A Fractured Harmony, The Cuttack Violence and the Precarious State of Odisha’s Secular Ethos

A Fractured Harmony, The Cuttack Violence and the Precarious State of Odisha’s Secular Ethos

Odisha, for decades, has been perceived as an oasis of relative communal calm in a nation often grappling with religious fissures. Its identity has been intertwined with its ancient Hindu traditions in Puri, its vibrant tribal heritage, and a political culture that, for the most part, prioritized developmentalism over overt communalism. However, the communal clashes that erupted in the historic city of Cuttack in early October 2025, during a Durga Puja immersion procession, have cast a long, dark shadow over this carefully cultivated image. This violence is not an isolated incident but a symptom of deeper political shifts and social anxieties, marking a potential watershed moment for the state. It represents a severe setback to Odisha’s secular ethos and raises urgent questions about its future social fabric under its new political administration.

The Cuttack Conflagration: A Familiar, Troubling Pattern

The incident in Cuttack unfolded with a grim predictability that has become disconcertingly familiar in contemporary India. According to reports, a Hindu religious procession passing through the predominantly Muslim locality of Dargah Bazar became the epicenter of tension. What began as alleged stone-throwing swiftly escalated into a full-blown communal riot, resulting in around 40 shops being burnt down. The state administration, led by Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi, was forced to impose a curfew for several days and make over a dozen arrests to restore a tenuous order.

This event is particularly significant for two reasons. First, it is the second instance of communal unrest under the incumbent BJP government, which came to power in 2024, ending Naveen Patnaik’s 24-year rule. The first clash occurred just a month prior, in September 2024, in Bhadrak, another area with a significant Muslim population. This recurrence suggests a pattern of escalating tensions in a state unaccustomed to such frequent communal strife.

Second, the violence in Cuttack breaks a long period of communal peace in the city itself. The last time Cuttack witnessed similar turmoil was in the immediate aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992. The three-decade-long hiatus makes the current violence especially shocking and points to a changing socio-political environment. The “eerie resemblance” to patterns seen in states like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra—where processions become flashpoints—indicates that Odisha may no longer be immune to the polarizing political strategies that have affected other parts of the country.

Historical Context: Peace Interrupted by Sporadic Flames

To claim that Odisha has been entirely free of communal violence under previous administrations would be inaccurate. The state has witnessed deeply troubling episodes, most notably the anti-Christian violence in Kandhamal in 2008. That pogrom, which occurred when Naveen Patnaik’s BJD was in a coalition with the BJP, resulted in hundreds of deaths and the displacement of thousands of Christians. Furthermore, the 2017 violence in Bhadrak demonstrated that Hindu-Muslim tensions were simmering even during Patnaik’s long tenure.

However, these incidents were largely perceived as exceptions rather than the rule. The BJD government, for all its faults, managed to maintain an overarching narrative of peace and development. The state’s political discourse was not defined by religious polarization. A telling indicator of this was the fate of the Justice Naidu Commission, established to investigate the Kandhamal violence. Its report was submitted to the government in 2015 but was never tabled in the Odisha Assembly. This lack of transparency, while condemnable, also reflected a political desire to not keep the wounds of communal violence open, to move on rather than to weaponize the past—a strategy starkly different from the political memorialization of riots seen elsewhere.

The Demography of a Minority: Why Odisha Was Different

A key factor that contributed to Odisha’s historical peace was its unique demographic makeup. The Muslim population in Odisha is demographically insignificant, constituting just over 2% of the state’s total population. This small community is not dispersed but concentrated in specific clusters in cities like Cuttack, Bhadrak, and Kendrapada. This concentration often allows for a modus vivendi, where communities can coexist without the daily friction that might occur in more mixed demographics.

The historical reasons for this small population are intriguing. Despite Afghan rule reaching Odisha as early as 1568, Mughal influence remained limited. As the author notes, Odisha’s colonial history was instead dominated by the Marathas from 1751, whom the father of Odia literature, Fakir Mohan Senapati, described as more oppressive than the British. This limited influence of North Indian Muslim powers may have prevented the large-scale conversions or migrations that shaped demographics in other parts of India, creating a society where the minority was neither a perceived political threat nor a demographic rival to the majority.

A Legacy of Secular Leadership: The Integration of the Muslim Community

Despite their small numbers, Muslims in Odisha have produced several significant political leaders known for their secular politics and deep integration into the state’s social fabric. This legacy stands in stark contrast to their current political marginalization.

• Habibulla Khan was elected to the Odisha Assembly an impressive nine times.

• Shaikh Matlub Ali, from the outskirts of Cuttack, served in multiple cabinets and was known for having built a Hindu temple in his constituency—a powerful symbol of syncretic practice.

• Mustafiz Ahmad, another leader from Cuttack, also served as a minister.

Most notably, in the recent 2024 elections, Sofia Firdous became the first Muslim woman elected to the Odisha Legislative Assembly, representing the Barabati constituency in Cuttack itself. The daughter of former Congress MLA Mohammad Moquim, her actions during the recent violence are telling. She had been visiting Durga Puja pandals hours before the clashes broke out and later played an active role in restoring peace. Her profile embodies a political culture where religious identity does not preclude participation in the majority’s festivals or the responsibility of representing all constituents.

This history highlights a tragic irony. During Naveen Patnaik’s 24-year tenure, the BJD never had a single Muslim MLA or Cabinet minister. The current BJP government continues this trend of zero Muslim representation in the Assembly. The community that once produced ministers is now politically invisible in the state legislature, even as one of its members, Sofia Firdous, works to quell fires that a government with no representative of her community struggles to control.

The New Political Landscape: A Government on Test

The response of the new BJP government to the Cuttack violence is being closely watched. Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi has attributed the incident to “vested interests attempting to tarnish Odisha’s peaceful image.” This explanation is notably different from the often-vitriolic rhetoric and immediate attribution of collective guilt seen in states like UP. So far, Odisha has not witnessed the phenomenon of “bulldozer justice,” where the state apparatus is used to demolish the properties of alleged rioters from one community, a tactic that critics argue amounts to extra-judicial punishment.

This places the Odisha BJP on a somewhat different footing from its counterparts in other states. The question is whether this distinction is a matter of principle or merely a tactical pause. The state BJP may be cautious about overtly disrupting social harmony in a state where its political roots are still shallow after just over a year in power. However, as the article warns, “whether this distinction will endure remains uncertain, especially amid deepening social polarisation.”

The Majhi administration is already facing a multitude of governance challenges, including issues of women’s safety, corruption allegations in the police recruitment process, and growing internal factionalism within the ruling party. Communal violence adds a volatile and complex layer to these existing problems. A government grappling with internal strife and administrative scandals may find it increasingly difficult to manage sophisticated social tensions, making it susceptible to taking a harder, more majoritarian line to consolidate its base.

The Road Ahead: Salvaging the Secular Ethos

The violence in Cuttack is more than a law-and-order failure; it is a blow to Odisha’s self-identity. The state’s secular ethos was not just a constitutional mandate but a lived reality for many, nurtured by its unique history, demography, and a political culture that, while imperfect, largely avoided overt religious mobilization.

The road to salvaging this ethos is fraught with challenges. It requires:

1. Unequivocal Political Will: The state government must move beyond boilerplate explanations and demonstrate a genuine, impartial commitment to justice. Perpetrators from all sides must be prosecuted without fear or favor. The government must actively protect minority communities from majoritarian mobs and refrain from any rhetoric or action that could be construed as endorsing a “bulldozer” model of justice.

2. Strengthening Civil Society: The role of local leaders like Sofia Firdous is crucial. Peace committees involving respected figures from all communities need to be revitalized to build trust and act as early warning systems.

3. Addressing the Political Vacuum: The political marginalization of Muslims in Odisha is a dangerous anomaly. All political parties, including the BJD and the Congress, must introspect on why a community with a history of producing leaders now finds itself without legislative voice. This representation is not about appeasement but about ensuring that all segments of society have a stake in the political process.

4. Learning from History: The state government should finally table the long-suppressed Justice Naidu Commission report on the Kandhamal violence. A honest reckoning with the past is essential to avoid repeating its mistakes.

Conclusion: A Precious Legacy at Risk

Odisha stands at a crossroads. The cracks in its secular fabric, evident in Cuttack and Bhadrak, are warning signs that cannot be ignored. The state’s small, historically integrated Muslim community and its legacy of syncretic politics are precious assets in a polarized nation. Allowing these to be eroded for short-term political gain would be a historic tragedy.

The resilience of Odisha’s social harmony will ultimately be tested by the actions of its government, the responsibility of its political class, and the wisdom of its civil society. The hope is that the flames in Dargah Bazar serve as a wake-up call, not a prelude to a darker, more divided future. The clock is ticking on Odisha’s secular ethos, and its winding up must be prevented at all costs.

Questions & Answers (Q&A)

Q1: The article states that the Cuttack violence marks the second communal clash under the new BJP government. What does this recurrence suggest about the changing social fabric of Odisha?

A1: The recurrence of communal clashes in quick succession (Bhadrak in September 2024 and Cuttack in October 2025) suggests a significant and alarming shift in Odisha’s social fabric. After a long period of relative calm, barring a few major exceptions, this pattern indicates that the state is becoming increasingly vulnerable to the kind of communal polarization that has affected other Indian states. It points to a possible “normalization” of communal strife, potentially fueled by a new political climate that, whether intentionally or not, has emboldened elements that test the boundaries of social harmony. The state’s historical immunity to such frequent tensions appears to be wearing off.

Q2: How does the political representation of Muslims in Odisha, both historically and currently, create a paradox in the context of the recent violence?

A2: The paradox lies in the stark contrast between a history of significant Muslim political leadership and the current reality of complete political marginalization. Historically, Odisha had Muslim leaders like Habibulla Khan (9-time MLA) and Shaikh Matlub Ali (a temple-building minister) who were deeply integrated into the political mainstream. Today, despite this legacy and the election of a symbolic figure like Sofia Firdous, the community has zero representation in the state cabinet and, until Firdous’s election, in the assembly itself under both the previous BJD and current BJP governments. This creates a dangerous democratic deficit where a community that is a target of violence has no voice in the highest echelons of power to advocate for its protection or for calm, making it harder to build trust and address grievances.

Q3: Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi blamed “vested interests” for the violence. How does this narrative differ from the response of BJP governments in other states like Uttar Pradesh, and why might this be the case?

A3: CM Majhi’s attribution of the violence to “vested interests” is a more generic and less inflammatory narrative compared to the rhetoric often heard in states like UP, where blame is frequently placed directly and squarely on one community. Furthermore, Odisha has not yet seen the administrative culture of “bulldozer justice” used in UP. This difference in tone and action is likely tactical. The BJP in Odisha is a new ruling party; its political foothold is not as entrenched as in UP. Adopting a highly aggressive majoritarian stance immediately could backfire in a state with a long history of peaceful coexistence. The party may be testing the waters, cautiously balancing its ideological priorities with the political realities of a state still attached to its secular self-image.

Q4: The article mentions the yet-to-be-tabled Justice Naidu Commission report on the 2008 Kandhamal violence. Why is the content of this report politically significant, especially now?

A4: The Justice Naidu Commission report is a significant political artifact because it represents an official, judicial investigation into the worst communal violence in Odisha’s modern history. Its contents likely detail the causes, the role of various actors (including potentially political parties and organizations), and the administrative failures that allowed the violence to escalate. Tabling it now would force a public reckoning with a painful past and provide crucial lessons on how to prevent such pogroms. Its continued suppression suggests that its findings may be politically inconvenient for powerful entities across the political spectrum, and bringing it to light would be a vital step towards accountability and ensuring that the mistakes of Kandhamal are not repeated in Cuttack or elsewhere.

Q5: Beyond immediate law and order, what are the key factors that will determine whether Odisha can preserve its secular ethos in the long term?

A5: Preserving Odisha’s secular ethos in the long term will depend on several key factors beyond policing:

1. Inclusive Politics: Political parties must actively work to reverse the political marginalization of minorities, ensuring their representation and giving them a stake in governance.

2. Civil Society Vigilance: Strengthening inter-faith dialogue and community-based peace committees is essential to build resilience against rumors and hate speech.

3. Educational and Cultural Initiatives: Promoting the state’s own history of syncretism (like figures like Shaikh Matlub Ali) in educational curricula can foster a culture of mutual respect from a young age.

4. Impartial Justice: Ensuring that the justice system is seen as swift and impartial in punishing perpetrators of violence, regardless of their community or political affiliations, is fundamental to maintaining trust in the state.