Case Summary

In Delhi, an old video of Ambedkarite Nishu Azad resurfaced and went viral, in which she mocked the Hindu deity Maa Saraswati while attacking Hindu religious traditions and the Manusmriti. In the video, Azad said, “If women did not have the right to education under Manusmriti, then from which college did Saraswati complete her PhD?” The remark used Maa Saraswati, the Hindu goddess of knowledge, learning, wisdom and education, as the subject of ridicule while attempting to make a political and social point about women’s education. The video subsequently drew anger from Hindu users, who objected to the use of a revered Hindu deity as a vehicle for mockery. The objection was centred on the fact that Maa Saraswati occupies a sacred position in Hinduism as the embodiment of knowledge, learning, music, wisdom and the arts. By rhetorically asking which college she had attended for a PhD, Azad reduced a divine Hindu figure to a sarcastic comparison intended to ridicule Hindu belief. Hindu users therefore viewed the remark not simply as criticism of Manusmriti or caste practices, but as a direct denigration of a deity worshipped by Hindus. Nishu Azad had earlier gained wider public attention during protests associated with the CJP, where her speeches and activism drew criticism over remarks concerning Hinduism, Hindu deities, religious scriptures, rituals and Sanatan Dharma. Her public positioning subsequently gained support within sections of Left-wing and Ambedkarite circles, while Hindu critics repeatedly objected to what they regarded as anti-Hindu and Hinduphobic rhetoric in her speeches and social-media activity. Her supporters presented such interventions as Ambedkarite and anti-caste criticism, whereas her Hindu critics argued that repeatedly using Hindu deities, scriptures and religious traditions as objects of ridicule went beyond criticism of caste practices and amounted to denigration of the Hindu faith itself. The resurfaced video also brought renewed attention to Azad’s earlier public statements and social-media activity that had previously drawn criticism for hostility towards Hindu beliefs and traditions. Critics have pointed to earlier content in which she rejected Hindu rituals and customs, attacked what she described as the “Sanatan system”, repeatedly used the term “Manuvadi” while criticising social and political institutions, and participated in slogans directed against Brahmins and upper castes. Her critics have argued that these interventions repeatedly moved beyond political or caste critique and into contemptuous portrayals of Hindu religious identity and practices. Her previous online activity has also drawn criticism for posts concerning Hindu deities and festivals, including Shri Krishna and Janmashtami, with social-media users accusing her of repeatedly mocking Hindu beliefs over a period of years. Contemporary social-media discussion around the renewed controversy specifically referred to previous posts targeting Shri Krishna and other Hindu religious figures, while critics described this as part of a recurring pattern rather than an isolated remark. Azad has additionally been criticised for her broader rejection of traditional Hindu religious identity and for presenting Hindu religious structures primarily through the language of caste oppression and “Manuvad”. Her supporters characterise such statements as Ambedkarite social and political critique, while her critics maintain that repeated use of Hindu deities, scriptures, rituals and communities as objects of ridicule crosses into anti-Hindu denigration. The latest circulation of the Maa Saraswati remark therefore revived an older controversy over the boundary between criticism of social practices and the deliberate mockery of Hindu religious figures. On September 5, 2026, the Delhi Police registered an official First Information Report (FIR) against Nishu Azad and her father, Sanjay Azad. The legal complaint was filed by Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Amita Sachdeva at the Cyber Police Station (New Delhi District). The FIR cites BNS Sections 299 and 196 along with relevant IT Act provisions, alleging that the posts intentionally insulted Hindu deities—including Bhagwan Shiv, Bhagwan Shri Krishna, Maa Durga, and Maa Saraswati.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category selected for this case is: 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 use 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 these terms 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 that 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 be used 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 from 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 other subcategory selected is: Subversion of scriptures. Subverting the religious scriptures of Hindus has particularly devastating consequences. Subversion of the scriptures of Hindus is often done to justify or promote hatred, discrimination, or violence against specific individuals or groups of Hindus. Religious scriptures are often nuanced, and those who harbour religious animosity towards Hindus often misquote or misrepresent the scripture to legitimise their animosity and hate towards the faith and its adherents. Any such misquoting of scriptures or subversion to justify hate, violence and discrimination against Hindus owing to religious animosity is hate speech and is categorised as such. This case qualified as religiously motivated hate speech because Nishu Azad deliberately used Maa Saraswati, one of the most revered Hindu deities, as an object of ridicule while simultaneously reducing a Hindu scripture to a crude and intellectually shallow caricature. Her remark was structured around mocking Hindu belief itself: she invoked Manusmriti, presented a sweeping assertion about it, and then sarcastically questioned from which college Maa Saraswati had obtained a PhD. The Hindu deity and Hindu scripture were therefore both dragged into the same contemptuous formulation to deride the faith. Maa Saraswati holds profound religious significance in Hinduism as the goddess of knowledge, wisdom, learning, music and the arts. Hindus worship her as the divine embodiment of Vidya and Jnana, and generations of Hindu students and scholars have sought her blessings in the pursuit of knowledge. Azad's attempt to reduce this sacred conception to a cheap question about a “college” and “PhD” displayed contempt for the very religious symbolism she was ridiculing. A divine embodiment of knowledge does not require a university degree for her theological significance; framing Hindu belief in those terms merely created a deliberately absurd premise so that the faith could then be mocked through it. Her invocation of Manusmriti was equally significant. Instead of engaging with the scripture in its textual, historical or interpretative complexity, Azad reduced it to a sweeping assertion and weaponised that assertion against Maa Saraswati. This was not scriptural analysis; it was scriptural subversion through caricature. A Hindu text was invoked selectively and superficially, not to understand its contents, but to manufacture a supposed contradiction within Hinduism and then use that manufactured contradiction to ridicule a Hindu deity. The rhetoric reflected the problem with half-baked assertions about Hindu scriptures being presented with absolute confidence and then used as ammunition against Hinduism. Repeated invocation of “Manusmriti” and “Manuvad” does not, by itself, establish knowledge of Hindu theology, its enormous scriptural diversity, its philosophical traditions or the historical interpretation of individual texts. Yet such reductive formulations are repeatedly deployed to portray Hindu traditions as inherently absurd, oppressive or intellectually deficient. In this instance, the superficial treatment of scripture culminated directly in the mockery of a goddess worshipped as the embodiment of knowledge itself. The remark also fitted into the broader pattern for which Azad had already drawn objections from Hindus: Hindu deities, Hindu scriptures, Sanatan Dharma and Hindu traditions repeatedly became targets through which her ideological rhetoric was expressed. The recurring method was particularly prejudicial because political and caste terminology was used as a vehicle through which contempt could be directed towards Hindu religious representations themselves. Maa Saraswati had nothing to do with the supposed educational contradiction Azad attempted to manufacture; the deity was invoked precisely because her sacred association with knowledge provided Azad with an opportunity for ridicule. Taken together, the derision of Maa Saraswati, the superficial invocation and subversion of Manusmriti, and the use of both to portray Hindu belief as contradictory and ridiculous demonstrated that the Hindu religious element was central to the speech. The remark demeaned a sacred Hindu deity while simultaneously weaponising a Hindu scripture to provide a veneer of argument to that mockery. It therefore constituted anti-Hindu hate speech through the deliberate mocking of Hindu faith and subversion of Hindu scripture and was consequently added to the Hate Crime Database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. It is also important to mention here that the accused was a member of the Bhim Army. While the Bhim Army presents itself as a champion of Dalit rights, its actions and affiliations often contradict this claim. Dalits are very much Hindus, yet the Bhim Army frequently targets Hindu symbols, festivals, and practices, including those held sacred by Dalits themselves. This pattern suggests that the organisation’s agenda is less about genuine Dalit upliftment and more aligned with broader anti-Hindu narratives that seek to divide and weaken Hindu society from within. This becomes particularly apparent when the Bhim Army aligns with leftist and Islamist platforms, where identity politics is weaponised against Hindus. In such spaces, the micro identities of caste, region, and language are secondary; what matters most is religious identity. It is the Hindu identity, regardless of caste, that often becomes the target of animosity. As seen in cases where Dalit families were attacked for displaying Hindu symbols or worshipping deities, the hostility stems not from caste differences, but from a disdain for Hindu religiosity. For example, on May 19, 2020, reports emerged in which a Dalit family in Bihar’s Kishanganj district accused the local Bhim Army unit of attacking them for their beliefs, desecrating a temple as they objected to their reverence for Hindu deities and saffron flags. Moreover, Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad has repeatedly made statements and taken positions that reflect his anti-Hindu stance. For instance, he has publicly endorsed conversion as a political weapon, invoking B.R. Ambedkar’s decision to leave Hinduism, and has actively supported movements that call for a rejection of Hindu festivals and practices. In fact, Chandrashekhar Azad's political trajectory has strongly focused on building a Dalit-Muslim alliance, a strategy that became particularly evident during his active participation in the anti-CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) protests, which culminated in the Delhi anti-Hindu Riots of 2020. His brand of politics, under the banner of Dalit-Muslim unity, has contributed to narratives that vilify Hindu traditions and exacerbate targeted attacks against Hindus. Thus, by attacking Hindu symbols and aligning with forces hostile to Hinduism at large, the Bhim Army effectively turns against the cultural and spiritual traditions of the Dalit community itself. In doing so, it reinforces the very forces of division and religious antagonism that marginalise Dalits, not as a caste, but as Hindus. This contradiction reveals that, despite its stated mission, the Bhim Army’s trajectory increasingly serves an anti-Hindu, rather than a pro-Dalit, agenda. Disclaimer: The exact date on which Nishu Azad originally made the derogatory remark targeting Hindu deity Maa Saraswati and invoking Manusmriti was not specified in the available material. The video was from an earlier year and later resurfaced and went viral on 12th July 2025. Since the Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident date based on when the original incident occurred rather than when the old video resurfaced or was recirculated, the exact incident date could not be conclusively established. Therefore, 12th July 2024 has been used as the indicative incident date by aligning the known earlier-year timeframe with the date on which the video resurfaced in 2025. This date has been recorded for documentation purposes only.