Hindus targeted for forced conversion to Christianity through monetary inducements, coercion and denigration of Hindu deities in Kullu

Case ID : 30a97d5 | Location : Kulu, Himachal Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Thu, 9 July, 2026

Case ID : 30a97d5

Kulu, Himachal Pradesh, India

9 July, 2026

Hindus targeted for forced conversion to Christianity through monetary inducements, coercion and denigration of Hindu deities in Kullu

Predatory Proselytisation

Conversion/ attempts to convert by inducement

Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism

Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion

Case Summary

Several Hindu villagers in Sunair village under the Nirmand subdivision of Kullu district, Himachal Pradesh, were targeted for forced conversion to Christianity by three Christian individuals, including a self-proclaimed Christian priest. The accused attempted to lure Hindu villagers into embracing Christianity by offering them money and making derogatory remarks about Hindu deities. One of the targeted villagers, 26-year-old Jiya Lal, subsequently lodged a police complaint after the accused entered his residence and pressured him to convert to Christianity. According to the complaint, on the night of 10 July 2026, Kamlesh Negi, a self-proclaimed Christian priest, along with Geeta Devi, a resident of Nirmand, and Prem Chand, a resident of Pujarli, entered Jiya Lal's residence in Sunair village. The three attempted to persuade him to convert to Christianity by offering him money while simultaneously making derogatory remarks about Hindu deities. According to the complaint, despite Jiya Lal repeatedly refusing to convert, the accused continued pressuring him to abandon his faith. Jiya Lal further stated that the accused did not restrict their activities to his residence. They also approached several other Hindu villagers in Sunair village and attempted to persuade them to convert to Christianity using similar methods. According to the complaint, villagers who repeatedly refused to convert were also subjected to continued pressure by the accused. On 17 July 2026, Jiya Lal lodged a complaint at the Nirmand Police Station regarding the incident. Based on his complaint, the police registered a case against Kamlesh Negi, Geeta Devi and Prem Chand under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act and initiated an investigation into the matter. Superintendent of Police, Kullu, Madan Lal Kaushal, stated that the complaint would be investigated from all angles and that further action would be taken based on the findings of the investigation.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

In this case, the primary category selected is: Predatory Proselytisation. The subcategory selected is: Conversion/attempts to convert by inducement. 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 other subcategory selected is: Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism. In several cases, Hindus are converted or an attempt is made to convert Hindus by denigrating their faith, Hinduism. In such cases, the Hindus associate with the non-Hindu perpetrators often by choice and then, the attempt to convert them by insulting their faith, showing the faith down etc begins. An example of this would be a non-Hindu gathering where the Hindus are attending the gathering of their own free will. However, once they attend the gathering, there is an explicit attempt to convert them by abusing their faith and hailing the faith of the perpetrator. The denigration of the Hindu faith is often based on misrepresentation of the Hindu faith, its doctrine and scriptures and insult to espoused traditions if not blatant lies about Hindu beliefs and ways. Such conversions or attempts at conversions are driven by animosity towards the Hindu faith and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other subcategory selected 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 constituted a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime. Several Hindu villagers were specifically targeted for conversion to Christianity through monetary inducements, the denigration of Hindu deities, and sustained coercive pressure despite repeatedly refusing to convert. The victims were offered money to abandon their faith while their religious beliefs and deities were disparaged, demonstrating that they were targeted because of their Hindu identity. Such actions reflected hostility towards the victims' religion and an attempt to sever their ties with their Hindu faith and identity. Accordingly, this incident constituted a religiously driven hate crime and an instance of Hinduphobia. The nature of the conversion campaign and its wider impact on the local Hindu community demonstrated that this was a targeted action directed against Hindus as a religious collectivity. When individuals or groups deliberately focus their efforts on converting members of one particular religion, in this case Hindus, it demonstrates that the victims were targeted because of their religious identity. Conversion efforts based not on an individual's free and informed choice, but on external persuasion, material inducements, and sustained pressure, go beyond the mere propagation of religious beliefs. They seek to undermine the values, traditions, and identity of the targeted religious community. In this case, the accused specifically approached Hindu villagers, demonstrating a disregard for their existing faith and an intention to forcibly detach them from their religious identity. Such actions were aimed at stripping the victims of their Hindu faith, making the incident a religiously motivated hate crime. The use of financial incentives to encourage conversion to Christianity demonstrated that these actions were not motivated by charity or humanitarian concern. Instead, they were calculated attempts to persuade vulnerable Hindus to abandon their religion by exploiting their economic circumstances. By offering money in exchange for religious conversion, the accused sought to influence the victims' religious choices through material inducements rather than genuine personal conviction. Such methods were particularly coercive when directed at economically or socially vulnerable individuals, as they exploit hardship to achieve religious conversion. Rather than respecting the victims' freedom of conscience, these inducements sought to manipulate them into renouncing their Hindu faith. Such actions amount to an attack on the victims' religious identity and constitute a religiously motivated crime because the inducements were specifically directed at Hindus with the objective of securing their conversion to Christianity. Another important religious marker in this case was the denigration of Hindu deities during the conversion attempts. The complaint stated that the accused made derogatory remarks about Hindu deities while simultaneously encouraging the victims to embrace Christianity. Such conduct went beyond the mere expression of religious beliefs. Hindu deities occupy a central place in Hindu religious life and are deeply intertwined with the spiritual identity of devotees. By insulting these sacred figures while attempting to persuade the victims to convert, the accused sought to weaken the victims' emotional and religious attachment to Hinduism. Denigrating the sacred beliefs of a religious community in order to portray another religion as superior is not neutral religious discourse; it is an attempt to generate religious shame and undermine the dignity of the targeted faith. In this case, the disparagement of Hindu deities formed an integral part of the overall conversion effort, demonstrating hostility towards Hinduism itself and reinforcing the religiously motivated nature of the offence. Another significant indicator of the religiously motivated nature of this incident was the continued pressure exerted on multiple Hindu villagers even after they repeatedly refused to convert. The complaint stated that the accused did not stop after receiving clear refusals from the victims but continued approaching and pressuring them to embrace Christianity. Such persistence demonstrated that the objective was not to facilitate a voluntary change of faith but to wear down the victims' resistance through repeated coercive pressure. Freedom of religion necessarily includes the freedom to refuse conversion. When individuals continue to pressure members of a particular religious community after they have unequivocally declined to convert, they disregard that freedom and attempt to impose their own religion upon unwilling victims. In this case, the repeated targeting of multiple Hindu villagers despite their refusal indicated an attempt to impose Christianity upon them through coercive means. Such conduct transformed religious propagation into coercion directed against the Hindu community, making it a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime. The fact that the accused approached multiple Hindu villagers, rather than confining their actions to a single individual, further demonstrated a broader pattern of targeting members of one religious community. According to the complaint, several Hindu households in Sunair village were approached using similar methods, including monetary inducements, derogatory remarks about Hindu deities, and continued pressure to convert. Such repeated targeting of members of the same religious community suggested that the objective extended beyond persuading a single individual and was instead directed at increasing conversions within the village. This pattern indicated an attempt to alter the religious composition of the locality by systematically targeting Hindus because of their faith. It reinforced the conclusion that the victims were selected on the basis of their Hindu identity, making the incident a religiously motivated hate crime rooted in anti-Hindu hostility. The conduct described in this case also reflected a mindset in which the victims' existing religious identity was treated as something inferior that had to be abandoned and replaced. The use of monetary inducements, repeated pressure despite explicit refusals, and the denigration of Hindu deities demonstrated that the accused did not merely seek to present an alternative faith but sought to convince the victims that their own religion was unworthy of adherence and should be discarded. This reflected an attitude of Christian religious supremacy, in which Christianity was presented as inherently superior while Hinduism was portrayed as inferior and in need of replacement. By attempting to detach the victims from their Hindu faith through coercion, inducements, and the denigration of their sacred beliefs, the accused displayed hostility towards Hinduism itself rather than simply promoting their own religion. Such conduct targeted the victims because of their Hindu identity and reinforced the conclusion that the incident was motivated by anti-Hindu bias, making it a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime and an act of Hinduphobia. Such instances of forced proselytisation are manifestations of doctrinal hostility embedded within Abrahamic religions like Christianity that regard non-adherents as inferior and encourage their conversion. This leads to the dehumanisation of those who do not share the faith and creates an environment in which coercive conversion becomes an instrument for stripping Hindu individuals of their religious identity. In this case, the entire sequence of events was rooted in hostility towards the victims because of their Hindu identity. Therefore, this case is being added to the Hinduphobia Tracker's hate crime database. Disclaimer: Although this case involved multiple victims, only Jiya Lal was specifically identified in the complaint. The total number and identities of the remaining victims were not specified. Accordingly, for documentation purposes, the victim count has been conservatively recorded as one, referring only to Jiya Lal.