Hindu temple located near a mosque attacked, aarti disrupted, and devotees stone-pelted by Muslims in Jabalpur
Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India 
18 February, 2026
Case Summary
In the Sihora town of Jabalpur district, Madhya Pradesh, a Hindu temple located near a mosque was vandalised by a Muslim youth, while an evening aarti was going on. The Muslim youth was apprehended by the Hindu devotees, leading to communal tensions in the area. This further resulted in stone-pelting on the temple and devotees by a group of several Muslim men. The incident occurred on the night of 19 February 2026, around 9:00–9:30 pm, when the evening aarti was going on at the Durga temple. Simultaneously, namaz was being offered at a mosque situated directly opposite the Hindu temple. During this time, a Muslim youth approached the temple premises and damaged the iron grill inside its premises, leading to a confrontation with Hindu devotees. Hindu devotees intervened, and the Muslim youth was apprehended. However, the situation quickly escalated into physical violence as a Muslim group confronted the Hindu devotees. Several Muslim men arrived and began entering the temple complex. Soon, fighting broke out between the two sides, with the Muslim side resorting to stone pelting at the Hindu devotees. The clash continued for approximately ten minutes, creating panic and unrest in the surrounding locality, which had already been considered sensitive due to the close proximity of the temple and mosque. Police personnel from Sihora police station immediately reached the scene, and reinforcements were dispatched from Khitauli, Gosalpur and Jabalpur to prevent further escalation. As the crowd swelled and violence intensified, security forces used force to disperse the mob and fired tear gas shells to restore order. Senior officers, including Superintendent of Police Sampat Upadhyay, supervised the deployment of additional forces in the area. Section 144 was imposed to prohibit unlawful assembly, and a heavy police presence was maintained across sensitive pockets of the town. Preliminary investigations indicate that the altercation occurred over the playing of music in the temple. However, the police have not yet released any specifics regarding the cause of the violence. Authorities stated that the situation was brought under control later in the night, though security arrangements remained tightened to prevent any recurrence of violence.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within it, the sub-category selected - 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 sub-category selected is - Defiling religious customs. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion of one book, which is to say that while it has religious scriptures that form the central tenets of the faith, there are several traditions followed through thousands of years, mostly passed from generation to generation orally. There are several such customs and traditions that are followed by various Hindus and Hindu sects. Defiling of these traditions and customs is a breach of an individual or group’s religious practices. Such practices can range from dietary restrictions like not eating non-vegetarian food for a certain period of the year, not eating non-vegetarian food at all, not eating beef since the cow is considered holy in Hinduism, the sanctity of religious customs followed in the house (like many ISCKON devotees), etc. Any malicious action leading to the breach of such traditions or defilement of these traditions owing to animosity towards the faith or for the sake of activism stems not only from the lack of faith in the religion itself but also from disregard for the faith of the devotees who follow the customs/traditions and implicit bias against the faith, the tradition itself. Since these specific traditions are central to the faith of the devotees of that specific sect of Hindus, any non-compliance with these traditional rules would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. The second primary category selected here is - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Attack against Hindu devotees. Hindu devotees are a few of the easiest targets of religiously motivated hate crimes because during the festival/procession/puja etc, for non-Hindus it is easy to profile their victims on the basis of religion. Hindu devotees come under attack on several occasions by individual non-Hindus or mobs of non-Hindus owing to their animosity against Hinduism, its symbols and tradition/practices. There are several instances of Hindu devotees being attacked while they worship in temples or temporary religious structures, during religious processions, doing bhajan/kirtan/puja in their own homes, in the residential society etc. These attacks are perpetrated by non-Hindus primarily because of their animosity towards Hindus and their faith. In some cases, the trigger for the violence may be non-religious, however, there are two elements that make these hate crimes. First, the Hindus who come under attack are attacked violently while indulging in religious activity. Whether they are in a place of worship or not is immaterial to the crime. When individuals are attacked while indulging in religious practices, the attack in itself is a hindrance to their freedom to practice religion and therefore constitutes a hate crime. Secondly, religious supremacist doctrines and ideologies deem religious practices of Hindus to be offensive ab initio since they are considered “sinful” by these ideologies, worthy to be annihilated by force or coercion. Driven by these religious supremacist ideologies and doctrines, the attacks against Hindu devotees stem from intrinsic animosity towards Hinduism. In some cases, the trigger for the violence may be non-religious, however, it develops into a religiously motivated crime during the course of the violence. Since these attacks stem from animosity towards Hindus and Hinduism, they are considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. The other sub-category 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 other sub-category 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. The other sub-category 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. This case stood as a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime because a Durga temple was targeted and vandalised during its evening aarti, a sacred Hindu ritual, by a Muslim youth. The act of entering the Hindu temple during worship and damaging its premises was not an incidental disturbance but a direct intrusion into a Hindu religious space at a moment of devotion. The temple as an institution holds immense spiritual importance in the Hindu faith. For Hindus, temples are not mere physical structures; they are sanctified spaces believed to embody the divine presence of Hindu deities. Acts of violence against such spaces are not isolated incidents of destruction but reflect underlying hostility towards Hindu beliefs and identity. Thus, when a temple is targeted during aarti, a moment of collective devotion and sacred ritual, the act transcends property damage and becomes an assault on the religious dignity and spiritual life of the community. Aarti holds profound spiritual significance in Hinduism as a central act of worship performed to honour and invoke the blessings of a deity. It is not merely a ritual performance but an intimate moment of communion between devotees and the deity, believed to purify the surroundings and uplift the spiritual consciousness of those present. Because of this sacred character, any disruption of an aarti is not simply an interruption of sound or gathering; it is an intrusion into a consecrated spiritual exchange. Interfering with or attacking a ritual in progress undermines the sanctity of the worship, disrespects the faith of devotees, and constitutes a direct affront to religious freedom and the dignity of Hindus. The sequence of events made it evident that the dispute did not arise spontaneously between the two groups but was triggered by the initial act inside the temple premises. While aarti was being performed at the Durga temple and namaz was taking place at the mosque opposite, both religious activities were occurring simultaneously in their respective spaces. It was during this time that the Muslim youth entered the temple complex and vandalised it. The confrontation that followed stemmed directly from this act. The escalation into wider violence occurred only after this intrusion and damage inside the Hindu place of worship by the Muslim community. The fact that the aarti and namaz were being conducted at the same time did not, in itself, constitute provocation or wrongdoing. The disruption began when the Muslim youth crossed into the temple premises and interfered with an ongoing Hindu ritual. When Hindu devotees restrained the Muslim youth responsible for the vandalism, additional Muslim men gathered and entered the temple vicinity, and the situation escalated. They took issue with the fact that an aarti was going on while the namaz was taking place in a mosque. Such dominance over public areas demonstrates religious animosity towards Hindus, making it a clear, religiously motivated hate crime. The attempt to interrupt or object to a Hindu ritual simply because namaz was being offered nearby reflected not only religious animosity but also an exclusionary behaviour, the notion that the presence or visibility of Hindu worship must be curtailed because namaz is going on. Such conduct demonstrated religious animosity and disrespect towards Hindu places of worship and an assertion that one form of worship should override or silence another. The fact that this attack occurred in front of the mosque sharpened the religiously motivated nature of the crime to a glaring point. Muslims often treat areas around mosques, dargahs, or madrassas as exclusive zones reserved solely for their community, calling them 'Muslim areas', where non-Muslims face exclusion and control over public movement. This disturbing assertion of Islamic supremacy allowed perpetrators to dictate how Hindus could pass through, viewing the procession's bhajans and DJ as an intolerable intrusion on their turf. Thus, the Muslim youth entering the temple premises and vandalising it was an act of assertion of Islamic supremacy over the Hindu identity. It further constituted an attack on Hindu devotees and assumed the character of a communal clash intended to suppress Hindu worship. The intrusion into the temple during aarti and the escalation that followed sent a message that the public expression of Hindu faith was unwelcome and subject to disruption. When violence erupts specifically in response to an ongoing religious ceremony, it indicates an attempt to intimidate worshippers and deter them from freely practising their beliefs. Such actions go beyond momentary confrontation and reflect a broader effort to assert dominance by disrupting, discouraging, or silencing Hindu religious observance in shared public spaces. Such an act demonstrates clear religious hostility, aimed not only at silencing expressions of devotion but also at undermining the sanctity of the aarti and violating the sacred atmosphere of the temple. Deliberate interference during a revered ritual reflects animosity towards the Hindu faith and its public expression. These actions qualify as hate crimes against Hindus due to an ideological foundation stemming from Islamic doctrine, which holds contempt for and dehumanises other faiths. Polytheistic religions like Hinduism are particularly targeted, as they are seen as illegitimate or inferior within the theological frameworks of Islam. The targeting of a Hindu temple during aarti, coupled with subsequent aggression within its premises, indicates that the violence was not random but was intrinsically connected to religious identity and practice. Therefore, this case has been added to the tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia tracker acknowledges that multiple perpetrators attacked the temple. However, the perpetrator count is recorded as one, referring to the Muslim youth who initially entered the temple premises and vandalised it, which triggered the subsequent communal escalation.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
