Hindus threatened by Muslim man over Hanuman Chalisa chanting in temple
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India 
26 January, 2025
Case Summary
In Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, an auto driver named Ishaq Khan threatened people at a temple after hearing Hanuman Chalisa being played. The incident took place in the Koni area around 07:00 AM and was captured on CCTV. Khan reportedly entered the Hanuman temple and expressed his anger at the devotional song, stating that those interested in being Hindus should go to Ayodhya and refrain from chanting "Hindu Hindu" in the locality. He further threatened to remove the temple cloth and used abusive language. The video of the incident went viral on social media, prompting widespread outrage among Hindu communities. Members of Hindu organizations condemned the threats and called for action. Dhananjay Giri Goswami, a member of the Hindu Sanatani Sena, questioned why Ishaq Khan had an issue with the temple’s activities while many tolerated the daily call to prayer from mosques. He reported Khan habitually making anti-Hindu remarks and declared that such behaviour had become intolerable. Goswami emphasized that Hindus would continue their practices, including reciting Hanuman Chalisa at the temple. Following public outrage and protests by Hindu leaders, the police arrested Ishaq Khan.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under three categories of the tracker. The first is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, two sub-categories have been selected. The first sub-category 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 second sub-category selected under the above-mentioned category 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 relevant here is- Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within this, the sub-category selected is- Breaking rules of place of worship. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion of one book, which is to say that while it has religious scriptures that form the central tenets of the faith, there are several traditions followed through thousands of years, mostly passed from generation to generation orally. One of these oral traditions or written traditions is the rules of specific temples. Certain temples have rules which are traditional rules, dependent on the worship of the presiding deities. These rules and traditions have been followed for thousands of years whether they find scriptural mention or not. Such traditions are based on the nature and rules of worship of the presiding deity of that temple. Any non-compliance of these traditions owing to animosity towards the faith or for the sake of activism stems not only from the lack of faith in the presiding deity but also disregard for the faith of the devotees of that deity/temple and implicit bias against the faith, the tradition and the deity itself. Since these specific traditions are central to the faith of the devotees of that specific temple and presiding deity, any non-compliance with these traditional rules would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. The third category under which this case has been placed is- Hate speech against Hindus and within this, the 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 Hanuman Chalisa is a revered devotional hymn dedicated to Lord Hanuman, a prominent deity in Hinduism. In this instance, a Muslim man entered the temple premises and threatened the Hindu devotees for chanting the devotional song. Hymns, songs or bhajans are a form of religious expression and worship in Hinduism. Attacking individuals for performing bhajans or chanting religious hymns is an attempt to suppress their right to practice their religion. Moreover, it is an act of hostility directed at their faith and religious identity. The attack, in this case, was unprovoked as the benign Hindu devotees were merely chanting the Hanuman Chalisa inside the temple premises, without creating any sort of disturbance for others. However, the Muslim perpetrator, out of their animosity for the Hindu religion, found it disturbing and issued veiled threats to the Hindus. He went so far as to enter the premises, threatening to remove the temple cloth and using abusive language within the temple, which constitutes a blatant disrespect to the sanctity of the space and the deities revered there. Since intrinsic animosity towards Hindus and their religious beliefs became the motivating factor of the crime, this case has been documented as a religiously motivated hate crime in this tracker.
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
