Hindu activists faces threats of legal action for highlighting children performing to violent Islamist slogan ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ at Jalna's school event

Case ID : 30a901b | Location : Jalna, Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 15 June, 2026

Case ID : 30a901b

Jalna, Maharashtra, India

15 June, 2026

Hindu activists faces threats of legal action for highlighting children performing to violent Islamist slogan ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ at Jalna's school event

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Case Summary

A Hindu social media handle which highlighted a controversial school programme in Partur, Jalna district, Maharashtra, subsequently became the target of action by the school administration after footage from the event gained public attention. The activists involved with the X account, Treeni, had circulated video material showing children performing at the school's annual function to the murderous song 'Sar Tan Se Juda' while carrying dummy swords. The programme also featured a background display that drew widespread scrutiny because it carried imagery associated with Mumtaz Qadri, the Pakistani extremist who assassinated Punjab Governor Salman Taseer in 2011 and that of the Indian flag. The controversy emerged after videos from the annual function of Kids World English School surfaced on social media. The footage showed schoolchildren participating in a choreographed performance to the song "Gustakh e Nabi Ki Ek Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda". The phrase translates to "There is only one punishment for insulting the Prophet, separation of the head from the body". The performance involved children dancing with dummy swords while the Indian national flag and visuals of Pakistani terrorist Mumtaz Qadri repeatedly appeared on the screen in the background. As the footage circulated, concerns were raised about the content presented during the school function. Attention focused not only on the song but also on the background display, which observers identified as resembling Mumtaz Qadri. Qadri had gained notoriety after assassinating Punjab Governor Salman Taseer for supporting Asia Bibi, a Christian woman convicted under Pakistan's blasphemy laws. He was subsequently convicted and executed by Pakistani authorities in 2016. The Hindu activist publicised the video and called for authorities to examine the programme and determine how such content had been presented during a school event involving minor children. Appeals were made to educational and law enforcement authorities seeking an inquiry into the incident. Following the circulation of the footage, demands emerged for action by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Maharashtra Police, and district authorities. As public scrutiny intensified, the school administration responded to the controversy. The institution stated that the viral video was about two years old and that the stage display arrangements had been handled by an outside contractor during the event. School representatives stated that they could not identify whose photograph had appeared on the display screen and further stated that the visual content shown during the programme was not directly controlled by the school. Subsequently, the institution said that the visuals originated from the Turkish series "Ertugrul". The matter escalated further when the school administration threatened to file an FIR against the Hindu social media handle that had brought the matter to light. Instead of limiting its response to addressing concerns regarding the programme itself, the institution threatened the Hindu activists who had shared the video online. The action was directed at the individual responsible for bringing the programme to public attention and seeking accountability over the content displayed before schoolchildren. Following the emergence of the controversy, police authorities initiated an inquiry into the incident. Additional Superintendent of Police Vikram Sali stated that an inquiry had been assigned to officials from Partur Police Station and the Sub Divisional Police Officer of the Partur Division. On June 17, 2026, the police registered an FIR against the school principal, Mohammad Vajiyoddin Tarekh Siddiqui; a teacher, Sheikh Sajid Abdul Gani; and Ujma Tabassum, who anchored the event.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category - Attack not resulting in death. The sub-category selected within this is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. This case has been included in the tracker because the Hindu social media activists were targeted after exposing and drawing attention to content that glorified and exposed minor children to an extremist Islamist slogan associated with religious violence and intimidation. The school administration, instead of acknowledging its mistake, directed hostility towards the activists who highlighted a programme in which schoolchildren performed to the song “Gustakh-e-Nabi Ki Ek Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda”, a slogan that is synonymous with Islamist threats, mob intimidation, and acts of violence committed in the name of blasphemy against kafirs or non-Muslims, specifically Hindus. His actions challenged the public normalisation of extremist religious rhetoric, and the subsequent backlash was directed at him for bringing this issue into public scrutiny. The religious dimension of the incident is particularly significant because the slogan “Sar Tan Se Juda” is not a neutral phrase or an ordinary religious expression. It is a slogan that explicitly advocates beheading as punishment for perceived blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad. Over the years, it has become one of the most recognisable rallying cries used by Islamist radicals to threaten, intimidate, and silence non-Muslims and dissenters. The slogan has repeatedly surfaced during protests and campaigns targeting Hindus and others who were perceived to have insulted Islamic religious figures. Its use carries an unmistakable message of religiously motivated violence and coercion. The slogan's significance extends beyond rhetoric because it has been linked to real-world acts of violence. Individuals such as Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati were murdered by Islamist extremists after allegations of blasphemy, and the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan became closely associated with the atmosphere of radicalisation and incitement surrounding such incidents. The school not only glorified, but also promoted and normalised this Islamic extremist beheading song, and exposed young minds to the radicalised slogan associated with calls for the beheading of kafirs or Hindus. This carries severe implications, as the event risked functioning as a vehicle for the subtle indoctrination and radicalisation of impressionable young Hindu minds. Against this backdrop, the targeting of the Hindu activist becomes especially relevant. Rather than focusing solely on concerns regarding the content itself, action was directed against the individual who exposed it. The activist's role was to highlight the public presentation of material associated with extremist religious ideology, yet he became the subject of threats of legal action for doing so. This response effectively punished scrutiny of rhetoric that has historically been used to intimidate and silence Hindus. The hostility was therefore directed not merely at a social media user but at an individual challenging the public dissemination of a slogan that has become emblematic of religiously motivated violence. The incident also reflects a broader pattern in which those who oppose radical Islamist narratives or draw attention to extremist rhetoric become targets themselves. By threatening action against the Hindu activist instead of addressing concerns raised about the glorification of a slogan associated with beheading and religious violence, the response sought to deter criticism and discourage further exposure of such content. This created pressure on those who speak out against religious extremism and reinforced an environment where raising concerns about anti-Hindu intimidation carries personal consequences. The impact extends beyond the individual victim. When a Hindu activist faces repercussions for exposing material linked to a slogan historically used not only to threaten and terrorise but to brutally massacre Hindus, the message reaches the wider Hindu community as well. It signals that challenging extremist religious rhetoric may invite retaliation, thereby discouraging others from documenting, questioning, or opposing similar manifestations of radicalism. Such actions contribute to a climate of fear where criticism of extremist ideologies becomes increasingly difficult. Overall, the incident demonstrates clear religious hostility because the victim was targeted after exposing and opposing the public presentation of a slogan intrinsically linked to Islamist intimidation, blasphemy-related violence, and threats against non-Muslims, specifically Hindus. As a result, the targeting of the activist constituted a religiously motivated act aimed at silencing opposition to extremist ideology and discouraging efforts to expose rhetoric that has historically been used to threaten and victimise Hindus. For these reasons, the case warrants inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker as a religiously motivated hate incident. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when a crime occurs, not when it is reported in the media. However, in this case, the available media reports do not specify the exact date of the incident. Accordingly, the date on which the incident surfaced in the media, 16th June 2026, has been adopted as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only.