Case Summary

In Gopinathpur village of Jagatsinghpur district, Odisha, a violent Muslim mob attacked Scheduled Caste Hindus. A group of local Muslims launched the assault following an unrelated theft incident from the previous night, which occurred in a Muslim-dominated area. Sacred Hindu symbols were desecrated, caste-based slurs were hurled, and numerous Hindu residents, including women and children, were brutally attacked with rods, sticks, steel pipes, and sharp weapons. Hinduphobia Tracker accessed the FIR and spoke with a Bajrang Dal functionary who responded to the incident. He confirmed that the Hindu community was engaged in preparations for the Raja festival, a traditional celebration in Odisha, when the incidrnt happened. He described the assault as extremely brutal, noting that even Hindu women and small children were not spared. In fact, even one handicapped minor boy was beaten by the Muslim mob, he confirmed. Hinduphobia Tracker also contacted the police, however, the police claimed that there was no communal angle to the assault. According to exclusive details accessed by Hinduphobia Tracker, on the morning of 17 June, residents of Sial Sahi were peacefully discussing arrangements for the festival when police arrived with a sniffer dog to investigate the previous night's theft. The police were accompanied by a group of local Muslims (100-200) during this visit. Though the Hindu residents cooperated fully with the investigation, the situation unexpectedly escalated. The accompanying Muslim mob quickly formed a hostile mob that launched a coordinated and violent attack against the Hindus. The Muslim mob targeted Hindu men, women, and even children, showing no restraint. One handicapped minor boy was beaten. The attackers desecrated a Tulsi pedestal that had been decorated for the festival and vandalised a local Hanuman shrine at the community clubhouse. Stones were thrown at the shrine, and some assailants urinated near the sacred site in a deliberate act of desecration. Hindu victims were subjected to caste-based slurs, with the attackers questioning the right of Dalit Hindus to worship or even reside in the area. The assailants also issued violent threats, including warnings to Hindu women not to step outside and threats to behead local Hindu men. A gold ring was also snatched from one of the women during the chaos. One young Hindu man, Hemant Bhoi, was dragged out from the temple and beaten in public view. Others, including Ashok Bhoi, Sanjay Bhoi, and Mani Bhoi, suffered serious injuries. Despite police presence during the violence, the mob rampaged for over an hour, leaving dozens injured and traumatised. Later, members of the assaulted community contacted the Bajrang Dal, which assisted the victims. The FIR names several of the Muslim attackers, including Raja Mia, Siraj Ali, Soni Ali, Jani Miya, Bahadur Ali, and others.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. 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 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. The other sub-category selected is - Attacked to induce migration from non-Hindu dominated area. There have been cases where the Hindus living in an area, often with a majority dwelling belonging to non-Hindus or those harbouring animosity towards the Hindu faith, the Hindu residents experience threats and violence. The violence is employed with the aim of making the Hindus leave the area and relocate, so the area could be turned into an exclusive ghetto for adherents of the non-Hindu faith or those who harbor animosity towards the Hindu faith. In several cases, the aim of exodus is explicit. However, in several cases, the demand for exodus of Hindu residents is not explicit, however, violence by non-Hindu residents leaves the Hindu residents no option but to leave the area, thereby, turning the area into an exclusive ghetto of non-Hindu residents. In such cases, there are instances violence against the Hindu residents explicitly. For example, in the Hauz Qazi case of 2019, the Muslim residents claimed that mob violence against the Hindu residents had been triggered by a parking dispute. However, the violence did turn religious with a temple being desecrated and was directed specifically against the Hindu residents. The Hindu residents of the area were clear that the violence was religiously motivated and one of the motives was to affect an exodus of the Hindu residents. In such cases, even though the perpetrators have not explicitly expressed the aim of affecting exodus, the given circumstances and violence and precedent point to the intention of exodus and therefore would be categorized under this sub-category. Such crimes are religiously motivated and therefore are hate crimes. The other primary category selected is - Attack on Hindu religious representations. The other sub-category selected is - Desecration of Hindu religious symbol. 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 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 other sub-category selected is - 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 primary category selected is - Hate Speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected is - Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. The other sub-category selected is - 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. The other sub-category selected is - Call for genocide/violence against specific sects of Hindus. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Often, animosity against Hindus or a specific panth/sampradaya/group of Hindus or a specific ideology they hold manifests itself into hate speech and calls for genocide/violence against that specific section of Hindus. For example, it has often been seen that those who hold animosity against the Hindu faith use specific sects/sampradaya/pant of Hindus as a proxy to express hate against Hindus as a whole. It has been seen that the word ‘Hindutva’ has been used to call for violence against those who say they believe in ‘Hindutva’. It is observed that ‘Hindutva’ is only used as a proxy to call for violence against Hindus as a whole, as seen in the Dismantling Global Hindutva conference where speakers admitted that ‘Hindutva’ cannot be eradicated till ‘Hinduism’ is eradicated. The eradication of an entire faith, in turn, is a genocidal call against the entire community that practices that faith. Further, it is also observed that violence against a specific section of Hindus is made, justifying these calls by weaving exaggerated tales of historical injustices. Often, those who hold animosity towards Hindus and their faith attempt to make their animosity more palatable by justifying their hate for a specific section, claiming that they are against that particular section because of their faith in the broader community and the religion they process. Such calls for violence against specific sections of Hindus, as mentioned, is a proxy for their animosity against the entire community and the faith they profess, and therefore, would be considered hate speech under this category. While the initial dispute in this case may not have been religious in origin, the manner in which the violence unfolded clearly reveals signs of a religiously motivated hate crime. What could have remained a straightforward investigation into a theft incident was deliberately escalated into a targeted and premeditated assault on Hindus and their homes. The organised attack, desecration of Hindu religious symbols, caste-based slurs, and threats against Hindu men, women, and children all point to a deep-seated communal hatred. These actions reflect not a spontaneous conflict, but a deliberate attempt to intimidate and suppress the Hindu community, especially Dalits, revealing the dangerous animosity harboured by the Muslim mob towards local Hindus. According to details accessed by Hinduphobia Tracker, the Hindu were peacefully discussing Raja festival preparations when a mob of Muslims, accompanied by police for investigation, suddenly turned hostile and attacked them brutally. The Hindus were only preparing for their festival. They offered no provocation except for their visible religious identity and ritual activity. Though police were conducting an investigation about a theft, the violence was initiated solely by the Muslim group accompanying the police, and escalated into a one-sided, religion-based mob attack. The trigger was not the theft per se; it was the hostility toward Hindu worship, especially as the community was preparing for the Raja festival. Also, the brutality of the attack, combined with explicit threats like “you will not be allowed to worship or live here,” indicates a deliberate effort to intimidate and drive out the minority Hindu residents, particularly SC Hindus. Even without an explicit statement of exodus, the nature of threats and the community’s marginalised status strongly suggest an intent to assert Islamic supremacy, where Hindus are looked down upon and subjected to humilation and violence. This sense of entitlement and superiority not only reflects deep-seated prejudice but also highlights an attempt to assert religious dominance over public spaces. The assault on the Hindus was motivated by this supremacist ideology, where Islamists in the area looked down upon Hindus, believing that they had the right to dictate who could move freely through their community. The act of attacking the Hindus for simply preparing for a Hindu festival illustrates a dangerous mindset rooted in exclusion, intolerance and religious animosity, making this case an ideal example for inclusion in a hate tracker. Further, the mob desecrated the Tulsi pedestal, threw stones at the Hanuman shrine, and urinated near it. These are not random acts of vandalism, they are targeted desecrations of religious icons and symbols held sacred in Hinduism. These actions were motivated by religious animosity, not theft or personal enmity, and therefore qualify as hate crimes against Hindu religious representations. The disruption of the festival preparations, combined with defiling religous symbol mockery and destruction of Hindu customs, reflects a deliberate act of religious defilement, showing disregard and contempt for Sanatan traditions. The Hanuman shrine, being a sacred site of worship, was attacked directly with stones and insulted by urination nearby. Such attacks are not simply physical acts of aggression; they are attacks on the deity and faith itself, as Hindus consider the deity to be present within consecrated spaces. This constitutes a hate-driven attack on a temple. The Muslim mob threatened to behead local Hindu, told Hindu women not to step outside, and warned Hindus they would not be allowed to worship or live in the area. These are explicit threats of violence and systematic intimidation, clearly targeting the community on religious grounds. The threat to behead Hindu men during the Jagatsinghpur mob attack is not an isolated or random act of violence; it reflects a pattern of Islamist hate crime rooted in extremist ideology. The slogan "Sar Tan Se Juda", popularised by radical Muslim outfits, is a call for execution in response to perceived religious offence, particularly targeting non-Muslims, especially Hindus. Though initially coined in Pakistan, it has spread across India and has incited brutal murders of Hindus like Kanhaiya Lal and Umesh Kolhe. Such threats are not just rhetoric; they aim to instil fear, silence dissent, and enforce religious supremacy by invoking violent punishment against those seen as outside or disrespectful of Islamic norms. In this context, the threat to behead local Hindus in Jagatsinghpur mirrors this radicalised mindset — it is not merely communal tension but a hate-driven intent to terrorise and dominate a minority faith community, making this a clear case of a religiously motivated hate crime. During the attack, caste-based slurs were hurled at Dalit Hindus, mocking their right to worship, and dehumanising them as a group. It can be argued that a caste-specific slur is aimed at her micro identity of belonging to the Dalit section of the Hindu community and not her Hindu identity itself. However, as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary. It is the religious identity that drives the animosity of the perpetrator against the Hindu victim. In this case, while the Muslim mob hurled caste abuses at the victims, the animosity was driven by their animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. While the immediate trigger of the violence could be the 'theft' as mentioned in reports, the fact that caste slurs were hurled at the victim by the perpetrator makes it a religiously motivated hate crime against the victim. The attack was not random. It was directed specifically at the Dalit Hindus, a sect within the broader Hindu society, and included calls to eliminate their presence from the area. The combination of threats, desecration, and violence aimed at a specific jaati within Hinduism reflects a targeted hate crime consistent with calls for violence or exclusion of specific Hindu sects. In this case, when contacted by the Hinduphobia Tracker, police denied the communal angle. The police, in many such cases, where the motive behind the crime is obvious but not explicitly mentioned, deny that the crime committed was in any way motivated by a religious bias or say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to the crime. Several factors are generally at play here. Many a time the police downplay incidents of low-level communal crime because it is their jurisdiction that comes under question. The police also often say that there was ‘no communal angle’ to a crime when there was one because they wish to ensure that owing to the crime already committed, there is no further flare up in the area. Likewise, the Left media and the leftist elite are also inclined to emphasise this "no communal angle" trope, especially wherever the victim of the crime is a Hindu. However, only a police statement or a media report, for instance, cannot be enough to determine whether there is a communal angle present in the crime that has been committed. In fact, to determine whether the crime is communal in nature or not, we need to give emphasis to the ground realities. For example in the case of Rinku Sharma, the Bajrang Dal activist who was mercilessly stabbed in his house in front of his family members in Delhi’s Mangolpuri area in the year 2021, the leftist media and the leftist ecosystem had tried to peddle that there was no communal angle to the crime. Even the police denied that the crime was communal in nature. However, Opindia spoke to several people who are on the ground with the family of Rinku Sharma and we were told that the communal tension in the area is palpable. The family of Rinku Sharma has said that the Muslims of the area held a grudge against Rinku ever since he celebrated the Ram Mandir verdict Like the case of Rinku Sharma, those cases where even if the police have denied a communal angle or the leftist media have gone on an overdrive to peddle the ‘no communal angle’ trope, the ground reality, like the victim’s family or relative's testimonies, make it clear that there was an obvious religious bias that led to the crime, will be documented in this tracker. Going by the same logic, since the local residents testified that the attack on them and their sacred space was deliberate and not accidental, this case has also been included in the hate tracker. In conclusion, in this incident, the victims were specifically targeted for being Hindus. The attack occurred during the peaceful preparation for the Raja festival, a significant Hindu celebration, and the mob desecrated a Tulsi pedestal and a Hanuman shrine—both deeply sacred in Hindu religious life. Slurs directed at the victims were not an attack on their micro identity but their Hindu identity. Objections were raised on their right to worship and live in the locality. The attackers issued violent threats, including warnings that Hindu women should not step out and that Hindu men would be beheaded. The fact that the attack was carried out by a Muslim mob from the surrounding locality, without any credible provocation from the Hindu residents, and specifically during a time of Hindu religious activity, clearly indicates that the motive was rooted in religious hatred. These facts on the ground override the police’s reluctance to label the crime as communal and establish this as a clear case of anti-Hindu hate crime.