Hindu festival targeted; administration bans DJ use in Ram Navami processions in Bihar's Gopalganj
Gopalganj, Bihar, India 
17 March, 2026
Case Summary
In Gopalganj, Bihar, Ram Navami celebrations were curtailed when the police administration imposed a ban on the use of DJs during the Ram Navami procession. This was announced during a peace committee meeting held a few days ahead of the festival. According to media reports, the meeting was held at the police station premises to ensure a peaceful and harmonious celebration of Ram Navami and Eid. Station House Officer Roshan Kumar Singh chaired the meeting. Dhamdaha Block Development Officer Prakash Kumar and Municipal Council Mirganj Executive Officer Deepa Kumari were also present. The meeting was attended by local public representatives, intellectuals, social workers, and members of both Hindu and Muslim communities. Station House Officer Roshan Kumar Singh stated that important festivals like Ram Navami and Eid symbolised celebrating the festivals with discipline, which was everyone's responsibility. He urged people to ignore rumours and immediately report any suspicious activity to the police. He also said that this year, 2026, a grand procession was held in the area on the occasion of Ram Navami, featuring attractive tableaux and traditional flags and banners. The administration stated that the use of DJs was completely banned, and adherence to prescribed rules was mandatory during the procession. Following this, the police administration made rules for Eid. Instructions were given to ensure cleanliness, drinking water, electricity, and security at prayer sites. Additional police forces were deployed around mosques and Eidgahs on Eid. The station chief stated that security arrangements were tight during the festivals. Special vigilance was maintained at sensitive locations, and adequate police forces were deployed. Extra vigilance was maintained along procession routes, prayer sites, and crowded areas. Those present at the meeting assured the administration of their full cooperation and stated that maintaining peace and harmony in the area was everyone's responsibility.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is being added to the tracker under the primary category- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. The subcategory selected is- Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. This case is a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime because the police administration in Bihar's Gopalganj used its authority to ban the use of DJs during Ram Navami processions, directly targeting a central expressive practice of a Hindu religious festival. The ban singled out a specific, sacred festival event, Ram Navami, and imposed a restriction that did not apply in the same way to other religious festivals like Eid, celebrated in the area, demonstrating an institutional pattern of discrimination against Hindu religious expression. By focusing its administrative action selectively towards Ram Navami, the administration sent a message that Hindu public worship and cultural display were less entitled to protection and space than other religious observances, which was the hallmark of religiously targeted hostility rather than neutral law and order management. The use of a DJ in Ram Navami processions is not merely entertainment; it is an integral part of how many Hindu communities experience the festival today. DJs are used to amplify devotional bhajans, chants of Jai Shri Ram and other religious songs that are traditionally sung along the procession route, allowing larger numbers of devotees to participate collectively in the worship. Ram Navami processions themselves are annual, highly symbolic events where Hindus publicly express their faith, devotion and joy, often spanning long distances through towns and neighbourhoods. To restrict the means by which these bhajans and chants are shared, through the ban on DJ loudspeakers, is effectively to restrict the visibility and public intensity of Hindu religious celebration. Hence, imposing such arbitrary restrictions on DJs during Ram Navami processions shows that the police administration is trying to suppress the outward expression of Hindu faith and identity, forcibly limiting the sacred playing of bhajans dedicated to Lord Ram and revealing an institutionalised bias and discrimination against Hindu religious festivals. Playing music through a DJ is not an illegal act, nor is it inherently provocative or violent. When the music consists of religious bhajans and devotional songs connected to Ram Navami, it is a nonviolent, peaceful expression of belief. The administration’s decision to ban DJs under the guise of general administrative or security considerations, while allowing other religious events to proceed without similar restrictions, exposes prejudice rather than genuine neutrality. The state singles out a minor, once yearly expression of Hindu faith, a single day of public celebration, where loudspeakers or DJs are used only for a short period, suggesting that the real target is not noise but the religious character of the event, which reveals a deep‑seated religious animosity towards Hindu public worship. The targeting of the DJ ban becomes even clearer when placed against the wider pattern of sound system use in the area. Ram Navami is a one‑day Hindu festival, whereas loudspeakers and similar sound systems are used repeatedly throughout the year by other religious institutions. Mosques, for example, use loudspeakers daily for the azaan, yet such uses are rarely subjected to the same kind of crackdown or restriction. It is only the one‑day Hindu celebration, Ram Navami, where the playing of DJ bhajans is singled out for a ban, which reveals a clear case of differential treatment towards Hindus. This selective targeting of Hindu religious expression, while everyday religious sound practices of other communities remain unaffected, showcases prejudice within the police administration and the broader state apparatus. When the state applies its restrictions so unevenly, it is not maintaining neutrality but actively privileging one religious practice over another, and such institutional bias against a Hindu festival fits squarely within the definition of a religiously motivated hate crime. It is also important to note that the police administration’s ban on DJs was done to supposedly maintain a better law and order situation, arguing that the playing of Ram Navami bhajans through DJ systems across India has triggered anti‑Hindu radical elements to attack processions. They assert that chants of Jai Shri Ram and the use of Ram bhajans through loudspeakers have been used as pretexts for violence by radical groups, leading to clashes and unrest. However, in this case, instead of strengthening security, controlling these anti‑social elements or preventing attacks on Hindus, the administration responds by restricting the very religious expression that is targeted by those extremists. The state effectively shifts the burden away from protecting Hindu devotees and onto silencing them, appeasing radical groups rather than confronting them. By restricting the right of Hindus to play bhajans through DJs on Ram Navami, the administration reveals a biased stance that prioritises the comfort of potential attackers over the constitutional rights of Hindu worshippers, and that makes the restriction a clear case of religiously motivated discrimination. Further, it is important to mention here that every individual or community has the right to practice their religious faith in the manner that is meaningful to them, within the bounds of the law; to single out a Hindu festival and impose arbitrary limitations on how devotees may express their beliefs, such as banning the use of DJ‑amplified bhajans, is to interfere with that fundamental right and can also be considered a prejudicial order denying the Hindu community its constitutional guarantees. Such arbitrary actions taken specifically against Hindu religious observances reflect animosity and prejudice towards Hindu beliefs and Hindu identity, and they go beyond routine administrative control into the realm of religious targeting, particularly when the state uses its authority not to protect Hindu worshippers but to curtail their religious expression, thereby undermining both the principle of equal treatment before the law and the rights of Hindus as equal citizens. Such actions stem from animosity and prejudice against Hindus and their beliefs, making it a religiously motivated offence. Overall, this case meets several different key parameters of a hate crime, and it is being added to the Hate Crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: In this case, the perpetrator count has been recorded as "3", referring to Station House Officer Roshan Kumar Singh, Dhamdaha Block Development Officer Prakash Kumar, and Municipal Council Mirganj Executive Officer Deepa Kumari. The Hinduphobia Tracker acknowledges that multiple other administrative officers were also part of the peace committee meeting where the use of DJs during Ram Navami processions was banned. However, since reports specified only these three individuals and no total number of administrative officers was provided, this represents a conservative estimate of the perpetrator count. The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurs rather than when the media reports it, as per its standard methodology. Where media reports do not specify the exact incident date, as in this case, the media reporting date of 18 March 2026 is used as the indicative incident date for documentation and tracking purposes only. This approach maintains database consistency while noting the limitation.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
