Hindu family violently attacked by Muslims over use of DJ in Muslim dominated locality, violent threats issued

Case ID : c72ab34 | Location : Ajmer, Rajasthan, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 1 June, 2025

Case ID : c72ab34

Ajmer, Rajasthan, India

1 June, 2025

Hindu family violently attacked by Muslims over use of DJ in Muslim dominated locality, violent threats issued

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'

Communal clash/attack

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Case Summary

In Nagphani Dargah Road of Ganj Police Station area, Ajmer, Rajasthan, a Hindu family named the Chauhan family was brutally attacked by a group of more than half a dozen Muslims. The incident started due to Hindu family’s use of a DJ during a family function. Nagphani Dargah Road, located within the Ganj Police Station area of Ajmer, Rajasthan, is part of the city's Dargah locality, which is known for its significant Muslim population. According to media reports, the Hindu victims stated that a celebration was underway at their café, with singing and dancing taking place. During the event, more than half a dozen individuals from the Muslim community, armed with sticks, baseball bats, and iron rods, arrived and began threatening the family, demanding they stop the DJ. Initially, a heated argument broke out between the two parties. One female member of the Chauhan family said that the Muslim assailants threatened them, saying, “We are Muslims, and we can do anything we want.” Subsequently, the Muslim group attacked the Hindu family with extreme violence. Six members of the family were injured and admitted to Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital for treatment. A passer-by recorded a video of the incident, which was later circulated widely on social media. The Chauhan family further said that they had previous grievances with the assailants, including incidents of marijuana smoking, the use of derogatory and sexual language towards their daughter-in-law near the café, and repeated demands to shut down their business. Upon learning of the incident, the police arrived promptly and attempted to control the situation. They launched an investigation based on the video evidence and assured that action would be taken once the accused were identified. The police also urged the public not to pay attention to rumours and to maintain peace. The authorities deployed a police force to maintain the law and order situation. Additionally, the family named one of the accused, Tara Shah, and provided the names of four others to the police. The police stated that they have launched an investigation and that the accused would be apprehended.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attacked not resulting in Death. Within this the subcategory is- Communal Clash/Attack. Communal clash is a form of collective violence that involves clashes between groups belonging to different religious identities. For a communal clash between Hindus and non-Hindus to qualify as a religiously motivated hate crime, the trigger of the violence itself would have to be anti-Hindu in essence. For example, if there is a Hindu religious procession that comes under attack from a non-Hindu mob and after the initial attack, Hindus retaliate in self-defence, leading to a communal clash between the two religious communities. While at a later stage, both communities are involved in the clash/violence, the initial trigger of the violence was by the non-Hindu mob against the Hindus and therefore, it could safely be termed as an anti-Hindu violence. Further, the trigger would also have to be religiously motivated. In the cited example, the attack by the non-Hindu mob was against religious processions and therefore, can be concluded to be religiously motivated. In some cases, the trigger may be non-religious, however, it develops into religious violence against Hindus at a later stage. In such cases too, the foundational animosity towards Hindus becomes the motivating factor of the crime and therefore, it would be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus under this category. The other subcategory- Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'. One of the reasons that Hindus get attacked unprovoked specifically by Islamists is for crossing ‘Muslim areas’. Essentially, Muslim mobs often attack Hindus crossing or present in certain areas which have a majority Muslim population. It has often been cited as one of the reasons to blame Hindus for attacks against themselves, signalling that Hindus displaying religious symbols, taking our religious processions or crossing any area which is dominated by Muslim residents is a provocation in and of itself. These areas are mostly ghettoized areas where mobs mobilize quickly to attack Hindus for a variety of reasons like playing music during a religious procession, crossing a mosque, wearing a tilak or any other religious symbol in a Muslim-dominated area, praying at a local temple in that area etc. There have been cases where the few local Hindus of that area have been attacked on their way to the Temple for prayers as well, simply because the area is considered a Muslim-dominated area. Several times, it is entirely possible that the immediate trigger for the violence against Hindus was non-religious in nature, however, the violence became religiously motivated in nature because the area was Muslim dominated and the residents on the whole harboured animosity towards Hindus, evidenced from the actions of the mob, the slogans, and the nature of the attack. Such crimes are motivated by the religious identity of the victims and are therefore classified as hate crimes under this category. The other primary category relevant in this case is- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is- Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, are 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 violent attack on the Chauhan family in Ajmer’s Nagphani Dargah Road area carries multiple indicators of a religiously motivated hate crime. Although the immediate trigger appeared to be a dispute over music during a Hindu celebration, the disproportionate level of violence inflicted upon the Hindu family and the contextual communal dynamics demonstrate that the incident had clear communal undertones. Another important point is that the Muslim mob was fully prepared, armed with weapons, indicating that this was not a random act of violence but rather a premeditated attack directed at the Hindu family. Often, violent crimes against Hindus by Muslim extremists originate from incidents that may appear non-religious at first. Nevertheless, the disproportionate and extreme violence reveals deeper layers of communal animosity towards the Hindu family and the larger Hindu community. Another particularly alarming detail comes from the reported threats. One of the Muslim attackers declared, “We are Muslims, and we can do anything we want.” This statement goes beyond personal animosity and directly invokes religious identity as a tool of intimidation. Such declarations are intended to instil fear not only in the immediate victims but also within the broader Hindu community, suggesting that the attackers felt empowered or protected by their Muslim identity. These statements by the perpetrators highlight that the crime was indeed religiously motivated. Instances of violence against Hindus, accompanied by Islamic supremacist rhetoric, underscore the deep prejudice and hatred the Muslim perpetrators have towards Hindus as a collective. The circumstances surrounding this incident strongly suggest that it was driven by religious hatred rather than being a spontaneous violent altercation. The attackers’ use of weapons, their communal threats, and the targeting of the Chauhan family during a family celebration all indicate an intent to harm based on their Hindu identity. Furthermore, the family’s account of previous grievances with the same group, including derogatory and sexualised language, as well as demands to shut down their café, all point to a pattern of harassment motivated by communal animosity. Additionally, it is significant that the incident took place in a Muslim-dominated locality. This reflects a mindset of religious supremacy and communal entitlement amongst the local Muslims. It implies not just hostility, but a belief in impunity—that in areas with Muslim numerical dominance, Hindus can be dictated to, threatened, or attacked without consequence. In such areas, Hindus are attacked by Muslims for carrying out religious processions or conducting any non-religious event. In this case, the perpetrators appeared to view the area as an exclusive zone where non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, were unwelcome. This sense of entitlement and superiority not only reflects deep-seated prejudice but also highlights an attempt to assert religious dominance over public spaces. The assault on the family was motivated by this Islamic supremacist ideology, wherein Muslim radicals in the area look down upon Hindus and believe that they have the right to dictate how to conduct their celebrations. The act of violently attacking the family for simply playing a DJ illustrates a dangerous mindset rooted in exclusion, intolerance, and religious animosity, making this case a clear example of a religiously motivated crime against Hindus.