Gujarat anti-radicalisation SOP raises questions over monitoring of Muslim community practices

A purported internal document from Gujarat’s State Intelligence Bureau outlining the creation of an Anti-Radicalisation Cell has triggered debate over the potential impact on Muslim communities, after the document listed a range of religious and social behaviours among factors for identifying people considered vulnerable to extremist influence.

The document, whose authenticity could not be independently verified, appears to describe a statewide operating procedure for Anti-Radicalisation Cells (ARC) in Gujarat districts and commissionerates. It refers to a Gujarat Home Department decision approving 139 new posts for the programme and instructs police units to submit monthly reports on activities including counselling sessions, monitoring efforts, social media activity and awareness programmes.

The Gujarat government and police authorities did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the document’s authenticity or implementation.

The reported SOP defines a radicalised person as someone who adopts extremist ideology, engages in anti-national activities, attempts to create fear, or seeks to influence others towards extremist beliefs. It also instructs officers to take action against individuals involved in criminal activity or preparation of offences under laws including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

However, sections describing possible indicators for identifying individuals have raised concerns among civil liberties advocates and members of the Muslim community because they include behaviours that can also be part of ordinary religious or cultural life.

The document lists factors such as a person suddenly growing a beard, wearing a niqab, using Arabic words frequently, reducing contact with friends and family, expressing anger over events affecting Muslims globally, attending certain religious institutions, or engaging in practices such as Itikaf — a period of religious retreat observed by some Muslims during Ramadan.

It also lists digital indicators including use of encrypted messaging applications, virtual private networks, participation in extremist online groups, and sharing extremist propaganda material.

The document says officers should gather intelligence on extremist networks, monitor online platforms, identify vulnerable individuals, and develop community-based interventions. It also calls for counselling programmes involving family members, religious experts, psychologists and trained officials.

For some members of the Muslim community, however, the reported guidelines have raised fears that ordinary religious expression could attract attention of agencies.

The SOP also directs officers to collect details of madrasa teachers, maintain records related to identified individuals and organise seminars at religious institutions. Supporters of such programmes argue that community engagement and early intervention can help prevent young people from being drawn into extremist networks.

Counter-radicalisation policies have expanded in several countries as governments seek to prevent recruitment by militant groups. Such programmes often face scrutiny over how authorities balance security objectives with privacy, religious freedom and protection against discrimination.

The document states that Anti-Radicalisation Cells would work with local police Special Operations Groups, prison authorities and intelligence officers. It also calls for monitoring of convicted or suspected extremists in prisons, including tracking visitors and preventing possible attempts at further radicalisation.

The alleged SOP comes at a time when governments across India have increased attention on online radicalisation, extremist propaganda and recruitment networks. Authorities have previously conducted investigations into individuals suspected of links with organisations such as Islamic State and other militant groups.

But critics of broad monitoring frameworks argue that security measures can damage trust between law enforcement and minority communities if people believe they are being treated as suspects because of religious identity.

The document’s contents could not be independently verified, and further clarification from Gujarat authorities would be required before confirming the scope and operation of the programme.