Brahmin students forced to remove Janivara and Kashi Dara at exam centre; sacred threads thrown in dustbin
Shimoga, Karnataka, India 
15 April, 2025
Case Summary
During the Common Entrance Test (CET), two Brahmin students were forced to remove their ‘Janivara’ (sacred thread) and ‘Kashi Dara’ (wrist thread) before entering the exam centre. The incident occurred at Aadichunchanagiri Independent PU College, under the Congress-ruled state government. Security personnel at the centre removed the threads and even discarded them in a dustbin. While one student resisted and was ultimately allowed in with the sacred thread intact, others who complied were made to remove their threads before sitting for the exam. This sparked protests from the Brahmin community, led by organisations such as the Bhramina Sanghagala Okkuta and former BJP MLA KB Prasanna Kumar. They submitted a memorandum to Deputy Commissioner Gurudatta Hegade, condemning the incident and demanding disciplinary action against those responsible. They stressed the mental impact on the students, given the significance of CET in their academic careers. Kumar called the act “unfortunate and offensive to Hindu practices”, and condemned the staff's decision to enforce the dress code in a way that disrespected religious symbols. Protesters highlighted that this was not a violation of the official dress code set by the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA), which did not ban sacred threads or religious symbols. In response, Deputy Commissioner Hegade promised an inquiry and assured that action would be taken after a full report within a week. However, Additional Deputy Commissioner Siddalinga Reddy and other officials denied the allegations, claiming no extra restrictions were imposed beyond the standard dress code. Reports later clarified that the incident stemmed from enforcement by a home guard hired for security, not a formal directive from the KEA. The guard insisted on removing Rudraksha beads, Janivara, and Kashi Dara from students. Some students complied and reclaimed their items post-exam. At another CET centre in Shivamogga (an engineering college), similar complaints were made about being asked to remove Rudraksha beads, as mentioned by Congress leader HC Yogesh.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The case has been added as a religiously motivated hate crime under three main categories of the tracker. The first is- Attack not resulting in death, within which, the sub-category 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 second category under which this case has been placed, based on case details, is- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. 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 categorised as a hate crime. The second category under which this case has been placed, based on case details, is- Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Desecration of Hindu religious symbol. Icons and symbols or a religious representation of a spiritual ideal are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations, is driven by animosity towards the faith itself which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. The incident at Aadichunchanagiri Independent PU College in Shivamogga, where Hindu students appearing for the Common Entrance Test (CET) were reportedly compelled to remove their sacred threads — Janivara and Kashidara, represents a clear case of religious discrimination and Hinduphobia. The forced removal of these sacred symbols, especially under duress and without any official directive mandating such action, reflects an institutional disregard for Hindu religious identity, its cultural expressions, and the fundamental right to freedom of religion. The Janivara (sacred thread) is not merely a piece of clothing or an accessory but a deeply spiritual and identity-affirming marker within the Hindu tradition, particularly among Brahmin communities. Its removal is tantamount to religious humiliation. Moreover, the act of discarding the Janivara in a dustbin is symbolically violent. It communicates not only a rejection of the sacred but a deliberate attempt to degrade and desacralise Hindu identity in a space that is ostensibly secular. The psychological impact on the students who are preparing for a major academic milestone is severe. Being compelled to choose between one’s religious identity and educational aspirations places Hindu students in a coercive, disempowering position. This form of discrimination, particularly when it targets symbols of a particular religion while leaving other faith expressions unexamined, meets the criteria of a religiously motivated hate act. The response from the administration, including the dismissal of the community’s concerns by claiming there were "no extra limitations," further trivialises the lived experiences of the victims and fosters a climate of impunity. It is for these reasons, rooted in religious discrimination, symbolic degradation, and the psychological impact on Hindu students, that this incident warrants inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker. In this case, it could potentially be argued that the state was simply adhering the secular values by ensuring that students don't display religious representations of one faith, alienating the others. It can be argued that educational institutions have the right to impose uniform rules for the sake of discipline and equality, just as was argued during the Hijab case in Karnataka. However, in that very case, while the High Court had upheld the school's authority to enforce a uniform over religious dress, the same Congress govt in Karnataka had revoked the ban and upheld the Muslim girls' right to wear the hijab to school. Thus, the principle of secularism, meant to maintain state distance from all religions, was selectively interpreted to allow Islamic religious expression while earlier being used to curb it. In contrast, here, even though the Karnataka Examinations Authority did not officially ban sacred threads, the students were still forced to remove them by a security guard. Worse, the sacred thread (Kalawa), a sanctified object in Hindu tradition, was thrown into a dustbin. This act crosses beyond the realm of uniform enforcement and enters the domain of desecration. The symbolic disposal of a sacred Hindu item in such a disrespectful manner not only displays disregard for Hindu sentiments but also amounts to a deliberate insult to a religious symbol. This selective application of rules reveals a systemic prejudice, where expressions of Hindu faith are treated as dispensable or even problematic, while expressions of the Muslim community are accommodated in the name of inclusivity. Such double standards result in the alienation of Hindus from their constitutional right to practice and manifest their faith freely. When state-backed or state-ignored actions degrade one community’s practices while shielding or favouring another’s, it constitutes a clear form of discrimination. It is precisely for this reason that the incident is being documented as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
