Hindu women selectively assaulted and threatened; their homes targeted by Muslim mob over complaint against illegal pan shop
Solapur, Maharashtra, India 
24 May, 2025
Case Summary
In a Hindu locality in Solapur, Maharashtra, Hindu women and local Hindus fell victim to an attack by a Muslim mob. The violence was selectively targeted at Hindus, with particular focus on Hindu women. The Hindu women were molested and threatened with rape, murder and arson. The incident occurred in the Punjab Talim area of Solapur. Reports state that the violence stemmed from a longstanding dispute over an illegal paan shop owned by local Muslims in the area. Hindu residents had previously raised concerns with the authorities, saying that the shop was a hotspot for anti-social elements who harassed passers-by and behaved inappropriately with women. Instead of seeking a legal resolution, the Muslim mob attacked Hindus in the locality, especially targeting Hindu women. Eyewitnesses reported that a mob of nearly 100 Muslims descended upon the Hindu housing society, armed with sticks and swords. They forcibly entered homes, assaulted women, molested them, and issued threats of rape, murder, and arson. Some locals also said that Hindu women were not only beaten but also subjected to lewd behaviour and threats of being burnt alive. Vehicles belonging to Hindus were vandalised, and stones were thrown indiscriminately at Hindu houses. Many residents said that the police either arrived late or acted with bias, by siding with the Muslim mobsters rather than the Hindu victims. The police filed an FIR against 25 Muslims and arrested two accused. One local Hindu resident said, “This was not just violence; it was a message.” He further stated, “They wanted to instil fear, especially among Hindu women, using intimidation and brutality.” Despite this severe attack on the Hindu locality, the incident received very little attention in the mainstream media. However, social media was flooded with numerous pictures of the attacks and videos of the victims narrating their ordeal.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the Hinduphobia tracker under the primary category- Attack not resulting in Death. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other subcategory is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save the 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 other subcategory 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. Another primary category selected is- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory 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. Although the initial trigger of the attack in Solapur may appear to be non-religious—a complaint by Hindu residents regarding an illegal paan shop—the nature, intensity, and targeted execution of the violence strongly suggest that it was rooted in deep-seated religious animosity. The complaint itself was a civic concern: Hindu families had raised objections to a paan shop associated with anti-social behaviour and harassment, particularly toward women. However, the response from the Muslim mob was not a legal rebuttal or a protest but a coordinated, violent assault explicitly aimed at the Hindu community. The mob of nearly 100 individuals did not simply vandalise public property or engage in a general altercation. They stormed a Hindu-majority residential area, forcibly entered homes, molested and physically assaulted Hindu women, and issued chilling threats of rape, murder, and arson. Such brutality far exceeded any reasonable or emotional reaction to a local grievance. The fact that Hindu women were singled out for humiliation and sexually charged threats is particularly telling. This gendered violence, combined with the communal selectivity, suggests the attack was not merely reactive but deliberately designed to terrorise Hindus and reinforce a sense of religious domination. Further, the organised nature of the attack, the scale of the mob, the use of weapons, and the methodical targeting of Hindu homes and property imply prior planning and collective animosity, not a spontaneous altercation. This aligns with a broader, disturbing pattern observed in various parts of India, where localised disputes are weaponised into communal attacks against Hindus, often involving systematic violence and intimidation. The attackers’ choice to escalate a civic complaint into communal violence indicates that religious identity was central to their actions. Therefore, while the proximate cause of the conflict may have been a non-religious complaint, the subsequent actions of the mob, disproportionate, targeted, and deeply communal in nature, reveal that this was not merely a neighbourhood dispute. It was an act of religiously motivated hate, intended to punish and subjugate the Hindu community for asserting their rights and voicing legitimate concerns. This makes the incident a clear case of a hate crime rooted in religious intolerance and communal hostility.
Case Status
Case sub-judice
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 10 to 100
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
