Hindu activist receives death threats and stone-pelting threats at Sri-Ram Yatra from Muslim man

Case ID : 90a0a33 | Location : Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 9 March, 2025

Case ID : 90a0a33

Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh, India

9 March, 2025

Hindu activist receives death threats and stone-pelting threats at Sri-Ram Yatra from Muslim man

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Case Summary

In Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh, a Hindu organisation worker named Raj Soni was threatened by a Muslim man named Afsal Pathan. Afsal threatened Raj that he would pelt stones at a religious procession, the Sri-Ram Yatra. Afsal also issued death threats to Raj and threatened to break his hands and legs. According to news reports, in September 2024, Afsal had previously raped a Hindu woman. The Hindu organisations managed to rescue the woman, beat up Afsal, and sent him to jail. They registered a complaint against him. Later, Afsal was released on bail. He was furious with the Hindu organisation for sending him to jail and sought revenge. On 10th March 2025, at around 11 AM, he made a phone call to Raj Soni, threatening to break his hands and legs and kill him. He also threatened to pelt stones at the Sri-Ram Yatra, which would take place on the Hindu New Year on 30th March 2025, with the intent to disturb the law and order in the city. Raj Soni filed a complaint at the Kotwali police station, accompanied by officials from the Hindu organisation, and demanded that the police apprehend Afsal. The police took action against him under the relevant section and presented him in court, where he was granted bail. This angered the officials of the Hindu organisation. Officer Anoop Kirkire stated that it was inappropriate to grant bail to the accused, despite the serious nature of the case and the grave complaint, including the threat to pelt stones at the Sri-Ram Yatra.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory 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. This incident is a clear example of a hate crime and hate speech against the Hindu community. The Muslim accused, Afsal Pathan, was previously involved in the rape of a Hindu woman. Hindu activists intervened, ensuring his arrest, and this intervention became the source of Afsal’s hostility towards the activists. He subsequently threatened Raj Soni, a Hindu activist, with extreme physical violence and death. These threats were not random—they were targeted acts of religiously motivated aggression. Hindu activists and organisations, who genuinely work to protect the vulnerable, became the focus of vengeful retaliation from the Muslim extremist, Afsal. Adding to this, Afsal threatened to pelt stones at the Sri-Ram Yatra—a major Hindu religious procession—with the explicit intention of disrupting a sacred ceremony and creating disorder. This threat went beyond targeting an individual; it was a direct attack on Hindu practices and faith. Afsal’s words aimed to instil fear, suppress religious expression, and provoke communal unrest. This planned violence represented anti-Hindu hate speech at its core, revealing deep-seated intolerance and denigration of Hindu customs. These acts are rooted in religious animosity against Hindus, their community, and their festivals, making them unequivocally a religiously motivated crime. Even more concerning is the court’s decision to grant bail to such an accused, despite clear and serious complaints involving threats to both a Hindu individual and a Hindu religious event. Granting bail in situations involving obvious religious animosity and intent to incite communal disturbance signals a worrying pattern of systematic discrimination against Hindus. It sends the message that those targeting Hindus may act with impunity and face no repercussions. This institutional failure to secure justice and protection for Hindus entrenches discrimination and emboldens further attacks, making the concern about Hindu safety not just about isolated hate crimes, but about deep-rooted institutional indifference. This case stands as stark evidence of organised anti-Hindu hate speech, hate crime, and persistent systemic bias. Therefore, it is rightfully being added to the hate crime database.