Hindu woman pressured into conversion and nikah, subjected to caste-based abuse by Muslim man in Meerut

Case ID : 30aa172 | Location : Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 29 April, 2018

Case ID : 30aa172

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

29 April, 2018

Hindu woman pressured into conversion and nikah, subjected to caste-based abuse by Muslim man in Meerut

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion before marriage

Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices

Forced to do Nikah

Blackmailed to convert

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

In Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu woman belonging to the Dalit community, identified as Anita, was lured into a relationship by a Muslim man, Zakir Saifi. Saifi sexually assaulted her and subsequently used an intimate video to blackmail and pressure her into converting to Islam and entering into nikah (Islamic marriage) with him. Her name was subsequently changed, and she was given an Islamic name, Anisa Khatoon. She was also made to follow Islam throughout the approximately eight years that she lived with him and was subjected to caste-based slurs and abuse by Saifi. According to the victim Anita, Saifi established a relationship with her around eight years earlier (2018) and had sexual relations with her against her wishes before recording an intimate video. When she objected to the video being made, Saifi threatened to make it public. Anita, who identified herself as belonging to the Hindu community, stated that Saifi used the video to pressure her into converting to Islam and marrying him according to Islamic customs. She was forcibly converted to Islam and married to Saifi through nikah on 30 April 2018. Saifi was identified as a resident of Madhavpuram in Meerut. In a separate video statement, Anita stated that her original name was Anita but that her husband had changed it to Anisa Khatoon and told her that she would follow Islam. She said that she had continued to follow Islam throughout the period she had been with him, which she described as approximately eight years. Anita further stated that following the marriage, Saifi repeatedly abused and assaulted her and subjected her to caste-based slurs. According to her, he told her that he would not keep her and that there were many women like her. She further accused him of pressuring her to establish improper relations with other men and engage in prostitution to earn money. When she resisted, she stated that he beat her and threatened her life. In her video statement, Anita said that Saifi had initially promised to keep her happy but had subsequently abandoned his responsibilities towards her. She stated that over the previous two years, Saifi had neither taken care of her nor provided for their children and family. She further said that he did not even look at her or give her any money. Describing her situation and uncertainty about the future, she said that she did not know where she would go or what she would do. According to her, the situation had become particularly difficult and had worsened over the previous two years. The complaint also referred to a case filed by Saifi in the Family Court in Meerut. Anita stated that Saifi had filed Case No. 1090 of 2021 without her knowledge and without any notice being served upon her. An ex parte decision dated 9 January 2023 was subsequently used to declare their marriage, which had taken place on 30 April 2018, void. She stated that she came to know about the court proceedings only later. When Anita confronted Saifi regarding the matter, she stated that he threatened her and warned her against taking any legal action. Anita also said that one of Saifi's acquaintances, identified as Shahzad, entered her home, behaved obscenely with her and attempted to force himself upon her. She contacted Dial 112 following the incident. According to her complaint, Shahzad left the premises after threatening her. She further stated that Shahzad and some unidentified associates continued to follow her, leaving her fearful for her safety. Anita urged the police to register a case against her husband and the other individuals named in the complaint and take appropriate legal action. In a complaint submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 27 August 2026, Anita detailed the incidents and sought action against the accused. Brahmapuri Circle Officer Ram Prakash stated that the woman from Madhavpuram had submitted a complaint against her husband and that investigation was ongoing.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been documented under the selected primary category: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Under this, the selected secondary category is: Forced conversion before marriage. The selected tertiary categories are: Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices and forced to do nikah. 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, 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 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 pressuring 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. The second subcategory selected in this is: Blackmailed to convert. When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman is blackmailed to convert her religion, owing to her religious identity of being a Hindu. Such relationships may be consensual, with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim; however, there could be cases where the relationship is not consensual, and the non-Hindu man starts blackmailing a Hindu woman to convert her religion. In these cases, it is often seen that the Hindu woman is blackmailed with intimate photos and/or videos, threats of harm to her or her family, threats of violence, etc. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. The other primary category selected in this case is: Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is: Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case constituted a clear example of a religiously driven hate crime because a Hindu woman was lured into a relationship by a Muslim man, sexually assaulted, and subsequently blackmailed and pressured into converting to Islam and entering into nikah (Islamic marriage) with him. The victim’s Hindu name was changed to an Islamic name, and she was made to follow Islam throughout the approximately eight years that she lived with him. During this period, she was also subjected to physical abuse and caste-based slurs. The sequence of events, from the initial relationship and sexual exploitation to the coercive conversion, nikah and continued imposition of an Islamic identity, demonstrated a pattern of predatory conduct directed at undermining and replacing the victim’s Hindu religious identity. Firstly, the fact that the victim was later pressured into converting to Islam and entering into nikah indicated that her initial targeting and luring into a relationship formed part of a broader pattern of predatory and malicious conduct. The relationship did not remain a matter of personal association but culminated in sustained pressure upon the Hindu victim to abandon her faith and adopt Islam. The progression from luring her into a relationship to coercing her into religious conversion and nikah demonstrated that the relationship was used as a means of exercising control over her and creating circumstances in which her Hindu identity was targeted. The subsequent conversion and marriage therefore provided context to the predatory nature of the initial relationship and the broader pattern of conduct directed against her. Secondly, the victim's sexual assault and the subsequent use of an intimate video to pressure her into converting to Islam demonstrated how sexual violence and exploitation were used as instruments of coercive control. After the intimate material was recorded, the threat of making it public was used to place the victim under severe pressure to abandon Hinduism and adopt Islam. This established a direct link between the sexual exploitation and the subsequent religious coercion, as the intimate video became the means through which the victim was blackmailed into conversion. The use of sexual exploitation to obtain compromising material, followed by blackmail to compel a Hindu woman to abandon her faith, demonstrated the predatory and malicious nature of the crime. The sexual violence was therefore not isolated from the subsequent conversion but formed part of the wider chain of coercion through which the victim was placed under pressure to surrender her Hindu religious identity. Thirdly, pressuring and blackmailing a Hindu woman into converting to Islam constituted a direct attack on her religious autonomy, dignity and freedom to retain her faith. The victim's conversion was not the result of a free and informed choice but was obtained through threats, blackmail and coercion, with the intimate video being used as a tool to exploit her vulnerability and pressure her into abandoning Hinduism. By doing so, the perpetrator sought not only to control the victim personally but also to compel her to renounce her existing religious identity and adopt Islam. Her Hindu faith was thus treated as something that had to be discarded in accordance with the perpetrator's demands rather than respected as an integral part of her identity. The fact that the threats and blackmail were specifically used to secure her conversion demonstrated the religious dimension of the coercion. What should have remained an individual's voluntary decision regarding matters of faith was instead turned into an act of domination, in which the victim was deprived of her freedom to retain and practise her religion. By specifically targeting her Hindu faith for abandonment and compelling her to embrace another religion under pressure, the perpetrator demonstrated hostility towards Hinduism and the victim's religious identity. Fourthly, the fact that the victim's conversion was directly linked to nikah demonstrated the predatory and religiously coercive nature of the episode. Under the traditional Islamic legal framework governing marriage, a Hindu woman would have to convert to Islam before entering into nikah with a Muslim man. In this case, the perpetrator pressured the victim to abandon Hinduism and adopt Islam before marrying her through nikah. Her conversion was therefore directly linked to the formalisation of the relationship under the religious framework chosen by the accused. By coercing her conversion and subsequently marrying her through nikah, the perpetrator not only fulfilled the religious requirements associated with the marriage but also institutionalised her newly imposed Islamic identity. The nikah thus consolidated a conversion obtained through sexual exploitation, blackmail and pressure. By making the abandonment of her Hindu faith a prerequisite for marriage, the perpetrator treated her religious identity as something that had to be discarded and replaced, making the nikah part of the broader process of coercively erasing her Hindu identity. Furthermore, the alteration of the victim's Hindu name from Anita to Anisa Khatoon following her conversion demonstrated a further attempt to replace and erase her pre-existing Hindu identity. The change was not presented as an isolated alteration but formed part of a broader process in which the victim was pressured to abandon her faith, undergo nikah and live according to Islam. Replacing her Hindu name with an Islamic one reinforced the transformation of every visible aspect of her earlier religious identity. It reflected an attempt to sever her association with her previous Hindu identity and normalise the identity imposed upon her following the coercive conversion. Viewed alongside the sexual exploitation, blackmail, forced conversion and nikah, the change of name demonstrated the extent to which the victim's Hindu identity was targeted for replacement rather than respected as an autonomous aspect of her personhood. In this case, the victim was also subjected to caste-based slurs by the perpetrator. This served as another marker indicating the religiously motivated nature of the crime committed against her. It can be argued by some that caste-specific slurs were aimed at her micro identity of belonging to the Dalit section of the Hindu community and not at her Hindu identity itself. However, as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary. It is the religious identity that drives the animosity of the perpetrator against the Hindu victim. In this case, while Saifi hurled caste abuses at the victim, the animosity was driven by his animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. While the immediate trigger of the violence involved the perpetrator's broader pattern of abuse and coercion against the victim, the fact that caste slurs were hurled at the victim by the perpetrator makes it a religiously motivated hate crime against the victim. 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 are not merely personal crimes; they are rooted in a desire to dominate and erase the religious identity of the Hindu victim. Since such actions stem from doctrinal animosity towards the Hindu faith and its adherents, this case is being documented as a religiously motivated hate crime in the tracker. Disclaimer: At the Hinduphobia Tracker, incident dates are recorded based on when the victim's ordeal began rather than when the incident was reported in the media. In the present case, media reports did not specify the exact date on which the victim's ordeal began. However, they stated that she married the perpetrator on 30 April 2018. Therefore, this date has been selected as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only.