Changez Khan beaten up for sexually abusing OBC woman, trying to abduct Dalit widow; Islamists protest in Pilibhit calling it "mob-lynching"
Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, India 
31 August, 2024
Case Summary
In the Pilibhit district of Uttar Pradesh, an altercation took place between a Hindu group and a youth named Changez Khan as he had been harassing and also attempted to kidnap a Dalit widow. Islamic handles shared the video on various platforms and misrepresented it as "mob lynching" of Changez. Changez’s mother Kaiser Jahan lodged an FIR accusing Sanjay Mishra, Raju Rathore, Dheeraj, and Deepak, along with 10 unidentified people, of beating him. However, in the full complaint, Kesar Jahan did not mention the reason for the mob beating Changez. Sanjay Mishra, named as the main accused in Kesar Jahan’s FIR, said that Changez had been harassing a Dalit widow for a long time. Despite her ignoring him, Changez, along with his brother Amjad, attempted to abduct her on September 1, 2024. A member of a Hindu organisation saw this criminal act and started protesting. Changez tried to run him over with his bike. When he failed in his attempt, he waved a pistol in his hand and tried to shoot the protestor. Changez also abused the protestor with casteist slurs. Thus, the members of the Hindu organisation acted in self-defence. Sanjay Mishra further accused Changez and his family of being involved in anti-Hindu activities. He stated that Changez's sister had an affair with a boy from the Sharma community, who was later pressured into converting to Islam after his properties were sold. Also, Changez's brother had brought a Hindu girl from Nepal to India and forced her into inappropriate relationships with family members. This girl reportedly attempted suicide due to the harassment. Changez, who feigns wealth despite having a low-paying job, ensnared at least a dozen Hindu girls. Changez's brother, Amjad collects phone numbers of Hindu female taxi passengers and shares them with Changez. An additional FIR against Changez was filed on September 3, 2024, by a Hindu woman from the OBC community, who accused him of making obscene gestures and comments toward her. She said that Changez entered her home with the intent to molest her but fled after she raised an alarm, threatening her in the process. On September 6, a large crowd from the Muslim community gathered around the Puranpur police station in support of Changez Khan, demanding action against members of Hindu organisations. They issued an ultimatum, threatening to escalate their protests if Changez's "attackers" were not jailed soon. Throughout the protest, there was no discussion regarding the allegations against Changez or calls for justice for the victims.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This incident in Pilibhit district, Uttar Pradesh, can be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime involving multiple dimensions. As per the details, this case has been placed in the tracker under three prime categories. The first category selected here is- Attack not resulting in death and under this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals/or trying to save victims from radicals. This category has been selected in the context of Hindu individuals who intervened to protect the victim and were attacked and faced backlash from radical supporters of Changez for their opposition to the latter's radical behaviour. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The second category under which this case has been placed is Predatory Proselytisation and within this, the sub-category chosen is- Proselytisation by brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Under this, the tertiary categories selected here are- 'Pattern of targeting Hindu women/minors' and 'Rape and sexual assault/harassment'. The actions of accused Changez Khan against a Dalit widow and other Hindu women reflect a pattern of harassment and intimidation, aligned with Predatory Proselytisation. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The third category selected in this case is- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, two sub-categories have been chosen. The first is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. Within this, a tertiary category named 'Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying' has been selected. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. The second sub-category under 'Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice' that has been selected here is- Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. The detail that points to the casteist slurs used by Changez against the members of the Hindu outfit opposing his actions reinforces the religiously charged nature of the confrontation and further establishes the fact that their Hindu identity was the primary driver of hate. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This incident in the Pilibhit district can indeed be interpreted as a religiously motivated hate crime under various categories. Changez Khan’s actions of harassment, attempted abduction, and sexual intimidation targeting Hindu women reflect a pattern of predatory proselytization and singling out and targeting of Hindu women, involving attempts to manipulate, pressure, or victimize them. His conduct, which included casteist slurs, reveals a targeted hostility toward the Hindu community. Here, it can be argued though, that a caste-specific slur is aimed at her micro identity of belonging to the Dalit section of the Hindu community and not her Hindu identity itself. However, as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary. It is the religious identity that drives the animosity of the perpetrator against the Hindu victim. In this case, while Changez hurled caste abuses at the protestor, the animosity was driven by his animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus, making it a religiously motivated hate crime. Further compounding the situation, several Islamists portrayed the incident as "mob lynching" without addressing the context of Changez's harassment and criminal behaviour. This tactic not only distorts the truth but can also escalate tensions between communities by portraying Hindus as aggressors without acknowledging the underlying issues at play. This downplaying of the incident by Islamists exemplifies the hate they harbour against Hindus and for these various reasons, this case has been included in the tracker.
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
