Pahalgam Hindu massacre downplayed: Farmer leader deflects blame from Islamic terrorists, dismisses targeted Anti-Hindu violence
India 
27 April, 2025
Case Summary
Farmer leader Rakesh Tikait stirred controversy by casting doubt on the recent Pahalgam Hindu massacre, in which Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists deliberately targeted Hindu tourists. Instead of directly condemning the terrorist attack, Tikait hinted at a deeper conspiracy and diverted the attention, stating that those who stand to gain from such violence may not be the ones immediately suspected. Tikait questioned why the principle of “who benefits” is not applied to terror incidents. He implied that the attack may have been orchestrated or allowed to happen by actors with hidden agendas, who are far removed from Kashmir. In his address, Tikait also stated that Kashmiris themselves are the ones who suffer the most in such violence and dismissed the notion that locals or even Pakistani groups would gain anything by destabilising the region. His comments were filled with indirect criticism of the media, accusing it of promoting a one-sided version of events and failing to question those truly benefiting from the violence. This line of reasoning was met with swift backlash, with many accusing him of disrespecting the victims and undermining national unity. Following backlash, Tikait issued a statement, which appeared to be an afterthought, in which he reaffirmed his loyalty to the country and the government, calling for strict action against cross-border trade with Pakistan and suggesting economic measures such as banning salt imported from Lahore and goods routed through Dubai.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected is: - Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, with the tertiary sub-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. The other sub-category relevant here 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. This case has been added to the tracker because farmer leader Rakesh Tikait deliberately attempted to downplay the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, in which Islamic terrorists identified and killed Hindus, based on their religious identity. Instead of acknowledging the targeted nature of the killings, Tikait suggested that the incident was part of a broader conspiracy, asking, “Who stands to gain from such attacks?” By framing it this way, he deliberately diverted attention from the actual perpetrators, effectively shielding both the Islamic terrorists and Pakistan-backed elements from accountability. In doing so, he denied the religious motivation behind the attack and undermined the suffering of the Hindu victims. This kind of minimisation obscures the nature of the hate crime, one that involved clear religious profiling and the execution of Hindus, and serves to delegitimise the persecution faced by the community. Tikait also sought to whitewash potential local complicity by arguing that Kashmiris would not benefit from such attacks due to economic losses. This claim is deeply misleading and ignores documented instances of local support, silence, or even complicity in past acts of terror targeting Hindus. His remarks are part of a broader trend wherein acts of terrorism against Hindus are reframed, denied, or justified, often to shield the aggressor community from scrutiny. This denial and distortion of religiously motivated violence constitutes hate speech and thus has been added to the tracker. Such rhetoric not only erases the reality of Hindu suffering but also paves the way for future violence by normalising and justifying anti-Hindu hate.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
