Hindu groups have announced gatherings in the city with banners saying ‘I love Mahadev’ to counter the ‘I love Muhammad’ campaign by Muslims.

Muslims have put up banners at mosques and on the streets in Mumbai in response to an incident in Kanpur where police registered cases against a group for displaying similar boards on a public road, saying that it hurt the religious sentiments of other religious communities.

The Bajrang Dal said that the banners have been put up with an ulterior motive to create unrest. Gautam Ravaria, Konkan province co-convenor of the Bajrang Dal, said that in Kashmir, policemen were chased by people carrying the banners. “We are not opposed to the banners. But we are suspicious of their motive,” said Ravaria, who added that their campaign will be replicated in other parts of the country. 

On Wednesday, Hindus were asked to join a meeting at Aarey Milk Colony, Unit 20, in the evening.The dispute over the banners has deepened, with Muslim groups saying that the police action against the banners was religious discrimination.

Raza Academy, a Mumbai-based group, wrote to the President, Draupadi Murmu, on Wednesday, stating that the police are acting on behalf of certain politically motivated instructions. “The role of the police is to maintain law and order, not to silence or target individuals based on their religious beliefs or expressions. These actions by law-enforcing agencies are creating fear, unrest, and a sense of alienation among the youths and the members of the Muslim community, undermining the democratic fabric of our nation,” the group said.

The police action is a violation of fundamental rights protected in the Constitution of India and more specifically of Article 19 (1)a, Article 21, and 25, the group said, appealing to the President to intervene and get the Uttar Pradesh police to withdraw all cases filed against individuals for writing, or displaying ‘ Love Muhammad’.

The group demanded that a high-level, impartial, and transparent investigation be conducted into these incidents, and strict action be taken against police officers who have acted in excess of their authority.

Mumbai: The controversy over ‘I Love Mohammad’ posters, which began earlier this month in Uttar Pradesh’s Kanpur, has now triggered protests in several states including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Telangana, and Maharashtra. Muslim clerics and community leaders in Mumbai have also stepped in, demanding withdrawal of cases filed by Kanpur police.

At Malvani police station in Mumbai, Maulanas and clerics submitted a memorandum claiming the FIRs were unjustified. They urged the state government to act swiftly and ensure that the religious sentiments of the community were respected.

The row started on 4 September during the Barawafat (Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi) procession in Kanpur. Groups of youths marched with green flags and posters reading “I Love Muhammad”, while distributing sweets and singing devotional songs. Later that evening, similar banners appeared on shopfronts and traffic points in Beconganj and Anwarganj.

According to locals, the act was purely devotional. However, some Hindu groups objected, arguing that this was a “new tradition” not associated with Barawafat celebrations.

Tensions rose after police removed a few banners citing lack of prior permission. Videos circulating online showed arguments and scuffles between residents and police. Crowds gathered demanding reinstatement of the posters, prompting police to use mild force and detain ten people.

Soon, similar disputes surfaced across Uttar Pradesh. In Bareilly, a proposed hoarding near Dargah Ala Hazrat was blocked by police, leading to a brief sit-in. In Sambhal, municipal workers erased wall graffiti with the same slogan, sparking late-night demonstrations.

On 9 September, Kanpur police filed FIRs against 24 people, accusing them of disturbing communal harmony by introducing a “new custom” during the procession.

The controversy gained momentum after AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi criticised the FIRs, insisting that saying “I Love Muhammad” was no crime.

Meanwhile, Kanpur Police Commissioner Ramkrishan Yadav defended his force, stating that the banners were obstructing traffic and had been erected without permission. “Our action was aimed at maintaining public order, not at hurting sentiments,” he said, appealing for peaceful celebrations.

The issue quickly spread beyond Kanpur. Demonstrations were reported in Nagpur, Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Uttarakhand. In Mumbai, clerics held peaceful gatherings, but in Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand), the protests turned violent on Sunday night.

Police alleged that the Kashipur rally was held without permission. According to SSP Manikant Mishra, the crowd attacked police personnel and vandalised vehicles when officers tried to disperse them. Seven people were arrested, ten detained, and alleged mastermind Nadeem Akhtar was questioned. The district administration also demolished several structures, terming them “illegal encroachments.”

With protests still simmering, authorities are appealing for calm while religious leaders continue to demand withdrawal of FIRs. The row has underscored the deep sensitivities around faith, tradition, and freedom of expression—issues that remain at the heart of India’s communal debates.

Mumbai: The State Blood Transfusion Council (SBTC) has taken cognizance of a media report on the non-availability of “Fresh Whole Blood” at K.E.M. Hospital, Parel. The council has directed hospital officials to conduct an inquiry and submit a factual statement with proper clarification.

Media had published a report on August 11, 2025, titled ‘No fresh whole blood at KEM hosp, baby’s life at risk’. It highlighted the case of a newborn suffering from Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn (HDN), who received one unit of ‘O’ Positive fresh whole blood only after eight days. The unit was eventually sourced from Shatabdi BDBA Hospital, Kandivali, after KEM’s blood bank failed to arrange it.

Doctors warned that any delay in transfusion could worsen jaundice and anemia in the newborn, and in severe cases lead to life-threatening complications such as hydrops fetalis.

Following the report, RTI activist Chetan Kothari lodged a complaint with SBTC, attaching a copy of the article. He criticized the hospital’s “laziness” in arranging blood and pointed out that in such emergencies, two options are available: preparing fresh whole blood by mixing red cells with plasma, or urgently calling one or two donors of the required group, testing them, and providing the blood within four hours. While this may carry minimal infection risk, experts argue it is far safer than withholding transfusion, which could result in death or permanent harm to the baby.

Activists have long alleged that negligence and administrative lethargy often lead to such lapses, even though newborns are a special case. Unlike adult patients who can receive packed cells, newborns require only fresh whole blood. Repeated instances at a premier government hospital, they argue, raise serious questions of accountability.

Based on Kothari’s complaint, SBTC’s assistant director Dr. Purushottam Puri instructed KEM officials to conduct a probe and submit a factual clarification. The move comes amid widespread media attention, with SBTC stressing the need for an accurate and transparent account of the incident.

Meanwhile, after the report was published, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) also issued a clarification to this newspaper. It stated that, as per universal practice, donated whole blood is separated into components—red cells, platelets, and plasma—to maximize use.

However, in specific cases such as newborn transfusions, fresh whole blood is required without separation. The BMC further claimed that KEM’s blood bank has been proactively motivating donors to donate for such cases, and that a recent camp collected 900 units of blood.

Despite this, media has come across at least three separate instances in the same period where newborns at KEM urgently required fresh whole blood, raising concerns about gaps between policy and practice.