West Bengal govt bars Hindus from expressing their Hindu identity, bans Holi celebration citing 'environmental concerns'
Birbhum district, West Bengal, India 
11 March, 2025
Case Summary
The West Bengal government banned Holi celebrations at Sonajhuri Haat in Birbhum's Santiniketan, citing concerns about potential damage to local greenery near the UNESCO-listed Visva Bharati University campus. The forest department put up banners prohibiting Holi festivities, parking, and filming, stating that police and administrative support would be sought to enforce the ban. Authorities argued that large gatherings and the use of coloured water could cause irreversible harm to the region's fragile ecology. Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari criticised the decision, stating that it is part of the ruling Trinamool Congress's appeasement politics. He pointed out that Holi was being restricted due to its coinciding with Friday (Jumma). He further revealed that police meetings were held to issue directives discouraging the use of colours, with threats of arrests if rules were violated. Birbhum's Additional SP reportedly instructed that Holi celebrations in Santiniketan must conclude by 10 AM. This marks the first time the Holi festival has been explicitly prohibited at Sonajhuri Haat, a popular celebration site. The restrictions sparked debates over whether the decision was purely ecological or influenced by political and religious considerations. A Visva Bharati spokesperson clarified that the campus has been closed to the general public for ‘Basanto Utsav’ since 2019 due to logistical constraints, particularly after receiving UNESCO heritage status. Allowing unrestricted access could result in unmanageable crowds exceeding 5 lakh people. Meanwhile, the forest department maintains that preventing mass gatherings in the Sonajhuri Khowai belt on Dol Yatra (March 14, 2025) is necessary to safeguard the region’s ecology.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category of- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Under this, the first sub-category 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 categorized as a hate crime. The second sub-category selected is- Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and, therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. In this instance, the West Bengal government, under TMC’s Mamata Banerjee, arbitrarily targeted Hindu religious and cultural expression by imposing a ban on Holi celebrations. The administration’s actions—prohibiting festivities, issuing threats of arrests, and enforcing early morning deadlines for celebrations—directly curtailed the expression of Hindu identity. While Holi was selectively restricted under the guise of ecological concerns, large gatherings for other occasions were permitted, exposing a deliberate attempt to suppress Hindu cultural traditions. Moreover, the administration’s active role in restricting religious practice was evident in the police directives that discouraged the use of colours and the sudden imposition of rules that prohibited Holi celebrations at a historically significant venue. While Holi celebrations were curtailed under the pretext of ecological concerns, large gatherings for other occasions, particularly Jumma (Friday prayers), have been routinely permitted in the state without similar restrictions. Despite claims that the ban on Holi at Sonajhuri Haat was meant to protect the environment, the West Bengal government has not imposed comparable curbs on large congregational prayers held in open spaces or public roads for Jumma, which also involve significant gatherings. The timing of the Holi restrictions—coinciding with Friday (Jumma)—raises further suspicion, as similar environmental justifications have not been used to limit Muslim religious gatherings. This selective enforcement reflects a deliberate attempt to suppress Hindu cultural traditions while allowing unhindered religious expression for another community, exposing the political and religious bias of the administration. Furthermore, the move reflects both political and religious bias, given the West Bengal government’s pattern of restricting Hindu religious processions while maintaining silence on Islamist attacks against Hindus. Multiple instances demonstrate Mamata Banerjee’s administration passing prejudicial orders to suppress Hindu religious rights while favouring Muslims in the state. By denying Hindus the freedom to celebrate Holi, not only was the festival restricted, but their fundamental right to religious expression was also eroded, making this a clear case of religious discrimination and a hate crime, warranting its inclusion in the tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
N/A
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
