Hindus subjected to threats: Muslim mob chants Sar Tan Se Juda slogans near Hindu temple over false news of removal of 'I Love Mohammad' poster
Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, India 
20 September, 2025
Case Summary
In Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, Hindus were subjected to violent “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogans by members of the Muslim community. The accused also raised these violent slogans outside a Durga temple. The Muslim group additionally resorted to stone-pelting at the police. According to media reports, more than 100 members of the Muslim community in Unnao began a procession without obtaining permission. The procession included both men and a large number of women. During the event, slogans such as “Sar Tan Se Juda” were openly chanted, and the police were assaulted and pushed. The uniform of Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh, the officer-in-charge of Gangaghat police station, was torn. When the police attempted to restrain the group, the Muslim mob began pelting stones at officers. The mob also carried the procession outside a Durga temple, chanting the same violent slogan, which further escalated tensions in the area. The situation worsened to such an extent that police had to resort to a lathi-charge, which resulted in a stampede-like scenario. Following the unrest, riot control vehicles and personnel from the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) were deployed, and additional police forces were summoned from nearby stations to regain control. A police presence remained in the area following the incident. Six individuals were taken into custody in connection with the disturbance. After these arrests, relatives and supporters of those detained created further disruption. The police then began interrogation of those accused who were in custody. Initial investigations revealed that provocative posts related to “I Love Muhammad” were circulated on social media prior to the procession. The police cyber cell began investigating these posts while scrutinising CCTV footage to identify the rioters. Authorities stated that strict action would be taken against the perpetrators. Unnao police registered an FIR against 30 Muslim individuals, including eight named persons. Section 144, prohibiting public gatherings, was in effect in the district but was violated by a large Muslim crowd. The stone-pelting caused damage to shops and several houses in the vicinity This incident came in the aftermath of another communal flashpoint in Uttar Pradesh. On 5th September 2025, during a Barawafat procession in Rawatpur, Kanpur, Muslim youths used sticks to deliberately damage Hindu posters displayed in a local neighbourhood. The act followed a dispute the previous day, when an “I Love Muhammad” signboard was installed in front of Zafar Wali Gali for the Barawafat observance. The local Hindu residents objected to this, leading police to relocate the board. Despite the police clarifying that the FIR in Kanpur was filed specifically for the destruction of Hindu posters, and not for removing the “I Love Muhammad” board, a distorted narrative spread across the country that the FIR was linked to the “I Love Muhammad” banner. This falsehood fuelled nationwide protests, where Sar Tan Se Juda slogans were raised by Muslims as a violent threat against Hindus.
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. Another primary category selected in this case is- Attack on Hindu religious representations. The subcategory selected 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. This case has been added to the hate crime database because the use of the slogan “Sar Tan Se Juda” constitutes an explicit and religiously motivated threat directed at Hindus. “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki Ek hi saza, sar tan se Juda, sar tan se Juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), their head separated from their torso, their head separated from the torso”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets running amok and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against their Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined this slogan, it has gained popularity among Islamists in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Islamists chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence against Hindus, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It aims to instil fear in the broader community. Islamists use this tactic to settle personal scores with non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target on them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false blasphemy accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. The appearance of this slogan in Unnao demonstrates how deeply this violent rhetoric has permeated. The repetition of it in public settings functions as a call for execution and sends a chilling warning to anyone, particularly Hindus, who might be perceived as dissenting or unwilling to submit to Islamist diktats. The very utterance of the slogan transforms public space into a theatre of intimidation, where Hindus are reminded that their lives could be taken for resisting Islamist assertions in civic disputes. This case is also significant because it illustrates how misinformation is weaponised to mobilise violence. The false claim that an FIR was filed against the “I Love Muhammad” banner in Kanpur became the pretext for raising these slogans in Unnao. In reality, the FIR concerned the destruction of Hindu posters, yet the distortion was sufficient to provoke communal outrage and legitimise threats against Hindus. This pattern of twisting facts to generate anger and then channelling that anger into violent slogans reflects a deliberate mechanism of incitement. The slogan’s danger lies not merely in its verbal content but in its historical and contemporary consequences. Across South Asia, including India, there are multiple recorded cases where individuals accused of blasphemy have been murdered after such chants were raised by Muslim crowds. From school teachers to political leaders, victims have been executed in acts directly linked to the “Sar Tan Se Juda” call. It therefore serves as a bridge between verbal incitement and physical violence, collapsing the distance between threat and action. The slogan is not a matter of community pride or protest; it is an explicit incitement to religiously motivated killing. Its use in Unnao, in connection with a false narrative that Hindus had insulted Islam, underscores the vulnerability of Hindu communities to targeted intimidation. It also illustrates the broader pattern where Islamist groups use blasphemy allegations, fabricated or exaggerated, as tools to victimise Hindus and silence expressions of Hindu identity in public life. By documenting this case, the Hinduphobia Tracker records both the local incident and its wider ideological lineage. It demonstrates how a slogan that originated in Pakistan’s radical Islamist circles has now become a transnational chant of intimidation against Hindus. It highlights the continuity between speech and violence, reminding us that words which openly prescribe beheading cannot be dismissed as mere rhetoric. They are violent threats in their most direct form, and their repetition in Unnao places Hindus under the shadow of potential physical harm solely for their religious identity. This aggression escalated when the Muslim mob desecrated the sanctity of a Hindu temple by chanting these slogans outside a Durga temple. The act of raising such a violent anti-Hindu chant outside a Hindu place of worship was a deliberate attempt to intimidate Hindus at their most sacred site, to tarnish the temple’s sanctity, and to assert Islamic supremacy over the Hindu community. This public display of hostility not only aimed to threaten and demean the Hindu community but also sought to transform the temple precinct—a space of peace and devotion—into a theatre of intimidation and dominance. The chanting outside the Durga temple symbolised a direct challenge to Hindu religious identity and freedom, sending a message that Hindu places of worship were vulnerable to taunts, threats, and disrespect. This behaviour exemplifies a broader pattern of religious intolerance and targeted aggression that seeks to undermine Hinduism through fear and desecration. Furthermore, the Muslim mob also stone-pelted at the police officers who attempted to maintain law and order. Inspector Ajay Kumar Singh's uniform was torn in the chaos. This assault on law enforcement, combined with the targeted slogans, reveals a coordinated act of intimidation and violence designed to terrorise the Hindu community. Such actions go beyond peaceful assembly or protest; they are deliberate, unlawful acts aimed at spreading fear and disrupting communal harmony. This violent behaviour, accompanied by threats and damage to property, underscores the severity of the hate crime. Given that this case meets the parameters of a religiously motivated crime, it is being added to the hate crime database in the Hinduphobia Tracker. It is important to highlight here that despite the flawed narrative peddled in the aftermath, the incident in Kanpur was clearly anti-Hindu in nature. The core trigger was not the removal of an “I Love Muhammad” banner, as was widely circulated, but the desecration of Hindu religious posters. The FIR itself records this fact, serving as official evidence that the sequence of events began with an attack on Hindu symbols. Accordingly, the desecration of Hindu posters, the subsequent protests where Muslims are taking to the streets and raising violent sar tan se juda slogans, waving Palestinian flags, have been included in the tracker. Each of these acts is a direct expression of hostility toward Hindus and their religion, leaving little doubt about their targeted nature. At the same time, while several attacks on police officials have also occurred, these are not being documented as individual cases in the Hinduphobia Tracker. The violence against law enforcement arose because the FIR named members of the Muslim community for desecrating Hindu posters, which made the police appear as indirectly siding with Hindus. In this sense, the attacks on authorities can also be seen as an extension of the same hostility that was originally directed against Hindus. However, since the assaults were aimed at state authority rather than Hindus themselves, and because the tracker follows extremely strict parameters, we are not adding these incidents as individual entries in the tracker.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 10 to 100
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
