Forty Hindu families forced to flee village after being subjected to violent threats and religious coercion in Muslim-majority area

Case ID : d06ca0f | Location : Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 2 June, 2025

Case ID : d06ca0f

Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

2 June, 2025

Forty Hindu families forced to flee village after being subjected to violent threats and religious coercion in Muslim-majority area

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'

Attacked to induce migration from non-Hindu dominated area

Communal clash/attack

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

Predatory Proselytisation

Harassment for conversion leading to exodus

Case Summary

In the Muslim-majority locality of Chhota Pura in Azamgarh district in Uttar Pradesh, as many as 40 Hindu families were forced to flee the village after being harassed for their religious identity. The Hindu victims have stated that they have been persistently suffering molestation, assaults, violent death threats, restriction of religious and cultural practices and forced abandonment of Hinduism by the Muslim villagers. As a result, almost 40 Hindu families are being forced to flee the area. They put out posters outside their house reading, 'This house is for sale.' The trigger was a violent incident on June 3 2025, when women and girls from the Hindu community were performing traditional pre-wedding rituals of a Dalit Hindu youth named Rakesh Kannaujia in Bamhaur, a Muslim majority adjoining locality. When the Hindu women involved in the wedding ceremony went to the pond as per tradition, some Muslim youths of the village made obscene comments on them and started making videos. When the Hindus protested, the Muslims launched an attack on the Hindus and physically assaulted them. Several Hindus were seriously injured during the attack. Videos of the incident went viral on social media. All the injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. The victims were identified as Sanjana (17), Angesh (22), Sandeep (27), Ranjana (19), Anita (40), Ritesh (20), and Govinda (25). According to some reports, a total of 20 Hindus were severely injured. The police in this case arrested 10 Muslims. Following this incident, several Hindu families said that they were being subjected to ongoing threats by Muslims, including threats of murder and violence. The Muslims warned the Hindus that they would be "chopped into pieces". They further threatened, "After the BJP goes, we will chop you (Hindus) into pieces". Another Hindu man stated that Muslims threaten Hindus by saying, "Now it's your government; when our government comes, we will start killing and no one will be able to save you". He added that the Hindu community is living in constant fear for their lives and that they travel in groups for safety. He appealed to the state government and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, saying that Hindus can no longer bear the oppression. He also said that Muslims gather in large groups to attack Hindus. Another Hindu individual remarked that, despite numerous complaints, the police did not arrest the main accused. As per a few reports, the Hindu villagers also stated that the Muslims had threatened them to leave their religion and also always took objection to their celebrations of religious and cultural events, leading to an environment where they felt unsafe. Residents stated that, for several months, they have faced abuse for playing devotional songs, using DJs at weddings, or participating in cultural festivities. One of the Hindu villagers said, "Muslims always tell us (Hindus) to conduct Hindu festivities and events according to their wishes. We do not interfere in their religious practices, so why do they keep interfering in ours? They keep attacking and fighting with us. They say we can't chant 'Jai Sri Ram', can't perform pooja, or can't hold religious programmes. They always interfere and try to provoke conflict with us". He also stated, "Muslims record videos of Hindu women, and when the women protest, they tear the clothes of Hindu women". Women and girls faced constant catcalling and intimidation in public spaces. “Our daughters and wives can’t step out without being stared at or followed. Festivals have become stressful instead of joyful. And when we complain, nothing happens,” a local resident was quoted by OpIndia as saying. The authorities’ inaction only intensified the Hindu community’s fears. “We went to the police countless times, pleaded for stricter action and better patrolling — but nothing changed,” said a resident. “Now, we’ve decided to sell our homes. Maybe we’ll find peace somewhere else.” Azamgarh’s Additional Superintendent of Police, Madhuvan Kumar Singh, acknowledged the concerns and stated that the police are reaching out to affected families to assure them of protection. “We are aware that some families are considering migration. Efforts are being made to reassure them and provide sufficient police presence,” he said. Mubarakpur Police Station in-charge Nihan Nandan added that patrol frequency in the area has been increased following the June 3 incident, in an attempt to restore a sense of security. Still, residents remain unconvinced. “Where was this protection when we needed it the most? Why does it take media attention and protests to get the administration to act?” asked another villager, pointing toward the “For Sale” signs on their homes. The police stated that these posters were a political stunt and denied any clear communal angle or religious subjugation of the Hindu villagers.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the primary category- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the first subcategory 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 other subcategory selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save the 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 other subcategory selected is- 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 subcategory selected 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 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. Another primary category selected in this case is- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory 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. Another primary category relevant in this case is- Predatory Proselytisation. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Harassment for conversion leading to exodus. 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 pressure and threats. The pressure, threats or coercion is employed with two aims – the non-Hindu residents of the area want the Hindu residents to either convert their religion to the religion of the dominant residents or 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 harbour 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, harassment 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 of harassment or threats to 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 being 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 harassment, coupled with prevailing circumstances 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 this case, the initial flashpoint in Bamhaur was the harassment of Hindu women during a wedding celebration. Muslim youths began filming Hindu women dancing, which was met with objection by Hindu men seeking to protect the dignity and privacy of their community’s women. This objection was not only reasonable but necessary, given the context of safeguarding women from harassment. Instead of de-escalation, the situation rapidly descended into violence when the Muslim youths retaliated by physically assaulting the Hindu men and women with sticks, leading to serious injuries for several individuals. This response demonstrates a clear pattern of targeting in which the Hindus were attacked specifically because they stood up against the harassment of their women, a scenario that fits the broader pattern of religiously motivated crimes. The attack was not a random act of violence but was triggered by the Hindus’ attempt to protect their community, showcasing that the attack was carried out due to religious hostility and animosity. Another important point to highlight is that the Bamhaur village was Muslim dominated area. It is important to note that the Muslims always took an objection to Hindus performing their religious, cultural or wedding events, since they considered the village as a "Muslim area". This reveals a disturbing sense of Islamic supremacy harboured by the attackers. In this case, the perpetrators viewed the predominantly Muslim-occupied region as an exclusive zone where non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, were unwelcome and not free to practice their faith. 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 and repeated attacks on Hindus were motivated by this supremacist Islamic ideology, where Muslims in the area look down upon Hindus, believing that they had the right to dictate who could practice their festivities, religious events, and weddings and in what manner. The act of attacking and subjugating Hindus for practising their faith showcases a dangerous mindset rooted in exclusion, intolerance and religious animosity, making this case an ideal example for inclusion in a hate tracker. Furthermore, the violence in Bamhaur was not isolated to a single incident but was part of an ongoing pattern where Hindu villagers were repeatedly targeted because of their religious identity. Hindu families reported repeated objections by Muslim villagers to their religious and cultural celebrations, as well as persistent pressure to abandon Hinduism. This hostility was not limited to the wedding incident but permeated daily life, with Hindus facing restrictions on their religious practices and open hostility from the majority Muslim community. Such targeted hostility is a hallmark of hate crimes, which are defined by acts of violence or intimidation motivated by prejudice against a particular group’s identity. In this case, the Hindu identity of the victims was central to the conflict; the attacks, threats, and restrictions were all based on their Hindu identity, fitting the parameters of religiously motivated crimes against Hindus. Another important point to highlight is that multiple Hindu villagers reported being pressured to leave their religion, with threats and coercion aimed at forcing them to abandon Hinduism. This form of religious subjugation is a severe violation of fundamental rights and is a classic indicator of religious hate crime. The targeting of a community with the explicit aim of erasing their religious identity goes beyond mere interpersonal conflict; it is an assault on the very existence of the group as a distinct religious community. Such forced abandonment or conversion is a tactic often used to assert Islamic dominance and erase the Hindu identity of the victims. In this case, the pressure on Hindus to give up their faith was accompanied by violence and threats, making it clear that the intent was not just to intimidate but to fundamentally alter the religious landscape of the village. Furthermore, Hindu families faced violent death threats, including explicit threats of murder. Muslims warned that, once the BJP government goes out of power, they would "chop Hindus into pieces". These threats were not merely rhetorical; they were accompanied by actual acts of violence, as evidenced by assaults during a wedding and the ongoing harassment that followed. The explicit nature of these threats intensified the sense of insecurity and fear within the Hindu community, making it impossible for them to continue living safely in the village. Death threats are a hallmark of hate crimes, serving both as tools of intimidation and as a means to assert dominance over the minority Hindu community. In this instance, such threats directly contributed to the decision of Hindu families to flee, as they faced not only the risk of further violence but also the psychological trauma of living under constant threat. These acts are clear indicators of deep-seated religious animosity towards Hindus. Another significant aspect is that the Muslim men threatened the Hindu villagers, saying they would attack and cut them into pieces once the BJP was no longer in power. Here, it becomes important to highlight that the hatred they harboured for the BJP was not merely political in nature, but it stemmed from a deeper, religious hostility towards Hindus. Islamists often perceive the BJP as a 'Hindu nationalist party', and their animosity towards it is, by extension, rooted in a broader contempt for Hindus and those advocating for Hindu rights and protection. Attacks or threats made against Hindus in the name of opposing the BJP reveal that the real target is the Hindu identity itself, not a political ideology. This mindset turns political opposition into a vehicle for expressing religious hatred, where violence or intimidation against Hindus becomes “justified” in the eyes of radicalised Islamists because of their perceived association with the BJP. Villagers also revealed that Muslims in the area actively prevented them from chanting "Jai Shri Ram", performing poojas, or organising any Hindu religious programmes. Such restrictions go far beyond interpersonal disputes or cultural differences. They represent a deliberate and systematic attempt to suppress Hindu religious expression. This form of control is deeply coercive and indicative of an ideological motive rooted in religious dominance. By obstructing basic acts of worship and public expression of faith, the Muslim perpetrators were not merely showing intolerance but asserting an exclusivist form of Islamic supremacy. The intent behind such actions is to marginalise Hindu identity and intimidate the community into silence or submission. When a group deliberately interferes with another’s freedom to pray, chant sacred mantras, or hold religious events, it signals entrenched animosity towards the targeted faith. This pattern of resistance to Hindu practices, particularly when paired with threats or violence, shows that the perpetrators were motivated by deep-seated religious hostility. It is not just about denying Hindus the right to worship, but about attempting to erase Hindu presence and visibility from the public space altogether. Hindus further recounted that Muslim men frequently harassed Hindu women and, in some instances, tore their clothes when the women protested. This underscores the targeting of Hindu women by Islamic perpetrators, driven by hatred and contempt for Hindus. In several such instances, it is observed that Muslim perpetrators view non-Muslim, especially Hindu, women as sexual objects and encourage and glorify sexual violence against them as a so-called 'noble deed'. Such incidents starkly demonstrate the depth of hatred and disdain that these Muslim perpetrators hold for Hindus and Hindu women. As a result of this continuous persecution, a situation arose where Hindu families decided to flee from Bamhaur. Nearly 40 Hindu families decided to leave the village, putting up posters outside their homes stating, “This house is for sale”. This public display of distress is a powerful indicator of the scale of fear and insecurity experienced by the Hindu community at the hands of the Muslim majority. Such instances of forced migration or exodus as a result of targeted violence are a recognised outcome of hate crimes and communal persecution. When a community is compelled to abandon their homes and livelihoods due to sustained threats and violence, it reflects the immediate impact of the crime. The exodus of Hindus from Bamhaur is thus a direct result of the hate-driven environment created by the majority Muslim community. The Muslims systematically persecuted, assaulted, and forced Hindus to flee their own homes solely on account of their religious identity. Such actions constitute a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus. Another important point to address is that the police in all of this refused to admit the persecution of Hindus due to their faith. Instead, they called it a political stunt. 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 times, 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, even 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, news outlets like OpIndia spoke to several people who were on the ground with the family of Rinku Sharma and were told that the communal tension in the area is palpable. The family of Rinku Sharma 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. Applying the same reasoning, the testimonies of several local Hindu residents demonstrate that Hindus were systematically targeted for playing DJ music at weddings, for practising their faith, for opposing Muslims who made objectionable videos and comments about Hindu women, and were pressured to abandon their faith. They were attacked specifically because of their religious identity and ultimately forced to flee the village due to ongoing persecution and violent threats by the majority Muslim community. These circumstances provide compelling evidence that the crime was a clear, religiously motivated attack on Hindus, fully justifying its inclusion in the hate crime database. Disclaimer: In this case, it is mentioned that members of 40 Hindu families were forced to flee the area due to the harassment by Muslim neighbours. However, the exact number of individuals is not specified. Due to this lack of clarity, we have relied on the most recent Indian census data, which indicates that the average family size in India is approximately 4.8 members per household. To ensure a standardised estimation, we have opted to consider an average of 5 members per family. Based on this approach, the estimated total number of victims in this case is calculated as 200 individuals.