Hindu woman and minor daughter forced to recite Kalma, eat meat and adopt Islam as husband conducts secret nikah with Muslim woman
Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh, India 
21 February, 2015
Case Summary
A Hindu woman named Sangeeta Dwivedi, a resident of Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, and her minor daughter were subjected to sustained psychological pressure by her husband, Ganesh Dwivedi, a government doctor posted at a government hospital in Kanpur Dehat, to convert to Islam, recite the Kalma (the Islamic declaration of faith), eat meat, adopt Islamic practices, and read the Quran. Sangeeta filed a complaint with the State Women’s Commission and the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, demanding action. Her minor daughter’s identity was protected. Sangeeta married Ganesh Dwivedi in 2008. The two lived together as a Hindu couple until 2015, when he came into contact with a Muslim woman named Majda Khan. He began living with her and, in 2020, the two conducted a nikah (Islamic marriage ceremony) without Sangeeta’s knowledge and without divorcing her. During this period, he also had their son converted to Islam. When Sangeeta discovered the matter, she demanded action. Following his nikah with Majda Khan in 2022, his behaviour towards Sangeeta and their minor daughter changed completely. He began pressuring both of them to say “Assalam Walekum” (an Islamic greeting), adopt Islamic practices, recite the Kalma, eat meat, and accept Islam. Sangeeta stated that she and her minor daughter were subjected to sustained mental harassment. The minor daughter, who was in Class 4, stated that her father pressured her to wear full-length clothing and taught her Islamic prayers. Sangeeta further stated that her father-in-law was a retired Additional District Magistrate, which she believed was the reason the police were not taking action in the case. Sangeeta and her minor daughter went to the police station together and recorded their statements. Sangeeta filed a formal complaint describing sustained pressure to accept Islam, forced recitation of the Kalma, and mental harassment. She also filed a complaint with the State Women’s Commission, where Commission member Poonam Dwivedi took cognisance of the matter and assured a fair investigation and strict legal action. Sangeeta also submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, Dr Ravi Kumar, demanding action. The police confirmed that the matter was under investigation.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category for this case is "Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes". The sub-category here is "Forced conversion after marriage". The tertiary categories are "Forced to read Kalma", "Forced to eat beef" and "Forced to wear Hijab". In such cases, a non-Hindu man marries a Hindu woman, and the force/pressure to convert to any Abrahamic faith, like Islam, begins after marriage. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act, where neither parties are required to convert their religion for the marriage to be considered legitimate. While the victim in such cases enters matrimony assuming that religious identity is not a barrier, the non-Hindu man starts to pressure the woman to convert her religion after marriage. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man, pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert her religion and give up her religious identity. In both situations, there is application of force by the perpetrator, including the denial of the woman’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the woman is forced/pressured to convert include force-feeding beef, being forced to read the Kalma, being forced to wear a hijab, forced to undergo Halala, etc. There are several instances where, after marriage, the woman voluntarily converts to Islam. Such cases are often argued to be a result of religious brainwashing, however, for the purpose of documenting religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of the victim complaining of forced conversion, such cases do not form a part of the database. Another sub-category for this case is "Assault or threat upon refusal to convert". When Hindu women are in a relationship with non-Hindu men, there are cases where the woman faces threats or assault after she refuses to convert and change her religious identity owing to pressure/force by the non-Hindu man. Such relationships may be consensual with the religious identity of the non-Hindu man known to the victim. Somewhere along the relationship, the non-Hindu man starts pressurizing the Hindu woman to convert to Islam and upon her refusal, assaults or threatens the victim. Such cases are driven by specific religious motivations and against the religious identity of the victim and are therefore qualified as hate crimes. Cases where the Hindu woman converts to Islam and does not file a complaint about the force or threat, are not considered a part of the hate tracker, even though, it may be argued that the woman was brainwashed or threatened to convert to Islam. Another primary category for this case is "Predatory Proselytisation". The sub-category for this case here is "Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion". Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other subcategory selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Within this, the tertiary category selected is- Conversion of Minor. 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 qualifies as a hate crime because a Hindu woman, Sangeeta Dwivedi of Rae Bareli, and her minor daughter were subjected to sustained and deliberate pressure by her husband, Ganesh Dwivedi, to abandon their Hindu faith and adopt Islamic religious practices. The coercion included repeated demands that they recite the Kalma, accept Islam, use Islamic greetings, read the Quran, and consume meat in contradiction to their religious upbringing. These actions were not incidental domestic disagreements but targeted attempts to alter their religious identity. A central religious marker in this case is the attempt to compel verbal affirmation of another faith through forced recitation of the Islamic declaration of faith. The insistence that both mother and minor daughter adopt Islamic greetings and practices reflects a direct effort to replace their Hindu identity with a different religious framework. The pressure was sustained and directed at core elements of faith, not merely cultural adjustments. The imposition of non-vegetarian food in this context cannot be viewed as a simple dietary preference dispute. For many Hindus, dietary practices are intertwined with religious belief, ritual purity, and moral discipline. Forcing or pressuring a Hindu individual to consume meat against their religious convictions constitutes an attempt to erode religious boundaries and weaken adherence to faith-based norms. In this case, the demand to consume meat formed part of a broader pattern of religious coercion aimed at reshaping identity. The targeting of the minor daughter is particularly significant. Minors are cognitively and emotionally more vulnerable and are still in the process of forming their religious understanding and personal identity. Pressuring a child in Class 4 to recite Islamic prayers, adopt specific religious dress practices, and conform to a different faith tradition constitutes exploitation of that vulnerability. Such actions carry long-term psychological and identity-related consequences because a minor does not possess the full capacity to critically evaluate or resist sustained religious pressure from a parent. The situation escalated after Ganesh Dwivedi conducted a nikah ceremony with another woman without divorcing Sangeeta and had their son converted to Islam. Following this, his conduct toward Sangeeta and their daughter shifted toward systematic attempts to impose Islamic practices within the household. The repeated insistence on religious declarations, greetings, dietary changes, and prayer practices demonstrates a structured effort to transform the religious character of the family unit. The use of authority within the household to impose religious change further establishes coercion. As husband and father, he occupied a position of structural control, which amplified the psychological pressure experienced by Sangeeta and her minor daughter. The sustained mental harassment described in the complaint indicates that the objective was not dialogue or voluntary persuasion but compelled conformity. The combination of forced religious declarations, imposition of faith-based practices, dietary coercion tied to religious identity, and the targeting of a cognitively vulnerable minor establishes clear religious intent. The actions were directed at erasing or replacing the victims’ Hindu identity through sustained psychological pressure. These elements meet the threshold of religiously motivated targeting and warrant inclusion of this case in the tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when a crime occurred, or a victim's ordeal began, rather than when the media reported it. In this case, the victim's ordeal can be traced back to 2015, when the perpetrator first came into contact with Majda Khan, and his behaviour toward his Hindu wife began to change. This is therefore the year chosen as the indicative incident year, as it represents the earliest point at which the victim's ordeal began. Since no specific date within 2015 was available in the sources, February 22 has been used as the placeholder date, corresponding to the date of media reporting, which served as the only available date reference in this case. Therefore, February 22, 2015, has been recorded as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only.
Victim Details
Total Victim
2
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 2
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 2
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
