Hindu concerns dismissed as propaganda, seers maligned and Sanatan voices undermined by media narrative
India 
6 May, 2025
Case Summary
The Wire, a left-leaning media outlet, published an article written by Omar Rashid titled 'UP Deputy CM Backs Hindu Rashtra Call at Right-Wing Event in Lucknow.' The article covered an event in Lucknow organised by the Vishwa Hindu Raksha Parishad (VHRP), a Hindutva group formed last year. The article concluded with the dismissal of terms like 'love jihad' or 'land jihad'. In the event, seven resolutions were passed. The event was attended by several Hindu seers, Hindutva leaders, and one of them was Raju Das, a priest from Ayodhya. The article labelled him controversial. The article also reported the speech given by Brajesh Pathak, Uttar Pradesh deputy chief minister. In the report, there is a selective double-quoting of words and phrases where there is an attempt to establish the continuum between the work and activities of the Vishwa Hindu Raksha Parishad (VHRP) and Pathak. VHRP would start awareness campaigns to prevent Hindu girls from falling into romantic relationships with Muslim boys and launch a ‘sanatani sena,’ or a form of citizen army, to check “land jihad.” The article concluded by commenting on these efforts by declaring 'love jihad' and 'land jihad' as right-wing propaganda theories.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker un the primary category of - Hate Speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected here 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 selected 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 is categorised as a hate crime because the article dismisses terms like “love jihad” and “land jihad” as right-wing propaganda theories, which downplays or disregards the lived experiences and concerns of Hindus who perceive these phenomena as real and harmful. This blanket dismissal is deeply problematic, as it trivialises documented fears and lived experiences of Hindu women and their families who have reported religiously motivated coercion, deception, and violence in the context of intimate relationships. Hinduphobia Tracker have documented a wide range of such incidents in great detail, often backed by police reports, victim accounts, and legal proceedings. These include cases of abduction, forced conversion, threats, and even murder when women resisted or attempted to escape. The common thread across these cases is that the targets are Hindu women, suggesting a pattern of religiously motivated targeting rather than isolated interpersonal disputes. Dismissing the entire phenomenon as fiction erases or belittles the trauma of the victims and their families. It delegitimises the suffering of Hindu women who have faced psychological abuse, religious coercion, and in some cases, extreme violence. This erasure also contributes to their ongoing marginalisation by fostering a climate of disbelief, mockery, and silence around their experiences. When the lived experiences of a religious community are systematically denied or ridiculed, it not only deepens their marginalisation but also emboldens perpetrators. Such denial allows religiously motivated hate crimes to continue unchecked. In this case, the refusal to acknowledge love jihad as a legitimate concern reflects a broader pattern of Hinduphobia, wherein concerns unique to the Hindu community are invalidated or caricatured. Raju Das, a priest from Ayodhya, is labelled as controversial. The term “controversial” is used to describe him without providing substantial context or details about the reasons for this label. This selective description aims to cast doubt on his credibility and character. By labelling Raju Das as controversial, the article implicitly questions his legitimacy and potentially stirs negative perceptions about his role in religious and social matters, especially concerning Hindu identity and politics. Thus, it is documented in the heat crime database.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
