Hindu villagers induced to convert through healing promises; return to Sanatan Dharma met with intimidation and threats
Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh, India 
10 June, 2026
Case Summary
Hindu villagers, including members of the Baiga tribal community, in Lalmati village under the Taregaon police station area of Kabirdham district, Chhattisgarh, raised allegations of organised religious conversion activities being carried out under the guise of healing prayer meetings (Changai Sabha). Villagers accused local pastors and Christian religious figures of inducing vulnerable Hindus to convert to Christianity by promising miraculous recoveries from illnesses and relief from personal hardships. The matter came to light after Hindu organisations and local residents objected to prayer gatherings being conducted inside a closed room and alleged that conversion activities were taking place there. According to complaints submitted to the police, a Baiga tribal woman stated that her son had been suffering from a prolonged illness when two individuals approached the family and encouraged them to adopt Christianity. They reportedly assured the family that all their problems would be resolved through faith in Jesus Christ and told her son that his health would improve if he converted, warning that otherwise he could die. Trusting these assurances, the family joined the Christian community. However, when the boy's condition did not improve, the family decided to return to Sanatan Dharma. The woman further stated that after expressing her desire to return to her ancestral faith, individuals associated with the conversion effort began pressuring and intimidating her family. According to her complaint, people visited their home, attempted to frighten them, and threatened them with legal consequences, including being sent to jail. Similar allegations were raised by other villagers, who claimed that individuals who had returned to Hinduism after converting were being subjected to pressure and harassment. As tensions grew, members of Hindu organisations reached the village and protested against the alleged conversion activities. During the dispute, counter-allegations also emerged, with some Christians accusing Hindu activists of assault during the confrontation. Following complaints from both sides, the police initiated an inquiry into the matter. Based on the complaints received, Taregaon police began investigating two local pastors, one father, and another father from Raipur. The accused individuals were called to the police station for questioning, and statements from complainants and other concerned parties were recorded. Police confirmed that no FIR had been registered at the time of reporting and stated that all aspects of the case, including allegations of inducement, conversion, and intimidation, as well as the counter-complaints arising from the protest, were being examined. Authorities stated that further legal action would be taken based on the investigation's findings.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The incident has been added to the tracker under two primary categories. The first is- Predatory Proselytisation. Under this, the subcategory selected is- Conversion/attempts to convert through inducements. Predatory Proselytisation is not just limited to threat, harassment, force and violence, but it also has contours of stealth. In several cases, the Hindu victim is exploited to convert, with non-Hindus taking advantage of their poverty. In such cases, the Hindu victim who is suffering financially is offered monetary benefits, including lucrative offers for jobs, health treatment, education, etc, to induce the victim into changing his/her religion. In such cases, the religious identity of the victim and the aim to disenfranchise him from his faith form the heart of the crime. Also, taking advantage of and exploiting an individual’s economic vulnerabilities is widely acknowledged as exploitation, forms of which are often penalised by law. Such cases therefore are considered religiously motivated hate crimes since the victim’s religious identity forms the very heart of the crime itself. The second subcategory is- Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The third subcategory is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Under this, the two tertiary categories selected are- Victim says was brainwashed/groomed and Pattern of targeting Hindus. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The second primary category selected is- Hate speech against Hindus, and within this, the subcategory chosen 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. The clearest religious marker in this case was the use of faith-based inducements to persuade Hindu villagers to abandon their ancestral religion and adopt Christianity. According to the complaints, individuals were encouraged to convert through promises of miraculous healing, recovery from illness, and relief from personal hardships. The targeting of vulnerable families facing medical and financial distress is significant because it suggests that religious conversion was being pursued not through theological persuasion but by exploiting human suffering and desperation. Particularly important is the complaint of the Baiga tribal family, which was reportedly told that the son's illness would be cured if the family adopted Christianity and that failure to do so could result in his death. Such claims transformed a family's medical crisis into an opportunity for religious recruitment. The promise of supernatural healing in exchange for conversion placed emotional and psychological pressure on vulnerable individuals who were seeking hope in difficult circumstances. This reflects a pattern frequently seen in conversion-related cases, where material, medical, or spiritual inducements are used to secure religious change among vulnerable Hindus. Another significant religious marker is that individuals who converted and later chose to return to Sanatan Dharma were reportedly subjected to pressure and intimidation. The right to freely practise, change, or return to one's faith is a fundamental aspect of religious freedom. Attempts to discourage or prevent individuals from returning to their ancestral religion indicate that the objective extended beyond voluntary religious outreach and entered the realm of coercive religious control. The allegations that families were threatened and intimidated after expressing a desire to return to Hinduism suggest hostility towards the continued practice of their original faith. The fact that the alleged activities were directed at Hindu villagers, including members of a tribal community, is also noteworthy. Tribal and economically vulnerable communities are often targeted because they are more susceptible to promises of assistance, healing, and social support. In such cases, conversion efforts cease to be purely religious and become intertwined with the exploitation of vulnerability for the purpose of religious expansion. This case, therefore, goes beyond a simple dispute over religious preaching. The allegations point to a systematic effort to secure conversions through promises of miraculous healing and to maintain those conversions through pressure directed at those who wished to return to their ancestral faith. The targeting of vulnerable Hindu families, the use of inducements linked to illness, and the intimidation of those seeking to return to Sanatan Dharma collectively demonstrate hostility towards the preservation of Hindu religious identity. For these reasons, the case qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime and has been included in the tracker.
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
