Minor Hindu boy and Hindu community subjected to death threats by Muslim shopkeeper in Muslim-majority area of Uttar Pradesh

Case ID : 04aec7c | Location : Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Thu, 22 August, 2024

Case ID : 04aec7c

Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, India

22 August, 2024

Minor Hindu boy and Hindu community subjected to death threats by Muslim shopkeeper in Muslim-majority area of Uttar Pradesh

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'

Case Summary

In Bijnor district, Uttar Pradesh, a nine-year-old Hindu boy was threatened with being killed, along with other Hindus, by Danish, a Muslim shopkeeper. According to initial information, the accused, who sold sewing and embroidery goods, confronted the minor when the boy visited his shop, located in a Muslim-dominated area, on 23rd August 2024, to buy some supplies. During the exchange, Danish threatened the boy, saying, “You Hindus are jumping too much. You will stop only after being cut,” and verbally abused him. Terrified, the child ran home and informed his family, after which his father, Deepak Saini, lodged a complaint at the Kotwali Nagar Police Station. Saini expressed grave concern for his son’s safety in his written complaint, stating that Danish would be held responsible for any harm to his family. He stated, “There is a threat to my life.” Following this, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Danish under Sections 302 (murder), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 352 (assault or use of criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation) of the Indian Penal Code. Police confirmed that legal action was underway. Deepak Saini stated that his family lived in a mixed-population locality, while Danish’s shop was situated a short distance away in a Muslim-majority area. Danish traded in various sewing and embroidery items. On the day of the incident, the victim had gone to buy a zipper. When the delivery took time, the child requested quicker service, which enraged Danish. He began abusing the child and threatened to kill all Hindus, creating fear in the boy’s mind. Since the complaint, Danish’s father had visited the victim’s residence four times to pressurise them into withdrawing the case. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Division, confirmed that the investigation was in progress.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Violent Threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. Another primary category selected is- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'. One of the reasons that Hindus get attacked unprovoked specifically by Islamists is for crossing ‘Muslim areas’. Essentially, Muslim mobs often attack Hindus crossing or present in certain areas which have a majority Muslim population. It has often been cited as one of the reasons to blame Hindus for attacks against themselves, signalling that Hindus displaying religious symbols, taking our religious processions or crossing any area which is dominated by Muslim residents is a provocation in and of itself. These areas are mostly ghettoized areas where mobs mobilize quickly to attack Hindus for a variety of reasons like playing music during a religious procession, crossing a mosque, wearing a tilak or any other religious symbol in a Muslim-dominated area, praying at a local temple in that area etc. There have been cases where the few local Hindus of that area have been attacked on their way to the Temple for prayers as well, simply because the area is considered a Muslim-dominated area. Several times, it is entirely possible that the immediate trigger for the violence against Hindus was non-religious in nature, however, the violence became religiously motivated in nature because the area was Muslim dominated and the residents on the whole harboured animosity towards Hindus, evidenced from the actions of the mob, the slogans, and the nature of the attack. Such crimes are motivated by the religious identity of the victims and are therefore classified as hate crimes under this category. This incident was a clear case of anti-Hindu hate speech fuelled by explicit religious hostility. The Muslim shopkeeper’s act of threatening to kill a nine-year-old Hindu boy, along with the entire Hindu community, revealed a mindset deeply rooted in religious prejudice. His statement went beyond personal anger and directly attacked the boy’s community identity, equating being Hindu with an offence that warranted violence. Such words were not simply verbal abuse but a declaration of communal hatred, designed to intimidate, instil fear, and degrade Hindus based solely on their religion. By targeting a defenceless child and extending the threat to all Hindus, the Muslim shopkeeper demonstrated a violent religious intolerance that sought to criminalise an entire faith. The statements made in this case reflected entrenched animosity against Hindus as a collective group. Saying “You Hindus are jumping too much. You will stop only after being cut” was not an isolated outburst but a direct incitement of violence against an entire religious community. The threat was discriminatory in nature, rooted in the perception of Hindus as enemies or inferiors rather than as equal members of society. It aimed to degrade them on the basis of religion and to construct an atmosphere of fear and dominance. This hatred, when expressed through death threats, transforms from prejudice into active hate speech—a form of verbal violence that can provoke communal tension and perpetuate hostility against innocent individuals simply practising their faith. Another critical aspect of this case was that it occurred in a Muslim-dominated locality. Many within the Muslim community often treat areas surrounding mosques, dargahs, or majority-Muslim neighbourhoods as exclusive “Muslim areas,” reflecting an attitude of religious exclusivism. The Muslim perpetrator, Danish, appeared to hold such a mindset, perceiving the locality as an area where non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, were unwelcome. His behaviour demonstrated a sense of entitlement and superiority, viewing public spaces as domains controlled by his community. The threat he issued to the Hindu boy and his community revealed deep-seated prejudice and a desire to assert religious dominance by instilling fear among Hindus and implying that only Muslims had the right to authority in that area. This conduct exposed a dangerous ideology rooted in exclusion, intolerance, and communal animosity, making this case a clear example of a crime driven by religious hatred and the assertion of religious supremacy over public life. Furthermore, the fact that the target was a minor amplified the gravity of the act. Threatening a child with death, invoking his religion as the reason, clearly exposed the perpetrator’s deep-seated contempt for Hindus and disregard for human decency. Such acts are not only criminal but deeply corrosive to the principles of communal harmony and equal dignity. They normalise violence against religious groups and feed a larger ecosystem of intolerance. Therefore, this incident meets every criterion of hate speech—it involved a threat of lethal violence, was motivated by religious hatred, and directed hostility towards an entire community. It stands as a blatant instance of anti-Hindu hate speech intended to terrorise and humiliate Hindus because of their faith. Henceforth, this case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.