Hindu woman sexually exploited, forced to convert to Islam, made to wear burqa and fast during Ramadan by Muslim man

Case ID : 30a9d96 | Location : Vadodara, Gujarat, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 7 July, 2024

Case ID : 30a9d96

Vadodara, Gujarat, India

7 July, 2024

Hindu woman sexually exploited, forced to convert to Islam, made to wear burqa and fast during Ramadan by Muslim man

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion before marriage

Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices

Forced to wear Hijab

Case Summary

In Vadodara, Gujarat, a 21-year-old Hindu woman was lured into a relationship and subjected to sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage by a Muslim man. The accused hid the fact that he was married and later pressured the victim to convert to Islam for marriage. He also forced her to wear a burqa and observe Islamic practices, including Roza (fasting) during Ramadan. The accused was the victim's Muslim colleague, Miran Monuddin Qadri. Based on her complaint, Vadodara police registered a case against Qadri and initiated further investigation. The woman, originally from Uttarakhand, lived with her family in Vadodara and worked as a customer service executive for Air India Airlines at Vadodara Airport. According to her complaint, she started her job in June 2024 and met Qadri about a month later, in July 2024. He worked in the security department at the airport. The two began talking and remained in contact through social media. Their friendship developed into a relationship, after which Qadri asked the woman to marry him. She agreed to the proposal, and the two continued meeting and spending time together. In August 2024, Qadri called the woman to meet him in Fatehganj and arrived there in a car. The woman stated that he had sexual intercourse with her in the car after promising to marry her and gaining her trust. She further stated that he repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her in the car at the same location during the night, continuing to promise marriage. About four to five months later, the woman came to know from airport staff that Qadri was already married and had two children. When she confronted him about his marriage, he told her that he would divorce his wife and marry her after the divorce. The woman then resumed communication with him. According to the complaint, Qadri later gifted the Hindu woman a burqa and told her that she would have to convert to Islam if she wanted to marry him. She was subsequently pressured to adopt Islamic customs, including observing fasting during Ramadan. During this period, Qadri had sexual relations with her several times while continuing to promise that he would marry her. Qadri repeatedly told the woman that he would divorce his wife and marry her afterwards. However, the woman stated that he had not initiated any discussion or legal process for divorce with his wife and that his assurances of marriage were false. About a month before she approached the police, Qadri refused to marry her. The woman then ended the relationship. Following this, Qadri became angry, abused her, threatened to make obscene photographs of her public and threatened to kill her. He subsequently continued to harass her through phone calls. The woman eventually approached the Vadodara police and submitted a written complaint. Based on her complaint, Makarpura police station registered a case against Qadri under Sections 69, 64(2)(m), 296(b), 351(2) and 351(3) and Section 4 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act. The police initiated further investigation into the case.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

In this case, the first primary category selected is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The subcategory selected is: Forced conversion before marriage. The tertiary categories selected are: Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices, Forced to wear hijab. In such cases, a non-Hindu man is in a relationship with a Hindu woman when the pressure to convert her religion begins to manifest. 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, however, at some point during the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts to force the victim to convert her religion and give up her Hindu religious identity. 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 the situations, the methods used to force the victim to convert her religion often revolve around force-feeding beef, forcing her to wear hijab, forcing her to read the Kalma or even pressurizing the victim to do ‘Nikah’, which is marriage under Islamic law, with a prerequisite being conversion to Islam. Cases where a Hindu woman consensually converts to Islam in a relationship will be left out of the hate crime database, even though it could be argued in several cases that the conversion was a result of religious brainwashing. This case represented a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime against a Hindu woman, as she was lured into a relationship, subjected to sexual exploitation, and subsequently pressured to abandon her Hindu faith and convert to Islam. The coercion did not stop at conversion pressure, as she was also pressured to follow Islamic religious customs, including observing Roza (fasting) during Ramadan, and wearing a burqa. Taken together, these acts showed that the woman's Hindu religious identity was directly targeted during the course of the relationship. The repeated attempts to make her abandon her faith and adopt another religion, alongside the sexual exploitation and subsequent threats and harassment, demonstrated a pattern of conduct directed at a Hindu woman because of her religious identity, making the case a clear instance of religiously driven hate crime. It is important to first understand the predatory nature of the relationship from its inception. The perpetrator lured the Hindu woman into a romantic relationship and then subjected her to repeated sexual relations by promising to marry her. He used the promise of marriage to gain her trust and keep her involved in the relationship while concealing the fact that he was already married. Even after she discovered his existing marriage, he continued to promise that he would divorce his wife and marry her. This pattern showed that the relationship was predatory from the very beginning, with the woman being drawn into a romantic and sexual relationship through repeated assurances of marriage rather than being treated as a genuine partner. The sexual exploitation she was subjected to was also religiously driven, as the perpetrator sexually exploited the Hindu woman while pursuing an objective of making her abandon her Hindu faith and convert to Islam. In this context, the sexual exploitation was not merely for sexual gratification but formed part of a broader effort to target and violate her because of her Hindu identity. Subjecting a Hindu woman to repeated sexual exploitation while subsequently pressuring her to surrender her faith demonstrated religious hostility towards her identity and amounted to religiously driven sexual violence, making it a clear component of the hate crime. The subsequent pressure to convert the victim to Islam demonstrated hostility towards her Hindu religious identity. Conversion pursued through external pressure or coercion, rather than through a person's free and informed conviction, is not a voluntary change of faith but an attempt to deprive the victim of her existing religious identity. In this case, the perpetrator made conversion to Islam a condition for marriage, placing pressure on the Hindu woman to abandon her faith in order to continue the relationship. This violated her religious autonomy and fundamental right to choose, retain and practise her faith freely. By seeking to make the abandonment of Hinduism a prerequisite for marriage, the perpetrator disregarded the woman's religious identity and sought to replace it with an Islamic identity against her will. This made the coercive conversion a clear expression of religiously motivated hostility and a component of the hate crime. The pressure to adopt Islamic customs, including wearing a burqa and observing Roza, further demonstrated the systematic nature of the attempt to distance the victim from her Hindu identity. The imposition of the burqa went beyond a demand concerning personal clothing, as it formed part of the broader effort to impose an Islamic lifestyle and religious identity upon a Hindu woman who had not voluntarily chosen to adopt it. Similarly, pressuring her to observe Roza, that is, fast during Ramadan, involved compelling her to participate in an Islamic religious practice. These acts demonstrated how the pressure was extended beyond conversion itself and into the victim's everyday conduct, appearance and religious practices. The gradual imposition of Islamic customs sought to alienate her from her Hindu faith and normalise the abandonment of her existing religious identity, thereby reinforcing the coercive attempt to convert her to Islam. Taken together, these acts showed that the objective was not merely to enter into a relationship with the victim, but to exert control over her religious identity and progressively replace her Hindu practices with Islamic ones. The fact that the perpetrator ultimately refused to marry the victim after subjecting her to sexual exploitation and pressuring her to convert further demonstrated the extent to which she had been treated as a means to an end rather than as an equal partner. After the relationship ended, he became abusive, threatened to make obscene photographs of her public, threatened to kill her and continued to harass her through phone calls. This conduct demonstrated a profound disregard for the woman's dignity and well-being after she had already been subjected to sexual exploitation and religious coercion. His actions indicated that he had not treated her as a genuine prospective partner whose autonomy, dignity and faith deserved respect, but as someone whom he could exploit, pressure and subsequently intimidate. Viewed alongside the repeated attempts to make her abandon her Hindu faith, the conduct demonstrated a deep-seated hostility towards her religious identity and formed part of the wider pattern of abuse directed against her as a Hindu woman. Since the case met the parameters of a hate-driven offence, it was added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident date based on when the victim's ordeal began or when the crime occurred, rather than when the incident was reported in the media. In this case, the available media reports did not specify the exact date on which the victim's ordeal began; they only stated that she first met the perpetrator in July 2024. The earliest available media report was published on 8 August 2026. Therefore, 8 July 2024 was selected as the indicative incident date based on the available information. This date was recorded for documentation purposes only and did not represent a confirmed date of the incident.