Hindu woman raped, converted, and forced to eat beef by Muslim man and his family, abused with caste based slurs on resisting
Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, India 
5 September, 2023
Case Summary
A Dalit Hindu woman in Akbarpur, Ambedkarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, was exploited by a Muslim man named Asif for eight years after he trapped her under the pretence of marriage. She stated that Asif initially approached her because he had relatives in her village, then began sexual exploitation, and continued forcing relations over the years. She said that on 6 September 2023, he took her to his house and raped her, and when she resisted, he attacked her hand with a knife and left her injured. She further said that he later took her to Ludhiana, where she became pregnant, and then abandoned her there. According to the woman, when she somehow managed to return to Akbarpur, Asif, his father Jalaluddin, and his brother Arif forcibly gave her medicines and caused a forced abortion. She said she was then taken to a madrasa where they converted her, made her eat beef, and forced her to wear a burqa. She also reported that they used caste based insults against her when she protested. The woman finally said that Asif threw her out of his house on 30 October 2025 and refused to keep her any longer. She then approached the police and lodged a formal complaint. The police stated that a case of rape had been registered against Asif, and attempted rape charges had been filed against his father and brother, and an investigation had begun.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category in this case is: Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. The first subcategory under this is: Forced conversion before marriage. The tertiary categories under this are: Forced to wear Hijab and Forced to eat beef. In such cases, a non-Hindu man is in a relationship with a Hindu woman when the pressure to convert her religion begins to manifest. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship, however, at some point during the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts to force the victim to convert her religion and give up her Hindu religious identity. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert her religion and give up her religious identity. In both the situations, the methods used to force the victim to convert her religion often revolve around force-feeding beef, forcing her to wear hijab, forcing her to read the Kalma or even pressurizing the victim to do ‘Nikah’, which is marriage under Islamic law, with a prerequisite being conversion to Islam. Cases where a Hindu woman consensually converts to Islam in a relationship will be left out of the hate crime database, even though it could be argued in several cases that the conversion was a result of religious brainwashing. The second subcategory under this is: Brainwashed and/or groomed. The tertiary category under this is: Rape and sexual assault/harassment. In several cases, a Hindu woman and/or minor is sexually harassed and/or assaulted with a religious motive. For example, in a case in Kausambi, UP, a Hindu girl was raped by non-Hindu perpetrators. During the assault, the victim pleaded to 'spare her in the name of Bhagwan'. The perpetrators then asked her to plead in the name of Allah. This clearly indicates a religious motive for the crime and evidences the religious animosity the perpetrators harbored against the victim owing to her religious identity. Such cases would be added to this tertiary category since the religious animosity makes the crime a hate crime. The third subcategory under this is: Assault or threat upon refusal to convert. When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman faces threats or assault after she refuses to convert and change her religious identity owing to pressure/force by the non-Hindu man. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts pressurizing the Hindu woman to convert to Islam and upon her refusal, assaults or threatens the victim. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Cases where the Hindu woman converts to Islam and does not file a complaint about the force or threat, are not considered a part of the hate tracker, even though, it may be argued that the woman was brainwashed or threatened to convert to Islam. Another primary category in this case is: Predatory proselytisation. The first subcategory under this 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. Another subcategory under this is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category under this is: Rape and sexual assault/harassment. 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. The other category relevant here is- Hate speech against Hindus, and 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 case has been added to the tracker because it reflects a prolonged and deliberate sequence of abuse in which religious manipulation, sexual exploitation, and physical violence were used as tools of domination against a Hindu woman. The eight-year span of this relationship reveals a sustained pattern rather than an isolated incident. The perpetrator, Asif, did not act spontaneously; instead, he constructed a system of control that combined emotional dependency, physical coercion, and gradual erasure of the victim’s religious and social identity. What began as a deceptive relationship under the pretext of marriage evolved into an organised structure of exploitation, with conversion, caste humiliation, and forced dietary violations being used to dismantle the victim’s faith and selfhood. The Hindu woman’s testimony outlines the methodical nature of this violence. It was not confined to a single episode of assault but included a continuum of deliberate acts—rape, forced abortion, conversion, and symbolic degradation of her religion through compelled consumption of beef and imposition of Islamic dress. These actions are deeply significant because each act represents a step in the process of religious deconstruction. The forced abortion removed her bodily autonomy; the conversion in the madrasa dissolved her religious autonomy; and being compelled to wear the burqa and eat beef attacked the most visible and sacred aspects of her Hindu identity. Such behaviour cannot be reduced to interpersonal cruelty; it is an explicit expression of religious hostility and domination. The presence of Asif’s father, Jalaluddin and brother Arif in the abortion and conversion stages further establishes the communal dimension of the crime, showing that the oppression was reinforced by a familial and collective structure that endorsed the subjugation of a Hindu woman as an act of control and assertion of faith-based power. The reference to caste-based insults in the victim’s account adds another layer to this pattern of hostility. It can be argued that the caste-based slurs hurled at the victim were directed at her micro-identity as a Dalit rather than at her Hindu identity as a whole. However, within the framework of Abrahamic hostility toward Hindus, such distinctions are largely irrelevant. In the worldview of the perpetrator, the divisions of caste, language, or region within Hindu society are secondary and even immaterial. What remains central is the victim’s religious belonging—the fact that she is Hindu. The abuse of caste terms, therefore, becomes an instrument to deepen humiliation, but the animating force behind that hostility continues to be her religious identity. In this case, the caste insult was not an isolated act of social prejudice; it was woven into a broader pattern of religious domination, where the perpetrator sought to degrade both the woman and the religion she represented. This case also demonstrates the mechanics of predatory proselytisation. The victim was not converted through open religious discourse but through deception, dependency, and fear. The relationship began with deceit, the promise of marriage, and gradually transformed into an instrument of religious indoctrination. Once emotional control was secured, coercive practices were introduced: threats, violence, isolation, and forced participation in religious rituals alien to her upbringing. The madrasa, in this context, becomes more than a location; it represents the institutional space where coercion is normalised and faith is redefined by force. The act of forcing a Hindu woman to consume beef, a sacredly forbidden act within her belief system, was designed to break her spiritually. It was not merely about physical violation—it was about desecrating her conscience and asserting religious dominance through humiliation. The complaint also indicates the psychological violence embedded in this pattern. By keeping the victim dependent and repeatedly violating her body, Asif ensured she remained fearful, traumatised, and unable to escape. The religious conversion and symbolic degradation were means to ensure submission, both mentally and spiritually. The culmination, her expulsion from the house once her resistance resumed, demonstrates the transactional and instrumental nature of the relationship: once her faith and body were violated, she ceased to serve any purpose to her abuser. For these reasons, the case qualifies as a hate crime rooted in religious hostility. The victim’s Hindu identity was not incidental; it was the target. Every act committed against her, from the deception of love to the coercion of faith, was structured around dismantling that identity. This incident illustrates how forced conversion and sexual violence intersect to form one of the most aggressive expressions of Hinduphobia, where the body of a Hindu woman becomes the site upon which religious subjugation is enacted and justified. Disclaimer: Since the earliest clearly mentioned date in the available reports is 6 September 2025, that date has been used as the reference point for the timeline of events in this case. However, as the survivor has stated that the exploitation had been continuing for eight years prior to this, the incident’s origins are understood to predate the mentioned date. Should further verified details emerge specifying the exact beginning of the abuse, the timeline will be accordingly revised in the tracker.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 1
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
