Islamic flag hoisted and provocative slogans raised outside Shiva temple during Muharram procession in Kushinagar
Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India 
5 July, 2025
Case Summary
In the Kushinagar district of Uttar Pradesh, religious tensions flared when a Hindu temple was targeted by Muslim youths who hoisted an Islamic flag near the temple and raised provocative slogans against the Hindu community. According to media reports, during a Muharram Tazia procession at Gulharia Regulator in the Khadda police station area, a group of Muslim youths hoisted an Islamic flag in front of an ancient Shiva temple. The group also shouted inflammatory slogans directed at the Hindu community. Afterwards, the youths recorded the incident and shared the video on social media, further escalating tensions in the area. This led to verbal and physical confrontations between members of the Hindu and Muslim communities. The police did not arrive at the scene promptly, which allowed the situation to escalate. Eventually, law enforcement reached the location and succeeded in bringing the situation under control. Later, a few of the accused were arrested. At the time of writing this report, the investigation was still ongoing.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within this, the subcategory 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 other subcategory is- Breaking rules of place of worship. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion of one book, which is to say that while it has religious scriptures that form the central tenets of the faith, there are several traditions followed through thousands of years, mostly passed from generation to generation orally. One of these oral traditions or written traditions is the rules of specific temples. Certain temples have rules which are traditional rules, dependent on the worship of the presiding deities. These rules and traditions have been followed for thousands of years whether they find scriptural mention or not. Such traditions are based on the nature and rules of worship of the presiding deity of that temple. Any non-compliance of these traditions owing to animosity towards the faith or for the sake of activism stems not only from the lack of faith in the presiding deity but also disregard for the faith of the devotees of that deity/temple and implicit bias against the faith, the tradition and the deity itself. Since these specific traditions are central to the faith of the devotees of that specific temple and presiding deity, any non-compliance with these traditional rules would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. Another primary category selected is- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory selected 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 is a clear demonstration of a religiously motivated attack against the Hindu community. Firstly, the deliberate and malicious act of hoisting an Islamic flag near a Hindu temple was not only a violation of the temple’s sanctity but also a blatant disregard for Hindu religious sentiments and customs. Temples are not just physical structures; for a Hindu, they are institutions that are highly revered and are believed to have the divine presence. Such an act of hoisting flags of the Islamic faith near a Hindu temple is not a random act; rather, it is a premeditated act intended to provoke and hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community, making it a religiously motivated crime. Hindu temples follow traditional customs that are rooted in both scriptural teachings and long-standing oral practices. These include not only rituals of worship but also behavioural norms meant to preserve the purity and sanctity of the space. In the Khadda case, raising a non-Hindu religious flag in front of a Shiva temple during a non-Hindu religious procession violated the implicit spiritual boundaries and traditional rules associated with the temple. This was not an accidental transgression—it was a public assertion that disregarded the deeply held beliefs of Hindu devotees. The disruption and defilement of traditional Hindu religious practice by an external group, especially in such a provocative context, amounts to a hate crime driven by disregard and animosity toward the faith. The situation was further inflamed when the Muslim group began chanting provocative slogans against the Hindu community. These slogans were not mere words; they were designed to incite, intimidate, and provoke fear among Hindus gathered at their place of worship. Such actions went beyond simple provocation; rather, they were well-calculated moves to insult and threaten the Hindu community in their sacred temple. This showcases that the acts of the Muslim perpetrators were motivated by religious hostility towards the Hindu community. The raising of provocative slogans alongside the Islamic flag hoisting near a temple constitutes hate speech, especially when such slogans are aimed at provoking, intimidating, or humiliating members of the Hindu community. In many such incidents, slogans or speech act as coded messages of contempt or aggression. Though the specific content of the slogans in this case has not been publicly disclosed, the fact that they were perceived as provocative by local Hindus shows that the content or manner of expression targeted Hindus as a religious group. Given the context—raising a rival religious flag and voicing inflammatory chants in front of a Hindu temple—this was a coordinated attempt to assert religious supremacy and instil fear or anger. Such speech is driven by animosity towards Hindu symbols, sacred spaces, and religious identity, and therefore qualifies as hate speech. Since this case involved a deliberate, targeted act meant to humiliate and provoke the Hindu community, therefore, this case is being added to the hate crime database.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
