Hindus forcibly converted to Christianity by use of inducements and false promises of curing illnesses

Case ID : d32719a | Location : Kanker, Chhattisgarh, India | Date of Incident : Sat, 17 January, 2026

Case ID : d32719a

Kanker, Chhattisgarh, India

17 January, 2026

Hindus forcibly converted to Christianity by use of inducements and false promises of curing illnesses

Predatory Proselytisation

Conversion/ attempts to convert by inducement

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Pattern of targeting Hindus

Victim says was brainwashed/groomed

Case Summary

In the Peedhapal area of Chhattisgarh's Kanker district, over 200 Hindus were forcibly converted to Christianity through inducements and false promises of curing diseases. This incident came to light on Sunday (18 January 2026), when the victims from various villages left Christianity and returned en masse to their original faith, Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism), in a Gharwapsi event. 'Gharwpasi' is a ceremony through which Hindus who had converted to other faiths can return to their original faith. The event took place in a completely peaceful atmosphere, with community consent and traditional customs. Those who returned home said they were initially lured into converting by promises of curing their illnesses and other inducements, but now, after introspection, they embraced their original religion. The Gharwapsi ceremony was held at the temple complex in Peedhapal village. People were formally initiated into Hinduism through worship, sprinkling of Ganga water, and traditional rituals. Village-level public representatives, senior members of the community, and members of various social organisations were present at the event. The administration also monitored the entire incident, and law and order remained completely normal. Ishwar Kanvade, a member of the Sarva Adivasi Samaj, a tribal organisation, said that the event took place in Peedhapal village in the presence of community leaders, Gayatas, Patels, and members of the community from 25 villages. He said that more than 200 people from 50 families voluntarily returned to their original religion. According to Kanvade, three or four families in the area remained and might also return to Hinduism soon.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected in this case is- Predatory Proselytisation. The subcategory selected is- Conversion/ attempts to convert by inducements. 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. The other subcategory selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary categories selected are- 'Pattern of targeting Hindus' and 'Victim says was brainwashed/groomed'. 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 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. This case unequivocally represented a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus due to the coercive tactics employed by the Christian perpetrators to forcibly convert over 200 Hindu individuals from 50 families. These perpetrators utilised inducements, offering material rewards alongside false promises of curing illnesses, to compel Hindus into abandoning their faith and converting to Christianity. This use of inducements was neither an act of kindness nor goodwill; instead, it was a calculated exploitation of the victims' vulnerabilities, deliberately designed to break their resistance and enforce conversion through psychological manipulation tantamount to brainwashing. Such exploitation and coercion constituted direct, hostile attacks aimed at stripping Hindu victims of their religious identity, categorising this incident as a flagrant and egregious example of anti-Hindu hate crime. Furthermore, the perpetrators engaged in psychological manipulation by promising a cure for diseases, an act equivalent to brainwashing. Exploiting personal vulnerabilities through manipulative tactics undermined an individual’s religious autonomy and free will, making it a profound violation and thus a clear instance of a religiously motivated offence. This systematic manipulation demonstrated a blatant disregard for the victims’ rights to choose and practise their faith freely, cementing this crime’s character as motivated by religious hatred. This calculated campaign targeted over 200 Hindus. The scale and organisation of the conversions demonstrated that these were not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate and premeditated strategy to erode the Hindu faith and shift the religious demographics within the region. This targeted approach starkly revealed religious animosity and malice directed specifically at Hindus, unequivocally underscoring the hate-based nature of this crime. Moreover, the profound alienation, vulnerability, and spiritual void experienced by the Hindu victims following their forced conversion illustrated the severe emotional and psychological damage inflicted. The victims’ eventual return to Hinduism through the Gharwapsi ceremony illuminated the distress caused by coercive conversions, reaffirming the intrinsic harm such acts caused to individuals' religious rights and identities. Their collective decision to revert encapsulated the personal and religious trauma that such forced conversions inflicted, exemplifying a deeply rooted religious hate crime. Ultimately, such predatory proselytisation practices originate from doctrinal hostility towards Hinduism. Abrahamic faiths foster disdain for non-adherents until they convert, forming the ideological basis of these anti-Hindu actions. This case stood as a clear example of doctrinal enmity directed at Hinduism. Given these factors, the incident was duly documented in the Hinduphobia Tracker’s Hate Crime Database. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the date of an incident based on when the crime or victim’s ordeal actually occurred, rather than when it is reported by the media. The intent is to reflect the real timeline of the offence as experienced by the victims, not delayed documentation by external sources. However, in this particular case, media reports do not specify any exact date or indicate when the victims’ ordeal began. Therefore, for the purpose of documentation, the date of the Gharwapsi event, 18 January 2026, has been considered as the indicative incident date.