Case Summary

In New Delhi, Samajwadi Party (SP) national spokesperson Rajkumar Bhati rejected Hindu deities and religious practices at a public event organised by the Bharatiya Bauddha Mahasabha on 20 October 2026. Bhati attended the event as the chief guest at Ambedkar Bhawan on Rani Jhansi Marg, where participants recited the 22 vows associated with Dr B. R. Ambedkar’s adoption of Buddhism, including an explicit rejection of the worship of Hindu gods. A video of Bhati taking the vows on stage went viral, in which he was heard saying, “I will not have any faith in Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh, and shall not worship them.” The vows also include renouncing the worship of Lord Ram, Lord Krishna and other Hindu gods and goddesses, and rejecting Hinduism in favour of Buddhism. The vows also rejected the belief that Gautam Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, renounced Hindu religious practices including puja, Shraddha and pind-daan, and stated that Brahmins would not perform religious ceremonies. The recitation placed the rejection of Hindu deities, beliefs and religious customs at the centre of the public event. Following the circulation of the video, BJP spokesperson Rakesh Tripathi criticised the Samajwadi Party and its leaders for repeatedly making remarks that hurt Hindu religious sentiments. Social media discussion also centred on whether Bhati had abandoned Hinduism and converted to Buddhism after participating in the ceremony. After the backlash, Bhati issued a clarification on October 21, claiming that he had attended the event as its chief guest and participated because he respected all religions and communities. While denying that he had converted to Buddhism, he did not clarify why he had publicly taken vows explicitly rejecting the worship of Hindu gods. Instead, he blamed the BJP IT Cell and its supporters for allegedly running a smear campaign against him. The incident has also brought renewed attention to Bhati’s record of remarks disparaging Hindu religious beliefs and figures. In an interview with the YouTube channel The Red Ink in August 2025, Bhati criticised the Manusmriti, describing it as a “garbage text” and arguing that it promoted caste discrimination and the oppression of women. He also dismissed the Ramcharitmanas, the Hindu scripture composed by Goswami Tulsidas and revered by Hindu devotees, as an ordinary poem, calling its verses “cheap”. His remarks extended to episodes from the Ramayana involving Lord Rama, Lord Lakshman, Bali and Shurpanakha. Bhati criticised a specific episode from the revered Hindu epic in which Lord Rama killed Bali from behind a tree, portraying the episode as morally questionable. While discussing Shurpanakha, he also criticised Lord Rama's and Lord Lakshman's actions. Bhati’s earlier statements also criticised Hindu religious leaders and established religious customs. In the same interview, he questioned the need to visit temples, claiming that he was researching whether God existed. He also criticised Hindu religious leaders and urged people to abandon established customs. In another remark about Lord Rama and Brahmins, Bhati said that if he were Lord Rama, he would advise Brahmins to abandon hypocrisy. Separately, in a televised discussion, he stated that he did not consider anyone greater than Prophet Muhammad. These remarks subsequently featured in public discussions of Bhati’s statements about Hindu scriptures, deities, religious practices and the Brahmin community. Bhati had also referred to “Brahminism” as a “virus” in an earlier social media post and called for a vaccine against it. Another major controversy arose on 5 May 2026, when Bhati spoke at a book-launch event at Jawahar Bhawan in New Delhi. The event marked the launch of Jati Aur Sampradayikta Ke Vishanu (The Viruses of Caste and Communalism), written by Dr Rafraf Shakeel Ansari and Javed Anwar, and was followed by a discussion involving speakers including Yogendra Yadav, Professor Ratan Lal, Ashutosh, Sheeba Aslam Fehmi and Bilal Ahmad. A video of Bhati’s speech circulated in which he recited a derogatory couplet targeting the Hindu Brahmin community: “ब्राह्मण भला न वेश्या, इनमें भला न कोय! और कोई-कोई वेश्या तो भली, ब्राह्मण भला न कोय।” The couplet compared Brahmins unfavourably with prostitutes and stated that some prostitutes were better than Brahmins. The video showed Bhati reciting the lines at a public event, and the remarks drew criticism from members of the Brahmin community and political leaders. The Hinduphobia Tracker had previously documented Rajkumar Bhati’s remarks about Hindu scriptures, deities and the Brahmin community in separate entries. It also recorded his criticism of the Manusmriti and Ramcharitmanas, remarks about Lord Rama and Lord Lakshman, and statements targeting Hindu religious traditions. The tracker also documented the controversy over a derogatory couplet targeting Brahmins, the resulting police cases and Bhati’s subsequent explanation that he had not endorsed the couplet.

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 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 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. This case has been included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because Rajkumar Bhati’s actions went beyond the expression of a personal religious belief or disbelief. Whether or not he believes in Hindu deities is a matter of personal choice. However, publicly taking vows to renounce the worship of Hindu gods and goddesses, declaring his rejection of them before an audience, and encouraging others to adopt the same position takes the matter into the public domain. Such conduct goes beyond an individual’s freedom to choose their faith and becomes a public repudiation of Hindu religious beliefs, contributing to an atmosphere in which the rejection and disparagement of Hinduism are openly promoted. When a political leader uses a public platform to denounce revered Hindu deities and urges others to follow suit, it risks turning personal conviction into a spectacle of religious rejection that insults the faith of Hindu devotees. The significance of the politician's actions becomes clearer when you consider the religious beliefs he targeted. Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, Lord Rama, Lord Krishna, Maa Gauri and Ganapati hold important places in Hindu worship and religious tradition. Puja, Shraddha and pind-daan are not meaningless formalities but observances through which Hindus express devotion, fulfil religious obligations and honour their ancestors. By naming these deities, rejecting their worship and renouncing these practices, the politician placed Hindu religious life itself within the scope of its repudiation. This was not simply an explanation of Buddhist beliefs or a discussion of the differences between Buddhism and Hinduism; the wording explicitly identified Hindu beliefs and practices for rejection. Further, what makes the crime even more egregious is that this statement was not isolated. In fact, Rajkumar Bhati has a history of making disparaging remarks against Hindus, the Hindu faith and deities in his public speeches. The Hinduphobia Tracker had previously documented several such remarks where Bhati has openly made derogatory remarks against Hindu scriptures, revered figures and religious traditions. Such acts highlight a deeper pattern of hostility and disdain towards Hinduism, often presented as personal conviction or ideological expression but rooted in deliberate animosity towards Hindus and their faith. Though the backlash resulted in Bhati issuing a half-baked clarification, the intent behind the action could only possibly be that of provoking Hindus and showing disrespect towards their faith. Since such callous behaviour can only stem from a profound contempt for the Hindu religion, this case deserves to be recorded in this tracker.