Minor Hindu girls punished and assaulted for wearing Hindu religious symbols to school by Christian headmistress
Sulur, Tamil Nadu, India 
11 December, 2025
Case Summary
In the Kallapalayam village of Sulur taluka, Tamil Nadu, minor Hindu girls from a government higher secondary school were subjected to sustained religious discrimination, physical violence and coercive restrictions on Hindu symbols by their Christian Headmistress, Deva Kiruba Jayakrishnan. Multiple Hindu girls who studied at the school stated that their Christian Headmistress repeatedly harassed them and prohibited them from wearing bindis, kumkum, sandal paste and flowers, which are Hindu symbols and cultural markers. She also compelled female students, who wore bindis, to wash their foreheads before entering classrooms and physically assaulted many of them. One of the students was also hospitalised due to the assault. Parents also corroborated these accounts and described patterns of harassment and humiliation. They revealed that students were forced to remove religious symbols by washing their faces, made to walk barefoot after their slippers were confiscated, and discouraged from reporting the abuse at home. Subsequently, the students submitted a formal complaint to the District Collector demanding the removal of the Headmistress citing untouchability-like treatment, repeated physical assault, and religious coercion.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the first 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 categorised as a hate crime. The other primary category selected here is - Attack on Hindu religious representations. Within it, the tertiary category selected is - Desecration of Hindu religious symbols. 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 other primary category selected here is - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, 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 other primary category selected here is: Predatory Proselytisation. Under this, 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 that 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 the 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 proselytisation, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case has been added to the tracker because Hindu girl students in a government higher secondary school in Kallapalayam were systematically targeted, discriminated and humiliated for their religious identity by the Christian Headmistress. The Headmistress imposed coercive restrictions on visible Hindu symbols such as bindis, kumkum, sandal paste and flowers. These actions went far beyond any legitimate disciplinary authority and amounted to religious intolerance and targeted hostility towards Hindu students on the basis of their faith. The repeated physical assault, humiliation and enforcement of such prohibitions raised serious concerns about the safety, dignity and protection of Hindu children within a state-run educational institution. Bindis, kumkum, sandal paste and flowers are not mere cosmetic adornments; they carry deep spiritual, cultural and religious significance in Hindu tradition, particularly for Hindu females. They symbolise devotion, auspiciousness and personal religious expression, and are commonly worn as part of daily life, prayers and observances. Forcing Hindu students to remove these symbols by washing their foreheads was a deliberate attempt to suppress and erase their religious identity. Such conduct was deeply disrespectful and constituted a direct assault on Hindu values, beliefs and practices. This incident reflected a blatant restriction on the religious expression of Hindu children and conveyed a clear message that Hindu symbols were unwelcome within the school environment. The forced removal of these markers, coupled with physical punishment and intimidation, created an atmosphere of fear and coercion in which Hindu students were pressured to conceal their faith to avoid abuse. Such actions are common tactics in environments where subtle or overt pressure is used to alienate Hindu children from their religious identity. It serves as the first step in a larger pattern of grooming, where consistent ridicule, punishment, and forced removal of Hindu symbols and practices make a child more susceptible to abandoning their faith and embracing another under pressure. These actions were meant to facilitate the gradual suppression of Hindu practices within the school, systematically eroding a child’s confidence in their own religion over time, normalising the idea that Hindu identity must be hidden or discarded to fit in. These are meant to alienate Hindu children from their own faith. Such actions are rooted in bias and disdain for Hinduism, its adherents, and its practices, making it a religiously motivated crime. The fact that the victims are minors, who are not yet cognitively developed to critically resist such pressure, makes this even more serious, since their impressionable minds are far easier to manipulate and reshape against their own faith. It is further important to note here that 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 converting to another religion or detecting such kind of manipulation, and the Christian perpetrator purposely targeted and exploited this vulnerability of the victim. Since this case exemplifies the use of coercion and manipulation to achieve religious conversion, it is a blatant act of religious hate, which is why it has been documented here in the hate tracker. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy erupted in Karnataka, which took a national form, after Muslim women insisted that they should be allowed to wear burqas and hijabs in their schools and classrooms. At that time, the argument that was given by several politicians, social commentators, Hindu activists and even the judiciary was that schools have the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms brings 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, or a bindi do not change the appearance of the uniform itself. These religious symbols are benign and do 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. Since this case meets multiple parameters of a religiously motivated crime, it is being added to the hate crime database. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incidents based on when an event occurred or when the victim's ordeal began. It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case has specified the exact date when the prohibition and indoctrination started. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media: 8th December 2025.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
