Hindu concerns dismissed and Ram Janmabhumi labelled ‘disputed’ in biased article, denying persecution and erasing historical trauma
Australia 
7 May, 2025
Case Summary
East Asia Forum, an online publication platform, published an article titled 'Hindu nationalism threatens India’s secular foundations' written by Molla Mehedi Hasan. The author holds a postgraduate degree in social science from Khulna University, Bangladesh and has worked as a research assistant with various research organisations. At the time of writing this report, he was working as a Research Assistant on a project funded by the Research and Innovation Centre at Khulna University. The article begins with the statement that the rise of the BJP in 2014 was a threat to Indian secularism. The reasons provided are from state-sponsored construction and consecration of temples on disputed religious sites to the enactment of laws targeting religious minorities. Here, the temple referred to is the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. In the very next paragraph, the root of the BJP's ideology is traced to RSS, and Hindutva is blamed. The author cites different examples to prove the surge in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence. The traditional examples are given, such as CAA and NRC. The author also made an interesting claim that the 2020 Delhi riots were anti-Muslim in nature, and mostly Muslims died in the riots. After that, the author comments on the so-called surge in atrocities against Christians. After this small diversion, the author returns to the rhetoric of Muslim victimhood. Now, he discussed the March 2025 Nagpur riots. He comments on these incidents by stating that they highlight escalating communal tensions, fuelling perceptions that the BJP’s rhetoric and policies have emboldened Hindu nationalist groups. After that, statistics are provided to boost the credibility. The author claims that during the 2024 general election campaign, Prime Minister Narendra Modi used Islamophobic remarks in 110 of 173 speeches he delivered, with BJP messaging focused on divisive concepts like ‘love jihad’ and ‘vote jihad’ over civic issues. The institutional erosion of secularism is discussed. The obvious examples of the Ram Janmabhumi judgement and the abrogation of Article 370 are given. The author again uses the word disputed site. The UCC also condemns by claiming that the code disproportionately targets Muslim personal laws and undermines India’s commitment to secularism. The Waqf Amendment 2025 is also discussed, and the author comments that it is a potential threat to the socioeconomic security of Indian Muslims and may deepen religious and societal divides, sparking worries about growing majoritarianism, religious polarisation and the rise of Hindu nationalism. The author concludes the article with a piece of advice that India must reaffirm its commitment to secularism and ensure that all citizens, regardless of religion, feel equally protected under the law. In the final line, the author presents the Hindu nationalist state and concepts like diversity and co-existence as mutually exclusive.
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- 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 selected is- Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, and within it, the tertiary category selected is- 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 article systematically downplays and distorts decades of persecution faced by Hindus, particularly in regions like Kashmir, West Bengal, and parts of Bharat. By framing Hindu assertion or the demand for justice (e.g., Ram Mandir) as inherently communal or threatening, the piece delegitimises long-standing religious grievances and whitewashes the historical suffering of Hindus. Denying or trivialising the persecution of Hindus while presenting Muslim victimhood in an unbalanced way erases Hindu trauma and enables future justifications for violence. In this case, the article dismisses the concept of love jihad. 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. The author’s casual reference to the Ayodhya Ram Mandir as a “disputed site” ignores centuries of Hindu devotion to Shri Ram Janmabhumi. Hindus had always revered Ayodhya as the birthplace of Shri Ram, long before the Babri structure was imposed. By continuing to label it as “disputed,” the author delegitimises the core of Hindu civilisational memory and portrays the most sacred site of Hindus as merely a legal or political controversy. This amounts to erasing Hindu faith from its own sacred geography. The Babri structure itself was built after demolishing a Ram temple that stood at the janmabhumi. Generations of Hindus fought, prayed, and even died to reclaim the land. To keep calling it “disputed” is to deny that a temple was destroyed and Hindus were subjugated for centuries. Such denial echoes colonial and Muslim propaganda and fuels contempt for Hindu suffering. The Ram Janmabhumi movement was not a political creation of the 1980s–1990s, as hostile academics often present it. In 1949, when idols of Ram Lalla appeared, Hindu devotion intensified. During the 1980s–1990s, thousands of Hindus mobilised peacefully. Police firing on unarmed karsevaks killed hundreds of Hindus — ordinary devotees who had come only with faith and bhajans, not weapons. To dismiss this entire saga of faith and sacrifice as a “dispute” trivialises the violence inflicted upon Hindus and mocks their martyrs. The Supreme Court of India, after examining extensive archaeological, historical, and legal evidence, gave a unanimous verdict in 2019 that the site indeed is Ram Janmabhumi, and that Hindus have a valid and uninterrupted claim over it. To continue calling it “disputed” in 2025, despite the apex court’s judgment, is to willfully ignore judicial truth and reject the closure of the conflict. This amounts to deliberate disinformation aimed at denying Hindus justice even after decades of struggle. Language that delegitimises sacred Hindu traditions, denies the judicially recognised truth of Ram Janmabhumi, and trivialises the blood and suffering of Hindus, fosters hatred against Hindus by portraying them as aggressors rather than victims. This vilification is not just opinion — it is ideological subversion of Hindu rights and dignity. By painting the temple as “disputed,” the author perpetuates the same narrative that justified violence, police firings, and killings of Hindus for decades. Such comments directly contribute to a climate of hostility and discrimination against Hindus. The article states that the 2020 Delhi riots were anti-Muslim in nature, and mostly Muslims died in the riots. This interpretation contradicts the well-documented reality of the riots as a large-scale, organised attack specifically targeting Hindus. During the violence, Hindu individuals, homes, shops, and temples were deliberately attacked and destroyed, while properties owned by Muslims were largely left untouched. There were brutal incidents, including the murder and burning of Hindu victims, and many Hindu families were forced to flee or hide in fear for their lives. Several Hindus were brutally hacked during the Delhi riots of February 2020. One of the most harrowing cases detailed is that of 20-year-old Dilbar Singh Negi. On the evening of 24 February, Negi was attacked by a Muslim mob in Shahdara, Delhi. The rioters first brutally chopped off his limbs with a sword and then burnt him alive by tossing his mutilated body into a shop that had been set on fire. His family recounted that while they managed to escape the mob, they could not save him. Another case mentioned is that of 51-year-old Vinod Kumar, who was killed in the Brahmapuri area because his bike had a ‘Jai Shri Ram’ sticker. This incident led to widespread fear among Hindus, prompting many to remove religious markers from their vehicles and cut off their sacred threads to avoid being identified and targeted. Another incident, the brutality of which stood out, was that of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma. He was brutally murdered during the riots, and his tortured remains were recovered from a nearby drain. According to his brother, Ankit Sharma was murdered by Tahir Hussain and a Muslim mob that was working under his command. Numerous similar incidents occurred throughout the violence, each marked by targeted brutality against Hindus and the systematic destruction of their homes, shops, and places of worship. The pattern of deliberate identification and attack, the advance preparation by the Muslim mob, and the widespread displacement and trauma suffered by Hindu families all point to a coordinated and large-scale campaign. These facts together clearly establish that the events were not random outbursts, but an organised anti-Hindu pogrom. By attributing the violence and hostility to Hindutva, the author reverses the roles of victim and aggressor, effectively blaming the Hindu community for the attacks it suffered. This misrepresentation amounts to a hate crime because it vilifies Hindus as the source of communal violence, disregarding clear evidence of their victimisation. Such a narrative distorts the facts and fosters communal division and prejudice, deepening hostility against Hindus. In doing so, the author’s statement promotes hatred and discrimination by falsely portraying Hindus as perpetrators rather than the victims of organised violence. The author has blamed Hindutva. 'Hindutva' is often used as a euphemism to make the targeting of Hindus more palatable. Hindutva is essentially a unifying ideology for Hindus, which became imperative for Hindus to find and preserve their cultural identity, which was being eroded and attacked due to Islamic invasions, British colonisation, Christian theological impositions and conversions. Hindutva is not a destructive ideology, as some attempt to portray, but one that is used as a unifying edifice for Hindus. Hindutva is also often used as a euphemism to target Hindus on the whole and their religious identity and faith. It is essentially semantic jugglery to confuse Hindus into believing that their own persecution by supremacists is somehow 'justified' because the specific victims espoused an ideology (Hindutva) which deserves the onslaught. The fact that the use of 'Hindutva' is merely to mask animosity towards Hindus was evident from the "Dismantling Global Hindutva" conference held in the USA, where speakers unabashedly spoke about how Hindutva and Hinduism are indistinguishable and therefore, the dismantle Hindutva" one would have to "dismantle Hinduism". The practices of targeting Hindus and their religious and cultural identity and justifying that victimisation and dehumanisation by using euphemisms like "Hindutva" stems out of inherent animosity and hostility towards Hindus. Hence, this case is added to the hate crime database. Hence, the article constitutes a hate crime against Hindus because it systematically delegitimises Hindu religious beliefs, erases centuries of suffering, and distorts historical and contemporary instances of persecution. By trivialising the Ayodhya Ram Mandir struggle, denying the lived experiences of Hindu victims during events like the Delhi riots, and portraying Hindus as aggressors while framing Muslim victimhood as central, the author fosters prejudice, hostility, and discrimination against the Hindu community. Furthermore, the misuse of terms like “Hindutva” to mask animosity toward Hindus amplifies ideological subversion and reinforces narratives that justify targeting Hindus for their faith and identity. Collectively, these actions not only distort the truth but also perpetuate a climate of hatred, marginalisation, and potential violence against Hindus, fulfilling the criteria of a religiously motivated hate crime.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
