Pahalgam Hindu massacre whitewashed: Indian politician's husband absolves Islamic terrorists and shifts blame on Hindutva policies
India 
22 April, 2025
Case Summary
In a horrific act of terror in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam, Anantnag district, Jammu and Kashmir, Islamic terrorists systematically identified and targeted Hindu victims. The terrorists demanded names and religious identities, inspected ID cards, coerced tourists to recite the Kalma, and even forcibly pulled down their pants to check for circumcision—all to single out non-Muslims. Once identified, the Hindus were shot at point-blank range. The attack, carried out by terrorists of the Resistance Force, a proxy of the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), claimed the lives of 24 Hindus and left 16 others critically injured. Following the incident, businessman Robert Vadra, husband of Congress leader Priyanka Vadra, caused a stir with his remarks regarding the attack. In a televised interaction, he expressed sorrow over the deaths but went on to suggest that the prevailing political climate under the current BJP government had contributed to the tragedy. He referred to what he described as the promotion of Hindutva, stating that it had created discomfort among minorities and widened the rift between Hindus and Muslims, which he believed had given extremist organisations justification to act violently. "In our country, we see that this government will talk about Hindutva, and the minorities feel uncomfortable and troubled...If you dissect this terrorist act that took place, if they (terrorists) are looking at people's identity, why are they doing this? Because there's a divide that has come about in our country with Hindus and Muslims..," he said. Vadra further commented that the method of selecting victims based on religious identity was intended as a message to the Prime Minister. He said the act reflected a growing sense of insecurity among minorities, particularly Muslims, and insisted that national leadership needed to foster a more inclusive and secular atmosphere. According to him, only a firm stance from the top, assuring all communities of their safety, could prevent such incidents from recurring. Vadra added, "This will make these kinds of organisations feel that Hindus are making a problem for all the Muslims. Looking at identities and then killing somebody, that's a message to the PM, because Muslims are feeling weakened. The minorities are feeling weakened...This has to be coming from the top that we feel secure and secular in our country, and we will not see this kind of acts happening." Contrary to Vadra's claims, the Islamic terrorists systematically checked identification cards and even pulled down pants to verify religion by checking for circumcision, executing those identified as non-Muslims point-blank in Baisaran Valley. Amit Malviya, head of the BJP IT Cell, shared a video on his social media handle, expressing his shock at Vadra's remarks. He wrote, "Shocking! Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra shamelessly defends an act of terror, offering cover to the terrorists instead of condemning them. He doesn’t stop there, instead, shifts the blame onto India for the atrocities committed by Pakistani terrorists."
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is categorised under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Under that, the relevant sub-category is- Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimizing the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. The other sub-category relevant is- Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, and within it, 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 incident constitutes a hate crime as it involves the denial and minimisation of the religiously motivated massacre of Hindus by attempting to shift blame onto the victims themselves. In suggesting that the attack was a response to the political climate shaped by Hindutva, Robert Vadra diverted attention from the religious animosity that underpinned the act and instead portrayed the Hindu community as the instigators of violence. Vadra's remarks functioned to absolve the perpetrators (Islamic terrorists) of responsibility, subtly suggesting that the Hindus "brought it upon themselves." This is a classic victim-blaming narrative that erases the religious motive and undermines the victims' suffering. This rhetorical strategy is not accidental but reflects a broader pattern where the very term "Hindutva" is weaponised to deflect attention from acts of anti-Hindu violence and instead shift focus onto Hindus as aggressors. Understanding how the term is used and misused is key to recognising how such deflections enable the erasure of Hindu victimhood and obscure the real motivations behind religiously targeted attacks. 'Hindutva' is often used as a euphemism to make the targeting of Hindus more palatable. Hindutva is essentially a unifying ideology for Hindus, which became imperative for Hindus to find and preserve their cultural identity, which was being eroded and attacked due to Islamic invasions, British colonisation, Christian theological impositions and conversions. Hindutva is not a destructive ideology, as some attempt to portray, but one that is used as a unifying edifice for Hindus. Hindutva is also often used as a euphemism to target Hindus on the whole and their religious identity and faith. It is essentially semantic jugglery to confuse Hindus into believing that their own persecution by supremacists is somehow 'justified' because the specific victims espoused an ideology (Hindutva) which deserves the onslaught. The fact that the use of 'Hindutva' is merely to mask animosity towards Hindus was evident from the "Dismantling Global Hindutva" conference held in the USA, where speakers unabashedly spoke about how Hindutva and Hinduism are indistinguishable and therefore, the "dismantle Hindutva" one would have to "dismantle Hinduism". The practices of targeting Hindus and their religious and cultural identity, and justifying that victimisation and dehumanisation by using euphemisms like "Hindutva" stem from inherent animosity and hostility towards Hindus. Such speech does not merely revise the narrative of the attack, but actively dehumanises Hindus, erases their victimhood, and undermines the religious motives of the perpetrators, thus laying the groundwork for future violence and incitement against the community. By framing the massacre as a consequence of government policy rather than a religiously charged act of terror, the remarks echo common patterns in biased media narratives that seek to rationalise or excuse violence against Hindus. This not only distorts the public understanding of such incidents but also fosters an environment in which religiously motivated violence against Hindus is normalised or justified. The broader implication is the continued marginalisation of Hindus in discourse, reinforcing prejudicial attitudes and contributing to a climate of hostility and intolerance.
Case Status
Complaint not filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
