Hindus injured in stone pelting amid protests over abduction of Hindu minor by two Muslim youths
Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India 
8 February, 2025
Case Summary
In Roorkee, Uttarakhand, members of the Hindu community were targeted with stone pelting during a protest held following the abduction of a 14-year-old Hindu girl. The protest was organised after the girl went missing on 7th February from Laksar village, with her family alleging that she had been kidnapped by two individuals from the Muslim community. As locals and members of Hindu organisations gathered to demand justice and the girl's recovery, tensions escalated when individuals from the Muslim community confronted the protesters and began pelting stones. Several Hindu community members were injured during the incident. Verbal abuse and threats were also reported during the confrontation. Police arrived at the location shortly after being alerted and used lathi charge to disperse the crowd and control the situation. Protesters questioned the police action and called for strict action against those involved in the alleged kidnapping. The girl’s family stated that they would resort to self-immolation if she was not found soon. Given the volatile situation, a large police force has been deployed to the area to maintain order. A special investigation team has been formed to trace the missing girl and locate the accused, who has remained absconding. Reports indicate that individuals from both communities, as well as some police personnel, sustained injuries during the violence.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category of- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the first sub-category selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The second sub-category under which this case has been placed 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. Here, the violence directed at the Hindu community in Roorkee unfolded after they mobilised to demand justice for a 14-year-old Hindu girl who had been abducted by two Muslim youths. The protest, which emerged as a collective expression of concern and a call for action, was met with targeted stone pelting by members of the Muslim community. This response not only escalated communal tensions but also directly endangered the lives and safety of peaceful demonstrators seeking redress. The Hindu protesters, far from inciting violence, were engaged in efforts to safeguard a minor from injustice. Their action – raising a voice against the abduction – positioned them in direct opposition to elements within the community accused of the crime, thereby making them targets of retaliation. The organised stone pelting and verbal abuse they faced constitutes a form of aggression aimed at silencing dissent and intimidating those who challenge radical or criminal elements. Furthermore, the altercation was not restricted to individuals but manifested along community lines, with Hindus as a group facing violence in the public sphere. The incident reflects communal animosity and the use of force to deter collective Hindu mobilisation, making it not just a law-and-order issue but a targeted act rooted in religious hostility. Thus, the nature of the assault—its trigger, the identity of the victims, and the communal framing—establishes it as a hate crime against Hindus, warranting its clear documentation under the Hinduphobia tracker.
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 10 to 100
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
