Hindu sentiments downplayed: Muslim 'journalist' omits anti-Hindu slurs to defend cartoonist arrested for mocking Hindu deities and leaders
Bengaluru, Karnataka, India 
7 July, 2025
Case Summary
The Alt News co-founder, Mohammed Zubair, deliberately attempted to whitewash the insults directed at a Hindu deity, Lord Shiva, by an Indore-based cartoonist. Zubair falsely tweeted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the cartoonist due to his criticism of Narendra Modi and the RSS. However, what Zubair failed to mention was that the High Court explicitly acknowledged the cartoonist’s demeaning reference to Lord Shiva. As documented by Hinduphobia Tracker, on 25th May 2025, an Indore-based cartoonist named Hemant Malviya had in a post, drawn a caricature that not only mocked the RSS and Prime Minister Modi but also carried an endorsement of a vulgar, derogatory line invoking Lord Shiva, a clear affront to Hindu religious sentiments. He was subsequently arrested by the police. The matter reached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which denied the cartoonist anticipatory bail for demeaning the RSS, along with the Prime Minister of this country and denigrating Lord Shiva. However, Zubair intentionally misled his audience by whitewashing the insult directed at Lord Shiva by the cartoonist. He posted a tweet on X, stating that the cartoonist was denied bail for caricaturing the RSS and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, Zubair deliberately omitted the cartoonist’s demeaning reference to Lord Shiva. This omission was not accidental; rather, it was a deliberate and well-calculated effort to spread fake news and whitewash the instances where Hindu gods are slandered. In its judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stated, “In the considered opinion of this court, on the face of it, the conduct of the applicant in depicting the RSS, along with the Prime Minister of this country in the aforesaid caricature, coupled with his endorsement of a rather demeaning remark, dragging unnecessarily the name of Lord Shiva in the comments tagged to it, is nothing but the sheer misuse of the freedom of speech and expression and falls under the definition of offence as contended by the complainant.” Despite this judicial clarity, Zubair’s tweet maliciously omitted any mention of the insult to Lord Shiva. He did so to create a false impression that the Indian judiciary is intolerant to political satire, when in fact the issue centred primarily on slander of a Hindu deity. This was not the first time Zubair had engaged in such misleading propaganda. In 2022, he triggered the “Sar Tan Se Juda” (beheading) Muslim mob by posting an edited video of BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. Zubair posted the video and asserted that Nupur had committed 'blasphemy' against the Prophet of Islam. This led to Nupur being subjected to threats of rape, murder, and beheading by Muslim extremists.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. The tertiary category selected is- Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying. 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. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. In this case, Zubair’s deliberate omission of the insult to Lord Shiva made by the cartoonist is not accidental or a random occurrence; rather, it is a deliberate act to whitewash the insults launched at Hinduism and its deities. By shifting the focus away from the derogatory remarks about a central Hindu deity and presenting the issue solely as political satire, Zubair dismissed the genuine hurt and offence felt by the Hindu community. This selective narrative not only disregarded the emotional and cultural significance of Lord Shiva to Hindus but also signalled that insults against Hindu beliefs were unworthy of acknowledgement or serious concern. Such minimisation fosters resentment and a sense of marginalisation among Hindus, as their religious sensitivities are treated as less important than those of other communities. Hindu deities are deeply revered by Hindus, and any attempt to mock them is a direct affront to the sentiments of the Hindu community. The cartoonist’s actions were undeniably offensive, and Zubair’s subsequent whitewashing of this offence only served to amplify the harm. This was not a mere oversight, but a deliberate attempt to support and legitimise the mocking and denigration of Hindu deities. By whitewashing the insult, Zubair contributed to a climate where hostility or contempt towards Hindus and their faith is overlooked or even justified, making this a clear example of religiously motivated hate speech. It is also important to highlight the glaring hypocrisy in Zubair’s approach to religious sensitivity. He played a prominent role in amplifying outrage against Nupur Sharma, a former BJP spokesperson, after she quoted Islamic scripture in response to insults directed at Hindu deities by a Muslim politician, Tasleem Rehmani, during a televised debate. This incident sparked widespread protests across India, and Nupur Sharma was subjected to thousands of death, rape, and beheading threats from those who perceived her remarks as ‘blasphemy’. In that instance, Zubair positioned himself as a defender of his own community’s religious sentiments and demanded accountability. Yet, in this case, he sided with the cartoonist and whitewashed the insult to Lord Shiva. This selective outrage, defending his own community’s beliefs while minimising the insult of Hindu gods, exposes a clear bias and prejudice against Hindus and Hinduism. Zubair’s actions are a blatant attempt to normalise the denigration of Hindu beliefs while demanding protection for the beliefs of his own faith. Such behaviour demonstrates a deep-seated prejudice and religious animosity that Muslims like Zubair hold towards Hindus. Since this case is an instance of whitewashing insults launched at a Hindu deity, stemming from innate animosity towards Hinduism, it has been added to the hate crime database.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
