Hindu priest dragged out of temple and assaulted by Muslim men for playing bhajans on loudspeaker

Case ID : f664847 | Location : Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Thu, 6 March, 2025

Case ID : f664847

Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, India

6 March, 2025

Hindu priest dragged out of temple and assaulted by Muslim men for playing bhajans on loudspeaker

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked to induce migration from non-Hindu dominated area

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Breaking rules of place of worship

Case Summary

A Hindu priest was forcibly dragged out of a Shiv Mandir and brutally assaulted by an Islamist mob in Sikandarabad village, Rampur district, Uttar Pradesh. The attack, which took place over the playing of bhajans on a loudspeaker, highlights a disturbing case of religious intolerance. According to media reports, a group of Muslims stormed the Shiv Temple on Friday evening and confronted the priest, Prem Singh. Acting under the alleged influence of village head Afzal Ali, the assailants not only threatened him but also warned that Hindus would be expelled from the village if loudspeakers were used in the temple again. Following the incident, the priest lodged a formal complaint with the police. The altercation began when Singh, as part of his daily prayers, played bhajans on the temple loudspeaker during the evening aarti. This enraged a group of Islamists, including Bhuri, Taufiq, Iqbal, Chhidda, Israel, Shaida, Shakeel, Munsa Ali, Gulnaz, Anees, and others, who stormed into the temple and demanded that he stop the devotional music. When the priest refused, they resorted to verbal abuse before dragging him outside and physically assaulting him. Women in the mob reportedly issued threats, warning that Hindus would be driven out of the village if loudspeakers were used again in the temple. Upon hearing of the attack, villagers rushed to rescue the priest, causing the assailants to flee. However, before dispersing, the attackers issued a final threat, warning that Singh would be killed if he dared to play bhajans again. Notably, Hindus form a minority in the village, and the priest has accused the village Pradhan, Afzal Ali, of backing the attackers. Following Singh’s complaint, an FIR was registered at Tanda police station under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). In a statement on social media platform X, Rampur police confirmed that a case had been registered and legal action had been taken, leading to the arrest of 12 accused individuals. Authorities further assured that the law and order situation in the area remains under control.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under two prime categories. The first is- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, 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- Attacked to induce migration from non-Hindu dominated area. There have been cases where the Hindus living in an area, often with a majority dwelling belonging to non-Hindus or those harbouring animosity towards the Hindu faith, the Hindu residents experience threats and violence. The violence is employed with the aim of making the Hindus leave the area and relocate, so the area could be turned into an exclusive ghetto for adherents of the non-Hindu faith or those who harbor animosity towards the Hindu faith. In several cases, the aim of exodus is explicit. However, in several cases, the demand for exodus of Hindu residents is not explicit, however, violence by non-Hindu residents leaves the Hindu residents no option but to leave the area, thereby, turning the area into an exclusive ghetto of non-Hindu residents. In such cases, there are instances violence against the Hindu residents explicitly. For example, in the Hauz Qazi case of 2019, the Muslim residents claimed that mob violence against the Hindu residents had been triggered by a parking dispute. However, the violence did turn religious with a temple being desecrated and was directed specifically against the Hindu residents. The Hindu residents of the area were clear that the violence was religiously motivated and one of the motives was to affect an exodus of the Hindu residents. In such cases, even though the perpetrators have not explicitly expressed the aim of affecting exodus, the given circumstances and violence and precedent point to the intention of exodus and therefore would be categorized under this sub-category. Such crimes are religiously motivated and therefore are hate crimes. The second prime category under which this case has been placed is- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices and under 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 categorised as a hate crime. The third category chosen here is- Attack on Hindu religious representation and 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 vicious assault on Hindu priest Prem Singh in Sikandarabad village, Rampur district, was not an arbitrary act of violence but a deliberate attack driven by religious animosity. A mob of Islamists stormed the temple, physically assaulting and verbally abusing the priest. The attack was provoked solely by the playing of bhajans during the temple’s evening aarti. The fact that the assailants forcefully entered a place of worship and attempted to dictate how Hindus should observe their religious practices highlights a blatant attempt to suppress Hindu religious expression. The mob’s threats to kill the priest if bhajans were played again reveal a deep-seated intolerance toward the visible expression of Hindu identity. Such violent curbs on religious freedoms not only violate fundamental rights but also act as a coercive mechanism to silence Hindu voices within the community. Additionally, the attackers issued a chilling ultimatum, warning that Hindus would be expelled from the village if they continued to express their faith. This calculated act of intimidation aimed at forcing Hindus out of the locality exposes a larger agenda of demographic dominance, fostering fear and insecurity among the minority Hindu population. The explicit threat of eviction points to a systematic effort to create an environment where Hindus feel compelled to leave, ensuring that the area remains under Islamist control. Furthermore, the hostility towards Hindu devotional music and the threats of violence further reflect a profound intolerance toward the open practice of the Hindu faith. With the clear targeting of a Hindu priest, explicit threats directed at the Hindu community, and a concerted effort to suppress Hindu religious expression, this incident stands as a blatant hate crime against Hindus. This is why it has been added to the tracker.