Hindu man brutally assaulted and abused with Hinduphobic slurs by Khalistani supporters in Brampton, Canada

Case ID : 30a7401 | Location : Brampton, Ontario, Canada | Date of Incident : Sat, 27 February, 2021

Case ID : 30a7401

Brampton, Ontario, Canada

27 February, 2021

Hindu man brutally assaulted and abused with Hinduphobic slurs by Khalistani supporters in Brampton, Canada

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

In Brampton, Canada, a Hindu man named Yashdeep Shinde was brutally assaulted and verbally abused with Hinduphobic slurs by a Khalistani individual (Sikh extremists) named Jodhvir Dhaliwal. The incident occurred on 28 February 2021, when the Hindu community and the Indian diaspora in Canada organised a “Friendship Car Rally” to express gratitude after India supplied COVID-19 vaccines to Canada during the pandemic. Khalistani activists opposed the rally and gathered on the streets in protest, carrying Khalistani flags and confronting participants. During the confrontation, the accused, Jodhvir Dhaliwal, forcibly snatched the Indian tricolour from Yashdeep Shinde’s vehicle and attempted to spit on it. The accused then used abusive language targeting the victim’s Hindu identity. Video footage of the incident later circulated widely, showing Dhaliwal pushing Shinde onto the road while hurling Hinduphobic slurs, including statements mocking Brahmins and telling the victim to “go and drink urine.” The remarks were made as an attempt to demean Hindu religious practices and degrade the victim’s identity. The situation escalated into physical violence as the attackers pushed, abused, and manhandled the victim in the middle of the road while other Khalistani supporters joined in the confrontation. During the scuffle, another youth grabbed Shinde and continued abusing him, while Dhaliwal repeatedly insulted him using caste-based and Hinduphobic remarks. The attack took place amid an argument between Shinde and Khalistani supporters who had attempted to stop the rally and intimidate participants. Shinde sustained serious injuries during the assault, including a broken arm, and later expressed distress over the lack of accountability in the aftermath of the incident. According to the victim, the legal proceedings did not result in meaningful justice and serious charges were dropped despite video evidence of the attack. Police in Brampton arrested Jodhvir Dhaliwal following the circulation of the video and charged him with attempted murder, while another individual, Jaskaran Singh, faced assault charges. However, months after the arrest, the Crown prosecutor withdrew the charges against Dhaliwal after he completed anger-management counselling, and a medical report claimed that there was no fracture of the victim’s arm. The court subsequently imposed a one-year peace bond ordering Dhaliwal to stay away from the victim. Dhaliwal did not accept criminal responsibility during the court proceedings and claimed that he had committed no offence, agreeing only to counselling conditions. The victim later stated that he came to know about the withdrawal of the case through media reports rather than through the police or the court, which deepened his sense of injustice.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. The sub-category for this case is - Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other primary category selected here is - Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected 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 hate crime because the violence and abuse directed at the Hindu victim were explicitly tied to his Hindu identity and were accompanied by derogatory and dehumanising remarks about Hindus and Brahmins. During the confrontation in Brampton, the accused did not merely engage in a physical altercation; he also used language that specifically targeted the victim’s religious and cultural background. The repeated use of statements such as telling the victim to “go and drink urine” while referring to him as a Brahmin constituted a direct attempt to demean Hindu beliefs and practices. Such slurs are widely recognised as Hinduphobic insults intended to mock and degrade Hindu traditions, transforming the assault from a simple dispute into an act motivated by hostility towards the Hindu community. This remark was not a random insult but a deliberate reference to the “gaumutra” slur that has increasingly been used by anti-Hindu actors to demean Hindu religious traditions. In Hinduism, cow urine (gaumutra) and cow dung hold religious, spiritual, and medicinal significance, rooted in the belief that the cow is sacred and worthy of reverence. By weaponising this reference during the assault, the attacker sought to ridicule a practice associated with the Hindu faith and to humiliate the victim because of his religious identity. The increasing use of the "gaumutra" jibe suggests a broader agenda to normalise the mockery of Hindu religious symbols, setting the stage for more direct attacks on Hindu deities and beliefs. This slur is not simply about targeting a practice but serves as a stepping stone towards undermining the entire Hindu faith. The context of the incident further reinforces the religious and ideological nature of the attack. The victim was participating in a car rally organised by members of the Indian and Hindu community in Canada to express gratitude for the supply of COVID-19 vaccines sent by India. Khalistani supporters opposed the rally and deliberately confronted the participants, targeting individuals who were publicly displaying the Indian tricolour and expressing solidarity with India. Khalistani separatists perceive India as a Hindu collectivity and harbour specific animosity toward Hindus and their faith. Their demand for a separate state stems from the belief that the Sikh religious identity is distinct from India's perceived Hindu identity, much like Islam. Therefore, the act of snatching the Indian flag from the victim’s vehicle, attempting to spit on it, and directing Hinduphobic slurs at the participant demonstrates that the confrontation was not limited to a political disagreement but extended into religiously charged hostility against a Hindu individual and, by extension, India. The escalation into physical violence, combined with the use of humiliating and Hinduphobic slurs, demonstrates that the victim was targeted not as an individual but as a representative of a broader Hindu community. By pushing the victim onto the road, verbally abusing him, and ridiculing Hindu practices, the attackers created an atmosphere of intimidation designed to humiliate and silence members of the Hindu community participating in the rally. Such behaviour serves a broader purpose of discouraging public expressions of Hindu identity and support for India within diaspora spaces. Taken together, the targeted use of Hinduphobic slurs, the desecration and attempted humiliation of a symbol associated with India, and the physical assault on a Hindu participant in a community rally demonstrate a pattern of hostility rooted in religious identity. The incident, therefore, meets the threshold of a hate crime, as the violence and abuse were directed at the victim specifically because of his Hindu identity and were intended to demean and intimidate the wider Hindu community present during the event. Disclaimer: This case involved multiple individuals participating in the assault and verbal abuse directed at the victim. However, only two perpetrators were explicitly identified in available reports. The individuals named in connection with the attack were Jodhvir Dhaliwal, who physically pushed and abused the victim while using Hinduphobic slurs, and Jaskaran Singh, who was also charged in relation to the assault during the confrontation. Since these two individuals were the only perpetrators who were explicitly named, the perpetrator count in the tracker has been recorded as 2.