Anti-Hindu hate speech: Kerala activist insults Hindu deities during protest march
Malappuram, Kerala, India 
24 August, 2026
Case Summary
Anti-Hindu activist Sunny M. Kapikkad made derogatory remarks about Bhagwan Ayyappa and Devi Malikappurathamma during a protest march held on 25 August 2026 in front of Thunchath Ezhuthachan Malayalam University in Tirur, Malappuram district, Kerala. While speaking about the traditions and customs associated with the Sabarimala temple, Kapikkad made a sexually offensive comparison involving the two Hindu deities. He said that if Bhagwan Ayyappa were to meet Malikappurathamma, he would become a “rape hero” and linked this remark to the location of Malikappurathamma’s shrine behind the main Ayyappa shrine. He also said that the Sabarimala temple should be made inside a jail. The remarks triggered strong objections from Ayyappa devotees and Hindu organisations, who condemned them as an insult to the religious beliefs associated with Sabarimala. On 27 August 2026, Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam state general secretary Adv. Jayan Cheruvallil submitted a complaint and memorandum to the Kerala Director General of Police, seeking action against Kapikkad. The complaint stated that the remarks had hurt the religious sentiments of Ayyappa devotees and had the potential to disturb social and communal harmony. The organisation sought registration of a case under Sections 196, 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Pandalam Palace and other Ayyappa organisations also condemned the remarks and called for legal action.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is being 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 qualified as a hate crime because the offensive conduct was directed at central figures of Hindu religious belief and worship, rather than constituting a general disagreement with a social or political issue. Bhagwan Ayyappa and Devi Malikappurathamma were not incidental references in the statement; they were the specific religious figures around whom the derogatory analogy was constructed. By associating the deities with a sexually degrading act and using the concept of rape to describe their relationship, the statement subjected revered Hindu religious figures to deliberate humiliation and portrayed a sacred Hindu tradition in an obscene and contemptuous manner. The reference was particularly significant because the relationship between Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma forms part of the religious traditions and narratives surrounding Sabarimala, meaning that the statement attacked not merely an individual belief but a culturally and religiously significant aspect of Hindu worship. The relationship between the two revered figures held a specific place in the religious traditions associated with Sabarimala and was therefore not a random or abstract reference. In the Sabarimala tradition, Malikappurathamma is regarded as a divine consort figure associated with Bhagwan Ayyappa, and the traditions surrounding her presence at Sabarimala form part of the religious narrative followed by devotees. The story is also connected to Ayyappa’s vow of celibacy and the belief surrounding Malikappurathamma’s waiting for him, making their relationship a sacred element of the Sabarimala tradition. By recasting this religious narrative through a rape-related analogy, the statement did not merely question a temple custom but deliberately placed a revered Hindu tradition in a sexually degrading framework. This gave the remark a specifically religiously offensive character, as it subjected figures and a narrative regarded as sacred by Ayyappa devotees to ridicule and sexual humiliation. The nature of the language further distinguished the incident from legitimate criticism of Hindu religious practices. Criticism of temple customs, gender practices or religious institutions can constitute protected expression when directed at beliefs, traditions or institutions through reasoned argument. Here, however, the use of a rape analogy involving Hindu deities transformed the criticism into a form of religious denigration. The sexualised nature of the comparison was intrinsically degrading and was used to ridicule a sacred Hindu narrative rather than substantively engage with the underlying question of Sabarimala customs. The additional statement that the temple should be located inside a jail reinforced the contemptuous character of the remarks by presenting one of Hinduism's most important pilgrimage sites in a deliberately demeaning manner. Consequently, publicly sexualising and ridiculing Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma had implications beyond personal insult: it demeaned beliefs held collectively by a recognisable religious community. The subsequent complaint by the Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam specifically identified the impact of the remarks on Ayyappa devotees and described them as an attempt to hurt their religious sentiments and disturb social harmony. The response from other Ayyappa organisations and the Pandalam Palace likewise demonstrated that the remarks were understood as an attack on a shared Hindu religious tradition rather than as an ordinary political disagreement. The public setting and manner of expression further strengthened the hate-crime character of the incident. The remarks were made during a public protest march in Tirur while discussing a contentious religious issue. They were therefore communicated to an audience in a setting where the speaker's words had the potential to reach and offend a wider community of devotees. The subsequent mobilisation of Hindu organisations and filing of complaints showed that the remarks were an attack on the dignity of Hindu religious beliefs. In this context, the incident represented the use of public expression to demean sacred Hindu figures and a religious tradition associated with a large Hindu community. The incident was therefore hate-based because the target of the degrading expression was Hindu religious identity itself. The remarks did not merely question whether a particular Sabarimala practice was justified; they employed sexual humiliation and ridicule directed at Hindu deities and a sacred Hindu institution. This distinction is important in assessing the incident under a hate-crime framework: the objectionable element was not simply that a person criticised Hinduism, but that the criticism took the form of contemptuous and degrading treatment of revered Hindu religious figures, thereby attacking symbols and beliefs that are integral to the religious identity of Hindu devotees. Therefore, this case has been added to the tracker.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
