Hindus community targeted; Muslim children raise Islamic supremacist slogans during Muharram celebrations in Uttar Pradesh
Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, India 
13 July, 2024
Case Summary
In Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, Hindus were targeted with Islamic supremacist slogans by a group of Muslim children during the occasion of Muharram, an important Islamic festival. According to media reports, the incident took place on 14th July 2024 outside the Musafirkhana Police Station in Amethi. The event was captured on video, which went viral on social media, showing a group of minor Muslim boys chanting “Hindustan mein rehna hai, Ya Hussain kehna hai,” meaning “If you want to live in India, you must say ‘Ya Hussain’.” Following the circulation of the video, Superintendent of Police Anoop Kumar Singh registered complaints under Sections 302 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and detained seven Muslim accused. The police arrested the accused on 15th July 2024. The head priest of Swami Paramhans Ashram Sagara Babuganj, Mauni Ji Maharaj, a Hindu religious leader, strongly condemned the incident and demanded strict legal action against the Muslim offenders.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the Hinduphobia 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. The incident in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, where a group of Muslim children raised Islamic supremacist slogans during Muharram, stood as a clear instance of anti-Hindu hate speech. The chant, “Hindustan mein rehna hai, Ya Hussain kehna hai,” which translates to “If you want to live in India, you must say ‘Ya Hussain’,” was not a harmless expression but a public assertion of religious dominance. It carried an unambiguous message of coercion—implying that one’s right to live in India depended on accepting Islamic faith and identity. Such a statement went far beyond communal rhetoric. It directly targeted Hindus for their religious identity, undermining their freedom of belief and belonging in their own country. The chant itself reflected a mindset of intolerance that sought to diminish the dignity and security of the Hindu community, making this a religiously motivated act of intimidation. The words spoken during this incident were deeply provocative and pointed towards a deliberate attempt at religious subjugation. By declaring that those who lived in India must chant an Islamic phrase, the perpetrators communicated a veiled threat—that Hindu citizens could only remain in their homeland by compromising their faith and accepting Islamic supremacy. The phrase “Ya Hussain,” sacred to Muslims and deeply symbolic during Muharram, was twisted into a tool of denunciation rather than devotion. This use of a religious slogan as an instrument of communal fear exposed an intention to humiliate Hindus, portraying their beliefs as lesser or unacceptable in public life. The underlying message was exclusionary and hostile, striking at the heart of India’s secular and pluralistic spirit. It aimed to instil a sense of vulnerability and second-class citizenship among Hindus, creating psychological fear and social division. The timing of the incident during Muharram made its religious motivation even more evident. Muharram, traditionally a time of mourning and reflection that honours the sacrifice of Imam Hussain, was distorted and weaponised to promote religious supremacy. Instead of serving as an expression of faith and remembrance, it was used as a stage for intimidation. The offenders exploited the sanctity of a revered occasion to project Islamic dominance and to signal power over a minority group in a public setting. The essence of Muharram—sacrifice, justice, and moral integrity—was replaced with a message of coercion and hostility. This deliberate misuse of a sacred festival to attack another community revealed the deep-seated intent to establish a hierarchy of faith in which Hinduism was demeaned and Islam was proclaimed as superior. Such conduct met every measure of religiously motivated hate expression. It targeted Hindus solely because of their religion, used language designed to provoke enmity, and attempted to enforce a false sense of religious inferiority. The chant itself was an act of psychological violence—a declaration that Hindus could live in India only if they accepted Islamic identity. This was not merely hate speech; it was a direct challenge to the religious freedom of Hindus and social harmony. For these reasons, the incident is being categorised as anti-Hindu hate speech and is recorded in the Hate Crime Database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 5 to 10
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
