Hindu man brutally assaulted, and his tilak wiped off by Muslim man near a dargah in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh

Case ID : d327597 | Location : Bara Banki, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 4 February, 2026

Case ID : d327597

Bara Banki, Uttar Pradesh, India

4 February, 2026

Hindu man brutally assaulted, and his tilak wiped off by Muslim man near a dargah in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked for crossing 'Muslim area'

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Desecration of Hindu religious symbol

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

In the Deva town of Barabanki district, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu man named Harish Sharma was brutally assaulted, and his tilak, a sacred Hindu religious mark worn on the forehead, was wiped off by a Muslim man. The attack occurred near a dargah as the victim accompanied his Muslim woman neighbour on her visit there. According to reports, the victim, Harish Sharma, a resident of Dasharabad, visited the Deva Sharif Dargah on 5 February 2026, with his Muslim neighbour, Ayesha Bano, to offer a chadar. While the Muslim woman entered the dargah, Harish Sharma remained outside. During this time, one of the Muslim shopkeepers stopped him, calling him “Oye Pandit,” and began slapping him. He grabbed the victim by the neck and brutally assaulted him. Harish was forcibly dragged to a roadside shop, where water was poured over his head, and the tilak on his forehead was deliberately washed off, while he was physically restrained and subjected to further assault. A video of this entire incident went viral on social media, causing outrage. Ayesha Bano, who witnessed the incident, confirmed that the assault occurred in front of her and that the tilak was forcibly removed. Harish Sharma later stated that he was treated with extreme hostility, physically abused, and demeaned, following which he submitted a written complaint at Deva police station. The police arrested the Muslim accused and registered a case based on the victim’s complaint. The manager of the Deva Sharif Dargah Committee publicly condemned the incident and called for strict punishment of those responsible, while senior police officials stated that all facts were examined and legal action was initiated to ensure accountability.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category 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 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. Another primary category selected here is - Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within it, the sub-category selected here 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. The other primary category selected here is - Hate speech against Hindu. Within it, the sub-category selected - Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case was added to the tracker as it constituted a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime in which a Hindu man was targeted, abused, and publicly humiliated because of his religious identity. Even his tilak was forcefully wiped off by the perpetrator. The incident did not arise from any personal dispute, misconduct, or provocation by the victim. Instead, the violence was directed at him solely due to his Hindu religious identity, while he was near a dargah, an Islamic shrine. The attack was triggered specifically by the victim wearing a tilak, a sacred Hindu symbol. The Muslim shopkeeper had objections to the presence of a Hindu religious marker in that space and brutally assaulted him because of that. This indicated that the violence was ideologically motivated, rooted in religious animosity, with the victim being punished for the outward expression of his Hindu identity. The targeting of the tilak made it clear that the assault was rooted in religious bias rather than any interpersonal conflict. The tilak is not merely a decorative mark; it holds profound spiritual and cultural significance for Hindus. It represents religious identity, devotion, and affirmation of faith, often worn during prayers, rituals, and as a daily symbol of belief. By forcibly removing it, the attacker sought not only to physically harm the victim but also to symbolically erase and disrespect his religious identity. Such an act goes beyond physical assault and enters the realm of religious desecration and coercion, as it attempts to deny the victim the right to express his faith freely and without fear. This act of desecration of a sacred Hindu symbol showcases the hatred that the perpetrator held for Hindus and their faith, making it a hate crime rooted in religious hostility. It is also important to note that the attack occurred near a dargah. Muslims consider areas near mosques or dargahs as 'Muslim areas,' meaning zones exclusive to Muslims. This particularly meant that Hindus were unwelcome. This sense of entitlement and superiority not only reflected deep-seated prejudice but also highlighted an attempt to assert religious dominance over public spaces. The assault on the Hindu man was motivated by this supremacist ideology, where Muslims in the area looked down upon Hindus, believing they had the right to dictate who could move freely through their area. This illustrated a dangerous mindset rooted in exclusion, intolerance, and religious animosity, making this case an ideal example of a religiously motivated crime. Furthermore, the use of the phrase “Oye Pandit” in this context functioned as an anti-Hindu slur rather than a neutral form of address. It was employed in a mocking and aggressive manner to single out the victim’s religious identity and to demean him publicly. In this setting, the term was used to reduce the victim to a stereotype and to justify the subsequent violence against him. The deliberate verbal targeting, followed by physical assault and forced removal of the tilak, reflected a pattern of religious hostility and ridicule aimed at humiliating the victim for being Hindu, thereby reinforcing the hate-based nature of the crime. Thus, by forcibly removing the tilak, along with mocking the victim's faith identity, the accused committed a symbolic attack on the religious identity of the victim, demonstrating hostility toward Hindu practices and culture. This deliberate act of humiliation made the assault a direct attack on Hindu identity. Therefore, this case has been added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.