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 this, a female Muslim teacher named Jeba Afroz posted an objectionable comment on Facebook, downplaying the religiously motivated massacre of Hindus in Pahalgam. Jeba Afroz was an assistant teacher at the government primary school in Maloghat. According to news reports, a social media user had posted that Hindus were religiously profiled and targeted before being killed in the Pahalgam terror attack by Islamic terrorists. The user also criticised one of the survivors of the Pahalgam attack, who had stated that Kashmiri Muslims should not be blamed for the incident, despite several news reports stating that 15 Kashmiri Muslims assisted the terrorists in planning and executing the attack. In response to this user's comment, Jeba Afroz wrote, "People are having very disgusting and cheap thoughts." Numerous individuals expressed objections and lodged complaints regarding Jeba Afroz’s remarks. As a result, the Basic Education Officer (BSA), Mukul Anand Pandey, suspended her. An investigation was launched by the Block Education Officer (BEO), with a report to be submitted within 15 days. Mukul Anand Pandey stated that Afroz's conduct was in violation of the code of conduct for government employees and unbecoming of a teacher’s dignity. Afroz objected and downplayed the religious profiling of Hindus in the Pahalgam terror attack. Contrary to her thoughts, 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, Afroz sought to downplay the religious animosity that motivated the Pahalgam terror attack.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case is categorised under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Under that, the relevant sub-category 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. This 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 Islamic terrorists explicitly identified victims by their religion, asking them to recite the Islamic Kalma and checking for circumcision to single out Hindus before killing them. It is confirmed by multiple 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 teacher's 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. This denial of targeted killing of Hindus is not an isolated case; rather, it stems from deep disdain and animosity towards Hindus. Therefore, the accused attempted to disregard the religious motivation behind the terror attack on Hindus and discounted their sufferings. This leads to the dehumanisation of 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. Since the crime committed was due to disdain for Hindus, therefore, this case has been categorised under the hate crime database.