Tribal Hindu lands illegally occupied, and tribals physically assaulted and threatened by Muslims
Bokaro, Jharkhand, India 
31 December, 2020
Case Summary
In Iyer village, Bokaro, Jharkhand, ancestral lands belonging to the Tribal Hindus were illegally occupied by members of the Muslim community. The Muslims also physically assaulted the tribals and issued them violent threats. According to news reports, a tribal man named Raja Ram Manjhi stated that his ancestral land originally belonged to his grandfather, who had rented a house to a Muslim man named Suleman Miyan. However, Suleman began to illegally seize the property, demolishing the original house and constructing a new one on the land. Furthermore, he encroached on another vacant land belonging to Raja Ram and commenced further unauthorised construction. When the tribals protested, they were verbally abused and brutally assaulted. Raja Ram claims that such assaults by Muslims against tribals have occurred before. On this occasion, a tribal woman was also attacked, resulting in her hand being broken. The Muslims went forward and issued threats of physical violence against the tribals. Another tribal man, Budhan Soren, stated that Suleman had occupied his ancestral land and started illegal construction. Whenever Budhan or his family objected, they were physically assaulted and attacked with weapons. He also said that a house had already been built on his ancestral land without permission. The tribals criticised the local police for their inaction, expressing disappointment at the authorities’ failure to intervene. The tribal Hindu community demanded justice and the return of their land. Former MLA Amar Kumar Bauri stated that two houses were forcibly constructed on tribal land by Muslims in 2021. Again, on 8th May 2025, there was an attempt to construct another house. When the tribals opposed this, they were physically attacked, and a tribal woman’s hand was broken. The tribals subsequently lodged a police complaint under the SC/ST Act for the assaults, but no action was taken against the accused. Mr Bauri accompanied the tribal victims to the Bokaro Deputy Commissioner’s office, presenting the full details of the case. He said that the Deputy Commissioner had been informed and assured that the matter would be investigated. The Deputy Commissioner also stated that both the inhabited and uncultivated lands of the tribals would be protected. The aggrieved tribals who met with the Deputy Commissioner appealed to the administration for the return of their land. The tribal villagers warned that if justice is not delivered within ten days, then it would result in protests against the inaction of the authorities. Vijaya Jadhav, Deputy Commissioner of Bokaro, commented, “A matter of land dispute has come to light. The SDO has been instructed to investigate and carry out a land survey. Appropriate action will be taken once the facts are established.” Acting on these concerns, the Deputy Commissioner ordered the Gomia Zonal Officer to remove illegal Muslim occupiers from the land belonging to tribals. Mr Bauri stated that the administration must take responsibility for preventing the occupation of tribal land, otherwise it would constitute a grave injustice.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category of- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the first sub-category 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. The second sub-category selected is- Attacked to induce migration from non-Hindu dominated area. There have been cases where the Hindus living in an area, often with a majority dwelling belonging to non-Hindus or those harbouring animosity towards the Hindu faith, the Hindu residents experience threats and violence. The violence is employed with the aim of making the Hindus leave the area and relocate, so the area could be turned into an exclusive ghetto for adherents of the non-Hindu faith or those who harbor animosity towards the Hindu faith. In several cases, the aim of exodus is explicit. However, in several cases, the demand for exodus of Hindu residents is not explicit, however, violence by non-Hindu residents leaves the Hindu residents no option but to leave the area, thereby, turning the area into an exclusive ghetto of non-Hindu residents. In such cases, there are instances violence against the Hindu residents explicitly. For example, in the Hauz Qazi case of 2019, the Muslim residents claimed that mob violence against the Hindu residents had been triggered by a parking dispute. However, the violence did turn religious with a temple being desecrated and was directed specifically against the Hindu residents. The Hindu residents of the area were clear that the violence was religiously motivated and one of the motives was to affect an exodus of the Hindu residents. In such cases, even though the perpetrators have not explicitly expressed the aim of affecting exodus, the given circumstances and violence and precedent point to the intention of exodus and therefore would be categorized under this sub-category. Such crimes are religiously motivated and therefore are hate crimes. In Iyer village, Bokaro (Jharkhand), a series of violent and targeted attacks were reported against Tribal Hindus by members of the Muslim community, centering around illegal land encroachments. According to multiple tribal victims, the assailants not only illegally occupied ancestral lands but also used coordinated violence, threats, and intimidation to silence opposition. These were not isolated or spontaneous incidents, but part of a pattern of aggression driven by communal motives and a deliberate attempt to displace a vulnerable religious and ethnic minority. One victim, Raja Ram Manjhi, reported that his grandfather had rented a house to a Muslim man, Suleman Miyan, who later forcibly seized the property, demolished the structure, and expanded construction onto adjoining tribal land. When tribals protested, they were physically attacked, including a tribal woman whose hand was broken. Similar testimony from another tribal man, Budhan Soren, confirms that repeated land grabs and violent retaliation were used to suppress resistance. Despite the severity of these assaults, police failed to act even after complaints were filed under the SC/ST Act. Former MLA Amar Kumar Bauri confirmed that such encroachments date back to 2021 and have continued with impunity. The lack of legal action and institutional apathy further enabled the perpetrators. This is not simply a property dispute, rather, it is a clear case of religious and ethnically motivated violence. The targeting of Tribal Hindus, the pattern of repeated assaults, and the coordinated nature of land occupation and violence strongly indicate that these acts were driven by a sense of communal dominance and Islamic supremacist entitlement to displace non-Muslim groups. The encroachment of land from a religious minority, coupled with brutal attacks and threats, amounts to coercive demographic change, a common feature in religiously motivated hate crimes. What makes this case particularly alarming is the selective nature of the encroachments. While the village has a mixed population, only the lands belonging to Hindu tribals were targeted, even though Muslims also reside in the area. This disproportionate focus on Hindu-owned properties suggests that the motive was not merely opportunistic land grabbing, but rather deliberate communal hostility aimed at displacing and intimidating members of a specific religious community. The selective aggression reinforces the view that these attacks were premeditated acts of hate, not random property disputes. Thus, this incident qualifies as a hate crime based on the religious identity of the victims, the pattern of targeting, the use of violence and intimidation, and the broader context of communal hostility. Disclaimer: Media reports indicate that the earliest ordeal faced by the tribal community occurred in 2021, although no specific date or month is provided. For documentation purposes, we have used an indicative date—1 January 2021—as a placeholder to represent the beginning of their suffering. While media coverage of the incident emerged on 23 May 2025, the Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident based on when the victim’s ordeal began, not when it was reported. Furthermore, media reports mention two tribal victims, but the actual number is likely higher, as the tribals were attacked as a group by members of the Muslim community. However, since the exact number of victims is unknown, the victim count is recorded as 'unknown'. Similarly, although the tribals reported that a man named Suleman had occupied their land and that a group of Muslims had physically assaulted them, the exact number of perpetrators is also unknown. Therefore, the perpetrator count is recorded as 'unknown'.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
