Calls for violence made towards Hindus by leftist student organisation, slogans raised calling Brahmins 'terrorists'
New Delhi, Delhi, India 
14 March, 2025
Case Summary
At Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), hateful slogans and calls for violence were raised against Hindus, particularly targeting Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Baniyas by the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association (BAPSA), a left-wing student organisation. According to media reports, this occurred during student demonstrations at JNU, where videos of the protest soon went viral on social media. Priyanshi Arya, the General Secretary of the JNU Students’ Union (JNSU), was heard chanting slogans that incited violence against Hindu groups. One of the slogans directly advocated violence, declaring: “Tilak, Tarazu aur Talwar, inko maro jute chaar. Brahmins are terrorists.” Another stated: “Brahmin, Baniya, Thakur chor, baaki saare DS4 (Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti).” The protests were said to have been triggered by an internal dispute between BAPSA and the All India Students’ Association (AISA), another left-wing organisation at JNU. Priyanshi Arya stated that an AISA member, who was a Thakur, had made derogatory remarks about her organisation, prompting her response. Ironically, what initially began as a quarrel between two left-wing factions escalated into hate-filled rhetoric that targeted members of the Hindu community. Such incidents were not new at JNU, which had gained notoriety as a hub for anti-Hindu activism. Previously, JNU students were documented chanting slogans such as “Mile Phule-Kanshi Ram, Hawa Mein Ud Gaye Jai Shri Ram” — ridiculing the sacred Hindu chant, 'Jai Sri Ram'. Another frequently heard slogan was “Brahmanwaad se Azaadi” (freedom from Brahminism), which openly advocated the erasure of Brahmins from society.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is added to the tracker under the primary category- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Violent Threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. The other subcategory selected is- Calls for genocide/violence against Hindus/specific sect of Hindus. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Often, animosity against Hindus or a specific panth/sampradaya/group of Hindus or a specific ideology they hold manifests itself into hate speech and calls for genocide/violence against that specific section of Hindus. For example, it has often been seen that those who hold animosity against the Hindu faith use specific sects/sampradaya/pant of Hindus as a proxy to express hate against Hindus as a whole. It has been seen that the word ‘Hindutva’ has been used to call for violence against those who say they believe in ‘Hindutva’. It is observed that ‘Hindutva’ is only used as a proxy to call for violence against Hindus as a whole, as seen in the Dismantling Global Hindutva conference where speakers admitted that ‘Hindutva’ cannot be eradicated till ‘Hinduism’ is eradicated. The eradication of an entire faith, in turn, is a genocidal call against the entire community that practices that faith. Further, it is also observed that violence against a specific section of Hindus is made, justifying these calls by weaving exaggerated tales of historical injustices. Often, those who hold animosity towards Hindus and their faith attempt to make their animosity more palatable by justifying their hate for a specific section, claiming that they are against that particular section because of their faith in the broader community and the religion they process. Such calls for violence against specific sections of Hindus, as mentioned, is a proxy for their animosity against the entire community and the faith they profess, and therefore, would be considered hate speech under this category. The other subcategory 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 at JNU is a clear case of anti-Hindu hate speech, rooted in hostility towards the Hindu faith and its adherents rather than merely an attack on certain caste groups. The protests begin as an internal feud between two left-wing student groups, BAPSA and AISA. Despite the original dispute being political in nature, BAPSA escalates it into communal hatred by raising violent slogans against Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Baniyas. Chants such as “Tilak, Tarazu aur Talwar, inko maro jute chaar…Brahmins are terrorists” and “Brahmin, Baniya, Thakur chor” are not directed against individuals but against entire Hindu communities. What should remain a factional student quarrel transforms into an attempt to demonise large sections of Hindus through calls for violence. On the surface, these slogans might appear to target specific caste groups and not Hindus collectively. However, it is important to note that leftist organisations often couch their anti-Hindu hatred in terms such as “Brahminism” or focus on attacking upper castes as stand-ins for Hindu identity itself. In reality, the attacks are directed at Hindus as a whole. By calling for violence against all of the Hindu community except Dalits, the perpetrators effectively designate the majority of Hindus as enemies. This exposes the religious animosity underlying the rhetoric. The perpetrators also brand Brahmins as “terrorists” and label upper caste Hindu groups as thieves. This constitutes an anti-Hindu slur that directly attacks members of the Hindu community. Labelling any community as “terrorists” or “thieves” creates a dangerous stereotype that paints all Hindus as an inherent threat. Such rhetoric paves the way for further stigma, social hostility, and eventual violence against the Hindu community. The religious motive becomes clearer when examined against the backdrop of JNU’s history of hostility towards Hinduism. Previous incidents already reveal this bias. For example, slogans such as “Mile Phule-Kanshi Ram, Hawa mein ud gaye Jai Shri Ram” mock one of the most sacred Hindu chants, Jai Sri Ram. Similarly, shouts of “Brahmanwaad se Azaadi” (freedom from Brahminism) go beyond social critique and suggest the erasure of Brahmins altogether, portraying Hindus as a problem to be eliminated. When viewed together, these incidents illustrate that the hatred expressed at JNU is not targeted at particular caste groups in isolation but at Hindus collectively. The caste-based slogans act as euphemisms for targeting Hindu identity. Leftists, in the name of fighting casteism, often target the entire Hindu community and the Hindu faith. The actions of the perpetrators in this case reveal deep-seated religious animosity, using the pretext of caste struggle to justify hostility against all Hindus. Therefore, this incident is not merely a product of student politics or an ideological clash, but a case of anti-Hindu hate speech. Henceforth, this case is being added to the hate crime database. Disclaimer: Media reports stated that multiple leftist students took part in the hate speech; however, the exact number of individuals involved was not specified. Only one individual was named directly in the reports, Priyanshi Arya, the General Secretary of the JNU Students’ Union. Therefore, for documentation purposes, the perpetrator count is being recorded as '1', referring solely to Priyanshi Arya.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
