Hindu youth violently attacked by Muslim man over petty fight; says accused got provoked seeing his tattoo, hurled casteist abuses

Case ID : aa4b07b | Location : Pune, Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 30 April, 2025

Case ID : aa4b07b

Pune, Maharashtra, India

30 April, 2025

Hindu youth violently attacked by Muslim man over petty fight; says accused got provoked seeing his tattoo, hurled casteist abuses

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

In the Market Yard area of Pune, Maharashtra, a Hindu youth named Sumit Sakhare, who was preparing for police recruitment, was brutally attacked with a sickle by a Muslim man named Sohail. The assault reportedly took place while Sumit was standing with friends near Sohail’s residence. Sohail confronted the group, questioning why they were near his house. According to Sumit, the situation escalated when Sohail noticed his tattoo and hurled casteist abuse at him. What began as a verbal exchange quickly turned into a violent assault. In an interview with Sudarshan TV, the victim said, "Hum Aai Mata Mandir ke paas khade the jab Sohail aaya aur hamari gaadi par aitraaz jataya. Is baat par thodi bahas ho gayi. Tabhi Sohail ne mera tattoo dekha aur mujhe gaali dene laga. Maine use dhakka diya kyunki usne meri jaati par bola. Sohail wapas apne ghar bhaag gaya. Hum bhi uske peeche gaye tab woh bahar aaya aur mujh par hamla kar diya". (We were standing near the Aai Mata Mandir when Sohail approached and objected to the way our vehicle was parked, which led to a brief argument. During this, Sohail noticed my tattoo and began hurling abuses at me. I pushed him in response to his caste based remarks. Sohail then ran back to his house, and we followed him. That’s when he came out and attacked me.) Sohail struck Sumit with a sickle, causing serious injuries. While attempting to defend himself, Sumit suffered deep wounds to his hand, requiring 125 stitches and treatment for multiple broken fingers. He was immediately rushed to a hospital for emergency medical care. As of the time of writing this report, police had registered a case against Sohail, but only under minor sections, and the investigation was ongoing. This lenient response sparked outrage among local residents in the Market Yard area, many of whom expressed concern over the safety and security of Hindu youth in the city.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under two primary categories, with the first being: - 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 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 primary category selected is: - Hate speech against Hindus, with the sub-category being: - Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case is a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime, as the victim himself confirmed that the accused was provoked by seeing his tattoo and also hurled casteist abuse at the victim. He subsequently attacked the Hindu youth with a sickle, leaving him gravely injured. The very fact that Sohail turned so violently aggressive over something trivial reflects his radicalised, jihadi mindset and deep-seated hatred towards non-Muslims, particularly Hindus. The use of a deadly weapon like a sickle against an unarmed youth further exposes the extent of his animosity and intolerance towards non-Muslims. It can be argued that a caste-specific slur is aimed at the micro identity of the victim and not his Hindu identity itself. However, as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary. It is the religious identity that drives the animosity of the perpetrator against the Hindu victim. In this case, although casteist abuse was used, it was not out of concern for caste hierarchies but rather as an added tool to humiliate and target a Hindu youth. The core animosity stemmed from religious hatred. Even if the immediate trigger for the violence appeared to be a minor altercation, the nature of the provocation reveals a deeper bias. According to the victim's testimony, the perpetrator was provoked by Sumit’s tattoo, an element likely tied to his religious identity, suggesting that his Hindu identity played a significant role in the escalation. Additionally, the use of casteist slurs by the attacker indicates that this was far more than an ordinary dispute. It was an act of targeted aggression rooted in religious supremacy and hatred. Therefore, this assault qualifies as a hate crime—one motivated by deep-seated anti-Hindu animosity and accompanied by anti-Hindu hate speech.