Case Summary

Jai Bhagwan Goyal, the president of the United Hindu Front and a BJP leader, has been subjected to beheading threats from Muslims on social media over allegations of ‘blasphemy’. Following this, he contacted Shahdara Police Station and demanded that a case be registered. However, Goyal stated that he will not be intimidated by these threats and will continue to speak up for Hindus. Hinduphobia Tracker managed to contact the United Hindu Front regarding this matter. According to them, in 2020, their group held a small protest in Delhi calling for the removal of 24 ayats from the Quran, contending that these verses promote hatred and encourage Muslims to commit violence against ‘non-believers. On 21st May 2025, Jai Bhagwan Goyal used a clip from this 2021 protest and posted it on his Instagram account. The reel showed Goyal stating: “The Quran contains 24 very dangerous verses. These verses clearly command Muslims to attack, kill, and loot non-Muslims. It also orders Muslims to sexually violate non-Muslim women. Such verses need to be removed to promote peace and harmony in India and the wider world.” Following the publication of this reel, Goyal received numerous death and beheading threats from Muslims, who accused him of ‘blasphemy’. The police in this case registered Goyal's complaint and began investigating to identify the accused.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The 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 second primary category relevant here is- Attack not resulting in death, and within this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked over 'Blasphemy'. Blasphemy essentially refers to the desecration of anything which is held sacred/holy to a group of people. However, for religious supremacist groups, the elements of ‘blasphemy’ are ever-changing, shifting and expanding – leading to infringement on the rights of other religious groups, freedom of speech and expression, threats and even physical violence. There are instances where blasphemy is also used as a dog whistle to target Hindus owing to intrinsic animosity towards Hinduism. There are several instances where stating truths as mentioned in the non-Hindu doctrine itself has led to unmitigated violence against Hindus. There have also been instances where non-Hindus have themselves created a ‘blasphemous’ situation, like placing a Quran in a temple, to use it as an excuse to attack Hindus. Essentially, Blasphemy charges are often made up and/or are used to shut down any form of criticism of non-Hindu faiths and as a tool to target Hindus. Any physical violence over Blasphemy charges against Hindus are foundationally based on animosity for Hindus and their faith owing to religious supremacist ideologies, therefore, such attacks would be documented as religious motivated hate crimes under this category. In this case, the Hindu leader received death and beheading threats over allegations of blasphemy by Muslims. These are not isolated reactions of personal disagreement or debate; they are violent threats steeped in religious animosity, directed at a Hindu individual for expressing his views on multiple instances of violence committed by Muslims against Hindus due to religious animosity towards Hindus, stemming from theological indoctrination. “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki Ek hi saza, sar tan se Juda, sar tan se Juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), their head separated from their torso, their head separated from the torso”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets running and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against the Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined the slogan, it has gained popularity among Muslims in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Islamists chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It aims to instil fear in the broader community. Islamists use this tactic to settle personal scores with Hindu and Christian families by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target on them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. This aligns directly with previous patterns observed in cases where Hindus, like Nupur Sharma, have been doxxed and harassed for expressing religious opinions or criticising historical or contemporary Islamic violence. Goyal’s Hindu identity and his vocal stance against Islamic extremism became the sole trigger for a wave of hate that was explicitly communal in nature. As a result, this case is classified as a religiously motivated hate crime and has been added to the hate crime database.