Hindu organisation RSS targeted in Canada; Pro-Khalistan and Pro-Islamist MPs seek ban, demand Mohan Bhagwat be barred from entry

Case ID : 30a9db0 | Location : Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Date of Incident : Fri, 7 August, 2026

Case ID : 30a9db0

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

7 August, 2026

Hindu organisation RSS targeted in Canada; Pro-Khalistan and Pro-Islamist MPs seek ban, demand Mohan Bhagwat be barred from entry

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice

Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders

Case Summary

In Toronto, Canada, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was targeted as two Members of Parliament from Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP) called on the Canadian government to ban the Hindu organisation and prevent its Sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat, from entering the country ahead of his scheduled visit from 31 August to 1 September 2026. The MPs claimed that Bhagwat's presence could "lead to social disorder" and urged the federal government to declare him inadmissible to Canada. In a letter addressed to Canada's Ministers of Public Safety, Immigration, and Foreign Affairs, NDP MPs Heather McPherson and Jenny Kwan claimed that Bhagwat had a history of "hate speech", advocacy of violence against religious minorities, intimidation of critics, and associations with criminal and terrorist organisations. They further called for the RSS to be designated as a banned organisation in Canada, claiming that its activities posed a threat to public order and minority communities. The letter stated, "We ask you to declare Mr Bhagwat inadmissible to Canada," adding that "Mr Bhagwat's presence in Canada would be a danger to Canadians. He is not welcome here." The MPs also claimed that the RSS had established a sphere of influence in Canada and asserted that Muslim, Sikh, Dalit, and other minority communities had been subjected to intimidation and violent threats. Referring to statements made by United Nations human rights experts, they further argued that Canada should ensure protection for members of the Sikh community from what they described as threats posed by Hindutva extremist groups, including the RSS. The demand to bar Mohan Bhagwat came ahead of his proposed visit to Canada as part of an international outreach programme. The call to prohibit his entry and ban the RSS triggered discussion on social media and in political circles, with supporters of the organisation criticising the move as an attempt to stigmatise one of the world's largest Hindu cultural organisations and prevent its chief from engaging with the Hindu diaspora in Canada. Both MPs have a documented history of amplifying pro-Khalistan narratives, defending Khalistani terrorists, and taking positions hostile to India's interests. They have also maintained close alignment with Islamist groups and pro-Palestinian campaigns. It is against this backdrop that they have now sought to ban the RSS and prevent Mohan Bhagwat from entering Canada.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is: Hate Speech against Hindus. The first subcategory for this case is: Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. The next subcategory for this case is: Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially, the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual, however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category. The case involved NDP MPs Heather McPherson and Jenny Kwan seeking to portray RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and the RSS, a major Hindu organisation, as terrorist and extremist threats and demanding restrictions against both in Canada. Their demands included preventing Bhagwat from entering Canada, banning the RSS, and placing it on Canada’s terrorist-entities list. The RSS does not appear on Canada’s current list of terrorist entities, which makes the attempt to associate the organisation with a terrorist designation especially significant and gives the incident a distinct religious angle. This case is a clear instance of religiously motivated hate speech because the NDP MPs Heather McPherson and Jenny Kwan deliberately vilified a key Hindu organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), by framing it as an 'extremist' organisation, a threat to religious freedom and religious minorities. The Canadian MPs presented RSS and Hindu nationalism (Hindutva) not as legitimate cultural, civilisational movements but as inherently oppressive and exclusionary, which amounts to ideological delegitimisation of a major segment of Hindu identity and activism. By singling out RSS and Hindu nationalism in this way, the MPs echoed and amplified anti‑Hindu narratives that portray Hindu revivalism itself as a form of bigotry, even though RSS members and Hindutva proponents see their work as a defence of Hindu civilisational continuity and national unity. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is a Hindu nationalist, voluntary organisation founded in 1925 in Nagpur with the stated aim of strengthening Hindu society and Indian nationhood. For Hindus, the RSS is not merely a political actor but a cultural and moral force deeply rooted in the idea of dharma, the Hindu concept of duty, righteousness and social order. The organisation runs shakhas (daily training sessions) where members practise discipline, physical fitness and moral formation, often drawing from Hindu texts, epics and historical figures. RSS is widely seen among its supporters as the backbone of the larger “Sangh Parivar” ecosystem, which includes educational, religious, and social organisations working across India. Its religious significance lies in its role as a guardian of Hindu identity, mobilising Hindus around a sense of shared heritage, temples, gurus, and social institutions. Apart from this, the RSS and its affiliated bodies run extensive welfare activities, including relief work during natural disasters, medical camps, blood donation drives and educational support for underprivileged children. Through grassroots volunteers, the organisation also participates in community development initiatives such as clean‑water projects, sanitation drives and support for rural livelihoods, framing these efforts as expressions of Hindu social responsibility and service to the nation. The Canadian MPs, in their letter, falsely depict RSS as the main driver of the “deterioration of religious minorities”. This is a classic hate‑speech tactic: identifying a central Hindu institution and painting it as the source of systematic oppression, thereby criminalising large sections of the Hindu population sympathising with or supporting it. In reality, the RSS frames its mission as a civilisational and national cause, emphasising India’s cultural unity, social cohesion and development across political, social and economic spheres, with a particular focus on moral and social reform. The organisation has long spoken about Hindutva (Hindu nationalism), a term that is fundamentally political and cultural rather than theocratic or exclusionary. Hindutva, as articulated by the RSS and like‑minded groups, is a unifying ideology for Hindus, born out of the need to preserve and reclaim a cultural identity that was eroded through Islamic invasions, British colonisation, Christian theological impositions and mass conversions. It is not a destructive or supremacist doctrine but a civilisational framework that seeks to unite Hindus as a community, encourage constructive participation in India’s democracy, economy and society, and foster pride in their shared heritage. Hindutva is frequently used by anti-Hindu bigots as a euphemism to mask and legitimise the targeting of Hindus and their religious identity. By reframing Hindu self‑assertion as “Hindutva”, critics can pretend they are attacking an ideology rather than a people, thereby making anti‑Hindu animus appear neutral and analytical. The “Dismantling Global Hindutva” conference in the USA made this subtext explicit: speakers openly stated that Hindutva and Hinduism are indistinguishable and that dismantling one effectively means dismantling the other. This reveals that the label Hindutva is not a neutral descriptor but a semantic weapon deployed to justify the dehumanisation and persecution of Hindus under the guise of ideological critique. Presenting Hindutva/Hindu nationalism as inherently discriminatory is, therefore, not a legitimate assessment but a deliberate act of religiously motivated hate speech designed to vilify Hindus and their civilisational worldview. When such calls are made by elected Members of Parliament through formal representations to the Canadian government, they acquire the weight and legitimacy of official political action. This elevates the campaign beyond ordinary political criticism and lends institutional credibility to claims that portray a prominent Hindu organisation and its chief as threats to public safety. By labelling RSS as an extremist organisation and recommending sanctions and bans, the Canadian MPs attacked a Hindu worldview and its key organisational expression. This kind of discourse stigmatises the RSS as a “dangerous” entity, links it to the supposed victimisation of minorities, and encourages foreign governments and domestic actors to treat Hindu organisations as suspect. Such delegitimisation of a dominant Hindu civilisational force, while ignoring or downplaying attacks on Hindu communities abroad and at home, is inherently asymmetric and anti‑Hindu in its impact. The demand to place the RSS on a terrorist list went substantially beyond criticism of its policies or disagreement with its ideology. It sought to attach one of the most serious criminal and security-related labels available under Canadian law to a Hindu organisation. The same campaign sought to prevent its chief from entering Canada and portrayed his presence as a danger to Canadians. This created a public image of a major Hindu organisation and its leadership as inherently dangerous, rather than treating them as participants in a legitimate religious, cultural or political debate. The campaign also affected the wider Hindu community because the RSS represented an important part of Hindu institutional and cultural life. Portraying its chief as a terrorist-linked figure and seeking to prohibit the organisation did not remain confined to a disagreement with one individual. It placed a negative and threatening characterisation on a Hindu institution and the Hindu identity associated with it. Such portrayal could also make ordinary Hindu participation in organisations, events and activities associated with the RSS appear suspicious or dangerous. The conduct took on greater significance in the wider political context of NDP MP Heather McPherson’s earlier intervention in support of the Khalistani terrorist Amritpal Singh. In 2023, McPherson criticised the Indian government's action against Singh and other Sikh activists and said that she would join Jagmeet Singh in pressing the Canadian government to use diplomatic pressure. This political support stood in sharp contrast to the subsequent demand by McPherson and Jenny Kwan for severe restrictions against Mohan Bhagwat and the RSS, a major Hindu organisation, including a demand to ban the RSS and place it on Canada's terrorist-entities list. The contrast is particularly significant because the same political environment that extended support to a Khalistani terrorist was used to portray a prominent Hindu organisation and its chief through the language of terrorism and extremism. The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist political campaign seeking to establish an independent, sovereign state called Khalistan ("Land of the Pure") in the Punjab region. Emerging from post-1947 political demands for greater state autonomy and the 1966 reorganization of Punjab on linguistic lines, the movement escalated into a violent armed insurgency in the 1980s led by militant factions under figures like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. This era was defined by major flashpoints, including the Indian military's Operation Blue Star (1984) at the Golden Temple, the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, widespread anti-Sikh violence, and the 1985 Air India Flight 182 bombing. Heavy counter-insurgency operations caused the movement to collapse within India by the mid-1990s, but it remains politically active today primarily among political factions within the global Sikh diaspora, continuing to serve as a key point of diplomatic tension between India and nations like Canada. The central concern, therefore, was not the expression of political criticism but the attempt to portray the RSS and its chief as security threats warranting state action. By invoking the language of terrorism and extremism while seeking a ban on the organisation and the exclusion of Mohan Bhagwat, the MPs advanced a narrative that finds no reflection in Canada's official terrorist-entity designations, which do not include the RSS. When a prominent Hindu organisation is portrayed as a terrorist threat, and its chief was subjected to demands for exclusion from the country, the effect extends to Hindu institutional representation itself. It contributes to a prejudicial portrayal in which Hindu organisational activities are presented through the lens of extremism and security threats. The conduct therefore fit the selected categories of anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice and mocking or denigrating a Hindu leader, as the religious identity of the organisation and its leader remained central to the targeting.