Hindu youth beaten and threatened as “29th victim” for watching Pahalgam massacre videos

Case ID : aa4b02d | Location : Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 25 April, 2025

Case ID : aa4b02d

Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India

25 April, 2025

Hindu youth beaten and threatened as “29th victim” for watching Pahalgam massacre videos

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

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 terrorists 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 Hindus. Once identified, the Hindus were shot at point-blank range. The attack, carried out by Islamic terrorists 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 the terrorist attack, an incident occurred aboard a train travelling from Bhopal to Indore in which a Hindu man, Anmol Parmar, was brutally assaulted for viewing social media reels related to the Pahalgam terrorist attack. Around midnight, while watching a video on his phone, two fellow passengers objected to the content, accused him of trying to provoke them, and launched into a verbal and physical assault. When Anmol resisted their threats, the attackers demanded that he "show his patriotism outside the train." Reportedly, they also threatened that, "Only 28 of you have been killed in Pahalgam; you will be the Twenty-ninth!" During the altercation, the assailants, one of whom was carrying a sharp object, struck Anmol in the face, causing severe bleeding from his nose. In an attempt to escape the escalating attack, Anmol moved towards the train door, where the attackers tried to push him out of the moving train. Fortunately, other passengers intervened and prevented what could have been a fatal outcome. Amid the chaos, Anmol's gold chain was dislodged and lost. He later stated that the attackers identified themselves as residents of Chandan Nagar and threatened to kill him if he attempted to take any action, declaring that “Indian law doesn’t apply” in their area. Notably, Chandan Nagar is a Muslim dominated locality in the western part of Indore. After reaching Indore, Anmol approached the Government Railway Police (GRP) for assistance. Despite his injuries, the officers initially limited their response to a medical check-up and sent him home without filing a report. It was only after a video of the incident surfaced online and began gaining attention that the police called him back and registered an FIR nearly 36 hours later. The GRP initiated a formal investigation based on Anmol’s testimony and video evidence, with efforts underway to identify and apprehend the culprits.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case is categorised under the primary category- Attack not resulting in death. Under that, the relevant sub-category 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 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. The second sub-category chosen under the above primary category is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. Another primary category selected is- Hate Speech against Hindus. Under that, the relevant sub-category is- Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. This incident qualifies as a hate crime on multiple grounds. Firstly, Anmol Parmar was clearly targeted for his Hindu identity. The attack was provoked by him, simply watching social media content related to the Pahalgam massacre, a terrorist attack that claimed the lives of Hindu victims. The assailants’ response—objecting to the content, issuing communal threats, and declaring “you will be the twenty-ninth”—reveals a deep animosity specifically against Hindus. Their reference to the massacre was not incidental; it was explicitly used to intimidate and justify their assault on Anmol, demonstrating that the attack stemmed from religious hatred. Secondly, Anmol was subjected to a brutal physical assault after he refused to stop watching the video and stood his ground despite verbal threats. This establishes that he was attacked not only for being Hindu but also for refusing to submit to the will of the radicals. His refusal to be intimidated or censored became the trigger for the escalation, aligning this case with attacks motivated by opposition to radical elements who attempt to silence or control dissenting or non-submissive behaviour, particularly from Hindus. Lastly, the threats made during the attack, such as pushing him near the door of a moving train, references to murdering him as the next victim, and declaring that Indian law does not apply in their area, amount to violent intimidation. The assailants' actions were meant to instil fear, silence expression, and assert dominance through communal threats. The nature of the threats and the use of physical violence clearly qualify this as a hate crime involving violent intimidation and targeted aggression against a Hindu individual.