Hindu priest and family denied service by Christian bus conductor due to religion; accused mocked priest and Hindu symbols

Case ID : 8da189c | Location : Kanniyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 9 November, 2025

Case ID : 8da189c

Kanniyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India

9 November, 2025

Hindu priest and family denied service by Christian bus conductor due to religion; accused mocked priest and Hindu symbols

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community

Hate speech against Hindus

Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith

Case Summary

In Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu, a Hindu priest and his family were subjected to religiously motivated discrimination after a Christian bus conductor named Antony refused to halt the government bus at its designated stop, choosing instead to prioritise Christian passengers on board. He also mocked and made offensive remarks about the attire of the Hindu priest. According to reports, the Hindu priest named Balasubramanian was travelling with his wife and two sons on a Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus (government bus) to Valliyur. The Christian bus conductor, Antony of the Vivekanandapuram depot, informed the Hindu passengers that the bus would not enter Valliyur and would instead stop only at the bypass, claiming that "most passengers were Christians from Naalumavadi", a Christian-dominated village. When the priest questioned the unauthorised deviation, Antony responded that the bus would not pass through Valliyur merely for him, instead choosing to prioritise other Christian passengers. Antony also made offensive remarks and mocked the Hindu priest's traditional attire, rudraksha mala and appearance. The priest refused to disembark, which escalated tension inside the bus until it eventually entered Valliyur, where the family stopped briefly on the roadside in protest. This drew the attention of local residents, after which police were informed of the situation. Police from Valliyur station intervened and mediated between the parties. The priest submitted a formal complaint, following which the bus conductor was suspended, and officials initiated a departmental inquiry. Transport staff familiar with the route confirmed that a similar incident had taken place on 31 August 2025, resulting in the suspension of both the driver and conductor for skipping Valliyur despite it being on the official route.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other sub-category selected is - Attacked for supporting/being part of perceived Hindu party/org or working for Hindu community. In several cases, Hindus are attacked specifically or tangentially for their association with parties or organisations perceived to be pro-Hindu and/or for working in favour of the Hindu community. One of the classic cases was the attack against a Bharatiya Janata Party Yuva Morcha (BJYM) worker Praveen Nettaru. Nettaru was attacked and hacked to death for his association with Hindu organizations and his work for the Hindu community. He was murdered by PFI, a terror organization which aimed to commit a genocide of Hindus, target Hindu leaders specifically and turn India into an Islamic Nation. In such cases, it is possible that the immediate trigger for the violence is non-religious – either according to the perpetrator or the police. However, there are surrounding circumstances from which the conclusion can be reached that the victim was attacked for his association with a Hindu organization. In a similar case, Rinku Sharma was attacked by radicals. He was a member of Bajrang Dal and regularly worked for the Hindu community. While the police cited a different non-religious trigger for the attack, it is true that he was associated to a Hindu organization and the family of Rinku Sharma specifically attributed his gruesome murder to him working for Bajrang Dal and raising Jai Shree Ram slogans. Such cases are intrinsically driven by religious hate and would therefore be documented as a hate crime under this category. The second primary category selected is - 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 case has been added to the tracker because a Hindu family was discriminated against because of their religious identity by the Christian bus conductor, who refused to halt the government bus at its designated stop, choosing instead to prioritise Christian passengers. The conductor’s decision to skip its designated stop was explicitly justified by claiming that “most passengers were Christians from Naalumavadi.” Since this was a government bus operating on a fixed route, the conductor had no authority to alter or bypass the scheduled stops. The accused declared openly that the bus would not halt at Valliyur merely for the Hindu priest, revealing that the deviation was driven entirely by religious bias rather than convenience. This exposed the religious bias held by the Christian conductor against the Hindu priest and his family. The invocation of the religious composition of the passengers indicated discriminatory treatment and bias rooted in religious animosity. While some may attempt to argue that the conductor had a profit motive in mind, this line of reasoning is irrelevant because the vehicle was not a private bus seeking commercial gain. It was a government bus which was bound by duty to transport all passengers equally, regardless of religious identity. The accused discriminated against the priest and his family solely because they were Hindus. The religious motive became even clearer through the hate speech element of the incident. The conductor mocked and made derogatory remarks about the Hindu priest’s appearance and traditional attire. The victim, who wore traditional priest's clothing along with a Rudraksha mala, was ridiculed for these visible markers of his Hindu faith. The Rudraksha mala is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, traditionally worn for protection, spiritual discipline, and devotion to Lord Shiva. Mocking such a sacred object constitutes an insult not only to the individual but to the religious belief it represents. By targeting the priest’s religious symbols and outward expressions of identity, the accused demonstrated not just discriminatory behaviour but active hostility towards Hindu religious expression, further proving that the entire incident was driven by religious hatred. Such actions contribute to a broader atmosphere of hostility towards Hindus in public spaces simply because they are Hindu. Mocking Hindu religious symbols, belittling traditional attire, or denying basic services on the basis of religion normalises contempt and discrimination against the Hindu community. When such behaviour is not punished, it encourages further marginalisation of Hindus and leads to hostility towards them in public spaces. Given that this case fulfils several parameters of a religiously motivated hate crime, it is being recorded and added to the Hate Crime Database.