The Paradox: Mourning Khamenei While Living Freely in India’s Secular Democracy

Indian Police patrol outside the station on Greames Road in Madras on Horseback by Prince Roy, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 | Image: Jihad Watch

Farhana Bhatt, a relatively lesser-known Indian actress of Kashmiri Muslim origin, recently drew attention after publicly mourning the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. Speaking about him, she said that he “can never be forgotten” and that he would “remain alive in our hearts.” Bhatt also shared that the news deeply disturbed her, claiming she had not slept since learning about it after her early morning meal during Ramadan. According to her, Khamenei’s passing came as a profound shock to many people, particularly among Kashmiri Muslims. She also prayed that Allah would accept what she described as his martyrdom.

Many observers found it ironic that an actress who enjoys personal freedoms, including dressing in modern outfits that reveal her arms, shoulders, midriff, and legs, would openly praise a leader whose regime was known for enforcing strict dress codes and harsh punishments for women who violated them. Critics argued that for some individuals, religious identity appears to outweigh other considerations, even while they continue to live and work within the freedoms offered by a democratic society. Following the news, gatherings were reported in several parts of India—from Kashmir to regions in southern and central India—where groups of Muslims organized marches, candlelight vigils, and mourning meetings. Some of these events included visible expressions of grief as well as slogans directed against the United States and Israel.

In Srinagar and other areas of the Jammu and Kashmir Valley, particularly among members of the Shia community, large groups gathered in locations such as Lal Chowk, Bemina, and Saida Kadal. Participants carried black flags and portraits of Khamenei while chanting slogans. Authorities responded by imposing strict restrictions on public movement and assembly, erecting barricades and concertina wire in key areas. Mobile internet services were restricted and schools were temporarily closed as a precaution. As tensions rose, clashes occurred between protesters and security forces. Police reportedly used tear gas and baton charges to disperse crowds attempting to move toward restricted zones, resulting in injuries and heated exchanges. Additional police and paramilitary personnel were deployed, especially around Lal Chowk, to maintain order during the unrest.

In Lucknow, large gatherings also formed near prominent local sites where participants held processions and expressed strong emotions. A widely circulated video showed a middle-aged woman wearing a hijab declaring, “Khamenei was my lion. If one Khamenei falls, a thousand shall rise. We mothers have given birth to sons who are ready to sacrifice for this struggle,” reflecting the sentiments of some demonstrators.

In Bengaluru, Muslim community groups organized a mourning assembly near Masjid-e-Askari in Richmond Town. Participants carried photographs of Khamenei and shared messages highlighting the emotional and religious importance they attached to him. In a Shia-majority village in Karnataka with a population of around 30,000, a three-day mourning period reportedly led to the closure of shops and cancellation of local events. Meanwhile, in the town of Gangavathi, a dispute reportedly escalated after a Hindu youth named Chandrashekhar posted an Instagram story about Khamenei. According to reports, a group confronted him at his shop, accused him of hurting religious sentiments, and assaulted him while issuing threats. Fearing further violence, Chandrashekhar later approached the Gangavathi Town Police Station late at night seeking protection.

In Kolkata, demonstrations also followed the reports of Khamenei’s killing. Members of organizations such as the All Bengal Minority Youth Federation protested what they described as a U.S.–Israel military strike responsible for his death. Protesters marched carrying placards and raising slogans, and some left-leaning political groups also joined the demonstrations.

Similar mourning gatherings were reported in cities such as Raipur and parts of Delhi, where people assembled to express grief and solidarity. In response, Delhi Police heightened security around sensitive areas and diplomatic missions. Across the country, authorities remained on alert in the days following the news. Some state administrations monitored speeches made during public gatherings and urged participants to maintain peace and avoid violence. The Union Home Ministry also warned of the possibility of sporadic protests and advised local officials to ensure law and order.

The scale of these gatherings—ranging from thousands to possibly hundreds of thousands of participants—surprised many observers. The reaction drew attention because the Iranian leader remained a controversial figure internationally. Critics pointed out that similar large-scale public mourning has rarely been seen after major terrorist attacks in India or after the deaths of prominent Indian figures. Incidents such as the Pulwama attack on Indian security forces, the killings of tourists in Pahalgam, and the Red Fort attack, all of which involved significant loss of life, did not generate comparable street mobilizations. Likewise, the deaths of prominent national leaders—including Sushma Swaraj, Manmohan Singh, and Bipin Rawat—did not produce similar public displays. Even the passing of A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim by faith and widely admired across the country, did not lead to such large demonstrations. These contrasts have sparked debate about the motivations behind the protests and the reactions they triggered within Indian society.

(This Article was originally published by Jihad Watch)