Hindu communities in West Bengal threatened with hostile Bangladesh annexation as Islamic preacher abuses Hindu leaders during rally
Bangladesh 
11 May, 2026
Case Summary
Hindu communities in West Bengal were threatened with territorial aggression and communal retaliation during a public speech delivered by Bangladeshi Islamic preacher Mufti Junaid Bin Gulzar which surfaced by 12th May 2026. The speaker openly declared that West Bengal would become part of Bangladesh and warned that India would be “shattered into pieces” if action was not taken against Hindu political leadership in the state. The speech invoked past mobilisation over the Babri Masjid dispute and called for another “Long March” towards India. The rhetoric specifically framed Hindus and the Indian state as enemies of Muslims and presented territorial takeover as a response to the treatment of Muslims in West Bengal. During the gathering, Mufti Junaid Bin Gulzar spoke before a large crowd and referred to the political situation in India following the Bharatiya Janata Party’s electoral victory. He stated that Muslims in West Bengal and across India were facing oppression under the Bharatiya Janata Party government. While addressing the gathering, he directly targeted Hindu political leader Suvendu Adhikari with abusive language and referred to him as mentally unstable and dangerous and a "mad dog". He further stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi must “rein in” him or India would be broken apart. As the speech progressed, the speaker repeatedly shouted that India would be “shattered into pieces”, prompting cheers and slogans from the audience. He then referred to the Babri Masjid movement and stated that Muslims in Bangladesh had previously organised a “Long March” towards India after the demolition of the Babri Masjid. He used this historical reference to invoke collective Islamic mobilisation against India and by extension, Hindus and framed it as an example of Muslim resistance. The speech escalated further when the speaker announced that another “Long March” would take place. He declared before the crowd that this time the announcement would be that West Bengal would become part of Bangladesh. The statement directly targeted the territorial integrity of an Indian state with a large Hindu population and framed the proposed incorporation as part of a broader Islamic political mobilisation. The crowd responded with loud cheers and slogans as the declaration was repeated multiple times. The rhetoric used during the gathering presented Hindus and Hindu political leadership as enemies of Muslims and portrayed Islamic mobilisation against India as justified retaliation. By invoking the Babri Masjid issue, threatening the fragmentation of India, and calling for the incorporation of West Bengal into Bangladesh, the speech framed communal confrontation and territorial aggression in explicitly religious terms. The repeated references to Muslim mobilisation and Hindu political figures reinforced the communal character of the speech and intensified hostility towards Hindus in West Bengal and India more broadly. No information confirming police action, arrests, detention, or formal legal proceedings against Mufti Junaid Bin Gulzar was available in the source material at the time of documentation. The speech continued to circulate online via video recordings and social media posts that documented the statements made during the gathering.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category - Hate speech against Hindus. Within this, the sub-category 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. Another subcategory selected for this case is - Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially, the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual, however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category. This case qualified as a religiously motivated hate speech incident because Bangladeshi Islamic preacher Mufti Junaid Bin Gulzar openly used communal rhetoric against Hindus, threatened territorial aggression against West Bengal, and framed Hindu political leadership as enemies of Muslims before a cheering crowd. The speech repeatedly invoked Islamic mobilisation against India and presented the fragmentation of India and incorporation of West Bengal into Bangladesh as desirable outcomes. The rhetoric specifically targeted Hindu political authority, Hindu societal dominance, and Hindu identity in West Bengal. The repeated use of communal language, threats, and mobilisation rhetoric demonstrated deliberate hostility directed towards Hindus and Hindu political representation. The primary religious marker in this case was the hate speech directed against Hindus with violent threats through communal mobilisation rhetoric and threats against India and West Bengal. During the speech, Mufti Junaid Bin Gulzar repeatedly framed Muslims as victims of oppression under Hindu political leadership and presented confrontation against India as a justified Islamic response. He invoked the Babri Masjid issue and praised earlier Muslim mobilisation towards India, before openly calling for another “Long March”. This was religiously significant because the speech did not discuss political disagreement in neutral or constitutional terms. The rhetoric portrayed India, and especially West Bengal under Hindu political leadership, as hostile entities against Muslims requiring Islamic resistance and retaliation. The speaker deliberately invoked emotionally charged communal symbols such as Babri Masjid and Islamic mobilisation in order to inflame religious hostility against Hindus. By repeatedly speaking of India being “shattered into pieces” and linking this to Muslim anger and mobilisation, the speech positioned Hindus and the Indian state as collective enemies of Muslims. In this context, “India” was not used merely as a geographical reference but as a civilisational and political entity identified by the speaker with Hindu authority and Hindu dominance. The repeated declarations that West Bengal would become part of Bangladesh therefore functioned as intimidation directed at Hindus living in the state and against the Hindu political structure governing it. The communal framing demonstrated that the objective was not ordinary political commentary, but religiously charged hostility aimed at humiliating and threatening Hindus as a collective community. The speaker deliberately used threatening language tied to collective Muslim action and hostile territorial expansion into a Hindu majority region. The invocation of previous marches linked to the Babri Masjid issue further reinforced the message of religious confrontation against Hindus. The declaration regarding West Bengal was not symbolic alone. It presented the idea of removing a Hindu majority Indian state from India itself and bringing it under an Islamic national framework. This reflected explicit hostility towards Hindus and projected Islamic political dominance over a Hindu population. The speech therefore functioned as a direct intimidation threat against Hindus and against the continued existence of Hindu political authority in West Bengal. The other religious marker was the mocking and denigration of Hindu political leaders through communal abuse and dehumanising rhetoric. During the speech, Mufti Junaid Bin Gulzar publicly insulted Hindu political leader Suvendu Adhikari and referred to him as a “mad dog” before the crowd. The speaker also framed Hindu political authority as inherently oppressive towards Muslims and portrayed Hindu leaders as enemies requiring confrontation. This was religiously significant because the insults were not limited to ordinary political criticism. The abuse was delivered within a larger communal speech portraying Hindus and Hindu aligned political leadership as threats to Muslims and justifying aggressive Islamic mobilisation in response. The speech further reflected the broader ideological concept of Muslim communal solidarity extending beyond national borders. The speaker repeatedly expressed anger over the political situation in India and West Bengal despite being based in Bangladesh. This demonstrated that the hostility was not rooted merely in domestic Bangladeshi political concerns, but in religious identification with Muslims across borders and animosity towards Hindu political leadership governing a neighbouring Hindu majority region. The repeated focus on Hindu leaders such as Narendra Modi and Suvendu Adhikari showed that the speech targeted them not simply as politicians, but as representatives of Hindu political authority and Hindu collective identity. The communal abuse and dehumanising rhetoric therefore reflected deeper religious hostility directed at Hindu leadership and, by extension, the Hindu community they represented. Given that this case met the parameters of a religiously motivated hate speech incident, it was added to the hate speech database of the tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
