Minor Hindu students pressured to wear hijabs, Muslim-style caps and offer namaz by Muslim teachers in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh
Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, India 
6 May, 2026
Case Summary
At the PM Shri government school in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, minor Hindu children were made to wear Islamic caps and hijabs inside the school premises by their Muslim teachers. The victims were also compelled to recite Islamic prayers (namaz) and offer sajda (Islamic practice of bowing down before Allah). The PM Shri government school was in Jalab Sarai, under Nakhasa police station limits in Sambhal district. The accused were identified as Anjar Ahmad and Mohammad Gul Ejaz, who encouraged Hindu girl students to wear hijabs, made them perform sajda, and urged male students to come wearing Islamic caps. Acting Headmaster Valesh Kumar also took an active part in the crime by not informing the higher authorities and not performing his duties. This incident came to light when viral videos and photos of Hindu students wearing hijabs and Muslim caps went viral on social media on 7 May 2026. The Block Education Officer stated that when the viral video and photos reached him, he visited the school the next day (8 May 2026) for inspection. Headmaster Mohammad Anzar Ahmed and assistant teacher Mohammad Gul Ejaz were found absent. Upon enquiry, it was discovered that the headmaster was on medical leave. Valesh Kumar had been appointed acting headmaster. According to the inquiry report, the Muslim teachers posted at the Jalab Sarai school had been promoting religious conversion in the institution for a long time. They had not only made Hindu children perform Islamic prayers, but had also forced Hindu girls to wear hijabs and perform sajda. District Magistrate Ankit Khandelwal said that action had been taken after the matter came to light through videos and photographs posted online. He added that a three-member committee headed by the Chief Development Officer had been formed to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter. After the incident surfaced, the district administration took immediate action. The headmaster, the assistant teacher, and the acting headmaster were suspended. Officials said the matter had violated provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Article 28 of the Constitution, and the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. On the District Magistrate’s instructions, the Muslim teachers and the principal, who had concealed the information, were suspended. The police also registered a First Information Report and began an investigation. The administration said further action would be taken against any other official or employee found to be involved after the inquiry was completed.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is- Predatory Proselytisation. The subcategory selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. Within this, the tertiary category selected is- Conversion of Minor. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case exemplifies a religiously motivated hate crime, as minor Hindu students at a government school were deliberately targeted for religious conversion and forced to wear Islamic religious symbols by the Muslim perpetrators. The Muslim teachers and headmasters exploited their positions of authority to impose Islamic practices, such as reciting namaz and performing sajda, on these vulnerable Hindu children, stripping them of their Hindu identity. This targeted aggression against Hindu minors, driven by the perpetrators' intent to convert them to Islam, marks it as a clear, religiously motivated offence rooted in religious supremacy and animosity. It is first important to establish that since the victims were minors, the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age, are more vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They do not understand the long-term ramifications of converting to another religion, and the Muslim perpetrators exploited this vulnerability to target the victims for conversion, making it a clear case of a religiously motivated hate crime. Since this incident involves the use of manipulation, coercion, and brainwashing to forcibly convert minor Hindu children to Islam and make them wear Islamic symbols, it showcases the deep-seated religious animosity of the perpetrators. Forcing minor Hindu students to recite namaz and perform sajda went beyond symbolic pressure and entered the realm of religious indoctrination, because these were central Islamic rituals tied to devotion and submission rather than casual acts of discipline. Compelling Hindu children to take part in them was presented as an attempt to erode their existing religious identity, detach them from their Hindu upbringing, and normalise a different faith through repeated coercion, manipulation, and psychological pressure. When vulnerable minors are pushed into practices alien to their own religion, it suggests a deliberate effort to strip them of their Hindu beliefs and replace them with an imposed Islamic identity, making the conduct a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime driven by deep-seated animosity. The requirement that minor Hindu children wear hijabs and Muslim caps added another layer to the coercion because it visibly imposed religious identity markers upon them. These were not neutral garments in this context, but symbols associated with another faith, and making Hindu children wear them suggested an attempt to visually transform their identity in a public and institutional space. Combined with the pressure to offer namaz and sajda, this made the conduct a deliberate effort to impose Islamic religious expression and lifestyle on Hindu students while stripping away their own religious and cultural identity. Such behaviour could understandably be seen as an attack on the Hindu children’s sense of belonging, faith, and community, making this an example of an anti-Hindu hate crime. The fact that this had happened inside a school made the incident particularly concerning, because educational institutions are supposed to be safe spaces for learning, not sites for religious coercion. When teachers and administrators use their authority to target children on the basis of religion, the abuse of power becomes even more serious. It creates an atmosphere where vulnerable Hindu students can feel isolated, pressured, and unable to object, especially when the coercion involves religious symbols and rituals rather than ordinary school rules. For this reason, the case is recognised as a religiously motivated hate crime, warranting its inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker's hate crime database. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on the date on which the crime occurred, rather than the date on which it was first reported by the media. In this case, however, media reports stated that the incident first came to public attention on 7 May 2026, when it went viral on social media. No other date specifying the beginning of the victims' ordeal was mentioned. Accordingly, 7 May 2026 has been used as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only. While this tracker acknowledges that three individuals were named as accused in this case, the religion of the perpetrators is recorded as Muslim for documentation purposes because the primary accused, Anjar Ahmad and Mohammad Gul Ejaz, were identified as Muslim. The religious identity of the third accused, Valesh Kumar, is not independently verified at the time of documentation. However, since three accused were involved in the coercion and intimidation directed towards the Hindu victims, the case was recorded under a single perpetrator religion for consistency in categorisation. This approach ensured clarity in data representation without overlooking the involvement of the other accused individual.
Case Status
Complaint registered
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
