Case Summary

In the Umra village of Lakhimpur Kheri district, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu man named Shiv Prasad was assaulted by two Muslim men, Mohammad 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 the 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. This case has been added to the tracker because the Hindu man, Shiv Prasad, was brutally assaulted by two Muslim men, Mohammad Aminuddin and Raju, while he was engaged in listening to content related to the Hindu Rashtra and violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. The assault was not the result of a personal dispute or a spontaneous altercation but arose directly from hostility towards the victim’s religious identity, beliefs, and the ideological content he was consuming. The sequence of events and the conduct of the accused demonstrate that the attack was not incidental or personal in nature but was rooted in hostility towards Hindu religious expression and identity. Firstly, Shiv Prasad was targeted explicitly for consuming and engaging with content concerning Hindu identity and the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh. The accused objected to the content on ideological and religious grounds and declared that no one would speak about a Hindu Rashtra in the village. Their statement that the village “belonged to them (Muslims)” was not a neutral remark but a communal assertion aimed at denying Hindus the right to express religious or ideological views in a public space. This verbal declaration, followed immediately by physical violence, establishes that the motive of the attack was religious hostility and an assertion of dominance rather than any personal dispute. Secondly, the escalation from verbal objection to physical violence shows that the accused sought to silence the victim for asserting his Hindu identity. The victim was also threatened with death if he approached the authorities, indicating an effort to enforce fear and submission, aimed at suppressing the Hindu community through violence. The violence functioned as a method of enforcing ideological control through fear. Thirdly, these actions were also intended to send a broader message to the wider Hindu community that they would face similar retaliation if they engaged in such activities. The threats were intended to deter the victim from seeking justice and to reinforce a sense of dominance and impunity. The attempt to silence Shiv Prasad through threats of lethal harm underscores the communal and coercive nature of the attack. It is pertinent to note that Muslim extremists harbour specific animosity towards Hindus and their faith and also view India as a Hindu collectivity. The very basis of the partition of India was that Muslims believed that Islam was a nation unto itself, which could not survive with a Hindu collectivity like India. Therefore, the accused reacted with aggression towards narratives highlighting Hindu persecution in Bangladesh and Hindu Rashtra, indicating resentment towards Hindu solidarity and consciousness. This hostility towards discussions of Hindu victimhood further situates the incident within an ideological framework that is antagonistic to Hindu identity and collective expression. Taken together, the deliberate selection of the victim based on his Hindu identity, the explicit objection to Hindu religious-political expression, the assertion of communal control over the village, and the use of violence and threats to silence and intimidate clearly establish this incident as an anti-Hindu hate crime. The offence was driven by religious hostility and an intent to suppress Hindu expression; therefore, this case has been added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.