West Bengal minister dismisses brutal attacks on Hindus in Murshidabad as ‘small problem’; justifies Muslim mob aggression
Murshidabad, West Bengal, India 
14 April, 2025
Case Summary
Amidst the widespread anti-Hindu violence in Murshidabad, Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Bapi Halder stirred controversy by issuing provocative statements and appearing to justify the Islamist aggression. While speaking on the unrest triggered under the pretext of protests against the newly enacted Waqf Amendment Act, Halder downplayed the targeted assaults on Hindus by calling the communal violence a mere “small problem.” Instead of condemning the attacks, the TMC leader sought to appease the agitating Muslim mobs, warning of violent retaliation against anyone “eyeing” Waqf properties. “If someone dares to look at Waqf property, gouge out their eyes and break their hands,” he declared in South 24 Parganas, effectively endorsing brutal acts of violence. His remarks drew sharp criticism from BJP leader Sukanta Majumdar, who on Monday (14th April) slammed Halder and questioned the inaction of the West Bengal Police. “What steps has the crippled, cowardly state police taken against this man for inciting barbaric violence against innocent, defenceless Hindus in Murshidabad at the hands of fundamentalists?” Majumdar demanded. This comes in the backdrop of large-scale riots, arson, and destruction in Murshidabad district, particularly in the Suti and Samserganj areas, following Jumma Namaz on 11th April 2025. Muslim mobs went on a rampage, damaging railway lines, attacking the Block Development Office with stones and sticks, and bringing public life to a halt. While public infrastructure suffered, it was the targeted nature of attacks against Hindus that stood out—temples were desecrated, idols vandalised, and Hindu households and businesses deliberately destroyed. As the Islamic mob violence intensified, hundreds of Hindus were forced to flee their homes, seeking safety from the relentless assault. With three lives already lost, the episode stands as yet another instance of orchestrated communal aggression masked as political protest.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the first sub-category selected is- Call for genocide/violence against Hindus/specific sects of Hindus. 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. Often, animosity against Hindus or a specific panth/sampradaya/group of Hindus or a specific ideology they hold manifests itself into hate speech and calls for genocide/violence against that specific section of Hindus. For example, it has often been seen that those who hold animosity against the Hindu faith use specific sects/sampradaya/pant of Hindus as a proxy to express hate against Hindus as a whole. It has been seen that the word ‘Hindutva’ has been used to call for violence against those who say they believe in ‘Hindutva’. It is observed that ‘Hindutva’ is only used as a proxy to call for violence against Hindus as a whole, as seen in the Dismantling Global Hindutva conference where speakers admitted that ‘Hindutva’ cannot be eradicated till ‘Hinduism’ is eradicated. The eradication of an entire faith, in turn, is a genocidal call against the entire community that practices that faith. Further, it is also observed that violence against a specific section of Hindus is made, justifying these calls by weaving exaggerated tales of historical injustices. Often, those who hold animosity towards Hindus and their faith attempt to make their animosity more palatable by justifying their hate for a specific section, claiming that they are against that particular section because of their faith in the broader community and the religion they process. Such calls for violence against specific sections of Hindus, as mentioned, is a proxy for their animosity against the entire community and the faith they profess, and therefore, would be considered hate speech under this category. The second sub-category 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. The third sub-category relevant here is- Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice. Within this, 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. This case merits inclusion in the Hinduphobia tracker as a textbook example of hate speech targeting Hindus, encompassing calls for violence, overt threats, and the deliberate downplaying of communal atrocities. Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Bapi Halder not only minimised the widespread, targeted anti-Hindu violence in Murshidabad—referring to it dismissively as a “small problem”—but also issued open threats of bodily harm against anyone allegedly “eyeing” Waqf properties. His statement, “gouge their eyes out and break their hands,” delivered in the aftermath of coordinated attacks against the Hindu community, is a thinly veiled incitement to violence—clearly aimed at Hindus under the garb of protecting Waqf land. In the given context, where Muslim mobs had just unleashed large-scale violence, arson, and desecration of Hindu temples under the pretext of protesting the Waqf Amendment Act, Halder’s remarks take on a more sinister dimension. He effectively justified the Islamist aggression and implied that Hindus resisting illegal encroachments or questioning Waqf property claims were legitimate targets for brutal violence. This amounts to not only a call for violence against Hindus but also an endorsement of the broader anti-Hindu campaign unfolding on the ground. Such statements fuel communal hatred, embolden radical elements, and normalise the persecution of Hindus, especially in Muslim-majority regions like Murshidabad. His rhetoric embodies deep-seated anti-Hindu prejudice and attempts to subvert the reality of a communal hate crime by shielding the perpetrators and vilifying the victims. The violent threats, genocidal tone, and fake narrative collectively warrant this case’s classification under Hate Speech against Hindus.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
