Sanatan dharma branded 'perverted' and blamed for ruining Bharat by former minister in hate-filled speech
Thane, Maharashtra, India 
1 August, 2025
Case Summary
Former Maharashtra minister and NCP–Sharadchandra Pawar group MLA Jitendra Awhad remarked that Sanatan dharma has ruined Bharat, and it should be identified and called out without hesitation. He asserted that there is no religion called Sanatan dharma, insisting instead that the people of Bharat follow Hindu dharma, which he distinguished from Sanatan dharma. He also described Sanatan dharma as perverted. His remarks came in the context of supporting former Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan’s response to the 2008 Malegaon blast case verdict, wherein Chavan advised against using the term “saffron terrorism” and instead recommended terms like “Hindutvavadi terrorism” or “Sanatani terrorism.” Awhad argued that Sanatan dharma was historically responsible for the humiliation and denial of rights to great national figures. He accused it of denying Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj his rightful coronation and defaming Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj. According to him, this same Sanatani tradition also attempted to assassinate social reformer Phule and subjected Savitribai Phule to public humiliation by hurling cow dung and filth at her. He went on to say that Shahu Maharaj, a progressive ruler who worked for social equality, was also targeted by conspiracies rooted in Sanatan dharma. Awhad claimed Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was denied basic rights such as access to water and education under this oppressive religious order. He highlighted Ambedkar's decisive rebellion against this ideology—burning the Manusmṛti and rejecting its caste-based traditions—as a defining act of liberation. In conclusion, Awhad said that the Manusmṛti and its creator emerged from the very tradition of Sanatan dharma. He described the Sanatani ideology as perverted and stressed that it is necessary to confront and name it as such in public discourse. Jitendra Awhad’s remarks came in the wake of former Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan’s statement in which he asked to use the terms like "Hindutvavadi terrorism" or "Sanatani terrorism". The incident involving Chavan has already been documented by Hinduphobia Tracker as a case of hate speech against Hindus.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker un the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected here 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 other sub-category relevant is- Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, and within it, the tertiary category selected is- Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying. 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. The other sub-category selected is - Subversion of Scriptures. Subverting the religious scriptures of Hindus has particularly devastating consequences. Subversion of the scriptures of Hindus is often done to justify or promote hatred, discrimination, or violence against specific individuals or groups of Hindus. Religious scriptures are often nuanced and those who harbour religious animosity towards Hindus often misquote or misrepresent the scripture to legitimise their animosity and hate towards the faith and its adherents. Any such misquoting of scriptures or subversion to justify hate, violence and discrimination against Hindus owing to religious animosity is hate speech and is categorised as such. Jitendra Awhad’s statement that “Sanatan Dharma has ruined India” and his description of Sanatani ideology as “perverted” is a clear example of hate speech. “Sanatan Dharma” is one of the oldest and most revered names by which Hindus refer to their religion. To portray Sanatan Dharma not only as a fictional or illegitimate religion but also as the root cause of all social evils is to directly mock the foundational identity and spiritual heritage of Hindus. By equating Sanatan Dharma with oppression, conspiracy, and perversion, Awhad deploys language that is designed to incite contempt and hatred towards a vast religious community, thereby constituting hate speech targeted at Hindus based purely on their religious identity. Sanatan Dharma is an endonym for the faith professed by Hindus. The term has its roots in Sanskrit and can be roughly stated to be "Eternal Dharma" - the ongoing, ancient, continuing faith of Hindus. Sanatan Dharma (as a traditional endonym) finds scriptural sanctity in ancient texts like Manusmriti and Mahabharat. Therefore, maligning the Sanatan Dharma is essentially maligning the Hindu faith itself. When the faith is vilified, Hindus become vulnerable to prejudicial attacks against their faith and attacks against them as individuals/groups owing to their religious identity, which is being vilified. Awhad’s remarks present a distorted and prejudicial narrative that downplays the persecution of Hindus and rewrites historical and social complexities with a singular intent: to vilify the Hindu faith. His attempt to disassociate “Hindu Dharma” from “Sanatan Dharma” while simultaneously attributing oppression to Sanatan Dharma is an act of selective representation and intellectual fraud. Awhad’s assertions are factually baseless. His accusations, such as Sanatan Dharma denying Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj a coronation or defaming Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, are not supported by credible historical evidence. These claims are nothing more than historical distortions. Presenting such falsities as historical facts serves to incite hatred against the Hindu religion and creates a hostile narrative that encourages resentment. This aligns with the pattern of anti-Hindu fake news, where falsehoods are spread in public discourse to justify or normalise hatred and violence against Hindus. By stating that the Manusmṛti and its creator came from the Sanatani tradition and using this to categorically vilify Sanatan Dharma, Awhad grossly misrepresents Hindu scriptures. Such distortion is not an academic critique but an incitement—intended to delegitimise the entire tradition and associate it with oppression and injustice. This form of scriptural subversion—where sacred texts are selectively misused to portray a religion as inherently wicked—is a recognised form of hate speech. It is designed to inflame prejudice and reinforce a narrative of hatred against Hindus as a religious group. Jitendra Awhad’s attempt to separate Hindu Dharma from Sanatan Dharma is a dangerous and mischievous distortion intended to delegitimise the core identity of Hindus. Sanatan Dharma is not a fringe term or sectarian offshoot—it is the very name by which Hinduism has been known and revered for thousands of years, appearing in countless sacred texts, prayers, and traditional practices. By falsely claiming that Sanatan Dharma never existed and that Hindus follow a different religion altogether, Awhad aims to fracture the religious identity of millions and strip them of their civilisational continuity. This divisive rhetoric sows confusion, breeds mistrust, and encourages the rejection of a community’s sacred self-identification. It is a deliberate form of hate speech that seeks to culturally isolate and humiliate Hindus by denying the legitimacy of the name by which they have historically and spiritually known themselves. Hence, Jitendra Awhad’s speech constitutes hate speech because it meets all the key markers: it targets a specific religious community—Hindus—through open slurs, false accusations, historical distortions, and scriptural subversion. By branding Sanatan Dharma as a perverted ideology that has "ruined India," he directly mocks and vilifies the foundational identity of the Hindu faith. His claims about revered Hindu figures and scriptures are not only baseless but clearly intended to incite hatred, provoke division, and degrade the religious beliefs of Hindus. His attempt to falsely separate Hindu Dharma from Sanatan Dharma further reveals a deliberate strategy to delegitimise the Hindu community’s spiritual self-understanding. This systematic and hostile targeting of Hindus based on their religious identity is not mere political rhetoric—it squarely falls under hate speech.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
