Hindu activist brutally attacked by Muslim men for opposing illegal conversion activities and participating in Saraswati Puja event

Case ID : d32729f | Location : Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 21 January, 2026

Case ID : d32729f

Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, India

21 January, 2026

Hindu activist brutally attacked by Muslim men for opposing illegal conversion activities and participating in Saraswati Puja event

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community

Attacked for Hindu identity

Case Summary

Sohel Thakur, a Bajrang Dal member and full-time Vishwa Hindu Parishad worker, was attacked by a group of 10 to 15 Muslim men near a hotel close to a Sangh office on Thursday evening, 22 January, in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. The attackers targeted him for his earlier involvement in opposing illegal conversion of Hindu women and girls, also known as Love Jihad or Grooming Jihad, and for his active participation in a Vasant Panchami Saraswati Puja programme held in his area on Wednesday, 21 January 2026. The incident occurred when Thakur went to the Malipura area for work. According to the report, men from Madargarh and Qazi Mohalla stopped him and began arguing with him. The confrontation escalated, after which the group attacked him with rods and other weapons. Thakur suffered a severe head injury and was taken to Ujjain District Hospital in critical condition, where he was undergoing treatment at the time this case was documented. Speaking to news agency ANI, Thakur said he had been on the radar of these youths because he had previously stood up against Love Jihad incidents in the locality. He added that his participation in the Saraswati Puja event a day earlier also became one of the reasons he was attacked. He said he was sitting at a hotel near the Sangh office when 10 to 15 armed youths approached and struck him on the head with a rod. Thakur said, “I was sitting outside the Sangh office at a hotel when 10 to 15 boys approached me. They directly hit me on the forehead with a rod, causing me to become dizzy and faint. My brothers ran over, and seeing them, they fled. They targeted me because I was previously involved in cases related to love jihad and because of the Vasant Panchami programme the day before. Their plan to kill me had been in motion for some time, making me their specific target. These individuals are involved in illegal activities, including selling marijuana, MDMA, and cow smuggling.” After news of the attack spread, members of the Hindu community gathered outside the police station to protest and demand the arrest of the accused. The situation escalated, with calls for a citywide shutdown and reports of vandalism involving buses and other vehicles. Police deployed a large force across the area to control the situation and prevent further unrest. The FIR names some accused, Sappan Mirza, Ehsan Mirza, Shadab, Salman and Rizwan.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This incident has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the first subcategory selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save 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 second subcategory selected is- Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community. In several cases, Hindus are attacked specifically or tangentially for their association with parties or organisations perceived to be pro-Hindu and/or for working in favour of the Hindu community. One of the classic cases was the attack against a Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha (BJYM) worker Praveen Nettaru. Nettaru was attacked and hacked to death for his association with Hindu organizations and his work for the Hindu community. He was murdered by PFI, a terror organization which aimed to commit a genocide of Hindus, target Hindu leaders specifically and turn India into an Islamic Nation. In such cases, it is possible that the immediate trigger for the violence is non-religious – either according to the perpetrator or the police. However, there are surrounding circumstances from which the conclusion can be reached that the victim was attacked for his association with a Hindu organization. In a similar case, Rinku Sharma was attacked by radicals. He was a member of Bajrang Dal and regularly worked for the Hindu community. While the police cited a different non-religious trigger for the attack, it is true that he was associated to a Hindu organization and the family of Rinku Sharma specifically attributed his gruesome murder to him working for Bajrang Dal and raising Jai Shree Ram slogans. Such cases are intrinsically driven by religious hate and would therefore be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other relevant subcategory selected is- Attack 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. This incident is recorded as a hate crime because the victim was targeted as a Hindu community activist whose work included opposing conversion-linked coercion and intervening in cases where Hindu families vulnerable individuals were being pressured or deceived into changing faith. Attacking a person for resisting such activities is not an ordinary personal dispute. It is violence directed at the Hindu community's self-defence, aimed at weakening the capacity of Hindus to protect their religious autonomy and continuity. A central religious marker is the victim’s public association with Hindu organisations, as described in the report. A VHP and Bajrang Dal worker is not attacked in a vacuum. Such workers are recognised in their localities as people who mobilise Hindus around religious events, support Hindu families during communal disputes, and raise objections when they believe conversions are being pursued through pressure tactics. When a person is assaulted because he is known for standing up in these matters, the targeting is faith-linked, because the reason for selection is his Hindu identity-based activism. The assault was also connected to his active participation in a Vasant Panchami or Saraswati Puja programme. Retaliation tied to participation in a Hindu religious event reflects hostility toward Hindu public religious life. The timing, coming immediately after the programme, signals an intimidation message: visible Hindu celebration and community organisation will invite violent reprisal. This transforms the attack from an individual injury into a warning to the broader Hindu community to withdraw from public religious assertion. The hate crime character is further reinforced by the method and scale of the violence. A coordinated group attack by 10 to 15 men, using a rod to strike the victim on the head and leaving him in critical condition, reflects purposeful and disproportionate harm. Such assaults are designed to incapacitate and terrorise, not merely to settle an argument. In communal contexts, targeting a known activist with severe violence functions as a deterrent, discouraging others from intervening in conversion-related disputes or from organising Hindu religious activity. Targeting someone for opposing conversion attempts also has a coercive effect on vulnerable Hindus. If activists and community defenders are beaten into silence, families facing pressure are left isolated, and the threshold for coercion rises. The attack, therefore, operates as an enabling act: it seeks to remove resistance and create a fear environment where challenging conversion activity becomes dangerous. For these reasons, the case is documented as a hate crime targeting a Hindu activist, where the motive markers include retaliation against opposition to conversion-linked activities, intimidation of Hindu community mobilisation, and violence aimed at suppressing Hindu religious expression and resistance through fear.