Revered Hindu deities and religious symbols denigrated by Delhi-based woman on social media
Delhi, India 
19 May, 2023
Case Summary
Revered Hindu gods and goddesses were denigrated by a woman from Delhi named Geeta Ruchika, a self-proclaimed feminist and atheist. According to media reports, the accused sparked controversy by using derogatory language towards Hindu gods and goddesses on a Facebook post made on 20th May 2023. In her posts, she questioned why devotees only fed Hindu deities and did not attend to their other bodily needs. "Why do they not clean their excrement? Devotees also do not help their gods in shaving their faces and genitals. They do not pay attention to the well-being of their gods. Why do gods not use condoms, and how must they clean their lower body parts after defecation—using water or tissue paper?" Geeta wrote on Facebook. She also disparaged Lord Rama, stating he had five fathers. Ruchika expressed views advocating for separate nations for men and women, dismissing the concept of Hindu or Islamic nations. She described traditional symbols such as sindoor and mangalsutra as symbols of cowardice and voiced concerns about women’s safety in patriarchal societies. Ruchika's social media presence displayed a consistent pattern of disrespect towards Hindu culture and deities, prompting calls for action from the Delhi Police. Additionally, Ruchika's YouTube channel, which had since been terminated, faced copyright infringement claims, further intensifying the controversy surrounding her online presence. Despite her provocative statements, she appeared in photographs with Atishi Marlena of the Aam Aadmi Party and one of the women wrestlers who protested in Delhi against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The incident gained traction on social media, with users urging the Delhi Police to impose strict punishment on Ruchika.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected is- Hate Speech against Hindus. The subcategory 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. This case constitutes a blatant instance of anti-Hindu hate speech through the accused's deliberate denigration of revered Hindu gods and goddesses. She posted vulgar remarks questioning why devotees did not clean the deities' excrement, shave their faces and genitals, or address their bodily needs, even mocking whether Hindu gods used condoms and how they cleaned after defecation—using water or tissue paper. It is important to state that Hindu gods and goddesses form the cornerstone of religious and cultural life for millions of Hindus worldwide, embodying divine virtues, cosmic powers, and moral ideals, with their idols, paintings, and sculptures central to rituals, festivals, and daily worship. Any attempt to denigrate or mock these divine figures is not only offensive but also intended to hurt and provoke Hindu sentiments, causing distress and shame among adherents of the faith. Such actions constitute a clear example of anti-Hindu hate speech, aimed at undermining the religious dignity of the Hindu community. The accused further abused Hindu religious sentiments by making derogatory statements about Lord Ram, one of the most significant deities in Hinduism. Lord Ram is revered as the seventh avatar of Lord Vishnu and epitomises righteousness, virtue, and honour, serving as an ideal role model through the epic narrative of the Ramayana. To falsely claim that Lord Ram had five fathers is a deliberate insult designed to undermine the sanctity and revered status of Lord Ram, thereby amounting to an unmistakable instance of anti-Hindu hate speech. Such remarks are deeply hurtful to devotees and further propagate animosity towards Hindu beliefs. Additionally, the accused mocked revered Hindu symbols such as sindoor and mangalsutra, which hold immense religious and cultural significance. Sindoor and mangalsutra are traditional symbols of marital status, fidelity, and auspiciousness for Hindu women, representing respect, commitment, and social identity within Hindu society. To dismiss these symbols as patriarchal and expressions of cowardice constitutes a blatant insult to Hindu religious sentiments and cultural traditions. Such denigration is therefore an explicit act of disrespect and hate directed at the core of Hindu identity and belief systems, making it a religiously motivated hate speech. Given that this case clearly meets the parameters of a religiously motivated crime, it is being recorded in the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
