“Very Scared”: Muslim Vendor Assaulted for Selling Chicken Patties as Political Backing Fuels Radical Violence

The assault was not sudden. It was not accidental. And it was certainly not just about food.

When Sheikh Riyajul, a 50-year-old Muslim street vendor, set up his small stall selling chicken patties near Kolkata’s Brigade Parade Grounds, he was doing what he had done for more than twenty years—earning an honest living. By the end of the day, he had been publicly humiliated, physically assaulted, forced to apologise for his identity, and left so terrified that he fled back to his village.

His crime? Selling chicken patties in public.

What followed has exposed a chilling reality: radical Hindu vigilantism is no longer operating at the margins—it is being politically protected, celebrated, and normalised.

The Attack: Public Humiliation as a Political Message

Video footage from the incident shows three men surrounding Riyajul and another elderly vendor, Md Salauddin, aged 60. The attackers demanded their names. When they confirmed they were Muslim, the tone turned openly hostile.

The men shouted that selling non-vegetarian food near a religious event was “an insult to Hindu dharma.” They kicked over the stall. They slapped and shoved the vendors. They forced Riyajul to do sit-ups in public, holding his ears—an act designed not just to punish but to degrade.

This was not about enforcing cleanliness or law. This was about asserting dominance.

The attackers were later identified as Soumik Golder (23), Swarnendu Chakraborty (32), and Tarun Bhattacharya (51). All three were arrested after the video went viral. All three were granted bail almost immediately, released on minimal bonds, and returned home as free men.

But the real shock came next.

Political Endorsement: When Power Rewards Violence

Instead of condemnation, the attackers received public praise.

Suvendu Adhikari, a senior BJP leader and the Leader of the Opposition in West Bengal, publicly felicitated the accused men after their release, portraying them as defenders of Hindu values. There was no ambiguity. No distancing. No concern for the victim.

This single act transformed a street assault into a political statement.

The message was unmistakable:
Attack a Muslim vendor. Claim religious offense. And you will not only walk free—you may be celebrated.

This is not just reckless rhetoric. It is dangerous encouragement.

The Victim Speaks: “I Am Very Scared”

After the attackers were hailed publicly, Sheikh Riyajul disappeared from Kolkata. He returned to his village, shaken and frightened.

His words are simple—and devastating:

“I am very scared. I don’t know if I can come back. I only sell food. I have a family. I don’t want trouble.”

This is what radicalism looks like in practice—not slogans, but fear. Not ideology, but economic strangulation.

Riyajul is not an activist. He is not political. He does not attend protests or debates. His life revolves around a small cart, daily earnings, and feeding his family. Yet he has become collateral damage in a much larger ideological war.

Md Salauddin, the second vendor, has said he wants to continue working but admits the assault has terrified hawkers across the area. Many now fear selling anything that might “offend” self-appointed guardians of religion.

Who Are the Attackers Today?

As of now:

• All three accused men are out on bail

• None have expressed remorse

• None face disciplinary action from any political group

• They have received public validation from a major political leader

In effect, the legal process has stalled while the social reward has already been delivered.

This is how vigilante culture grows—not through chaos, but through selective silence and selective applause.

How Dangerous Have Radical Hindus Become?

This incident is not isolated. It fits a clear pattern:

• Vigilantes decide what food can be sold

• They decide where it can be sold

• They decide who is allowed to sell it

• And they enforce their rules through violence

This is mob rule replacing law.

What makes this phase especially dangerous is political cover. When those in power or seeking power signal approval, fringe groups stop fearing consequences. They grow bolder. Louder. More violent.

Today it is chicken patties. Tomorrow it could be clothing, language, prayer, or mere presence.

Impact on Other Religions: Shrinking Public Space

For Muslims, Christians, and other minorities, the lesson is brutal: visibility invites risk.

Selling food, wearing religious symbols, or simply existing in public spaces now carries uncertainty. Self-censorship becomes survival. People withdraw. Communities isolate.

This does not create harmony. It creates parallel societies built on fear.

And once fear enters everyday life, democracy begins to rot from within.

What This Means for Hinduism

Let’s be clear: Hinduism is not violence.

But what is happening now is the weaponisation of Hindu identity. A faith known historically for plurality and philosophical debate is being reduced to a tool of intimidation.

Radical elements no longer speak of spiritual values. They speak of control. Of purity. Of punishment.

When violence is justified in the name of religion, religion itself is hollowed out and replaced by ideology.

Electoral Consequences: Polarisation as Strategy

Politically, such incidents are calculated risks.

They may consolidate a hardline voter base. They may energise supporters who believe confrontation equals strength. But they also alienate moderates, frighten minorities, and deepen social fractures.

The long-term cost is instability.

A democracy cannot function when large sections of its population feel unsafe participating in public life. Voter turnout drops. Trust collapses. Politics becomes tribal warfare.

Short-term applause can lead to long-term damage.

If This Happened Elsewhere

In many democratic countries, an assault motivated by religious identity would trigger:

• Hate-crime charges

• Immediate political condemnation

• Suspension or investigation of any official praising the attackers

• Public apology to the victim

• Civil lawsuits

• Media pressure forcing accountability

A politician praising such attackers would face career-ending consequences.

In this case, the opposite happened.

That contrast should alarm anyone who believes in rule of law.

The Real Question India Must Face

This is no longer about one vendor.

It is about whether street violence backed by ideology will be tolerated. About whether livelihoods can be destroyed by mobs. About whether political ambition will continue to override basic humanity.

Sheikh Riyajul’s fear is not weakness—it is a warning.

A society where a man is terrified to sell food is a society standing on the edge of something far darker.

If this path continues unchecked, the question will not be who is allowed to sell chicken patties.

It will be who is allowed to exist at all.