Hindu minor student faces discrimination by Muslim teacher; barred from wearing Tulsi mala to class while Muslim students allowed hijabs
Kolkata, West Bengal, India 
8 June, 2026
Case Summary
In Deshapriya Balika Vidyamandir in Kestopur, Kolkata, West Bengal, a minor Hindu schoolgirl was discriminated against and barred from wearing her Tulsi mala, a religious symbol associated with the Hindu faith, to school by a Muslim teacher identified as Nazrin Nahar. According to the account from the victim, the teacher had snatched the Tulsi mala from the Hindu student's neck and warned her of severe consequences if she returned to school wearing it. The incident occurred on June 9, 2026. The Hindu student said that while the Muslim teacher reprimanded her for wearing the Tulsi Mala to class, she imposed no such restrictions on Muslim students who came to school in Hijabs. The other students who spoke about the incident stated that the interaction caused distress to the girl and left her apprehensive about attending school while displaying an article of faith associated with her religious identity. As details of the incident circulated in the locality, residents and parents began raising concerns about the school's approach to religious expression. Allegations surfaced that Nazrin Nahar had also, in 2022, barred Hindu students from playing devotional music dedicated to Mahadev during Shiv Puja. Besides, Nazrin Nahar was also facing separate allegations concerning the school’s Mid-Day Meal Scheme. Residents claimed official records reflected food distribution for nearly 500 students, while only a fraction of that number was being served in reality. The matter subsequently attracted wider public attention. According to local residents, members of the Hindu community, parents, and concerned citizens gathered to express their objections and seek clarification regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident. Community representatives called for an examination of the matter and sought accountability from the school administration and relevant authorities. As public attention intensified, video statements from individuals claiming to know the details of the incident circulated widely. These statements contributed to increased scrutiny of the matter and prompted further calls for an independent examination of the facts. As of 16 June 2026, community representatives stated that no decisive action had been taken and that there were no visible indications of a comprehensive investigation having been initiated. They further stated that the absence of clear official communication had contributed to public concern and had led to continued demands for transparency and accountability from the authorities responsible for examining the matter.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - 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 categorised as a hate crime. The other primary category selected is - 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 the 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 other primary category selected here is: Predatory Proselytisation. Under this, 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 that 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 the 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 proselytisation, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case was included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because a Hindu student was prevented from wearing a Tulsi mala, a sacred symbol of her faith, within an educational institution. Firstly, such mandates stand as a clear example of religious intolerance and a hate crime against Hindu children and their faith. It goes beyond mere disciplinary action and constitutes targeted hostility towards Hindu students for their religious identity, raising serious concerns about the safety and protection of Hindus in educational institutions. The Tulsi Mala, Tilak and Kalava are not merely decorative things; they hold profound spiritual and cultural significance for Hindus. They are emblems of Hindu religious identity, often worn during prayers, rituals, and as a daily affirmation of faith. Forcing Hindu students to remove these religious symbols is a deliberate effort to erase their religious identity and expression. Such an act is deeply disrespectful and constitutes a direct attack on the values and practices of Hinduism. This incident reflects a blatant restriction on the religious expression of Hindu children. The message it sends is that Hindu symbols are not welcome in the school and that these symbols would be forcibly removed if Hindu students 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. 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. These are deliberate actions to facilitate the gradual suppression of Hindu practices to erode the child’s confidence in their own religion over time, normalising the idea that Hindu identity must be hidden or discarded to fit in. These are meant to alienate Hindu children from their own faith. Such actions are rooted in bias and disdain for Hinduism, its adherents, and its practices, making it a religiously motivated crime. 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. It is important to note here that many of the victims were minors, which means the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They may not have the ability to fully understand the implications of converting to another religion or recognising such deception and brainwashing attempts, and the perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victims. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy erupted in Karnataka, 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 that was 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 is important to note that most uniform codes focus on standardising clothing and accessories such as shoes, belts, and hair. A Tulsi mala, Tilak or Kalava does not change the appearance of the uniform itself. These religious symbols are benign and do not cause disruption or harm, raising serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. Another important aspect of this case is the differential treatment meted out to students of different faiths. According to the victim, while she was reprimanded, had her Tulsi mala removed, and was warned against wearing it again, no similar restrictions were imposed on Muslim students who attended school wearing Hijabs. This distinction is significant because it elevates the incident beyond a routine question of school discipline or uniform enforcement. If a school seeks to prohibit all visible religious symbols under a uniformly applied policy, the issue is one of institutional regulation. However, where a Hindu religious symbol is singled out for prohibition while comparable expressions of another faith are permitted, concerns of religious discrimination naturally arise. The issue then ceases to be about maintaining uniformity and instead becomes one of unequal treatment based on religious identity. The incident also gains significance in light of allegations that the same teacher objected in 2022 to Hindu students playing devotional songs dedicated to Mahadev during Shiv Puja celebrations. This shows the teacher's underlying disdain for Hindus and their practices. Having said that, every individual has the right to practice their religious faith and restricting someone from doing that can also be considered a prejudicial order denying the Hindu community its fundamental rights. Such arbitrary actions taken against Hindus are prejudicial to the rights of Hindus and stem from animosity and prejudice against Hindu beliefs, which is why this case is being categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime. Disclaimer: The available reports did not specify the exact date on which the restriction was communicated to the student. Accordingly, for documentation purposes, the case date 09 June 2026 was recorded based on when the incident entered the public domain through media reporting.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
