Case Summary

In Garoth, Madhya Pradesh, a Muslim occult practitioner named Mubarak Mansuri deceived several Hindu women by concealing his identity and posing as a Hindu tantrik. Under the guise of performing occult rituals, he targeted and sexually exploited these women. However, media coverage, particularly by Dainik Bhaskar, misrepresented his identity by referring to him as a Hindu 'tantrik'. Dainik Bhaskar published a sensational report with the headline: “40–50 women fall prey to Tantrik in Mandsaur: Called husband insane, then sexually exploited them, village in panic.” This reflects a broader trend in which media outlets often label Muslim clerics or faith-healers as “tantriks”, “priests”, or “sadhus", terms that are deeply associated with Hinduism, while concealing the actual religious identity of the accused. As per locals in Mandsaur, Mansuri lured 40–50 women under the pretext of exorcisms and ritual healing. The victims were drugged, sexually assaulted, and their obscene videos were recorded. During the police investigation, authorities recovered fake IDs and obscene literature from his premises. Among the seized books were titles such as “Shaam-e-Karbala” and “Islam and Sex”. Such literature is not what a Hindu Tantrik would subscribe to; however, despite this, the media continued to present the story as if a Hindu Tantrik was the criminal. Just three days before the Mandsaur story, Dainik Bhaskar published another piece titled: “Mubarak Mansuri became a Hindu Tantrik in Garoth, arrested: Targeted Hindu women, was into occult practices for 10 years.” In a subsequent follow-up, the outlet acknowledged, based on local accounts, that Mubarak Mansuri came from a Muslim family that moved to the village 30 years ago. Despite this, the outlet did not change the initial report, which labelled Mansuri as a 'Tantrik'. This isn't the first time Dainik Bhaskar misrepresented the perpetrator's religion. In Meerut, when a minor was kidnapped and deceived by Rashid Khan, the term “tantrik” was used in their headlines. Similarly, in Sitapur, when an Islamic cleric named Ishtiyaq burned a girl with incense sticks during a 'healing ritual', the media again labelled him a “tantrik.” Even in Sultanpur, when a maulvi defrauded a Hindu woman, the term “tantrik” was used to refer to the Muslim perpetrator. Furthermore, media outlets often misuse Hindu terms such as “pujari” to refer to Christian priests or Islamic occultists, inadvertently creating a negative association with the Hindu community. This misleads readers into assuming that such crimes are committed by Hindus, thereby perpetuating stereotypes and prejudice against Hindus and Hinduism.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the hate tracker under the prime category- Hate speech against Hindus, and within this, the sub-category selected is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. Under this, the tertiary categories, namely, 'Anti-Hindu fake news or downplaying' and 'Mislabelling/Misrepresentation of perpetrator's religion as Hindu', have also been selected. 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. The religious marker in this incident lies in the deliberate use of the term "Tantrik" by the media, which is typically associated with Hindu religious practices, to describe Mansuri, a Muslim occult practitioner. This choice of language serves to obfuscate the perpetrator's Muslim identity and, in effect, whitewashes the crime by connecting it to a term commonly linked with Hindu practices, rather than accurately reflecting his religious background. By referring to Mubarak as a "Tantrik” without clarifying his Muslim identity, the media outlets create a misleading narrative that distances the perpetrator from his actual faith, potentially diverting attention from the fact that the crime involved a Muslim individual exploiting Hindu women under the false pretext of 'ritual healing' and exorcisms. This strategic use of terminology reflects a broader media bias that seeks to downplay or conceal the religious identity of the perpetrators when they are Muslim, while simultaneously emphasising the religious identity of Hindu individuals in similar circumstances. The media's failure to highlight Mubarak's Muslim identity, coupled with their use of a term more closely linked to Hindu practices, demonstrates a clear bias, distorting the truth and minimising the communal aspect of the crime. This biased reporting not only misrepresents the facts but also perpetuates an agenda of shielding the Muslim community from scrutiny, while disproportionately focusing on Hindus. Furthermore, the repeated misrepresentation of the perpetrator’s identity by the media, labelling him as a Hindu 'tantrik', not only distorts the facts but also fuels negative stereotypes about the Hindus as a community. This mislabelling results in broader harm, as it creates a public perception that such crimes are inherent to Hindu traditions, thereby fostering further hostility and prejudice against Hindus. The combination of targeted exploitation and damaging misrepresentation aligns with the legal and social understanding of a hate crime, as it both victimises individuals based on their faith and contributes to the stigmatisation of the wider religious community. Therefore, this case is being added to the hate crime database.