Hindu sentiments attacked: Muslim man makes denigrating remarks towards revered Hindu leader and sacred Hindu temples
Assam, India 
4 May, 2025
Case Summary
In Assam, derogatory remarks were made against the Hindu Ahom leader, Lachit Borphukan, by a Muslim man named Sukur Ali. The accused also denigrated the Kamakhya Temple, a sacred temple of the goddess Kamakhya, and the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya. The accused made these statements while delivering a speech during a Panchayat rally in support of an independent Muslim candidate. According to media reports, in his speech, Sukur Ali stated that the Ram Mandir was constructed on land that belonged to Aurangzeb and further asserted that the land for the Kamakhya Temple had been gifted by Aurangzeb. He made these remarks to specifically target and hurt the religious sentiments of Assamese Hindus. He went on to challenge the Chief Minister of Assam by questioning the contributions of the Ahom dynasty and particularly targeted Lachit Borphukan, a revered Hindu Assamese historical figure. He said that Lachit “did nothing but lobby politics” and that “everything was done by the Mughal Kings, not the Ahom.” These statements, which were derogatory towards Assamese Hindus and their cultural heritage, sparked outrage and were flagged as inciting communal tensions. Lachit Borphukan, a devout Hindu and commander of the Ahom army, is celebrated for his decisive role in resisting Mughal invasions and safeguarding the sovereignty of Assam. Following this, Sukur Ali was arrested by the police, and an investigation began into this matter. The accused also apologised for his derogatory remarks.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected is- 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. The other sub-category relevant here is- Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders. 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. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially, the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual, however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category. This case has been added to the tracker because Sukur Ali, the Muslim accused, made inflammatory and derogatory statements specifically targeting the Hindu community. While addressing a Panchayat rally in support of a Muslim candidate, he chose, instead of focusing on the merits or development agenda of the candidate, to make provocative remarks about revered Hindu temples and historical figures. He asserted that the land on which the Ram Mandir now stands belonged to Aurangzeb, a statement not only factually incorrect but also one that dismisses the immense historical and religious struggles endured by Hindus, including the countless lives lost in their efforts to reclaim and protect this sacred site. The Ram Janmabhoomi temple is dedicated to the birthplace of Lord Ram. This temple was destroyed by Babur, a Mughal tyrant, who then had a mosque, the Babri Masjid, constructed over it. After a prolonged legal battle in the Supreme Court of India, Hindus eventually won the case, and the Ram Mandir was rebuilt at the original site. In this case, the remarks made by the Muslim perpetrator, Sukur Ali, directly insulted Hindus, their history, their struggles, and their faith, marking this as a clear case of religiously motivated hate speech. Sukur Ali also made similar comments about the Kamakhya Temple, one of the sacred Shakti Peeths in Hinduism, asserting that its land too was gifted by Aurangzeb. These statements were not made in isolation but in a pattern intended to belittle and mock sacred Hindu spaces and the religious beliefs associated with them. The accused attributed revered Hindu religious sites to Mughal ruler, Aurangzeb, known for his persecution of non-Muslims, especially Hindus. By doing so, Sukur Ali sought to undermine the Hindu historical sufferings of Hindus, echoing common patterns of anti-Hindu slurs and historical revisionism used to demean the Hindu community. Furthermore, he directly targeted Lachit Borphukan, a devout and revered Hindu military leader, who played a critical role in defending Assam from Mughal invasions during the Battle of Saraighat in 1671. Sukur Ali's statement, "Lachit did nothing but lobby politics", is not just a personal insult but a deliberate attempt to degrade a figure symbolic of Assamese Hindu resistance and pride. Given that Lachit Borphukan is widely regarded as a defender of both the Ahom kingdom and its Hindu cultural values, his denigration in this context is rooted in animosity towards the Hindu community and their history. These remarks fit the parameters of hate speech against Hindus, as they target both the faith and the historical legacy of the Hindu community based on religious hostility. Therefore, this case is being added to the hate crime database.
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
