Massacre of Hindus in Pahalgam celebrated as 'resistance' by leftist journalist, blame deflected onto Hindu victims
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India 
21 April, 2025
Case Summary
In a horrific act of terror in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam, Anantnag district, Jammu and Kashmir, Islamic terrorists systematically identified and targeted Hindu victims. The assailants demanded names and religious identities, inspected ID cards, coerced tourists to recite the Kalma, and even forcibly pulled down their pants to check for circumcision, all to single out non-Muslims. Once identified, the Hindus were shot at point-blank range. The attack, carried out by operatives of The Resistance Force, a proxy of the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed the lives of 24 Hindus and left 16 others critically injured. Following this recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Shivangi Mariam Raj, who currently serves as the Head of Communications for The Funambulist, a French leftist magazine known for publishing pro-Hamas material, published multiple Instagram stories and posts that justified the violence and framed it as an act of political resistance. She has also contributed to Al Jazeera, a media outlet frequently criticised for its anti-India editorial stance. In one post, she directly addressed Indians, writing: “You do not get to celebrate Palestinian resistance victories if you cannot stomach Kashmiri resistance that has declared the Indian occupation its enemy since the last seven decades.” She dismissed the attack as part of a broader liberation movement, stating, “Kashmir is not a human rights issue, not a Modi issue. It is a question of liberation and self-determination, by all means necessary. Glory be to the resistance! Death to the occupation!” These statements equated the deliberate killing of Hindu civilians with armed resistance, implicitly endorsing terrorism as a valid political tool. Raj further rejected the framing of the Pahalgam attack as a security failure. She wrote: “And please stop calling it ‘security failure’! Whose security? In defence of whom? Stop centering Indian sentiments and stop dragging Indian Muslims into this organised chaos.” This comment dismissed public concern over the targeted killings and deflected accountability from the perpetrators to the Indian state. She also objected to social media accounts highlighting instances where Kashmiri locals rescued Hindu tourists. In a separate post, she wrote: “Enough of sharing how selflessly Kashmiris rescued the Indian tourists. Why must sacrifice be a precondition for solidarity? What were Indian tourists doing in the world’s most densely militarised zone? Tourists’ leisure comes at the cost of natives’ displacement and dispossession. All such accounts that highlight Kashmiri servitude are part of the occupation’s narrative-building.” Here, Raj argued that the mere presence of Indian tourists in Kashmir constituted complicity in colonialism, thereby implicitly justifying their victimisation.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is categorised under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Under this, the relevant sub-category is- Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice. Further, the two tertiary categories selected are- Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying, and Mislabelling/Misrepresentation of perpetrator's religion as Hindu. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. This case constitutes a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus, as evidenced by Shivangi Mariam Raj’s public response to the Pahalgam terror attack. The attack itself was carried out by Islamic terrorists who selectively identified Hindu civilians through names, identity cards, and religious markers such as circumcision before executing them. Rather than condemning this targeted violence, Raj used her platform to justify it, glorify the terrorists, and deflect responsibility away from the perpetrators. In her posts, Raj explicitly denied that the attack was a security failure or an act of terrorism. She reframed the killings as part of a “resistance” movement, declaring that Kashmiris had the right to pursue “liberation and self-determination, by all means necessary.” This framing not only sanitised the murder of Hindu civilians but also legitimised it as a political necessity. Her invocation of “glory be to the resistance” and “death to the occupation” implicitly celebrated the Islamic terrorists as heroes. Furthermore, Raj shifted the focus of blame from the Islamic extremists who carried out the killings to the Indian state, and more specifically, to Indian tourists themselves, most of whom were Hindu. By questioning “what were Indian tourists doing in the world’s most densely militarised zone,” she implied that their presence was illegitimate and that the violence they suffered was a foreseeable consequence of that presence. This rationale erases the innocence of the victims and indirectly suggests that being Indian, and by extension, Hindu, in Kashmir is itself a provocation. In doing so, Raj not only justified the violence on ideological grounds but also on religious ones, casting Hindus as “settlers” and agents of occupation whose deaths were not tragedies but political statements. Her dismissal of sympathy for the victims and rejection of the narrative that celebrated local Kashmiri rescue efforts further reinforces her contempt for the Hindu victims and any attempt to humanise them. By glorifying terrorists, denying the religious motive behind the killings, and dehumanising the Hindu victims, Shivangi Mariam Raj’s posts promote a worldview in which anti-Hindu violence is both justified and desirable. This constitutes a textbook case of religiously motivated hate speech and therefore warrants inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
