Hindu woman abused and harassed for performing puja by Muslim neighbours; pressured to vacate her house in Muslim majority neighbourhood

Case ID : 30ab435 | Location : Damoh, Madhya Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 2 November, 2026

Case ID : 30ab435

Damoh, Madhya Pradesh, India

2 November, 2026

Hindu woman abused and harassed for performing puja by Muslim neighbours; pressured to vacate her house in Muslim majority neighbourhood

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'

Case Summary

In Damoh, Madhya Pradesh, a Hindu woman named Leela Thakur and her family were abused, harassed, and restricted from performing puja by her Muslim neighbour. On 3 November 2026, Leela Thakur, a resident of Dharampura Ward No. 39, approached the Kotwali police station along with members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal and submitted a written complaint against her Muslim neighbours, Muddin Khan and his family, on account of sustained harassment and obstructing her religious practices. Leela stated that she had purchased a plot of land in the Dharampura locality and constructed her own house there. However, she and her minor daughter had subsequently faced repeated harassment from Muslim neighbours, who prevented them from performing puja and reciting religious prayers at home. She further stated that Muddin Khan and his family subjected them to regular verbal abuse, causing considerable mental distress to the household. Leela also complained that her neighbours had installed a camera directly in front of her house, positioned in such a way that even the bathroom area was visible. She stated that this compromised the family's privacy and caused considerable discomfort. Her husband, Naresh Thakur, worked as a truck driver in Haryana and remained away from home for employment, leaving Leela and their nine-year-old daughter living alone. She stated that this situation, combined with the continued harassment and surveillance, had created an atmosphere of insecurity and fear for them. Leela also stated that her neighbours had been pressuring her to sell her house and leave the locality. They had even told her to sell the property and move away after living there for as long as the money she had paid for it lasted. However, she refused to leave, stating that she had constructed the house through her own hard work and did not wish to sell it. She also maintained that her family was the only Hindu household in the neighbourhood and that they were being targeted and harassed on account of their religious identity. Leela stated that she had previously approached the police with a complaint regarding the harassment but had not received the expected response. After facing continued difficulties, she informed members of Hindu organisations about the matter. On the night of 3 November 2026, she approached the Kotwali police station accompanied by VHP and Bajrang Dal workers. A large number of members of these organisations also reached the police station and submitted a complaint demanding a fair investigation and appropriate action against the neighbours. Kotwali police station in-charge Manish Kumar confirmed that the police had received the woman's written application and stated that they were investigating the incident. He assured that appropriate legal action would follow based on the findings of the investigation.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected here is - Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other sub-category selected here is - Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'. One of the reasons that Hindus get attacked unprovoked specifically by Islamists is for crossing ‘Muslim areas’. Essentially, Muslim mobs often attack Hindus crossing or present in certain areas which have a majority Muslim population. It has often been cited as one of the reasons to blame Hindus for attacks against themselves, signalling that Hindus displaying religious symbols, taking our religious processions or crossing any area which is dominated by Muslim residents is a provocation in and of itself. These areas are mostly ghettoized areas where mobs mobilize quickly to attack Hindus for a variety of reasons like playing music during a religious procession, crossing a mosque, wearing a tilak or any other religious symbol in a Muslim-dominated area, praying at a local temple in that area etc. There have been cases where the few local Hindus of that area have been attacked on their way to the Temple for prayers as well, simply because the area is considered a Muslim-dominated area. Several times, it is entirely possible that the immediate trigger for the violence against Hindus was non-religious in nature, however, the violence became religiously motivated in nature because the area was Muslim dominated and the residents on the whole harboured animosity towards Hindus, evidenced from the actions of the mob, the slogans, and the nature of the attack. Such crimes are motivated by the religious identity of the victims and are therefore classified as hate crimes under this category. The incident constituted a hate crime because the harassment of the Hindu woman occurred on account of her religious identity and expression of her faith. The Muslim neighbours repeatedly interfered with Hindu religious practices, including preventing her from performing puja and reciting religious prayers inside her own home. The most significant aspect of this incident was the obstruction of the family's freedom to practise Hinduism within their own residence. Puja is a fundamental aspect of Hindu religious life, through which devotees worship their chosen deities, offer prayers and maintain their spiritual connection with the divine. The freedom to perform daily worship and recite religious prayers in one's own home is an integral part of practising the faith. Preventing a Hindu family from performing these religious observances, particularly when such interference is repeated rather than arising from an isolated disagreement, amounts to an intrusion into their religious freedom. The repeated nature of the interference further strengthened the religious dimension of the incident. The Muslim neighbours regularly objected to the family's puja and subjected them to verbal abuse. This was significant because it demonstrated that the family's religious observances had become a recurring source of confrontation. Religious freedom does not depend on whether a neighbour approves of another person's beliefs or practices. A Hindu family should not have to abandon or restrict its customary worship to accommodate the religious objections of others. The repeated attempts to prevent the family from performing Hindu puja and worship demonstrated religious animosity rooted in hostility towards their Hindu faith and religious practices. The pressure on the family to sell their house and leave the locality added another important dimension to the incident. This was particularly concerning when considered alongside her assertion that hers was the only Hindu family in the neighbourhood. This represented an attempt to make their continued residence conditional upon suppressing their faith or leaving the area altogether. Such conduct amounted to an attempt to exclude the Hindu family from the neighbourhood on account of their religious identity and suppress their freedom to practise their faith. Leela further stated that her family was the only Hindu household in the neighbourhood, which was predominantly Muslim. This demographic context was significant because the family was practising its Hindu faith while living as the sole Hindu household in the locality. In areas with a majority Muslim population, Hindus often face hostility since the tenets of Islam harbour antagonism towards the Hindu faith and the adherents of Hinduism. Such religious and doctrinal animosity manifests in violence and restrictions against Hindu individuals when they outwardly display their faith in areas with a Muslim majority. The installation of a surveillance camera directed towards the family's bathroom also formed part of the wider pattern of intimidation and harassment. The positioning of a camera in a manner that compromised the privacy of a woman and her daughter was a serious intrusion into their personal lives. When considered alongside the repeated restrictions on the family's Hindu worship and the pressure to leave the locality, the installation of the camera constituted another means of harassing and intimidating the Hindu woman and her family on account of their religious faith. It further contributed to an atmosphere of insecurity within their own home and formed part of the broader pattern of hostility directed towards their Hindu identity and religious practices. Such actions of Muslim perpetrators are rooted in doctrinal hostility towards Hinduism. Notably, in Islamic theology, idol worship, referred to as Shirk, is regarded as the gravest sin. The Qur'an strictly condemns it, and Islamic teachings emphasise the complete rejection of any practice associated with idol worship. Muslims are taught from a young age that idolatry is an unforgivable sin. While this belief is central to the Islamic faith, it has also led, historically and in contemporary times, to intolerance and hostility towards idol-worshipping religions, especially Hinduism. Since the restrictions were a product of religious animosity, this case is being categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker acknowledges that multiple perpetrators were involved in the incident. However, since only one individual, Muddin Khan, was explicitly identified by name in the available reports, the perpetrator count has been recorded as 1.