Anti-Hindu prejudice on display: Indian politician targets Hindus, portrays Hindutva as a source of hatred and social hostility
Guna, Madhya Pradesh, India 
3 November, 2026
Case Summary
Senior Congress leader and former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh made objectionable remarks targeting Hindutva while addressing a gathering in Raghogarh, Guna district, Madhya Pradesh. On 4 November 2026, during the Satya Sanatan Swabhiman Yatra, Digvijay Singh said, “Those who turn to Hindutva are instilled with hatred. If the true nature of Sanatan Dharma is not explained, people will forget it and turn to Hindutva.” He further claimed that the spread of Hindutva would lead to hatred in people's minds and domestic conflict. During the same address, Singh demanded an account of donations collected for the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and referred to Mahant Baba Laldas, who had demanded an accounting of the donations and opposed L.K. Advani's Rath Yatra before he was shot dead in 1993. His remarks drew a sharp response from Madhya Pradesh Sports Minister Vishwas Sarang, who criticised Singh for portraying Hindutva as a source of hatred and division and said that his yatra was intended to defame Sanatan Dharma. This was not an isolated instance of Digvijay Singh making remarks targeting Hinduism and Hindu religious identity. On 24 December 2025, while commenting on the targeted persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, Singh attributed the attacks to the atmosphere created by the treatment of minorities in India, effectively portraying the violence against Hindus in Bangladesh as a reaction to developments in India rather than directly condemning the Muslim perpetrators responsible. He had also repeatedly propagated the terminology of "Hindu terror" and "saffron terror" to associate Hindu organisations with terrorism. These instances reflected a recurring pattern of making statements that portrayed Hindu religious identity and Hindu organisations in a negative light while downplaying or deflecting attention from violence targeting Hindus.
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 subversion and prejudice. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. The remarks constituted hate speech against Hindus because they explicitly associated the adoption of Hindutva with hatred, social hostility and conflict. By claiming that “Those who turn to Hindutva are instilled with hatred”, Digvijay Singh attributed a negative and morally objectionable disposition to people who identified with or supported a Hindu civilisational and political ideology. His statement did not merely criticise a particular political organisation, policy or electoral position; it broadly characterised those moving towards Hindutva as people whose minds were filled with hatred. This generalisation stigmatised a section of people on the basis of their Hindu ideological and civilisational identification and portrayed their convictions as inherently conducive to hostility. It is important to note here that 'Hindutva' is often used as a euphemism to make the targeting of Hindus more palatable. Hindutva is essentially a unifying ideology for Hindus, which became imperative for Hindus to find and preserve their cultural identity, which was being eroded and attacked due to Islamic invasions, British colonisation, Christian theological impositions and conversions. Hindutva is not a destructive ideology, as some attempt to portray, but one that is used as a unifying edifice for Hindus. Hindutva is also often used as a euphemism to target Hindus on the whole and their religious identity and faith. It is essentially semantic jugglery to confuse Hindus into believing that their own persecution by supremacists is somehow 'justified' because the specific victims espoused an ideology (Hindutva) which deserves the onslaught. The fact that the use of 'Hindutva' is merely to mask animosity towards Hindus was evident from the "Dismantling Global Hindutva" conference held in the USA, where speakers unabashedly spoke about how Hindutva and Hinduism are indistinguishable and therefore, to "dismantle Hindutva" one would have to "dismantle Hinduism". The practices of targeting Hindus and their religious and cultural identity and justifying that victimisation and dehumanisation by using euphemisms like "Hindutva" stems out of inherent animosity and hostility towards Hindus. The distinction Singh drew between Sanatan Dharma and Hindutva further reinforced this characterisation. By presenting Sanatan Dharma as an embodiment of peace, universal goodwill and compassion while associating Hindutva with hatred and social disintegration, he created an artificial distinction between Hindu religious identity and the assertion of that very identity. This framing effectively suggested that Hindus who embraced their civilisational identity and sought to preserve it were driven by hatred, whereas those who subscribed to his preferred interpretation of Sanatan Dharma were associated with peace and tolerance. His assertion that people turning towards Hindutva would develop hatred in their minds and cause domestic conflict therefore went beyond criticism of an ideology. It stigmatised Hindu civilisational assertion by attributing inherently destructive tendencies to those who identified with it. The remarks were particularly significant because the use of the term Hindutva served to frame the targeting of Hindu identity as criticism of an ideology. Rather than distinguishing between specific political positions and the broader Hindu religious and cultural identity, Singh conflated the two and portrayed the assertion of Hindu identity as a source of hatred and social discord. This was consistent with the broader pattern in which the term Hindutva has been used to delegitimise Hinduism and Hindu civilisational assertion while making hostility towards them appear to be opposition to an ideology. Consequently, his remarks could not be viewed merely as political disagreement with Hindutva; they reflected prejudice against Hindu identity itself, with the terminology serving to obscure the underlying anti-Hindu character of the statement. This incident was not isolated, but formed part of a recurring pattern of Digvijay Singh making statements that negatively portrayed Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindu organisations. On an earlier occasion, while commenting on the targeted persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, Singh attributed the violence to the treatment of minorities in India, thereby shifting attention away from the Muslim extremists responsible for the attacks and framing the persecution of Hindus as a reaction to developments in India. He had also repeatedly propagated terms such as "Hindu terror" and "saffron terror", attempting to associate Hindu organisations and Hindu religious assertion with terrorism. These repeated instances demonstrated a pattern of portraying Hindu religious and civilisational identity as a source of hostility while downplaying or deflecting attention from violence directed against Hindus. His remarks in the present case therefore had to be viewed against this broader context, as they were consistent with an established pattern of statements that vilified Hindu identity and sought to delegitimise Hindu civilisational assertion, rather than constituting an isolated instance of political criticism. Therefore, this case has been added to the hate crime database.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
