Temple land encroached by Muslims; Hindu including women attacked with stones as they oppose the illegal encroachment

Case Summary
An incident of encroachment on temple land in Umran village, Thathia police station area of Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh, led to clashes between Hindus and Muslims. According to reports, a Mazar was erected on land belonging to the village temple, sparking tensions. The disputed land, spanning 70 bighas, includes 7 bighas of temple land and the rest belonging to the Gram Sabha. The area had remained vacant due to dense Acacia trees. About a week ago, when members of the Hindu community protested the encroachment, they were reportedly met with stone pelting by Muslims. Women from the Hindu community passing by were also targeted. A video of the stone-pelting incident later surfaced on social media. Villagers stated that local Muslims, with support from the police and the Electricity Department, levelled the ground, conducted illegal mining, and set up a tubewell to begin cultivation on the land. When Mahipal, a Dalit villager, confronted the Muslim men regarding the Mazar and stone-pelting, he was physically attacked and subjected to caste slurs. The villagers accused the police of refusing to cooperate or register a complaint until leaders from Hindu organizations like Bajrang Dal and Vishva Hindu Parishad intervened and raised the issue with higher authorities. Though police denied any religious angle in the matter, an FIR was eventually filed against Noor Hasan, Ibl-e-Hasan, and Qamil under relevant legal provisions for assaulting Mahipal and using caste slurs.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added as a religiously motivated crime under three prime categories of the Hinduphobia tracker. The first is- Attack on Hindu religious representations. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land/land near temple. 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. Not only the Temple but the Temple premises in its entirety are considered sacred by Hindus. In several cases, the premises of the Temple and/or religious centre are illicitly taken over by institutions belonging to other faiths – like the Waqf board or the Church. Other times, the temple property, land or the property of religious centres are illicitly encroached by non-Hindu groups. Any illicit take over or encroachment is a crime an initio, however, when non-Hindu groups illicitly take over or encroach the sacred land of Hindus, it is an affront to the Hindu community and is therefore classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The second category selected here is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The third category relevant here is- Hate speech against Hindus and within this, the sub-category selected 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. In this instance, members of the Muslim community illegally encroached upon and built a mazar on a Temple land. The construction of a Mazar on temple property and Gram Sabha land is not just a property dispute; it symbolizes a violation of sacred space and cultural identity. This act in itself is an affront to the Hindu community and an attempt to assert dominance over a significant religious site. Further, the Hindus who protested against this illegal act met with stone pelting and assaults. Women from the Hindu community passing by were also targeted. Mahipal, a Dalit villager, was also physically attacked and subjected to caste slurs when he confronted the Muslim men regarding the Mazar and stone-pelting incident. Such attacks demonstrate hostility not only against individual identities but also against the broader Hindu community for opposing the encroachment. These actions stem from animosity towards Hindus and their places of worship, underscoring the religiously motivated nature of the crime. It can be argued here that a caste-specific slur is aimed at her micro identity of belonging to the Dalit section of the Hindu community and not her Hindu identity itself. However, as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary. It is the religious identity that drives the animosity of the perpetrator against the Hindu victim. In this case, while the Muslims hurled caste abuses at the Dalit victim, the animosity was driven by his animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. While the immediate trigger of the violence may have been the illegal encroachment on temple land, which itself constitutes a religiously motivated act against Hindus, the use of caste slurs adds another dimension to the crime. For these reasons, this case has been added to the tracker. Another important aspect of this case is that the police denied any religious angle in the matter. The Kannauj police denied the Mazar angle in the incident and claimed that it was only a land dispute between the 2 parties. The police, in many such cases, where the motive behind the crime is obvious but not explicitly mentioned, deny that the crime committed was in any way motivated by a religious bias or say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to the crime. Several factors are generally at play here. Many a time the police downplay incidents of low-level communal crime because it is their jurisdiction that comes under question. The police also often say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to a crime when there was one because they wish to ensure that owing to the crime already committed, there is no further flare up in the area. Likewise, the Left media and the leftist elite are also inclined to emphasise this "no communal angle" trope, especially wherever the victim of the crime is a Hindu. However, only a police statement or a media report, for instance, cannot be enough to determine whether there is a communal angle present in the crime that has been committed. In fact, to determine whether the crime is communal in nature or not, we need to give emphasis to the ground realities. For example in the case of Rinku Sharma, the Bajrang Dal activist who was mercilessly stabbed in his house in front of his family members in Delhi’s Mangolpuri area in the year 2021, the leftist media and the leftist ecosystem had tried to peddle that there was no communal angle to the crime. Even the police denied that the crime was communal in nature. However, Opindia spoke to several people who are on the ground with the family of Rinku Sharma and we were told that the communal tension in the area is palpable. The family of Rinku Sharma has said that the Muslims of the area held a grudge against Rinku ever since he celebrated the Ram Mandir verdict Like the case of Rinku Sharma, those cases where even if the police have denied a communal angle or the leftist media have gone on an overdrive to peddle the ‘no communal angle’ trope, the ground reality, like the victim’s family or relative's testimonies, make it clear that there was an obvious religious bias that led to the crime, will be documented in this tracker. Going by the same logic, since the local villagers testified that the temple land was encroached on and a Mazar was constructed, this case has also been included in the hate tracker.

Case Status
Complaint registered

Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male