Elderly Hindu woman from Murshidabad shares ordeal of escaping anti-Hindu violence, facing threats of rape and arson
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, a Hindu woman, one of the victims of the horror, provided a detailed account of anti-Hindu violence. She said that bombs were being hurled in Murshidabad, prompting her to flee her home. Another woman said, “They told us that Modi passed the Bill (Waqf Amendment), and so we will not allow any Hindus to live here.” “They (Muslims) are talking about raping mothers of Hindus, vandalising and looting our houses. They have taken away our gold ornaments and other valuable items and set our houses on fire. They have burnt every single Hindu house in the area. Muslims are supporting this arson. Our children are starving, women are being threatened with weapons, Muslims are committing atrocities.”, she pointed out. The testimony of the Hindu victim reinforces the fact that the violence unleashed by Islamists in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district was distinctly communal in nature. 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- Attack not resulting in death. The sub-category relevant in this case is- Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other sub-category selected 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. The third sub-category relevant here is- Attacked to induce migration from non-Hindu dominated area. There have been cases where the Hindus living in an area, often with a majority dwelling belonging to non-Hindus or those harbouring animosity towards the Hindu faith, the Hindu residents experience threats and violence. The violence is employed with the aim of making the Hindus leave the area and relocate, so the area could be turned into an exclusive ghetto for adherents of the non-Hindu faith or those who harbor animosity towards the Hindu faith. In several cases, the aim of exodus is explicit. However, in several cases, the demand for exodus of Hindu residents is not explicit, however, violence by non-Hindu residents leaves the Hindu residents no option but to leave the area, thereby, turning the area into an exclusive ghetto of non-Hindu residents. In such cases, there are instances violence against the Hindu residents explicitly. For example, in the Hauz Qazi case of 2019, the Muslim residents claimed that mob violence against the Hindu residents had been triggered by a parking dispute. However, the violence did turn religious with a temple being desecrated and was directed specifically against the Hindu residents. The Hindu residents of the area were clear that the violence was religiously motivated and one of the motives was to affect an exodus of the Hindu residents. In such cases, even though the perpetrators have not explicitly expressed the aim of affecting exodus, the given circumstances and violence and precedent point to the intention of exodus and therefore would be categorized under this sub-category. Such crimes are religiously motivated and therefore are hate crimes. The second prime category selected for this case is- Hate Speech against Hindus. The sub-category relevant within this 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 incident qualifies as a hate crime because it involved targeted violence against individuals solely on account of their Hindu identity. The victims offered no provocation other than practising their faith, yet their homes were deliberately set ablaze, their valuables looted, and their lives threatened. Victims recounted that Muslim mobs stated openly that no Hindus would be allowed to live in the area, and all Hindu houses were attacked while Muslim homes remained untouched. This reflects a clear pattern of religiously motivated aggression. The violence, therefore, falls under the categories of being attacked for Hindu identity as well as a communal clash, where the trigger was an anti-Hindu religious animosity that escalated into widespread, targeted violence. Moreover, the case is compounded by hate speech involving explicit violent threats. Victims reported that the mobs spoke of raping Hindu women, threatening children with weapons, and issuing collective threats aimed at expelling the entire community. These are not vague or personal threats but constitute clear calls for violence against a specific religious group. Such speech, whether verbal or implied, fits the legal understanding of hate speech involving violent threats and calls for genocide or mass violence. The intent behind such speech and actions was not only to harm but to terrorise and forcibly displace Hindus from the area, thereby creating a religiously exclusive space. This combination of physical violence, religious targeting, forced migration, and violent hate speech unambiguously marks the incident as a multi-faceted hate crime, warranting its inclusion in the tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
