Temple burnt, stones pelted at Hindus celebrating cricket victory; mosque Imam confirms Muslims attempted to lynch Hindus chanting 'Jai Shri Ram'
Mau, Madhya Pradesh, India 
8 March, 2025
Case Summary
Communal clashes broke out in Madhya Pradesh's Mhow during the victory celebration of Team India’s ICC Champions Trophy win. The situation escalated when some Muslims pelted stones at the celebratory procession as it approached the Jama Masjid. The unruly mob destroyed shops and damaged vehicles, and a few were set on fire. A report by Zee News says that the Islamist mob also attempted to burn down a Sitala Mandir in the vicinity. A video shared by the news agency showed traces of arson in the Hindu temple. According to Dainik Bhaskar, those celebrating the victory chanted Jai Shri Ram, resulting in the Muslims of the area in front of Jama Masjid becoming irate and attacking the procession. DO News reported that the fans were chanting 'Bharat Mata Ki Jai' when they were viciously attacked. According to a PTI report, the procession came under attack as it approached Jama Masjid. Visuals that emerged showed slogans of Allahu Akbar and Nara-e-Taqbeer being raised near Jama Masjid. An eyewitness speaking to News 18 confirmed that the Muslim mob selectively targeted Hindu homes and attacked the temple while chanting Naara E Takbir and Allahu Akbar slogans. On information, the police teams from nearby police stations and para-military force rushed to the spot and brought the violent situation under control. The Imam of Jama Masjid admitted that it was the Muslims who started the violence by attempting to lynch the Hindus who were chanting Jai Shri Ram during the cricket victory celebration. In an interview given to News18, the Imam admitted that the first sign of violence was the Muslims from Jama Masjid catching hold of Hindus who were chanting Jai Shri Ram and attempting to lynch them. Speaking to Zee News, eyewitnesses said that after the police dispersed the mob from outside the mosque, it regrouped and moved towards the temple. The mob pelted stones at both the temple and nearby houses owned by Hindu families. One of the eyewitnesses, whose house was also targeted, said that the attack was recorded on CCTV. They further said that petrol bombs and stones were hurled at the temple premises, and police vehicles were destroyed along with private vehicles, including bikes and cars. Residents told Zee News that the mob specifically targeted Hindu families. The rioters shouted inflammatory slogans, including anti-India chants and provocations related to Hindu beliefs. “They set our vehicles on fire and taunted us, saying, ‘Call your Ram, let’s see who saves you now,’” said a local resident. Houses and vehicles were severely damaged, with doors and windows shattered. In the FIR, the complainant stated that the members of the Muslim community confronted the celebrants with vulgar and obscene abuses. They repeatedly shouted, “We had already planned for this. You people will shout and celebrate, and today we will teach you a lesson.” When the victims objected, the mob allegedly launched a premeditated attack using bricks and stones that they had gathered in advance. Indore collector Ashish Singh has informed that action under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) has been taken against some of the rioters. Thirteen arrests have been made so far.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under two prime categories. The first is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the first sub-category selected 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 second sub-category selected is- Communal clash. 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 third sub-category selected under the above-mentioned category 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 second category selected here is- Attack on Hindu religious representation and under this, the sub-category selected is- Attack on Temples. In Hinduism, a temple is the abode of the Deity. The Deity in the Temple is consecrated, thereby, making it a real, breathing entity. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the temple premises itself are sacred to Hindus since Hindus hold the faith that the entire Temple space is an amalgamation of the divine energy of the deity. Given the central significance of Temples in Hindu Dharma, any attack against a Hindu Temple or its peripheral premises is an attack on the faith itself and is born out of animosity towards the faith, of which, the Temple is a central tenet. Any manner of attack against a Temple and/or its premises would, therefore be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. The second sub-category selected under the above-mentioned category is- Abrahamic religious chanting outside Hindu religious places and/or during Hindu activities. In Hinduism, a temple is the abode of the Deity. The Deity in the Temple is consecrated, thereby, making it a real, breathing entity. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the temple premises itself are sacred to Hindus since Hindus hold the faith that the entire Temple space is an amalgamation of the divine energy of the deity. Similarly, religious activities hold deep significance for Hindus, as they are intricately connected to their spiritual, cultural, and social lives. These practices encompass rituals, festivals, prayers, and pilgrimages that celebrate and honour various deities, fostering a sense of spiritual connection, community, and cultural continuity. Given the central significance of Temples and religious activities in Hindu Dharma, any aggressive Abrahamic chanting outside Temples or during religious activities negates the divinity of the religious space because the chanting itself negates the existence of any other God other than the God of the Abrahamic faith. Such chanting is specifically done to negate the faith of Hindus, establish religious supremacy, intimidate the devotees and mock the faith. Besides temples, such Abrahamic chanting outside any Hindu place of worship or religious structure or during any religious activity has the same effect. Since such acts are rooted in an inherent religious supremacist mentality driven by religious animosity, such crimes would be considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. Further, the third prime category under which this case has been placed is- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the first sub-category selected is- Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly, through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. The second sub-category selected under Hate speech against Hindus 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 incident, where a Muslim mob unleashed a violent attack on Hindus celebrating India's Champions Trophy win, has various religious markers that justify its inclusion in the Hinduphobia tracker under several categories and subcategories. Firstly, this incident has been placed under the category of "Attacked for crossing Muslim area" because as soon as the celebratory group entered the vicinity of the Jama Masjid, they were attacked with stone pelting, vandalism, and arson. This pattern is seen in several communal clashes where Hindus entering or passing through Muslim-majority localities are met with hostility. In such cases, the underlying motive often stems from the belief that certain areas are exclusive to a particular religious community, and outsiders—especially Hindus—are not welcome. The reaction from the Muslim mob indicates a deep-seated intolerance towards Hindu religious expressions and processions, especially when such events take place in or around areas they consider their own. It reveals a disturbing sense of Islamic supremacy harboured by the attackers. This sense of entitlement and superiority not only reflects deep-seated prejudice but also highlights an attempt to assert religious dominance over public spaces. Historically, such clashes have been tactically used to intimidate Hindus and discourage them from crossing or settling in certain areas. The fact that the violence was premeditated—with petrol bombs, arson, and targeted attacks—reinforces the notion that this was not an ordinary scuffle but rather a deliberate act of aggression meant to send a strong message: that Hindus should not cross, celebrate, or assert their religious and national pride in Muslim-majority localities. Further, the claim that firecrackers were the cause of the violence needs to be critically examined. Bursting firecrackers is a common celebratory practice across India, and there have been numerous instances where Muslim crowds have burst firecrackers near Hindu religious sites or in mixed areas without similar violent reactions from Hindus. If firecrackers were truly the issue, the response should have been a complaint or discussion, not an organized attack involving stone-pelting, arson, and the targeting of a temple. The disproportionate nature of the response suggests that the real issue was the presence of Hindus celebrating openly in a Muslim-dominated area, which the attackers sought to suppress. It is important to highlight here that this incident in Mhow is not an isolated incident. Across various parts of India, there is a well-documented pattern of attacks on Hindu religious processions, including Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti celebrations, when they pass through Muslim-majority areas. These attacks typically follow the same pattern—stone-pelting, violent mobs, and, in many cases, arson or temple attacks. The violence in Mhow fits this pattern. Secondly, the sub-category 'Attacked for Hindu Identity' has been chosen. This category is particularly relevant because the attack was not merely a reaction to an event but was motivated by the Hindu identity of the people involved in the victory celebration. Reports indicate that the participants in the procession were chanting Jai Shri Ram slogans, and this triggered the attackers. In fact, the Jama Masjid Imam also admitted that there was an attempt to lynch Hindus chanting Jai Shri Ram. "Jai Shri Ram" is not just a slogan; it is a deeply significant religious chant that represents devotion to Lord Ram, one of the most revered deities in Hinduism. It is a common expression of faith and is frequently used in prayers, religious gatherings, and festivals. By chanting Jai Shri Ram during a victory celebration, the Hindus in the procession were simply expressing their religious and cultural identity in a way that is both natural and customary within their tradition. The problem arises from the way expressions of Hindu faith are often framed as provocative in certain contexts. There have been multiple cases across India where Hindus chanting Jai Shri Ram have faced violent reactions from Islamist groups, even though Islamic religious slogans like Allahu Akbar and Nara-e-Takbeer are frequently used in public, including in protests and political rallies, without being deemed provocative. This selective intolerance suggests that the opposition to Jai Shri Ram is not about noise levels or disturbance but rather about an inherent hostility toward Hindu identity being asserted in public spaces. The repeated targeting of Hindus chanting 'Jai Shri Ram' in communal incidents further strengthens the argument that the attack was motivated by Hindu identity. The same pattern has been observed in West Bengal, Bihar, and several other states, where mobs have reacted violently to Hindu processions raising this slogan. In fact, the Hinduphobia tracker has listed innumerable such cases where Hindu children have been stigmatised, dehumanised, punished, persecuted, humiliated and denied their religious rights by figures of authority, often teachers, specifically in connection with the Jai Shri Ram chant. The rampant hate speech to demonise Hindus, specifically using the Jai Shri Ram chant, started translating into persecution of Hindus on the ground with Ram Navami processions being attacked by Muslims, Hindus being jailed for chanting Jai Shri Ram and Hindus being assaulted and students being actively persecuted. Thirdly, the targeting of a temple in this communal violence is not an isolated act but a direct attack on Hindu religious identity and places of worship. It highlights a pattern where Islamist mobs, in moments of communal tension, retaliate not just against individuals but against Hindu sacred spaces themselves. Temples hold immense religious, cultural, and emotional significance for Hindus. Any attack on a temple, therefore, is an attack on the Hindu collective consciousness and a deliberate attempt to instill fear within the community. In this incident, the violent mob that first attacked the Hindu victory procession did not stop at targeting individuals—they extended their aggression toward a Hindu place of worship and even attempted to burn it down. This act is also a clear sign that the violence was not just about the firecrackers or a passing procession; it was about attacking the Hindu religious presence itself. The next category relevant here is Hate speech against Hindus, within which the sub-category selected is- Violent threats. This is because the chanting of ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Nara-e-Takbeer’ during the violent attack on the Hindu victory procession and the temple was not a benign religious expression but a deliberate attempt to instill fear and assert dominance. These slogans, when used in the context of mob violence, riots, and terror attacks, take on an unmistakable character: they signal an Islamist war cry, historically used to justify aggression against non-believers or 'kafirs'. While ‘Allahu Akbar’ (meaning ‘Allah is the greatest’) is originally a phrase of religious devotion, its use during attacks, riots, and acts of terror has transformed its perception among non-Muslims, particularly Hindus. It is frequently heard during Islamist-led communal violence, indicating a doctrinal motivation behind the aggression. In this case, videos emerging from the site confirm that as soon as the Hindu celebratory procession neared the Jama Masjid, Islamist mobs began chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Nara-e-Takbeer’—right before launching their attack. This sequence is crucial because it establishes the intent behind the violence. The slogans were not being used as a mere religious expression but as a psychological weapon to terrorise Hindus. Here, it becomes crucial to mention how historically, ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Nara-e-Takbeer’ have been associated with several Islamic conquests, instances of forced conversions, jihadist terror attacks and mob violence against non-Muslims. Whether in Kashmir, the Delhi riots (2020), Bangladesh pogroms (2021 and 2024), or similar cases across India, these slogans have been weaponised to unite violent Islamist mobs against Hindus. In fact, even when two Islamists identified as Riyaz and Ghous Mohammad brutally beheaded the poor Hindu tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur, Rajasthan, in 2022, they shouted ‘Gustakh-e-Nabi ki ek hi saza, sar tan se juda’ while chanting ‘Allahu Akbar.’ By using this same pattern in Mhow, the intent of the attackers was clear: this was not a reaction to firecrackers but a premeditated assault against Hindus. Further, the revelation by an eyewitness that the attackers chanted Islamic slogans while targeting the Hindu temple also justifies the categorisation of this case under Abrahamic religious chanting outside Hindu religious places and/or during Hindu activities. This pattern of invoking religious slogans while engaging in acts of violence against Hindus and their places of worship is a deliberate show of dominance and an attempt to intimidate the Hindu community. The use of religious chanting in such a context serves as a psychological tactic to reinforce the mob’s collective aggression while simultaneously asserting their intent to suppress Hindu religious expression. Such actions have been observed in previous cases where Islamist mobs have sought to disrupt Hindu festivals, processions, and places of worship by chanting slogans that not only glorify their own faith but also act as a provocation against Hindus. Eyewitness accounts also revealed that the mob not only carried out a violent assault but also issued explicit and targeted threats against the Hindu community. The rioters reportedly taunted Hindus with inflammatory remarks, shouting, “Call your Ram, let’s see who saves you now,” as they set vehicles on fire and attacked homes. Such statements, aimed at mocking the Hindu faith while instilling fear, indicate a deliberate attempt to intimidate and demoralise the community. Furthermore, the FIR details how members of the Muslim community confronted Hindu celebrants with obscene abuses and declared, “We had already planned for this. You people will shout and celebrate, and today we will teach you a lesson.” This statement confirms that the attack was not a spontaneous outburst but a premeditated act meant to punish Hindus for expressing their religious and national identity. Another concerning aspect of this attack is the violent backlash against the slogan ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai,’ which symbolises national pride and unity in India. By targeting individuals for chanting this slogan, the Islamist mob demonstrated a rejection of Indian national identity in favour of a broader Islamist allegiance. It is important to note that Muslim extremists not only harbour deep-seated animosity toward Hindus and their faith but also perceive India as a Hindu-majority nation. The foundation of India’s partition was rooted in the belief that Islam constituted a distinct nation that could not coexist within a Hindu-majority country like India. Additionally, many Muslims adhere to the concept of transnational unity, or the Ummah, which asserts that all Muslims worldwide form a single nation. This ideology often results in a divided sense of national loyalty, where allegiance is directed toward the global Muslim community rather than a nation-state perceived as Hindu-majority. The hostility toward patriotic slogans like ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ has been evident in numerous instances where Islamist radicals reject national identity in favour of the Islamic Ummah.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 10 to 100
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
