Case Summary

An anti-Hindu fake news narrative falsely portrayed the death of a Muslim robber as an incident of communal mob lynching by a Hindu mob, thereby misrepresenting the facts and inciting communal tensions. This fake news was spread by Muslims on social media. On 18th June 2024, a Muslim man named Mohammed Farid, also known as "Aurangzeb," was killed after being beaten by Hindus in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. According to the Aligarh police, Aurangzeb had entered a Hindu house with the intention of theft and was subsequently caught and beaten by the family, leading to his death. The incident occurred in the Mamu Bhanja locality around 10:15 pm. The police arrested six Hindus and filed a First Information Report against ten named individuals and several unidentified suspects. Although both Hindu and Muslim groups protested, the police reported no incidents of stone pelting. Following this, Samajwadi Party leader Ajju Ishaq condemned the lynching, emphasising that law and order should prevail and that Aurangzeb should have been handed over to the police if suspected of theft. Conversely, Bharatiya Janata Party leader Mukta Raja defended the arrested Hindus, claiming that Aurangzeb, accompanied by four to six other men, had entered the house, and demanded a thorough investigation. Raja also suggested that Aurangzeb fell down the stairs during the altercation. However, contrary to the reality that the Muslim man was killed over robbery, other Muslims on Twitter, now X, attempted to frame the incident as a case of "Muslim victimhood" and mob lynching by Hindus. For instance, Zeyad Masroor Khan claimed that Aurangzeb had "gone to meet a friend and entered a neighbourhood home by mistake. The crowd beat him to death in broad daylight." Meer Faisal, who has previously spread misinformation about Hindus, referred to the mob that lynched Aurangzeb as a "Hindutva mob." Alishan Jafri, another individual who identifies as a journalist, described the incident as an "anti-Muslim attack." Even Alt-News co-founder Mohammad Zubair, a notorious anti-Hindu Muslim journalist, retweeted such misinformative tweets on X. The First Information Report, based on a complaint by Aurangzeb's brother Mohammed Zaki, alleged that Aurangzeb was returning home from work when he was mobbed and thrashed by some residents in the Mamu Bhanja locality around 10:15 pm. This assertion was contradicted by the police findings, which stated that Aurangzeb had entered the house with criminal intent. They assured that no communal tension would be allowed to escalate and that the situation would remain under control.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case is being added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. The tertiary category selected is- Anti-Hindu fake news or downplaying. 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. This case constitutes anti-Hindu hate speech because the Muslim perpetrators deliberately spread false narratives, falsely claiming that the Muslim man was killed by Hindus due to his religious identity, framing the incident as a communal mob lynching by Hindus. In reality, the incident involved a robbery-related altercation where the Muslim man entered a Hindu household with the intent to steal and was subsequently beaten by Hindus, resulting in his death. By manipulating the facts and falsely portraying Hindus as aggressors motivated by religious hatred, this misinformation aims to inflame communal tensions and casts Hindus in a wholly negative light. The false portrayal perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Hindus, characterising them as intolerant, violent extremists who arbitrarily target minorities. This distortion fuels social prejudice and deepens entrenched biases against Hindus, which can lead to discrimination in social, economic, and political spheres. By demonising Hindus as perpetrators of communal violence without evidence, such misinformation destroys social cohesion by sowing mistrust and hostility, thereby undermining communal harmony and escalating unjustified fears. Importantly, this unfounded narrative creates an environment rife with suspicion and animosity towards Hindus and Hinduism, adversely affecting their social standing and rights. It perpetuates a cycle of hatred that furthers the marginalisation and alienation of Hindu communities. Such misrepresentations impede peaceful coexistence and erode mutual respect among diverse religious groups, making social integration and understanding increasingly difficult. Acts of falsely demonising Hindus are rooted in religious animosity and bias against the Hindu faith and its followers, making such speech a clear example of religiously motivated hate speech. Given that this case meets the parameters of religiously motivated hate speech—targeting Hindus with deliberate falsehoods and communal incitement—it is being added to the hate-crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.