Hindus denied religious freedom as Muslims block roads, prevent puja and use of loudspeakers
Purnia, Bihar, India 
28 February, 2025
Case Summary
Around 150 Hindu families in Sharma Toli of Shadipur Bhutha village, located in the Baisi block of Purnia, have been facing severe difficulties for the past several days. Locals report that Muslims in the area have blocked the path leading to their homes. Surrounded by Muslim settlements and private land, these families struggle even to access their own houses. The situation has worsened to the point that marriages of their sons and daughters are being affected, and taking the sick to hospitals has become a major challenge. Villagers say they previously used a private road for commuting, but a 100-meter-long stretch has now been blocked over a mere 12 dismil (0.12 acres) of land. Residents claim they had paid ₹1 lakh to the landowner to resolve the issue, but under pressure from the Muslim community, the money was returned, and access to the road was denied. Now, with all routes blocked, these families find themselves completely trapped. Additionally, villagers allege that Muslims in the area prevent them from performing puja and using loudspeakers, restricting their religious freedom. Frustrated, local Hindus initially appealed to the SDM court, which ruled in their favor. However, the decision was later overturned by a civil court, siding with the Muslim community in the dispute. Meanwhile, videos highlighting the struggles of the local Hindu community are going viral on social media. In one video, a woman stated that Hindus are not even allowed to perform idol immersion. She further claimed that Muslims refuse to provide water, saying that Hindus chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and, therefore, should be denied access.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus under two primary categories. The first is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the 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 category under which this case has been placed is- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Within this, the sub-category selected is- Restriction on expression of Hindu identity. An example of the state-affected prejudicial and targeted orders against the Hindu community would be a government denying the right of a Hindu or a group of Hindus to hold a religious procession owing to the animosity of non-Hindu groups. Denial of the religious right of the Hindus to assuage the non-Hindu group which harbours animosity to a point where it could lead to violence against Hindus is not only a failure of law and order but is a prejudicial order against Hindus, denying them their fundamental rights to express their religious identity. An example of a hate crime against Hindus by a non-Hindu would be a non-Hindu institution forcing its Hindu employees to abandon religious symbols that a Hindu would wear as an expression of faith owing to inherent prejudice against the faith professed by the victim or a non-Hindu group of people restricting a Hindu group from constructing a place of worship simply because the demography of the area in which the temple is being built is dominated by non-Hindus. Such actions are driven by religious animosity and/or prejudice against Hindus and their faith and would, therefore be categorized as a hate crime. This case is justifiably categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus as it demonstrates clear intent to suppress and target Hindus for their religious beliefs and practices. Firstly, the denial of water for idol immersion explicitly because Hindus chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ is a direct restriction on their religious expression. Idol immersion is an essential Hindu ritual, and preventing it on the basis of religious slogans reflects a deliberate attempt to suppress Hindu religious identity. The statement made by the perpetrators—refusing water because Hindus chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’—illustrates an outright rejection of Hindu religious traditions and an intent to discriminate against them purely for expressing their faith. This is not a neutral dispute over resources but an act of religiously motivated exclusion and marginalisation. Secondly, the refusal to allow Hindus to perform puja and use loudspeakers for religious purposes is a direct infringement on their right to religious freedom. Hindus are being selectively denied access to basic religious rights that others are allowed to exercise, proving that they are being targeted based on their faith. Religious expression is a fundamental right, and preventing Hindus from practising their traditions through intimidation and restrictions indicates a deliberate effort to suppress their identity. Thirdly, the broader issue of road blockades restricting Hindu families from reaching their homes further strengthens the categorisation of this case as a hate crime. The deliberate closure of access routes made it difficult for these families to conduct daily activities. This form of systemic obstruction is an effort to create an environment where Hindus feel unwelcome, oppressed, and pressured to leave, amounting to religious persecution. Collectively, these factors justify the classification of this case as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus and warrants its inclusion in the Hinduphobia tracker.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
