Muslim mob vandalise Hindu temple, demand "Sar Tan Se Juda" punishment for Hindu youth accusing him of 'blasphemy'; Hindu youth had responded to a derogatory post on Lord Ram

Case ID : abbdc93 | Location : Nashik, Maharashtra, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 3 April, 2024

Case ID : abbdc93

Nashik, Maharashtra, India

3 April, 2024

Muslim mob vandalise Hindu temple, demand "Sar Tan Se Juda" punishment for Hindu youth accusing him of 'blasphemy'; Hindu youth had responded to a derogatory post on Lord Ram

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked over 'Blasphemy'

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Attack on Temples

Case Summary

Tensions flared in Nashik, Maharashtra, on April 4, 2024, as thousands of Muslims vandalised public property in the Jai Bhavani area, targeting city buses and Hindu-owned vehicles. The unrest stemmed from claims that a Hindu boy, Sanket Saudagar, made derogatory remarks about Prophet Mohammed’s daughter, Fatima al-Zahra. Social media posts called for "Sar Tan Se Juda" punishment for Saudagar, accusing him of insulting Fatima. The conflict began when a Muslim local, Khwaja, insulted Lord Ram on Instagram, mocking Ram Navami preparations and using abusive language. In response, Saudagar commented, sparking further tensions. After violence broke out, Muslims deleted their comments about Lord Ram but circulated screenshots of Saudagar’s posts. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad demanded strict action against those who posted derogatory remarks about Hindu deities, vandalized the Kamaan of the Goddess Tuljabhavani temple, hurled stones at the temple, blocked roads, and damaged vehicles. While police arrested Saudagar, the Muslim individual who insulted Lord Ram remained elusive.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This particular case has been classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under two prime categories of the tracker because of the various distinct components that demonstrate the perpetrator's bias against the Hindu faith. The first prime category under which this case has been placed is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the sub-category chosen is- Attacked for "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. The second prime category under which this case has been placed is- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the sub-category chosen 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 third prime category relevant here is- Attack on Hindu religious symbols. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Attack on Temples- In Hinduism, a temple is the abode of the Deity. The Deity in the Temple is consecrated, thereby, making it a real, breathing entity. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the temple premises itself are sacred to Hindus since Hindus hold the faith that the entire Temple space is an amalgamation of the divine energy of the deity. Given the central significance of Temples in Hindu Dharma, any attack against a Hindu Temple or its peripheral premises is an attack on the faith itself and is born out of animosity towards the faith, of which, the Temple is a central tenet. Any manner of attack against a Temple and/or its premises would therefore be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. This incident in Nashik qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime on multiple fronts. First, the Hindu youth, Sanket Saudagar, was targeted under the pretext of blasphemy for allegedly insulting Prophet Mohammed's daughter, Fatima al-Zahra, that the Islamists deemed derogatory towards Prophet Mohammed. They demanded severe punishment, including calls for "Sar Tan Se Juda" (beheading). “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 amok 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 Islamists 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 behind them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false blasphemy accusations as a means to subjugate and victimize them. As a result, this case is classified as a religiously motivated hate crime and has been documented accordingly. This shows how the concept of blasphemy was manipulated to instigate violence against Hindus. Secondly, the attack extended beyond just the individual, as public property and Hindu-owned vehicles were vandalized, and temples, including the Kamaan of the Goddess Tuljabhavani, were attacked. These acts of aggression and the issuing of violent threats underline the deep religious animosity fueling the crime, aiming not only to punish perceived insults but also to instil fear within the Hindu community. This combination of personal targeting and communal violence against religious symbols and places of worship categorizes this incident as a hate crime motivated by religious intolerance. These actions reflect the deep disdain for the victim's religious beliefs and identity, which is why this case has been documented here.