Hindu woman pressured to convert to Islam by her Muslim husband, who assaulted her for resisting; minor daughter forced to wear a burqa
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India 
1 June, 2012
Case Summary
In Faizullaganj of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu woman named Manju Rathore was repeatedly pressured to convert to Islam by her Muslim husband, Sumit, who subjected her to physical violence whenever she resisted. Furthermore, even her minor daughter was forced to wear a burqa. According to the complaint filed by the victim, the couple had married in 2012, after which Sumit repeatedly pressured her to convert to Islam. Whenever she resisted these demands, he abused and assaulted her. The complaint further stated that he attempted to impose Islamic practices within the household by forcing their ten-year-old daughter to wear a hijab and by exerting pressure on other family members. Manju also stated that her husband frequently restricted her movements, including preventing her from attending work, and regularly subjected her to intimidation and harassment. The complaint further detailed an incident that occurred on 2 June 2026 when Manju returned home after completing her duty. Sumit refused to allow her into the house and opened the gate only after police personnel arrived. After the police left, he physically assaulted her with a cricket bat. When their son and daughter intervened to protect their mother, they too were assaulted and sustained serious injuries. Both children required hospitalisation following the incident. Based on Manju's complaint, the police registered an FIR against Sumit and initiated an investigation into the matter. Police officials stated that statements from both parties would be recorded and further action would be taken after examining the evidence.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category - Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Within this, the subcategory selected is - Forced conversion after marriage. 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 parties are 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 her 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 her religion and give up her religious identity. In both situations, there is 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, 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. The other sub-category selected here 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 pressurizing 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 second primary category selected here is - Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, the sub-category selected here is - Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination, with the tertiary category being - Conversion of minor. 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 other sub-category selected here 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. This case has been added to the tracker because a Hindu woman named Manju Rathore was repeatedly pressured to convert to Islam by her Muslim husband, Sumit. Pressuring a Hindu individual to discard his religious faith and embrace another is a direct attack on his religious identity and dignity. It is not a matter of personal choice; it is coercion rooted in hostility towards the victim's Hindu identity. Such an attempt reflects religious animosity because the act is not simply about personal differences but about erasing the victim’s Hindu faith, making it a religiously motivated crime. Furthermore, when the victim resisted, she was subjected to abuse and physical assault. The violence and coercion were therefore directly tied to religious compliance and the demand that she renounce her Hindu identity. The fact that the abuse intensified specifically around conversion demands demonstrated that the targeting was deeply religiously motivated and centred on forcing the Hindu woman to abandon her faith identity. Additionally, the accused attempted to impose Islamic practices within the household by forcing the minor daughter to wear a hijab and by exerting pressure on other family members to convert to Islam. The child's mother opposed both the conversion attempts and the imposition of Islamic practices, meaning that these actions were carried out without her consent. By attempting to override the wishes of both the Hindu mother and the minor daughter, the accused sought to impose a religious identity upon the child against the wishes of her primary caregiver, making the conduct especially coercive in nature. It is important to note here that the daughter was a minor, which means the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They may not have the ability to fully understand the implications of converting to another religion, and the accused purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victim and made her wear a burqa. Furthermore, by forcibly imposing Islamic rituals like wearing a burqa, the accused violated her religious autonomy and demonstrated deep-seated hatred towards Hinduism. Such actions were not mere persuasion but a systematic assault on her faith, aimed at breaking her spiritual ties and reprogramming her beliefs, constituting religiously motivated persecution. 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 till they convert. Such acts were not merely personal crimes; they were rooted in a desire to dominate and erase the religious identity of the victim. Since such predatory actions stem from doctrinal animosity towards the Hindu faith and its adherents, this case is being documented as a religiously motivated hate crime. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the date of the incident based on when the crime occurred. The media reports published this case on 20 June 2026. However, the media reports do not specify the exact date of the beginning of the victim’s ordeal. The victim was married to the accused in 2012, and on 2 June 2026, the accused physically assaulted her. Considering these two pieces of information, we are using an indicative date of 2 June 2012 as the date of the incident. This date is used for documentation purposes only and represents the estimated beginning of her ordeal.
Victim Details
Total Victim
2
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 2
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 2
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
