Anti-Hindu hate speech by Indian politician: sacred Hindu slogans branded as tools of violence and hatred
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India 
31 October, 2025
Case Summary
Hindu religious sentiments were insulted after Indian politician Swami Prasad Maurya claimed that Hindu religious slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrangbali” had turned into a licence to incite riots and spread hatred. According to reports, in an effort to target the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party, former Uttar Pradesh minister and Janata Party president Swami Prasad Maurya made remarks that triggered widespread outrage and political uproar. He claimed that religious slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrangbali” had turned into a licence to incite riots and spread hatred, and accused those invoking religion of having taken the path of terrorism. Maurya further targeted Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, accusing him of encouraging such acts instead of taking action against offenders. Maurya referred to the incident in Fatehpur, where he said no action was taken against those who vandalised a tomb, but a case was instead registered against Muslims. His remarks provoked sharp criticism from the saints and sadhus of Vrindavan in Mathura, who demanded immediate and strict action against him. Saint Dinesh Sharma said that Maurya’s mindset had deteriorated to such an extent that he was engaging in vote-bank politics by portraying even the sacred slogans of Sanatan Dharma as controversial. The saints accused him of repeatedly insulting Sanatan Dharma and warned that his pro-Islamic rhetoric would embolden members of the Muslim community to make further provocative statements. The saints urged the government to act firmly against Maurya for his divisive and inflammatory comments.
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 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. This incident constitutes a clear case of anti-Hindu hate speech because Swami Prasad Maurya, in an effort to gain political mileage and attack the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, targeted and demeaned sacred Hindu religious slogans such as “Jai Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrangbali.” These expressions hold profound spiritual and emotional significance for millions of Hindus, representing devotion to Lord Rama and Lord Hanuman, who are among the most revered deities in Sanatan Dharma. By claiming these holy chants as “a licence to incite riots and spread hatred,” Maurya effectively equated Hindu religious identity itself with violence and extremism. Such rhetoric went beyond political criticism, it mocked and vilified the very expressions of the Hindu faith and the larger Hindu community. His statement amounted to a direct insult to the core symbols of Hindu devotion, thereby hurting the sentiments of the Hindu community. “Jai Shri Ram” and “Jai Bajrangbali” are not political slogans; they are deeply sacred mantras, chanted in temples, homes, and religious gatherings as a form of reverence and divine remembrance. By deliberately mischaracterising them as instruments of hatred, Maurya not only disrespected Hindu beliefs but also portrayed the religion’s public expression as inherently violent. This kind of framing promotes prejudice against Hindus and fosters suspicion and hostility toward those who express their faith openly. In an effort to support his anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim rhetoric, Maurya also made false statements about the Fatehpur tomb incident by claiming that no action was taken against the Hindus who vandalised the site and that only Muslims were booked. This claim was demonstrably false, as police records clearly showed that an FIR had been registered against the Hindu perpetrators involved in the vandalism, with several named individuals and many unidentified persons facing legal action. By distorting the facts, Maurya attempted to manufacture a narrative of Muslim victimhood while vilifying Hindus as aggressors, further deepening communal polarisation and portraying Hindus as oppressors even in situations where the law had acted impartially. Such manipulation of facts to advance a communal agenda reflects a deliberate attempt to malign Hindus and to legitimise anti-Hindu sentiment. Moreover, such remarks have the potential to create an atmosphere of hostility and intolerance against Hindus at a societal level. When a public figure equates religious devotion with terrorism or communal violence, it legitimises anti-Hindu narratives and promotes hostility or even violence against those who practise the faith. It also provides ideological justification for further discrimination, mockery, or even aggression toward the Hindu community. . For leaders like Swami Prasad Maurya, as well as others who adopt similar rhetoric, political advantage often depends on weakening Hindu unity by fragmenting the community along caste or sectarian lines. Their real target is Hinduism as a religious identity. By promoting Muslim victimhood and associating Hindu expressions of faith with bigotry or terrorism, they aim to divide the Hindu society in an effort to gain political points. Therefore, Maurya’s statement cannot be dismissed as a mere political comment; it represents a deliberate act of verbal aggression against the Hindu faith and its sacred expressions. By vilifying phrases that are integral to Hindu identity and worship, his remarks contributed to religious denigration and risked inciting social hostility toward Hindus. Such actions were rooted in political opportunism and contempt for Hindu spirituality. For these reasons, this case is being added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
