Case Summary

On October 24, 2025, local authorities in Khatima registered a FIR against Sidari Prasad, a resident of the Jhanakia Police Station area, under Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018—provisions aimed at prohibiting conversions through inducement, force, or fraud—along with Sections 351(3) (criminal intimidation) and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This legal action was initiated following a formal complaint filed earlier that day by Jitendra Vishwakarma, the Block Coordinator for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, prominent Hindu nationalist organisations known for their work against predatory proselytisation efforts. The complaint detailed how Prasad had systematically conducted unauthorised "prayer meetings" at his residence, which served as a covert hub for evangelical activities. These gatherings, attended primarily by Dalits from economically disadvantaged and socially backward backgrounds, were masked as spiritual sessions but involved coercive tactics. Prasad and his associates, reportedly hailing from neighbouring Uttar Pradesh and parts of Uttarakhand, extolled Christianity as the "supreme religion" while promising material and physical upliftment. Specific inducements included assurances of healing for chronic illnesses, liberation from addictions, resolution of domestic strife, and overall prosperity in life. Converts were further pressured to participate in weekly Sunday assemblies, discard Hindu rituals, and adopt Christian practices, effectively severing ties to their cultural heritage. This case fits into a broader pattern of missionary activities in Uttarakhand's Terai region, a belt characterised by high poverty rates, social discrimination, and superstitious beliefs that make communities ripe for exploitation. Media report extended the scope of conversion activities beyond Khatima, stating similar operations were being conducted in nearby villages: Melaghat, Sisaiya, Bari Anjaniya, Nousar, and Diyaan. The catalyst for the police intervention occurred when Jitendra Vishwakarma, accompanied by Vishal Singh Kholiya, Akash Rathore, and Pradeep Singh, confronted Sidari Prasad at his home in Khatima, Uttarakhand, on October 24, 2025, demanding that he stop organising unauthorised prayer meetings and promoting Christian conversion among local Dalits. Sidari attempted to persuade Jitendra to convert, promising that his family would enjoy a happier life and urging him to study a Christian book to discover its virtues. When Jitendra refused, Sidari became enraged, verbally abused the group, and tried to assault him. He reportedly justified his actions by claiming that various inducements removed any hesitation people felt about adopting Christianity. Inspector-in-Charge Devendra Gaurav confirmed that an investigation had begun, but Sidari went into hiding, and police efforts to locate him continued as of October 27, 2025.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Predatory Proselytisation. The first subcategory selected is- Conversion/ attempts to convert by inducement. Predatory Proselytisation is not just limited to threat, harassment, force and violence, but it also has contours of stealth. In several cases, the Hindu victim is exploited to convert, with non-Hindus taking advantage of their poverty. In such cases, the Hindu victim who is suffering financially is offered monetary benefits, including lucrative offers for jobs, health treatment, education, etc, to induce the victim into changing his/her religion. In such cases, the religious identity of the victim and the aim to disenfranchise him from his faith form the heart of the crime. Also, taking advantage of and exploiting an individual’s economic vulnerabilities is widely acknowledged as exploitation, forms of which are often penalised by law. Such cases, therefore, are considered religiously motivated hate crimes since the victim’s religious identity forms the very heart of the crime itself. The second sub-category selected is: Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism In several cases, Hindus are converted or an attempt is made to convert Hindus by denigrating their faith, Hinduism. In such cases, the Hindus associate with the non-Hindu perpetrators often by choice and then, the attempt to convert them by insulting their faith, showing the faith down etc begins. An example of this would be a non-Hindu gathering where the Hindus are attending the gathering of their own free will. However, once they attend the gathering, there is an explicit attempt to convert them by abusing their faith and hailing the faith of the perpetrator. The denigration of the Hindu faith is often based on misrepresentation of the Hindu faith, its doctrine and scriptures and insult to espoused traditions if not blatant lies about Hindu beliefs and ways. Such conversions or attempts at conversions are driven by animosity towards the Hindu faith and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The third sub-category 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 sub-category selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Within this, the tertiary category selected is- Pattern of targeting Hindus. 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. This case has been added to the tracker because Hindu villagers in Khatima village were lured and offered inducements for religious conversion by the Christian pastor. The perpetrator offered miracle cures and monetary inducements in an effort to coerce people into converting to Christianity. Firstly, offering such inducements or making false promises, especially when directed at vulnerable and economically weaker individuals, is not an act of kindness or charity. It is a calculated effort to exploit their vulnerability because of their religious identity. By providing inducements in exchange for conversion, the accused was effectively blackmailing those who might have been desperate for assistance or hope. Such instances are seen in many cases where members of Christian missionary groups target socially and economically vulnerable Hindus to further their agenda of religious conversions. This form of coercion strips people of their agency and dignity and results in coerced conversions. Secondly, the perpetrators also actively denigrated Hinduism while emphasising Christian supremacy. This goes beyond religious debate or proselytisation; it constitutes an act of incitement and insult directed at the core beliefs of the Hindu community. Such remarks are designed to demean and undermine the faith of Hindus and intend to create an inferiority complex in the minds of the victims against their own faith. This fosters an environment of hostility and disrespect towards the Hindu community and Hindu deities. These acts of insulting Hinduism stem from Christian theology, which harbours disdain and hatred for polytheistic faiths, and which categorises Hindus as ‘polytheists’, thereby fostering hatred against them. Such actions make the religiously motivated nature of the crime even more evident. Also, the conversion activities were being carried out under the guise of a prayer meeting. The act of inviting Hindus to a prayer gathering, while simultaneously conducting conversion activities, demonstrates that these meetings were not genuine religious sessions or community prayers. Instead, they were calculated efforts to exploit the trust and social cohesion within the Hindu community by disguising conversion attempts as routine gatherings. One of the Hindu victims, Jitendra, confronted the accused and opposed the conversion efforts. In response, he was abused and assaulted. This was not a random act—it was targeted intimidation aimed at silencing a Hindu man who stood up for his community’s right to practise its faith without harassment. Threatening a Hindu for defending his faith and his fellow Hindus showcases the perpetrators’ hostility toward both the individual and the religion he represents. It is a clear example of religious animosity that transforms coercion into outright threats of violence, reinforcing that this case meets the definition of a religiously motivated crime. The Christian faith, by its very theological foundations, places a strong emphasis on proselytisation. In pursuit of conversion objectives, Christian evangelists often employ unethical means, ranging from psychological pressure and misinformation to inducements such as money or jobs. These are not random or isolated incidents, but premeditated efforts to undermine the Hindu faith, persuade Hindus to discard their own faith, and convert to Christianity. Such acts were deeply rooted in religious animosity towards Hindu victims, and thus, this case was added to the tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began, rather than when it was reported by the media. It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the conversion activities began, hence we have taken the date of the incident (filing of FIR) as a reference. Disclaimer: Since the report does not mention the exact number of victims, we have conservatively added 4 (no. of identified complainants) as the victim count in the database.