Hindu student leader threatened and doxxed for protesting the denigration of Lord Ram at Dhaka University at Dhaka University

Case ID : 30a937b | Location : Dhaka District, Bangladesh | Date of Incident : Mon, 15 June, 2026

Case ID : 30a937b

Dhaka District, Bangladesh

15 June, 2026

Hindu student leader threatened and doxxed for protesting the denigration of Lord Ram at Dhaka University at Dhaka University

Hate speech against Hindus

Doxxing and harassment of Hindu for religious reasons

Violent threats

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Case Summary

At the University of Dhaka in Bangladesh, Dipjoy Sarkar Dipta, a Hindu student leader and Assistant General Secretary (AGS) of the Jagannath Hall Students' Union, was subjected to death threats, online harassment and dissemination of his personal information. He was targeted after he publicly defended Hindu religious rights and protested the public insult of Lord Shri Ram. The campaign was initiated by a muslim student named Jamshed. The campaign commenced shortly after he addressed a protest organised by Hindu students of Jagannath Hall condemning the insult of Lord Shri Ram and calling for the protection of the religious rights and sentiments of Hindus. According to the victim, from the night following the protest, he became the target of repeated threats and an organised online campaign intended to silence him and undermine the movement protesting the insult to the Hindu deity. According to the victim, individuals involved in the campaign circulated his personal mobile telephone number across social media platforms, exposing him to further harassment. He further stated that Jamshed, identified as the Acting President of the Bangladesh Jatiyatabadi Olama Dal, publicly portrayed him as a terrorist by associating him with the term "Bhagwa Love" without verifying the facts. He stated that content about his longtime classmate and female friend, Ratri, was circulated on social media with the intent to malign their relationship. The victim stated that their relationship had long been regarded within the university community as one akin to that of siblings and that attempts to portray it otherwise only commenced after he publicly advocated for Hindu religious rights. As per reports, the victim personally identified as an agnostic and believed in judging individuals irrespective of their religion, noting that most of his close friends and associates belonged to the Muslim community. He questioned why communal conduct directed against Hindus in Bangladesh should not be regarded with the same seriousness as comparable conduct criticised elsewhere. He further stated that those responsible for insulting Lord Shri Ram and those subsequently targeting individuals who protested against the incident represented extremist communal elements. According to the victim, preparations were underway to initiate legal proceedings against Jamshed and other individuals who had circulated rumours, issued threats, and participated in the online campaign through social media comments and private messages. He further stated that he expected protection and legal assistance from the University of Dhaka authorities and law enforcement agencies in light of the threats directed against him following his public defence of Hindu religious rights. The incident occurred against the backdrop of heightened insecurity faced by the Hindu minority in Bangladesh following the political upheaval that began with the ouster of Sheikh Hasina's government in August 2024. Since then, multiple incidents involving attacks on Hindu individuals, religious institutions, homes, businesses, and community leaders have been documented across the country. The targeting of a Hindu student leader after he publicly protested the insult of a revered Hindu deity reflected continuing concerns regarding intimidation directed at individuals asserting Hindu religious rights and participating in public advocacy on issues affecting the Hindu community.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The first primary category selected is: Hate Speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected is: Doxxing and harassment of Hindus for religious reasons. Doxxing is the act of making available publicly personal, identifiable information of an individual with the intention of compromising their safety, security and privacy. When doxing is done with religious animosity forming the basis of the intention, it often involves severe consequences like loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination for the victim’s religious beliefs. Such doxxing also involves projecting the religious beliefs, affiliations, and rituals of the victim, specifically a Hindu, in a manner that can lead to loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination. Apart from doxxing, harassment would also include misrepresentation of an individual's views and religious beliefs that would invite abuse, loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination owing to religious hate and animosity. There have been several such instances where religious animosity by one section has led to the doxxing and harassment of Hindus. For example, when a Hindu who worked in the UAE commented on the historical persecution of Hindus at the hands of Muslim invaders, his information was leaked online, leading to loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination. In another case, a Hindu man’s information was leaked online, leading to violent attacks, after he responded with an emoji to a post about Tipu Sultan, the Islamic tyrant who persecuted Hindus. Such cases are born out of intrinsic religious animosity towards Hindus and, therefore, would be considered religiously motivated hate speech. The other sub-category selected is: Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, are 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 – which 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 other primary category selected is: Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is: Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save a 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 added to the Hinduphobia Tracker because the victim was targeted for publicly defending Hindu religious rights and protesting the denigration of Lord Shri Ram, one of the most revered deities in Hinduism. The threats and coordinated online harassment were not triggered by a personal dispute or unrelated disagreement but arose directly from the victim's advocacy for the dignity of a sacred Hindu religious figure. This demonstrates that his public assertion of Hindu religious rights was central to the hostility directed against him. Lord Shri Ram occupies a central place in Hindu theology and devotional tradition, revered by millions of Hindus as an embodiment of righteousness, justice, and dharma. Public insults directed at such a deeply venerated deity are perceived by devotees as attacks on their faith itself. Equally concerning is the targeting of individuals who peacefully protest such insults. Subjecting a person to death threats and intimidation for objecting to the denigration of a Hindu deity creates a chilling effect on the exercise of religious freedom and discourages members of the Hindu community from publicly expressing or defending their faith for fear of retaliation. Another significant religious marker in this case is the coordinated attempt to silence the victim through threats, online harassment, and the dissemination of his personal information after he spoke in defence of Hindu religious sentiments. Doxxing exposes an individual to sustained harassment and physical danger by making their personal information publicly available. When employed against someone because they defended Hindu beliefs, it becomes a means of intimidating not only the individual concerned but also others who may wish to advocate for Hindu religious rights. Such conduct seeks to suppress legitimate religious expression through fear rather than engagement. The incident is further aggravated by the attempt to publicly malign the victim by falsely portraying him as an extremist and circulating content intended to damage his personal reputation after he assumed a visible role in defending Hindu religious rights. The timing and nature of the campaign indicate that these actions were aimed at discrediting and isolating him because of his public association with the Hindu cause. Efforts to stigmatise individuals who advocate for the protection of Hindu religious sentiments contribute to an environment in which defending Hindu beliefs is portrayed as illegitimate or deserving of hostility. Basically, the perpetrators' actions reveal a mindset that viewed the victim's defence of Hinduism as something to be punished rather than respected. By targeting him for protesting the denigration of Lord Shri Ram and advocating for Hindu religious rights, they demonstrated hostility towards both his religious identity and his freedom to publicly profess and defend his faith. For these reasons, this case has been included in the Hinduphobia Tracker as a religiously motivated hate crime.