Case Summary

In Vakola, Mumbai, a man was brutally beaten by a pro-Pakistani mob for disrespecting the Pakistani flag, along with the flags of Bangladesh and Palestine, amidst India-Pakistan cross-border escalation in the aftermath of Op Sindoor, which India launched to avenge the Pahalgam anti-Hindu terror attack. In the Pahalgam terror attack, Hindu civilians were killed after confirming their religion by Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists. According to news reports, the man was attacked for burning the Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Palestinian flags. Hinduphobia Tracker obtained the FIR, which indicated that the clash broke out over the display of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Palestinian flags, which bore stickers reading 'Murdabad Murdabad'. The Times of India reported that this controversy led to a communal clash between two communities: one supporting an anti-Pakistan stance and the other demonstrating a pro-Pakistan stance. As a result, three people were injured. The police were informed, arrived at the scene, and brought the situation under control. An FIR was lodged suo motu by the police under Sections 189(2) (unlawful assembly), 190 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 191(2) (rioting), and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the BNS. Subsequently, seven people were arrested in connection with the incident. According to the FIR, following the incident, the police registered a case against 30 to 40 individuals for fighting and disturbing public peace. A few news outlets and verified X handles reported that the victim in this case was a Hindu, and the pro-Pakistani mob comprised of Muslims.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is - Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save a victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated, and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The second subcategory selected is - Communal clash/attack. Communal clash is a form of collective violence that involves clashes between groups belonging to different religious identities. For a communal clash between Hindus and non-Hindus to qualify as a religiously motivated hate crime, the trigger of the violence itself would have to be anti-Hindu in essence. For example, if there is a Hindu religious procession that comes under attack from a non-Hindu mob and after the initial attack, Hindus retaliate in self-defence, leading to a communal clash between the two religious communities. While at a later stage, both communities are involved in the clash/violence, the initial trigger of the violence was by the non-Hindu mob against the Hindus and therefore, it could safely be termed as anti-Hindu violence. Further, the trigger would also have to be religiously motivated. In the cited example, the attack by the non-Hindu mob was against religious processions and therefore, can be concluded to be religiously motivated. In some cases, the trigger may be non-religious, however, it develops into religious violence against Hindus at a later stage. In such cases, too, the foundational animosity towards Hindus becomes the motivating factor of the crime, and therefore, it would be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus under this category. This incident from Vakola, Mumbai, qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime under the category "attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save a victim", as the Hindu victim was targeted not due to any personal dispute, altercation, or prior enmity, but solely for publicly opposing pro-Pakistan and Islamist sympathies by desecrating the flags of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Palestine, symbols perceived by the accused as linked to their ideological or religious identity. The victim’s anti-Pakistan stance, expressed through the burning of flags and “Murdabad” slogans, was met with violent retaliation from a pro-Pakistani mob. The assault was not spontaneous but a deliberate and targeted act intended to punish dissent against what the attackers viewed as a collective religious and ideological cause. Some may argue that the violent actions of the Muslim assailants in this case were driven more by anti-India and pro-Pakistan sentiments than by direct anti-Hindu animosity. However, attacking a Hindu individual specifically for supporting India and criticising Pakistan reflects not just allegiance to Pakistan, but also a deep-seated hostility toward Hindus. It's important to understand that radical Islamist ideology often harbours targeted animosity toward Hindus and perceives India as a Hindu collectivity. The very basis of the partition of India was that the Muslims believed that Islam was a nation unto itself, which could not survive with a Hindu collectivity like India. Further, Muslims often believe in transnational unity - or the Ummah - which is a belief that all Muslims across the world are a nation unto themselves and therefore, loyalty as far as the nation-state is concerned lies with the Muslim collectivity and not with a Hindu collectivity like India. Therefore, this attack is not merely an expression of geopolitical bias but reflects religiously motivated hate. Targeting a Hindu for supporting India, viewed by extremists as a Hindu collectivity, underscores the anti-Hindu nature of the assault. As such, this incident has been recorded in the hate crime database under the category of attacks driven by opposition to radicalism and religiously motivated animosity.