Hindu man's home desecrated and sons withheld after he refused Christian in-laws' demands to convert

Case ID : 30a81dc | Location : Gumla, Jharkhand, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 26 April, 2015

Case ID : 30a81dc

Gumla, Jharkhand, India

26 April, 2015

Hindu man's home desecrated and sons withheld after he refused Christian in-laws' demands to convert

Men attacked for being associated with non-Hindu women

Forced to convert after marriage

Forced to follow non-Hindu practises

Blackmailed to convert

Attacked by non-Hindu partner or/and her family

Case Summary

Shivkumar Sahu, a Hindu resident of Basiya Road, Sisai Thana area, Jharkhand, filed a written complaint saying that his in-laws had subjected him to sustained pressure to convert from Hinduism to Christianity. The complaint stated that his father-in-law, Shalivahan Mahto of Pipra Toli, Khunti district, had concealed the family's prior conversion to Christianity when arranging the marriage. Shivkumar and Khushbu Kumari were married in 2015 under Hindu rites and through a court marriage. Following the marriage, Khushbu began pressuring Shivkumar to read the Bible and attend church. Shivkumar stated that it was through this pressure that he first became aware of the family's conversion. Khushbu's father Shalivahan Mahto, mother Anita Devi, and elder sister Sandhya Kumari had all converted to Christianity prior to the marriage. Khushbu and Sandhya were active Christian proselytisers. Anita Devi offered Shivkumar employment as an inducement to convert. Upon his refusal, he was denied access to his two sons, whom Khushbu had begun taking to church. On 21 April, Khushbu entered the matrimonial home on Basiya Road and removed and destroyed all photographs of Hindu deities present in the house. She also uprooted the tulsi [sacred basil plant revered in the Hindu tradition as a manifestation of the divine, kept in Hindu homes as a symbol of protection and piety] plant from the courtyard and removed the Bajrang Bali flag [a devotional banner bearing the image of Lord Hanuman, displayed in Hindu homes as a mark of faith and protection]. Shivkumar stated that the sustained harassment had affected his mental health. Shivkumar filed a written complaint at Sisai Thana. Station House Officer Neeraj Kumar stated that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of Khunti Thana and that the application at Sisai had been received for information purposes. An investigation was stated to be underway.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is "Men attacked for being associated with non-Hindu women". The sub-category for this case is "Forced to convert after marriage". The tertiary category here is "Forced to follow non-Hindu practises". In such cases, a non-Hindu woman marries a Hindu man and the force/pressure against the Hindu man to convert to Islam begins after marriage. In such cases, the marriage is consensual in most cases and often, there is no element of the non-Hindu woman hiding her religious identity. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act where neither parties are 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 woman starts to pressure the Hindu man to convert to Islam after marriage. In such cases, there is application of force/pressure by the perpetrator, including, denial of the man’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the man is forced/pressured to convert include forcing/pressurizing the man to involuntarily consume beef, pressurizing/forcing to read the Kalma, forced circumcision, forced to go to the mosque, etc. There are several instances where after marriage, the man 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 the case is "Blackmailed to convert". When Hindu men are in a relationship with non-Hindu women, there are cases where the man is blackmailed to convert his religion. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim, however, there could be cases where the relationship is not consensual and the non-Hindu woman starts blackmailing a Hindu man to convert his religion. In these cases, it is often seen that the Hindu man is blackmailed with intimate photos and/or videos, threats of harm to his family, threats of violence etc. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Another sub-category for this case is "Attacked by non-Hindu partner or/and her family". When Hindu men are in a relationship with non-Hindu women, there are cases where the man is forced to convert his religion and upon his refusal to do so, the partner or/and her family attacks the victim. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu woman known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu woman or her family starts forcing/pressurizing the Hindu man to convert. In some of these cases, the association could be non-consensual as well or, the religious identity of the non-Hindu woman could be previously unknown to the Hindu victim. In such cases, the Hindu man is first forced/pressurized to change his religion by the non-Hindu woman or her family. The force/pressure could involve threats. The trigger for directing violence against the Hindu man is in these cases his refusal to comply and change his religion under threat and/or force. In other cases that have been documented, it is also seen that the Hindu partner is assaulted by the non-Hindu woman or her family simply for his relationship with the non-Hindu woman and by virtue of him following the Hindu faith and not the religion of the non-Hindu woman. In such cases, the relationship is consensual in most cases and the religion of both partners is known to the other. Often, in such cases, there is no direct force/pressure to convert either, however, the attack is a result of the Hindu man being in a relationship with the non-Hindu partner and not following her religion/following Hinduism specifically. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. The perpetrators in this case were members of a Christian family who had concealed their religious identity to secure a marriage with a Hindu man, then used that marriage as a vehicle for conversion. The concealment was not incidental; it was the mechanism by which Shivkumar was brought into proximity with a sustained, coordinated conversion campaign. The marriage itself was arranged under deliberate religious deception. Shalivahan Mahto conducted both a Hindu ceremony and a court marriage with full knowledge that his family had converted to Christianity. The use of Hindu rites was instrumental; it was not an accommodation of Shivkumar's faith but a calculated means of securing the marriage without his informed consent. Had Shivkumar known of the family's Christian identity, the source indicates he would not have proceeded. The concealment of religious identity prior to marriage is a documented method of predatory proselytisation, in which the marriage contract is used to establish leverage over a Hindu individual for conversion purposes. Following the marriage, the pressure to convert took multiple coordinated forms. Khushbu's insistence that Shivkumar read the Bible and attend church was not a personal expression of her faith but a directed effort to draw him into Christian practice. That Khushbu and her sister Sandhya were both active proselytisers establishes that conversion activity was an organised function within the family, not a spontaneous domestic dispute. Anita Devi's offer of employment as an inducement to convert demonstrates that the family was prepared to deploy material incentives specifically to overcome Shivkumar's resistance. The subsequent denial of access to his sons upon his refusal reveals that coercion escalated in direct proportion to his non-compliance. Each instrument — religious pressure, financial inducement, denial of parental access — was deployed sequentially as the preceding one failed. The destruction of Hindu religious objects was the most explicit expression of hostility toward Shivkumar's Hindu identity. Khushbu entered the matrimonial home and systematically removed and destroyed photographs of Hindu deities, uprooted the tulsi plant, and tore down the Bajrang Bali flag. The tulsi plant holds particular significance; its presence in a Hindu home is not decorative but devotional, representing divine protection over the household. Its deliberate uprooting was an act directed at the spiritual foundation of a Hindu home. The destruction was not random damage to property. Each item targeted was specifically Hindu in character. The selectivity of the destruction establishes that the act was motivated by hostility toward Shivkumar's Hindu religious identity rather than by domestic conflict alone. Given that this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, the perpetrators' conduct reflected more than domestic coercion. By arranging a marriage under concealment of religious identity, sustaining a coordinated conversion campaign, deploying material and parental leverage upon refusal, and physically destroying the Hindu religious character of the matrimonial home, their actions demonstrated a systematic targeting of Shivkumar's Hindu identity at every stage of the marriage. Shivkumar was targeted specifically because he was Hindu, and every instrument of coercion was chosen because it would be most effective against a Hindu man in his specific condition. This reflects an underlying hostility toward Hindu religious identity that cannot be characterised as anything other than religiously motivated. Given that this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, it was added to the hate crime database of the tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred, not when it was reported or published. The incident date was not confirmed in the source. The earliest available data is when they got married in 2015; therefore, 27 April 2015 has been used as the primary incident date, derived from the source's publication date and the year of marriage. This was recorded for documentation purposes only.