Pahalgam Hindu massacre: Pakistani cricketer spreads misinformation and blames India for attack
Pakistan 
27 April, 2025
Case Summary
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, where Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists selectively targeted and killed Hindu tourists in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam, Anantnag district, Jammu and Kashmir, former Pakistani cricketer Shahid Afridi sparked outrage by making inflammatory and baseless remarks against India. Afridi said that the Pahalgam Hindu massacre was carried out by Indian authorities themselves in an attempt to falsely implicate Pakistan. He stated that India fabricates evidence in such cases to push an anti-Pakistan narrative. Afridi also questioned the response time of Indian security forces, claiming that despite the presence of an “8 lakh strong Indian army” in Kashmir, no immediate action was taken during the attack. Afridi also attempted to position Pakistan as a peace-seeking nation, stating, “Pakistan always wants peace,” and cited Islam as a religion that promotes harmony. His comments have been widely condemned on social media, with users denouncing them as baseless, provocative, and detrimental to regional stability. Many view his statements as a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from Pakistan’s well-documented involvement in cross-border terrorism, especially in Jammu and Kashmir.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary of: - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected is: Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, with the 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. 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. The case has been added because what Shahid Afridi attempted to do was a deliberate act of whitewashing the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, where Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists specifically targeted and killed Hindus. He falsely blamed the attack on India and a conspiracy theory. Afridi sought to absolve the Islamic terrorists of responsibility. By doing so, he deflected attention from the religious motivations behind the attack. Furthermore, he not only attempted to shield the perpetrators but also defended Pakistan’s role, despite the country’s long-standing record of harbouring and supporting cross-border terrorism. Given his celebrity status and large public following in Pakistan, Afridi’s statements have the potential to seriously mislead the public and influence mass perception. By dismissing the targeted killing of Hindus and shifting blame onto India, Afridi's comments serve as a form of genocide denial. This type of speech contributes to the dehumanisation of Hindus and legitimises further hostility against them. Such denial not only erases the lived trauma of the victims and their communities but also sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging future acts of violence by portraying the original crime as justified or fabricated. Undermining the legitimacy of Hindu persecution in this manner fosters an environment of hate and prejudice, and therefore qualifies as hate speech under the outlined category.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
