Veterinary officer called Hindus terrorists and vilified Hindu organisations in Muzaffarnagar
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India 
30 April, 2025
Case Summary
In Muzaffarnagar, Dr. Sudhi Srivastava, a veterinary officer of Baghra block, made extremely objectionable remarks against Hindus and Hindu organisations. The incident dates back to a few days ago when an audio clip of Dr. Srivastava making objectionable remarks against Hindus and Hindu organisations went viral on social media. In the viral clip, she called Hindus terrorists and vilified Hindutva. The woman said that she would call armed Muslims from her block and incited Hindus by saying that they would not be able to stand against Muslims. Gau sevaks said that no action has been taken so far in this matter. Speaking to the media, Nishu Dhiman stated that Dr. Srivastava had insulted Gau Mata (the revered cow), Hindu organisations, and cow protectors. He declared that he would not wear slippers until Dr. Srivastava is suspended. District Magistrate Umesh Mishra assured that the matter will be investigated promptly and appropriate action will be taken.
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 - 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 - 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 objectionable remarks made by Dr. Sudhi Srivastava, as captured in the viral audio clip, not only insult Hindu individuals but also vilify Hindu organisations and mock foundational elements of the Hindu faith, such as reverence for Gau Mata (the sacred cow). Labelling Hindus as "terrorists" and disparaging Hindutva is a clear case of using religious identity as a basis for hate-laden generalisations, which fosters religious animosity. '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. The woman also threatened to summon armed Muslims from her area and incited Hindus by saying that Hindus would be powerless against them. This is an incitement to violence and intimidation directed specifically at Hindus. Such targeted threats based on religious identity reflect deep-seated prejudice and an intent to provoke communal unrest. Hence, this case is classified as a hate crime. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case have specified the exact date on which the hate speech against Hindus was made. The viral video clip in question is also undated. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
