Hindu man assaulted and robbed in Bihar; Muslim attackers threatened communal violence referring to Pahalgam Hindu massacre

Case ID : ea34992 | Location : Chapra, Bihar, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 25 April, 2025

Case ID : ea34992

Chapra, Bihar, India

25 April, 2025

Hindu man assaulted and robbed in Bihar; Muslim attackers threatened communal violence referring to Pahalgam Hindu massacre

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Communal clash/attack

Hate speech against Hindus

Violent threats

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 Hindus. Once identified, the Hindus were shot at point-blank range. The attack, carried out by Islamic 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 this incident, a communal violence took place in Chhapra, Bihar, after an argument over the purchase of bananas. Amarinder, the Hindu customer, had gone to Sahiwan Ansari’s fruit stall with his friend Nitish Kumar Singh and attempted to buy a dozen bananas for ₹50. He handed over a ₹500 note and asked for the remaining ₹450. Sahiwan Ansari responded with abuse, saying no change was available and that Amarinder should get it from elsewhere. The situation quickly turned violent when Sahiwan called his associates, who gathered at the shop and began assaulting Amarinder. During the attack, Sahiwan Ansari made a communal threat, stating that 27 Hindus had been killed in Kashmir and 2700 more would be killed locally. The victim was reportedly beaten with sticks by a group of twenty men, including neighbours of the fruit seller—Mintu Ansari, Sabir Ansari, Seraj Ansari, Khurshid Ansari, Shamshad Ansari, and Javed Hasmi. Amarinder reported that ₹9500 was taken from his pocket by Mintu Ansari and that his gold chain was snatched by Seraj Ansari. A formal police complaint was lodged, and a case was registered against all the accused. The officer in charge, Kamal Kumar Ram, confirmed that the situation was currently under control and that efforts were underway to reconcile the two parties through a peace committee.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case is categorised under the primary category- Attack not resulting in death. Under that, the relevant sub-category 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 other primary category selected is- Hate Speech against Hindus. The 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. In this case, Amarinder, a Hindu man, was violently assaulted by a group of 20 Muslim men after a minor commercial disagreement. The sheer disproportionality of the response and the presence of explicitly communal language during the assault, particularly the reference to the killing of 27 Hindus in Kashmir and a threat to kill 2700 more, demonstrates that the core motive was not a dispute over change for a ₹500 note, but rather deep-seated communal animosity. The attackers did not simply react to the argument; they used it as a pretext to unleash violence and hatred against the victim for being Hindu. This assault was carried out solely because the victim was identified as Hindu. In such cases, no provocation is needed—the Hindu identity alone becomes the target. Furthermore, this qualifies as a communal clash/attack as the violence was perpetrated by members of one religious community (Muslims) collectively targeting an individual from another (Hindu) with communal slurs, threats of large-scale anti-Hindu violence, and coordinated physical assault. Although it did not escalate into large-scale community-wide rioting, the presence of a group attack, clearly religious overtones, and identity-based violence meets the criteria for a communal incident. The trigger may have appeared mundane (a fruit purchase), but the attackers' response quickly turned into a religiously motivated act of collective violence. The foundation of this crime lay in communal hostility, and therefore, it is accurately classified under this category. The statement made by the accused, referencing the killing of 27 Hindus in Kashmir and threatening to kill 2700 more locally, constitutes a direct and explicit threat of mass violence against Hindus. This goes beyond casual abuse or localised anger—it is a communal warning aimed at intimidating and terrorising Hindus in the region. The comment is not only deeply inflammatory but also reveals a mindset of religious supremacy and a willingness to escalate communal violence. Such statements, especially when made in a group setting during an act of mob violence, pose a serious risk to public order and the physical safety of Hindus in the area. It is a direct incitement to violence, and hence this case is categorised as a hate crime.