Hindu man brutally assaulted by Muslims for confronting them over mocking deaths of Hindu devotees in Maha Kumbh stampede tragedy

Case ID : f6645cc | Location : Basti, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 9 February, 2025

Case ID : f6645cc

Basti, Uttar Pradesh, India

9 February, 2025

Hindu man brutally assaulted by Muslims for confronting them over mocking deaths of Hindu devotees in Maha Kumbh stampede tragedy

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Hate speech against Hindus

Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

A Hindu man named Nitish Jaiswal was brutally attacked by a group of Islamists after he confronted them over their derogatory remarks about the Maha Kumbh 2025 and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The incident took place on 3rd February when Nitish was returning home from a religious event in his neighbourhood to collect some food plates. As he walked past a group of individuals, he overheard them making offensive comments, expressing joy at the news of Hindus dying in a stampede at the Kumbh Mela and wishing harm upon Yogi Adityanath. Unable to ignore the hateful remarks, he approached them politely and questioned their animosity. However, instead of responding, they turned violent. A mob of Muslims, including women, attacked Nitish. They grabbed him by the neck, attempted to strangle him, and even bit his hand with apparent intent to kill him. He sustained severe injuries but managed to survive the assault. Following the attack, an FIR was registered against seven individuals, identified as Aslam, Sher Ali, Golu, Sanno, Shabana, and Asmeen Khatoon. However, no action was taken against the accused by the police.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The case has multiple religious markers and as a result, has been added to two different categories of the tracker. The first is Attack not resulting in death and under this, 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 category selected here is- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the first sub-category selected 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 second sub-category selected under the above category is- Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially, the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual, however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category. This case is a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus, as the attack on Nitish Jaiswal was directly linked to his opposition to anti-Hindu rhetoric. The perpetrators were mocking the tragic deaths of Hindu devotees in the Maha Kumbh stampede and expressing hateful wishes against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. When Nitish confronted them, instead of responding with words, they resorted to brutal violence, attempting to strangle and even bite him with apparent intent to cause serious harm. This shows that he was targeted not just as an individual but because he took a stand against hate directed at his faith and religious community. Additionally, the very nature of the remarks that triggered this violence reveals the deep-seated animosity behind the attack. The perpetrators openly celebrated the loss of Hindu lives during a sacred religious gathering, showing utter contempt for Hindu beliefs and traditions. Furthermore, their verbal attacks on Yogi Adityanath, a leader closely associated with the Hindu community, demonstrate that their hostility extended beyond just one incident and reflected a broader pattern of resentment against Hindu figures and symbols. This attack was not an isolated act of violence but a deliberate act of intimidation and aggression rooted in religious hatred and this is why it has been added to the tracker.