Hindu woman threatened and coerced to consume beef, wear burqa and convert to Islam by Muslim-in-laws

Case ID : 30a8490 | Location : Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India | Date of Incident : Tue, 17 February, 2026

Case ID : 30a8490

Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India

17 February, 2026

Hindu woman threatened and coerced to consume beef, wear burqa and convert to Islam by Muslim-in-laws

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion after marriage

Forced to eat beef

Forced to wear Hijab

Assault or threat upon refusal to convert

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for refusal to convert

Case Summary

A Hindu woman from Sadhpura Milki Tola in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, was pressurised to abandon her Hindu faith, convert to Islam, consume beef, and wear a burqa against her wishes by her Muslim in-laws. When she refused to comply with these demands, she was subjected to sustained mental and physical torture, religious humiliation, assault, and threats. The matter came to light after the victim lodged an FIR at the Kazi Mohammadpur police station. According to the victim's complaint to the police, the 28-year-old Hindu woman worked as a teacher and was preparing for the UPSC examinations, while her husband worked as a graphic designer. The victim stated that although the marriage had taken place in 2019, her husband’s family never accepted the marital relationship. After the marriage, the conduct of her in-laws became increasingly hostile. The victim stated that she was repeatedly pressured to abandon her Hindu religious beliefs and adopt Islamic practices. She stated that her in-laws forced her to consume beef in direct violation of her Hindu religious beliefs and dietary practices, compelled her to wear a burqa, and prevented her from following her own religion. Whenever she resisted these demands, she was verbally abused, physically assaulted, and subjected to sustained mental torture. The victim stated that the harassment became so severe that she fell into depression and was undergoing treatment. She further stated that her in-laws constantly attempted to destroy her marriage by maligning her character, abusing her with obscene language, and threatening her with serious consequences. The Hindu victim further stated that the atmosphere inside her matrimonial home was deeply disturbing and inhuman. She stated that family members viewed children merely as a source of income and encouraged having more children so they could later earn money through labour. She stated that she was repeatedly insulted by being called barren and was subjected to repeated physical assaults and death threats. According to the victim, her in-laws wanted her to become fearful, compromise, and abandon her fight for her legal and personal rights. According to the complaint, tensions within the family further escalated after her father-in-law filed a maintenance case against her and her husband before the court, which remains pending. The Hindu woman further stated that on 18 February 2026, the accused persons attempted to commit obscene acts with her. When she resisted, she was assaulted, and her clothes were torn. She further stated that attempts had also been made to kill her. According to the complaint, around 20 to 40 people were organised in the form of a panchayat, where efforts were made to provoke people against her and communalise the marital dispute on religious grounds to spread hostility and pressure her into submission. The victim had named her father-in-law, Mohammad Bashir; mother-in-law, Zila Khatoon; brother-in-law, Mohammad Shammir; and sister-in-law, Anjum Parveen in the FIR. She charged them with dowry harassment, domestic violence, assault, intimidation, and attempting to outrage her modesty. The victim further stated that she was repeatedly insulted and humiliated on religious grounds and was prevented from freely practising her Hindu faith. Upon the complaint, the police initiated an investigation into the matter.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is "Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes". The sub-category for this case is "Forced conversion after marriage". The tertiary categories here are "Forced to eat beef" and "Forced to wear hijab". 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. The other category selected is- Attack not resulting in death, and within this, the subcategory selected is- Attacked for refusal to convert. When there is pressure, threat or coercion employed upon the Hindu victim to convert to a different religion, in several cases, the victim refuses to succumb to the pressure/threats. Once the victim refuses, the perpetrator proceeds to attack/assault the victim owing to his/her refusal to convert. In such cases, the pressure/threat/intimidation/coercion/violence itself is driven by animosity towards the victim’s Hindu faith. The violence then is another hate crime driven by the victim’s refusal to abandon his professed faith, Hinduism, and convert to the religion of a non-Hindu perpetrator. Since the victim’s faith is at the heart of the pressure to convert and the ensuing violence towards the victim, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case qualified as a hate crime because a Hindu woman was subjected to sustained religious coercion, intimidation, and violence aimed at forcing her to abandon her Hindu identity and submit to practices associated with Islam against her will. The victim stated that she was pressured to convert to Islam, consume beef, wear a burqa, and obey religious practices that directly conflicted with her Hindu beliefs. When she resisted, she was assaulted, threatened, humiliated, and psychologically abused. In this instance, there is no specific element indicating that the Muslim accused hid his religious identity. In such cases, the woman is, in all probability, made to believe that her faith would not stand in the way of their relationship. Here too, taking the accused’s word for it, the Hindu woman married the Muslim man; however, his true intentions became clear immediately after they tied the knot. What began was a systematic process to pressure the woman to give up her professed faith and convert to Islam. The pressure to convert was not an isolated domestic disagreement but a direct attack on the victim’s freedom of conscience and religious identity. The repeated attempts to compel her to renounce her faith demonstrated that her Hindu identity was neither accepted nor tolerated. The use of threats, intimidation, and violence to secure compliance further showed that the coercion was deliberate and systematic rather than incidental. 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. Further, the victim was also forced to follow other Islamic practices like wearing a burqa and offering namaz. In the broader context of hate crimes, forcing someone to engage in behaviour that is expressly forbidden or offensive in their religion is a clear manifestation of religious intolerance. It demonstrates a blatant disregard for the victim's rights to practice their faith freely. Here, the actions of the perpetrator clearly point towards the deep disdain he harboured for Hindus and their religious beliefs. It is evident that the perpetrator targeted the victim because of her religious identity and that his motivation was driven by religious hate. Furthermore, when the victim refused to comply, the perpetrator subjected her to sustained mental torture. The sustained violence and intimidation further reinforced this coercive environment. The victim was beaten and threatened whenever she resisted these demands. A whole crowd of 20-40 people were organised to pressure and isolate her socially while communalising the dispute on religious grounds. Such actions stem from inherent hostility towards the victim’s professed faith since Abrahamic faiths believe that any non-adherent to the faith is subject to being dehumanised until they convert, and this doctrinal mindset often manifests through sustained pressure, coercion, and the imposition of practices designed to erase the religious identity of the victim. Given that the victim was targeted through sustained pressure to renounce her faith, obey practices contrary to her religion, and submit under fear and violence, this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime and was therefore added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when a crime occurred or when a victim’s ordeal began, rather than when the media reported it. In this case, the victim stated that the harassment and religious coercion had continued for a prolonged period after her marriage in 2019. Since only the year is mentioned and not the month and date, 10th May, when the report was published, has been selected along with 2019, the year when the victim's ordeal began, as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes