Hindu deities targeted with abusive remarks by men in Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh
Lakhimpur, Uttar Pradesh, India 
27 December, 2025
Case Summary
In the Majhgai police station area of Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, Hindu deities were targeted with abusive remarks by a group of unknown men. They made abuses targeting Lord Hanuman and even other Hindu gods and goddesses. This incident occurred when one of the main accused was playing the online game Free Fire. While playing this, he made abusive remarks against Lord Hanuman. An audio recording of this incident went viral on social media, causing outrage. The accused is a resident of Dwarikapurwa in the Majhgai police station area. When confronted, the accused and his friends made offensive remarks against Hindu deities. The matter came to light after a recording of the phone conversation went viral. After the recording surfaced, Bajrang Dal activists reached the village of the accused youth. They raised slogans and demanded strict police action. They stated that this incident hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. A complaint was filed at the Majhgai police station, which also mentioned the involvement of other individuals. Considering the seriousness of the matter, the police took the accused youth into custody and began questioning him. Station House Officer Raju Rao stated that legal action would be taken after receiving the complaint, and the accused would be sent to jail. Police maintained vigilance to preserve peace in the area.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is- Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case stands as a clear instance of anti-Hindu hate speech, as the main accused made offensive remarks against Lord Hanuman under the pretext of playing an online game, marking a blatant example of religiously motivated hate speech against Hindus and their faith. Lord Hanuman holds profound significance in Hinduism as the greatest devotee of Lord Rama, symbolising unwavering devotion, strength, courage, and selfless service, qualities that inspire millions of Hindus worldwide. He stands as one of the most revered deities, with devotees invoking his name through chants, fasts, and festivals like Hanuman Jayanti. Any act of denigrating or abusing Lord Hanuman strikes at the heart of Hindu devotion, amounting to clear anti-Hindu hate speech fuelled by religious animosity towards Hinduism and the Hindu community. Such verbal assaults on Lord Hanuman stemmed from deep-seated hatred for Hinduism, making this a clear example of anti-Hindu hate speech. When confronted, not only did the accused persist, but his group of accomplices, his friends, escalated the offence by abusing additional Hindu deities in general. These deities hold deep-seated reverence among Hindus, who worship them lifelong through rituals, prayers, and festivals, viewing them as sacred embodiments of the divine. This collective assault, building on the initial abuse of Lord Hanuman, reveals not a mere slip of the tongue or isolated lapse, but a deliberate pattern of religious animosity aimed at ridiculing and undermining Hinduism's most cherished figures. Such targeted vitriol cements this as a clear instance of religiously motivated hate speech. When hate speech targets Hindu gods and deities in this manner, it emboldens others, sparking a dangerous ripple effect where individuals feel encouraged to unleash similar vitriolic statements. This proliferation normalises contempt for Hinduism, fostering an environment ripe for escalating Hinduphobia and threatening the social fabric where Hindus can practise their faith without fear. Far from harmless banter, these acts sow seeds of division, amplifying prejudice against Hindus and their faith. In this case, even though the perpetrators' identity remained unknown, the act amounted to a religiously motivated offence and has been added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the dates of incidents based on when the crime occurs rather than when it is reported by the media. In this case, media reports did not state the exact date when the crime occurred. Henceforth, the date when the media report was published, 28 December 2025, is being considered as the indicative date of the incident. In this case, even though the main accused, along with his accomplices, abused Hindu deities. However, the total number of his accomplices was not mentioned. For documentation purposes, the perpetrator count is recorded as '1' only, referring to the main accused.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Unknown
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
