Case Summary

In Hennur, Bengaluru, Karnataka, two Hindu youths, Kiran and Bharat, were attacked by a group of Muslim men, including minors, following a dispute that arose over the bursting of crackers during Diwali celebrations. According to media reports, a formal complaint was lodged by Kiran, who had been setting off firecrackers outside his home on the morning of 19th October 2025. As Kiran lit a firecracker, it accidentally touched a passing Muslim youth riding a motorcycle, sparking an argument. The initial disagreement appeared minor, but the situation escalated dangerously by the evening, around 9 p.m. Police investigations revealed that a group of Muslim youths—identified as Ameen Sharif, Syed Arbaz, and Syed Khader—along with two other minors, returned armed with deadly weapons, including machetes and daggers, to retaliate. The group attacked Kiran using long sticks and other makeshift weapons, inflicting injuries. Following this, Kiran's friend, Bharat, attempted to intervene and save Kiran, but even he was brutally attacked and sustained injuries. Alarmed by this situation, the local residents intervened and managed to restrain three of the attackers. Even the Hoysala Police reached the spot promptly and arrested all five Muslim attackers. The minors were sent to a remand home, while the adult accused were placed in police custody pending further legal proceedings. Based on the testimonies of the victims, the police registered a case against the Muslim accused under the Arms Act. The police authorities also initiated an investigation to trace the source of the long machete used in the attack, as the possession and use of such weapons in public spaces posed a serious threat to community safety and public order. Devaraj, Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Division, emphasised the seriousness of the crime, stating that the use of lethal weapons in public spaces endangered lives and disturbed public peace. He further assured that, in view of the aggressive conduct displayed by the attackers, the police were taking stringent legal action under all applicable sections to ensure accountability and uphold public safety.

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 other subcategory selected is- Communal Clash/Attack. Communal clash is a form of collective violence that involves clashes between groups belonging to different religious identities. For a communal clash between Hindus and non-Hindus to qualify as a religiously motivated hate crime, the trigger of the violence itself would have to be anti-Hindu in essence. For example, if there is a Hindu religious procession that comes under attack from a non-Hindu mob and after the initial attack, Hindus retaliate in self-defence, leading to a communal clash between the two religious communities. While at a later stage, both communities are involved in the clash/violence, the initial trigger of the violence was by the non-Hindu mob against the Hindus and therefore, it could safely be termed as an anti-Hindu violence. Further, the trigger would also have to be religiously motivated. In the cited example, the attack by the non-Hindu mob was against religious processions and therefore, can be concluded to be religiously motivated. In some cases, the trigger may be non-religious, however, it develops into religious violence against Hindus at a later stage. In such cases too, the foundational animosity towards Hindus becomes the motivating factor of the crime and therefore, it would be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus under this category. The other subcategory selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victims. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. This case is being added to the tracker as it represents a clear instance of targeted violence against two Hindu youths due to their religious identity. The Hindu victim Kiran was assaulted solely for observing a traditional Diwali custom of bursting crackers, an age-old practice symbolising joy and devotion. Some may attempt to argue that the conflict began when the firecracker accidentally touched the passing Muslim youth in the morning. However, if that had been the primary cause, the issue could have ended after the initial argument. Instead, the Muslim perpetrator chose to return in the evening with a large Muslim group to attack Kiran, demonstrating deliberate religious intent. The violence stemmed from a benign and culturally rooted act—bursting crackers during Diwali—but this simple expression of faith and celebration provoked hostility. The attack, therefore, reflected religious profiling and direct targeting of a Hindu youth for his faith and customs. Such assaults on Hindus based on their religious identity constitute clear instances of religiously motivated hate crimes. This incident was also a clear example of a communal attack driven by religious animosity. If a Hindu individual is attacked by Muslim perpetrators specifically because of his Hindu identity, it reveals hostility rooted in contempt for another community’s faith and symbols of worship. The fact that the assault took place during Diwali, one of the most sacred festivals for Hindus, underscored that the intent was not only to harm but to provoke, humiliate, and terrorise Hindus during their festival. The timing of the attack, coinciding with an important Hindu celebration, exposed the intent to undermine and desecrate the spirit of Diwali. Hence, the event was not an isolated dispute but a calculated act of intimidation against Hindus, making it a clear and deliberate case of a religiously motivated hate crime. The Muslim youths returned armed with dangerous weapons—machetes and daggers—which confirmed that the assault was neither impulsive nor a momentary burst of anger. Their preparation with deadly weapons and their coordinated attack indicated premeditation. Such organised violence over a minor morning dispute made it evident that the real motive was religious hatred directed at a Hindu boy for expressing his faith freely in a public space. The brutality of the attack displayed deep-seated animosity and intolerance towards Hindus and their customs, turning what should have been a peaceful festival into a violent episode of hate and aggression. When Kiran’s friend, Bharath, attempted to protect him from the attack, the Muslim perpetrators turned their assault on him as well, injuring him severely. The attempt to attack a Hindu youth who was only trying to safeguard another Hindu victim of communal violence highlighted the intent to terrorise not one individual but the entire Hindu presence in that area. By attacking both Kiran and Bharath, the Muslim attackers displayed not only violence but also a deliberate attempt to reinforce fear among Hindus who practised or defended their religious traditions. This again made it clear that the motive behind the attack was communal and religiously inspired, aimed at punishing Hindus for their faith. Given that this case meets every parameter of a religiously motivated crime—targeting Hindus for their faith, the use of coordinated violence, and the deliberate timing during a Hindu religious festival—it is being added to the Hinduphobia Tracker's hate crime database.