Communal clash erupts after Hindu man and his family attacked over interfaith relationship with Muslim woman

Case ID : 90a0c05 | Location : Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 30 March, 2025

Case ID : 90a0c05

Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India

30 March, 2025

Communal clash erupts after Hindu man and his family attacked over interfaith relationship with Muslim woman

Men attacked for being associated with non-Hindu women

Attacked by non-Hindu partner or/and her family

Attack not resulting in death

Communal clash/attack

Case Summary

A violent clash erupted between members of the Hindu and the Muslim communities in the Izzatnagar area of Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. The communal clash erupted after Muslims attacked Hindu homes over an ongoing dispute linked to an interfaith relationship between a 19-year-old Muslim girl and a Hindu boy named Sumit Yadav of the village. The tensions dated back to September 2024, when a young woman from the Muslim community left with her lover, Sumit Yadav. Although the matter was reported to the police, the woman later gave a statement in favour of Sumit. Eventually, she returned to live with her parents, but the incident caused lingering resentment between the two groups. On Monday night (31st March), around 9 p.m., members of the Muslim community attacked the home of the Hindus, leading to violent confrontations involving sticks, bricks, and stones. Some witnesses reported gunfire, resulting in injuries to Rafiq, Salman, and Naved from one group, while Anil Yadav, Sumit, and three others from the opposing side were also hurt. The police responded promptly to control the situation and deployed additional forces in the area to prevent further escalation. The authorities later registered an FIR against multiple individuals from both sides. From the Hindu community, those named included Anil, son of Natthu Lal; Netrapal, son of Ram Vilas; Sumit, son of Rajesh; Ashutosh, son of Than Singh; Pankaj, son of Kallu; Chhote, son of Than Singh; and Bhutani alias Jaspal, son of Kasturi, along with 20-25 unidentified persons. From the other group, Rafiq Shah, son of Rasid Shah; Shafiq, son of Rafiq Shah; Irshad, son of Rafiq Shah; Wajid, son of Rafiq; Naved, son of Irfan; Irfan himself; Chand, son of Rafiq; Mujahid, son of Bhole Shah; Chhote, son of Mahmood; and 20-25 unknown individuals were also booked. The Superintendent of Police confirmed that the initial dispute had stemmed from the love affair but had been aggravated by longstanding rivalries in the village. He also stated that the allegations of gunfire were being investigated but had not been confirmed. The authorities assured that all those responsible for the violence would be identified and prosecuted. The situation remained tense, but the police presence helped to restore order in the area.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category- Men attacked for being associated with non-Hindu women. The sub-category relevant in this case is- Attacked by non-Hindu partner and/or her family. When Hindu men are in a relationship with non-Hindu women, there are cases where the man is forced to convert his religion and upon his refusal to do so, the partner or/and her family attacks the victim. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu woman known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu woman or her family starts forcing/pressurizing the Hindu man to convert. In some of these cases, the association could be non-consensual as well or, the religious identity of the non-Hindu woman could be previously unknown to the Hindu victim. In such cases, the Hindu man is first forced/pressurized to change his religion by the non-Hindu woman or her family. The force/pressure could involve threats. The trigger for directing violence against the Hindu man is in these cases his refusal to comply and change his religion under threat and/or force. In other cases that have been documented, it is also seen that the Hindu partner is assaulted by the non-Hindu woman or her family simply for his relationship with the non-Hindu woman and by virtue of him following the Hindu faith and not the religion of the non-Hindu woman. In such cases, the relationship is consensual in most cases and the religion of both partners is known to the other. Often, in such cases, there is no direct force/pressure to convert either, however, the attack is a result of the Hindu man being in a relationship with the non-Hindu partner and not following her religion/following Hinduism specifically. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. The second category under which this case has been placed is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the sub-category 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 incident in Izzatnagar qualifies as a hate crime because the violence was targeted against a Hindu man for his relationship with a non-Hindu woman. The attack was not a random act of aggression but stemmed from religious intolerance towards the interfaith relationship. In several cases where a Hindu man is in a relationship with a Muslim woman, the family of the Muslim woman ends up assaulting or murdering the man because of their disapproval of the relationship. In such cases, the relationship is consensual and the man and woman are with each other knowing each other’s identity fully well. Such cases are often called ‘honour killings’ and are seen in associations across religions, castes, economic strata etc. In several cases, the motivations are stated and clear. For example, in some cases, the perpetrators would clearly mention what their main motivation to commit the crime was – whether it was because the partner was economically weaker, from a different caste or religion. In some cases, however, the motives are not stated and/or reported. To determine whether such cases are religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of a clearly stated motive, one has to understand what could possibly be the main factor which the perpetrator's family would believe diminishes the family’s ‘honour’, leading to the crime. For the purpose of this tracker, we would only be looking at cases where the determining factor of the crime is religion, which is to say that the man belongs to the Hindu faith and the woman to a non-Hindu faith. In such cases, even if the motivation is not stated, it can be said that the determining factor or at least one of the main considerations leading to the crime would be the religious identity of the man, especially if the woman in the relationship is a Muslim. In the Islamic faith, a marriage is deemed illegitimate if the non-Muslim partner does not convert to Islam. For those who practice the faith, when their daughter marries a Hindu man without the man converting to Islam, the difference in religions followed becomes the main point of disapproval for the family of the Muslim woman. Because of the ingrained element of religious supremacy in Islam, even if the motivations are not explicit, it can reasonably be concluded as one of the determining factors of the assault or murder committed by the Muslim family against the Hindu man. For these reasons, such crimes are considered hate crimes and form a part of this database. In this instance, reports indicate that the relationship between Sumit Yadav and the Muslim woman was also consensual. The Muslim girl had given a statement in favour of Sumit. However, their interfaith relationship had become a source of tension for months, leading to violence when members of her community launched an assault on the homes of Hindus in the village. This pattern aligns with documented cases where Hindu men in relationships with non-Hindu women face pressure to convert, and upon their refusal, are subjected to violence by the woman's family or community. The attack was not just a personal dispute but a case of religiously motivated violence aimed at punishing a Hindu man for maintaining a relationship outside his community. Such incidents contribute to an environment of fear, where Hindu men in interfaith relationships become vulnerable to communal violence. Given the targeted nature of the assault, its basis in religious identity, and the involvement of an organised group, this case meets the criteria of a hate crime.