Hindus targeted by Muslim mob for protesting temple encroachment: Hindu temple vandalised, homes and shops attacked after false 'Jai Shri Ram' claim
South 24 Parganas district, West Bengal, India 
9 June, 2025
Case Summary
In Maheshtala, West Bengal, a violent communal clash erupted after local Hindus opposed illegal encroachment on the Shiva temple land by a Muslim vendor. When Hindus installed a Tulsi Manch on the reclaimed site, a false allegation was made that they had forced a Muslim to chant “Jai Shri Ram,” sparking a large-scale mob attack. A Muslim crowd of over 2,000, mobilised with prior planning, selectively targeted Hindus—vandalising the temple, looting Hindu-owned shops, injuring devotees, and attacking the police. While Muslim shops were left untouched, sacred Hindu spaces and symbols were desecrated, and multiple residents confirmed that the violence was one-sided and orchestrated to intimidate the Hindu community. According to reports, the immediate cause of the conflict was the gradual illegal filling of a pond located inside the local Shiva temple premises. Despite complaints from Hindus to the authorities, no official action was taken. Matters escalated when some Muslims began attempting to erect fruit stalls on the reclaimed land, which the Hindu residents opposed. Locals report that one individual, Junaid, initially sold fruits by the roadside but later expanded his setup with a large cart, occupying most of the road. When Hindus objected to this obstruction, especially near the temple entrance, tensions rose. While Junaid had gone home to celebrate Eid, local residents placed a Tulsi plant and constructed a small platform (Tulsi Manch) at the illegal occupation by Junaid. Upon returning, Junaid falsely accused the Hindu community of forcing him to chant “Jai Shri Ram”. Dainik Bhaskar reported testimonies of the Hindu victims. As per Avijit Das, a resident, several requests had been made to Junaid to remove his cart from in front of the temple, but he ignored them. Another local, Vijendra Goswami, stated that this issue could have been resolved through dialogue, but instead, violence was chosen. On Wednesday, June 11, when Muslim shopkeepers—who generally observe Wednesday as a holiday—gathered in support of Junaid, the crowd rapidly swelled from 100–200 to over 2,000 people. What followed was a violent attack by the mob. In the violent attack, the Muslim mob vandalised the Shiva temple by pelting it with stones and bricks, looted only Hindu-owned shops in the local market, and deliberately spared Muslim establishments. They stole sacks of food items like potatoes, rice, and spices, attacked police officers, injuring many, including the station in-charge and a female constable. They set fire to a two-wheeler belonging to a police officer and damaged several police vehicles. A resident named Bholaa Singh, who has lived in Rabindra Nagar for over 20 years, confirmed that his shop beside the temple was looted. He said that Junaid’s wife, Rani, incited the mob by falsely claiming that Hindus were forcing religious slogans upon them. Singh described the incident as well-planned, noting that Wednesday was deliberately chosen for the attack, knowing that Muslim shops would be closed and their participation unhindered. Another victim, Arbindo Balo, reported suffering a serious head injury from stone-pelting. He pointed out that the mob, mostly composed of Muslims from nearby localities, attacked the temple and particularly opposed the construction of the Tulsi Manch in front of the temple. Police personnel at the scene were vastly outnumbered. Barely 30 officers were present when thousands arrived, and many officers had to retreat to save their own lives. Tear gas was fired, and reinforcements, including the Rapid Action Force (RAF), were brought in from Kolkata. Despite these efforts, stone-pelting and attacks continued sporadically, even targeting police reinforcements. BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari condemned the incident and said that both the Muslim mob and the local police were attempting to force Hindus to shut down their temple. He shared visuals of the vandalised temple and the protesting crowd, and reported that the police station was within clear view yet did not act decisively. His statement noted that sacred Hindu symbols such as the Tulsi Manch and temple idols were deliberately targeted. By the night of June 11–12, at least 40 persons had been arrested by the Kolkata Police and West Bengal Police in connection with the violence. The situation remained tense but was gradually brought under control with a heavy police presence.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within this, the subcategory 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 other subcategory 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. The other subcategory selected is- Desecration of Hindu religious symbols. Icons and symbols or a religious representation of a spiritual ideal are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations, is driven by animosity towards the faith itself which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. Another primary category relevant in this case is- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the 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- 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 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 primary category selected is - Restriction/Ban on Hindu Practices. The sub-category selected is - Restriction on expression of Hindu identity. An example of the state-affected prejudicial and targeted orders against the Hindu community would be a government denying the right of a Hindu or a group of Hindus to hold a religious procession owing to the animosity of non-Hindu groups. Denial of the religious right of the Hindus to assuage the non-Hindu group which harbours animosity to a point where it could lead to violence against Hindus is not only a failure of law and order but is a prejudicial order against Hindus, denying them their fundamental rights to express their religious identity. An example of a hate crime against Hindus by a non-Hindu would be a non-Hindu institution forcing its Hindu employees to abandon religious symbols that a Hindu would wear as an expression of faith owing to inherent prejudice against the faith professed by the victim or a non-Hindu group of people restricting a Hindu group from constructing a place of worship simply because the demography of the area in which the temple is being built is dominated by non-Hindus. Such actions are driven by religious animosity and/or prejudice against Hindus and their faith and would therefore be categorized as a hate crime. In this case, there are several indicators which clearly showcase the religious motivations behind this attack. Firstly, the genesis of this violent attack against Hindus by Muslim mobs in Maheshtala lies in the systematic and illegal encroachment of temple land. Local Hindus observed that the pond within the premises of the Shiva temple was gradually being filled with soil, a clear attempt to usurp the land for non-religious purposes. Despite filing complaints with the authorities, no preventive action was taken, allowing the encroachment to continue unchecked. This disregard for the sanctity of temple property and the religious sentiments of the Hindu community is not merely a land dispute; it is a direct affront to their faith and an attempt to undermine their religious presence in the area. The encroachment was further aggravated when attempts were made to set up fruit shops on the temple’s encroached land, signalling a premeditated effort to erase the temple’s religious significance and assert Islamic dominance over a sacred Hindu space. Hindu temples and their surrounding areas are considered sacred spaces. Any attempt to encroach upon this land is perceived as an attack on the sanctity of the temple and an effort to seize control of it through illegal means. Such actions are seen not only as a violation of property rights but also as a direct affront to the religious sentiments and cultural heritage of the Hindu community. Furthermore, when the Hindu community opposed the illegal encroachment and tried to protect their temple land, they became targets of violence at the hands of Muslims. The opposition by Hindus to the setting up of shops on temple property was met with aggression from the Muslims, leading to a communal clash that quickly escalated. Hindus who stood up for their rights and religious heritage were selectively attacked, with their homes and shops coming under direct assault from the Muslim mob. This targeted violence against individuals based solely on their religious identity and their defence of a sacred site exemplifies the nature of hate crime, where the victims were attacked because of their faith and their efforts to safeguard their religious and cultural heritage. Additionally, the violence did not end there, as the Muslim mob extended their attack to the very heart of the local Hindu community—the Shiva temple itself. The mob vandalised the temple by hurling stones and bricks, causing significant damage to the structure and desecrating this sacred place of worship. The temple, a symbol of spiritual and cultural identity for local Hindus, was targeted with the clear intention of instilling fear and humiliation within the community. The destruction of religious property amidst communal tensions is a hallmark of hate crime, as it attacks not only physical structures but also the religious beliefs and practices central to the Hindu community. Temples are revered spaces where Hindus believe their deities reside, and they are held in the highest regard. In this case, the act of violence against a Hindu temple is a clear indication that the Muslim perpetrators had no respect for Hindus or their sacred places. Such actions are rooted in religious animosity towards the Hindu community, making this a case of religiously motivated crime against Hindus. The opposition to the construction of the Tulsi Manch by the Muslim community in Maheshtala, despite it being a central and benign symbol of Hindu worship, reflects a deliberate act of religious intolerance and hostility. The Tulsi plant holds deep spiritual significance in Hindu tradition, and its installation outside a temple is a common and peaceful expression of faith. The targeted resistance to this act—purely because it represented a visible assertion of Hindu identity—demonstrates prejudice against the Hindu community and its religious practices. When such opposition escalates into efforts to prevent or dismantle these symbols due to religious animosity, it constitutes a hate crime. This is because it involves the deliberate targeting of a group based on their religious identity, with the intent to suppress their right to publicly practise and express their faith. The claim that local Hindus forced a Muslim vendor to chant “Jai Shri Ram” was a false and inflammatory accusation, used to justify and incite targeted violence against the Hindu community in Maheshtala. Multiple eyewitnesses, including local residents, categorically denied the allegation, reporting that no such coercion took place. Instead, the claim was deliberately fabricated to portray Hindus as aggressors and to mobilise a larger crowd under the pretext of religious victimhood. This kind of misinformation, aimed at vilifying an entire community for peacefully asserting its religious identity, not only distorts the truth but also fuels communal hatred, leading to violence. Another important point to note is that the violence was marked by the deliberate and systematic targeting of Hindu-owned homes and shops. The Muslim mob did not attack indiscriminately; rather, they focused their aggression on properties belonging to Hindus and attacked them because of their religious identity. This showcases that the Hindus were particularly singled out and attacked for their Hindu identity. This pattern of selective targeting is a defining characteristic of religiously motivated crimes, where the intent is to intimidate, dispossess, and marginalise a particular community, in this case, the Hindus. The attacks left many Hindu families traumatised, their livelihoods destroyed, and their sense of security shattered. This is an outcome of hate-driven violence against Hindus. In addition to the physical destruction, the Muslim mob specifically targeted Hindu religious symbols such as the Tulsi Manch and the temple itself. The Tulsi Manch, a sacred altar in Hindu tradition, was desecrated, further deepening the sense of violation and loss within the Hindu community. Hindu religious symbols are regarded as deeply sacred by Hindus. Acts of desecration against these symbols are considered highly offensive and are clear demonstrations of hatred towards the Hindu community. Such actions not only insult religious sentiments but also serve as direct expressions of animosity against the Hindu faith. By attacking these symbols, the Muslim perpetrators sought not only to damage property but to erode the spiritual foundation and collective identity of the Hindu residents. Such acts of desecration are designed to send a message of Islamic dominance and intolerance, making it clear that the Hindu community’s faith and traditions are under siege. Another crucial point to highlight is that the Muslims demanded that the Hindus shut down their temple. Amidst the selective targeting and attacks on Hindus and their temple, this demand clearly reflects the religious hostility towards any Hindu religious symbols. Such actions are not isolated instances but are clear signs of religious intolerance and hatred exhibited by the Muslim mob against the Hindus in the area. Demanding the closure of a Hindu temple is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and instil fear among the local Hindu community. It is also a way to assert Islamic supremacy by denying Hindus their right to worship openly, thereby attempting to dominate the religious landscape and marginalise the Hindu presence. These instances are clear manifestations of religious animosity expressed by the Muslim mobs towards Hindus in the area. The local Hindus also stated that, along with the Muslims, the police authorities demanded the closure of the temple. The police further demonstrated inaction in stopping the Muslim mobs who were targeting Hindus and their temple. This highlights a repeated pattern under Mamata Banerjee’s government and the West Bengal police, where appeasement of the Muslim community is prioritised, even at the expense of Hindu lives. Such appeasement and inaction by the West Bengal government in addressing Muslim extremism is not new. Over the past several years, West Bengal has witnessed a disturbing pattern in which incidents of targeted violence, vandalism, and intimidation against Hindus by Muslims have been either whitewashed or indirectly supported by the West Bengal police and the Mamata Banerjee government. The state government and authorities have consistently shielded Islamist elements to secure their vote bank, while suppressing the rights of Hindus. A glaring example of this systemic whitewashing is evident in the handling of the Murshidabad violence, as well as multiple other incidents in Basirhat, Malda, Midnapore, and Uttar Dinajpur. For instance, in the Basirhat case (March 2025), a Kali temple was vandalised and the idol desecrated, the police quickly dismissed the communal nature of the attack and labelled the perpetrator as “mentally unstable” without any serious investigation or due process. This familiar pattern is used to neutralise public outrage and deflect attention from religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, while shielding the Muslim perpetrator from accountability for the deliberate desecration of a Hindu temple. In the aftermath of widespread anti-Hindu violence in Murshidabad and Malda (April 2025), which included incidents of targeted attacks on Hindus, arson, looting, and idol desecration, the West Bengal Police attempted to present the violence as “minor clashes” or “local disputes” unrelated to religion. Reports indicated that despite credible accounts of Hindu homes and temples being attacked, the police either failed to act in time or took a biased stance that allowed the violence to escalate. In many cases, police statements contradicted eyewitness reports and video evidence shared on social media. This is another instance where the West Bengal police sought to shield Muslim perpetrators who launched targeted attacks on Hindus, driven by religious animosity. The bias of the state extends beyond inaction. There are increasing instances where the West Bengal government actively suppresses Hindu religious expression. Hindus have been arrested simply for chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, a phrase vilified by sections of the administration and the ruling party. Permission for Hindu processions—especially during festivals like Ram Navami or Hanuman Jayanti—is routinely denied on the grounds of "law and order concerns", while Muslim religious gatherings face no such obstacles. Similarly, over the years, the Mamata Banerjee-led government has issued numerous prejudicial directives, such as restricting Durga Puja immersions to accommodate Muharram processions, and has failed to act on anti-Hindu mob violence in areas like Dhulian, Islampur, and Kaliachak. Public endorsements and appeasement of radical clerics and Islamist leaders are common, while concerns raised by Hindu groups are dismissed as “communal provocation”. The systematic suppression of Hindu voices, denial of communal violence, and criminalisation of Hindu identity expressions such as “Jai Shri Ram” reflect not only administrative failure but also a deeper ideological hostility towards the Hindu community. Even during the Malda (Ratua) incident, the West Bengal police attempted to defend the Muslim extremists by labelling the violence as a 'minor dispute' over the parking of a toto (e-rickshaw). Such justifications fail to account for the escalation and the clearly targeted nature of the violence that followed. Even if, for argument’s sake, the initial provocation was non-religious, the aftermath was unmistakably communal, with Hindu temples vandalised, Hindu-owned shops looted, houses attacked, and even cows stolen from Hindu cowsheds. Another instance is the post-poll violence in 2021, when Muslim and TMC-affiliated goons launched selective violent attacks on Hindus, including brutal killings, desecration of Hindu homes and shops, and the rape of Hindu women. The West Bengal government and police have consistently defended Muslim extremists and TMC goons when they commit atrocities against the Hindu community. This demonstrates that the entire state administration harbours hostility and tolerates the violence and subjugation of Hindus, making this a clear instance of religiously motivated hate crime. In summary, the sequence of events in Maheshtala, beginning from the illegal encroachment of temple land, the opposition to the construction of the Tulsi Manch, violent attack against Hindus for opposing it, vandalism of the Hindu temple, selective targeting of Hindu homes and shops, desecration of sacred symbols, and the inaction of the West Bengal police all of this constitutes a clear case of hate crime against Hindus. Each stage of the violence perpetrated by the Muslim mob was motivated by religious hostility towards the Hindu community and aimed at undermining their religious, cultural, and social existence in the area. The incident is not just a communal clash; it is a premeditated assault on the rights, dignity, and identity of the Hindu community. Since this case meets several parameters of a religiously motivated crime against Hindus, therefore, it is being added to the hate crime database.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
