The controversial remarks fuel debate on political rhetoric, accountability, and the impact of statements on communal harmony
MUMBAI — Senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kirit Somaiya has come under sharp criticism after making controversial remarks about alleged “school jihad” in Mumbai, triggering a political row and raising questions about the use of such language in public life.
Speaking at a press conference at his residence in Mulund, Somaiya claimed that illegal schools had been operating in the city for years. He alleged that around 164 unauthorised schools had been identified by the civic body, and further claimed that a large number of these were linked to Muslim individuals or groups.
Somaiya said, “For the past 15 years, this kind of activity has been going on in Mumbai,” adding that some institutions were allegedly being run without proper permissions. He also claimed that in certain cases, school premises had been converted into religious spaces.
The remarks, particularly the use of the term “school jihad”, have been widely criticised by opposition parties and civil society voices, who described them as “divisive” and “unsubstantiated”.
A leader from the opposition said, “If such activities were happening for 15 years, then who is responsible? The BJP has been in power at the Centre since 2014 and has also influenced Maharashtra. Why was no action taken?”
Another political spokesperson stated, “Making serious allegations against a community without clear evidence harms social unity. Authorities should investigate any illegal activity, but such language is not acceptable.”
The issue has also drawn attention to governance in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. Somaiya accused the civic body of failing to act against illegal constructions and institutions. He said, “Due to corruption over the years, such activities were allowed to grow.”
However, officials have not publicly confirmed the specific claims made during the press conference. There has been no independent verification of the allegations linking the schools to any organised campaign.
Community representatives have expressed concern over the remarks. A social worker based in Mumbai said, “Education should not be dragged into political narratives. Many schools run by minority communities serve underprivileged children. Such statements create fear and misunderstanding.”
Observers note that this is not the first time Somaiya has made statements that have drawn criticism. In the past, he has used terms such as “land jihad” and “vote jihad”, which have also been challenged by opposition parties and activists.
Legal experts point out that while raising concerns about illegal institutions is within the scope of public debate, allegations must be supported by evidence. “If there are illegal schools, action should be taken as per the law. But linking it to a particular community without proof can lead to unnecessary tension,” said a legal analyst.
The controversy has once again brought attention to the tone of political discourse in India. Many have called for restraint and responsibility from public figures, especially when addressing sensitive issues involving religion and education.
As the debate continues, there is increasing focus on whether the claims will be formally investigated and how authorities will respond to both the allegations and the concerns raised by various groups.
