Leftist journalist vilifies Hindus, whitewashes historical atrocities commited against Hindus by Muslim invaders
India 
24 May, 2025
Case Summary
EMS India, a news agency, published an article written by Ram Puniyani, which criticised Hindutva and whitewashed the atrocities committed against Hindus by the Muslim invaders. The original article is in English, and it is translated into Hindi by Amrish Herdenia. Ram Puniyani is an Indian author and former professor of biomedical engineering. He wrote the article titled 'History turned into a political weapon: Muslim rulers disappear from the curriculum'. In the article, he lamented the removal of details about the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rule from textbooks. According to him, this effectively erases around 700 years of history. Puniyani also mentioned other reforms in the curriculum. He claimed that the omitted portions were those that Hindu nationalist ideologies found uncomfortable. He further stated that these changes are meant to demonise Muslims. Puniyani categorically rejected the centuries of atrocities committed against Hindus by the Muslim invaders. He said, "Historically, the demonisation of Muslims was based on claims of temple destruction by Muslim rulers, which rational historians have consistently challenged. The notion that Islam was spread by the sword is also false; early conversions to Islam were due to interactions between Indian communities and Muslim Arab traders. Later, many from lower castes adopted Islam to escape the oppression of the caste system." Further, dismissing the massacre of Hindus, the journalist stated, "While wars were common during the era of empires, as rulers sought to expand their territories often at great human cost, calling this a widespread massacre is entirely inaccurate." He accused that at the core of the Hindutva narrative is a communal historiography, promoted by the British under their "divide and rule" policy, which links all royal decisions to religion and portrays rulers as symbols of their religious communities. He also said that over the past three decades, India has been following a similar path to Pakistan, replicating its trajectory. The author ends the article by stating his belief that we do not need a history centred on rulers or kings, and we must also focus on marginalised sections of society.
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 - Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. The other sub-category selected 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. Ram Puniyani’s article, while presented under the guise of academic critique, effectively weaponises historical revisionism to delegitimise the lived experience and historical memory of Hindus. His dismissal of documented atrocities committed during the Islamic invasions of Bharat, including mass killings, forced conversions, temple desecrations, and the systemic destruction of Hindu religious and cultural institutions, constitutes a dangerous form of genocide denial. By labelling such well-established historical events as “false claims” and attributing them to mere “communal historiography,” the article mocks the centuries of persecution faced by Hindus under foreign Islamic rule. This form of erasure not only distorts history but also trivialises the pain of communities that continue to carry the trauma of those events. This meets the criteria of denial of genocide or large-scale persecution, a recognised category of hate speech, as it actively seeks to rewrite the narrative in a manner that delegitimises Hindu suffering. Furthermore, the article indirectly reinforces long-standing anti-Hindu stereotypes by portraying Hindu concerns about historical persecution as unfounded and communal. It implies that resistance to whitewashing Islamic conquests is rooted in irrational hatred, thus vilifying Hindu voices as extremist or fascist. This framing fosters a prejudiced environment in which any articulation of Hindu religious or historical identity is immediately viewed with suspicion or hostility. Such stereotyping is not benign; it feeds into an ecosystem of mockery and delegitimisation that has historically resulted in real-world violence against Hindus. This falls within the category of mocking the Hindu faith. Additionally, the article’s comparison of contemporary Bharat to Pakistan is deeply problematic. By suggesting that Bharat is treading the same path as its neighbour simply because Hindu perspectives are being acknowledged in public discourse or education policy, the author effectively equates Hindu assertion with religious extremism. This not only demonises the Hindu identity in the present but also justifies historical oppression by framing Hindus as aggressors even when they are reclaiming their own narrative. Such comparisons are rooted in deep-seated Hinduphobia and promote a false equivalence that serves to dehumanise Hindus in public perception. The article also vilifies Hindutva. 'Hindutva' is often used as a euphemism to make the targeting of Hindus more palatable. Hindutva is essentially a unifying ideology for Hindus, which became imperative for Hindus to find and preserve their cultural identity, which was being eroded and attacked due to Islamic invasions, British colonisation, Christian theological impositions and conversions. Hindutva is not a destructive ideology, as some attempt to portray, but one that is used as a unifying edifice for Hindus. Hindutva is also often used as a euphemism to target Hindus on the whole and their religious identity and faith. It is essentially semantic jugglery to confuse Hindus into believing that their own persecution by supremacists is somehow 'justified' because the specific victims espoused an ideology (Hindutva) which deserves the onslaught. The fact that the use of 'Hindutva' is merely to mask animosity towards Hindus was evident from the "Dismantling Global Hindutva" conference held in the USA, where speakers unabashedly spoke about how Hindutva and Hinduism are indistinguishable and therefore, to "dismantle Hindutva" one would have to "dismantle Hinduism". The practices of targeting Hindus and their religious and cultural identity, and justifying that victimisation and dehumanisation by using euphemisms like "Hindutva" stem from inherent animosity and hostility towards Hindus. Hence, this case is classified as a hate crime.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
