Hindu woman physically assaulted and pressured to convert to Islam by Muslim husband and his brother

Case ID : 30aaf98 | Location : Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 23 October, 2026

Case ID : 30aaf98

Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India

23 October, 2026

Hindu woman physically assaulted and pressured to convert to Islam by Muslim husband and his brother

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion after marriage

Case Summary

A Hindu woman was physically assaulted and pressured to convert to Islam by her Muslim husband, Junaid, and his brother, Istakhar. According to the complaint filed by the victim, she was a resident of the Bhuni area of Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. She stated that Junaid, a resident of Khairsal village in Gangoh, Saharanpur district, lured her into a relationship, married her, and brought her to live with him in the village. The victim stated that after marriage, her husband and his brother, Istakhar, began assaulting her and pressured her to convert to Islam. When the victim informed her mother about the situation, her mother visited her at her marital home. The mother was also held captive and beaten; however, the police denied that she was held hostage. Following the incident, Swami Yashveer Maharaj raised the matter on social media and demanded police action. The police subsequently brought the victim and her mother to the police station. CO Shailendra Kumar confirmed that an FIR had been registered against Junaid and Istakhar under relevant sections of the law based on the victim's complaint. As of the date of writing this report, Junaid was arrested.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Within this, 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 party is 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, being 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. The case constitutes a hate crime because the victim was targeted for religious conversion through physical violence and coercion. The demand that a Hindu woman abandon her faith and convert to Islam directly targeted her religious identity and her freedom to practise Hinduism. The use of physical assaults alongside pressure to convert demonstrated that the matter went beyond a domestic dispute and involved coercion aimed at changing the victim’s religious affiliation. Religious conversion must be a matter of individual choice, and using violence to compel a person to abandon their faith constitutes an attack on their religious freedom. In this case, the nature of the relationship through which the victim was brought into the marriage was significant. Although the Muslim perpetrator did not conceal his religious identity, the relationship was built in a manner that led the Hindu woman to enter the marriage without giving up her own faith. The subsequent demand that she convert to Islam showed that her Hindu identity was not accepted or respected as part of the relationship, but was instead treated as an obstacle that had to be removed. The perpetrator exploited the trust and vulnerability associated with an intimate relationship and used the marriage as a means to pressure her into abandoning her religion. The fact that the demand for conversion followed the marriage demonstrated that the relationship itself was a means of subjecting the victim to religious coercion. Targeting a Hindu woman through an intimate relationship and subsequently seeking to change her faith reflected religiously profiled targeting of Hindu women and a predatory dynamic centred on religious conversion. The circumstances therefore established that the relationship was not merely a private marital dispute, but was intrinsically connected to the attempt to alter the victim's religious identity. After marrying her, the perpetrator began pressuring the victim to convert to Islam. This was a direct religious marker in the incident because the demand was specifically directed at changing the victim's Hindu faith. Conversion can only be voluntary when it is undertaken through a person's own free will and without coercion or intimidation. A conversion demanded after a person has been brought into a marriage, and enforced through pressure, coercion or violence, cannot be treated as a genuinely voluntary exercise of religious choice. In this case, the victim's refusal to abandon Hinduism was not respected; instead, her religious autonomy was challenged because she continued to retain her Hindu identity. The conversion pressure therefore reflected hostility towards the victim's Hindu identity, treating her religion as an obstacle that had to be removed rather than an integral part of her personhood. In the context of the subsequent violence, the demand for conversion demonstrated a deeply coercive and anti-Hindu dynamic, consistent with a religiously driven hate crime. Furthermore, she was also physically assaulted while being pressured for conversion. This demonstrated how violence within a marriage can be used to exert control over a victim’s religious beliefs and personal autonomy. Marriage does not diminish an individual’s right to retain their religion, and a spouse has no right to compel religious conversion through intimidation or physical force. The victim’s Hindu identity and the demand that she convert to Islam distinguished this case from an ordinary marital conflict. The religious dimension lay in the coercive attempt to change her faith, rather than simply in the fact that the marriage was interfaith. The case therefore qualifies as a hate crime involving coercion directed at a Hindu woman on religious grounds. The combination of physical violence and pressure to convert to Islam demonstrated an attack on her freedom to retain her Hindu identity. 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 were not merely personal crimes; they were rooted in a desire to dominate and erase the religious identity of the victim. Since such predatory actions stem from doctrinal animosity towards the Hindu faith and its adherents, this case is being documented as a religiously motivated hate crime. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began. It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the victim came into contact with the accused. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media, 23 October 2026 The exact location where the victim first met the perpetrator was not specified in the source report. Saharanpur was selected as the place of the incident because the assaults and pressure to convert took place at the perpetrator’s residence in Khairsal village, Gangoh, Saharanpur district, Uttar Pradesh.