Minor Hindu student scolded and brutally slapped for donning tilak by his Muslim school teacher in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Case ID : 30a8583 | Location : Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 11 May, 2026

Case ID : 30a8583

Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India

11 May, 2026

Minor Hindu student scolded and brutally slapped for donning tilak by his Muslim school teacher in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Predatory Proselytisation

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Case Summary

In the Kidwai Nagar area, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, a minor Hindu student was scolded and beaten for wearing a tilak by his Muslim school teacher. According to reports, the Hindu student, a resident of Damodar Nagar in Barra and the son of a food oil businessman, studied in Class 6 at a private school located in K-Block, Kidwai Nagar. The student stated that he regularly attended school wearing a tilak as a mark of religious respect and devotion. During this time, a Muslim teacher in his school frequently objected to the tilak and scolded him over it. On 12 May 2026, the situation escalated when the Muslim teacher brutally slapped the minor Hindu student three to four times after seeing him wearing the tilak. The child remained quiet and visibly distressed following the assault. When the student’s father arrived at the school to pick him up, he noticed his son’s condition and learned about the incident. Angered by the treatment meted out to his child, the father confronted the school administration and created a commotion outside the school premises. The family stated that when the matter was raised before the school management, the administration attempted to dismiss the issue and instead blamed the student for not completing his homework. Dissatisfied with the response of the school authorities and their refusal to take action against the teacher, the family informed the police control room. Police personnel reached the school after receiving information about the disturbance and attempted to pacify both sides after hearing their accounts. The victim’s family was advised to visit Naubasta police station and submit a formal complaint regarding the incident. Naubasta police station in-charge Bahadur Singh confirmed that he was aware of the uproar connected to the assault on the student, but stated that no formal complaint had been received at that time. He further stated that an investigation and legal action would follow upon receipt of a complaint.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The second primary category selected here is - Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Within it, the sub-category selected is - 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. The third primary category selected here is - Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. 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 has been added to the tracker because a minor Hindu student was physically assaulted by his Muslim school teacher after attending school wearing a tilak, a sacred and visible symbol of Hindu religious identity. The incident reflects targeted hostility towards the open expression of the Hindu faith and constitutes a religiously motivated act against a minor Hindu child within an educational institution. The assault was not triggered by violent, disruptive, or unlawful behaviour, but by the student’s continued observance of a Hindu religious practice, demonstrating intolerance towards visible markers of Hindu identity. In Hinduism, the tilak holds deep spiritual, religious, and cultural significance. It is commonly worn during prayers, rituals, festivals, and as a daily affirmation of devotion and faith. The tilak symbolises blessings, spiritual discipline, protection, and adherence to Hindu traditions. Subjecting a Hindu child to scolding and assault for wearing a tilak amounts to an attack on the child’s religious identity and an attempt to discourage the open practice of Hindu customs. Such actions are not neutral acts of school discipline but expressions of prejudice directed specifically at a Hindu religious symbol. In this case, the student stated that the teacher frequently objected to him wearing a tilak and regularly scolded him over it. The repeated targeting of the student for a visible Hindu symbol demonstrates that the hostility was not isolated to a single moment of anger, but formed part of a pattern of discriminatory conduct directed at the child’s religious identity. The situation escalated when the teacher physically assaulted the student by slapping him multiple times after seeing him wearing the tilak. The fact that the violence was linked specifically to the tilak establishes a clear religious dimension to the assault. The victim in this case was a minor child, making the incident even more serious. Children are highly impressionable and emotionally vulnerable, particularly within school environments where teachers occupy positions of authority and influence. When a child is punished, humiliated, or assaulted for displaying a Hindu religious symbol, it creates fear, shame, and confusion regarding their own religious identity. Such treatment conditions children to believe that openly practising Hinduism may invite punishment or hostility. Over time, repeated suppression of Hindu symbols and practices within educational institutions can alienate Hindu children from their faith and discourage them from publicly expressing their religious identity. The message it sends is that Hindu symbols are not welcome in the school and that Hindu students would be subjected to punishment if they display them. This not only violates a Hindu child’s fundamental right to practise and express his religion but also creates an atmosphere of fear and suppression, where Hindu children may feel compelled to conceal their faith to avoid similar treatment. The fact that the victims are minors, who are not yet cognitively developed to critically resist such pressure, makes this even more serious, since their impressionable minds are far easier to manipulate and reshape against their own faith. Such actions are common tactics in environments where subtle or overt pressure is used to alienate Hindu children from their religious identity. It serves as the first step in a larger pattern of grooming, where consistent ridicule, punishment, and forced removal of Hindu symbols and practices make a child more susceptible to abandoning their faith and embracing another under pressure. This incident reflects a broader pattern in which Hindu religious symbols such as tilak, kalava, shikha, tulsi mala, and other visible expressions of faith are singled out for suppression, despite being peaceful and non-disruptive practices. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy erupted in Karnataka, India, which took a national form, after Muslim women insisted that they should be allowed to wear burqas and hijabs in their schools and classrooms. At that time, the argument given by several politicians, social commentators, Hindu activists, and even the judiciary was that schools have the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms brings harmony and equality in the classroom, and therefore, schools not allowing girls to wear hijab in the classroom is not religious discrimination, but merely an enforcement of widely accepted uniform norms. The pseudo-seculars and leftist groups may argue that a similar line of reasoning should be applied in this case. However, it becomes important to mention here that most uniform codes focus on standardising clothing and accessories like shoes, belts, and hair. A tilak does not change the appearance of the uniform itself. This religious symbol is benign and does not cause disruption or harm, raising serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. When an ostensibly secular institution, such as a government school, imposes restrictions specifically targeting Hindu religious symbols, it reflects institutional prejudice against Hinduism. This form of targeted suppression echoes broader patterns where Hindu practices are curtailed under the guise of neutrality or discipline, often to appease other religious groups. The actions of the schoolteacher amounted to religious discrimination and are consistent with the framework of a hate crime, where Hindus are penalised solely for adhering to their Hindu religious practices. Since the assault was directly connected to the victim’s visible Hindu identity and involved intimidation and physical violence against a Hindu minor for practising his faith, this case satisfies the parameters of a religiously motivated hate incident and has therefore been added to the hate crime database. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the victim's ordeal began, or since when he was being scolded for wearing a tilak. The earliest date mentioned is 12 May 2026, when the Hindu boy was slapped for donning a tilak. Since Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident based on when the victim’s ordeal began and not when it was reported, we have considered the date of the incident as 12 May 2026.