Hindu student returning from temple visit taken hostage by Muslim men and pressured to convert to Islam, attacked with spear and swords for resisting
Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, India 
23 March, 2026
Case Summary
A Hindu BSc [Bachelor of Science] student named Nitin from Badraka village in the Achalganj area of Unnao district, Uttar Pradesh, was taken hostage, subjected to derogatory remarks about Hinduism, and pressured to convert to Islam on his way back from a temple visit. When he resisted, the perpetrators attempted to attack him with a spear and sword even after police arrived at the scene. Nitin subsequently filed a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police demanding action after police initially characterised the incident as a simple altercation. On 24 March, Nitin was returning from darshan [a Hindu devotional visit to a deity] at Shuklapur Devi temple when he encountered Kariya Khan and members of his family from a neighbouring village near the Mavaiya poultry farm. The group made derogatory and insulting remarks about Hinduism. When Nitin objected, they took him hostage by force and began pressuring him to convert to Islam. Passersby alerted the Badraka police post, and the in-charge arrived at the scene and freed Nitin from captivity. Even in the presence of police, the attackers attempted to assault Nitin with a spear and sword, demonstrating a level of brazenness that reflected their confidence in operating without consequence. Despite the seriousness of the incident, police characterised it as a dispute between two parties that had been resolved through local mediation. Achalganj police station in-charge Brijesh Kumar Shukla stated that a disagreement had occurred on 24 March and that local people had intervened to settle the matter. He suggested that the allegation of conversion pressure was raised ten days after the fact for tactical reasons. Unsatisfied with the police response, Nitin filed a written complaint directly with the Superintendent of Police, detailing the hostage-taking, the anti-Hindu remarks, and the forced conversion attempt, and demanding formal action against the perpetrators. A video of Nitin narrating his ordeal went viral on social media on March 28, 2026 (Saturday), bringing the case to wider public attention. Police confirmed that a thorough investigation was underway.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category for this case is "Predatory Proselytisation". The sub-category for this case is "Attempting to convert/ converting by denigrating Hinduism". In several cases, Hindus are converted or an attempt is made to convert Hindus by denigrating their faith, Hinduism. In such cases, the Hindus associate with the non-Hindu perpetrators often by choice and then, the attempt to convert them by insulting their faith, showing the faith down etc begins. An example of this would be a non-Hindu gathering where the Hindus are attending the gathering of their own free will. However, once they attend the gathering, there is an explicit attempt to convert them by abusing their faith and hailing the faith of the perpetrator. The denigration of the Hindu faith is often based on misrepresentation of the Hindu faith, its doctrine and scriptures and insult to espoused traditions if not blatant lies about Hindu beliefs and ways. Such conversions or attempts at conversions are driven by animosity towards the Hindu faith and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. Another sub-category for this case is "Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion". Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other primary category selected here is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the subcategory selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The attack on Nitin bears clear markers of a religiously motivated hate crime, evident from the sequence, context, and nature of the actions carried out against him. The first marker is the explicit and unprovoked targeting of his religious identity. Nitin was intercepted while returning from a temple visit, a moment when his Hindu identity was visibly expressed through religious practice. There is no indication of any prior dispute or personal trigger. The perpetrators initiated the confrontation on their own, immediately directing derogatory remarks at Hinduism, demonstrating that the attack was unprovoked and rooted in hostility towards his faith rather than any individual grievance. The second marker lies in the coercive attempt to alter his religious identity. The act of taking him hostage and pressuring him to convert to Islam transforms the incident from verbal harassment into an effort to forcibly override his religious agency. The hostage-taking was not incidental; it served to isolate him, break his will, and ensure that he would submit under sustained pressure. By creating a situation of fear and control, the perpetrators sought to compel compliance, making the conversion demand central to the violence inflicted upon him. The third marker is the escalation of violence upon resistance. When Nitin refused to comply, the perpetrators attempted to assault him with weapons, including a spear and sword, even in the presence of police. This escalation demonstrates that the violence was contingent on his refusal to abandon his faith, reinforcing that the attack was not incidental but directly tied to his religious identity and his resistance to conversion. Finally, the contextual pattern of behaviour, including the brazenness of continuing the attack in front of law enforcement, underscores a sense of impunity often seen in targeted acts where perpetrators do not anticipate serious consequences. The subsequent attempt to downplay the incident as a routine dispute further obscures the religious hostility that is central to understanding the crime. Taken together, the targeting during a religious act, the anti-Hindu remarks, the forced conversion attempt, the coercive use of confinement, and the violence triggered by refusal establish that this was not a spontaneous altercation but a deliberate act rooted in religious hostility towards a Hindu individual. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records perpetrator counts based on information confirmed in the source material. In this case, the source names Kariya Khan as the primary perpetrator and refers to members of his family and other individuals accompanying him during the attack. However, no specific number of additional perpetrators is confirmed anywhere in the source. The perpetrator count has therefore been recorded as one. If further information emerges confirming the precise number of individuals involved in the attack, this figure will be updated accordingly.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
