Minor Hindu students scolded and abused; their tilak and bindi forcibly wiped off by school teacher in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh

Case ID : 30a9942 | Location : Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Thu, 23 July, 2026

Case ID : 30a9942

Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India

23 July, 2026

Minor Hindu students scolded and abused; their tilak and bindi forcibly wiped off by school teacher in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Administration restricting religious practice

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Case Summary

In Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, Hindu students at Joy & Campion School were prohibited from wearing Hindu religious symbols, like a tilak and bindi, by a school staff member named Pankaj Mukhare. The incident happened on July 24, 2026. In a viral video, one minor school student was heard saying that the teacher forcibly wiped off the tilak from his forehead and abused him by calling him a "pig". He strictly warned him against wearing a tilak to school. Another minor girl student also confirmed that the accused teacher forcibly removed her bindi. Following the incident, members of the Bajrang Dal reached the school and objected to the treatment of the Hindu students. Their intervention led to discussions with the school management regarding the removal of the Hindu religious symbols and the directions issued to the students. Subsequently, the school management apologised for the incident and stated that the removal of the tilak and the restriction on wearing tilak and bindi had occurred due to a mistake. The incident drew public attention because Hindu students were prevented from displaying visible symbols of their faith within the school premises, leading to objections over interference with the expression of Hindu religious identity.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is: Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. The first subcategory for this case is: Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailment of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances, the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked”, leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore would be categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. The next subcategory for this case 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. This case has been included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because Hindu students were prevented from openly displaying religious symbols that are an integral part of their Hindu faith. School staff removed the tilak from the foreheads of Hindu students and instructed them not to attend school wearing a tilak or bindi. The action was directed specifically at visible expressions of Hindu religious identity. By preventing Hindu students from wearing these symbols within the school premises, the incident directly interfered with their ability to express and practise their religion in an educational setting. The tilak and bindi are not merely decorative marks but hold deep religious and cultural significance in Hinduism. The tilak is traditionally applied during worship, festivals, temple visits, and other religious observances as a mark of devotion and reverence. The bindi also carries longstanding religious and cultural significance for many Hindus. For practising Hindus, wearing these symbols is a visible expression of their faith and identity. Removing them or directing students not to wear them affects more than personal appearance; it restricts the public expression of Hindu religious identity. The significance of this incident is heightened by the fact that the affected individuals were school-going children. Educational institutions are expected to provide an environment where students of every faith can practise and express their religious identity without discrimination. School staff occupy positions of authority, and children are naturally expected to comply with their instructions. When Hindu students are reprimanded for wearing symbols of their faith and are directed to remove them, they may feel compelled to suppress visible expressions of their religion to avoid reprimand or unequal treatment within the school environment. Incidents of this nature have an impact that extends beyond the students directly involved. When Hindu children are discouraged from wearing peaceful religious symbols in educational institutions, it creates concern among Hindu families regarding the freedom of children to express their faith in schools. Such incidents also raise broader questions about whether visible expressions of Hindu religious identity are receiving equal treatment in educational spaces. Documenting these incidents helps identify recurring instances where Hindu students face restrictions on displaying symbols associated with their religion. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy erupted in Karnataka, India, 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 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. This incident is not an isolated occurrence but forms part of a broader and well-documented pattern in which Hindu students have been discouraged from displaying visible symbols of their faith. The Hinduphobia Tracker documented several incidents involving restrictions or objections to wearing such religious symbols, highlighting a recurring pattern in which school-going Hindu children have been subjected to hostility or institutional pressure for peacefully expressing their religious identity. The recurrence of such incidents across educational institutions demonstrates that this case cannot be viewed in isolation but forms part of a wider pattern of discrimination directed against visible expressions of Hindu faith. Overall, the cumulative facts demonstrate that Hindu students were specifically targeted because of their visible religious identity. The forcible removal of tilaks, the cutting of sacred kalavas, and the instruction not to wear these Hindu religious symbols in school constituted direct interference with the peaceful expression of the Hindu faith. Since the incident satisfies multiple parameters of a religiously motivated hate incident directed against Hindu students, it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.