School bans Hindu students from wearing Kalava and Tilak but permits early dismissal for Muslim for Namaz, Muslim principal accused
Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, India 
3 September, 2024
Case Summary
In Amroha district, Uttar Pradesh, Hindu students at Pears Chaddha Inter College accused Principal Mohsin Ali of religious discrimination. They stated Ali prohibited them from wearing Kalava (sacred thread) and applying Tilak, while Muslim students were allowed to leave early for Friday prayers. The incident, which took place in the Gajraula police station area, led to protests involving students linked to the ABVP and Bajrang Dal. The protesters demanded action against Ali, accusing him of favouring Muslim students and giving them special privileges. Slogans like "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" and "Jai Shri Ram" were raised at the college gates. The police intervened to calm the situation, and a video of the protest circulated on social media. In response, Principal Ali stated that he recently assumed the role and was following existing rules. An agreement was reached with the administration to address the concerns and revise some rules, bringing a resolution to the issue after negotiations.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
There are distinct elements of a religiously motivate hate crime in this case and therefore, the case is being added to twi primary categories. The first primary category is 'Restriction/ban on Hindu practices' under the sub-category '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 second primary category the case is being added to is 'Predatory Proselytisation' under the sub-category 'Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination'. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The case reveals that the Hindu victims were minors, indicating a lack of consent and genuine change of conscience. It is a well-established fact that children are more susceptible to manipulation since they are still developing emotionally, cognitively, and socially. Their brains are not fully matured, making them more vulnerable to influence and less capable of critically evaluating information. Moreover, subtle manipulation tactics can be difficult to detect, especially when employed by trusted authority figures in positions of influence. This makes it challenging for parents, to identify and address instances of religious manipulation in schools. In this case, the accused, teachers in a position of trust, demonstrated a clear animosity towards Hinduism by banning the Hindu students from wearing Tilak and Kalava - manifestations and symbols of their Hindu faith, while allowing the Muslims students to practise their faith, thereby stigmatisation the Hindu students and attempting to alienate them from their faith. The teachers essentially covertly tried to push the children towards Christianity by distancing them from their religion and practices. This sort of harassment is rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and is therefore documented as a religiously motivated hate crime in this Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
