Neha is not just a victim. She’s a warning
On 23rd June, a 19-year-old Hindu girl named Neha was allegedly lured, deceived, and murdered by a man named Taufiq. According to a report by India Today, her family claimed that Taufiq had hidden his religious identity and manipulated Neha into a false relationship, eventually leading to her brutal death.¹ ²
The facts remain under investigation. But to many familiar with similar incidents across India, the pattern is disturbingly recognizable. This is not an isolated event. It fits into a growing trend now widely understood as “Love Jihad”, the systematic targeting of Hindu women through religiously motivated deceit. The question before India is not whether this terminology is convenient. The real question is: why does this pattern keep repeating, and why are we refusing to examine the religious and doctrinal soil from which such crimes sprout?
The doctrine is real. And it’s written in black and white
One cannot remain blind to the ideological underpinnings behind such patterns. The doctrine that underwrites hostility against the non-believer, particularly polytheists, is not imaginary. It is not whispered in obscure corners. It is written. It is taught. It is legitimized.
Consider this: Qur’an 5:51 instructs believers: “O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies (awliya)…”³ Qur’an 9:28 refers to polytheists as “najis” (impure).⁴ Sahih Muslim 2167 commands: “Do not initiate the greeting of peace to the Jews and Christians.”⁵
These verses, while historically contextual, are still recited and interpreted without reform in many religious seminaries. Wahhabi, Salafi, and Deobandi theological institutions in South Asia, especially through the unchanged Dars-i-Nizami syllabus, perpetuate these teachings as normative.⁶⁻⁸ When state and society allow unregulated religious education to circulate texts that categorize non-Muslims as spiritually inferior or intellectually suspect, the consequence is not just ignorance, it is hostility with divine sanction.
Superiority disorder is not a psychiatric term. It’s a civilizational reality
This indoctrination creates more than theological exclusivism. It produces what may be called a “superiority disorder”, the entrenched belief that one’s religion entitles one to deceive, manipulate, or dominate others in the name of divine mission. Non-Muslims, particularly Hindu women in this context, become targets for what is euphemistically called “dawah,” but which often manifests as coercive or deceptive conversion.
Consider this: Qur’an 98:6 brands non-believers as the “worst of creatures.”⁹ Maududi’s writings further affirm that Islam views itself not merely as a faith but as a totalizing system destined to supersede all others.¹⁰ The concept of taqiyya, as discussed in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is interpreted by some as permitting concealment or deceit to advance religious interests.¹¹
This ideological environment incubates criminal behavior masked as religiosity. Reports abound of men hiding their real names and religious identities to initiate relationships, applying emotional coercion for conversion, and then resorting to violence when resistance is encountered.¹²⁻¹⁴ From acid attacks to honor killings, the evidence paints a disturbing picture, one that has been largely ignored by mainstream policymakers.
The NCW itself recorded a surge in such interfaith abuse complaints between 2020 and 2024.¹⁵ What we are dealing with is not merely individual deviance. It is doctrinally justified targeting.
Not all Muslims…” isn’t a legal argument
Each time this issue is raised, the discussion is deflected by the predictable refrain: “Not all Muslims believe this.” That is undoubtedly true. But the rejoinder misses the legal and civilizational point entirely.
In law, the question is not whether the majority believe or practice a doctrine. The relevant inquiry is: Does the doctrine exist? Is it being taught? Does it carry normative authority for those who do believe? And crucially: Can society or the State predict who among the believers will act upon it?
This is why ideology is dangerous even when it lacks majority appeal. Its potency lies in its absolutism, not its statistical prevalence. A lone actor, armed with scriptural sanction and divine conviction, can inflict more harm than a mob of skeptics.
Freedom of religion, while sacrosanct, cannot extend to doctrines that authorize coercion or deceit. We must separate belief from behavior, and penalize the latter when it threatens public order and constitutional integrity.
States can’t control minds, but they can reform laws
No one is advocating for State control over faith. The Constitution guarantees freedom of belief. But belief that translates into behavior, especially violent, deceitful, or supremacist behavior, must fall under the rule of law.
Either the theological community reforms its teachings, through reinterpretation, moral introspection, and public accountability, or the State steps in to draw lines. Not around belief, but around its weaponization.
Secularism cannot be a suicide pact. If liberal democracy allows ideologies that aim to subvert or replace it, it is enabling its own destruction. Hence, legal reform must target the structural pipelines through which ideological extremism gets normalized and operationalized.¹⁶⁻²⁰
This includes drawing on scholarship like Shahab Ahmed’s argument in What Is Islam?, which emphasizes the need for interpretive multiplicity in Islamic law and its potential for reform.¹⁶ It also requires reevaluating state-sponsored initiatives like the Madrasa Modernization Scheme, which often fail to challenge problematic theological content.¹⁷ Scholars such as Nassim Nicholas Taleb warn us in The Black Swan about the outsize impact of low-probability, high-impact events, and a single, doctrinally motivated crime fits that pattern.¹⁸⁻¹⁹ In this context, the Supreme Court’s position in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India reminds us that freedom of speech does not include the right to incite violence or spread falsehood.²⁰
What India must do before the next Neha
The time for euphemisms is over. India must adopt a doctrine-first approach, not merely punishing the acts but dismantling the intellectual infrastructure behind them:
- Legal Audit of Religious Doctrines Establish a National Commission on Religious Doctrines & Public Order, modeled on the UK’s Prevent Strategy, to audit theological texts, madrasas, and preachers who promote violence, supremacy, or civilizational contempt.²¹
- Mandatory Disclosure in Interfaith Relationships Make it legally mandatory for individuals to disclose their real name and religion before entering any romantic or marital relationship. Concealment should be made a cognizable offence under Indian penal law.²²
- Judicial Scrutiny of Romantic Conversions All conversions arising within a romantic or intimate relationship should be presumed coercive unless judicially cleared. Burden of proof must lie with the converting party.²³
- Educate Hindu Girls and Women Launch civic literacy campaigns to arm young Hindu women with legal awareness, doctrinal knowledge, and strategies to resist ideological grooming. Prevention starts with information.
- Establish a Civilizational Protection Registry NDV and allied organizations should build a national registry of ideologically motivated crimes, identifying theological patterns to inform both legal and educational responses.²⁵
Ideology is the murder we refuse to prosecute
Neha’s death is not just a personal tragedy. It is a symptom of something deeper, a civilizational crime committed under the cloak of religious liberty. Until the ideological motivations behind such crimes are exposed and delegitimized, the pattern will repeat.
We must stop protecting doctrine at the cost of human life. The Constitution was never meant to shield theological supremacy. It was meant to defend human dignity, equality, and peace.
References
¹ India Today, “19-year-old girl found dead in Uttar Pradesh, family alleges Love Jihad,” June 23, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab, Surah al-Ma’idah, 5:51.
⁴ Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Surah al-Tawbah 9:28.
⁵ Sahih Muslim, Book 26, Hadith 5389.
⁶ Madawi al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia, Cambridge University Press.
⁷ Yoginder Sikand, Bastions of the Believers, Penguin Books.
⁸ Arshad Alam, “Reforming Indian Madrasas,” EPW, Vol. 42, No. 36 (2007).
⁹ Qur’an 98:6 – “Indeed, those who disbelieve… are the worst of creatures.”
¹⁰ Abu A’la Maududi, Towards Understanding Islam, Islamic Foundation UK.
¹¹ “Taqiyya,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill Online.
¹² NCRB Disaggregated Data 2019–2024 (Unofficial compilation).
¹³ NCW Complaint Log 2020–2024.
¹⁴ Rajya Sabha Debates on Anti-Conversion Bill, 2022.
¹⁵ NCW Public Reports, The Hindu, 2021.
¹⁶ Shahab Ahmed, What Is Islam?: The Importance of Being Islamic, Princeton University Press, 2016.
¹⁷ Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India – Madrasa Modernization Scheme Evaluation Report, 2021.
¹⁸ Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, Random House, 2007.
¹⁹ Ibid. ²⁰ Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
²¹ UK Home Office, Prevent Strategy, 2011.
²² Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Ordinance, 2020.
²³ Hadiya v. Kerala, (2018) 2 SCC 1.
²⁵ NDV Policy Memo No. 2/2025 – “Ideological Motive Coding Framework.” June 26, 2025
This research insight is prepared by the NDV Legal Policy and Research Division. All citations and authorities referenced herein are traceable through published judgments, statutes, and human rights manuscripts.