In the coastal districts of Karnataka, communal violence no longer announces itself with shock. It arrives with grim familiarity—through rumours, videos, vigilantes, speeches, and funerals. It moves seamlessly from WhatsApp forwards to street mobilisation, from online hate to physical intimidation. And when the moment passes, it is often absorbed into silence.
The Chronicle of Communal Incidents in the Coastal Districts of Karnataka 2025 exists precisely to resist that silence. Compiled by Suresh Bhat B., member of the Karnataka Communal Harmony Forum and PUCL, Mangaluru, the report is a painstaking, month-by-month documentation of communal incidents across Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, and surrounding coastal districts. Drawing exclusively from local media reports, the chronicle records 142 communal incidents in 2025 alone, while cautioning that this figure reflects only what was reported—not the full extent of what occurred.
The document does not sensationalise. It does something far more radical: it records.
Why this report matters
In a political climate where communal violence is routinely minimised, relativised, or dismissed as “law and order problems”, this chronicle performs an essential democratic function. It converts what is often portrayed as sporadic unrest into data, patterns, and continuity.
Each entry—date, location, allegation, police response—adds to a larger picture: communal polarisation in coastal Karnataka is neither accidental nor episodic. It is sustained, structured, and repeatedly enabled.
The report also makes its limits clear. It relies on publicly available media coverage. It acknowledges underreporting. It excludes highlighted or repeated articles to avoid duplication. In doing so, it asserts credibility rather than exaggeration.
142 incidents, one region, one year
The numerical breakdown alone is sobering:
- 142 total communal incidents
- 74 incidents related to social media hate and misinformation
- 36 incidents of hate speech or hate crime
- 10 incidents of cattle vigilantism
- 8 incidents of moral policing
- Multiple cases involving desecration, vandalism, intimidation, and provocation
This is not a random distribution. The largest category—social media hate—reveals how communalism in 2025 is no longer confined to physical spaces. Phones, platforms, and forwards now function as the first site of violence.
Equally telling is the report’s careful attribution. A significant majority of incidents are allegedly linked to Hindu fundamentalist or vigilante actors, while Muslim individuals and institutions appear more frequently as targets of violence, harassment, or provocation—a reality often obscured by “both sides” narratives.
Moral Policing: Discipline as communal control
One of the most chilling sections of the report documents moral policing—the public regulation of bodies, relationships, and mobility, particularly of women.
Across Mangaluru, Udupi, Uppinangady, and Puttur, young women were stopped, questioned, abused, filmed, and threatened for speaking to men of another faith. In some cases, interfaith identity was merely assumed. In others, it was used explicitly as justification for violence.
On January 23, 2025, in Mangaluru, activists of the right-wing group Sri Rama Sene vandalised a unisex salon near Bejai, alleging “immoral activities”. The attack caused extensive damage to the establishment, with glass panes shattered and furniture destroyed. The group further demanded the closure of all massage centres in the city. Following public outcry, the City Crime Branch arrested Prasad Attavar, the leader of Sri Rama Sene, underscoring how vigilante moral regulation continues to operate openly before law enforcement intervenes
Later in the year, on August 11, 2025, police arrested six men in Mangaluru for stopping and threatening a PU student for walking with a man from another faith near a bus stand. The girl reported being abused and intimidated, forcing her companion to flee the spot. A case was registered only after a formal complaint by the student
The report also records moral policing by Muslim vigilantes, including a November 6, 2025 incident in Uppinangady, where two men abused a mixed-religion group of college students and assaulted one of the boys. Police registered cases under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, demonstrating that vigilantism cuts across communities—but does not occur symmetrically in scale or frequency
The report quietly exposes a critical truth: moral policing is not about morality. It is about enforcing communal boundaries, asserting ownership over women’s bodies, and producing fear as a social discipline.
While police action followed some incidents, the chronicle notes repeat offenders, familiar group names, and recurring patterns—suggesting that deterrence remains weak.
Cattle vigilantism and the politics of suspicion
The documentation of cattle-related incidents reflects another long-running fault line in coastal Karnataka. Allegations of cattle transport or slaughter—often unverified—continue to function as instant triggers for mob violence.
What the report shows is not merely violence, but the presumption of guilt. Muslim men are intercepted, assaulted, and handed over to police by vigilante groups, reversing the logic of law enforcement. In several cases, investigations later revealed exaggeration or falsehood—yet the violence had already occurred.
The chronicle does not editorialise. But its accumulation of cases makes one conclusion unavoidable: vigilantism has become normalised, operating alongside formal policing rather than being dismantled by it.
Hate Speech: From margins to mainstream
Perhaps the most politically explosive aspect of the report is its documentation of hate speech. The chronicle documents 36 incidents of hate speech and hate crimes, with a striking number attributed to Hindu fundamentalist actors.
On June 4, 2025, in Kadaba, police registered a case against Naveen Neriya for delivering a provocative speech near a police station, allegedly inciting the public and targeting the police itself. The report notes that such speeches often occur in moments of heightened tension, acting as catalysts for escalation rather than isolated acts
In Belthangady, on April 14, 2025, a programme known as Purusha Kattuna allegedly included content insulting Islam, Prophet Mohammed, and the azaan. A video of the event circulated widely on social media, leading to the registration of a case against 20–30 persons for promoting enmity between communities
The report also records hate speech cases against Muslim individuals, including the July 2025 arrest of a student in Udupi for allegedly writing provocative communal content on a hostel washroom wall. The matter was serious enough to warrant forensic examination of handwriting samples, highlighting the criminalisation of symbolic acts when framed communally
From religious gatherings to political protests, from YouTube channels to Facebook pages, hate speech targeting Muslims, Christians, and other minorities appears repeatedly. Religious symbols are mocked. Demographic fears are stoked. Violence is justified implicitly, sometimes explicitly.
The report records arrests and cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—but also notes how many accused individuals are repeat offenders, some with long criminal histories who continue to enjoy public platforms.
This repetition tells its own story: hate speech is not an aberration; it is a tolerated political instrument.
Social media: The infrastructure of communalism
If there is one through-line across the 142 incidents, it is the role of digital platforms.
False claims of attacks. Doctored images. Inflammatory captions. Videos stripped of context. The report shows how misinformation spreads faster than verification, creating panic, mobilisation, and retaliation. With 74 documented incidents, social media emerges as the largest category of communal incidents in 2025.
On June 7, 2025, a photograph falsely portraying two Muslim youths as “bikers carrying swords” circulated widely on Instagram and WhatsApp. Police later clarified that the object in question was an aquarium stone and an e-cigarette. By the time the clarification was issued, fear had already spread across Dakshina Kannada
Similarly, on August 20, 2025, false claims circulated online alleging that a Muslim man had inappropriately touched a woman from another religion in Panemangaluru. Police investigation revealed that the accused was a minor boy from the same religion as the woman. The report highlights how such misinformation routinely targets Muslim men, constructing them as default suspects.
The chronicle records repeated police action against Facebook pages, X accounts, YouTube channels, and Instagram handles—yet the recurrence of such cases suggests enforcement remains reactive rather than preventive. In several cases, police later clarified that viral claims were false. But by then, fear had travelled further than truth ever could. The chronicle captures a critical shift: communal violence no longer requires physical proximity. It can be triggered remotely, anonymously, and at scale.
Desecration and symbolic violence
The report documents incidents aimed not at individuals alone, but at religious spaces and symbols. On May 6, 2025, miscreants vandalised eight granite tombstones in a Muslim graveyard belonging to the Juma Masjid in Gangolli. The damage was discovered days later, underscoring how such acts often escape immediate detection and accountability. In another incident, a cross was found destroyed near Shirva in Udupi, where local residents alleged an attempt to vitiate communal harmony. A formal complaint was lodged, but the report does not record any arrest, reflecting a familiar pattern of unresolved symbolic violence.
State Response: Fire-fighting, not prevention
The report documents significant state action—externments, Goonda Act proceedings, arrests, and eventually the creation of a Special Action Force (SAF) for the region. Yet the very existence of the SAF is an admission of failure. As the Home Minister himself acknowledged, years of “mild” responses allowed violence to escalate to a point where extraordinary measures became necessary.
Even so, the chronicle suggests that enforcement remains incident-driven, not structural. Known troublemakers resurface. Networks remain intact. Political patronage is rarely interrogated. What is missing, the report implies through its silences, is accountability at the top.
The chronicle also captures moments when communal mobilisation openly defied state authority. Following the murder of Suhas Shetty, the VHP called for a bandh in Dakshina Kannada on May 2, 2025. Despite the imposition of Section 144, a procession carrying the body was taken out in Mangaluru, openly violating prohibitory orders. The report notes this as a critical example of how communal mobilisation often overrides legal restraint
What the report ultimately documents
By grounding itself entirely in reported incidents, the present report refuses exaggeration—and yet arrives at a devastating conclusion.
Communal violence in coastal Karnataka is:
- Frequent
- Predictable
- Digitally amplified
- Often normalised
- Rarely dismantled at its source
This report it stands as a record against forgetting—one that documents not just violence, but the slow erosion of trust, safety, and equal citizenship in the coastal belt. Until prevention replaces documentation, this chronicle will remain both necessary and unfinished. If 142 reported incidents can occur in one year—with many more unreported—then the question is no longer whether coastal Karnataka is polarised. It is how much further polarisation will be allowed to go.
The complete report may be read here.
Previous reports may be read here, here and here.
Related:
Karnataka Police’s massive crackdown on habitual hate offenders in Dakshina Kannada region
Karnataka: Hindutva groups call for economic boycott of Muslim vendors at Siddheshwar Temple
2023 Karnataka assembly elections: what has BJP lost and what has it gained?
BJP govt in Karnataka drops 182 cases of hate crimes in 4 years: Report