Hindu employees at Christian missionary school pressured to convert and attend church prayers; dismissed from their jobs after refusing

Case ID : 30a969e | Location : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 13 April, 2026

Case ID : 30a969e

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India

13 April, 2026

Hindu employees at Christian missionary school pressured to convert and attend church prayers; dismissed from their jobs after refusing

Predatory Proselytisation

Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Pattern of targeting Hindus

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for refusal to convert

Case Summary

In Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, several Hindu employees working at St. Aloysius School, a Christian missionary school, were pressured to convert to Christianity. The victims belonged to the Dalit community and were repeatedly asked to attend church prayers and embrace Christianity. Employees who refused to convert were threatened with dismissal and, in several cases, removed from their jobs after refusing to comply. The incident sparked protests by Hindu organisations and prompted an official inquiry into the matter. According to media reports, the religious coercion had been taking place for several months. One of the Hindu victims, Rajesh Kumar, a sanitation worker who had been employed at the school for the past 12 years, stated that for the previous three months, beginning in April 2026, he had been under continuous pressure to attend church regularly and convert to Christianity. He stated that employees who refused to convert were threatened with termination and ultimately dismissed from their jobs. He further stated that he, too, was removed from his job after refusing to convert. Disturbed by the coercion, some of the affected Hindu employees approached a Hindu organisation and informed its members about the conversion pressure and threats of dismissal. Following these complaints, around 50 activists from Hindu organisations reached the school premises on 14 July 2026 and staged a protest against the forced conversion of Hindu employees. The protesters attempted to enter the school campus, but police personnel deployed at the site stopped them from doing so. This led to a scuffle between the protesters and the police, during which vandalism occurred at certain locations within the school premises. The situation on the campus remained tense for nearly an hour. As the protest intensified, additional police personnel from multiple police stations were deployed to the school to bring the situation under control. The protesters were subsequently removed from the premises. Following the demonstration, Hindu organisations warned that they would launch another protest if similar complaints of religious conversion surfaced in the future. Police officials stated that they had received information that sanitation workers at the school were being pressured to convert to Christianity. The District Education Officer subsequently constituted an inquiry committee to investigate the matter. Officials stated that further action would be taken based on the findings of the inquiry, while the police investigation into the incident remained ongoing.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

In this case, the first primary category selected is: Predatory Proselytisation. The subcategory selected is: Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other subcategory selected is: Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. The tertiary category selected is: Pattern of targeting Hindus. 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. The second primary category selected is: Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is: Attacked for refusal to convert. When there is pressure, threat or coercion employed upon the Hindu victim to convert to a different religion, in several cases, the victim refuses to succumb to the pressure/threats. Once the victim refuses, the perpetrator proceeds to attack/assault the victim owing to his/her refusal to convert. In such cases, the pressure/threat/intimidation/coercion/violence itself is driven by animosity towards the victim’s Hindu faith. The violence then is another hate crime driven by the victim’s refusal to abandon his professed faith, Hinduism, and convert to the religion of a non-Hindu perpetrator. Since the victim’s faith is at the heart of the pressure to convert and the ensuing violence towards the victim, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case constituted a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime because several Hindu employees were systematically targeted for conversion to Christianity by the authorities of a missionary educational institution. The victims were repeatedly pressured to abandon their Hindu faith, attend church prayers, and embrace Christianity. Those who refused were threatened with the loss of their livelihoods, while some were ultimately dismissed from their jobs. The targeting was not based on workplace performance or any legitimate employment-related issue but on the employees' adherence to Hinduism. The deliberate use of institutional authority to pressure Hindu employees to renounce their faith demonstrated that religion was central to the offence, making this a clear case of a religiously motivated hate crime. For Hindus, their religion is not merely a private belief but forms an integral part of their identity, traditions, cultural heritage, and way of life. Their religious practices, customs, festivals, modes of worship, and spiritual beliefs are deeply intertwined with their personal and social identity. The freedom to profess, practise, and preserve one's faith without coercion is a fundamental religious right. Consequently, compelling Hindus to abandon their ancestral faith and convert to another religion constitutes far more than a change in religious affiliation. It is an attempt to erase and replace a core aspect of their identity. In this case, the sustained pressure exerted upon Hindu employees to embrace Christianity demonstrated that the perpetrators did not respect the victims' right to remain Hindu. Instead, they sought to replace the employees' religious identity with Christianity, reflecting a clear hostility towards the victims' continued adherence to Hinduism. Such conduct demonstrated that Hindu identity itself was the target, making the offence explicitly religious in nature and constituting a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime. The victims were also compelled to attend church prayers as part of the sustained effort to convert them. Participation in the religious observances of another faith is a matter of personal belief and free choice, not something that can be imposed upon individuals through institutional authority or employment pressure. By forcing Hindu employees to attend church prayers despite their unwillingness, the perpetrators subjected them to repeated exposure to Christian religious teachings, doctrines, and worship practices with the objective of influencing their beliefs and facilitating their eventual conversion through manipulation and indoctrination. Attendance at church services bore no connection whatsoever to the employees' professional responsibilities and served no legitimate workplace purpose. Rather, it became a tool through which Christian religious practices were imposed upon Hindu employees in an attempt to weaken their attachment to their own faith and encourage acceptance of another religion. The deliberate use of compulsory participation in Christian worship demonstrated a conscious disregard for the employees' religious freedom and revealed a clear hostility towards their right to continue practising Hinduism, thereby reinforcing the religiously motivated nature of the offence. The threats of dismissal directed at employees who refused to attend church prayers or convert to Christianity demonstrated that conversion was pursued through coercion rather than through genuine religious conviction or voluntary choice. The victims were effectively presented with an impossible choice: remain faithful to their Hindu religion and lose their livelihoods, or abandon their faith in order to retain their employment. Their economic security and professional future became instruments of pressure designed to compel religious conversion. Such conduct amounted to arm-twisting Hindu employees into abandoning their faith by attaching severe professional consequences to their refusal. Rather than respecting the employees' freedom of conscience, the perpetrators exploited their position of authority over financially dependent workers to pressure them into religious conformity. The use of employment as leverage to force conversion demonstrated that the objective was not spiritual persuasion but compelled religious submission through intimidation, coercion, and discrimination. This deliberate weaponisation of employment against Hindu employees because of their faith constituted a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime. The dismissal of employees who refused to convert demonstrated that these threats were not merely symbolic or intended to intimidate but were actively enforced. Rajesh Kumar, who had worked at the school for 12 years, stated that he was subjected to continuous pressure to convert to Christianity for three months before ultimately being removed from his job after refusing to abandon his Hindu faith. His dismissal illustrated that the consequences threatened by the perpetrators were carried out in practice against employees who remained steadfast in their religious beliefs. Removing Hindu employees from their employment solely because they refused to renounce their faith demonstrated that adherence to Hinduism itself became the basis for adverse treatment within the institution. Instead of evaluating employees on their work or professional performance, the institution penalised them for choosing to remain Hindu. Such action reflected deep-seated hostility and discriminatory treatment directed at Hindu employees because of their religion, demonstrating that the victims were punished not for misconduct or incompetence but for exercising their fundamental right to preserve and practise their Hindu faith. A workplace is expected to be a neutral environment where employees are judged on their professional conduct and performance, irrespective of their religion. In this case, however, the employment relationship itself was used as an instrument to compel Hindu employees to abandon their faith. Their continued employment became conditional upon participation in Christian religious practices and eventual conversion. By linking job security to religious conformity, the perpetrators transformed the workplace into a site of religious coercion rather than professional engagement. This demonstrated a conscious disregard for the victims' religious freedom and equality and reinforced the religiously motivated character of the offence. Taken as a whole, the conduct of the perpetrators revealed a clear pattern of religious hostility directed specifically at Hindu employees because of their Hindu faith. The sustained pressure to abandon Hinduism, the compulsory attendance at church prayers, the use of employment as leverage to secure religious conversion, and the dismissal of employees who refused to renounce their faith collectively demonstrated that the perpetrators did not regard the Hindu religious identity of their employees as something deserving of equal respect or protection. Instead, their actions reflected a belief that Hindu employees should abandon their faith and conform to Christianity as a condition of continued employment. The cumulative conduct revealed a mindset that sought not merely to encourage religious conversion but to assert religious dominance over Hindu employees by using institutional authority and economic dependence to compel conformity. By making continued employment contingent upon participation in Christian religious practices and eventual conversion, the perpetrators demonstrated an unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of Hinduism as an equally valid faith deserving of respect. Their actions reflected a Christian supremacist mindset in which Christianity was treated as the preferred and superior faith, while Hinduism was viewed as something to be abandoned and replaced. The systematic effort to pressure Hindu employees into relinquishing their ancestral faith, coupled with adverse consequences for refusing to do so, displayed clear disdain for Hindu religious identity, contempt for the victims' freedom of conscience, and hostility towards the continued presence and practice of Hinduism within the institution. Rather than respecting religious diversity, the perpetrators sought to impose their own religious beliefs upon Hindu employees through coercion, manipulation, and discrimination. The cumulative conduct, therefore, revealed clear religious animosity towards Hinduism and the Hindu community, making this a clear example of a religiously motivated hate crime. It is also important to note that the Christian faith, by its very theological foundations, places a strong emphasis on proselytisation. In pursuit of conversion objectives, Christian evangelists often employ unethical means, ranging from pressure, coercion and misinformation to inducements such as money or jobs. In such cases, Christian perpetrators often target and coerce vulnerable Hindus to further their agenda of religious conversions. This form of coercion strips Hindus of their agency and dignity and enforces forced conversions. These are not random or isolated incidents, but rather premeditated efforts to undermine the Hindu faith, persuade Hindus to discard their own faith, and convert to Christianity. Such acts are deeply rooted in doctrinal animosity towards Hinduism and its adherents; therefore, it is being added to the tracker. Disclaimer: Although media reports stated that several Hindu employees belonging to the Dalit community were subjected to conversion pressure, only one victim, Rajesh Kumar, was identified by name, and the total number of affected employees was not specified. Accordingly, the victim count has been recorded as one. This is a conservative estimate adopted solely for documentation purposes and does not imply that only one individual was affected. The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when a victim's ordeal began rather than the date on which the incident was reported by the media. In this case, however, media reports did not specify the exact date on which the victims' ordeal commenced. The only identified victim, Rajesh Kumar, stated that he had been subjected to conversion pressure for the preceding three months, while the only specific date mentioned in the reports was 14 July 2026, when Hindu activists reached the school premises to protest. Based on these available facts, an indicative incident date of 14 April 2026 has been selected for documentation purposes only, as it broadly corresponds with the commencement of Rajesh Kumar's stated three-month ordeal. This date is purely indicative and has been recorded solely to facilitate consistent documentation.