Pahalgam Hindu Massacre denied and downplayed by Maharashtra MLA
Maharashtra, India 
27 April, 2025
Case Summary
In the wake of the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, political tensions escalated following a controversial statement by senior Maharashtra Congress leader Vijay Wadettiwar. While addressing the media, Wadettiwar attempted to downplay the angle of religious profiling in the terror attack and shifted the focus away from the reported targeting of individuals based on their faith. Questioning the official narrative, he stated, “The government is saying that terrorists killed people after asking them (about their religion). Do terrorists have time for all this?” His remarks were widely criticised as an attempt to cast doubt on the survivors’ testimonies and deflect attention from the religious motivations behind the massacre. In response to mounting public and political backlash, the Congress party distanced itself from his comments. Subsequently, Wadettiwar issued an apology and sought to clarify his position by asserting that terrorists have no religion and urging that the priority should be on capturing those responsible and ensuring justice. While the Congress leader indulged in whitewashing the barbaric terror attack, Islamic terrorists on April 22, 2025, in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam, Anantnag district, Jammu and Kashmir, 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 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.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Hate speech against Hindus. Within the sub-category selected is: - Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimizing the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. The other sub-category relevant here is: - Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, with the tertiary sub-category being: - Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying. 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. The case is classified as a hate crime because it involves the denial and minimisation of the religious profiling and targeted killing of Hindus during the Pahalgam terror attack. The attackers explicitly identified victims by religion, asking them to recite the Kalama and checking for circumcision to single out Hindus before shooting them. This has been confirmed by survivor testimonies and forensic evidence, including the fact that many victims’ trousers were unzipped or pulled down to verify their religion. The case has been added because what Vijay Wadettiwar attempted to do was a deliberate act of whitewashing the Pahalgam Hindu massacre and diverting attention from deliberate targeting based on religion. By stating, “Did the terrorists have enough time to open fire on people after asking their religion?”, he mocked the entire ordeal faced by the Hindu victims of a terror attack. By attempting to whitewash the religious hatred behind the attack, Vijay Wadettiwar's statements denied the targeted nature of the violence, despite overwhelming evidence and victim accounts. This denial delegitimises the suffering of Hindu victims and erases the religious motivation behind the attack. It dehumanises Hindus as a group and fosters an environment conducive to future violence against them. This behaviour constitutes hate speech, as it legitimises hostility and prejudice toward Hindus, further endangering their safety and rights.
Case Status
Complaint not filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
