Indian politician shows blatant disregard for Hindu temple rituals, disrupts sacred Ram Navami Hanuman Chalisa recitation
Serampore, West Bengal, India 
5 April, 2025
Case Summary
A video that recently went viral shows TMC leader Kalyan Banerjee disrupting sacred temple proceedings by interrupting a priest during the recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa on the auspicious occasion of Ram Navami. In the clip, Banerjee is seen rebuking the priest mid-ritual, asking whether he intends to recite the entire Hanuman Chalisa. This incident is particularly stark when contrasted with Banerjee’s stance during the Waqf debate in Parliament, where he vocally defended the so-called “religious rights” of the Muslim community, including provisions that enabled encroachment of Hindu lands. Banerjee had argued that Waqf properties are divinely owned by Allah and form an integral part of Islamic belief. He also opposed the removal of Section 40 of the Waqf Act, which allowed Waqf Boards to claim non-Muslim land, including entire Hindu villages.
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 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- Defiling religious customs. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion of one book, which is to say that while it has religious scriptures that form the central tenets of the faith, there are several traditions followed through thousands of years, mostly passed from generation to generation orally. There are several such customs and traditions that are followed by various Hindus and Hindu sects. Defiling of these traditions and customs is a breach of an individual or group’s religious practices. Such practices can range from dietary restrictions like not eating non-vegetarian food for a certain period of the year, not eating non-vegetarian food at all, not eating beef since the cow is considered holy in Hinduism, the sanctity of religious customs followed in the house (like many ISCKON devotees), etc. Any malicious action leading to the breach of such traditions or defilement of these traditions owing to animosity towards the faith or for the sake of activism stems not only from the lack of faith in the religion itself but also from disregard for the faith of the devotees who follow the customs/traditions and implicit bias against the faith, the tradition itself. Since these specific traditions are central to the faith of the devotees of that specific sect of Hindus, any non-compliance with these traditional rules would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. The other category selected here is- Attack on Hindu religious representations. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Breaking rules of place of worship. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion of one book, which is to say that while it has religious scriptures that form the central tenets of the faith, there are several traditions followed through thousands of years, mostly passed from generation to generation orally. One of these oral traditions or written traditions is the rules of specific temples. Certain temples have rules which are traditional rules, dependent on the worship of the presiding deities. These rules and traditions have been followed for thousands of years whether they find scriptural mention or not. Such traditions are based on the nature and rules of worship of the presiding deity of that temple. Any non-compliance of these traditions owing to animosity towards the faith or for the sake of activism stems not only from the lack of faith in the presiding deity but also disregard for the faith of the devotees of that deity/temple and implicit bias against the faith, the tradition and the deity itself. Since these specific traditions are central to the faith of the devotees of that specific temple and presiding deity, any non-compliance with these traditional rules would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. This incident qualifies as a hate crime because it involves deliberate disruption and disrespect of a sacred Hindu ritual in a temple during a major religious festival. The interruption of the priest reciting the Hanuman Chalisa on Ram Navami was not a neutral act. The conduct demonstrated by the political figure, in a setting of deep spiritual significance, directly targeted Hindu religious practice and undermined the sanctity of the space, thereby offending religious sentiments based on identity and belief. The context amplifies the gravity of the act. The same individual who had ardently supported the religious rights of another community during the Waqf debate chose to interrupt and belittle Hindu rituals in a temple. This stark disparity in behaviour reflects prejudicial treatment based on religious affiliation. By selectively upholding one community’s religious rights while dismissing or mocking another’s, the act moved beyond personal misconduct and into the territory of hate-motivated speech and action rooted in religious bias.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
