“They said this was just a trailer”: Hindu man in Murshidabad received genocidal threat amid anti-Hindu violence
Murshidabad, West Bengal, India 
10 April, 2025
Case Summary
Amidst the anti-Hindu violence that Muslims unleashed in Murshidabad under the guise of protests against the newly enacted Waqf Amendment Act, one Hindu named Sujit Prasad narrated a violent threat given by Muslims. While speaking to the media, Sujit Prasad stated, “They (Muslims) warned that it is a trailer. The cinema is yet to come.”. On 11th April, 2025, Murshidabad district in West Bengal, which has a significant Muslim population, witnessed widespread violence, vandalism, arson, and targeted assaults against the Hindu community, all under the pretext of protests against the newly enacted Waqf Amendment Act. Following the conclusion of Jumma Namaz, mobs went on a rampage in the Suti and Samserganj areas, disrupting train services, damaging public infrastructure, and bringing normal life to a standstill. The office of the Block Development Officer (BDO) was vandalised with stones and sticks, creating an atmosphere of chaos and fear. However, what stands out is the deliberate and systematic targeting of the Hindu community under the guise of these protests. Local reports also suggested that Hindu temples were attacked and idols desecrated. Hundreds of Hindus have been compelled to flee their homes in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district in the wake of an Islamic onslaught carried out under the pretext of protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, an outbreak of violence that has already claimed three lives.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The sub-category relevant in this case 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 other sub-category selected is- Call for genocide/violence against 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 statement made to Sujit Prasad — “This is just a trailer, the cinema is yet to come” — clearly implies a threat of impending violence. Though phrased metaphorically, the intent behind such a statement is unmistakable: it warns of larger, more severe violence to follow, targeting Hindus as a group. Such threats, particularly when issued in the context of widespread anti-Hindu violence, function as psychological weapons that aim to instil fear in an entire religious community. This is not merely a case of personal vendetta or local dispute; the threat is rooted in religious animosity, and the language employed strongly suggests that the target was selected because of their Hindu identity. The statement recorded by Sujit Prasad hints at a coordinated mindset with a long-term intent to escalate violence against Hindus. This type of speech is often used to dehumanise a community and justify further attacks, and has a dangerous precedent in encouraging collective violence. Thus, the threatening language in this context was not only religiously motivated but also served as a broader signal of hatred and intended harm, making it a clear instance of a hate crime.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 1
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
