Hindu schoolgirls beaten and harassed over wearing tilak by teacher in Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Case ID : 30a9de2 | Location : Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 10 August, 2026

Case ID : 30a9de2

Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India

10 August, 2026

Hindu schoolgirls beaten and harassed over wearing tilak by teacher in Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh

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

Three Hindu Class 4 students at a primary school in Khanpura village, Tilhar, were subjected to mistreatment at school for wearing tilak. The families sought action against teacher Priya Singh after students said that she beat them when they came to school wearing tilak and made them perform various personal and household tasks for her. On 12 August, Santosh Kumar, a resident of Najarpur, lodged a complaint concerning his niece, Suhani, and other students. He stated that the teacher made the girls sweep the school, feed her child, change the child's diaper, show the lice in her hair, touch her feet and beat the girls up for coming to school wearing a tilak. Another report specifically noted that the teacher objected to his niece wearing a tilak to school. The family further said that when they objected to the teacher's conduct, she spoke abusively to them and later came to their home after school hours. They said she threatened to implicate them in false allegations if they complained, following which they submitted a complaint at Tilhar police station. Police visited the school, recorded statements from the students and teacher and examined the matter. Priya Singh denied the accusations, calling them false. She stated that on 11 August she had reprimanded a child over studies, after which four to five men entered the school, took photographs and made videos, and threatened to have her removed from her job when she objected. She subsequently approached the police and sought an impartial investigation. The Basic Education Officer, Jaishankar Srivastava, said that the matter had come to his notice and that an investigation was underway. A three-member team was formed to investigate the matter, and further action was to be taken after the inquiry report was received.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the first 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. This incident involved the suppression of Hindu religious expression and physical mistreatment of minor Hindu students because of their visible religious identity. In several documented instances, individuals in positions of authority within educational or professional institutions forced Hindus to abandon sacred symbols, reflecting prejudice against the faith. Such actions denied Hindus their fundamental right to practise and express their religion freely. When an institutional figure explicitly prohibited the display of native religious symbols, it ceased to be a matter of standard administrative policy and became a targeted act of religious alienation and prejudice. In this specific case, the primary religious marker targeted for erasure was the tilak worn by the minor students. The tilak served as a visible assertion of Hindu spiritual identity and cultural heritage. The teacher explicitly objected to the children wearing this sacred mark to school, treating their religious expression as an unacceptable classroom transgression. By using her authority to suppress the visual display of their faith, she restricted the students' expression of their Hindu identity. This conduct reflected hostility towards Hindu customs and directly affected the students' ability to express their religious identity without facing institutional hostility. The incident also involved physical violence directed at the students in connection with their Hindu identity. The reported beating was linked specifically to the students coming to school wearing tilak, making their visible religious identity relevant to the physical mistreatment. The violence therefore went beyond a general dispute between students and a teacher, as the students' expression of their Hindu identity was directly connected to the reported physical abuse. 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 erupted in Karnataka, 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 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 hijabs 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 is important to note that most uniform codes focus on standardising clothing and accessories such as 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 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: The exact date from which the Hindu students were being mistreated for wearing tilak was not specified in the available sources. However, 11 August 2026 was mentioned in connection with the incident at the school. The tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred rather than when it was reported or published. In this case, 11 August 2026 has been used as the indicative incident date, based on the earliest date mentioned in the available accounts. This date has been recorded for documentation purposes only.