Air India SATS' Hindu employee harassed for sporting tilak to work, blames Muslim superior for religious discrimination

Case ID : 2e1d5b2 | Location : Delhi, Delhi, India | Date of Incident : Fri, 18 October, 2024

Case ID : 2e1d5b2

Delhi, Delhi, India

18 October, 2024

Air India SATS' Hindu employee harassed for sporting tilak to work, blames Muslim superior for religious discrimination

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Case Summary

Chanchal Tyagi, a Hindu employee at Air India SATS, publicly shared her experience of religious discrimination on X, revealing she faced harassment from her superior, PCM Majhabeen Akhtar, solely for sporting a tilak. According to Tyagi, while Muslim employees were allowed to perform Namaz several times a day during work hours without restrictions, she was reprimanded for wearing the tilak after her prayers — a practice she’s long maintained. Frustrated by the lack of action, Tyagi filed a formal complaint with the Police Commissioner (of Delhi) and approached higher officials within Air India SATS, though she reported that her grievances went unaddressed. Seeking public support, she posted her complaint on X tagging PM Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, along with a copy of her police report and videos depicting what she describes as targeted discrimination. Her message stated, “I am being harassed by PCM Majhabeen Akhtar. I am stopped from applying tilak after praying, while Muslim employees are allowed to offer namaz several times on duty. Why such discrimination?”

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case of religious discrimination and persecution of the Air India employee at the hands of her Muslim superior is being added to the primary category 'Restriction/Ban on Hindu Practices'. To define the incident further, it is being added to 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. In this case, the Hindu emplyee was being harassed by the Muslim superior because she was wearing a Tilak to work everyday. A Tilak is an important symbol and manifestation of the Hindu faith. The Muslim superior, while harassing the Hindu employee, was allowing the Muslim employees to offer Namaz and practise their faith without question or harassment. That the Muslim superior targeted and harassed only the Hindu employee for sporting her religious symbol evidences the religious animosity that the Muslim perpetrator harbored against the Hindu employee and the faith she professed. Such actions stem out of inherent hostility towards the Hindu faith, its adherents and its religious symbols. The harassment is therefore committed with the specific intention of disenfranchising the victim from her professed faith. For that reason, this case is being added as a hate crime in the Hinduphobia Tracker.