Insult to Hindu sentiments; Dravidian politician insults sacred Hindu tradition in Chikkamagalur, Karnataka
Chikmagalur, Karnataka, India 
12 July, 2026
Case Summary
Hindu sentiments were outraged after Former DMK MP Senthil Kumar made remarks against the Sringeri Sharada Peetham Jagadguru Sri Sri Vidushekhara Bharati Sannidhanam, criticising a traditional Hindu religious practice associated with the Shankaracharya. He shared a video showing the Acharya arriving at a temple, where a disciple placed the Acharya's padukas (wooden sandals) on the ground before he wore them and proceeded for worship. Referring to the ritual, Senthil Kumar claimed on social media that opposing such practices was what "Dravidianism" stood for and added that anyone with "even a drop of self-respect" would never permit such an act. His remarks were disparaging a long-standing Hindu religious tradition and were criticised by many as an insult to Hindu beliefs and customs. Furthermore, the comments triggered widespread backlash, with social media users highlighting what they viewed as a contradiction by circulating videos of DMK functionaries and supporters prostrating before party leaders, including Senthil Kumar and Udhayanidhi Stalin, while questioning why Hindu religious expressions of reverence were singled out for criticism.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category for this case is "Hate speech against Hindus". The sub-category for this case 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. The incident was included in the hate crime database because it involved the public disparagement of a sacred Hindu religious tradition and portrayed a practice intrinsic to Hinduism as degrading and incompatible with self-respect. Former DMK MP Senthil Kumar did not criticise any criminal act, abuse, or misconduct. Instead, his remarks were directed at a centuries-old religious custom observed within the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, where disciples express reverence towards the Jagadguru through rituals that are deeply rooted in the Hindu guru-shishya (teacher-disciple) tradition. By claiming that "speaking against this is what Dravidianism stands for" and that anyone with "even a drop of self-respect" would not permit such a practice, he characterised a recognised Hindu religious observance as something shameful and inherently unworthy of respect. In doing so, his remarks denigrated a practice solely because it belonged to the Hindu faith, thereby expressing hostility towards Hindu religious beliefs and customs. The act of showing reverence to a spiritual guru occupies a central place in several Hindu traditions. For devotees, these rituals are not acts of personal subservience but expressions of faith, humility, and respect towards a spiritual teacher who is regarded as a guide on the path to liberation. Such customs have been practised across Hindu monastic institutions for centuries and are protected as manifestations of religious belief. By dismissing these practices as incompatible with dignity and self-respect, the remarks delegitimised an important aspect of Hindu religious expression and implicitly portrayed Hindu devotees who observe such traditions as lacking self-respect. This went beyond criticism of an individual religious figure and instead targeted a broader religious practice that holds significance for millions of Hindus. The explicit invocation of "Dravidianism" while condemning a Hindu religious tradition is also significant in understanding the nature of the remarks. Since its inception, the Dravidian movement has been rooted in anti-Hindu hatred, opposing everything that is associated with Hinduism, particularly Hindu religious institutions, rituals, symbols, and beliefs that it associates with Brahminism. Its ideological discourse has frequently rejected and ridiculed Hindu customs, portraying them as oppressive, irrational, or incompatible with self-respect. This sustained rejection of Hindu religious practices has made hostility towards Hindu traditions a recurring feature of Dravidian political rhetoric. In this instance, by declaring that opposing a Hindu religious ritual was what "Dravidianism stands for," the speaker explicitly linked his criticism to that ideological tradition, presenting the rejection of a Hindu practice as an ideological virtue. Rather than criticising any unlawful or abusive conduct, the remarks targeted a religious custom because of its Hindu character, thereby expressing contempt towards a practice that is sacred to Hindu devotees. The statements publicly ridiculed and delegitimised a sacred Hindu practice, portraying it as incompatible with human dignity solely because it was a Hindu religious custom. Such rhetoric contributes to the stigmatisation of Hindu beliefs and traditions by encouraging contempt towards practices that are central to the religious identity of Hindu devotees. For these reasons, the incident satisfies the criteria for inclusion as an instance of hostility directed at Hindu religious beliefs and practices. Notably, Dravidian leaders have a documented history of issuing anti-Hindu statements, with the Hinduphobia Tracker recording several prior cases involving Dravidian writers and political figures who issued even more inflammatory remarks on Hinduism. One example involved Dravidian propagandist author Nilakanthan RS, who vilified Hindus as demons, branded the revered Gurukula tradition as casteist and anti-modern, and dismissed the Mahabharata, a cornerstone Hindu epic, as a "shitty epic". In a similar incident on 2 September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin, then Tamil Nadu's Deputy Chief Minister, delivered hate speech demanding the "eradication" of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), equating it to mosquitoes and diseases. He represented the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, a Dravidian party. 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 perpetrator made those statements. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media, 13 July 2026.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
