This was Hindu extremist violence, carried out openly, and cushioned by the state until public exposure forced action.

Anything less direct is dishonest.

What Happened Is Already Clear

A young woman went to a cafe in Bareilly to celebrate her birthday with classmates. A Hindutva mob stormed the place, separated people by religion, assaulted Muslim men, verbally abused the woman, and accused them of “love jihad”.

This was ideological enforcement — not concern, not morality, not culture.

They were policing who could sit together, who could befriend whom, and who had the right to exist peacefully in public.

That is extremism.

The Mob Acted Because It Knew It Could

The attackers were not reckless.
They were confident.

Confident enough to threaten people in daylight.
Confident enough to assault without fear.
Confident enough to tell the woman to “call the police” because nothing would happen to them.

That confidence did not come from nowhere.
It came from precedent.

The Police Did Not “Fail”. They Chose.

When the police arrived, they did not immediately detain the mob.
They escorted the victims away.

At the police station, the assaulted were booked first.
The attackers were not.

This was not confusion.
This was not chaos.

This was a choice.

A choice to neutralise the victims before confronting the extremists.

Sanitising the FIR Was Not Accidental

The initial FIR erased the ideological nature of the attack.
No Hindutva mention.
No acknowledgment of religious targeting.
No recognition of communal intimidation.

This erasure is how the state protects extremism without defending it openly.

By pretending it is just “misbehaviour”.

Arrests After Exposure Are Not Proof of Justice

Yes, arrests were made.
Only after videos went viral.
Only after independent media reporting.
Only after the incident became an embarrassment.

That timing is the story.

A state that acts only when watched is not enforcing the law.
It is protecting itself.

And extremists understand this perfectly.

The Woman Was Meant to Be Broken

The public humiliation of the woman was deliberate.
Her isolation was deliberate.
The social media vilification was deliberate.

When she asks whether she should end her life under the pressure, that is not emotional excess.
That is the psychological outcome of state-enabled violence.

Breaking people quietly is cheaper than jailing mobs loudly.

Let’s Say This Clearly

The state is no longer just failing to stop Hindu extremist violence.
It is cushioning it.

Through delay.
Through dilution.
Through procedural neutrality that consistently favours the aggressor.

Protection becomes permission.
Permission becomes enablement.

What Options Does a Citizen Have Then?

Very few — and that is intentional.

Your safety depends on documentation.
Your justice depends on virality.
Your dignity depends on whether someone powerful finds your suffering inconvenient.

That is not rule of law.
That is managed fear.

This Is the Warning Being Sent

Do not gather freely.
Do not mix freely.
Do not trust institutions to protect you first.

Live carefully. Speak selectively. Be grateful if the mob chooses someone else today.

That is the message.

Final Line

This was not about a birthday.
It was about who gets to live without explanation — and who does not.

And until the state stops protecting extremists through silence and delay, incidents like Bareilly are not accidents.

They are policy outcomes.