Minor Hindu student ends life after religious humiliation and assault by school authorities; tilak prohibited, shikha cut, kalava removed
Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India 
5 August, 2025
Case Summary
In Hariyakheda village, Muzaffarnagar, a 16-year-old Hindu boy named Bhim, who studied at JK Academy Inter College, committed suicide after being systematically harassed and abused by the school vice principal, a Muslim man named Dilshad, and other school staff. They prohibited him from wearing a tilak and forcibly cut his shikha in the school. According to reports, the minor boy committed suicide on August 7, 2025, after suffering continuous harassment from the school staff. His father, Vedpal, reported that the principal, Rahul, vice principal Dilshad, and coordinator Sanni had abused and humiliated his son, pushing him to take such an extreme step. It was reported that Bhim’s shikha was forcibly cut off when he was unable to pay the school fees. He was tied, physically assaulted, and stripped of Hindu religious symbols, including tilak, kalava and tulsi mala. Villagers confirmed that Hindu students were constantly pressured in this manner, with one student even saying that he was thrown out of school and told he would only be allowed to enter if he removed his shikha. Following the incident, Muzaffarnagar police booked the three senior staff members on charges of abetment of suicide. The tragedy sparked widespread anger in the locality, with hundreds of villagers and family members staging a sit-in protest at the school gates, demanding justice.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category - Restriction/ban on Hindu religious practice. Within this, the subcategory 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. Another primary category selected is - Attack resulting in death. Within this, the subcategory 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 primary category selected here is- Predatory Proselytisation. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination, with the tertiary category being - Pattern of targeting Hindus. Religious brainwashing essentially means the often subtle and forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up their religious beliefs to accept contrasting regimented ideas. Religious grooming or brainwashing also involves propaganda and manipulation. It involves the systematic effort, driven by religious malice and indoctrination, to persuade “non-believers’ to accept allegiance, command, or doctrine to and of a contrasting faith. Cases of such grooming or brainwashing are far more nuanced than direct threats, coercion, inducement and violence. In such cases, it is often seen that there is repeated, subtle and continual manipulation of the victim to induce disaffection towards their own faith and acceptance of the contrasting faith of the perpetrator. While subtle indoctrination is widely acknowledged as predatory, an element which is often understated in such conversions or the attempts of such conversion is the role of loyalty and trust which might develop between the perpetrator and the victim. Fiduciary relationships are often abused to affect such religious conversion. For example, an educator transmitting religious doctrine of a competing faith to a Hindu student. The Hindu student is likely to accept what the teacher is transmitting owing to existence of the fiduciary relationship. The exploitation of the fiduciary relationship to religiously indoctrinate victims would also be included in this category. Since the underlying animosity towards the victim’s faith forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case has been added to the tracker because a minor Hindu boy ended his life after facing systematic harassment and religious humiliation at the hands of the school staff. He was physically assaulted, tied, and stripped of his Hindu religious symbols, including tilak, kalava and tulsi mala, and his shikha, along with that of other Hindu students, was forcibly cut. These actions by the school authorities were not part of any disciplinary measure but were deliberate and targeted acts against Hindu children for their outward expression of religious identity. This was a clear instance of religious intolerance, amounting to a hate crime against Hindu students inside an educational institution. The tilak, shikha, tulsi mala, or kalava are not merely decorative things; they hold profound spiritual and cultural significance for Hindus. They are emblems of Hindu religious identity, often worn during prayers, rituals, and as a daily affirmation of faith. Forcing Hindu students to remove these religious symbols is a deliberate effort to erase their religious identity and expression. Such an act is deeply disrespectful and is an attack on the core values and practices of Hinduism. Such incidents represent a clear restriction on the expression of the Hindu identity of Hindu children. Even if there had been issues such as non-payment of fees, nothing can justify the assault and religious humiliation of a minor child. The school authorities’ conduct made it clear that Hindu identity and symbols were unwelcome, sending a message of fear and exclusion to other Hindu students. This not only infringes upon a Hindu child’s fundamental right to religious expression but also sets a dangerous precedent for other Hindu students who may feel compelled to hide their faith to avoid similar treatment. One Hindu student was even thrown out of school and told that he could only return if he removed his shikha. This showed how intimidation and coercion were being used as tools for the suppression of Hindu identity. Such behaviour was not an act of discipline but a deliberate attempt to instil fear and to punish Hindu children for practising their faith. The school authorities hold a position of trust and responsibility, and their actions have a profound impact on the emotional and psychological well-being of their students. When authorities target and threaten children on the basis of their religious identity, it constitutes a grave abuse of power. Such actions contribute to an environment of intolerance towards Hindu children, their religion, and religious symbols. These actions cannot be seen in isolation. They represent a wider pattern where Hindu children are pressured, ridiculed, and punished for practising their religion. Such actions constitute common tactics in environments where subtle or overt pressure is used to alienate Hindu children from their religious identity. It serves as the first step in a larger pattern of grooming, where consistent ridicule and punishment for Hindu practices make a child more susceptible to abandoning their faith and embracing another under pressure. Such acts leave Hindu children constantly insecure about their own religious identity. Such actions are rooted in bias and disdain for Hinduism, its adherents, and its practices, making it a religiously motivated crime. This kind of manipulation, especially when directed at minors, can gradually create disaffection toward their own religion and lay the groundwork for future conversion. It is also important to recognise that minors, by definition, cannot provide informed consent or undergo a genuine change of conscience. Children are still developing emotionally, cognitively, and socially, making them especially vulnerable to external influence and far less capable of critically evaluating such pressures. Therefore, the incident was not simply about abuse of power by the school but part of a deeper problem of religious prejudice against Hindus. The targeting of Hindu children for their religious identity was both a grave violation of their rights and a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy had erupted in Karnataka, which took a national form, after Muslim women had insisted that they should be allowed to wear burqas and hijabs in their schools and classrooms. At that time, the argument given by several politicians, social commentators, Hindu activists and even the judiciary was that schools had the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms brought harmony and equality in the classroom, and therefore, schools not allowing girls to wear hijab in the classroom was not religious discrimination, but merely an enforcement of widely accepted uniform norms. The pseudo-secularists and leftist groups may argue that a similar line of reasoning should be applied in this case. However, it becomes important to mention here that most uniform codes focus on standardising clothing and accessories like shoes, belts, and hair. A tilak and kalava do not change the appearance of the uniform itself. This religious symbol is benign and does not cause disruption or harm, raising serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. When an ostensibly secular institution imposes restrictions specifically targeting Hindu religious symbols, it reflects institutional prejudice against Hinduism. This form of targeted suppression echoes broader patterns where Hindu practices are curtailed under the guise of neutrality or discipline, often to appease other religious groups. The actions of the school authorities amount to religious discrimination and are consistent with the framework of a hate crime, where Hindus are penalised solely for adhering to their Hindu religious practices. Since an underlying religious animosity leads to such bias behaviour, this incident warrants inclusion in the tracker. Disclaimer: Hinduphobia Tracker is accounting incidents against Hindus by non-Hindu perpetrators, and for this reason, we are just considering the Muslim accused, Dilshad, in the perpetrator count.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
1
Gender
- Male 1
- Female 0
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
