Hate speech against Hindus: Muslim group takes oath for jihad to conquer Hindustan
Chittagong District, Bangladesh 
2 March, 2024
Case Summary
In Chattogram, Bangladesh, hate speech against Hindus and India was delivered by a group of Muslims. The Muslim group took an oath to wage jihad, a war against non‑Muslims in Islam, targeting India. Workers and leaders of the Bangladesh-based Islamic group Hefazat‑e‑Islam took this oath in the presence of Mufti Harun Bin Ezhar. According to media reports, a video of the event circulated widely on social media. The oath‑taking ceremony took place on 3rd March 2024. In the video, Hefazat‑e‑Islam’s Amir Muhibullah Babunagari and Mufti Harun Bin Ezhar pledged to conduct jihad in India and Myanmar. In the video, the mufti said, “Lakhs of students of Qaumi madrasas are with us. Students from different universities are with us. They are ready to do jihad.” Following this, the Muslim group also undertook a bayat (oath of allegiance). Harun added, “Pray that we succeed in winning Arakan and Hindustan through jihad.” Several senior leaders of Hefazat‑e‑Islam attended the oath‑taking, including Amir Muhibullah Babunagari, his khadim Enamul Haque, Harun Ezhar, Kamrul Islam, and Helal Uddin. Reports stated that Harun Ezhar has a documented extremist background. He was arrested for links to the banned terrorist group HuJI. He served as the managing head of Lalkhan Bazar Jamiatul Ulum Al‑Islamia Madrasa in Chattogram. In 2009, he was arrested for planning a terrorist attack on the Indian High Commission. In 2013, a bomb blast at his madrasa killed three students. In 2021, Harun Ezhar led violent protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to Bangladesh. This case showcases the kind of anti-Hindu mindset present among the Muslims of Bangladesh. The hatred against Hindus results in direct persecution of Bangladeshi Hindus in a cyclical pattern of mob violence, temple desecrations, targeted assaults, and systemic impunity, often triggered by rumours spread via social media during Hindu festivals such as Durga Puja, and amplified by Islamist groups’ mobilisation at moments of political tension. A stark illustration occurred in October 2021, when a rumour from Cumilla alleging Quran desecration led to coordinated attacks across multiple districts: mobs vandalised over 80 temples and hundreds of mandapas, torched Hindu homes and shops, and killed and injured civilians as security forces struggled to contain the unrest amidst widespread internet restrictions and deployments of paramilitary units. Human rights organisations documented a longstanding vulnerability of Hindus, noting waves of violence during political crises, such as the 2013 attacks amidst tribunal-related protests, when Islamic party rallies coincided with systematic destruction of temples and Hindu property, leaving hundreds homeless and underscoring the state’s failures in preventive protection and timely accountability. Data compiled by civil society groups indicated thousands of incidents between 2013 and 2021, including large-scale vandalism of temples and idols, reflecting both communal targeting and opportunistic land grabs under the cover of unrest, while analyses traced enabling roles of hardline outfits like Hefazat‑e‑Islam in street mobilisation and radicalisation that normalised anti-minority rhetoric. Together, these patterns reveal entrenched anti-Hindu sentiment manifesting in surges of violence, structural discrimination, and inadequate redress.
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- 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. In this case, it is important to state at the outset that some may consider the Muslim perpetrators’ oath to wage jihad and “conquer India” as merely anti‑India rather than anti‑Hindu. However, such oaths are inherently anti‑Hindu in sentiment. Muslim extremists often harbour explicit animosity towards Hindus and their faith, and view India as a Hindu collectivity. The very premise of Partition rests on the belief that Islam constitutes a separate nation that cannot coexist with a Hindu‑majority India. Further, the idea of a transnational Muslim unity—the Ummah—promotes allegiance to a global Muslim identity over a nation‑state identity. Since these Muslim extremists consider India a Hindu collectivity, within this framework, calls for jihad function as assertions of Muslim collective power and explicit expressions of anti‑Hindu hostility. For that reason, any oath calling for jihad against India is, in essence, anti‑Hindu. The idea of “taking over India” effectively means the subjugation of the Hindu community. When such ideological calls identify Hindus and their sacred land, India, as the enemy, the outcome includes the desecration of temples and idols, arson in Hindu localities, and targeted killings intended to terrorise and demoralise the Hindu community. These acts are not collateral damage; they are emblematic tactics designed to erase Hindu presence, humiliate Hindu beliefs, and assert dominance over Hindus, making this a clear instance of religiously motivated hate speech. The invocation of jihad also intersects with forced conversion campaigns that seek to strip Hindus of their religious identity through coercion. Framed as a spiritual conquest, this coercion turns faith into a battleground, resulting in forced conversions of Hindus to Islam. Within this logic, even sexual violence, including the rape of Hindu women, is celebrated by Islamic extremists, underscoring that the oath to wage jihad against India is intended to subjugate and marginalise the Hindu community for its religious identity. Ultimately, the oath to wage jihad calls for religious war. When the stated object of that war is “Hindustan,” understood as the home and embodiment of Hindus, the message is unmistakable: the target is the Hindu community itself. Such a call is inherently anti‑Hindu because it seeks to legitimise violence and domination over Hindus, sanctifying communal aggression as religious duty and normalising the persecution of the Hindu community. Given that this case demonstrates religiously motivated hate speech against Hindus, it is added to the hate‑crime database.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
