Hindu politician issued "Sar Tan Se Juda" threats by Muslim political goons in Kolkata, West Bengal

Case ID : 30a8582 | Location : Kolkata, West Bengal, India | Date of Incident : Sat, 9 May, 2026

Case ID : 30a8582

Kolkata, West Bengal, India

9 May, 2026

Hindu politician issued "Sar Tan Se Juda" threats by Muslim political goons in Kolkata, West Bengal

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Case Summary

In West Bengal's Kolkata, a Hindu man, Shaunak Marik, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) youth leader from the Rajabazar area, was issued "Sar Tan Se Juda" (beheading) threats by Muslim workers associated with the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) on 10 May 2026. This incident came to light when Nazia Elahi Khan, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Minority Morcha from Kolkata, uploaded a video and post on her official X handle on 11 May 2026. In the post, she wrote that Shaunak was receiving beheading threats from Muslim TMC goons for being part of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and for maintaining law and order in the area. In her X post, Nazia wrote: “Kolkata Rajabazar Bharatiya Janata Party youth leader Shaunak Marik has been threatened with beheading by All India Trinamool Congress members. Mamata Banerjee's Muslim workers are now acting with a jihadist mindset." In the video, she was seen standing outside the Narkeldanga Police Station in Kolkata along with Shaunak and other Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) workers. She said that she had come here to request police security for Shaunak, as he was receiving sar tan se juda threats from Muslim TMC goons in the area. Nazia said on 10 May 2026, Shaunak was threatened by TMC Muslim goons that in the next three days, they would behead him. In the video, Nazia also lashed out at the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), its leader Mamata Banerjee, and her nephew Abhishek Banerjee. She stated that this was no longer the TMC's Bengal, where Hindu activists fighting for peace were threatened, but had now become the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) “Bhagwa Bengal”. She further urged Mamata Banerjee and Abhishek Banerjee to restrain both themselves and their Muslim mob supporters. Nazia also warned that if such incidents continued, she would file cases against Mamata Banerjee and Abhishek Banerjee.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case is being added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. 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 was a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime, as the Hindu victim was subjected to “sar tan se juda” threats simply for his association with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which the perpetrators viewed as a pro-Hindu or Hindutva party, and for maintaining peace and law and order in the area. The threats targeted him because of his identity as a Hindu activist and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker who stood for Hindu rights and community safety. The use of such explicitly religious beheading threats went far beyond ordinary political rivalry and reflected deep-rooted hostility towards his Hindu identity and activism, making this a clear case of religiously motivated intimidation and hate targeting. The use of the slogan “Sar Tan Se Juda” in particular constituted an explicit and religiously motivated threat directed at the Hindu victim in this case. “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda, sar tan se juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for disrespecting the Prophet Muhammad, beheading”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets running amok and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against their Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined this slogan, it has gained popularity among Islamists in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Islamists chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence against Hindus, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It aims to instil fear in the broader community. Islamists use this tactic to settle personal scores with non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target on them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false blasphemy accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. The appearance of this slogan in the present case demonstrates how deeply normalised such violent rhetoric has become within public and political discourse. In this instance, there was no allegation of blasphemy or insult towards any Islamic figure. The Hindu victim was targeted because of his political affiliation with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which Muslims perceive as a party that works for Hindu interests, along with his activism and his role in maintaining law and order in the area. The fact that he was subjected to “Sar Tan Se Juda” beheading threats solely for his association with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and his Hindu activism highlights the deep-rooted animosity harboured by the perpetrators towards individuals who work for Hindu rights or openly assert Hindu interests. The use of such threats in this context demonstrates that the slogan is increasingly being deployed as a weapon of intimidation against Hindus who assert themselves socially, politically, or religiously. This underscores the openly hostile, retaliatory, and religiously charged nature of the threats issued in this case. Overall, since this case involved the targeting of a Hindu individual through explicitly religiously motivated beheading threats, intimidation linked to his community and political activism, and rhetoric rooted in Islamist hostility towards Hindu assertion and activism, it fulfilled several key parameters of a hate crime. Therefore, the case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.