Case Summary

In the Umra village of Lakhimpur Kheri district, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu man named Shiv Prasad was assaulted by two Muslim men, Mohammed Aminuddin and Raju, while he was listening to a discussion related to the Hindu Rashtra and violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. The Hinduphobia Tracker accessed the FIR filed by the victim, Shiv Prasad, in which he stated that on 21 December 2025 he was listening on his mobile phone to discussions about violence against Hindus in Bangladesh and was also playing a video related to the concept of the Hindu Rashtra. During this time, Aminuddin and Raju, sons of Sattar Ali and residents of the same village, approached him and initiated a confrontation. They objected to the discussion that Shiv Prasad was listening to and stated that the village belonged to them and that no one would speak about a Hindu Rashtra there. The verbal altercation soon escalated into physical violence, during which Aminuddin and Raju assaulted Shiv Prasad with sticks, kicks, and punches, causing injuries to his head and other parts of his body. While assaulting him, they also used abusive language and issued death threats, warning him of serious consequences if he approached the authorities. When other villagers rushed to intervene and rescue the victim, Aminuddin and Raju fled the scene. The injured victim later reached Singahi police station, accompanied by Bajrang Dal activists, and submitted a complaint against the accused. The police registered a case against Aminuddin and Raju and initiated further legal proceedings.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected in this case is- Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected 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 hate-crime dimension in this case is established by the explicitly religious nature of the hostility directed at the victim by the Muslim perpetrators and the content associated with his Hindu identity. The incident was not merely a personal dispute or an unprovoked physical altercation. The objection was specifically directed at the expression of an idea associated with Hindu religious and civilisational identity, namely the concept of a Hindu Rashtra. The Muslim perpetrators made it clear that such views would not be tolerated in the village, thereby transforming the confrontation from an ordinary interpersonal disagreement into hostility towards a Hindu expression and assertion of identity. The religious animosity is demonstrated by the fact that the objection was directed at the Hindu victim because he was engaging with material relating to the Hindu Rashtra and violence against Hindus. The conduct therefore concerned more than the particular video or discussion itself. The statement that nobody would be permitted to speak about a Hindu Rashtra in the village conveyed an attempt to suppress the expression of a Hindu-related viewpoint on the basis of its religious character. In this context, the subsequent violence was connected to hostility towards the victim's Hindu identity and his expression of that identity, rather than being wholly detached from religion. The case also underscores an attempt to intimidate a Hindu individual from openly engaging with or expressing ideas connected to his faith and the broader Hindu community. Freedom to discuss Hindu religious, cultural or political ideas is an aspect of religious expression, and the use of violence to prevent such expression gives the incident a distinct religious dimension. The fact that the confrontation escalated after the accused objected to Hindu Rashtra-related content strengthens the connection between the victim's religious identity and the hostility directed against him. The death threats further intensified this religiously motivated intimidation. Such threats, when made in the course of an assault triggered by opposition to Hindu-related expression, have a wider effect than the immediate physical harm to the individual victim. They serve to deter the victim from continuing to express or engage with Hindu-related views and create an environment in which Hindu individuals may feel that openly expressing their religious or community identity could expose them to retaliation. The warning against approaching the authorities also added an element of coercion intended to prevent the victim from seeking institutional protection. Accordingly, the religious element in this case is supported by the sequence of events and the specific objection to Hindu Rashtra-related expression, rather than being inferred solely from the religious identities of the parties. Since the assault was motivated by religious animosity towards Hinduism and the victim's Hindu identity, with physical violence and threats being used to suppress an expression associated with that identity, this case was added to the hate crime database.