Hindu woman sexually exploited and pressured to convert by Muslim man; force-fed cow meat, made to recite kalma and offer namaz

Case ID : 30ab3b2 | Location : Dindori, Madhya Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 5 November, 2018

Case ID : 30ab3b2

Dindori, Madhya Pradesh, India

5 November, 2018

Hindu woman sexually exploited and pressured to convert by Muslim man; force-fed cow meat, made to recite kalma and offer namaz

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion before marriage

Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices

Forced to eat beef

Leaves Hindu partner upon refusal to convert

Case Summary

In Dindori, Madhya Pradesh, a Hindu woman was lured into a relationship by a Muslim man named Mohammad Ansari. He sexually exploited her for eight years under the false promise of marriage and subsequently pressured her to convert to Islam. He also force-fed her cow meat (beef), made her offer namaz and recite the Kalma (the Islamic declaration of faith). When the victim refused to convert and opposed his attempts at religious coercion, he abandoned her and fled. The woman's ordeal began in 2018, when she first came into contact with Mohammad Ansari through Facebook. He lured her into a relationship and subsequently brought her from Dindori to Jabalpur, where he sexually exploited her under the pretext of marriage. He repeatedly promised to marry her and continued the relationship for eight years. However, when the victim began pressuring him to fulfil his promise of marriage, Mohammad Ansari made conversion to Islam a condition for marrying her. He pressured her to abandon her Hindu faith and embrace Islam. He also force-fed her cow meat (beef), made her offer namaz and compelled her to recite the Kalma, the Islamic declaration of faith. The victim opposed his attempts to force her into religious conversion and refused to abandon her Hindu faith. Following her refusal to convert, Mohammad Ansari abandoned her and fled to his sister's residence, where he went into hiding. His sister also told the victim that she would be accepted into their family as Ansari's wife if she agreed to convert to Islam. The victim initially approached the police and lodged a complaint, but no action was taken. Distressed by the lack of police intervention, she subsequently sought assistance from Hindu organisations. Representatives of these organisations accompanied her to the Superintendent of Police in Jabalpur, where a complaint was submitted against Mohammad Ansari, detailing the sexual exploitation and coercive attempts to convert her to Islam. The police confirmed receipt of the woman's complaint, in which she detailed her ordeal. The police stated that they had received the complaint and initiated an investigation into the incident.

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 before marriage. The tertiary categories selected are: Forced to follow non-Hindu religious practices, Forced to eat beef. 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. The other subcategory selected is: Leaves Hindu partner upon refusal to convert. When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman faces pressure/threats/violence to convert and change her religious identity by the non-Hindu man. However, when the Hindu woman refuses to convert, the non-Hindu man ends the relationship or divorces the woman, as the case might be. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts pressuring the Hindu woman to change her religious identity and upon her refusal, ends the relationship. Cases where the Hindu woman converts to Islam and does not file a complaint about the force, or threat after she refuses to convert to Islam, are not considered a part of the hate tracker. This case is a clear example of a religiously driven hate crime, in which a Hindu woman was lured into a relationship by a Muslim man, sexually exploited for eight years under the false promise of marriage and subsequently pressured to convert to Islam. The perpetrator also force-fed her cow meat (beef), made her offer namaz and compelled her to recite the Kalma, the Islamic declaration of faith. The combination of prolonged sexual exploitation, coercive religious practices, and attempts to force her to abandon Hinduism demonstrates a pattern of targeted religious persecution and anti-Hindu hostility. Although the perpetrator did not conceal his religious identity while luring the victim into the relationship, the nature of the relationship initially made her believe that their religious differences would not stand in the way of their future together. However, after sexually exploiting her for years under the false promise of marriage, he subsequently pressured her to convert to Islam and made religious conversion a condition for marrying her. This exposed the coercive and religiously predatory nature of the relationship. The fact that he refused to accept the victim's Hindu identity and instead demanded that she abandon her faith to become his wife demonstrated that her religious identity was being treated as something that had to be eliminated. His conduct revealed the anti-Hindu hostility underlying the relationship and demonstrated how the promise of marriage was used as a means of exerting religious pressure on the victim. The eight years of sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage further demonstrated the exploitative nature of the relationship. The perpetrator repeatedly used the promise of marriage to keep the victim emotionally invested while ultimately making her conversion to Islam a condition for fulfilling that promise. This prolonged exploitation placed the victim in a position of emotional vulnerability, which was subsequently used to pressure her into abandoning her Hindu identity. The sexual exploitation therefore cannot be viewed in isolation from the religious coercion that followed. The perpetrator exploited a Hindu woman for years under the pretext of marriage and subsequently subjected her to attempts to strip her of her religious identity. This demonstrated a pattern of religiously driven sexual exploitation in which the victim's emotional vulnerability and trust were exploited to facilitate coercion and forced religious conversion. It constituted targeted sexual exploitation accompanied by clear anti-Hindu hostility. The perpetrator's attempts to force the victim to convert to Islam demonstrated clear hostility towards her Hindu religious identity. By making conversion a condition for marriage, he sought to compel her to abandon Hinduism and discard her existing religious identity against her wishes. This violated her religious autonomy and her fundamental right to practise her faith without coercion. The act of forcing a Hindu woman to renounce her religion and embrace Islam demonstrated the perpetrator's disdain and hostility towards Hinduism, treating her faith as something that had to be stripped away rather than respected. Such coercion amounted to a direct violation of her religious freedom and constituted a clear instance of religiously driven hate crime. The victim was also compelled to participate in Islamic religious practices, including offering namaz and reciting the Kalma, the Islamic declaration of faith. These acts formed part of the wider pressure exerted upon her to abandon Hinduism and embrace Islam. Making a Hindu woman participate in religious rituals and recite a declaration of faith against her wishes violated her religious autonomy and imposed an identity she had expressly refused to accept. The perpetrator's actions demonstrated an attempt to gradually disconnect the victim from her Hindu religious practices and replace them with Islamic observances. In the context of his repeated demands for conversion, these acts constituted further evidence of religious coercion and anti-Hindu hostility. The fact that the perpetrator also force-fed the victim cow meat (beef) demonstrated the extent of his hostility towards her Hindu religious identity. This was not merely a violation of her dietary choices but also a direct violation of her religious convictions. The cow holds an exceptionally sacred position in Hinduism and is revered as Gau Mata, or the divine mother. It symbolises motherhood, nourishment, abundance and non-violence and occupies an important place in Hindu religious traditions. Vedic literature uses the term 'Aghnya' in reference to the cow, meaning that which should not be killed or harmed. Cow-derived products, including milk, ghee, dung and urine, have traditionally held religious and ritual significance, with ghee and other products being used in Vedic yajnas and Hindu ceremonies. The cow is therefore deeply revered in Hinduism, and the killing and consumption of its meat are considered religiously objectionable by Hindus. By forcibly feeding the victim cow meat, the perpetrator violated her deeply held religious convictions and compelled her to participate in an act that directly contradicted her faith. In the context of his simultaneous attempts to force her to convert to Islam, this act demonstrated a deliberate disregard for her Hindu religious identity and formed another instance of religiously motivated coercion. The force-feeding of cow meat also carries a wider historical context of religious persecution against Hindus. During the medieval period of Islamic invasions, Islamic invaders repeatedly slaughtered cows to deliberately hurt Hindu religious sentiments, knowing that the cow holds sacred significance in Hinduism. Cow slaughter was also used to establish Islamic dominance over Hindu society, with cow remains thrown into Hindu temples to desecrate their sanctity and humiliate Hindu worshippers. The force-feeding of cow meat also served as a tactic of religious persecution and coercive conversion: by making Hindus consume what they regard as sacred and religiously forbidden, perpetrators sought to violate their religious convictions, force them across a deeply held religious boundary and facilitate their conversion to Islam. Similar tactics have also been used in recent times by Muslim extremists to target Hindus and forcibly convert them to Islam. The fact that, in this case, Mohammed Ansari followed this same precise pattern by force-feeding cow meat to the Hindu victim, while simultaneously pressuring her to abandon Hinduism and participate in Islamic religious practices, demonstrates the depth of religious hatred and the Islamic supremacist mindset behind the coercion. It reflects deliberate hostility towards Hinduism and an attempt to humiliate the victim, violate her religious convictions and strip her of her Hindu identity. This was therefore an act of religious persecution rooted in anti-Hindu hostility, making it a clear instance of a hate crime. Another significant aspect of the incident was the perpetrator's response when the victim refused to convert to Islam. After sexually exploiting her for eight years under the pretext of marriage, Mohammed Ansari abandoned her and fled when she resisted his attempts to convert her. His conduct demonstrated that he never valued her as a partner or respected her as an individual with her own beliefs and convictions. Instead, he viewed her through the lens of her Hindu identity and treated her as a target for religious conversion. The moment she refused to renounce Hinduism, he discarded the relationship and abandoned her. This exposed the dehumanising manner in which he viewed and treated the victim on account of her faith, and further demonstrated the anti-Hindu hostility underlying the incident. The involvement of the perpetrator's sister further demonstrated that the pressure to convert extended beyond Mohammed Ansari himself. After he abandoned the victim and took refuge at his sister's residence, his sister also told the victim that she would be accepted into their family as Ansari's wife if she converted to Islam. This demonstrated that the condition of religious conversion was reinforced by another member of the perpetrator's family. The victim was therefore subjected to religious pressure not only by the man who had sexually exploited her but also by a member of his family, who made acceptance into their family conditional upon her abandoning Hinduism. Her religious identity was thus treated as an obstacle that had to be eliminated before she could be accepted as a wife. This familial involvement reinforced the coercive nature of the conversion attempts and demonstrated the wider support the perpetrator received in pressuring the victim to renounce her faith. Overall, since this case met the parameters of a religiously driven hate crime, it was added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when a crime occurs or when the victim's ordeal begins, rather than when it is reported by the media. In this case, media reports did not specify the exact date on which the victim's ordeal began, providing only the timeline that she first met the perpetrator in 2018. The media report covering the incident was published on 6 November 2026. Henceforth, 6 November 2018 was selected as an indicative date for documentation purposes only. In this case, apart from Mohammed Ansari, his sister also pressured the victim to convert to Islam by making her conversion a condition for acceptance into their family as Ansari's wife. Henceforth, the perpetrator count was recorded as two for documentation purposes only.