Hindu boy killed by Muslim man in Bangladesh for supporting India's stance on Pahalgam Hindu massacre

Case ID : ea34970 | Location : Bangladesh | Date of Incident : Mon, 28 April, 2025

Case ID : ea34970

Bangladesh

28 April, 2025

Hindu boy killed by Muslim man in Bangladesh for supporting India's stance on Pahalgam Hindu massacre

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice

Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying

Attack resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Case Summary

In a tragic incident in Bangladesh, a Hindu boy named Pranto Talukdar was brutally killed by Shakil Mia, a Muslim, over an argument about India's stance on the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, where Islamic terrorists specifically targeted Hindu terrorists by checking their IDs, making them recite Kalma and in some instances pulling down the pants of the Hindu men to check for circumcision. The disagreement began over a debate about India and Pakistan, with Pranto expressing support for India’s tough stance on the Pahalgam Hindu massacre. This led to Shakil Mia reacting violently. The accused, angered by Pranto’s stance, brutally stabbed him, resulting in Pranto’s death. Despite the clear underlying political and religious tensions, the local media in Bangladesh downplayed the incident, reporting it as a trivial dispute over the taste of chanachur, a local snack. However, many believe the true cause of the altercation was rooted in the broader political and religious tensions, rather than a minor disagreement over food.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected 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, cases where the attack led to the death of the Hindu victim/s would be documented. The other sub-category selected relevant here 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, cases where the attack led to the death of the Hindu victim/s would be documented. The second primary category selected here is - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it the sub-category selected is - Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, and tertiary category being - 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 has been added due to it being a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime. In this instance, a Hindu boy, Pranto Talukdar, was killed by a Muslim man, Shakil Mia, because Pranto expressed support for India's stance on the Pahalgam Hindu massacre. The Pahalgam Hindu massacre was a deadly Islamic terrorist attack that took place on April 22, 2025, in the Pahalgam region of Jammu and Kashmir, where Islamic terrorists specifically targeted Hindu tourists, asking their religion before executing them. India strongly condemned this act of Islamic terrorism, particularly emphasising the brutality of targeting people solely based on their religious identity. Pranto's support for India's stance was thus his support against Islamic radicals and against the brutality of the religiously based terror attack. However, this expression of solidarity against Islamic terrorism deeply infuriated Shakil Mia, who proceeded to fatally stab Pranto. The motivation behind Shakil’s action was rooted not just in personal anger but also in a broader ideological allegiance to the pan-Islamic identity, wherein Muslims are expected to support fellow Muslims globally. This worldview often places the lives and dignity of Muslims above that of non-Muslims, fostering dangerous justifications for such attacks. Muslims often believe in transnational unity - or the Ummah - which is a belief that all Muslims across the world are a nation unto themselves and therefore, loyalty as far as the nation-state is concerned lies with the Muslim collectivity and not with a Hindu collectivity like India. Although some local media outlets attempted to downplay the religious angle by suggesting that the altercation stemmed from a dispute over the spiciness of food, this explanation appears implausible. It is highly unlikely that such an extreme act of violence would occur merely over a disagreement about food. This fits into a broader pattern of bias in the media, where incidents targeting Hindu minorities are often downplayed and the religious angle is ignored, especially in Bangladesh. The deeply ingrained view of Hindus as inferior in Islamic theology and within the social structures of Bangladesh likely provoked Shakil Mia to escalate a minor disagreement into a fatal assault. This was not an isolated act of personal violence but a manifestation of a broader societal mindset that devalues Hindu lives. Therefore, this case stands as a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime and has been added to the tracker.