Hindus attacked and stabbed for opposing eve-teasing of Hindu girls during religious event by Muslim men

Case ID : ea349c3 | Location : Howrah, West Bengal, India | Date of Incident : Sat, 26 April, 2025

Case ID : ea349c3

Howrah, West Bengal, India

26 April, 2025

Hindus attacked and stabbed for opposing eve-teasing of Hindu girls during religious event by Muslim men

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Attack against Hindu devotees

Communal clash/attack

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Violence against religious structures or centres

Case Summary

A targeted communal attack took place in Bhagawatipur village under Sankrail Police Station in Howrah district, West Bengal. The attack occurred during a Kali Mata Puja, near the Puja mandap, organised by the Hindu residents of the village. During this time, a group of Muslim youths from a nearby locality began harassing and teasing Hindu girls present at the event. When local Hindu villagers objected and asked them to leave, the situation escalated. Within approximately thirty minutes, the same group returned, this time accompanied by more individuals and armed with sharp weapons. In a premeditated and violent retaliation, the attackers began attacking and stabbing various people at the Puja Mandap. While many managed to escape the scene, five Hindu men, Amar Patra, Bishnu Sardar, Bijoy Singh, Debashis Barik, and Chandu Barik, sustained injuries in the assault. A large police contingent soon arrived at the site, by which time the assailants had already fled. As of the date of writing this report, the police have launched an investigation and arrested four individuals. A search operation has also been launched to apprehend the remaining accused.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Attack not resulting in death. Within it the sub-category selected 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. The second sub-category under which this case has been placed is- Attack against Hindu devotees. Hindu devotees are a few of the easiest targets of religiously motivated hate crimes because during the festival/procession/puja etc, for non-Hindus it is easy to profile their victims on the basis of religion. Hindu devotees come under attack on several occasions by individual non-Hindus or mobs of non-Hindus owing to their animosity against Hinduism, its symbols and tradition/practices. There are several instances of Hindu devotees being attacked while they worship in temples or temporary religious structures, during religious processions, doing bhajan/kirtan/puja in their own homes, in the residential society etc. These attacks are perpetrated by non-Hindus primarily because of their animosity towards Hindus and their faith. In some cases, the trigger for the violence may be non-religious, however, there are two elements that make these hate crimes. First, the Hindus who come under attack are attacked violently while indulging in religious activity. Whether they are in a place of worship or not is immaterial to the crime. When individuals are attacked while indulging in religious practices, the attack in itself is a hindrance to their freedom to practice religion and therefore constitutes a hate crime. Secondly, religious supremacist doctrines and ideologies deem religious practices of Hindus to be offensive ab initio since they are considered “sinful” by these ideologies, worthy to be annihilated by force or coercion. Driven by these religious supremacist ideologies and doctrines, the attacks against Hindu devotees stem from intrinsic animosity towards Hinduism. In some cases, the trigger for the violence may be non-religious, however, it develops into a religiously motivated crime during the course of the violence. Since these attacks stem from animosity towards Hindus and Hinduism, they are considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. The second category selected here is- Attack on Hindu religious representation, and within this, the first sub-category selected is- Violence against religious structures or centres. In Hinduism, a religious structure is also considered divine. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the religious structure itself is sacred. In this sub-category, we would document attacks against religious structures which are not consecrated temple spaces. Such religious spaces could be temporary in nature – for example – the religious spaces erected specifically for festivals like Durga Puja etc. This category would also document cases of attacks against religious centres. These spaces in their own right may not be ‘sacred’ per se, however, are often spaces where religious gurus live, religious teaching is imparted, or belong to religious institutions. Any attack against religious structures is a result of animosity towards the religion itself, which manifests itself through the religious spaces and therefore, such attacks are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. Religious centres are also manifestations of the religion, its teachings or gurus and therefore, attacks against such centres would be considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The second 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. This case reflects a clear instance of targeted violence rooted in communal hostility. The attack took place during a religious celebration organised by Hindus, indicating that the site and timing were deliberately chosen to target Hindus. The incident began with the harassment of Hindu girls by a group of Muslim youths, showing both an intent to provoke and a disregard for the sanctity of the religious gathering. When local residents intervened to stop the harassment and protect the girls, they were met with an organised and armed retaliation. The fact that the perpetrators returned with weapons and additional support within a short span of time demonstrates that this was not a spontaneous outburst but a premeditated act of aggression. The violent assault on the Hindu devotees, specifically targeting those who spoke up against wrongdoing, exemplifies how communal tensions were escalated into physical violence. Furthermore, attacking people gathered for a religious occasion, particularly near a worship site, goes beyond personal enmity and signals animosity toward the religious community itself. The choice of location and the nature of the violence point to a deeper motive of intimidation, attempting to assert dominance and instil fear in a community observing its faith. The attacker's actions were not just criminal but also communal in nature, aiming to disrupt a religious practice and harm those associated with it. This is why the incident warrants documentation as a hate crime, as the victims were targeted not just as individuals, but as members of a religious group, during a religious event, for defending the dignity and safety of their community.