Hindu woman lured and forcibly converted to Islam by Muslim man; accused had similarly trapped and converted multiple Hindu women

Case ID : 30aa25d | Location : Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Thu, 30 August, 2018

Case ID : 30aa25d

Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, India

30 August, 2018

Hindu woman lured and forcibly converted to Islam by Muslim man; accused had similarly trapped and converted multiple Hindu women

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion after marriage

Case Summary

In Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, a Hindu woman named Shirivuri Balaramya was lured into a relationship by a Muslim man named Ghouse Mohiddin, a mutton trader. She married Mohiddin, who subsequently forcibly converted her to Islam and changed her name to Sheikh Ummul Khair. The victim also revealed that Mohiddin had also targeted multiple other Hindu women, lured them into relationships and subjected them to forced religious conversion. According to news reports, Balaramya became acquainted with Mohiddin while she was pursuing her degree and, around eight years ago (2018), married him against her parents’ wishes. Two months after the marriage, Mohiddin began harassing her and forcibly converted her to Islam, changing her name to Sheikh Ummul Khair. During this period, Balaramya became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter. However, even after the birth of their daughter, Mohiddin continued to subject her to mental and physical harassment. The victim eventually approached elderly local residents for help, following which a panchayat was held, but the accused's behaviour did not change. Balaramya said that Mohiddin was living with another five to six Hindu women in front of her and that he had similarly lured those women and subjected them to forced religious conversion. When she questioned him about those women, Mohiddin assaulted her and told her that even if he married seven women, no one could question him. Following this, the victim managed to escape from him, after which he threatened her with a knife. Mohiddin also called her parents and threatened them, saying that he would harass their second daughter in the same manner, which caused them fear. Balaramya further stated that a rowdy sheet had previously been opened against Mohiddin after he attacked a young woman with a knife, following which he was remanded in custody for 20 days. At the time of writing this report, the victim stated that the accused was imprisoned for harassing another Dalit Hindu woman. His imprisonment gave Balaramya the courage to come forward and speak about the abuse she had faced. On 31 August 2026, the victim, accompanied by former Bharatiya Janata Party district president Chilukuri Ramkumar, met Kakinada Superintendent of Police Bindumadhav and lodged a complaint. She sought protection for herself and her family from Mohiddin and demanded strict action against him. Outside the Superintendent of Police’s office, Balaramya had her mother apply a bindi on her forehead and declared that she had returned to Hinduism. She called for a thorough investigation into the forced religious conversions and urged the police to focus on similar cases of “love jihad”.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected in this case is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The subcategory selected is: Forced conversion after marriage. In such cases, a non-Hindu man marries a Hindu woman, and the force/pressure to convert to any Abrahamic faith, like Islam, begins after marriage. 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. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act, where neither parties are required to convert their religion for the marriage to be considered legitimate. While the victim in such cases enters matrimony assuming that religious identity is not a barrier, the non-Hindu man starts to pressure the woman to convert her religion after marriage. 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, there is application of force by the perpetrator, including the denial of the woman’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the woman is forced/pressured to convert include force-feeding beef, being forced to read the Kalma, being forced to wear a hijab, forced to undergo Halala, etc. There are several instances where, after marriage, the woman voluntarily converts to Islam. Such cases are often argued to be a result of religious brainwashing, however, for the purpose of documenting religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of the victim complaining of forced conversion, such cases do not form a part of the database. This case is a clear example of a religiously driven hate crime because a Hindu woman was lured into a marriage and was forcibly converted to Islam by the Muslim man. Mohiddin had also similarly targeted multiple other Hindu women and forcibly converted them to Islam. This pattern makes the religious dimension of the offence clear, as the victim’s Hindu faith and identity were specifically subjected to coercion and erasure. The overall nature of the crime therefore demonstrated hostility towards the Hindu victim’s faith and identity, making it a clear case of a religiously driven hate crime. In this case, although Mohiddin did not initially conceal his religious identity, the nature of the relationship showed that the victim was made to believe that her faith would not become a limitation to their relationship. Using this pretext, he lured her into a relationship, following which he married her. The fact that the relationship subsequently became a means through which her religious identity was forcibly changed demonstrated that the relationship was predatory and malicious from the outset. Marriage, in this context, was not merely a personal relationship but became the setting through which religious coercion was imposed on the victim, making the targeting of her Hindu identity central to the abuse she endured. The fact that the victim was forcibly converted to Islam after marriage demonstrated deep-seated religious hostility towards her Hindu identity. Religious conversion is genuine only when it occurs through an individual’s own will, conviction and voluntary choice. When faith is changed through force, coercion, pressure or intimidation, it violates the person’s religious autonomy and their fundamental right to determine and practise their own religion. In this case, the victim’s Hindu faith was forcibly stripped away, reflecting the perpetrator’s disregard for her religious identity and his treatment of her existing faith as something inferior that had to be discarded. The use of force to impose a different religion therefore constituted a clear religiously motivated offence and demonstrated the religiously driven nature of the crime. The forcible changing of the victim’s name from Balaramya to Sheikh Ummul Khair further demonstrated the deliberate attempt to erase her Hindu identity. Since a person’s name is an important part of their individual, cultural and religious identity, replacing her Hindu name with an Islamic one after forcibly converting her served to reinforce the removal of her original identity and impose a new religious identity without her consent. This deliberate erasure of her Hindu identity through the forced change of name further demonstrated the religious coercion and hostility directed towards her faith. The fact that the victim continued to face mental and physical harassment even after she had given birth to a daughter demonstrated the severity and sustained nature of the targeting she endured. More significantly, Mohiddin had targeted another five to six Hindu women in a similar manner, luring them into relationships and subjecting them to forced religious conversion. This showed that the incident was not an isolated case in which one woman became trapped in an abusive relationship and subsequently lost her religious identity through coercion. Instead, the repeated targeting of multiple Hindu women demonstrated a broader pattern in which Hindu women were specifically subjected to relationships that culminated in their forced conversion to Islam. The fact that not one, but multiple Hindu women were targeted in a similar manner demonstrated a coordinated pattern of stripping the victims of their religious identity and showed overall hostility towards Hinduism and Hindu religious identity. Some might question why the victim came forward to reveal her ordeal after such a long period. However, the circumstances surrounding her silence provided important context. She had been lured into a relationship, married Mohiddin against her parents’ wishes and subsequently faced coercion within that marriage, which placed her in a socially and emotionally vulnerable position. Having already married against her family’s wishes, she faced the stigma and social consequences associated with returning to her family after the relationship had broken down, while also having limited social and financial support to fall back on. The birth of a daughter further complicated her circumstances, particularly in mainstream society, where women in troubled marriages can face intense social shame, stigma and pressure to preserve the marriage for the sake of their children. The victim also faced direct threats from Mohiddin, who threatened her and her parents and warned that he would harass their second daughter in the same manner. The fear of further harm to herself, her family and her child, along with the possibility of societal backlash and stigma, were therefore real concerns that had contributed to her remaining silent. Such circumstances did not diminish or excuse the ordeal she endured, nor did they contradict her account. Rather, they demonstrated the intensity of the religious coercion, intimidation and control that had been established over her and explained why a victim would remain silent for an extended period before finding the courage to speak out. Overall, since this case met the parameters of a hate crime, it was added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the victim’s ordeal begins rather than when the incident is reported by the media. However, in this case, media reports did not specify the exact date on which the victim’s ordeal began. They only stated that the victim married the accused in 2018 and lodged a complaint on 31 August 2026. Based on these two pieces of information, an indicative incident date of 31 August 2018 was selected. This date has been recorded for documentation purposes only. In this case, although the main victim was Shirivuri Balaramya, five to six other Hindu women were also forcibly converted in a similar manner by the accused. Therefore, the total victim count has been recorded as seven, representing Balaramya and the five to six other Hindu women who were targeted and forcibly converted.