Hindu girls ridiculed, love jihad dismissed in abusive videos posted by Muslim woman under fake Hindu identity
Lakhimpur, Uttar Pradesh, India 
26 December, 2025
Case Summary
In Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri district, a Muslim woman identified as Salma came under police action for posting derogatory and abusive content targeting Hindu girls on social media while dismissing the issue of love jihad. Salma operated an Instagram account under the name “Teena Hindustani,” through which she regularly uploaded videos commenting on Hindu and Sanatan Dharma related issues. The matter drew attention after Salma posted a video in which she used vulgar and sexually explicit language while referring to Hindu girls in the context of love jihad. In the video, she mocked Hindu women who have claimed to be deceived in interfaith relationships and made indecent remarks about their personal lives. She also portrayed Muslim men accused in love jihad cases as victims and questioned the credibility of Hindu girls who alleged deception or coercion. Following the circulation of the video, Shikha Verma, President of the All India Hindu Mahasabha, filed a police complaint against Salma. In her complaint, Verma stated that Salma had repeatedly posted content that hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community, particularly Hindu women, and that she was doing so while using a Hindu sounding name on social media. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered against Salma at Kotwali Sadar police station in Lakhimpur Kheri on 27 December 2025. She was booked under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. Police took cognisance of the matter soon after the complaint was lodged. According to the FIR, Salma had been regularly making derogatory comments about Hindu women on her Instagram account, leading to outrage within the Hindu community. The complaint also noted that she had previously posted content that insulted Sanatan Dharma and Hindu religious beliefs. Salma was earlier arrested and briefly jailed in connection with another video in which she made derogatory remarks about the Hindu practice of revering cows. That video had led to legal action after complaints were filed alleging insult to religious sentiments. After the latest video sparked widespread reactions, Salma released an apology video in which she admitted that she had made the remarks without thinking and sought forgiveness. She stated that she would not repeat such actions in the future. Despite the apology, the controversial video that formed the basis of the FIR continued to remain visible on her Instagram account at the time of reporting.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the selected primary category: Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the selected secondary category is: Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimizing the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. The other subcategory selected here is- Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. 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 case qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime under the primary category of hate speech against Hindus because the accused publicly mocked and dismissed accounts of large scale targeting of Hindu girls in interfaith relationships, commonly referred to as love jihad. The remarks were not limited to personal opinion or isolated insult. They sought to deny, trivialise, and ridicule a documented pattern of abuse that has affected hundreds of Hindu families across multiple states. By portraying Hindu girls as dishonest, ignorant, or complicit, and by framing allegations of deception and coercion as fabricated, the speech targeted Hindu victims as a collective and attempted to erase their experiences from public legitimacy. Love jihad refers to a recurring pattern in which Hindu girls are targeted for relationships by Muslim men who conceal their religious identity, misrepresent intentions, and later apply pressure for religious conversion. These cases often involve grooming over extended periods, emotional manipulation, isolation from family, threats, and in several instances physical violence. In many documented cases, families have reported that the Hindu identity of the girl becomes the central point of hostility once the relationship is revealed, followed by coercion to abandon her faith. The phenomenon is not defined by a single incident but by repetition, similarity of method, and geographic spread, which together indicate a systematic pattern rather than coincidence. The denial and mockery of this phenomenon constitute hate speech because they function to delegitimise victims of religious targeting. When such abuse is publicly dismissed using vulgar and humiliating language, it discourages victims from reporting, normalises hostility, and shifts blame onto those who have already faced deception or violence. In this case, the accused did not merely question individual allegations but dismissed the entire pattern by ridiculing Hindu girls who spoke about being deceived. This mirrors the broader tactic of denying or mocking large scale persecution, a recognised form of hate speech that seeks to erase collective suffering by portraying it as imaginary or exaggerated. The reality of this pattern is reflected in the extensive documentation carried out by Hinduphobia Tracker, which has recorded over 900 cases of Hindu girls targeted in interfaith relationships involving deception, coercion, or violence. These cases span multiple regions and social backgrounds, including minors and adult women, and reveal consistent methods such as identity concealment, grooming, emotional dependence, and pressure for conversion. The scale and consistency of these cases directly contradict claims that the issue is a manufactured narrative or a figment of imagination, as often asserted by sections of the leftist ecosystem. By publicly mocking this documented pattern and humiliating Hindu girls who have spoken about their experiences, the accused contributed to the denial of large-scale religious persecution. Such denial does not occur in a vacuum. It reinforces Hinduphobic narratives that treat Hindu suffering as illegitimate while portraying Hindu concerns as communal hysteria. In doing so, it strips victims of credibility and dignity and enables further targeting by signalling that their experiences will be ridiculed rather than taken seriously. Therefore, this case meets the criteria for classification under hate speech against Hindus, with the secondary dimension of denial or mocking of large-scale persecution. The speech in question was directed at a protected religious group, dismissed a well-documented pattern of abuse affecting that group, and used humiliation and ridicule to undermine both individual victims and the broader Hindu community. Additionally, the accused’s history as a repeat offender establishes that the speech in question was not incidental or impulsive but rooted in sustained animosity toward Hindus and their faith. Prior to this incident, Salma had been booked and briefly jailed for publishing videos that mocked core Hindu religious beliefs, including derogatory remarks targeting Sanatan Dharma and the reverence accorded to cows in Hindu tradition. Despite facing legal consequences and public backlash in earlier cases, she continued to post content ridiculing Hindu beliefs and Hindu women. This pattern of repeated conduct demonstrates a consistent hostile attitude toward Hindu identity rather than an isolated lapse in judgment, reinforcing that the present case forms part of an ongoing trajectory of Hinduphobic expression directed at Hindus as a religious community.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
