Case Summary

Hindu religious sentiments were outraged after a Christian pastor named Arun Pannalal, president of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, made an objectionable comment targeting Lord Shiva and the Shivling on Facebook. According to reports, Pannalal had responded to a Facebook post shared by Hansraj Goyal concerning Lord Shiva with the remark, “Why is your Shivling always circumcised?” The comment was an offensive reference to a sacred Hindu religious symbol and prompted a complaint from BJP spokesperson Amit Chimnani at the Civil Lines police station. Chimnani submitted the URLs and screenshots of the post and comments to the police. The original post on which Pannalal commented was shared by Facebook user Hansraj Goyal, an Ambedkarite, and contained objectionable questions concerning the Shivling, Lord Shiva and other Hindu deities. Pannalal made the objectionable comment while responding to Goyal’s post. Furthermore, a Muslim man named Javed Malik Khan subsequently replied to Pannalal’s comment, applauding his remark and writing, “Waah zabardast.” Based on the complaint, Civil Lines Police registered an FIR against Pannalal and Goyal under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including provisions concerning promoting enmity between different groups, acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and intentional insult with the intention of provoking a breach of peace. Police subsequently traced Pannalal with the assistance of the cyber cell and other investigative teams. Civil Lines police station inspector Yaman Dewangan said that Pannalal was arrested on the night of 7 August 2026 and produced before a magistrate on 8 August 2026, after which he was sent to judicial custody. Following the FIR and arrest, Bajrang Dal workers gathered outside Pannalal’s residence in Raipur to protest against the remarks. Police intervened and dispersed the protesters. Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai also addressed the matter, stating that the remarks had been made against Lord Shiva and the Shivling, which were revered in Sanatan Dharma, and that an FIR had been registered and action taken.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected 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 constituted an instance of anti-Hindu religious hate speech because a sacred Hindu religious symbol, the Shivling, was directly subjected to a derogatory and religiously provocative remark on social media. Arun Pannalal, president of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, referred to the Shivling as being “circumcised”, drawing a comparison between a revered representation of Lord Shiva and a religious practice associated with another faith. The wording was not a neutral discussion of Hindu beliefs but a mocking reference directed at a central object of Hindu worship. By using this comparison in a public Facebook discussion concerning Lord Shiva, Pannalal’s comment demeaned a symbol that is sacred to Hindus and had the potential to offend Hindu devotees on the basis of their religion. The religious character of the remark was further evident from the subject of the discussion. Pannalal was responding to a post by Hansraj Goyal that contained questions concerning the Shivling, Lord Shiva and other Hindu deities. Although Goyal’s original post formed the context of the exchange and police registered a case against him as well, Pannalal independently chose to respond with a remark that directly mocked the Shivling. The offensive statement therefore specifically targeted a Hindu religious representation rather than being an ordinary personal dispute between individuals. The identity and position of the main accused, Arun Pannalal, were also relevant to the context of the incident. Pannalal was the president of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, a Christian organisation, when he made the derogatory remark concerning the Shivling. His position gave him a prominent role within the Christian community in Chhattisgarh, making his public statement concerning a revered Hindu religious symbol particularly significant. While his Christian identity alone did not establish the religious nature of the offence, the fact that he held a leadership position in a Christian organisation provided relevant context to his public remark targeting a central symbol of Hindu worship. The subsequent response by Javed Malik Khan, who replied to Pannalal’s comment with “Waah zabardast”, further demonstrated that the derogatory remark received approval from another user rather than being treated merely as an exchange between the original participants. Khan’s response was relevant to the context of the incident because it expressed appreciation for a comment that had demeaned a sacred Hindu symbol. Taken together, the direct reference to the Shivling, the use of a deliberately provocative comparison to demean it, the public dissemination of the remark on Facebook, and the subsequent expression of approval for the comment constituted a clear instance of religiously offensive speech directed at a revered Hindu symbol. The incident was therefore categorised as anti-Hindu hate speech because the object of the derogatory expression was specifically a Hindu religious representation and the statement was framed in a manner that mocked and denigrated Hindu religious belief. Disclaimer: In this case, three individuals were involved in the social media exchange: Arun Pannalal, a Christian and president of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum; Hansraj Goyal, who was an Ambedkarite; and Javed Malik Khan, a Muslim man. However, Hinduphobia Tracker records each case under a single perpetrator category for documentation purposes. Therefore, the case has been categorised under Christian perpetrators, with Pannalal recorded as the principal perpetrator. This classification was based on his prominent and publicly recognised position as the president of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, rather than the identities of the other two individuals, who were private social-media users without a comparable organisational or public position.