Hindu religious markers singled out as Tamil Nadu government appointed panel proposes ban on kalava, tilak, and sacred threads
Tamil Nadu, India 
17 June, 2024
Case Summary
A committee appointed by the Tamil Nadu government to address caste-based discrimination in educational institutions submitted its report, led by retired Madras High Court judge Justice K Chandru, to Chief Minister MK Stalin. The committee was formed following a violent incident in Tirunelveli’s Nanguneri, where students attacked a Scheduled Caste brother and sister over caste issues. Key recommendations from the report include banning coloured rakhis and kalavas, rings, and tilaks (forehead marks), which are seen as caste markers. For many practising Hindus, wearing a wristband or donning a tilak on the head is an article of faith and a religious belief, not a marker of caste identity, but the committee has nevertheless suggested against sporting them. The committee had no recommendations for students choosing to wear a veil, hijab or turban to school. The committee also suggested prohibiting bicycles with caste-related symbols and proposed measures like appointing School Welfare Officers (SWOs) to monitor and address caste-related issues. Additionally, the committee recommended setting up special units to investigate the "saffronisation" of educational institutions. The report emphasises strict enforcement and consequences for non-compliance, with parents or guardians being informed about violations. However, these recommendations have sparked controversy, with concerns that they could disproportionately affect Hindu practices, particularly in the context of remarks by Tamil Nadu minister Udhayanidhi Stalin about "eradicating Sanatana Dharma."
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. The Tamil Nadu government's ban on wearing Hindu religious symbols, framed as a measure to address caste-based issues, raises concerns about fairness and the restrictions on intrinsic Hindu practices and manifestation of faith. Wearing religious symbols falls under the basic religious right of Hindus and restricting it is a serious infringement of rights. The government took this measure supposedly to combat casteism. Castesim in this case appears to be used as a veil to affect anti-Hindu restrictions since wearing tilak, kalava and other religious symbols is not a practice limited to any sect of Hindus but is a universal practice. Further, the recommendation to create special units to investigate the "saffronisation" of educational institutions suggests an anti-Hindu bias. This anti-Hindu sentiment of the TN government was previously echoed when Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin called for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma. Notably, all educational institutions must treat all religious communities equally. Further, all individuals have the right to celebrate their festivals and wear their religious symbols. The anti-Hindu prejudice leading to this restriction is also evident from the fact that such restrictions were imposed only on Hindus and no other religious denominations. Restrictions on these rights are viewed as prejudicial and a denial of Hindus' fundamental rights. Consequently, the actions against Hindu students are categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime, stemming from animosity towards Hindu beliefs.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
N/A
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
