Minor Hindu student scolded by her teacher for wearing a tilak at school in Cooch Behar, West Bengal

Case ID : 30a970a | Location : Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 15 July, 2026

Case ID : 30a970a

Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India

15 July, 2026

Minor Hindu student scolded by her teacher for wearing a tilak at school in Cooch Behar, West Bengal

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Predatory Proselytisation

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Case Summary

In Cooch Behar, West Bengal, a minor Hindu student was targeted and scolded by her female teacher for wearing a tilak at school. According to available information, the incident occurred at Andraran Fulbari Harirdham High School in the Tufanganj Municipality of Cooch Behar. The victim was a minor Hindu girl whose female teacher scolded her for wearing a tilak at school. A video testimony of the victim went viral on social media. In this video, she stated that the teacher targeted her for wearing a tilak and told her, "Wearing a tilak is not allowed in school. Today you all are wearing a tilak, tomorrow you will start wearing lipstick at school as well." As per the victim, after being targeted and scolded in this manner by the teacher, she felt deeply hurt and upset. She returned home, recorded a video describing her ordeal, and shared it on social media to narrate what had happened to her and to seek the opinions of others on the matter. As the video went viral on social media, it sparked outrage among Hindu users, who demanded justice for the victim and action against the accused teacher. This subsequently led to an online controversy and public debate.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the subcategory 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 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. Another primary category selected is- Restriction/ban on Hindu religious practice. Within this, the subcategory 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 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 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. In this case, a minor Hindu student was targeted and scolded by her teacher for wearing a tilak, an auspicious Hindu religious symbol. Rather than treating the tilak as a legitimate expression of the victim's faith, the teacher singled her out solely because she displayed a visible marker of her Hindu identity. The incident, therefore, ceased to be a matter of ordinary classroom interaction and instead became an act directed specifically at the victim's religious identity. By objecting to a sacred Hindu symbol rather than any disruptive conduct, the teacher demonstrated intolerance towards the public expression of the Hindu faith, thereby hurting the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. The tilak is far more than a decorative mark. It carries profound spiritual, religious, and cultural significance in Hinduism and has been worn by Hindus for centuries as an expression of devotion, reverence, and religious identity. It is commonly applied during prayers, festivals, religious ceremonies, and by all devotees as part of their daily spiritual practice. Criticising or scolding a Hindu student merely for wearing a tilak effectively discourages the open manifestation of her faith. Such conduct demonstrates disrespect towards a sacred Hindu religious symbol and undermines the victim's right to practise and express her religion freely. Furthermore, this incident represented a clear institutional restriction on the expression of the victim's Hindu identity. The perpetrator was not an ordinary individual but a teacher who exercised authority within an educational institution. Consequently, her actions carried the weight of institutional approval and conveyed the impression that visible expressions of Hindu faith were unacceptable within the school environment. When authority figures discourage students from displaying benign symbols of their religion, they create an atmosphere in which Hindu children begin to believe that concealing their religious identity is the only way to avoid humiliation, reprimand, or unequal treatment. Instead of fostering an inclusive environment where children of every faith are treated equally, such conduct normalises discrimination against Hindu students and discourages them from openly practising their religion. The religious nature of the incident is further reinforced by the fact that the teacher did not object to any misconduct, indiscipline, or disruption caused by the victim. The sole focus of her objection was the student's visible expression of Hindu faith through the wearing of a tilak. This demonstrates that the victim's religious identity itself became the basis for the teacher's adverse treatment. Such misuse of institutional authority is particularly concerning because teachers occupy positions of trust and influence, and discriminatory conduct by them can profoundly affect a child's emotional well-being, self-confidence, and sense of belonging within the educational environment. The victim herself stated that she returned home feeling deeply hurt and emotionally distressed after the incident. The fact that she felt compelled to record and publicly share a video describing her ordeal demonstrates the seriousness of the emotional impact it had upon her. For a child, being singled out by a teacher because of a visible expression of religious identity is deeply humiliating and isolating. Such experiences leave lasting psychological consequences and diminish a child's confidence in openly expressing her religious beliefs within educational institutions. When Hindu children repeatedly witness or experience adverse treatment for displaying benign symbols of their faith, the consequences extend far beyond the immediate incident. Over time, such experiences condition young minds to associate the public expression of Hindu identity with punishment, humiliation, or exclusion. Many children gradually discontinue visible religious practices, not because they have abandoned their beliefs, but because they fear becoming the next target of ridicule or disciplinary action. This weakens their confidence in openly practising their religion and gradually distances them from their own religious and cultural traditions. In turn, such alienation makes children increasingly vulnerable to external ideological or religious influences, including future attempts at proselytisation, because they have been conditioned to perceive their own religious identity as a source of disadvantage rather than pride. The fact that the victim was a minor made the incident even more serious. As a child, she was at an impressionable stage of life and was inherently vulnerable to pressure exerted by a figure of institutional authority, such as her teacher. She was not in a position to fully comprehend the long-term implications of being discouraged and targeted for openly expressing her Hindu faith or the impact that such coercion could have on her religious identity. By targeting a minor Hindu student for wearing a tilak, the teacher exploited both the victim's age-related vulnerability and the unequal power dynamic that existed between a teacher and a student. Such conduct amounted to an attempt to suppress the visible expression of the child's Hindu identity at a formative stage of her life, making this a clear case of religiously motivated targeting and a hate crime directed against a vulnerable minor. Ultimately, such conduct normalises prejudice against Hindu religious practices, creates an atmosphere in which Hindu students feel compelled to suppress their faith, and reinforces the perception that openly displaying Hindu religious symbols invites adverse treatment. Viewed in its entirety, the incident constituted a religiously motivated act directed against the victim's Hindu identity and demonstrated clear hostility towards the public expression of the Hindu faith. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy had erupted in Karnataka, which took a national form, after Muslim women had insisted that they should be allowed to wear burqas and hijabs in their schools and classrooms. 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 becomes important to mention here that most uniform codes focus on standardising clothing and accessories like shoes, belts, and hair. A Tilak does not change the appearance of the uniform itself. This religious symbol is benign and does not cause disruption or harm, raising serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. When an ostensibly secular institution imposes restrictions specifically targeting Hindu religious symbols, it reflects institutional prejudice against Hinduism. This form of targeted suppression echoes broader patterns where Hindu practices are curtailed under the guise of neutrality or discipline, often to appease other religious groups. The actions of the school authorities amount to religious discrimination and are consistent with the framework of a hate crime, where Hindus are penalised solely for adhering to their Hindu religious practices. This incident is not an isolated occurrence but forms part of a broader and well-documented pattern in which Hindus have been targeted for openly expressing their religious identity. Between 1 January 2023 and 17 July 2026, the Hinduphobia Tracker documented at least 61 incidents in which Hindus were targeted or prevented from wearing a tilak, 47 incidents involving restrictions on wearing a kalava, and 3 incidents involving restrictions on wearing the janeu. Significantly, 29 of these cases involved minor Hindu students, demonstrating that even school-going children were not spared from hostility towards visible expressions of their faith. These figures reveal an alarming pattern of Hinduphobia within educational institutions, where Hindu students have been singled out and discouraged from displaying sacred religious symbols that are integral to their faith and identity. The recurrence of such incidents across different locations underscores that this is not an isolated act of intolerance but part of a wider pattern of religiously motivated targeting of Hindu religious expression. Consequently, this case must be viewed within the larger context of repeated restrictions imposed on Hindu religious symbols, making it a clear case of a religiously driven hate crime. Overall, since this case meets the parameters of an anti-Hindu hate crime, it is being added to the Hate Crime database of the tracker. Disclaimer: Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the victim's ordeal begins rather than when it is reported by the media. However, in the present case, media reports have not specified the exact date on which the victim's ordeal began. Henceforth, the date on which the incident was reported in the media, 16 July 2026, has been selected as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only.