Hindu leader booked for exposing temple desecration, criticising police inaction in Kerala

Case ID : 30ab451 | Location : Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India | Date of Incident : Tue, 6 October, 2026

Case ID : 30ab451

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

6 October, 2026

Hindu leader booked for exposing temple desecration, criticising police inaction in Kerala

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Case Summary

In Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, a Hindu leader was targeted and booked by the police for highlighting the desecration of a Hindu temple through a social media post. The case followed the desecration of the ancient Mohanapuram Mahadeva Venugopala Swami Temple in Pothencode, where the words ‘ISIS’ and ‘786’ were found scribbled on the sacred Shivling and its pedestal on two consecutive occasions. The Hinduphobia Tracker had earlier documented the desecration of the sacred Hindu murti at the ancient Mohanapuram Mahadeva Venugopala Swami Temple in Pothencode, an issue that BJP leader Yuvraj Gokul subsequently highlighted through his social media post. The desecration took place on two consecutive nights, 23 and 24 October 2026, when the word ‘ISIS’, referring to the Islamic terrorist organisation, was found inscribed on the pedestal of a Brahmarakshas murti. The temple archaka discovered the writing on the morning of 23 October 2026, when he arrived to perform the daily pooja, and informed the temple committee. The temple subsequently lodged a complaint with the Pothencode police. Although the police visited the temple and examined the site, they did not register a case following the first complaint. After the desecration, Yuvraj Gokul, who contested the 2026 Assembly elections as the BJP candidate from Nedumangad, raised the issue in a Facebook post around 27 October 2026. He questioned the repeated desecration of the temple, raised concerns about encroachment on temple land, and criticised the Travancore Devaswom Board for failing to protect the temple and its property. In his post, Gokul referred to certain localities in his constituency as ‘Pakistan' while discussing the temple desecration. He also mentioned that the words ‘ISIS’ and ‘786’ had been written on the Shivling and questioned the encroachment of temple land. The BJP leader maintained that his post did not name any religion or community and was intended to highlight the temple desecration and the failure of the authorities to protect Hindu religious property. On 30 October, 2026, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) and its youth wing, Young Democrats, submitted separate complaints to the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Nedumangad against Gokul. They accused him of attempting to create communal tension and disturb public harmony through his Facebook post. Subsequently, on 7 November 2026, the Pothencode Police registered an FIR against Gokul under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with promoting enmity between different groups and acts prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony. The FIR, numbered 0765/2026, named Yuvraj Gokul as the accused. Rafeek, son of Abdul Saleem, lodged the complaint.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case is being added to the tracker under the primary category Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save the victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. This case was included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because a Hindu leader was subjected to criminal proceedings for raising his voice against the desecration of a Hindu temple. His intervention highlighted the defacement of a sacred Hindu murti and questioned the authorities' failure to protect the temple and its religious property. Instead of action against those responsible for violating the sanctity of the Hindu place of worship, the complaints and subsequent FIR targeted the Hindu leader who exposed the incident. The circumstances surrounding the FIR further highlighted the nature of the targeting. The complaints against Yuvraj Gokul arose from his social media post drawing attention to the temple desecration. His post did not name any religion or community, as he maintained, but addressed the desecration and the failure to protect Hindu religious property. The criminal proceedings thus targeted him for speaking against a violation of Hindu religious sanctity. The contrast in the police response was particularly significant. The inscriptions found on the sacred Hindu murti were not trivial acts of vandalism. The word ‘ISIS’, referring to an Islamic terrorist organisation, and the number ‘786’, carrying religious significance in Islam, were inscribed on the pedestal of a sacred murti inside an ancient Hindu temple. Such inscriptions within a place of worship directly violated its religious sanctity and raised serious concerns about the deliberate targeting of Hindu religious space. Yet, despite the temple's first complaint, the police did not register a case or take action against those responsible. Instead of addressing this desecration and investigating those who had defaced the sacred murti, the focus shifted to the Hindu leader who exposed the incident and questioned the failure to protect the temple. The police proceeded to register an FIR against him. This disparity was particularly telling: the desecration of a Hindu place of worship did not prompt a police case, but the Hindu leader's decision to speak out against it did. The impact extended beyond Gokul himself. Criminal proceedings against a Hindu leader for highlighting temple desecration sent an intimidating message to the wider Hindu community: speaking out against violations of Hindu religious sanctity and questioning institutional inaction could invite punitive action. His targeting therefore reflected hostility towards both his intervention in defence of Hindu religious interests and his association with a party perceived as pro-Hindu. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the incident date based on when the victim's ordeal began, rather than the date the media reported the incident. In this case, because the FIR against the victim was registered on 7 November 2026, that date has been recorded as the incident date for documentation purposes.