Minor Hindu students prohibited from wearing tilak and kalava, Hindu deities denigrated by school vice principal
Bhilwara, Rajasthan, India 
11 September, 2025
Case Summary
In the Bhilwara district of Rajasthan, minor Hindu students were prohibited from wearing a tilak (sacred religious mark on forehead) or tying a Kalava (sacred thread worn on the wrist) by their vice-principal, Ranvir Singh Indoria. The accused also misled the students about Hinduism and insulted Hindu deities. According to reports, the accused discouraged minor Hindu students from applying a tilak, wearing a Kalava, and claimed that Hindu villagers were running illegal activities from which they were buying luxury cars. One of the students revealed to the police that the accused said "there are no gods" and discouraged them from making god’s pictures/idols or visiting temples. Some children also complained that he asked them not to keep a shikha (Hindu religious braids). When the Hindu children revealed these incidents to their parents, they were enraged and gathered at the school to confront the vice principal. The situation escalated rapidly, resulting in the accused being manhandled by the villagers before the police intervened. Police took him to the station for questioning, and the education department removed both the vice principal and the principal, Shyamlal Sen, from their duties and placed them in APO (Awaiting Posting Order) pending the outcome of the inquiry. As of the date of writing this report, the investigation was ongoing.
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. The other primary category selected here is - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the 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 third primary category selected here is - Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination, with the tertiary category being - Conversion of minor. 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. Hindu children were prohibited from wearing a tilak, a kalava, or a shikha, and were discouraged from making pictures of deities or visiting temples. The accused went further by telling students that there are no gods, misrepresenting Hinduism and ridiculing its practices. These actions constituted a direct attack on the religious identity of Hindu children and represented a clear example of religious intolerance and a hate crime. It is important to note here that all the victims were minors, which means the element of consent and genuine change of conscience was missing ab initio. Minors, due to their young age and lack of maturity, are particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. They may not have the ability to fully understand the implications of their actions and are not in a position to give informed consent or resist pressures when someone tries to distance them from their faith. The tilak, kalava, and shikha are not mere decorative symbols but hold profound religious and cultural significance in Hinduism. They are an emblem 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. 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. That time, the argument that was given by several politicians, social commentators, Hindu activists and even the Judiciary was that that schools have the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms bring harmony and equality in the classroom, and therefore, schools not allowing girls to wear hijab in the classroom is not religious discrimination, but merely an enforcement of widely accepted uniform norms. The pseudo-seculars 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 don’t 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. Moreover, this incident represents a clear hate speech against Hinduism and Hindu gods and goddesses. The vice principal’s statements denying the existence of Hindu gods and discouraging students from making pictures of deities or visiting temples directly undermined their faith. Such verbal denigration, coupled with prohibitions on wearing a tilak, kalava, or keeping a shikha, sent a strong message that Hindu beliefs and symbols are unwelcome and subject to ridicule. By targeting children specifically for their religious practices, the vice principal abused his position of authority, impacting the emotional and psychological well-being of students. These actions contributed to an environment of religious intolerance, where Hindu children were made to feel unsafe expressing their faith. These actions cannot be seen in isolation. They represent a wider pattern where Hindu children are pressured, prohibited, and punished for practising their religion. The vice principal’s repeated statements against Hindu gods and goddesses, combined with coercive measures, are a clear attempt to alienate children from their faith. Such acts serve as the first step in a larger pattern of grooming, where consistent ridicule and suppression of Hindu practices make a child more susceptible to abandoning their faith. These actions leave Hindu children in a state of confusion about whether their religious practices are wrong or unacceptable in society. At an impressionable age, when children are still forming their sense of self, being told that their sacred symbols cannot be worn and that their deities do not exist creates inner conflict and weakens their connection to their faith. Over time, this can instil a sense of shame or embarrassment about openly practising Hinduism, making them hesitant to uphold their traditions in public spaces. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when the victim’s ordeal began. In this case, the report does not specify when the accused first took such actions against the students or made statements against Hindu gods. Therefore, for documentation purposes, the date of the incident has been recorded as the day the parents of the students reached the school and protested — September 12, 2025.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
