Hindus targeted in Karnataka hate speech, Muslim leader threatens to cut Hindus into pieces
Karnataka, India 
7 February, 2022
Case Summary
Hindu individuals in Sedam, Karnataka, were subjected to violent death threats during a public speech. The statement was made by a Muslim leader of the Congress Party, Mukarram Khan, who threatened to cut Hindus into pieces. The speech was delivered in Sedam city on February 8, 2022, during the height of the Hijab controversy, with videos of it later going viral on social media. During the speech, he reportedly said that those who stopped Muslim girls from wearing the hijab would be “cut into pieces.” The speech was recorded and later circulated widely on social media platforms. The content of the speech reached a larger audience beyond the immediate gathering. Hindu individuals became aware of the remarks through these circulated videos. On 17th February 2022, a formal complaint was filed regarding the statements made during the speech. A First Information Report was registered against Mukarram Khan under Sections 153A, 298, and 295 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint stated that the remarks had outraged the religious feelings of Hindus and involved deliberate and malicious intent. The investigation included statements from witnesses who were present during the speech. Witnesses described the remarks made and confirmed the content of the speech. The case proceeded on the basis of these statements and the recorded video evidence. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated in the Karnataka High Court. On 4th February 2026, the Kalaburagi Bench of the High Court examined the case. The court observed that a prima facie case existed against Mukarram Khan based on the available material and witness statements. The request to quash the First Information Report against him was rejected. In the same proceedings, the case against Soyab Khan, who had been accused of sheltering Mukarram Khan, was examined. The court found that the allegations against Soyab Khan did not establish a prima facie case under the relevant legal provision. The proceedings against him were quashed. The case against Mukarram Khan remained active following the High Court’s decision. The matter continued under judicial process based on the charges and evidence presented.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category - Hate speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory 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. This case qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime because a Muslim political leader publicly made threatening statements targeting Hindus as a religious group. The speech directly invoked violence against Hindus in response to a religious issue. The language used was explicit and directed at a specific religious community. Religion was central because the threat was framed entirely around Hindu identity. The first element is the use of public speech to target Hindus as a group. The perpetrator addressed a gathering and made statements specifically referring to Hindus in a derogatory and hostile manner. This is religiously significant because the speech did not target individuals for personal reasons but addressed a religious community collectively. By framing the statement in terms of Hindus, the act identified religion as the defining characteristic of the target. This establishes that the Hindu identity itself was the basis for the hostility expressed. The second element is the explicit threat of violence. The statement that Hindus would be cut into pieces constitutes a direct and severe threat. This is significant because it goes beyond offensive speech and enters the realm of incitement and intimidation. The threat was not abstract but described a violent act in clear terms. This demonstrates targeting because the threat was directed specifically at Hindus, linking violence to their religious identity. The third element is the context in which the statement was made. The threat was delivered in relation to a religious issue involving the wearing of hijab. This is important because it shows that the conflict was framed along religious lines. The statement positioned Hindus as opponents in a religious matter and justified violence against them on that basis. This indicates that the targeting was rooted in religious difference rather than any individual conduct. The fourth element is the amplification of the speech through social media. The recorded video circulated widely, extending the reach of the threatening message. This is significant because it increased the potential impact on the Hindu community beyond the immediate audience. The wider circulation reinforces the harm by spreading fear and hostility at a broader level. This shows that the targeting of Hindus was not limited to a single event but had extended consequences. The fifth element is the broader impact on the Hindu community. Public threats of violence create fear and insecurity among members of the targeted group. Such statements can contribute to an environment where hostility towards Hindus is normalised. This affects the sense of safety and dignity of the community as a whole. The impact is therefore both immediate and collective. Given that this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate speech, it was added to the hate crime database of the tracker.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
