Hindu music composer targeted and abused online for his Brahmin identity on social media

Case ID : 30a7925 | Location : Tamil Nadu, India | Date of Incident : Thu, 12 March, 2026

Case ID : 30a7925

Tamil Nadu, India

12 March, 2026

Hindu music composer targeted and abused online for his Brahmin identity on social media

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

On social media, a Hindu man was targeted for his caste in a private dispute that turned public. The dispute resurfaced over the authorship, ownership, and credit of the Tamil song Enjoy Enjaami, following which music composer Santhosh Narayanan was targeted on social media over his Brahmin identity. The controversy reignited on 13 March 2026 after a social media user posted a clip from the song and accused singer Dhee and Santhosh Narayanan of having taken the song from rapper Arivu. The post quickly gained traction online and revived an earlier dispute regarding credit and ownership of the track. In response, Santhosh Narayanan issued a public clarification regarding the creative process behind the song. He stated that the idea for the song had originated with Dhee and that the storyline and concept had been shaped with filmmaker M. Manikandan while they were working on the film Kadaisi Vivasayi. He further stated that he had composed, produced, and created the melodies for the song, while Arivu had written most of the lyrics and performed it. Arivu, on the other hand, reiterated that he had written the lyrics, composed the main vocal melody, and performed the song based on his cultural experiences. He further stated that he had been credited only as a featured artist and had not received ownership rights or royalties from the track. As the exchange intensified online, several social media users and commentators began targeting Santhosh Narayanan personally by referring to his Brahmin caste identity. The discussion, which had begun as a dispute over authorship and royalties, subsequently shifted towards identity-based commentary and accusations linked to caste. The report stated that multiple social media posts were circulated in which Santhosh Narayanan’s Brahmin identity was specifically invoked in connection with the controversy. Screenshots of such posts were reproduced in the report. The incident subsequently became part of a wider public debate concerning artistic credit, caste identity, and social media targeting in Tamil Nadu’s political and cultural discourse.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is "Hate speech against Hindus". The sub-category for this case is "Anti-Hindu slurs mocking faith". Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus, with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem from inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith; therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. This case warranted inclusion in the tracker because what began as a dispute over authorship, credit, and royalties was deliberately transformed into identity-based hate speech directed at Brahmins. The core issue originally concerned creative contribution and ownership of a song. However, instead of remaining confined to evidence, contracts, and artistic inputs, the discourse was shifted towards the composer’s Brahmin identity. This shift was significant because it marked a movement away from legitimate criticism into targeted hostility based on religious identity. Once the debate ceased to focus on the merits of the dispute and instead began invoking the individual’s Brahmin background, the rhetoric assumed a discriminatory character. A personal and professional disagreement was recast through the lens of caste animus, thereby converting an artistic dispute into hate speech targeted at a specific community. A key marker in this case is the commentary's repeated and sustained nature. The frequency and consistency of such posts demonstrate that the remarks were not isolated expressions or momentary lapses in judgment, but part of a deliberate pattern of targeting Hindu religious identity. The continued focus on specific religious symbols and communities indicates a conscious effort to mock and demean rather than engage in legitimate critique. Importantly, a narrative was consciously set to colour the issue as one of “upper caste versus lower caste” oppression, even though the immediate controversy was about competing claims over creative credit and financial rights. Rather than engaging with the factual matrix of authorship, sections of the discourse attempted to impose a pre-existing ideological framework of caste hierarchy upon the incident. This reframing was not a neutral act of commentary but a deliberate attempt to impose collective guilt and suspicion on a person on the basis of his Brahmin identity. Fake news and rhetoric that aim to perpetuate the narrative that ‘upper caste’ Hindus are tyrannical towards disadvantaged sections of the Hindu society are essentially anti-Hindu in nature, owing to the intention behind spreading disinformation of this nature. It is often claimed that even such disinformation cannot be termed anti-Hindu in nature since both the purported victim and aggressor are from the Hindu community; however, the disinformation is spread with the specific intention of discrediting the Hindu society and its faith by branding it oppressive and tyrannical. The intent of spreading such disinformation is to signal that Sanatan Dharma itself is discriminatory in nature and that it is a faith that is only meant for the practice of a specific class of Hindus who are considered ‘upper caste’. Such a false narrative is perpetuated in order to discredit and delegitimise the faith and dehumanise its followers. The direct consequence of the creation of such false ‘atrocity literature’ is an increase in violence against specific sections of Hindus and the exertion of pressure on another section of Hindus to alienate themselves from their professed faith, as it seeks to convince them that the faith itself discriminates against them. Since such narratives attack the core of the faith with the intention of delegitimising, dehumanising, and alienating Hindus, it is considered a hate crime against Hindus and the faith they profess. Such rhetoric is especially grave because it ceases to critique conduct and instead attacks a person for who he is by birth. Hate speech of this nature operates by transforming an individual dispute into broader hostility toward an entire community. By projecting the controversy in caste terms and specifically foregrounding the Brahmin identity of the individual concerned, the speech moved into the realm of targeted communal vilification. Further, this form of targeting had the effect of inflaming collective prejudice. Once the individual was recast as a representative of a caste category rather than as a party to a creative dispute, the discussion became a vehicle for hostility against Brahmins as a class. This is precisely how identity-based hate narratives take shape: an isolated disagreement is weaponised to sustain broader animus against a community. The seriousness of the incident, therefore, lay not merely in online criticism but in the communal framing of the dispute. The attempt to paint the matter in colours of caste conflict, where the underlying issue did not inherently require such a frame, demonstrated a deliberate narrative shift aimed at communal targeting. Taken together, the movement from a professional disagreement to caste-based rhetoric, the explicit targeting of Brahmin identity, and the imposition of an upper-versus-lower caste narrative clearly justified its inclusion in the tracker as a case of hate speech directed at Brahmins.