Case Summary

In the Shahabad area of ​​Hardoi district, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu student named Amit Yadav was pressured to remove a tilak, a sacred Hindu symbol, and was subjected to mental harassment by the Muslim Principal Dr Umar. According to reports, the Hindu victim, a first-semester LLB student at the B.N. Degree College, arrived on campus wearing a tilak in accordance with his religious beliefs. He stated that the college principal, Dr Umar, instructed him to remove the tilak before entering the campus. The principal also misbehaved with him and said that it was a degree college, not a gurukul (school), which caused him severe mental distress and prevented him from completing his examination form. The victim took up the matter on Tehsil Samadhan Diwas, where he submitted a complaint to higher authorities seeking its redressal. Following this, workers of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad visited the college, protested against the mistreatment, and warned that any repetition of such conduct towards students on the basis of religious identity would lead to an agitation by the organisation. The principal rejected the accusations and claimed that he neither stopped any student from wearing a tilak nor made any such remarks. The Deputy District Magistrate of Shahabad confirmed that a written complaint had been received and that an inquiry into the incident was underway.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the first primary category: Restriction/ban on Hindu religious practice. 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. This case has been added to the tracker because a Hindu student named Amit Yadav was subjected to misconduct and mental harassment for wearing a tilak on his forehead by the Muslim Principal, Dr Umar. The principal instructed the Hindu student to remove the tilak before entering campus and misbehaved with him, which caused him severe mental distress and prevented him from completing his examination form. These coercive restrictions on visible Hindu symbols, such as a tilak, went far beyond any legitimate disciplinary authority and amounted to religious intolerance and targeted hostility towards a Hindu student based on his faith. The Tilak is not merely a decorative thing; it holds profound religious and cultural significance for Hindus. Hindu symbols are emblems of Hindu identity, often worn during prayers, rituals, and as a daily affirmation of faith. Forcing a Hindu student to remove these religious symbols is a deliberate effort to erase their religious identity and expression. Such an act is deeply disrespectful and constitutes a direct attack on the values and practices of Hinduism. This incident reflected a blatant restriction on the religious expression of Hindu students and conveyed a clear message that Hindu symbols were unwelcome within the college. The removal of these markers created an atmosphere of fear and coercion in which Hindu students were pressured to conceal their faith to avoid abuse. Such actions are common tactics in environments where subtle or overt pressure is used to alienate Hindu students from their religious identity. It serves as the first step in a larger pattern of grooming, where consistent ridicule, punishment, and forced removal of Hindu symbols and practices make an individual more susceptible to abandoning their faith and embracing another under pressure. These actions were meant to facilitate the gradual suppression of Hindu practices within the college, systematically eroding a student's confidence in their own religion over time, normalising the idea that Hindu identity must be hidden or discarded to fit in. These are meant to alienate Hindu students from their own faith. Such actions are rooted in bias and disdain for Hinduism, its adherents, and its practices, making it a religiously motivated crime. 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 hijab 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 becomes important to mention here that most uniform codes focus on standardising clothing and accessories like shoes, belts, and hair. A tilak, or a bindi do not change the appearance of the uniform itself. These religious symbols are benign and do not cause disruption or harm, raising serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. When an ostensibly secular 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 principal amounted 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. Since the perpetrator's actions were motivated by religious animosity towards the Hindu victim and his faith, this case has been added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began. It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the victim was subjected to such discrimination and harassment. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media: 21 December 2025.