Anti-Hindu fake news: Leftist and Muslim journalists falsely accuse Hindus of mob lynching Muslim cleric who died in an accident
Kodarma, Jharkhand, India 
1 July, 2024
Case Summary
An anti-Hindu fake news story was spread by Muslim and leftist journalists. They falsely stated that an Islamic cleric (Imam), Maulana Shahabuddin, was mob-lynched by Hindus in Koderma, Jharkhand, because of his Muslim identity. The incident, which took place on 30 June 2024, involved Shahabuddin, an Imam at Basramo Turkabad in Barkatha, colliding with an auto-rickshaw and injuring a Hindu woman named Anita Devi. A report published in "The Observer Post" claimed that Shahabuddin was beaten to death by a mob on 30th June 2024, while returning to his house on his bike near Ghuthari Kariya. The report claimed that Shahabuddin was attacked after his bike hit an auto in which a resident of Kathuri Kar, Anita Devi, was seated with her husband and brother-in-law. During the accident, Anita sustained injuries to her nose and hand. The report further claimed that her husband and brother-in-law gathered local Hindu residents and boys playing cricket nearby, who then assaulted the Imam with sticks and batons. It also included statements from Shahabuddin’s son, Mohammed Parvez Alam, and Suraj Das, a local leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), who insisted that it was a mob lynching and not an accident. Muslim journalists such as Naseer Giyas and Waris Masih spread the false communal lynching narrative on X (formerly Twitter). Giyas wrote: “This is the seventh mob lynching of a Muslim in a month in India. Maulana Shahabuddin, an Imam from Raghuniyadih in Koderma district, Jharkhand, was lynched by a mob while returning home on his bike.” Waris Masih went further, blaming the Modi government and the Indian media, stating: “The Modi government’s hatred for Muslims has fuelled intolerance and violence.” Mahmood Ahmad, also writing on X, declared: “Hindutva is indeed violent,” implying that the incident was orchestrated by a violent Hindutva mob. Shahnawaz Akhtar, who contributes to outlets such as Scroll and Al Jazeera, likewise described the accident as mob lynching. Anti-Hindu journalist Rana Ayyub also joined in by tweeting on X to condemn the supposed lynching. She wrote: “Pehlu, Akhlaq and Junaid received the bare minimum crumbs in this country that their lynching evoked shock and outrage, made national headlines. The lynching of Muslims on the streets normalised to the point that they are not even footnotes in newspapers.” X handles like Ashrah Hussain and Hate Detector also spread the fake news of the supposed mob lynching of the Imam. Despite such narratives, the Jharkhand Police categorically refuted the communal angle. They confirmed that Shahabuddin had succumbed to injuries sustained in the road accident while being transported to the hospital. “The Imam received injuries due to the accident. There is no communal angle here. He was transported to the hospital in a police vehicle but succumbed to his injuries on the way,” said the police. His body was then sent for a post-mortem to verify the cause of death.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected in this case 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 incident was an instance of hate speech against Hindus because Muslim journalists and leftist media outlets falsely blamed Hindus for the death of an Imam who, in reality, died in an accident. They spread the narrative that violent Hindutva mobs had gone on a rampage and lynched the Imam. This false portrayal created an anti-Hindu narrative that painted the Hindu community as inherently violent. By circulating such disinformation, these outlets propagated negative stereotypes against Hindus and demonised them collectively, which constitutes hate speech. Such instances of fake news not only malign Hindus in public perception but also lay the groundwork for further hostility and persecution against them. When a community is repeatedly portrayed as violent and oppressive without basis, it fosters resentment and legitimises acts of violence against them. Thus, the spread of this false narrative placed Hindus at risk of reprisals and inflamed anti-Hindu sentiments. Some may argue that the accused were blaming Hindutva supporters and not Hindus. However, it is important to note that 'Hindutva' is often used as a euphemism to make the targeting of Hindus more palatable. Hindutva is essentially a unifying ideology for Hindus, which became imperative for Hindus to find and preserve their cultural identity, which was being eroded and attacked due to Islamic invasions, British colonisation, Christian theological impositions and conversions. Hindutva is not a destructive ideology, as some attempt to portray, but one that is used as a unifying edifice for Hindus. Hindutva is also often used as a euphemism to target Hindus on the whole and their religious identity and faith. It is essentially semantic jugglery to confuse Hindus into believing that their own persecution by supremacists is somehow 'justified' because the specific victims espoused an ideology (Hindutva) which deserves the onslaught. The fact that the use of 'Hindutva' is merely to mask animosity towards Hindus was evident from the "Dismantling Global Hindutva" conference held in the USA, where speakers unabashedly spoke about how Hindutva and Hinduism are indistinguishable and therefore, for "dismantling Hindutva" one would have to "dismantle Hinduism". The practices of targeting Hindus and their religious and cultural identity, by using euphemisms like "Hindutva", stem from inherent animosity and hostility towards Hindus. Therefore, this case is being documented as an instance of hate speech in the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker, as it illustrates how targeted disinformation against Hindus directly fuels negative stereotypes, hatred, and potential violence towards the Hindu community.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
From 5 to 10
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
