Hindu religious practices denigrated through proselytisation pamphlets targeting temple and household traditions in Hosur, Tamil Nadu
Hosur, Tamil Nadu, India 
25 July, 2026
Case Summary
In Hosur, Tamil Nadu, Hindu religious and cultural practices were targeted, and Hinduism was denigrated through pamphlets that described widely followed Hindu customs as wrong, unnecessary, misguided and meaningless. The pamphlets specifically questioned breaking coconuts as offerings at temples, women wearing flowers in their hair, lighting camphor and burning sambrani during worship, directly targeting practices deeply embedded in Hindu temple worship, household rituals and the cultural traditions of Tamil Nadu and other parts of South India. The pamphlets also carried the statement, “God is not the One you carry and bear; God is the One who carries and bears you.” Through this material, Hindu forms of worship were questioned while another religious belief system was simultaneously being preached in the area. The pamphlets did not clearly identify the religious organisation responsible for preparing or circulating them. A group of women was seen distributing pamphlets and preaching in Hosur. They were accompanied by several children during the activity. The women were also noticed without jewellery, flowers or forehead markings. When questioned about who had sent them and which church or organisation they were associated with, they refused to disclose the name or details of any church or organisation. Members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) noticed the activity, confronted those distributing the pamphlets, and objected to the targeting of Hindu customs. They viewed the material as an attempt to undermine Hindu traditions while promoting another religious belief system without openly identifying the organisation behind the campaign. Following the intervention, VHP members approached the police. Police began examining the circumstances surrounding the pamphlet distribution, the identities of the women involved and the religious or organisational affiliation behind the activity. The controversy centred on the specific selection of Hindu practices for criticism. Breaking coconuts, lighting camphor and burning sambrani are widely practised elements of Hindu worship, while women wearing flowers in their hair is closely connected with Hindu cultural and religious traditions in Tamil Nadu and across South India. The public circulation of material portraying these practices as wrong or meaningless therefore directly targeted established expressions of Hindu religious and cultural identity.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected for this case is: Predatory proselytisation. The subcategory selected for this case is: Attempting to convert/converting by denigrating Hinduism. In several cases, Hindus are converted, or an attempt is made to convert Hindus by denigrating their faith, Hinduism. In such cases, the Hindus associate with the non-Hindu perpetrators, often by choice and then the attempt to convert them by insulting their faith, showing the faith down, etc begins. An example of this would be a non-Hindu gathering where Hindus attend of their own free will. However, once they attend the gathering, there is an explicit attempt to convert them by abusing their faith and hailing the faith of the perpetrator. The denigration of the Hindu faith is often based on misrepresentation of the Hindu faith, its doctrine and scriptures and insults to espoused traditions, if not blatant lies about Hindu beliefs and ways. Such conversions or attempts at conversion are driven by animosity towards the Hindu faith and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other subcategory 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 in the attempts at 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 the 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 proselytisation, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. In this case, the religious element was central because Hindu practices themselves were singled out for criticism while another faith was being promoted through preaching and religious literature. The pamphlets did not merely introduce a different belief system; they directly targeted established Hindu customs and presented them as wrong, misguided or meaningless. This transformed the activity from ordinary religious propagation into an attempt to weaken attachment to Hinduism by attacking the practices through which Hindus express their faith. The denigration was particularly significant because the practices targeted were not random cultural habits. Breaking coconuts at temples, lighting camphor, burning sambrani and wearing flowers are deeply embedded in Hindu religious and cultural life, especially in Tamil Nadu and other parts of South India. These practices carry devotional, ritual and symbolic meaning for Hindu families and devotees. Portraying them as irrational or unnecessary therefore amounted to attacking the religious understanding attached to those customs and encouraging Hindus to view their own traditions as inferior or unworthy of continuation. The method used also reflected subtle religious indoctrination rather than an open theological discussion. By first creating doubt about familiar Hindu practices and simultaneously introducing a different conception of God, the material sought to produce disaffection towards the victims’ existing faith. Such a method works by gradually undermining confidence in a person’s own religious traditions before presenting another belief system as the correct alternative. This is significant because the objective is not merely to inform but to influence religious identity through repeated psychological and doctrinal pressure. The use of public preaching alongside literature attacking Hindu customs strengthened this element further. Religious conversion based on free conviction is fundamentally different from a process in which the existing faith is first disparaged and its practices portrayed as meaningless. When a person is encouraged to abandon Hinduism by being taught that their rituals are wrong while another religion is presented as superior, the attempt is directed specifically at the victim’s Hindu identity and religious beliefs. Taken together, the denigration of Hindu customs, the attempt to sow doubt about established religious practices, and the simultaneous promotion of another faith constituted a coordinated method of proselytisation. The conduct sought not only to introduce a competing religious doctrine but to weaken the victims’ attachment to Hinduism by portraying their own traditions as false or inferior. This made the Hindu faith itself the object of the targeting and gave the incident a clear religiously motivated character. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records an incident date based on when the relevant act occurs rather than when it is later covered by the media. However, the exact date on which the pamphlets were distributed in Hosur was not specified. Therefore, 26 July 2026, being the date mentioned by the media outlet in connection with the incident, has been taken as the indicative incident date for documentation purposes only. Disclaimer: The perpetrator count has been recorded as 2 because two women were clearly visible in the video distributing pamphlets and participating in the religious preaching activity. However, the exact number of individuals involved in the incident could not be determined. Therefore, 2 has been taken as the documented perpetrator count for this case.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
From 2 To 5
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
