Minor Hindu students scolded and abused; their tilak and bindi forcibly wiped off by school teacher in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh
Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India 
23 July, 2026
Case Summary
In Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, minor Hindu students at Joy & Campion School were prohibited from wearing Hindu religious symbols, such as a tilak and bindi, by a school staff member named Pankaj Mukhare. The victims were also subjected to scoldings and verbal abuse for wearing these symbols. The incident occurred on 24th July 2026. The incident came to light after a video went viral on social media. In the viral video, one male student was heard saying that the teacher forcibly wiped off the tilak from his forehead and abused him by calling him a "pig". He also strictly warned him against wearing a tilak to school. Another minor girl student also confirmed that the same 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 the 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 their Hindu religious identity.
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. Another primary category selected is: Attack on Hindu religious representations. The subcategory selected is: Desecration of Hindu religious symbol. Icons and symbols or a religious representation of a spiritual ideal are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations, is driven by animosity towards the faith itself which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. 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, minor Hindu students were targeted by a teacher for wearing visible Hindu religious symbols, namely the tilak and bindi. Rather than treating these symbols as legitimate expressions of the students' faith, the teacher forcibly removed them, abused them by calling them a "pig", and warned the students against wearing such symbols to school. The teacher singled out the students solely because they displayed visible markers of their Hindu identity. The incident, therefore, ceased to be a matter of ordinary classroom discipline and instead became an act directed specifically at the students' religious identity. By objecting to sacred Hindu symbols 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 and bindi are far more than decorative marks. They carry profound spiritual, religious, and cultural significance in Hinduism and have been worn by Hindus for centuries as visible expressions of devotion, reverence, and religious identity. They are commonly applied during prayers, festivals, religious ceremonies, and as part of the daily spiritual practice of all Hindus. As sacred symbols of the Hindu faith, they embody an individual's religious beliefs and their public expression of devotion. The teacher's conduct extended beyond merely restricting the students from displaying their religious identity. By forcibly wiping off the tilak from a student's forehead and removing another student's bindi, the teacher physically interfered with and desecrated sacred Hindu religious symbols. Once applied, the tilak and bindi are not ordinary marks but visible manifestations of religious devotion and spiritual identity. Their forcible removal without the consent of the wearer amounts to an act of disrespect towards symbols that Hindus regard as sacred. Such conduct conveys the message that Hindu religious practices are unworthy of respect within the educational environment and that expressions of Hindu faith may be erased through the exercise of institutional authority. The physical act of removing these symbols therefore constituted not only an infringement upon the students' right to practise and express their religion but also an act that desecrated revered Hindu religious symbols and deeply hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Furthermore, this incident represented a clear institutional restriction on the expression of the victims' Hindu identity. The perpetrator was not an ordinary individual but a teacher who exercised authority within an educational institution. Consequently, his actions carried the weight of institutional authority 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. Essentially, this action enforces an institutional restriction on the victims' right to express their Hindu identity. The fact that the victims were minors made the incident even more serious. As children, they were at an impressionable stage of life and were inherently vulnerable to pressure exerted by a figure of institutional authority, such as their teacher. They were not in a position to fully comprehend the long-term implications of being discouraged and targeted for openly expressing their Hindu faith or the impact that such treatment could have on their religious identity. By forcibly removing the students' religious symbols and reprimanding them for wearing them, the teacher exploited both the victims' age-related vulnerability and the unequal power dynamic that existed between a teacher and students. Such conduct amounted to an attempt to suppress the visible expression of the children's Hindu identity at a formative stage of their lives, making this a clear case of religiously motivated targeting and a hate crime directed against vulnerable minors. 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 abuse 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. 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 victims' 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. At 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 or Bindi 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 teacher 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. Since this case meets the parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, it is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: Although multiple Hindu students were subjected to the restriction on wearing Hindu religious symbols, only two victims were specifically identified in the available information: one minor boy and one minor girl. Accordingly, for the purposes of documentation and indicative incident data, two victims have been recorded. This is a conservative estimate adopted solely for documentation purposes and should not be interpreted as reflecting the total number of affected students.
Victim Details
Total Victim
2
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 2
Age Group
- Minor 2
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
