Targeted terror attack on Hindus in Pahalgam whitewashed: Indian politician denies religious profiling, mocks Hindu religious leader
Mothihari, Bihar, India 
29 April, 2025
Case Summary
In a horrific act of terror in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam, Anantnag district, Jammu and Kashmir, Islamic terrorists 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 Hindus. 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. Following the incident, RJD MLA Chandrashekhar Yadav in Motihari, Bihar, downplayed the religious profiling of Hindu victims during the Pahalgam terror attack. He attended an event for Dr Ambedkar's statue. He said, "Nobody in the country has the guts to kill anyone based on their religion". He further said that the Pahalgam terror attack was not an anti-Hindu massacre, since a Muslim man was also the victim of it. However, Yadav completely denied the fact that Hindu tourists were selectively targeted for their religion. They were made to recite the Kalma, their identities were confirmed before killing them, whereas the Muslim victim was killed because he tried to snatch the guns from the terrorists to protect the tourists. Chandrashekhar further went on to blame the BJP for speaking out against the Islamic terror attack in Pahalgam targeting Hindu civilians. He said that certain groups are trying to use this incident to spread communal hatred. However, he completely whitewashed the religious motivation behind the Pahalgam terror attack on Hindu tourists. He also mocked Hindu religious preachers like Pradeep Mishra for calling Pahalgam a religiously motivated attack on Hindus. Yadav said that Pradeep Mishra has abandoned religious propagation and has instead begun promoting the BJP’s ideology. He further said that this is why Pradeep Mishra called Amit Shah an incarnation of Shiva. Contrary to Yadav's claim, multiple survivor testimonies confirmed that the terrorists had profiled the victims on the basis of religion, forcing them to reveal their names, produce identity cards, recite the Kalma, and even pull down their trousers to prove circumcision. Despite numerous victim testimonies and the disproportionate targeting of Hindus, the RJD MLA sought to downplay the religious hatred that motivated the Pahalgam terror attack.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The subcategory 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 subcategory selected is - Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. 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 other subcategory 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. 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. It is confirmed by survivor testimonies and forensic evidence showing victims’ trousers were unzipped or pulled down to verify their religion. By attempting to whitewash the religious hatred behind the attack, the 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 Hindus. This behaviour clearly constitutes hate speech, as it legitimises hostility and prejudice toward Hindus, further endangering their safety and rights. Additionally, while whitewashing the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, Yadav put all the blame on the BJP and Pradeep Mishra, a revered Hindu preacher. Pradeep Mishra was targeted for actively speaking out against the targeted killings of Hindus. Attacking and mocking a Hindu religious preacher for calling out acts of violence against Hindus displays disdain for Hindus and Hinduism. The denial of religious profiling and the mocking of a Hindu religious preacher is not an isolated incident, but clearly an incident driven by animosity towards Hinduism and, at large, towards the Hindu community. Therefore, this case has been added under the category of a Hate Crime. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that the news reports do not specify the exact date on which the politician made the statement. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
