Journalist trivialises the religious persecution of Hindu women by denying the existence of love jihad, refers to it as a product of Islamophobia
India 
24 March, 2025
Case Summary
Journalist Priya Ramani, in a recent article, called the concept of ‘love jihad’ a product of Islamophobia rather than a genuine social issue. In a hit job against Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath, Ramani claimed that he had weaponised the "theory of love jihad" to fuel religious divisions and control personal relationships, rather than addressing real concerns regarding women’s rights and safety. Ramani claimed that the Chief Minister had spearheaded efforts to criminalise interfaith marriages under the pretext of protecting Hindu women, portraying Muslim men as threats. She pointed out that his administration had introduced laws and police crackdowns based on this theory, which she described as rooted in communal paranoia rather than factual evidence. According to her, this campaign had led to the harassment of consenting couples, reinforcing a state-backed narrative of mistrust against minorities. She further stated that Adityanath’s long-standing opposition to interfaith relationships reflected a deep-seated bias, making Uttar Pradesh more polarised than ever. She recalled that in earlier years, he had openly spoken against religious harmony and had used his political influence to push an anti-Muslim agenda. Ramani concluded that the ‘love jihad’ narrative had been systematically used to justify regressive policies, suppress dissent, and reshape India’s social fabric along religious lines.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category- Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category relevant in this case is- Denial or mocking of historical genocide/large scale persecution. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimizing the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. Although criticism of political leaders is a legitimate aspect of public discourse, Ramani’s assertion went beyond political critique. By rejecting ‘love jihad’ outright, she minimised and delegitimised the documented cases where Hindu women had reported coercion, deception, or forced conversion under the guise of relationships. Her claims effectively dismissed the fears and experiences of victims, creating a narrative that erased a pattern of religiously motivated crimes. The denial of such incidents aligned with broader trends of diminishing or mocking large-scale persecution, which is recognised as a form of hate speech. This case fell under the category of hate speech against Hindus, specifically the sub-category of denial or mocking of historical genocide/large-scale persecution. By framing ‘love jihad’ as Islamophobic propaganda rather than acknowledging its implications, Ramani contributed to the erasure of religiously motivated crimes against Hindus. Love Jihad or Grooming Jihad, is a phenomenon in which Muslim men prey on helpless Hindu women, entice and deceive them, convert them to Islam against their will, torture and rape them, and then either kill or leave them. In some cases, Muslim men have hidden their identity from Hindu women and coerced them into a relationship. In other cases, it has been seen that the Hindu woman and the Muslim man got into a relationship knowing each other’s religious identity; however, after the marriage, the husband started forcing the wife to convert to Islam. In several of these cases, it was seen that the woman was forced to wear a Hijab, eat beef and Hindu idols were broken. In some other cases, the Muslim man had hidden the fact that he was already married and coerced the Hindu woman into marrying him. In some other cases, Hindu woman were abducted; raped and/or forced to have unnatural sex, threatened with private videos or even beheading for conversion. Instances such as those involving Sahil Khan in Kawardha, Ajmal in Padrauna, and Changez Khan in Pilibhit highlight the recurring theme of targeting Hindu women for conversion. By dismissing these cases as communal paranoia or by portraying the ‘love jihad’ issue as a right-wing conspiracy, Ramani disregarded the lived experiences of countless Hindu women who have suffered due to forced conversions and deception. Her argument also failed to acknowledge the ideological motivations behind such cases, where perpetrators see conversion as a means of religious dominance rather than genuine companionship. Instead of addressing these grave concerns, her article framed the issue as a mere political ploy, thereby downplaying the threats posed by organised predatory proselytisation. Priya Ramani’s op-ed is reflective of the animosity she harbours toward Hindus, as it dismisses their legitimate concerns regarding predatory proselytisation and forced conversions while framing the issue of ‘love jihad’ as mere Islamophobia. Her deliberate attempt to portray ‘love jihad’ as a political fabrication rather than acknowledging the suffering of Hindu women who have been deceived, coerced, and exploited by radical elements reveals a deep-seated bias. By downplaying documented cases of Hindu women being lured under false pretenses, pressured into conversion, and subjected to violence, Ramani effectively erases their trauma, suggesting that their suffering is either exaggerated or politically motivated rather than rooted in reality. The trivialisation of religious persecution against Hindus, in this context, constituted a form of hate speech, as it fostered prejudice and justified further hostility. Consequently, this case warrants inclusion in the tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
