Indian politician advises his party members to avoid wearing Hindu religious symbols
Tamil Nadu, India 
1 April, 2025
Case Summary
DMK leader A Raja, known for his history of Hinduphobic remarks, recently instructed party members to remove Hindu religious symbols while donning the party’s signature dhoti. In a widely circulated video, Raja underscored the need to differentiate DMK members from “Sanghis” by shedding visible markers of Hindu identity. He stated, “If you wear a ‘pottu’ (bindi/tilak/religious mark) and a Sanghi does the same, it becomes difficult to tell the difference when both clap. That’s why I say, pray to God if you wish. If your parents apply holy ash on your forehead, keep it. But once you wear the DMK dhoti, remove it.” While attempting to frame his stance as a call for secularism, Raja’s directive specifically targeted Hindu religious expressions, suggesting that party members should dissociate from their faith in public. He further remarked, “If we need God, we can have one… We are not against the God who represents love, kindness among people, the one who resides in an innocent heart, or the God seen in the smile of the poor, as Anna once said.” Despite this, his insistence on erasing visible Hindu symbols signals a deeper hostility toward the faith. This is not the first time A Raja has made controversial statements about Hinduism. Previously, he went so far as to label Hinduism a menace, declaring, “Hindu religion is a menace, not only to India but to the world.” Last year, during the event to commemorate the 71st birthday of Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin, the DMK leader A Raja called Hindus “idiots” for chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and claimed that India is not a country. He also said that he has no faith in Ramayana and Lord Ram. In September 2023, he supported the anti-Hindu statements of Udayanidhi Stalin and claimed he was soft while commenting on Sanatan Dharma. His repeated rhetoric and now his call for the removal of Hindu religious markers reinforce a pattern of anti-Hindu bias within his political discourse.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the first 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. The second sub-category selected is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. 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. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. This case contains multiple religious markers that indicate clear anti-Hindu rhetoric and prejudice, warranting its inclusion in the Hinduphobia tracker. Firstly, A Raja’s directive to remove Hindu religious symbols while wearing the DMK dhoti is a direct attack on Hindu identity and religious expression. By singling out Hindu religious markers such as the pottu (bindi/tilak), vibhuti (holy ash), and other visible symbols of faith, he implies that Hindu identity is incompatible with the DMK’s ideology. This not only undermines personal religious freedom but also creates an environment where Hindus are pressured to suppress their faith to align with the party’s stance. Such targeted erasure of Hindu symbols reflects a pattern of anti-Hindu subversion, reinforcing the idea that Hindu beliefs and practices should be relegated to the private sphere while being unwelcome in public or political life. Secondly, Raja’s past remarks further substantiate his deep-seated prejudice and hostility towards Hinduism. His statement that “Hindu religion is a menace, not only to India but to the world” is an overt anti-Hindu slur, dehumanising an entire faith by portraying it as a global threat. Such language demonises Hinduism, reinforcing negative stereotypes and fostering animosity against Hindus. Additionally, his mockery of Hindu devotees who chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ by calling them “idiots” is a direct insult to Hindu religious sentiments. His rejection of the Ramayana and Lord Ram further illustrates his contempt for Hindu scriptures and revered figures, adding to the pattern of belittling Hindu faith and traditions. His remarks stem from intrinsic hatred against Hindus and their faith, as evidenced by his repeated denigration of Hindu religious practices, symbols, and beliefs. His insistence on removing Hindu religious markers, branding Hinduism as a "menace," and mocking Hindu devotees reflects a deep-seated hostility rather than a mere political stance. Since the DMK leader's anti-Hindu rhetoric is rooted in a profound animosity toward Hindus and their faith, this case has been added to the tracker as a clear example of targeted hostility against Hindu religious identity. His persistent denigration of Hindu symbols, practices, and beliefs reflects a pattern of Hinduphobia, warranting its documentation as a case of religiously motivated hate.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
