Minor Hindu student harassed for wearing tilak at Christian missionary school; teacher repeatedly wiped it off and scolded him
Kolkata, West Bengal, India 
1 September, 2026
Case Summary
In Kolkata, West Bengal, a minor Hindu student studying at a Christian missionary school had his tilak repeatedly wiped and desecrated by his school teacher. The incident came to public attention after a video in which the Hindu student studying at the Holy Mission English Medium School described his ordeal which later went viral on social media, prompting his family to seek action against the teacher. In the video, the Hindu student stated that he went to school wearing a sandalwood tilak on his forehead, but a Christian female teacher removed it every day. The student stated that the Christian teacher repeatedly erased the sandalwood tilak, scolded him while removing it, and caused him mental distress. The matter came to the attention of Suvendu Adhikari, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, who expressed strong displeasure and questioned why there should be an objection to a person wearing a tilak on the forehead or a basil rosary. He said that these were an integral part of Sanatan tradition and cultural heritage, and stated that such incidents would not be tolerated in West Bengal. He further said that the incident should not be repeated anywhere in the state and that strict action would be taken if similar incidents occurred in the future. As the incident intensified, the school management suspended the concerned female teacher with immediate effect. Kolkata Police registered a First Information Report against her and began investigating the matter. According to the school administration, the incident had taken place on 2 September 2026 before the controversy became public, when a remedial class was being held for students shortly before the school day ended. During the class, the teacher had asked the student to remove the tilak. The teacher presented her side before the school’s disciplinary committee. She alleged that the matter had resulted from a misunderstanding and claimed that the tilak had already spread considerably across the child’s forehead. The school management therefore maintained that the request had concerned the smeared appearance of the tilak rather than an objection to the student’s religious practice. The school’s managing committee was to take the final decision after speaking with both the student’s family and the concerned teacher. The police investigation was also to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. 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 categorised as a hate crime. The second primary category selected in this case is: Attack on Hindu religious representations. The subcategory selected is: Desecration of Hindu religious symbol. Icons and symbols, or religious representations of a spiritual ideal, are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of great significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are made. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika, for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations is driven by animosity towards the faith itself, which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The other primary category selected in this case is: Predatory Proselytisation. The 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. This case has been added to the Hinduphobia Tracker because a minor Hindu student was specifically targeted for displaying tilak, a sacred symbol of Hinduism. A female teacher at a Christian missionary school repeatedly removed the sandalwood tilak from the Hindu boy’s forehead and scolded him while doing so. The action was directed at the visible expression of his Hindu identity rather than any reported misconduct, indiscipline, or disruption by the student. By interfering with a sacred Hindu religious symbol and preventing its display within the school, the teacher subjected the student to discriminatory treatment on religious grounds. Such conduct constituted interference with the student’s freedom to practise and express his Hindu faith and therefore qualified as a religiously motivated incident. The tilak is not merely an ornamental mark but a sacred symbol carrying religious, spiritual, and cultural significance in Hinduism. It is traditionally worn on the forehead during worship, religious ceremonies, festivals, temple visits, and as part of daily religious practice, symbolising devotion and adherence to Hindu traditions. For Hindus, wearing a tilak represents an outward expression of their faith and religious identity. Consequently, repeatedly wiping off a Hindu student’s chandan tilak went beyond regulating appearance and directly interfered with the peaceful expression of his Hindu religious identity. The deliberate removal of a sacred Hindu religious symbol by repeatedly wiping it off also constituted a desecration of the symbol and an act of disrespect towards the religious practice it represented, thereby carrying significant emotional and religious implications for the student. The religious nature of the incident was further demonstrated by the fact that the teacher’s intervention concerned the Hindu student’s sandalwood tilak, rather than any breach of discipline or disruption. The student had been wearing a visible marker of his Hindu faith, and the teacher had repeatedly removed it and scolded him. Such treatment had directly affected the child’s ability to express his Hindu religious identity and had made a sacred practice the subject of reprimand. It was further important to note that the victim had been a minor, which had made him particularly vulnerable to the influence of an adult authority figure. Due to his young age, the Hindu student had depended on his teacher within the school environment and had been expected to follow her instructions. When a teacher had required him to remove a sacred Hindu symbol, the authority imbalance had placed greater pressure on the child than would have existed between adults of equal standing. Such an instruction had interfered with his ability to maintain a visible expression of his Hindu faith while attending school and had created pressure to suppress an important aspect of his religious identity. The psychological significance of such conduct had also been considerable because the student had described being scolded while the tilak was being removed and had experienced mental distress. When a child is made to associate a sacred symbol with reprimand or humiliation, it affects more than his physical appearance. It risked creating an impression that openly expressing his Hindu faith was unacceptable in a place where he should have been able to maintain his religious identity. Such treatment had therefore carried the potential to weaken a child’s confidence in expressing his faith openly. 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. 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 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. Overall, the cumulative facts demonstrated that a Hindu student was specifically subjected to interference because of his visible religious identity. The repeated removal of the sandalwood tilak constituted direct interference with the peaceful expression of his Hindu faith. Since the incident involved the targeting of a Hindu student and affected a minor’s ability to openly express his religious identity within a school environment, it was added to the Hinduphobia Tracker as a religiously motivated hate crime.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 1
- Adult 0
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
