Hindu wedding procession brutally attacked over music played while passing a mosque; casteist slurs hurled
Gaya, Bihar, India 
6 May, 2025
Case Summary
In Guharu village, in the Gaya district of Bihar, a Hindu wedding procession of a Yadav family was attacked by Muslims. The wedding procession also had members of the Mahadalit community as attendees. The procession was brutally attacked with sticks and stones, resulting in the death of an elderly man and several injured people. The victims also stated that Muslims used casteist slurs like 'Harijans' in a derogatory way to address them. The victims also accused the police and the RJD MLA of trying to cover up the incident. According to media reports, on the day of the incident, at 9:30 PM, Mithilesh Yadav's wedding procession was preparing to depart from Ramvriksh Yadav's home in Guharu village for the bride’s residence in Sadharo Cham Nema Bigha. The wedding procession included a ceremony of Devi pooja (worship of the goddess), during which the groom and his family had to visit a nearby temple. The procession was headed towards the temple with people dancing to the DJ music. The tension erupted when a few Muslims objected to the DJ playing near the mosque. However, according to the Hindus, the DJ was halted even before reaching the vicinity of the mosque. This further resulted in only the groom and the family members visiting the temple; however, when they attempted to rejoin the procession, the entire procession was brutally attacked by a mob of Muslim men and women. One of the eyewitnesses, Sunaina Devi, wife of Gurudayal Bhuiyan and a resident of Guharu village, stated that a group of men, including Itipas Miya, Sonu Alam, Ehsan Alam, Mansur Alam, Chand Alam, Sohail Miya, Tusar Alam, Raju Alam, Tanveer Alam, Aslam Miya, Kaifi Alam, Waris Alam, Asim Miya, Samu Miya, Saddam Miya, Anim Alam, Roshan Alam, and others, verbally abused the Dalit community using casteist slurs like 'Harijans' in a derogatory manner. When the Dalit Hindus protested against this, the issue escalated, and they were brutally beaten. Sunaina Devi said, ''They became more furious and started beating us." She also narrated that a Muslim man named Aslam Miya tore her blouse with malicious intent and then physically assaulted her. When other women named Savita Devi, Shanti Devi, and Rekha Devi, tried to help Sunaina after hearing her screams, more Muslims named Sattatudin, Suhev Miya, Kulin Alam, Naseem Miya, Ayub Alam, Jahanhangir Miya, and Saddam Alam, joined the assault, and attacked the women with rods and sticks. This attack resulted in multiple people getting injured, including Sunaina Devi and Anupruni, and the Muslim mob destroyed Gurudayal Bhuiyan’s thatched house. Ramvriksh Yadav, the father of the groom Mithilesh Yadav, was lynched to death. The groom, too, was severely injured. However, the police didn't mention the lynching of the groom's father, resulting in allegations of a cover-up. The attackers stole jewellery and money from the home. Sunaina Devi also stated that the Muslims threatened to burn down the homes of Mahadalits. According to Sunaina, the Muslims said, “We will not spare even a single Dalit.” According to another eyewitness, Sonu, the groom's nephew, said, “We were dancing to the DJ while the elders and my mama [uncle] went to the temple for prayers. They returned, and my mama [uncle] went to the temple for prayers. They returned, and my mama had reached the DJ, but by then, the Islamists had attacked the elderly. My nana ji [grandfather, Ramvriksh Yadav] was beaten with lathis. No one could go there until they left. We couldn’t save him.” According to the local Hindus, the Guharu village is a majority Muslim village comprising of 10-15 Hindu families and 150 Muslim families, resulting in a history of communal tensions. Gopi Yadav, a local resident, said, “Incidents like these keep happening in the village. They do not let us live peacefully. No procession is allowed, and no wedding can go peacefully here. They want us to convert to Islam.” Gopi further highlighted the challenges faced by Hindus in accessing the temple, which requires crossing the mosque. He said, “There is only one way to the Devi Mandir, and the mosque is in between. We are not allowed to go there. How are we supposed to live?”. He also narrated how Muslims provoke Hindus during Muharram processions. He said, "When the Tajiya procession is taken out during Muharram, they stop at the doors of our houses, chanting ‘Ya Ali, Ya Hussain’ to provoke us. We remain silent, locked inside, as they will kill us if we protest." Another Hindu villager named Bharat Paswan said, "They don’t want us to take DJ processions. We had halted the DJ way before the mosque, but they still attacked us. All they want is to eradicate our religion." A few locals also raised concerns, as one of the Muslim attackers threatened the Hindus with similar violence in the future. According to the Hindu locals, the Muslim attacker said, “This is just a trailer; more sufferings will be inflicted in the coming days.” The Gurua police registered a case against based on Sunaiana Devi's complaint under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) including 191(2) (rioting), 191(3) (rioting with deadly weapons), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 117(2) (grievous hurt), 127(1) (wrongful confinement), 74 (assault on a woman with intent to outrage modesty), 109 (attempt to commit offense), and 303(2) (theft). Additionally, charges were filed under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for targeting the Dalit community. Following the complaint, the police arrested only two Muslims named Monu alias Tushad Ahmed and Chand Ahmed from the accused group. However, they also arrested the injured Hindu victims, including Mithilesh Yadav and Ramvriksh Yadav's brothers. Locals said that the victims were not taken to the hospital, instead, they were locked up in jail. The local Hindus accused the police of trying to cover-up the case as the police, under the leadership of SP Mohammad Sarfaraz Imam, have not even publicly acknowledged the lynching of Ramvriksh Yadav. This fueled distrust among the locals, and they accused the police of downplaying the incident. The local Hindus were also outraged by the RJD MLA Vinay Yadav not visiting the village and meeting the victims. Instead, Amit Dangi, a local leader, intervened to ensure the postmortem of Ramvriksh Yadav’s body was conducted and the body was handed over to the family. According to the Hindu villagers, this attack was not an isolated incident, as the demographic imbalance of 150 Muslim families vastly outnumbering 10-15 Hindu households resulted in an environment where Hindu religious practices, such as processions and temple visits, are routinely obstructed. The requirement to halt DJ music near the mosque, while adhered to by the wedding procession, did not prevent the violence, suggesting deeper communal animosities. The Dalit community of the Guharu village demanded justice but were living in a state of fear of future violence at the hands of Muslims, amidst the cover-up of the local police and the silence of the MLA.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attack resulting in death. The subcategory 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, cases where the attack led to the death of the Hindu victim/s would be documented. The other subcategory selected is- Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'. One of the reasons that Hindus get attacked unprovoked specifically by Islamists is them crossing ‘Muslim areas’. Essentially, Muslim mobs often attack Hindus crossing or present in certain areas which have a majority Muslim population. It has often been cited as one of the reasons to blame Hindus for attacks against themselves, signaling that Hindus displaying religious symbols, taking out religious processions, or crossing any area that is dominated by Muslim residents is a provocation in and of itself. These areas are mostly ghettoized areas where mobs mobilize quickly to attack Hindus for a variety of reasons like playing music during a religious procession, crossing a mosque, wearing a tilak or any other religious symbol in a Muslim-dominated area, praying at a local temple in that area, etc. There have been cases where the few local Hindus of that area have been attacked on their way to the Temple for prayers as well, simply because the area is considered a Muslim-dominated area. Several times, it is entirely possible that the immediate trigger for the violence against Hindus was non-religious in nature, however, the violence became religiously motivated in nature because the area was Muslim dominated and the residents on the whole harboured animosity towards Hindus, evidenced from the actions of the mob, the slogans, and the nature of the attack. Such crimes are motivated by the religious identity of the victims and are therefore classified as hate crimes. Under this category, we would document cases where the attacks have led to the death of the Hindu victims. Another primary category selected is- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory 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 subcategory selected is- Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. The other category under which this case has been placed is- Predatory Proselytisation. Within this, the sub-category selected is- Harassment, threat and coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. Muslim men took offence at a wedding procession of a Hindu-Dalit family. They assaulted the attendees, vandalised property, and lynched the groom's father to death for merely playing DJ music, a long-standing tradition in many cultures, particularly in India, where it adds to the celebratory atmosphere of the event. The attack was unprovoked in nature, and the Hindu participants had done nothing which could be branded as provocation leading to the harassment by the Muslim mob. The DJ playing music was, in fact, halted even before the procession reached the vicinity of the mosque. The unprovoked attack was driven by intrinsic and doctrinal religious animosity, which also stemmed from the fact that the Hindu procession was crossing an area which had a Muslim-majority population. In areas with a majority Muslim population, Hindus often face hostility since the tenets of Islam harbour antagonism towards the Hindu faith and the adherents of Hinduism. Such religious and doctrinal animosity manifests in violence against Hindu devotees when religious processions pass areas with a Muslim majority. Obviously, it was not the music played by the Hindu participants that actually triggered the Islamists; that was only an excuse used by the perpetrators to target the procession because of the participants' religious identity. Such attacks are a form of symbolic aggression against the Hindu community that stems from an innate hatred for Hinduism. Given that the fundamental motivation behind these actions is contempt for Hindus and their religion, this instance has been added to the tracker under the following category. Additionally, the further details suggested that the Muslim mob abused the Hindu Dalits using casteist slurs, followed by threats of future violence. This further strengthens the religious motivation behind the crime and reinforces the targeted nature of the assault against Hindus. It may be argued by some people that a caste-specific slur is aimed at the victims' micro identity of belonging to the Dalit section of the Hindu community and not their 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 drove the animosity of the perpetrators against the Hindu victims. Additionally, the threats issued by Muslims of future violence reaffirms that this incident was motivated by religious motivations, rooted in hatred and intolerance for the Hindu community. This is not a case of caste based animosity but rather disdain and hatred for Hindus at large. Further details from locals regarding the majority of Muslims unleashing violence against Hindus in the past, glaringly depict that this instance was not an isolated case of noise disturbances, but rather about imposing dominance over Hindus and their cultural processions. The Muslim mob in this case violently attacked Hindus due to hatred and contempt for Hindus and Hinduism, rooted in their religious bigotry. Additionally, Hindu residents reported being repeatedly harassed and threatened by members of the Muslim community with demands to convert to Islam. They were discouraged from visiting a nearby Hindu temple, access to which required crossing a mosque. Additionally, during Muharram processions, Islamic slogans were intentionally shouted in front of Hindu homes. These incidents reflect a broader pattern of religious intimidation and an attempt to assert Islamic dominance over Hindus and Hindu practices. The pressure to abandon Hinduism and adopt Islam through persistent harassment and coercion highlights the targeted nature of the hostility. Such acts are not isolated but part of an ongoing campaign of religious assertion and control. Such incidents follow a pattern where any Hindu religious or celebratory activity near a Muslim majority area is met with hostility, coercion, and often violent suppression. The deliberate targeting of Hindus in their own village underscores the deep-rooted religious intolerance behind the attack, making it a clear case of a hate crime against Hindus. Consequently, this case has been added to the Hinduphobia tracker. It is important to note here that the villagers accused the police of downplaying the violence against Hindus. The police, in many such cases, where the motive behind the crime is obvious but not explicitly mentioned, deny that the crime committed was in any way motivated by a religious bias or say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to the crime. Several factors are generally at play here. Many a time, the police downplay incidents of low-level communal crime because it is their jurisdiction that comes under question. The police also often say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to a crime when there was one because they wish to ensure that owing to the crime already committed, there is no further flare-up in the area. Likewise, the Left media and the leftist elite are also inclined to emphasise this "no communal angle" trope, especially wherever the victim of the crime is a Hindu. However, only a police statement or a media report, for instance, cannot be enough to determine whether there is a communal angle present in the crime that has been committed. In fact, to determine whether the crime is communal in nature or not, we need to give emphasis to the ground realities. For example in the case of Rinku Sharma, the Bajrang Dal activist who was mercilessly stabbed in his house in front of his family members in Delhi’s Mangolpuri area in the year 2021, the leftist media and the leftist ecosystem had tried to peddle that there was no communal angle to the crime. Even the police denied that the crime was communal in nature. However, Opindia spoke to several people who are on the ground with the family of Rinku Sharma and we were told that the communal tension in the area is palpable. The family of Rinku Sharma has said that the Muslims of the area held a grudge against Rinku ever since he celebrated the Ram Mandir verdict. Like the case of Rinku Sharma, those cases where even if the police have denied a communal angle or the leftist media have gone on an overdrive to peddle the ‘no communal angle’ trope, the ground reality, like the victim’s family or relative's testimonies, make it clear that there was an obvious religious bias that led to the crime, will be documented in this tracker. Going by the same logic, since the participants filed a written complaint and testified that the procession was halted and they were threatened when it crossed a 'Muslim area', this case has also been included in the hate tracker.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 10 to 100
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
