Minor Hindu girls made to drink urine by Muslim batchmates in Budaun, Uttar Pradesh; police denies communal angle
Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, India 
21 November, 2025
Case Summary
Minor Hindu girls studying at a higher secondary school in Usahait town of Budaun district, Uttar Pradesh, faced humiliation after three Muslim boys from junior class were caught urinating into their water bottles. According to media reports, the issue escalated on 22nd November 2025, when the parents of the female students and members of the Karni Sena gathered at the school, demanding action against the accused students and their expulsion. The situation caused a commotion, and the police intervened. Both parties were brought to the police station, where they filed complaints and requested legal action. Shiv Gupta from the Karni Sena stated that the accused Muslim students had mixed urine into the female Hindu students' water bottles and misbehaved with them. Complaints about the accused students' misbehaviour had been made to the school administration without any action from the school authorities. The parents of the victims then filed a formal complaint with the police, seeking strict measures. The police stated that both sides’ reports would be sent to the education department for further investigation. The truth of the matter would be revealed after a detailed inquiry. Inspector Ajaypal confirmed that the report had been sent to the District Magistrate, and an FIR had been registered. The investigation would determine the facts and lead to appropriate legal action. However, he also claimed that no such incident has occurred at the school. A few days ago, children's school bags fell down, leading to an altercation. Upon receiving the complaint, the accused students were expelled from school for three days. Notably, the Hinduphobia Tracker documented a similar case in November 2025 from Baghpat district, Uttar Pradesh, where minor Hindu students were deceitfully made to drink urine by two Muslim classmates. The perpetrators in this case were acting on the instructions of an Islamic cleric, Maulvi Ayan Babbar.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and the tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. This case has been added to the tracker because minor Hindu female students were deceptively made to drink urine by three of their Muslim classmates. This incident was not a harmless prank; the action was rooted in religious animosity, as it was specifically targeted at Hindu students. The humiliation was deliberate, not accidental, and it reflected a clear attempt to denigrate their Hindu identity rather than to tease or bully them as individuals. The objective was not to target a particular child but to symbolically degrade the wider Hindu community. Such conduct reflects a communal intent, an effort to humiliate Hindus collectively by attacking the dignity of Hindu children. Similar patterns have been observed previously, where Muslim students have channelised their hatred for the Hindu community by victimising their Hindu classmates. For example, in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, minor Hindu students were deceptively made to drink urine by two of their Muslim classmates, on the instructions of Maulvi Ayan Babbar. Maulvi Ayan Babbar channelised and weaponised his inner hatred toward the Hindu community through these minor Muslim students, using them as instruments to express his prejudices. It was a subtle assertion of Islamic identity and supremacy over the Hindu community by humiliating the Hindu community. The Maulvi targeted Hindu students not out of personal grievance, but because of what they represented: the Hindu identity he despised. Such actions reveal ideological hostility, where the Muslim children were influenced to enact symbolic violence against their Hindu classmates, normalising contempt and hostility against Hindus. Another point to address here is that the police inspector Ajay Pal Singh denied the communal angle by claiming that no such incident occurred. The police, in many such cases, where the motive behind the crime is obvious but not explicitly mentioned, deny that the crime committed was in any way motivated by a religious bias or say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to the crime. Several factors are generally at play here. Many a time, the police downplay incidents of low-level communal crime because it is their jurisdiction that comes under question. The police also often say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to a crime when there was one because they wish to ensure that, owing to the crime already committed, there is no further flare-up in the area. However, only a police statement cannot be enough to determine whether there is a communal angle present in the crime that has been committed. In fact, to determine whether the crime is communal in nature or not, we need to give emphasis to the ground realities. For example, in the case of Rinku Sharma, the Bajrang Dal activist who was mercilessly stabbed in his house in front of his family members in Delhi’s Mangolpuri area in the year 2021, the leftist media and the leftist ecosystem had tried to peddle that there was no communal angle to the crime. Even the police denied that the crime was communal in nature. However, Opindia, a news portal, spoke to several people who were on the ground with the family of Rinku Sharma, and they were told that the communal tension in the area is palpable. The family of Rinku Sharma stated that the Muslims of the area held a grudge against Rinku ever since he celebrated the Ram Mandir verdict. Like the case of Rinku Sharma, those cases where even if the police have denied a communal angle or the leftist media have gone on an overdrive to peddle the ‘no communal angle’ trope, the ground reality, like the victim’s family or relative's testimonies, make it clear that there was an obvious religious bias that led to the crime, will be documented in this tracker. Going by the same logic, in this case, even though the police officer maintains that there is no communal angle, the statements given by the victims’ parents and Hindu organisations, along with the fact that Hindu students were deliberately targeted by Muslim classmates, clearly establish this incident as an instance of an anti-Hindu hate crime. This incident cannot be viewed in isolation; it reflects an organised pattern of religiously motivated hostility directed at Hindu children. Therefore, this case has been added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia 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 crime occurred. It only states that on 22nd November 2025, victims' parents gathered at the school to demand action against the Muslim students. Therefore, for documentation purposes, this date is being used as an indicative date of the incident.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
