Minor Hindu girl forced out of school by management for donning a tilak and tulsi mala in Purulia, West Bengal
Purulia, West Bengal, India 
8 July, 2026
Case Summary
In the Para police station area of Purulia, West Bengal, a Class 11 Hindu student was compelled to leave her school after the school management objected to her wearing a Tulsi garland and a sandalwood tilak, both significant symbols of her Hindu faith. According to the victim's family, the student regularly attended school wearing the Tulsi garland around her neck and a tilak on her forehead, but the school management repeatedly objected to these religious symbols and instructed her not to wear them. When the student continued to wear them, her family was called to the school. The matter remained unresolved, and the student's mother stated that she was subsequently handed a Transfer Certificate (TC) without any explanation. After she refused to accept it, a copy of the TC was sent to the family via WhatsApp. The student's family filed a written complaint with the Para police, stating that the school's actions interfered with the student's religious freedom and amounted to an attempt to force her out of the institution. They also approached the local administration seeking intervention to ensure that the student's education was not disrupted. The school principal, Sushmita Char, denied that the student had been prohibited from wearing a Tulsi garland or tilak and claimed that all students were only expected to follow the school's discipline and rules. She further claimed that the student had not been issued a Transfer Certificate and that the controversy arose after the student uploaded videos concerning the school on social media. The principal also said that a meeting with the student's parents had been called to discuss the matter. Local administrative officials, including the Block Development Officer, stated that efforts would be made to resolve the dispute and ensure that the student's education continued without interruption, while the police began examining the complaint.
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 categorized as a hate crime. The other sub-category selected here is - Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, the sub-category selected here 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 included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because a Hindu student was subjected to discriminatory treatment and given a transfer certificate by the school management for displaying visible symbols of her Hindu faith, namely a Tulsi garland (Tulsi mala) and a tilak. The Tulsi garland and tilak hold profound religious and cultural significance in Hinduism. The Tulsi plant is regarded as sacred and is closely associated with Lord Vishnu and his devotees. Many practising Hindus wear a Tulsi mala as an outward expression of devotion, spiritual discipline and religious identity. Similarly, the tilak is a sacred mark applied on the forehead during prayers, temple visits, religious observances and festivals. It symbolises blessings, devotion and adherence to Hindu traditions. For practising Hindus, wearing these symbols is not merely a matter of personal preference or appearance but an integral part of their religious identity. Consequently, objections directed specifically at these symbols amount to objections to the public expression of Hindu faith itself. The victim in this case was a minor Hindu girl, making the incident especially serious. Children at such an age are still developing their understanding of identity, religion, and self-worth. Additionally, educational institutions are expected to provide an environment where students of all backgrounds are able to pursue their education without discrimination on the basis of religion. If a student's visible expression of her Hindu faith becomes the subject of repeated objections by school authorities, it creates an atmosphere in which practising Hindu students may feel compelled to conceal or abandon harmless religious practices in order to continue their education without fear of adverse consequences. Such an environment places institutional pressure upon Hindu students to suppress visible manifestations of their faith rather than allowing them to practise their religion freely. The gravity of this incident is amplified because the victims was a minor Hindu girl, who was subjected to the authority of an educational institution. Students are particularly vulnerable to institutional pressure and the influence of teachers and administrators, whose directions they are generally expected to obey. When an institution selectively suppresses Hindu religious symbols while permitting comparable expressions of another faith, students are pressured to distance themselves from their religious identity not as a matter of free choice but out of fear of punishment, academic disadvantage or exclusion. Such conditions undermine genuine freedom of conscience by creating sustained pressure to suppress one's own religious identity. The selective targeting of Hindu religious practices within an educational institution, therefore, infringes upon the religious freedom, dignity and equal treatment of Hindu students while fostering an environment in which the open expression of Hindu identity is actively discouraged. In this case, it is also 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 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 argument was also that overt religious symbols like the Hijab can be restricted under the school's policy of uniformity. Some pseudo-seculars and anti-Hindu leftists argue that a similar line of reasoning should be applied in this case and that school management have the authority to regulate student appearance in order to maintain uniformity and discipline. However, it is important to note that the tilak or a tulsi mala are benign Hindu religious symbols that neither disrupt classroom activities nor interfere with the educational environment. For Hindu students, wearing a tilak and tulsi mala is a peaceful expression of faith and religious identity. More importantly, the issue in this case extends far beyond any purported institutional policy. According to the victim's mother, her daughter was given a transfer certificate for wearing these Hindu symbols, which was an extremely disproportionate reaction. Such conduct cannot be equated with the neutral enforcement of institutional regulations. Rather, it demonstrates hostility towards Hindu religious practice and the students who adhered to it. The selective targeting of a Hindu student for wearing sacred Hindu symbols, coupled with punitive actions, raises serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. The actions of the school management amounted to religious discrimination and are consistent with the framework of a religiously motivated hate incident, where Hindu students were penalised solely for adhering to and expressing their Hindu religious identity. Overall, the cumulative facts of this case demonstrate a pattern of hostility directed at the Hindu student because of her faith, religious identity, and religious expression. Since this case meets multiple parameters of a religiously motivated hate incident, it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began. It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the school management began restricting the minor Hindu girl from wearing a tilak. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media, 7 July 2026. Disclaimer: Although the incident involved the actions of the school management, only the school principal, Sushmita Char, has been explicitly identified by name in the available public reports. Accordingly, for documentation purposes, the perpetrator count has been conservatively recorded as one, referring to the principal.
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
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
