Govt school teacher bans Hindu students from sporting tilak, wearing tulsi malas; forces them to eat non-vegetarian meals
Murshidabad, West Bengal, India 
13 June, 2024
Case Summary
On June 14, parents of students at Raghunathganj Higher Girls School in Murshidabad, West Bengal, protested against the administration after a teacher banned Hindu students from wearing tilak and Tulsi malas. One student also reported that the school’s mid-day meals did not accommodate vegetarian students and they were forced to eat non-vegetarian meals. The issue came to light when a student informed her parents, who then approached the school principal. Parents and ISKCON devotees protested outside the school, demanding the withdrawal of the teacher's directive. A class 8 student, Anu Mondal, recounted being reprimanded by her teacher, Vashwati, for wearing a tilak, which the teacher claimed was hurting her eye. Anu requested a written statement from the teacher, which was refused. District Inspector Amar Kumar Sheel stated there is no government mandate against wearing tilak in schools and no reason for school authorities to object. Principal Karabi Nandi confirmed that there is no rule banning tilaks, and students are free to practice their religion.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
As per case specifics, it has been placed under the sub-category- 'Restriction on expression of Hindu identity', under the prime category- 'Restriction/ban on Hindu practices' of the hate tracker. 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. Here, a Govt school teacher in Murshidabad, West Bengal, prohibited Hindu students from sporting Tilak and wearing Tulsi malas. In Hinduism, the Tulsi mala and Tilak hold deep religious, cultural, and spiritual significance. It symbolizes protection, blessings, unity, and commitment to spiritual and ethical principles. Its use across various rituals and ceremonies underscores its importance in the Hindu way of life. This act of not allowing students to wear their religious symbols disrupts the students' ability to freely practice and express their religious beliefs. Such acts are often seen as attempts to assert dominance or express hostility towards Hinduism. Moreover, the students themselves testified that they were forced to eat non-vegetarian food. Vegetarianism is deeply rooted in Hindu traditions, particularly among those who follow certain spiritual practices or belong to specific communities like Brahmins, Vaishnavas, and Jains. Forcing a Hindu who follows a vegetarian diet to consume non-vegetarian food can be seen as spiritually defiling and deeply offensive. All these acts infringe on the freedom of religious rites of Hindus. Further, every individual has the right to practice their religious faith and restricting someone from doing that can also be considered a prejudicial order denying the Hindu community its fundamental rights. Such arbitrary actions taken against Hindus are prejudicial to the rights of Hindus and stem from animosity and prejudice against Hindu beliefs, which is why this case is being categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime. The other primary category that this case is being added to is 'Predatory Proselytisation'. The sub-category selected is 'Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination'. 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 expressing their religious identity and even force-feeding non vegetarian food to them. 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 hate crime database.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
