Hindu sisters lured with incentives, coerced to convert to Islam by Muslim family; victims' threatened with acid attack upon refusal
Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, India 
11 November, 2025
Case Summary
A tribal Hindu girl and her three sisters were forced to convert to Islam and marry by a Muslim family in a village within the Duddhi police station area of Sonbhadra district, Uttar Pradesh. According to media reports, the incident came to light after one of the victims approached the police, stating that she had been pressured, threatened, and repeatedly harassed by the Muslim accused to convert to Islam. The victim belonged to a Hindu tribal family and lived with her parents, three sisters, and a younger brother. Her father was physically disabled, and her mother worked as a daily-wage labourer, supporting the family with her earnings. The Muslim accused, Bahadur Ali, his wife, Razia, their son Azmat Ali, and their associates Abdul Subhan and Nasimuddin, residents of Amwar, visited the girl’s home frequently and pressured her and her sisters to convert to Islam. The complaint stated that Bahadur Ali had also pressured the girls to marry his sons after conversion. He attempted to entice them by offering money, a house, and property as incentives. Initially, the family dismissed the proposal, but the harassment escalated as they refused to comply. The victim girl stated that she was threatened with death, followed in a four-wheeler while going to college, and harassed along the route. The family said they had been living in fear due to continuous intimidation and inducement. The victim also stated that Bahadur Ali had previously converted another tribal woman, married her, and bought land in her name, suggesting a pattern of coercive conversions. Distressed by the ongoing threats, the girl went to the Duddhi police station to seek protection and justice. She stated that she was also threatened with an acid attack if she denied the advances of the Muslim perpetrators. Based on her complaint, the Duddhi police registered a case under the relevant sections against Bahadur Ali, his wife, son, and two associates. The victim later met the Superintendent of Police, who assigned the inquiry to Duddhi Circle Officer Rajesh Rai. The police stated that an investigation was underway and assured that further legal action would follow once the facts were fully verified.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Predatory Proselytisation. The first subcategory under this 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 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. The third subcategory under this is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category under this 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 exemplifies a calculated and systematic effort to exploit the vulnerabilities of a Hindu tribal girl and her sisters, employing inducement, intimidation, and coercion with the clear aim of religious conversion. The pattern of conduct detailed in the complaint—offering material incentives, tying marriage proposals to conversion, and resorting to threats when persuasion fails—demonstrates a sustained campaign rooted in religious hostility. This is not mere harassment; it is an organised attempt to dislocate and undermine the victims’ religious and cultural identity through deliberate manipulation and intimidation. The background of the victims underscores the social and economic frailties that are often exploited in such incidents by the Muslim perpetrators. The family, belonging to a marginalised tribal community, survives on daily wages. The father is physically disabled, and the mother works as a daily labourer. These details are far from incidental—they reveal how the perpetrators identified their economic hardship as an entry point to exert influence. Promises of money, land, and a better future were wielded as leverage, turning the victims’ poverty into a tool for religious conversion. This deliberate use of inducements as a tool of exploitation elevates the act from personal misconduct to religiously motivated crime, turning material vulnerability into a gateway for religious dominance and coerced conversions. When inducements proved insufficient, the Muslim perpetrators shifted to overt coercion. Threats of death, stalking, and relentless harassment marked a disturbing escalation from psychological manipulation to outright intimidation. One of the victim girls was followed in vehicles, harassed en route to college, and threatened with acid attacks—these are documented patterns designed to break her resistance. Such intimidation underscores that hostility was directed not merely at her as an individual but at her as a Hindu resisting coercion. Using harassment, threats, and coercion to enforce conversion reveals the deep-seated religious animosity that fuels such behaviour and underscores the targeted nature of this attack on her religious identity. Another point to highlight is that the principal accused, Bahadur Ali, had previously converted another tribal woman, married her, and bought land in her name. This indicates that the case is part of a broader strategy—a recurring pattern of targeting vulnerable Hindu tribal women under the guise of marriage and material promises, with the real intent of religious conversion. Such actions clearly reflect a calculated effort to target and exploit the Hindu community repeatedly. At its core, this case reflects a deliberate attempt to erode Hindu religious identity through coercive proselytisation, disguised as an opportunity for social mobility. The victims’ distress and their family’s persistent fear are rooted in the real threat to their faith and sense of belonging. The offences committed go beyond individual misconduct—they are manifestations of religious hostility, executed through manipulation, deceit, and intimidation, with the goal of erasing their religious and cultural identity. In its current form, this case exemplifies organised, predatory proselytisation. It is a sinister attempt to destabilise and undermine the Hindu faith within a vulnerable community, where economic hardship and marginality are weaponised to erase religious continuity and freedom. Given that this case meets the parameters of an anti-Hindu hate crime, it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident date based on when the crime occurred, not when it is reported in the media. In this case, the exact date of the incident has not been reported by media outlets; therefore, for the purpose of documentation, the date when the incident was first reported—12th November 2025—is selected as an indicative date of the incident.
Victim Details
Total Victim
4
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 4
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 4
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 4
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
