Hinduism branded discriminatory; Christian IPS officer promotes caste divisions among Hindus while glorifying Christianity
Andhra Pradesh, India 
25 November, 2020
Case Summary
Christian IPS officer PV Sunil Kumar, an Ambedkarite, repeatedly made derogatory remarks against Hinduism, Hindu scriptures and Hindu deities, while praising Christianity and promoting an anti-Hindu narrative through a private organisation he operated alongside his police service. On 10 June 2021, the Legal Rights Observatory (LRO), a legal advocacy organisation, filed a complaint with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs against PV Sunil Kumar, an IPS officer serving as the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) of the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID), over his speeches and activities targeting Hinduism and its religious beliefs. The complaint stated that Kumar had established and operated a private organisation named ‘Ambedkar’s India Mission’ while serving as a police officer and had used its platform to deliver speeches criticising Hinduism, Hindu scriptures and Hindu deities, as well as promoting caste-based divisions within society. According to the complaint, Kumar had addressed a gathering in East Godavari district in 2018 under the banner of Ambedkar’s India Mission, where he accused Hinduism of discriminating against Scheduled Caste communities and preventing them from wearing footwear, dressing properly and accessing education. He also criticised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and appealed to members of the Scheduled Caste community to consolidate their votes along caste lines. In another instance, on 26 November 2020, Constitution Day, he had appeared in a Facebook Live broadcast through the organisation’s official page, where he made derogatory remarks about Hinduism and sacred scriptures, including the Vedas and Puranas. A separate video also showed him praising British missionaries for introducing Christianity and providing a God to worship to communities that he said had been denied access to temples and religious worship within Hindu society. In the video, he stated that the British had provided churches, introduced education and enabled people to worship a God. The complaint further highlighted Kumar’s demand for Scheduled Caste reservation benefits to be extended to individuals who had converted to Christianity. It also referred to his position that he would represent only the Scheduled Caste Mala community and oppose the inclusion of other castes in the Scheduled Caste category. LRO further objected to his advocacy for separate gram panchayats for Scheduled Caste communities, arguing that his speeches and activities promoted caste-based divisions. The organisation maintained that his conduct violated the service rules governing police personnel, particularly provisions restricting members of the police force from participating in political and divisive activities through private organisations. Following the complaint, LRO stated that the videos containing Kumar’s remarks against Hinduism had been removed from social media platforms. The organisation submitted downloaded copies of the videos to the Union Home Ministry and sought action against him, including the registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, a departmental inquiry and an investigation into the finances and funding sources of Ambedkar’s India Mission. It also requested action over his continued operation of the organisation while holding a senior police position. The complaint further cited his public statements in support of Christianity and demands concerning reservation benefits for Christian converts as grounds for questioning his religious affiliation and seeking his removal from government service.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected here 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 other sub-category selected here - 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. The incident demonstrated a pattern of hostility directed specifically at Hindu religious identity, beliefs and institutions. The remarks made by PV Sunil Kumar went beyond criticism of social practices or caste-based discrimination and extended to denigrating Hinduism as a religion, its sacred scriptures and its deities. The repeated targeting of Hindu religious traditions through public speeches and organisational platforms indicated that Hinduism itself had become the object of disparagement. The distinction was significant because criticism of particular social practices did not require the denigration of an entire religious tradition or its sacred beliefs. A significant aspect of the hostility was the manner in which Hinduism was portrayed as inherently oppressive towards Scheduled Caste Hindus. By attributing restrictions on wearing footwear, dressing appropriately and accessing education to Hinduism itself, the narrative presented the religion as fundamentally discriminatory towards a section of its own followers. Such sweeping characterisations projected the entire Hindu faith and its traditions as responsible for social discrimination, rather than distinguishing between specific historical practices and the religious beliefs of millions of Hindus. Repeatedly portraying one section of Hindus as victims of another on religious grounds also risked deepening caste-based divisions within Hindu society. This framing effectively turned grievances concerning social discrimination into an indictment of Sanatan Dharma itself, discrediting the faith and encouraging sections of Hindus to perceive their religious heritage as inherently hostile to them. The repeated portrayal of Hindu society as inherently oppressive and discriminatory also had to be viewed in the context of how such narratives are aimed at deepening caste-based divisions among Hindus. Narratives that consistently depicted Hinduism as a faith that privileged one section of Hindus while systematically victimising another risked creating hostility and mistrust between communities belonging to the same religious fold. Such portrayals, particularly when presented through sweeping condemnations of Hinduism, its scriptures and its religious traditions, went beyond addressing specific instances of caste discrimination and instead implicated the faith itself. By repeatedly associating Hindu religious identity with oppression and exclusion, such narratives sought to discredit and delegitimise Sanatan Dharma while encouraging sections of Hindus to view their own religious heritage as inherently hostile to them. The consequence of promoting such a narrative was the further fragmentation of Hindu society along caste lines, weakening religious solidarity and encouraging alienation from the faith. In this context, the repeated denigration of Hinduism and the portrayal of its religious traditions as inherently discriminatory constituted anti-Hindu hostility, as the underlying narrative targeted not merely particular social practices but the legitimacy and collective identity of the Hindu faith and its followers. The religious dimension was further evident in the contrast Kumar drew between Hinduism and Christianity. His praise of British missionaries for introducing Christianity and providing communities with a God to worship presented Christianity as a religious alternative to Hinduism, while portraying Hindu society as inherently exclusionary. By attributing educational and religious opportunities to Christian missionary intervention in opposition to Hindu traditions, the narrative reinforced a negative characterisation of Hinduism and elevated another religion at its expense. Such statements, particularly when delivered repeatedly before public gatherings, contributed to an environment in which Hindu religious identity was portrayed as discriminatory and inferior. The implications of this narrative were further amplified by the simultaneous glorification of Christianity and Christian missionary activity. While Hinduism was portrayed as inherently discriminatory and oppressive, Christianity was presented as a benevolent alternative that had provided marginalised communities with religious dignity, education and access to worship. This contrast was particularly significant because it created a deliberate disparity in how the two faiths were represented, denigrating one while elevating the other. Such messaging functions as a subtle form of religious indoctrination, fostering an inferiority complex among Hindu adherents by repeatedly associating their faith with oppression while attributing social progress and dignity to Christianity. By undermining their confidence in their own religious heritage and presenting another faith as a source of liberation, such narratives could make sections of Hindu society more susceptible to Christian proselytisation and conversion. His appeal to members of the Scheduled Caste community to consolidate their votes along caste lines, coupled with his criticism of the RSS, further reinforced the divisive character of his messaging. Rather than encouraging social cohesion among Hindus, such appeals deepens the caste-based political divisions and creating antagonism between different sections of Hindu society. The targeting of an organisation associated with Hindu social and religious mobilisation also added to the broader pattern of hostility towards Hindu institutions. By encouraging members of one section of Hindu society to organise themselves as a separate political bloc while simultaneously denigrating Hindu religious and cultural institutions, the messaging risked weakening Hindu social solidarity and reinforcing divisions within the Hindu community. The use of a public organisational platform to disseminate these views also amplified their significance. The speeches were not confined to private disagreements or isolated expressions of personal opinion but were delivered through an organisation that the complaint identified as a vehicle for promoting anti-Hindu ideology. The repeated invocation of Hinduism, its scriptures and its religious institutions as objects of criticism, alongside the favourable portrayal of Christianity, established a discernible pattern of religious hostility. The fact that the individual concerned held a senior police position further heightened the institutional significance of the conduct, as his public statements carried the authority associated with his official standing. Taken together, the repeated denigration of Hindu religious beliefs, the disparaging portrayal of Hindu society and the contrasting promotion of Christianity provided grounds for treating the incident as anti-Hindu hostility rather than merely a disagreement over caste-related social issues. Therefore, this case has been added to the hate crime database.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
