Records show goats had been kept in the Mira Road housing society premises for years with prior approval; residents allege outside intervention
MUMBAI — New documents and records have emerged in connection with the recent controversy over the introduction of goats into a residential complex in Mira Road here ahead of Eid Al-Adha (Bakrid), raising questions about claims made by some political leaders and Hindutva organisations regarding the dispute.
The controversy centred on Poonam Cluster One, a large housing society in Mira Road, where the arrival of goats before Bakrid became the subject of protests, political intervention and extensive television coverage. The matter attracted widespread attention after some groups alleged that the society was being used for activities linked to animal sacrifice and described the issue using terms such as “Bakra Jihad”.
However, according to documents cited in an investigative report by journalist Sohit Mishra, several of the claims made during the controversy are not supported by the society’s records.
The report states that Poonam Cluster One, which houses around 550 families, including more than 200 non-Muslim households, has permitted residents to keep goats in a designated covered area before Eid for nearly a decade. Documents from the society’s Annual General Meeting held in 2016 reportedly show that members had approved an arrangement allowing goats to be housed in a specific location to avoid sanitation concerns within residential areas.
Society records further indicate that management had informed local authorities well in advance of the festival. According to the documents, a written communication regarding the construction of a temporary shed and the arrival of goats was sent to the Kashimira Police Station on 13 May. Additional letters were reportedly submitted to the Fire Brigade and the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation on 22 May.
Supporters of the society management argue that these communications demonstrate that the arrangements were neither secret nor unauthorised.
The controversy escalated when a small group of residents reportedly objected to the presence of the goats. According to the investigative report, instead of pursuing discussions through the society management, objections were taken to organisations, including the Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal.
The following day, protests were held outside the society’s premises. Demonstrators gathered near the complex and recited Hanuman Chalisa (Hindu hymns). Residents who supported the existing arrangement alleged that the issue was transformed from a local disagreement into a larger communal controversy.
The dispute gained further attention after Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kirit Somaiya visited the location and addressed the media. During his visit, he alleged that goats were being slaughtered openly within the society’s premises and claimed that the activity was intended to intimidate Hindu residents.
However, society representatives and several residents strongly rejected these allegations. They maintained that no animal sacrifice had ever taken place within the residential complex.
According to residents quoted in the report, goats were brought into the society only for temporary care before Eid Al-Adha, a practice followed by many Muslim families. They stated that, as in previous years, animal sacrifice was carried out only at locations authorised by civic authorities and at licensed meat shops outside the housing complex.
Residents also pointed out that the practice of keeping goats before Bakrid had continued for years without major controversy and had previously not led to objections from the wider community.
Several residents expressed concern that selective videos and incomplete information circulating on social media contributed to misunderstanding and heightened tensions. They argued that facts relating to the society’s previous resolutions and official permissions received less attention than political statements made during the controversy.
The incident has once again highlighted how local disputes can quickly acquire a communal dimension in the age of social media and continuous television coverage. Observers note that disagreements within housing societies are normally resolved through internal discussions, but issues linked to religion often attract outside intervention and political mobilisation.
Community members from both sides have called for restraint and urged people not to rely on rumours or unverified claims. They have also appealed to authorities to ensure that facts are established through official records rather than political narratives.
While the controversy generated intense debate, the emergence of documentary evidence has added a new dimension to the discussion and is likely to fuel further questions about how the dispute was portrayed in public discourse.
As attention now shifts to the official record, residents hope that future discussions on such sensitive matters will be guided by facts, transparency and mutual respect rather than communal rhetoric.
