Minor Hindu boy harassed for his religious identity by Muslim teacher: forced to remove Tilak and chop off Shikha, issued TC for not complying

Case ID : aa4b288 | Location : Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 19 May, 2025

Case ID : aa4b288

Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India

19 May, 2025

Minor Hindu boy harassed for his religious identity by Muslim teacher: forced to remove Tilak and chop off Shikha, issued TC for not complying

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Case Summary

In Kazikheda village of Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, a class 6 Hindu student named Devansh has stated that his tilak was removed and his braid (shikha to tuft) was chopped off by his Muslim school teacher Farhana Khatoon. The sister of the victim also confirmed that the Muslim teacher prohibited him from wearing a tilak and maintaining a tuft and issued a Transfer Certificate (TC) to her brother for not complying with her demands. The incident occurred in the Upper Primary School in Kazikheda. The minor Hindu student stated that his Muslim teacher forcibly cut his braid (shikha) with scissors and asked him to remove his Tilak, which he applied everyday after pooja. According to the Devansh, the teacher called him to her office and warned that he would not be allowed to study unless he complied with her demands. After being harassed by the teacher, the student narrated his ordeal to his sister, who then approached the school to inquire about it. When Devansh's sister confronted the teacher, she misbehaved with her. The victim's sister stated that the teacher handed her Devansh's Transfer Certificate (TC) and told her to take him out of the school. This prompted her to file a police complaint. She corroborated the victim's statement that a few days back, Devansh shikha was chopped off on the pretext of being very long. Therafter, the teacher kept summoning the victim to his office and insisting that he chop off his Shikha and stop applying a tilak on his forehead. Furthermore, she also said that Devansh was being continuously harassed, that unless he cut his shikha and remove tilak, he wouldn't be allowed to study in school. As of the date of writing this report, the investigation was ongoing and was being conducted by the Block Education Officer. He stated that any conclusive statement would only be possible after a thorough inquiry. Meanwhile, the accused teacher, Farhana Khatoon, in an interview with India TV, denied the allegation. Farhana claimed that Devansh took admission in the school just 15 days back and had disputes with other children and had been accused of causing disturbances. According to her, when some children approached her with complaints about Devansh, his family allegedly abused them and the teacher. She accused the complainants of attempting to give the issue a communal angle.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the first 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 sub-category selected under the first primary category is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The other primary category selected here is: - Restriction/ban on Hindu practices, with the sub-category being: - Restriction on expression of Hindu identity. Restricting religious practices by non-Hindu groups harbouring animosity towards Hindus or the State implementing targeted and/or prejudicial policies specifically against Hindus as a hate crime involves actions and/or policies that stop the religious expression in the form of processions, rituals, display of religious symbols, celebration of festivals targeted towards a specific religious group – in this case – the Hindus. Restrictive actions could include banning the expression/display of religious symbols, prohibiting certain religious practices, targeting religious gatherings, restriction on building places of worship, restrictions imposed on conducting religious rituals/puja etc and targeted and/or prejudicial policies by the state specifically against the Hindu community. International conventions too and the United Nations too classify restrictions on religious practices as violation of fundamental human rights. In India, the restrictions come from multiple sources. The restriction on religious practices could come from non-Hindu religious denominations owing to their intolerance and animosity towards Hindus, Hinduism and their religious practices and/or the state itself, when it clamps down on religious processions, religious practices and rituals of Hindus for reasons like ensuring that those who harbour animosity towards Hinduism don’t get ‘provoked’ into violence. The restriction of Hindu religious practices in order to assuage the intolerance of non-Hindu communities can be viewed as the denial of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community on an individual and community level. In this category, therefore, we would document restriction/ban on Hindu religious practices not just by non-Hindu groups but also the state. This case has been added to the tracker as a clear instance of a hate crime targeting Hindu identity. The forced removal of the student’s tilak and the cutting of his shikha, both deeply symbolic and peaceful expressions of Hindu religious practice, constitute not only a personal attack on his faith but also a broader attempt to suppress visible markers of Hinduism. These actions, regardless of the justification offered, reflect an infringement on the student’s right to freely express his religious beliefs. Tilak and Shikha are non-disruptive and culturally significant identifiers within Hinduism. Compelling a child to remove or abandon these practices is a direct violation of his religious freedom and an expression of prejudice. If the teacher had genuine concerns about the student's behaviour, they should have been addressed through standard disciplinary procedures. However, resorting to forcibly erasing aspects of his religious identity indicates a deeper, discriminatory motive. Furthermore, the teacher’s subsequent conduct—threatening the student’s sister and unilaterally issuing a Transfer Certificate (TC)- demonstrates an abuse of authority and suggests a desire to punish or expel the child for maintaining his Hindu identity. Such actions point to a mindset rooted in religious intolerance and an intent to deter others from openly practising Hinduism within the institution. Notably, the victim’s sister was also subjected to verbal aggression and handed the TC when she raised concerns about the discriminatory treatment, highlighting that those who oppose such radical behaviour are also targeted. Given the cumulative evidence—religious targeting, coercion, and systemic hostility—this incident has been rightly classified as a religiously motivated hate crime.