Hindu woman brainwashed, forcibly converted after marriage, forced to eat 'beef' by Muslim congress leader in West Bengal

Case ID : 30a7867 | Location : West Bengal, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 31 December, 2001

Case ID : 30a7867

West Bengal, India

31 December, 2001

Hindu woman brainwashed, forcibly converted after marriage, forced to eat 'beef' by Muslim congress leader in West Bengal

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion after marriage

Forced to eat beef

Forced to do Nikah

Assault or threat upon refusal to convert

Brainwashed and/or groomed

Victim says she was brainwashed/groomed

Case Summary

In West Bengal, a Hindu woman named Priyanjali Neogi was lured, brainwashed and forcibly converted after her marriage to the Muslim man, Congress leader Ali Imran Ramz. She sustained physical, mental, and financial abuse spanning several years after their marriage. According to reports, the victim, Priyanjali, married the accused, Ali Imran Ramz, at the age of 19, against the wishes of her family. She stated that after she was brainwashed and after she became pregnant, the marriage was solemnised because of concerns over his political image and vote bank. Following the marriage, her name was forcibly changed to Zara Imran Ali. When she raised objections to this, Ali Imran Ramz assaulted her and punched her in the stomach during pregnancy, which resulted in a miscarriage. The victim further stated that the abuse did not stop after the birth of her children. She said that she was repeatedly subjected to physical assault, threats, mental pressure, and financial exploitation over the years. She further stated that Ali Imran Ramz and his mother demanded dowry and took ₹50–60 lakh in jewellery and money from her sister. She also stated that she was beaten multiple times and was at one stage admitted to hospital following the assault. Further, in one of the interviews, she stated that the accused had also coerced her into eating beef without her consent. According to the victim, despite approaching the police station earlier, no effective action was taken on her complaints. Thereafter, in January 2024, she lodged an FIR against Ali Imran Ramz and his mother. She further stated that she was later assaulted again and was forced to sign an agreement under coercion, following which her flat, money, and jewellery were taken away. She also stated that when she recently went to take custody of her child, she was assaulted once again. Subsequently, Priyanjali Neogi wrote to senior Congress leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, seeking organisational action against Ali Imran Ramz. She also appealed to Mamata Banerjee to intervene in the matter. Ali Imran Ramz denied the allegations and stated that the matter was sub judice in view of the ongoing divorce proceedings.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is "Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes". The subcategory that this case qualifies for is: "Forced conversion after marriage". The tertiary categories here are "Forced to eat beef" and "Forced to do Nikah". In such cases, a non-Hindu man marries a Hindu woman, and the force/pressure to convert to any Abrahamic faith, like Islam, begins after marriage. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act, where neither party is required to convert their religion for the marriage to be considered legitimate. While the victim in such cases enters matrimony assuming that religious identity is not a barrier, the non-Hindu man starts to pressure the woman to convert to his religion after marriage. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man, pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert to his religion and give up her religious identity. In both situations, there is the application of force by the perpetrator, including the denial of the woman’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the woman is forced/pressured to convert include force-feeding beef, being forced to read the Kalma, being forced to wear a hijab, being forced to undergo Halala, etc. There are several instances where, after marriage, the woman voluntarily converts to Islam. Such cases are often argued to be a result of religious brainwashing; however, for the purpose of documenting religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of the victim complaining of forced conversion, such cases do not form a part of the database. Another sub-category for this case is "Assault or threat upon refusal to convert". When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman faces threats or assault after she refuses to convert and change her religious identity owing to pressure/force by the non-Hindu man. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts pressurising the Hindu woman to convert to Islam and upon her refusal, assaults or threatens the victim. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Cases where the Hindu woman converts to Islam and does not file a complaint about the force or threat are not considered a part of the hate tracker, even though it may be argued that the woman was brainwashed or threatened to convert to Islam. Another sub-category for this case is "Brainwashed and/or groomed". In our database, we have not added incidents where women have converted to another religion of their free will, and no allegations of forced/involuntary conversion have been made. However, there are certain cases of conversion where the consent itself is a result of the brainwashing or grooming of a minor by the non-Hindu perpetrator trying to victimise a woman for her Hindu religious identity. The phenomenon of grooming points to non-Hindu perpetrators identifying their Hindu victims’ vulnerabilities and exploiting them over months and sometimes years, to extract the supposed ‘consent’ to convert their religion. In most cases of grooming, the victims are minors, or the grooming started when the victim was a minor. In other cases of grooming, the non-Hindu perpetrator brainwashes and grooms a minor victim to extract their trust and then proceeds to rape them repeatedly with the intent of converting them to their faith. It is pertinent to understand here that when the victim is a minor, the ‘consent’ to convert or enter into a romantic relationship with an adult itself is redundant – addressed by POCSO. While every case of conversion of a minor and incidents of establishing a physical relationship with a minor by an adult are crimes, for this database, a case would be considered a hate crime only if there is a distinct religious angle to the grooming. For example, in the UK, if a Hindu minor is targeted by Pakistani grooming gangs, it would be considered a hate crime because the victims are specifically targeted owing to their non-Muslim religious identity, with the perpetrators being Muslim. In other cases, if a Hindu minor is brainwashed into entering a physical relationship with the non-Hindu adult perpetrator and the family alleges grooming/brainwashing of the minor to convert her religion, it would form a part of this database. If the victim is a Hindu adult, the case would form a part of this database only if the victim herself says that she was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. However, if the victim is deceased (murdered or otherwise), the case would form a part of this database if her family/friends provided testimony that the victim was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. Since these crimes have a distinct religious angle where the victim is being targeted owing to her Hindu religious identity, these cases are considered hate crimes. This case qualifies for documentation in the tracker because a Hindu woman was subjected to brutal physical, mental, and financial torture by her Muslim husband and his mother, specifically within the context of an interfaith marriage where her identity, autonomy, and resistance were systematically crushed. The sustained abuse was not incidental domestic cruelty, but a targeted campaign to break her will and erase her sense of self. The first significant factor is that the victim entered the marriage at a very young age, a stage of life where the mind is often more vulnerable to emotional manipulation, grooming, and calculated influence. Her youth made her easier to lure into a relationship that she believed was built on trust and permanence. Once inside the marriage, the first visible step towards control was the forced change of her name. This was not a mere social adjustment but a direct erasure of identity. A person’s name carries lineage, family roots, cultural continuity, and often religious belonging. Altering the Hindu woman’s name marked the beginning of a deliberate process through which her pre-marital identity was displaced and replaced. When she objected to this transformation, she was met with severe violence, including being punched in the stomach during pregnancy, leading to miscarriage. This violence served a clear purpose: it was inflicted so that she would stop raising her voice and learn to remain silent. The assault was a tool of domination, intended to teach obedience through fear and to ensure that any future resistance would be suppressed at its source. Such conduct reveals a pattern of coercive conditioning rather than isolated rage. After the marriage, the perpetrator's true intentions were revealed. He forced the victim to eat beef in direct violation of her Hindu dietary practices. Forcing a Hindu to consume beef is not only a profound disrespect to their religious beliefs but also constitutes a religiously motivated hate crime. In Hinduism, cows are revered as sacred animals, symbolising life and sustenance, and the act of consuming beef is considered highly sacrilegious by many Hindus. Therefore, compelling a Hindu to eat beef goes beyond mere dietary imposition; it is an intentional violation of their religious principles and an assault on their cultural and spiritual identity. The abuse then deepened into sustained physical assault, mental harassment, and financial stripping over several years. Money, jewellery, and property were taken from her and her family, and she was repeatedly assaulted, hospitalised, and later coerced into signing documents under pressure. This demonstrates a continuing design to isolate her, weaken her support structure, and render her dependent and powerless. Where violence extends beyond the woman and reaches into the resources and security of her family, it functions as indirect pressure upon her choices and identity. The role of the husband’s mother in this sustained abuse is equally significant. The participation of close family members transforms the violence into a collective structure of intimidation. It creates an environment in which the victim is surrounded by hostility within the household itself, leaving no safe space for dissent. Such familial participation is often used to intensify psychological pressure and ensure that the woman submits to the conditions imposed upon her. The cumulative effect of these acts was the systematic breaking down of a Hindu woman’s autonomy within an interfaith marital setting. Her identity was altered, her objections were punished with violence, her pregnancy was attacked, her finances were stripped, and her voice was suppressed through fear. The cruelty was directed not merely at the individual but at her ability to retain her original identity and exercise free will. For these reasons, this case is being documented as a targeted hate-crime-related incident involving the sustained torture and coercive subjugation of a Hindu woman within an interfaith relationship. Disclaimer: Here, it becomes important to note that none of the media reports on this case mentioned the exact date when the conversion occurred, except that the victim married the accused when he was 30. The accused is now 54, as per public records. Therefore, to document this case, we have chosen a date, 1 January 2002, which is not accurate but only indicative of the year. Further, the media reports stated that the Hindu victim was targeted by Muslim perpetrators; however, the total number of victims was not specified. Only two perpetrators, the accused husband and his mother, were specified. Therefore, the perpetrator count was recorded as two (2). This is a conservative estimate, as the total number of perpetrators could be higher.