Anti-Hindu hate speech: Muslim man posts ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ after Pahalgam anti-Hindu terror attack
Uttar Pradesh, India 
2 May, 2025
Case Summary
In Uttar Pradesh, a 62-year-old Muslim man named Ansar Ahmad Siddiqui made a pro-Pakistan post on social media. He shared a video with the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad”, meaning “Long live the state of Pakistan”. This incident occurred after the anti-Hindu terror attack, which heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. The Pahalgam massacre was a deadly terrorist attack that took place on 22nd April 2025 in the Pahalgam region of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists affiliated with The Resistance Force—a proxy of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)—specifically targeted Hindu tourists. The attackers identified the victims by demanding their names and religious identity, inspecting ID cards, asking tourists to recite the Kalma, and in some cases, checking for circumcision. Hindus were then executed at point-blank range. The attack left 24 Hindus dead and 16 others critically injured. According to reports, the accused, Ansar Siddiqui, had posted a pro-Pakistan video on Facebook and captioned it “Pakistan Zindabad”. This alarmed the authorities, and the accused was booked under various sections of the law, based on a complaint filed in Bulandshahar. The matter reached the Allahabad High Court, where Siddiqui and his lawyers requested bail. The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail and stated that Siddiqui was promoting terrorism and Jihad (war against non-Muslims in Islam). The Court treated the matter as serious, stating it was an act against the unity and sovereignty of the country. Justice Siddharth of the Allahabad High Court, in his observations while rejecting bail, stated that the accused’s actions were highly disrespectful to the Indian Constitution and akin to challenging the nation’s freedom and authority. The Court stated: “The applicant is a senior citizen, and his age shows that he was born in independent India. His irresponsible and anti-national conduct does not entitle him to seek protection of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The Court also observed that such offences were becoming more common in the country because the judiciary had shown too much tolerance towards people with “anti-national” views. The Court further explained that such actions harmed the unity and integrity of the country. According to the prosecution, Siddiqui had shared a Facebook post that promoted religious extremism and praised Pakistan, also calling on others to support people in Pakistan. The post included statements propagating Jihad, saying “Pakistan Zindabad”, and appealing to his “brothers” to support Pakistani brothers, which was said to harm India’s national sentiments. During the hearing, the defence argued that Siddiqui was 62 years old and receiving medical treatment. However, the government counsel firmly opposed bail, arguing that Siddiqui’s actions were clearly against the national interest. The state lawyer stated: “The video was posted after the Sringar carnage of 26 innocent persons, and therefore it clearly proves that the applicant supported the terrorist act on religious grounds.” After hearing both sides, the Court firmly rejected the bail plea and directed the lower court to conduct the trial as quickly as possible to ensure justice without delay. The judge finally stated: “Commission of such offences is becoming a routine affair in this country because the courts are liberal and tolerant towards such acts of people with an anti-national bent of mind. It is not a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.”
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker un the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected here 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. In this case, the Muslim accused shared a video on Facebook captioned "Pakistan Zindabad" and supporting Jihad (holy war against non-Muslims). He also urged all Muslims to support Pakistan. This video was posted during a time of heightened national tension following the Pahalgam Hindu massacre in which Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists specifically targeted and killed Hindu pilgrims based on their religion. In this emotionally charged environment, the accused's public celebration and support for Pakistan, a country that has always provided a safe haven to Islamic terrorists and also those responsible for the massacre of Hindus in Pahalgam, can be interpreted as a deliberate provocation to glorify and endorse the acts of those responsible for the massacre. The content of the video, its caption, and its timing suggest a motive that goes beyond political dissent. By praising Pakistan in the wake of its military escalation and the brutal targeting of Hindus, the accused's actions implicitly support a hostile nation and, by extension, the anti-Hindu massacre. This messaging had the potential to incite communal unrest and deepen divisions, particularly among local Hindu communities who perceived the act as an affront to the victims of the Pahalgam massacre. Such actions glaringly showcase the the Muslim perpetrator's intent was to show support for Pakistan and support the massacre of Hindus, making it a clear case of religiously motivated hate speech. Here, one could argue that the slogan of 'Pakistan Zindabad' can be considered anti-India and pro-Pakistan, but not anti-Hindu. However, raising slogans such as Pakistan Zindabad not only shows pro-Pakistan sentiments, but also anti-Hindu sentiments. It is pertinent to note that Muslim extremists harbour specific animosity towards Hindus and their faith and also view India as a Hindu collectivity. The very basis of the partition of India was that the Muslims believed that Islam was a nation unto itself, which could not survive with a Hindu collectivity like India. Further, Muslims often believe in transnational unity - or the Ummah - which is a belief that all Muslims across the world are a nation unto themselves and therefore, loyalty as far as the nation-state is concerned lies with the Muslim collectivity and not with a Hindu collectivity like India. This would also mean that the slogan 'Pakistan Zindabad' is about hailing a Muslim collectivity and an expression of transnational loyalty and anti-Hindu sentiments. For that reason, any slogan which expresses transnational loyalty, faith in the Ummah, is automatically a slogan against Hindus and the Hindu collectivity. Thus, this case is added to the hate crime database.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
