Hindu minors faced religious conversion attempts by isolation and inducements by Christian man in Dharampur village, Chhattisgarh
Raj-Nandgaon, Chhattisgarh, India 
10 January, 2024
Case Summary
Hindu minors faced religious conversion by a Christian man, David Chako, in Dharampur village, Chhattisgarh. Minors from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities were brought to a private residential premise and kept under supervision. The property, originally intended for residential construction by Chako, had been converted into an improvised church. Between ten and twelve minors were separated from their families and cultural environment. A written complaint was submitted by resident Sushil Laddha to the Sukuldaihan Police Outpost. The complaint stated that the building had been operating for about two years and that children were being involved in religious activities at the premises without any legal permission. The complaint also highlighted that the children were being offered inducements and guided to participate in religious practices in a way that separated them from their families and cultural background. Police registered a formal case against David Chako under the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, Sections 3, 4, and 5, which regulate conversion by force, fraud, allurement, or undue influence. Hindu residents and members of local organisations, including Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, went to the premises to protest. They raised slogans and submitted a memorandum to the police demanding action. Hindu Jagran Manch also submitted a separate request to the Superintendent of Police. Police visited the house to manage the situation and started a formal investigation. Child welfare officers verified the documents of the minors. Police checked the circumstances of the children as part of the inquiry. Families demanded accountability and urged the Chhattisgarh government to act decisively. The government indicated plans to introduce a tough anti-conversion law, especially in tribal-populated areas.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been documented under the selected primary category: Predatory proselytisation. Under this, the selected secondary category is: Procelyisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation, and subtle indoctrination. Under this, the selected tertiary category is: Family claims grooming. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting, regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement, and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to the existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. Another selected secondary category is: Conversion/attempts to convert by inducement. Predatory Proselytisation is not just limited to threat, harassment, force and violence, but it also has contours of stealth. In several cases, the Hindu victim is exploited to convert, with non-Hindus taking advantage of their poverty. In such cases, the Hindu victim who is suffering financially is offered monetary benefits, including lucrative offers for jobs, health treatment, education, etc, to induce the victim into changing his/her religion. In such cases, the religious identity of the victim and the aim to disenfranchise him from his faith form the heart of the crime. Also, taking advantage of and exploiting an individual’s economic vulnerabilities is widely acknowledged as exploitation, forms of which are often penalised by law. Such cases therefore are considered religiously motivated hate crimes since the victim’s religious identity forms the very heart of the crime itself. It has multiple religious markers indicating targeted interference with Hindu minors’ religious identity, using vulnerability, separation, and inducements to steer them toward Christianity. Minors as the target group: The primary marker is that the victims are children. Any organised religious activity that removes minors from their normal protective environment and places them under supervision for faith-related instruction carries inherent coercive potential because children cannot give informed consent and are easily influenced by authority figures. It is important to note here that the victims were minors, which means the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They may not have the ability to fully understand the implications of converting to another religion, and the Christian perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victim. Since this case exemplifies the use of coercion and manipulation to achieve religious conversion, it is a blatant act of religious hate. Separation from families and cultural environment: The reported separation of minors from their families and broader cultural setting is a strong marker of coercive conversion dynamics. Isolation weakens parental oversight and makes it easier to reshape identity, beliefs, and routines, especially when the children belong to communities with limited social power. Improvised church operating from a private residential premise: Converting a residential property into an improvised church and running religious activity from it is a marker of organised proselytisation rather than private worship. When such a space is used specifically to gather and supervise minors, it signals a structured attempt to religiously condition children outside normal community scrutiny. Inducements and allurement: Offering inducements to minors is a clear marker of undue influence. When material benefits are used to attract children into religious participation, the choice is no longer free, especially for economically vulnerable families. This also exploits deprivation and turns poverty into a lever for religious change. Targeting vulnerable communities within Hindu society: The minors are described as belonging to the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe communities. In many contexts, these groups are socioeconomically vulnerable and face limited access to resources. Targeting them for religious conversion through inducements and supervised settings reflects predatory proselytisation that treats vulnerability as an entry point. Religious activity without lawful permissions and sustained operation: The complaint notes that the arrangement functioned for about two years and involved minors in religious practices without legal permission. Sustained, organised activity involving children strengthens the inference of a deliberate programme designed to detach minors from their inherited faith and social ties. Taken together, the supervision of Hindu minors in an improvised church setting, separation from families, and inducements aimed at participation in Christian practices indicate an organised effort to reshape the religious identity of vulnerable Hindu children. These markers support hate crime classification because the conduct targets a protected group’s religious continuity, exploits vulnerability, and interferes with the right of Hindu families and communities to raise children in their faith without coercion or undue influence. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on the date on which the crime occurred, rather than the date of media reporting. In this case, media reports did not specify the exact date on which the victim’s ordeal began and only indicated that it had commenced two years earlier; therefore, we have taken 2024 as the incident year. For documentation purposes, and in the absence of a specific date, we have used 11 January, the reporting date, as the reference day. Accordingly, 11 January 2024, has been selected as the indicative incident date. Media reports also did not confirm the exact number of children involved, stating that the figure ranged between 10 and 12. For consistency and record-keeping purposes, the number has been documented as 12 children (victims).
Victim Details
Total Victim
12
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 12
Caste
- SC/ST 12
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 12
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
