Hindu community targeted with ‘Sar Tan Se Juda’ beheading slogan during Islamic religious observance in Aligarh
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India 
25 August, 2026
Case Summary
In the Pali Mukimpur police station area of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, the Hindu community was targeted through the Islamic beheading slogan “Sar Tan Se Juda” by three Muslim men and their associates. The slogan was raised alongside anti-Hindu social media posts, videos and abusive comments targeting the Hindu community. The incident took place during an Islamic religious observance. According to media reports, the matter came to light after Rupesh Bajrangi, a resident of Maupur village and District Vice President of the Hindu Raksha Dal, submitted a written complaint to the Station House Officer along with his associates. In his complaint, Bajrangi stated that the three Muslim youths, who were from a village in the Pali Mukimpur police station area, and their associates had been continuously sharing anti-Hindu videos and posts on Instagram. They were also making abusive and vulgar comments targeting Hindus and spreading obscenity through such content. On 26 August 2026, during the observance of 12 Wafat (the 12th day of the Islamic month of Rabi al-Awwal, associated with Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi), slogans such as “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda”, meaning “There is only one punishment for insulting the Prophet Muhammad: beheading”, were raised. Bajrangi described the slogans as 'radical and terrorist' in nature and stated that they had been prohibited by the High Court. Bajrangi submitted the complaint on behalf of Hindu organisations and demanded strict legal action against those involved. Lalu Pradhan, Vikas Chaudhary and others were also present when the complaint was submitted. Station House Officer Hemant Mavi confirmed that the police had received the written complaint and stated that the matter was being investigated.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category: Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the subcategory 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 a 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 or 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 – thereby 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 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 was added to the hate crime database because the use of the Islamic beheading slogan “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda” constituted an explicit threat of religiously motivated violence against Hindus. The fact that the slogan was raised in the context of anti-Hindu videos and posts shared by the Muslim perpetrators demonstrated that the threat was explicitly directed at Hindus. This made this incident a clear case of a religiously driven hate crime. “Gustakh-e-Rasool/Nabi ki Ek hi saza, sar tan se Juda, sar tan se Juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), their head separated from their torso, their head separated from the torso”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets, running amok and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against the Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined the slogan, it has gained popularity among Muslims in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Muslims chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It aims to instil fear in the broader Hindu community. Muslim extremists use this tactic to settle personal scores with non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target on them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false blasphemy accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. In the present case, there was no act of 'blasphemy' or provocation by any Hindu that preceded the incident. Despite this, during a Muslim religious observance, three Muslim youths and their associates continuously shared anti-Hindu posts and videos, made abusive comments targeting Hindus, and the slogan “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda” was also raised. This directly refutes the pretext often advanced by Muslim extremists that the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan is raised only against those accused of blasphemy. In this context, the slogan was raised despite there being no alleged act of blasphemy by any Hindu, demonstrating how claims of blasphemy are used as a pretext or smokescreen to threaten, intimidate and incite violence against non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, out of religious animosity towards the Hindu community. The slogan cannot therefore be separated from the wider conduct documented in this case. The three Muslim youths and their associates were continuously sharing anti-Hindu videos and posts and making abusive comments targeting Hindus. The beheading slogan was raised amidst this ongoing pattern of anti-Hindu expression and abuse. Viewed together, these elements gave the beheading slogan an explicitly anti-Hindu character. It was not an abstract reference to religious doctrine, but a violent threat invoking beheading in the context of hostility directed towards Hindus and their religious identity. The incident therefore constituted an explicit anti-Hindu threat of violent retribution directed at the Hindu community on account of its faith. The fact that the slogan was raised during 12 Wafat, a Muslim religious observance associated with Prophet Muhammad, further strengthened its religiously driven character. The occasion provided a religious setting in which an explicitly violent slogan prescribing beheading was raised alongside anti-Hindu activity. This demonstrates how religious observances are used as settings to disseminate threats and intimidate the Hindu community. Rather than remaining confined to devotional or religious expression, the observance was accompanied by rhetoric invoking extreme physical violence against Hindus, making this an instance of anti-Hindu hate speech. The repeated anti-Hindu posts, videos and abusive comments further established a clear pattern of hostility towards Hindus and Hinduism. When a community is subjected to derogatory and hateful content specifically because of its religious identity, such conduct reflects deep-seated religious hostility and prejudice towards that faith and its adherents. Targeting Hindus as a community on account of their religious identity demonstrates religious bigotry, as the hostility is directed not at an individual for their personal conduct but at people because they belong to a particular faith. The continued dissemination of such anti-Hindu content therefore reinforced the religiously motivated character of the incident and demonstrated broader hostility and disdain towards Hinduism and the Hindu community. The wider history of “Sar Tan Se Juda” rhetoric is also relevant to understanding the incident. The Hinduphobia Tracker has documented nearly 71 cases involving such threats between 1 January 2023 and 30 August 2026. This demonstrates that the use of the slogan to threaten or intimidate Hindus is not an isolated phenomenon, but forms part of a recurring pattern of violent rhetoric directed at the Hindu community. Its repeated invocation in incidents involving hostility towards Hindus reinforces its significance as a form of religiously motivated intimidation and threat. Since this case meets the parameters of a religiously driven hate crime, it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: Media reports stated that three Muslim youths, along with their associates, were involved in the incident, but did not specify the total number of perpetrators. Therefore, an indicative perpetrator count of three has been recorded as a conservative estimate for documentation purposes only.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
