Hindu family attacked for bursting crackers in temple courtyard during Ramzan; Hindu God abused, family threatened with death
Dwarka, Gujarat, India 
1 March, 2025
Case Summary
A Hindu family in Khambhalia, Devbhumi Dwarka, was attacked by a group of four Muslim men for bursting crackers in the courtyard of a Hindu temple named Shrinathji Haveli. They were not only subjected to abuse and physical assault, but the accused also made derogatory remarks about Hindu deities and issued death threats against them. The accused were identified as Maqsood, Tausif, Moin, and Phoolkand. One of the victims, Vipul Thakar, in his complaint, stated that the Muslim men objected to the celebrations, citing Ramzan. During the altercation, the accused physically assaulted the victims, injuring two individuals, including a minor. The injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. As per the complaint, Vipul Thakar’s nephew was bursting leftover crackers from the annual Patotsav of the temple, which had taken place on 20th February. At around 10 PM, three Muslim men—Maqsood, Moin, and Tausif— barged into the temple courtyard wielding sticks and began hurling abuses, demanding that the celebrations be stopped. Shortly after, a fourth individual, Phoolkand, joined them, armed with a wooden stick. Thakar stated in his complaint that the altercation escalated when Maqsood suddenly struck him with a baseball bat on his left arm, fracturing it. His nephew was also assaulted by the group. Hearing the commotion, women and neighbours rushed to the scene, prompting the attackers to flee. Both victims sustained multiple injuries. Thakar further stated that the attackers not only abused him but also insulted the temple and its deity. He also said that the accused threatened to lock the temple and kill his family if they continued to burst crackers.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has multiple religious markers, because of which it has been placed under four prime categories of the tracker. The first is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Attack 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 selected here is- Attack on Hindu religious representations and within this, the first 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- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Under this, the first 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. The fourth category relevant 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 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. This case is a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime, as evidenced by multiple religious markers that warrant its inclusion in the tracker. Firstly, the Hindu family was specifically targeted for celebrating in a temple courtyard, an act that is deeply tied to their religious identity. The accused objected to the festivities, citing Ramzan, which suggests an intolerance towards Hindu religious practices. It is important to highlight that the Hindus had not attempted to interfere with or demand a halt to the Muslims' Ramzan festivities in any way. Instead, it was the Muslim perpetrators who sought to impose their religious considerations on the Hindus by objecting to their celebrations and attempting to stop them. Furthermore, the Hindu family was bursting crackers within the temple premises—a private religious space—making the intrusion by the accused even more egregious. This demonstrates not only an act of intolerance but also an infringement upon the religious freedoms of Hindus within their own sacred space. Secondly, the perpetrators violated the sanctity of the temple by forcefully barging into the courtyard and launching their attack. Hindu temples are places of worship and devotion, and such an intrusion, accompanied by violence and threats, constitutes a direct attack on Hindu religious spaces. The accused not only assaulted the victims but also issued threats to lock the temple, an act aimed at suppressing Hindu religious expression. The deliberate encroachment upon a place of worship highlights a pattern of aggression against Hindu religious sites, reflecting a broader trend of hostility towards Hinduism. Beyond the physical assault, the accused also engaged in hate speech, hurling derogatory remarks against Hindu deities and the temple. Disparaging Hindu gods and religious figures is a clear act of religious hostility, meant to demean and intimidate the victims. Additionally, the threats to kill the Hindu family for celebrating within their temple premises further prove the deep-seated animosity behind this attack. The intent behind the attack was not merely personal or incidental but was rooted in religious intolerance and animosity against Hindus and their faith and this is why, this case has been included in the Hinduphobia tracker.
Victim Details
Total Victim
2
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 2
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 2
- Unknown 0
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
