Case Summary

A Hindu influencer named Sharmishta Panoli received death threats, rape threats and 'sar tan se juda' (STSJ) threats by Muslim extremists after she posted a video on X (formerly Twitter) and expressed her opinion on the contemporary situation, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. Besides issuing rape and beheading threats, Muslim extremists leaked her personal details on social media putting her life at risk. Muslims were incited to take the law into their hand and 'teach her a lesson'. The incident occurred amidst heightened emotions following Operation Sindoor, India’s military strike in response to the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, where Hindu tourists were killed for their faith at point-blank range by Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists and the subsequent Pakistan’s unprovoked retaliatory attacks along the Line of Control (LOC). Sharmishta found herself at the centre of controversy after a video of her mocking a Pakistani troll went viral. The troll in question had denied the persecution of Hindus and the brutal Pahalgam massacre, where Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists confirmed the victims' religious identity before executing them at point-blank range. Sharmishta, visibly angered by this denial, responded strongly. Islamists began alleging that Sharmishta had insulted the Prophet Muhammad in her video. The video being widely circulated by Islamist social media users, shows Sharmishta mocking the Pakistani woman who dismissed the religious profiling and targeted killing of Hindus in the Pahalgam terror attack. “How did you confirm that Pakistan opened fire on your country? Your country started the war without any valid reason,” the Pakistani Instagram user asked, denying any Pakistani role in the escalating conflict. This denial came despite clear confirmation by Indian security forces that Pakistani terrorists, including a former Pakistani Army officer, Hashim Must, and members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba-backed terror group The Resistance Front, killed 26 Hindu civilians in Pahalgam after confirming their religion. In her response, Sharmishta sarcastically criticised the Pakistani woman, stating that their Nabi (Prophet) was delusional to believe in the promise of 72 hoors (virgins) in Jannat (Islamic paradise), but in reality ended up in a brothel. She questioned how someone could claim India started the war unprovoked, asking if they had forgotten about the Pahalgam attack and other Pakistan-sponsored terrorist acts. She argued that Indian forces had every right to respond rather than remain passive. Her response, though laced with harsh language and a confrontational tone, was directed specifically at a Pakistani individual and mocked the jihadi ideology that glorifies the killing of non-Muslims (kafirs) as a means to attain heavenly rewards. Nonetheless, Indian Islamists, known for distorting context to manufacture outrage, began circulating the video with claims that Sharmishta had insulted the Prophet. They flooded her social media with abuse and issued death threats, including “Sar tan se juda” (beheading) calls. At the time of writing this report, the girl tendered an unconditional apology. India carried out ‘Operation Sindoor’ on May 7, 2025, destroying nine terrorist camps in Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. 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 about 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. The military operation was a firm retaliation aimed at dismantling the terror camps in Pakistan harbouring and training Islamic terrorists responsible for the Pahalgam Hindu massacre. Following Operation Sindoor, Pakistan launched unprovoked attacks across the Line of Control (LoC), deploying mortars and heavy-calibre artillery, which led to the death of 16 Indian civilians. Between May 7 and May 10, Pakistan escalated its aggression by orchestrating drone incursions across several locations in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the states of Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat. An estimated 300 to 400 drones were deployed to target Indian sites, many of which were successfully intercepted and neutralised by Indian forces. In response to these provocations, India carried out precise and powerful retaliatory strikes aimed at dismantling key Pakistani military assets and terror infrastructure, reaffirming its zero-tolerance stance against cross-border aggression and terrorism.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker un the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected here is - Doxxing and harassment of Hindu for religious reasons. Doxxing is the act of making available publicly personal, identifiable information of an individual with the intention of compromising their safety, security and privacy. When doxing is done with religious animosity forming the basis of the intention, it often involves severe consequences like loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination for the victim’s religious beliefs. Such doxxing also involves projecting the religious beliefs, affiliations, and rituals of the victim, specifically a Hindu, in a manner that can lead to loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination. Apart from doxxing, harassment would also include misrepresentation of an individual's views and religious beliefs that would invite abuse, loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination owing to religious hate and animosity. There have been several such instances where religious animosity by one section has led to the doxxing and harassment of Hindus. For example, when a Hindu who worked in the UAE commented on the historical persecution of Hindus at the hands of Muslim invaders, his information was leaked online leading to loss of employment, physical harm, physical threat, harassment and/or discrimination. In another case, a Hindu man’s information was leaked online, leading to violent attacks, after he responded with an emoji to a post about Tipu Sultan, the Islamic tyrant who persecuted Hindus. Such cases are born out of intrinsic religious animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be considered religiously motivated hate speech. The other 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. The second category relevant here is- Attack not resulting in death, and within this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked over 'Blasphemy'. Blasphemy essentially refers to the desecration of anything which is held sacred/holy to a group of people. However, for religious supremacist groups, the elements of ‘blasphemy’ are ever-changing, shifting and expanding – leading to infringement on the rights of other religious groups, freedom of speech and expression, threats and even physical violence. There are instances where blasphemy is also used as a dog whistle to target Hindus owing to intrinsic animosity towards Hinduism. There are several instances where stating truths as mentioned in the non-Hindu doctrine itself has led to unmitigated violence against Hindus. There have also been instances where non-Hindus have themselves created a ‘blasphemous’ situation, like placing a Quran in a temple, to use it as an excuse to attack Hindus. Essentially, Blasphemy charges are often made up and/or are used to shut down any form of criticism of non-Hindu faiths and as a tool to target Hindus. Any physical violence over Blasphemy charges against Hindus are foundationally based on animosity for Hindus and their faith owing to religious supremacist ideologies, therefore, such attacks would be documented as religious motivated hate crimes under this category. The targeted Hindu girl expressed her opinion on a current event involving Islamic terrorism — namely, the Pahalgam Hindu massacre and India’s response through Operation Sindoor. Her remarks were met with doxxing, violent threats like rape and beheading threats and vulgar abuse. These are not isolated reactions of personal disagreement or debate; they are violent threats steeped in religious animosity, directed at a Hindu girl for expressing her views in the aftermath of a religiously targeted attack. “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki Ek hi saza, sar tan se Juda, sar tan se Juda”, which translates to “There is only one punishment for being disrespectful to Rasool (Prophet Muhammad), their head separated from their torso, their head separated from the torso”, is an Islamist clarion call, that has become a staple feature of violent protests that have so far claimed the lives of at least 6 Hindus, including Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and Umesh Kolhe in Amravati, after Muslim fundamentalists, egged on by the dog-whistling of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair against former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, resorted to violence for what they perceived as ‘blasphemy’ against Prophet Muhammad. From Kanpur in India’s northern plains to the southern metropolis of Bengaluru, from Kolkata in the east to Hyderabad in the south, protests in the name of blasphemy have erupted in almost every corner of the country as Islamists took to the streets running amok and shouting “Sar Tan Se Juda” chants over the perceived belief of blasphemy against the Prophet. Though a radical Muslim outfit in Pakistan coined the slogan, it has gained popularity among Islamists in regions beyond its geographical origins. Over the years, we have seen large crowds of Islamists chanting the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan, which is nothing but a direct incitement to violence, leading to murders committed in the name of blasphemy. The radicalised outcry is not merely a statement of disapproval; it is a call for the execution of an individual through beheading, based on their religious identity. When this slogan is raised, it sends a clear and terrifying message not just to the individual targeted but also to anyone else who might share similar views or dare to express them. This tactic of intimidation aims to silence dissent and suppress freedom of expression, particularly in religious discourse. It aims to instil fear in the broader community. Islamists use this tactic to settle personal scores with Hindu and Christian families by levelling fabricated charges of blasphemy against them, which causes outrage and paints a target on them. The underlying hatred and animosity toward non-Muslims, especially Hindus, drive these false accusations as a means to subjugate and victimise them. Here, the abuse escalated from verbal to psychological and physical intimidation when Sharmishta’s personal details were deliberately leaked online. Her photos, address, and information about her family members were circulated with the explicit aim of inciting a mob against her. The threats did not remain confined to her alone; her parents were also targeted, and her educational institution received hostile communications. This reflects a concerted attempt to harass and terrorise her entire support system, using her Hindu identity as the focal point of attack. This controversy comes across as a redux of the 2022 Nupur Sharma episode, wherein the then-BJP spokesperson made comments about Prophet Mohammad and his marriage. Although factual, her remarks, made in response to a Muslim leader’s highly derogatory comment on the Shivling during a TV news debate, were taken out of context and weaponised to incite global outrage and violence. Similarly, Sharmishta’s video, originally targeting a Pakistani troll who denied the Pahalgam Hindu massacre, was twisted by Islamists into a charge of blasphemy to justify threats of rape and beheading. This aligns directly with previous patterns observed in cases where Hindus, like Nupur Sharma, have been doxxed and harassed for expressing religious opinions or criticising historical or contemporary Islamic violence. Sharmishta’s Hindu identity and her vocal stance against Islamic terrorism became the sole trigger for a wave of hate that was explicitly communal in nature. As a result, this case is classified as a religiously motivated hate crime and has been documented accordingly. Disclaimer: Islamists and several members of the anti-Hindu and anti-India brigade have deliberately revealed the girl's personal details on social media, endangering her safety and that of her family. For security reasons and to protect her privacy, we have chosen not to reproduce or link those posts or tweets where the girl's personal details have been shared.