Ex-bureaucrat advises Muslims to change traditional attire to avoid being identified during mob attacks
BHOPAL/NEW DELHI — A major controversy has erupted after former IAS officer and author Niaz Khan suggested that Indian Muslims should change their traditional attire and appearance to avoid becoming targets of mob violence. His remarks have sparked sharp reactions from Muslim scholars, political leaders and social activists, many of whom have described the comments as inappropriate and harmful.
Niaz Khan, a former officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, made the remarks in a post on social media platform X. Referring to incidents of mob lynching involving Muslims, Khan claimed that many victims were wearing traditional Muslim attire such as kurta, pyjama, beard and cap, making them easily identifiable.
According to Khan, visible religious identity often makes Muslims vulnerable during such attacks. He suggested that Muslims could reduce the risk of being targeted by changing their dress and appearance.
In his post, Khan wrote that many victims of mob lynching were recognised because of their traditional clothing and appearance. He further suggested that Indian Muslims should adopt a style of dress similar to that worn by many Muslims in Turkey so that their religious identity would not be immediately visible.
The statement quickly generated widespread debate and criticism.
Among the strongest reactions came from Muslim scholar Tauqeer Nizami, who rejected the suggestion that Muslims should alter their appearance in response to violence.
Questioning Khan’s advice, Nizami said, “Has Niaz Khan himself followed this advice in his personal life? Has he asked his own family members to abandon their identity and adopt another style of dress?”
Nizami firmly defended the right of Muslims to maintain their religious and cultural identity.
“Muslims have never hidden their identity and they will not hide it in the future. The religious identity associated with Islam will remain intact. We will not abandon our identity because of fear,” he said.
He argued that the responsibility for preventing violence lies with those who commit crimes and with the authorities responsible for maintaining law and order, not with the victims.
“The solution is not to ask Muslims to change their clothes. The solution is to stop those who attack innocent people,” Nizami added.
The controversy also prompted a response from Congress MLA Arif Masood, who emphasised that India’s democratic and constitutional values guarantee every citizen the freedom to choose their attire.
“India’s culture and Constitution give every citizen the right to wear the clothes of their choice,” Masood said.
He added that incidents of mob violence have raised concerns among many sections of society and argued that people should not be identified and targeted because of their faith or appearance.
“People should be able to live freely without fear. Nobody should face discrimination or violence because of how they dress or because of their religious identity,” he said.
The debate widened further when Delhi-based social worker Iqbal Ahmed strongly criticised Niaz Khan’s remarks and accused him of making statements that hurt the interests of the Muslim community.
Ahmed condemned the former bureaucrat’s comments in strong terms and said such statements could contribute to division and misunderstanding within society.
“People like Niaz Khan come from the Muslim community, but they do not benefit Muslims. Instead of standing with victims of injustice, they often make statements that place responsibility on those who suffer,” Ahmed said.
He continued, “Such remarks spread hatred and confusion in society. The focus should be on stopping mob violence and ensuring justice, not on asking innocent people to hide their identity.”
Ahmed further alleged that some public figures place personal interests above the concerns of ordinary people.
“There are individuals who, in order to secure personal benefits and recognition, distance themselves from the problems faced by their own community. They spend more time trying to please powerful people than speaking for those who face discrimination and injustice,” he said.
In one of his strongest criticisms, Ahmed stated, “Such people become a stain on the name of the community they claim to represent because they weaken the voice of their own people instead of defending their rights.”
Ahmed also argued that India’s diversity has always allowed people of different faiths, cultures and traditions to live together while maintaining their unique identities.
“No citizen should ever be told that they must hide who they are in order to remain safe. The answer to violence is justice, accountability and equality before the law,” he said.
Meanwhile, Niaz Khan’s remarks received support from some BJP leaders and right-wing groups.
Bhopal BJP MP Alok Sharma welcomed Khan’s observations and said he supported the views expressed by the former IAS officer.
“I welcome what Niaz Khan has said and support his views,” Sharma stated.
Supporters of Khan argue that his comments were intended as practical advice aimed at personal safety. Critics, however, maintain that such suggestions shift attention away from the perpetrators of violence and place an unfair burden on victims.
The controversy has generated intense discussion on social media, where thousands of users have debated whether changing one’s appearance can ever be considered a solution to mob violence.
Many commentators have argued that India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and personal liberty, including the right to practise one’s faith and express one’s cultural identity. Others have stressed that the real challenge lies in preventing hate crimes and ensuring strict action against those responsible for attacks.
The debate has once again brought national attention to concerns surrounding mob violence, religious freedom and the right of citizens to live without fear regardless of their faith, dress or cultural background.
As reactions continue to emerge from political leaders, religious scholars and civil society groups, the discussion remains focused on a central question: should citizens be expected to change their identity for safety, or should society and the state ensure that every individual can openly practise their faith and culture without fear of violence?
For many critics of Niaz Khan’s remarks, the answer is clear. They argue that protecting constitutional rights and taking firm action against violence is the only acceptable response, and that asking any community to conceal its identity is neither a fair nor a lasting solution.
