Report Finds 947 Hate Cases in 1 Year, Why It Should Worry Everyone
Unchecked Hate Creates a System Where No One’s Rights Are Secure
June 27, 2025
A new study has found nearly 950 hate-related incidents in India during the first year of the main ruling party’s third term. Religious minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, were the main targets of violence and hate speech. This rise in unchecked and largely unpunished hostility should concern all citizens, as it points to a breakdown in the rule of law and weakens the social contract – basic agreement that holds a diverse society together.
The study, released jointly by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights and the Quill Foundation, documents 947 cases between June 2024 and June 2025. These included 602 hate crimes and 345 instances of hate speech, as reported by Maktoob Media.
The majority of the attacks were directed at Muslims, who made up 1,460 of the victims across 419 incidents. Christians were targeted in 85 attacks but had a higher victim count, at 1,504 individuals. Among the reported crimes, at least 25 Muslims were killed and 173 incidents involved physical violence.
The Muslims were attacked by mobs over cow slaughter rumours, targeted during festivals, and subjected to surveillance and harassment over interfaith relationships or ownership of small businesses. Christians were targeted mostly in attacks on churches and prayer meetings.
Only 13 percent of the hate crimes led to police complaints being formally registered, according to the study, which indicates that members of the ruling party or affiliates were involved in many of the cases.
During election periods, hate-related violence surged, including in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Jharkhand.
This development shows a weakening of basic democratic principles. Democracy depends on equal protection under the law and the expectation that institutions will act fairly. When political leaders allow or encourage violence against certain groups, they signal that some citizens matter less than others. This creates a system where rights depend on identity. Over time, such a pattern damages the credibility of the state. The state is meant to be a neutral guardian of justice. When officials support hate or fail to respond to it, the state's authority to exercise lawful power begins to lose credibility.
This also intersects “everyday communalism,” a term introduced by Sudha Pai and Sajjan Kumar in their 2018 work “Everyday Communalism: Riots in Contemporary Uttar Pradesh.” It describes how routine, low intensity communal tensions become institutionalised, woven into day to day life, gradually normalising bias and prejudice against religious minorities.
When people see even children, small business owners or people going to places of worship being attacked, it suggests that such violence is becoming a normal part of everyday life. It no longer shocks people the way it should. In sociology, Max Weber talked about something called the “routinisation of authority,” which means that when those in power behave in a certain way over and over again, people get used to it. So, if those in power keep encouraging hate or letting it happen, people slowly start to believe that this is just how things are. What used to feel wrong or extreme begins to feel normal. In this way, hate is no longer seen as a problem in the system—it becomes part of how the system works.
The government has systems in place to track crimes against Dalits, but not against religious minorities. This is not just an oversight or paperwork issue. It reflects a choice by those in power. When the state refuses to record violence against certain groups, it sends the message that their suffering does not matter. Michel Foucault, a thinker who studied power, said that the state controls what people notice by deciding what to measure and record. If an attack is not counted, it becomes easier to ignore. And if there is no record, it is much harder for victims to get justice. So, by staying silent in its records, the state plays a part in making some people’s pain invisible.
The low rate of FIRs, at 13 percent, makes attackers feel safe and encourages others to do the same, knowing they are unlikely to be punished. Over time, this gives rise to what political thinker Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil.” She meant that ordinary people can end up doing awful things when those actions start to feel routine, acceptable or even praised by those around them. It becomes part of everyday life rather than something to be ashamed of or afraid to do.
This becomes especially dangerous when the line between the government and political parties starts to blur. If public officials make biased comments, it shows that institutions like the police, the courts or civil servants are no longer acting independently. In a healthy democracy, these institutions are supposed to work fairly, no matter which party is in power. But when they start sounding like political workers or supporters, repeating the same slogans or views as mobs or campaign leaders, then laws are no longer applied equally. Instead of protecting everyone’s rights, the system begins to serve those who are loyal to the ruling group.
Further, hate does not harm only those who are directly attacked. It changes the atmosphere for everyone. When people see that some groups can be openly targeted without consequences, they begin to feel unsure about their own safety too. It teaches them that protection from harm depends on who they are, not on the law. If Muslims or Christians can be treated this way today, then tomorrow it could be someone else – linguistic minorities, migrants, or dissenters.
This weakens what is called the social contract – the basic agreement people have with the state, where they follow the law and, in return, expect to be treated equally, protected from harm and given justice when wronged. This contract, which gives people a reason to obey laws and cooperate with government institutions, begins to fall apart when violence is repeatedly allowed without any action. People begin to lose trust in the system.
There are real-world examples of how this kind of situation can escalate. In Sri Lanka, years of silence around Sinhala Buddhist extremism led to repeated attacks on Tamils and later on Muslims. In Myanmar, public officials and monks regularly used hate-filled language against Rohingya Muslims, which eventually paved the way for a military-led genocide. In both cases, bias became normal over time, and the institutions that should have stopped it failed to act.
In India, a country that constitutionally guarantees secularism and equality, this development marks a move away from its founding promises. The political class may fight elections every five years, but citizenship is lived every day.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
