Islamists demand ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ for Hindu saint Ramgiri Maharaj for his remarks perceived derogatory towards Prophet Mohammed

Case ID : 0b676cd | Location : Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Thu, 15 August, 2024

Case ID : 0b676cd

Maharashtra, India

15 August, 2024

Islamists demand ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ for Hindu saint Ramgiri Maharaj for his remarks perceived derogatory towards Prophet Mohammed

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked over 'Blasphemy'

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Case Summary

On August 16, Saint Ramgiri Maharaj, during a sermon in Nashik’s Sinnar region, allegedly made remarks perceived as derogatory towards Prophet Mohammed, sparking significant outrage from the Muslim community. The comments led to widespread protests across Maharashtra, including in Nashik, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Mumbai, and Pune, with protestors demanding severe punishment, including calls for "Sar Tan Se Juda." In Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, large groups of Muslims gathered outside the City Chowk police station, demanding immediate action against the saint. The protests continued in various cities, leading to FIRs being filed against Maharaj in several districts. In addition to the protests, Islamist leaders and organisations lodged multiple complaints, accusing Ramgiri Maharaj of inciting religious discord. The first FIR was lodged in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar based on a complaint by local resident Rafehasan Ali Khan, who claimed that the saint's remarks had deeply hurt the religious sentiments of the Muslim community. Another FIR was filed in the Yeola region of Nashik, and further complaints were made in Mumbra, Thane, and Pune, with leaders of the Muslim community accusing Maharaj of trying to provoke communal violence. The Muslim community in Pune, represented by the Seerat Community, condemned Ramgiri Maharaj's remarks, describing them as a deliberate attempt to create communal discord. The organisation labeled Maharaj as "illiterate" and demanded that the Maharashtra government take strict action against him. Political leaders also weighed in on the matter. Imtiaz Jaleel, MP from Aurangabad and member of the AIMIM, labeled the saint's remarks part of a broader political conspiracy. Jaleel expressed outrage at the derogatory statements, while NCP leader Jitendra Awhad made similarly strong remarks, warning that the comments could inflame communal tensions and disrupt the peace in Maharashtra. Despite the widespread condemnation, Ramgiri Maharaj defended himself. He argued that his comments had been taken out of context and edited to incite public outrage. He clarified that his sermon was primarily focused on the concept of "Rajdharma" and that he had referred to historical examples and the oppression of Hindus by Islamists in the context of self-defense. Maharaj reiterated that he was a peace-loving person and never intended to hurt anyone, stating that his words were meant to highlight the truth as per Hindu scriptures and encourage unity among Hindus against oppression.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the hate tracker as a religiously motivated hate crime under two prime categories. The first is- Attack not resulting in death and under this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked over 'Blasphemy'. Blasphemy essentially refers to the desecration of anything which is held sacred/holy to a group of people. However, for religious supremacist groups, the elements of ‘blasphemy’ are ever-changing, shifting and expanding – leading to infringement on the rights of other religious groups, freedom of speech and expression, threats and even physical violence. There are instances where blasphemy is also used as a dog whistle to target Hindus owing to intrinsic animosity towards Hinduism. There are several instances where stating truths as mentioned in the non-Hindu doctrine itself has led to unmitigated violence against Hindus. There have also been instances where non-Hindus have themselves created a ‘blasphemous’ situation, like placing a Quran in a temple, to use it as an excuse to attack Hindus. Essentially, Blasphemy charges are often made up and/or are used to shut down any form of criticism of non-Hindu faiths and as a tool to target Hindus. Any physical violence over Blasphemy charges against Hindus are foundationally based on animosity for Hindus and their faith owing to religious supremacist ideologies, therefore, such attacks would be documented as religious motivated hate crimes under this category. The second category under which this case has been placed is- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the sub-category 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. Here, the Islamists called for violence against the Hindu saint Ramgiri Maharaj for a remark of his, that the Islamists deemed derogatory towards Prophet Mohammed. They demanded severe punishment, including calls for "Sar Tan Se Juda" (beheading). “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki Ek hi saza, sar tan se Juda, sar tan se Juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), their head separated from their torso, their head separated from the torso”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets running amok and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against the Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined the slogan, it has gained popularity among Islamists in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Islamists chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It aims to instil fear in the broader community. Islamists use this tactic to settle personal scores with Hindu and Christian families by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target behind them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false blasphemy accusations as a means to subjugate and victimize them. As a result, this case is classified as a religiously motivated hate crime and has been documented accordingly.