Muslim scrap dealer Arif harasses Hindu woman passing by, escalates into communal violence

Case ID : 04aed86 | Location : Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India | Date of Incident : Sat, 24 August, 2024

Case ID : 04aed86

Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India

24 August, 2024

Muslim scrap dealer Arif harasses Hindu woman passing by, escalates into communal violence

Attack not resulting in death

Communal clash/attack

Case Summary

In Chhattisgarh's Raipur district, a Muslim scrap dealer (Kabaadi wala) named Arif Langda harassed a Hindu woman late in the night on August 25, 2024. Reportedly, Arif, a Chhoti Masjid area resident, is notorious for harassing and passing lewd comments on women passersby. Upon hearing that the Hindu woman was molested, her family members and locals confronted the accused, pelted stones and thrashed him. In response, the accused and his relatives brought hockey sticks to threaten the family back. Subsequently, the victim’s family approached Kota's Saraswati Nagar Police Station demanding action against the accused. Arif was arrested.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

Communal clash is a form of collective violence that involves clashes between groups belonging to different religious identities. For a communal clash between Hindus and non-Hindus to qualify as a religiously motivated hate crime, the trigger of the violence itself would have to be anti-Hindu in essence. For example, if there is a Hindu religious procession that comes under attack from a non-Hindu mob and after the initial attack, Hindus retaliate in self-defence, leading to a communal clash between the two religious communities. While at a later stage, both communities are involved in the clash/violence, the initial trigger of the violence was by the non-Hindu mob against the Hindus and therefore, it could safely be termed as an anti-Hindu violence. Further, the trigger would also have to be religiously motivated. In the cited example, the attack by the non-Hindu mob was against religious processions and therefore, can be concluded to be religiously motivated. In some cases, the trigger may be non-religious, however, it develops into religious violence against Hindus at a later stage. In such cases too, the foundational animosity towards Hindus becomes the motivating factor of the crime and therefore, it would be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus under this category. In this case, the Muslim perpetrator harassed a Hindu woman. On the face of it, there is no indication that the perpetrator religiously profiled the victim. It is mentioned that the perpetrator had a history of harassing women, however, in the absence of indications that he specifically harassed Hindu women, we cannot extend it to classify this as a hate crime. What indicates that the crime itself and the communal violence later was born out of religious animosity is the collective action taken by the members of the Muslim community in protecting, shielding and fighting on behalf of the perpetrator. After the incident of molestation, the family of the victim and presumably their neighbours attacked the perpetrator because of his lewd behaviour. Thereafter, the violence became communal when a Muslim mob gathered and started attacking the Hindus. Had the crime itself and the violence thereafter was not driven by religious animosity, the Muslim mob as well should have been demanding the arrest of the perpetrator instead of shielding him - since it is indicated that the perpetrator had a history of molesting and sexually harassing women. Sine the Muslim mob chose to shield the perpetrator, there is evidence of religious animosity leading the violence and therefore, this case is being categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime.