Anti-Hindu hate at display; Ambedkarite politician calls for genocide of Hindus belonging to Brahmin community, has previously issued several anti-Hindu remarks
Bihar, India 
28 June, 2026
Case Summary
In Bihar, the Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community were subjected to genocidal threats by Rudra Pratap Kushwaha, an Ambedkarite political figure. The accused called for the mass killing (encounter) of 1,000 Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community in Bihar. As per reports, he is associated with the Yuva Vichar Manch in Bihar and is described as a hardcore Ambedkarite who has attended multiple Ambedkarite gatherings over the past several years. The accused made these remarks after the Bihar Police carried out an encounter involving a Hindu man belonging to the Brahmin community named Bharat Bhushan Tiwari. The deceased had threatened the police multiple times and had attempted to kill them. He had compared himself to freedom fighter Bhagat Singh and stated that the government should fulfil the promises made to the people. He was described as a person involved in social issues who repeatedly threatened the government and police. On several occasions, he had also attempted to fire gunshots at police personnel. He was killed in an encounter on 17 June 2026. His encounter triggered controversy, as the police stated that they acted in self-defence. However, local eyewitnesses stated that he was shot multiple times despite having surrendered. While Bharat Bhushan Tiwari's case was under investigation, the accused Rudra Pratap Kushwaha used it as a pretext to threaten and call for the mass killing of all Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community. In a video clip that went viral on social media platforms such as X, the accused was heard saying, “Not just Bharat Tiwari, but even his parents, brothers, and his entire Brahmin clan should be encountered.” In another instance in the same clip, he was heard saying, “Only after the encounter and killing of 1,000 Brahmins will he feel peaceful.” He further mocked the death of Bharat Tiwari by saying, “If Brahmins can do everything, they can bring life to a heap of cow dung; then let Bharat Tiwari’s family take his dead body to the Brahmin community and get him alive again. What is the need to cry and do all this drama?” he said this in a mocking manner. Notably, this was not the first time the accused, Rudra Pratap Kushwaha, had made such anti–Hindu remarks. On 4 April 2024, another video clip of his went viral in which he appealed to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the country to chase away the 2 per cent Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community in the country and kill them. His remarks attracted fierce criticism on social media. In the viral video, Rudra Pratap Kushwaha said, “Now, there will not be any Hindu–Muslim riots in the country. Rather, there will be a backwards-versus-forward conflict in the country. Rudra Pratap Kushwaha will do it to chase you people away from this land of Bharat. You have made a joke of it. No Hindu is in danger. No Muslim is in danger. Neither the Gita nor the Quran is in danger. Remove the glasses of religion from your eyes and see. You will find that the entire Hindustan is under threat because of these 2 per cent Brahmins. Chase away these 2 per cent Brahmins and kill them. Muslims are our brothers.” In other instances, Kushwaha had criticised the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and claimed that the Ram Janmabhoomi belonged to Ashoka. He also challenged various narratives from the Ramayana in derogatory language. He stated that Emperor Ashoka travelled across the world and asked why Lord Rama did not go to Canada and America, questioning whether he was afraid. In another YouTube video, Rudra Pratap Kushwaha was also seen inciting Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe youths to deliberately lure and marry Hindu girls from the Brahmin community as part of a struggle against so-called ‘Brahminism’. He also stated that he would fight all legal cases of such youths if they did so. He described such marriages as a means to ‘purify’ the girls belonging to the Brahmin community. Rudra Pratap Kushwaha had repeatedly targeted Hindu deities, Hindu festivals, and upper-caste Hindus, especially Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community, in his speeches under the guise of propagating Ambedkarite thought. In one video clip that went viral on YouTube, he was seen abusing the Ramayana and calling for it to be thrown into a dustbin. In another video clip, he was seen expressing allegiance to Ambedkarism while criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the shifting of Dr B. R. Ambedkar’s statue from the old Parliament building. He falsely claimed that the Prime Minister had removed Ambedkar’s statue from the Central Hall to the Supreme Court premises. In reality, there was no statue of Ambedkar in the Central Hall; it was located in the old Parliament building and was later shifted to Prerna Sthal, a unified lawn area between the old Parliament building and the Parliament Library. The Supreme Court did not receive the shifted statue from Parliament; instead, a new 7-foot bronze statue was commissioned and installed on the court premises. Despite this, Kushwaha criticised the Prime Minister, claiming that certain leaders felt ashamed to bow before Ambedkar’s statue because of caste prejudice.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The first primary category selected is: Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is: Violent threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. The second subcategory selected is: Call for genocide/violence against Hindus/specific sects of Hindus Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Often, animosity against Hindus or a specific panth/sampradaya/group of Hindus or a specific ideology they hold manifests itself into hate speech and calls for genocide/violence against that specific section of Hindus. For example, it has often been seen that those who hold animosity against the Hindu faith use specific sects/sampradaya/pant of Hindus as a proxy to express hate against Hindus as a whole. It has been seen that the word ‘Hindutva’ has been used to call for violence against those who say they believe in ‘Hindutva’. It is observed that ‘Hindutva’ is only used as a proxy to call for violence against Hindus as a whole, as seen in the Dismantling Global Hindutva conference where speakers admitted that ‘Hindutva’ cannot be eradicated till ‘Hinduism’ is eradicated. The eradication of an entire faith, in turn, is a genocidal call against the entire community that practices that faith. Further, it is also observed that violence against a specific section of Hindus is made, justifying these calls by weaving exaggerated tales of historical injustices. Often, those who hold animosity towards Hindus and their faith attempt to make their animosity more palatable by justifying their hate for a specific section, claiming that they are against that particular section because of their faith in the broader community and the religion they process. Such calls for violence against specific sections of Hindus, as mentioned, is a proxy for their animosity against the entire community and the faith they profess, and therefore, would be considered hate speech under this category. The other subcategory selected 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 out of 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 is a clear example of anti-Hindu hate speech. It involves Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community being issued genocidal threats, along with explicit calls for their mass killing by Ambedkarite political leader Rudra Pratap Kushwaha. The overall targeting of a single community for violence based on their religious identity reflects clear religiously motivated hostility. This makes the incident a strong example of a hate crime driven by anti-Hindu sentiment. Some might argue that this incident targeted only Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community and thus was not anti-Hindu hate speech and was just anti-Brahmin hate speech. However, it is important to understand that anti-Hindu forces often target Hindus through buzzwords and euphemisms rather than directly naming “Hindus” as their target for hate. They employ terms like "Brahminism", “Brahminical patriarchy”, or “fighting casteism” to make religious hostility appear ideological or socially justified. In this case, the denigrating and violent remarks against Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community were inherently motivated by religious animosity, rather than just mere caste conflicts. Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community are traditionally associated with preserving and transmitting Hindu religious knowledge, including the study and recitation of scriptures such as the Vedas, Upanishads, and other foundational texts of Sanatan Dharma. They also play a key role in performing and maintaining temple rituals, conducting ceremonies, and ensuring the continuity of established religious practices across generations. In addition, Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community have historically been involved in safeguarding ritual traditions, teaching religious philosophy, and guiding community practices related to worship, festivals, and sacred rites. In this context, they are viewed as one of the communities closely linked with the continuity of Hindu religious and cultural life. Therefore, any call for their annihilation or mass violence against them, like in this case made by Kushwaha, is not limited to a social or caste-based category alone. It is an attack on a section that is closely integrated with Hindu religious structures, and is therefore inherently anti-Hindu in nature. Therefore, in this case, the accused was essentially using the case of Bharat Bhushan Tiwari as a pretext to launch violent and genocidal verbal vitriol against all Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community. The case of Bharat is still under investigation and remains a developing story. If he had issues with Bharat, he could have limited himself to criticising him alone; instead, he went on to issue genocidal and violent calls to kill his entire Hindu family as well as other Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community on a large scale. This demonstrates an extreme level of hostility towards Hindus, making it a clear instance of anti-Hindu hate speech. Another point to highlight is that the accused also mocked and demeaned Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community by saying, “If Brahmins can do everything, they can bring life to a heap of cow dung; then let Bharat Tiwari’s family take his dead body to Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community and get him alive again. What is the need to cry and do all this drama?” This remark made by Kushwaha is anti-Hindu in nature as it directly targets and ridicules core religious beliefs and practices associated with Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community. By sarcastically suggesting that Brahmins can “bring life to a heap of cow dung,” the statement mocks Hindu ritual symbolism in which cow dung is regarded as sacred and purifying in several traditional practices. The use of this remark in a derogatory and contemptuous context constitutes a clear attempt to trivialise and belittle Hindu religious beliefs. Further, the statement’s reference to taking the deceased to Brahmins to “get him alive again,” followed by dismissing the grieving process as “drama,” mocks Hindu death rituals and mourning practices, thereby undermining deeply held religious sentiments. In the context of the case, this language does not merely express criticism but reflects ridicule of Hindu faith traditions and the Brahmin community’s religious role, amounting to derogatory stereotyping and religious mockery. Taken together, the remark constitutes anti-Hindu rhetoric as it disparages both Hindu beliefs and the practices followed by Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community. The accused’s association with Ambedkarite ideology further underscores this religious hostility. Ambedkarism is a political ideology fundamentally opposed to Hinduism. Under the guise of fighting casteism, it actually attacks Hinduism and the Hindu community. There have been numerous incidents where Ambedkarites have targeted Hindus under the pretext of opposing so-called Brahminism, including desecrating Hindu temples and scriptures such as the Manusmriti and the Ramcharitmanas. Hindu deities have been repeatedly insulted. Moreover, Ambedkarites maintain alliances with leftist and Islamist groups, strategically using identity politics to fragment the Hindu community along caste lines and destroy its unity. This clearly reveals a religiously motivated campaign aimed at undermining Hindu identity and cohesion, amounting to religiously motivated crime. Ambedkarites peddle false caste atrocity literature and rhetoric, which portrays all Dalits as oppressed and all "Upper caste" Hindus as casteist and oppressive. Their narrative is that ‘upper caste’ Hindus are tyrannical towards disadvantaged sections of the Hindu society. This rhetoric 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. Even Ambedkarite groups such as the Bhim Army express similar hostility towards the Hindu community. They repeatedly target Hindus under the pretext of opposing “Brahmins”, “Brahminism”, “Hindutva”, and similar ideological labels used as buzzwords. While the Bhim Army presents itself as a champion of Dalit rights, its actions and affiliations often contradict this claim. Dalits are very much Hindus, yet the Bhim Army frequently targets Hindu symbols, festivals, and practices, including those held sacred by Dalits themselves. This pattern suggests that the organisation’s agenda is less about genuine Dalit upliftment and more aligned with broader anti-Hindu narratives that seek to divide and weaken Hindu society from within. This becomes particularly apparent when the Bhim Army aligns with leftist and Islamist platforms, where identity politics is weaponised against Hindus. In such spaces, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary; what matters most is religious identity. It is the Hindu identity, regardless of caste, that often becomes the target of animosity. As seen in cases where Dalit families were attacked for displaying Hindu symbols or worshipping deities, the hostility stems not from caste differences, but from a disdain for Hindu religiosity. For example, on May 19, 2020, reports emerged in which a Dalit family in Bihar’s Kishanganj district accused the local Bhim Army unit of attacking them for their beliefs, desecrating a temple as they objected to their reverence for Hindu deities and saffron flags. Similarly, on June 29, 2021, in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu named Saurabh Sharma was attacked by Bhim Army members over political differences. The assailants used swords and rods, causing severe injuries, and threatened to eliminate the Brahmin community from the area. Moreover, Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad has repeatedly made statements and taken positions that reflect his anti-Hindu stance. For instance, he has publicly endorsed conversion as a political weapon, invoking B.R. Ambedkar’s decision to leave Hinduism, and has actively supported movements that call for a rejection of Hindu festivals and practices. In fact, Chandrashekhar Azad's political trajectory has strongly focused on building a Dalit-Muslim alliance, a strategy that became particularly visible during his active participation in the anti-CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protests that culminated in the Delhi anti-Hindu Riots 2020. His brand of politics, under the banner of Dalit-Muslim unity, has contributed to narratives that vilify Hindu traditions and exacerbate targeted attacks against Hindus. Thus, by attacking Hindu symbols and aligning with forces hostile to Hinduism at large, the Bhim Army effectively turns against the cultural and spiritual traditions of the Dalit community itself. In doing so, it reinforces the very forces of division and religious antagonism that marginalise Dalits, not as a caste, but as Hindus. This contradiction reveals that, despite its stated mission, the Bhim Army’s trajectory increasingly serves an anti-Hindu, rather than a pro-Dalit, agenda. All these anti-Hindu narratives promoted under Ambedkarism are also reflected in the statements of the accused Kushwaha, who repeatedly made genocidal remarks against Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community under the pretext of opposing Bharat Bhushan Tiwari. Further, his past antecedents show repeated abuse of Hindu deities, Hindu scriptures, and Hindu temples, including sacred sites such as Ram Janmabhoomi. He has also incited Hindus belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities to kill Hindus belonging to the Brahmin community and drive them out of India. He has consistently denigrated the Hindu community, particularly the Brahmin community, and has targeted Hinduism, Hindu groups, and Hindu organisations through inflammatory and derogatory remarks, reflecting a sustained pattern of religious hostility. He has also repeatedly targeted Hindu women from the Brahmin community in the context of predatory relationships involving Dalit men, further reinforcing this pattern of hostility. Overall, the accused's conduct demonstrates a consistent and sustained animosity directed at all Hindus, constituting a clear case of religiously motivated hate crime. Therefore, it is being added to the hate crime database of the tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when a crime occurs rather than when it is reported in the media or goes viral on social media. However, in the present case, the available information does not specify the exact date on which the accused made the remarks. As there is no available information establishing the precise date of occurrence, the date on which the incident gained widespread attention on social media, 29 June 2026, is being used as the indicative incident date. This is being recorded solely for documentation and classification purposes.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
