Uttarakhand: Van Gujjar Evictions Ignite ‘Land Jihad’ and Demographic Change Row.

Hindutva Organisations Evict Muslim Van Gujjar Families in Uttarakhand’s Jaunsar-Bawar, Alleging ‘Land Jihad’ and ‘Love Jihad’.

Upendra Bharti | HENB | Dehradun | Oct 27, 2026:: Eight Muslim Van Gujjar families have been evicted from their homes, and their houses have been demolished in the Jaunsar-Bawar region of Dehradun district, amid a campaign by Hindutva organisations against the settlement of Muslims in the area. Notices have also been served on around a dozen other Van Gujjar families, raising concerns about their land rights, access to legal representation, and safety.

The Hindutva organisations allege that members of the Van Gujjar community provide shelter to Muslims from outside the region and facilitate what they describe as ‘Land Jihad’ to bring about demographic changes in Uttarakhand’s hill regions. They further allege that some Van Gujjar families seek to establish marital relationships with local tribal Hindus as part of what they describe as ‘Love Jihad’, alongside their alleged ‘Land Jihad’ activities. The organisations have also claimed that members of the community erected numerous mazars (shrines) in Hindu-dominated areas, many of which were subsequently demolished by Hindutva groups.

The Van Gujjars, a small Muslim pastoral tribal community whose members say they have lived in the region for generations, are facing allegations of illegal land occupation in Tyuni tehsil, within the Chakrata subdivision. Community representatives allege that members of Hindutva organisations have intimidated and physically assaulted them and pressured local lawyers not to represent them in proceedings before the authorities.

With the Uttarakhand Assembly elections approaching, the developments have revived concerns within the community over campaigns centred on alleged demographic change and the presence of Muslims in the hill state. Similar narratives were prominent ahead of the 2022 Assembly elections, and the Van Gujjars fear that they are once again being targeted in the Jaunsar-Bawar region.

The latest proceedings followed complaints filed by Manoj Bijalwan, president of Rudra Sena, and Rakesh Tomar Uttarakhandi, both associated with Hindutva organisations. Acting on the complaints, the revenue authorities initiated proceedings under Section 211 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and issued notices directing the Van Gujjars to establish the legality of their occupation of the disputed land.

The issue has acquired particular significance because the Jaunsar-Bawar region was declared a Scheduled Tribe area by the Union government in 1967. The Van Gujjars, however, maintain that their presence in the region predates the notification and that their families have traditionally depended on forests and surrounding land for their livelihoods.

Rakesh Tomar Uttarakhandi and his organisation, Rudra Sena, have been campaigning against the presence of Van Gujjars and members of the Balti community in the Chakrata and Jaunsar-Bawar areas. Tomar has also used social media to allege that approximately 700 bighas of valuable land in the region have been illegally occupied by Van Gujjars and other outsiders.

According to allegations circulated by the group, the land was recorded in the names of outsiders in 1983 through the alleged manipulation of revenue records, in violation of regulations governing land transfers in the Scheduled Tribe area. The group has demanded that the disputed land be taken over by the government and that action be initiated against structures allegedly built illegally on it.

Following complaints and protests, the Dehradun District Magistrate directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) of Tyuni and Chakrata to initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the Act. The concerned SDM courts subsequently issued notices summoning the families to establish the legality of their landholdings and submit their replies.

Tensions escalated on October 16, when Rudra Sena activists gathered outside the tehsil offices in Chakrata and Tyuni on the scheduled date of the proceedings. According to accounts provided by the Van Gujjars, protesters raised slogans against the community and allegedly described its members as “Jehadis”, “Ghuspaithiyas”, “Bangladeshis”, and “anti-national”, while demanding their removal from the region.

The Van Gujjars said they faced a hostile crowd outside the court premises in the absence of the SDM. A confrontation reportedly broke out when a member of the community attempted to photograph the gathering on his mobile phone.

Rudra Sena subsequently lodged a complaint against two Van Gujjars, alleging that they had behaved inappropriately towards the organisation’s office-bearers. According to community representatives, the police detained one of the Van Gujjars on charges relating to a breach of peace. The representatives alleged that action had been taken against their community despite the protesters’ alleged intimidation.

The community has also alleged that pressure was exerted on local lawyers to dissuade them from taking up the Van Gujjars’ cases, potentially leaving the largely illiterate pastoral families without adequate legal assistance to defend their land claims.

Aquib Qureshi, vice-president of the Muslim Sewa Sangathan, alleged that Rakesh Tomar Uttarakhandi had been targeting Muslims and accused the police and administration of failing to provide adequate protection to the Van Gujjars.

“The Van Gujjars should not be discriminated against merely because they are Muslims. They have been living in the forests of Uttarakhand for generations,” Qureshi said.

The Van Gujjar families maintain that they have been residing in the region since at least 1951–52, if not earlier, and have traditionally depended on forest resources for their livelihoods. They have also cited earlier judicial directions concerning their rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, arguing that they cannot be forcibly evicted without due consideration of their claims.

The community has referred to an order of the Uttarakhand High Court in Nainital that, according to its representatives, protects Van Gujjars against forcible eviction until claims filed under the Forest Rights Act are resolved. The precise scope and applicability of the order to the present proceedings remain to be established.

Meanwhile, the Hindutva group has demanded that the disputed 700-bigha tract be taken over by the government and that action be initiated against what it describes as illegal encroachments. Eight families have already been displaced, and their houses have reportedly been demolished.

A delegation of Van Gujjars met Dehradun District Magistrate Ashish Chauhan on October 19 and submitted a memorandum seeking the transfer of their cases from Tyuni and Chakrata to Vikasnagar or Dehradun.

The delegation argued that members of the community were facing difficulties in securing legal representation in the two tehsils and, owing to their limited education and legal knowledge, could not effectively defend themselves without the assistance of lawyers. The district administration has yet to take a decision on their request.

Significantly, the developments have so far elicited no public response from the Congress, the principal opposition party in Uttarakhand. Pritam Singh, the party’s MLA from Chakrata, has not publicly commented on the issue, despite the reported displacement of the eight families and broader concerns over the rights and security of the Van Gujjar community.

The developments have also highlighted the growing anxiety among sections of the Hindu community and Hindutva organisations over what they perceive as a threat to the demographic balance, cultural identity, and traditional way of life of the Jaunsar-Bawar region. They allege that the settlement of people from outside the area, coupled with what they describe as illegal land occupation and the establishment of religious structures, could gradually alter the region’s long-standing social and cultural character. These organisations maintain that protecting the area’s indigenous Hindu traditions, customs, and community identity is essential to preserving its historical heritage. However, the allegations of organised infiltration and deliberate demographic change remain contested and require independent verification, while the land disputes must be resolved through due legal process.

…
_Agency Inputs.