Hindu man forced to convert to Islam, stabbed for refusal; minor son forcibly circumcised by Muslim wife and her family
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India 
17 September, 2025
Case Summary
In Jorapokhar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, a Hindu man named Roshan Kumar Yadav was forced to convert to Islam by his Muslim wife and in-laws. The victim was also stabbed by the Muslim perpetrators for refusing to convert. His minor Hindu son was also subjected to forced circumcision and was given a new Islamic name. Based on Roshan’s statement, a case was registered at Jorapokhar police station against his in-laws. Reports confirmed that Roshan Kumar Yadav, a resident of Bagdigi, and Afsana Khatoon, from Barari, had a love marriage in 2020. They had a two-year-old son together. Roshan, who was hospitalised, stated that he had gone out of town for work. When he returned to Jorapokhar, his wife had taken their son to her parents’ house. On 18th September 2025, he went there to see his son and, when holding him in his arms, discovered that the child had been circumcised. When he questioned his in-laws about it, they pressured him to convert to their religion. When he refused, his brother-in-laws, Zubair and Javed Ansari, attacked him with a knife. As he tried to escape, his father-in-law, Adalat Ansari, and his wife, Afsana Khatoon, caught hold of him. He managed to escape and informed the Jorapokhar police about his ordeal. The Jorapokhar police station in-charge Uday Gupta admitted Roshan to the hospital, where he was receiving treatment. As per the victim's mother, the Muslim perpetrators had also changed the minor Hindu son's name to Faiyaz Ali. Meanwhile, Roshan’s wife, Afsana Khatoon, filed a dowry harassment case against him and his family. She claimed that her husband, Roshan Kumar and his relatives Ritik Kumar, Krish, and Saroj Devi had not provided her with food or shelter for the past two months and that she had received death threats. She also accused Roshan of attacking her brother with a sickle a few days earlier, leaving him injured. She denied the accusations of forced religious conversion. A separate case was registered against Roshan and his family based on her complaint.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Men attacked for being associated with non-Hindu women. The subcategory selected is- Forced to convert after marriage. In such cases, a non-Hindu woman marries a Hindu man and the force/pressure against the Hindu man to convert to Islam begins after marriage. In such cases, the marriage is consensual in most cases and often, there is no element of the non-Hindu woman hiding her religious identity. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act where neither parties are required to convert their religion for the marriage to be considered legitimate. While the victim in such cases enters matrimony assuming that religious identity is not a barrier, the non-Hindu woman starts to pressure the Hindu man to convert to Islam after marriage. In such cases, there is application of force/pressure by the perpetrator, including, denial of the man’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the man is forced/pressured to convert include forcing/pressurizing the man to involuntarily consume beef, pressurizing/forcing to read the Kalma, forced circumcision, forced to go to the mosque, etc. There are several instances where after marriage, the man voluntarily converts to Islam. Such cases are often argued to be a result of religious brainwashing, however, for the purpose of documenting religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of the victim complaining of forced conversion, such cases do not form a part of the database. The other subcategory selected is- Attacked by non-Hindu partner or/and 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. Another primary category selected is- Predatory Proselytisation. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other subcategory selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation, or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category selected is- Conversion of minor. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. Another primary category selected in this case is- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save the victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The other subcategory selected is- Attacked for refusal to convert. When there is pressure, threat or coercion employed upon the Hindu victim to convert to a different religion, in several cases, the victim refuses to succumb to the pressure/threats. Once the victim refuses, the perpetrator proceeds to attack/assault the victim owing to his/her refusal to convert. In such cases, the pressure/threat/intimidation/coercion/violence itself is driven by animosity towards the victim’s Hindu faith. The violence then is another hate crime driven by the victim’s refusal to abandon his professed faith, Hinduism, and convert to the religion of a non-Hindu perpetrator. Since the victim’s faith is at the heart of the pressure to convert and the ensuing violence towards the victim, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case was a clear example of a hate crime committed against a Hindu man solely because of his religious identity. Roshan Kumar Yadav, a Hindu, was coerced by his Muslim wife and in-laws to abandon his faith and embrace Islam after marriage. What had begun as an interfaith marriage—entered into with the assurance that religion would not interfere in their relationship—was revealed to have been a trap. The later pressure to convert showed a deliberate design to strip Roshan of his Hindu identity. His wife entrapped him with the hidden intention of religiously converting him. Such coercion exposed a deep hostility towards Roshan because of his faith. The targeting of Roshan escalated from verbal and psychological coercion to ruthless physical violence when he resisted. His brother-in-law stabbed him with a knife, while his father-in-law and wife restrained him to prevent escape. This assault was carried out not out of a personal quarrel but as direct punishment for refusing to renounce his Hindu faith. By attacking him for resisting conversion, the perpetrators made his body a battlefield for their animosity towards his religion. This was an overt act of religiously motivated violence, where refusal to submit to Islam was answered with an attempt on his life. Roshan was further subjected to ongoing harassment intended to crush his resolve. Forcing a man to discard his beliefs and embrace another faith cannot be mistaken for familial conflict—it flows only from targeted religious hatred. The unrelenting pressure, the attempts to break his spirit, and finally the knife attack all pointed towards a systematic attempt to erase his Hindu identity. Additionally, this hate crime extended to his young son. The minor child was forcibly circumcised by his mother and in-laws and given a Muslim name, forcibly severing him from his religious and cultural roots. Minors lack the conscience or maturity to make decisions about faith, and in this case, the innocence of the child was brutally exploited. He was denied any choice, stripped of his Hindu identity, and made to carry the body-mark of religious conversion for life. Circumcision, being irreversible, will remain with him forever—an act of permanent mutilation that reflects the fanatical drive of the perpetrators. For them, altering the child’s body was not enough; it was about permanently stamping him with a religious identity against his will. This was not only an abuse of the child’s vulnerability but also an assertion of religious dominance carried out through force and violence. What unfolded was therefore a two-fold victimisation. Roshan was punished for refusing to give up his Hindu faith, and his son was mutilated and renamed, made to carry an identity he never chose. The boy will grow up with the burden of having been religiously altered without consent, bearing lifelong shame and pain. The violent erasure of both father and son’s Hindu identity exposed that the animosity was not restricted to family conflict but stemmed from hatred of their religious existence itself. The knife attack on Roshan highlighted the depth of that animosity. He was stabbed at the very moment when he resisted the forced conversion of his son and stood up for the child’s right to retain his Hindu identity. This timing revealed the true nature of the assault: it was not a random outburst of anger but a conscious attempt to silence Roshan for defending his faith and his child. His resistance to religious coercion became the very reason for his attack, proving beyond doubt that the violence was anchored in religious hatred. When Roshan bravely reported his ordeal of forced conversion and assault to the police, his Muslim wife immediately countered by filing a false dowry harassment case against him, accusing him and his family of torture. She also claimed that Roshan had attacked her brother with a sickle, leaving him injured. The timing of this false complaint itself exposed the malice—if her claims were genuine, why were they raised only after Roshan’s complaint? This sequence revealed a conspiracy to silence the Hindu victim by misusing anti-dowry laws, while concealing the original crime of religious coercion and violence. Such manipulation not only deepened Roshan’s victimisation but also highlighted the calculated, religiously motivated hatred that defined this hate crime. Taken together, this incident bore every hallmark of a Hinduphobic hate crime. A Hindu man entered a marriage with sincerity, believing religious differences would never endanger his identity. Instead, he and his child were systematically entrapped, coerced, mutilated, and attacked for resisting conversion. Roshan’s stabbing, the forced circumcision of his minor son, and the sustained pressure to renounce his faith all evidenced religious hatred directed solely against them for being Hindu. This was not a private dispute—it was a consciously executed hate crime. Therefore, this case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Victim Details
Total Victim
2
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 2
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 2
- General 0
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
