent patterns of cross-border movement. "When India was partitioned, Pakistan was formed on both sides based on religion, which later split into Bangladesh and Pakistan. Infiltration from both sides has led to such a significant change in the population," Shah said, as reported by Business Standard. He argued that issues of infiltration, demographic change, and democracy are deeply interconnected, warning, "Until every Indian understands these three issues, we cannot ensure our country, our culture, our languages, and our independence."
Shah’s comments, and the Congress party’s fierce rebuttal, have landed squarely in the middle of a heated election season. Congress leaders allege that the BJP is using divisive rhetoric to distract from governance failures and to polarize voters along religious lines. "The BJP is trying to divert attention from real governance issues," Khera said, a sentiment echoed by other Congress figures in statements and posts across social media.
The numbers at the heart of the dispute—deportation figures and census data—have become potent symbols in this political tussle. Congress points to its deportation record as evidence of effective action against illegal immigration, contrasting it with what they describe as the BJP’s lackluster performance. The BJP, on the other hand, uses census trends to argue that infiltration remains a serious and unresolved problem, one they claim is exacerbated by political opponents who, in Shah’s words, "treat infiltrators as a vote bank."
For many observers, the back-and-forth reflects a broader trend in Indian politics, where demographic anxieties and identity issues are increasingly deployed as campaign tools. The Congress party’s decision to meet Shah’s claims head-on, with both data and sharp rhetoric, signals its intent to challenge the BJP’s narrative rather than cede ground on issues of national security and social cohesion.
As the election campaign intensifies, the debate over infiltration, population statistics, and communal harmony is likely to remain front and center. Both sides appear determined to frame the conversation on their own terms, with the BJP emphasizing security and demographic change, and Congress highlighting governance, accountability, and the dangers of divisive politics.
With both parties trading barbs and citing numbers, voters are left to parse fact from spin in an atmosphere thick with political calculation. The stakes, as always, are high—not just for party fortunes, but for the tenor of public discourse and the fabric of Indian democracy itself.
