Hindu temple maligned on National TV: News anchor spreads false claim of human sacrifice, hurting Hindu sentiments
India 
11 June, 2025
Case Summary
CNN News18 anchor, Akanksha Swarup, during a live broadcast, claimed that human sacrifices are made at the Kamakhya Mandir, one of the most revered Hindu temples in Guwahati, Assam. She also linked this to the Raja Raghuvanshi murder case, in which the police arrested his wife and three killers hired by his wife in connection with the murder. During a conversation with Raja’s sister, Shrasti Raghuwanshi, the anchor linked the crime to the Kamakhya Temple in Assam, suggesting that human sacrifice occurs at the site. While discussing the murder, the anchor noted that the couple had visited the Kamakhya Temple in Guwahati before travelling to Meghalaya, where Raja was later killed. She stated that Raja’s brother had referred to the murder as a human sacrifice, pointing to the manner of the stabbing and the presence of a garland. The anchor then continued, saying that sacrifices, including human sacrifice, occur at the revered Hindu site. She followed up by asking whether the murder could be considered a tantric killing, to which Raja’s sister responded that she was not certain but had heard of such practices. These comments drew widespread outrage, particularly in Assam, where the Kamakhya Temple is revered as a significant Shakti Peetha. The temple is known for traditional rituals, including animal sacrifice during Durga Puja, but no human sacrifices occur there. Human sacrifice is a criminal offence under Indian law and is not permitted anywhere in the country, and it is not practised in any of the Hindu Temples or places of worship, let alone the Kamakhya Devi Temple. In response to the backlash, CNN News18 issued an apology on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The network described the comments as a “complete error of judgment” and emphasised that there was no intention to hurt religious sentiments. It further stated that all references to the remarks had been removed from its platforms and that the channel deeply regretted the incident.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker un the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category selected here 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 other sub-category selected is - Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, and within it, the tertiary category selected is - Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. The remarks made by CNN News18 anchor Akanksha Swarup linking the sacred Kamakhya Temple to human sacrifice amount to the deliberate denigration of Hindu spiritual traditions. The Kamakhya Temple, located atop the Nilachal Hill in Guwahati, Assam, is one of the most revered centres of Hindu Shakti worship and holds a position of unparalleled spiritual importance in the Hindu world. It is recognised as one of the 51 Shakti Peethas, sacred sites where parts of the Goddess Kali are believed to have fallen according to Hindu tradition. Kamakhya has long been misunderstood and falsely portrayed as a place of occult practices by those unfamiliar with its spiritual and ritual significance. The anchor’s statement that “human sacrifice takes place at Kamakhya” promotes a harmful and entirely baseless stereotype rooted in colonial-era orientalist fantasies and modern-day bigotry. Such false claims not only malign the temple and its devotees but also serve to reinforce broader anti-Hindu tropes of “tantrik” violence and barbarism, which have historically been used to dehumanise Hindus and mock their religious practices. This act of broadcasting misinformation on national media contributes to a climate of suspicion and disrespect towards the Hindu faith, symbols, and institutions. It reflects a wider pattern in sections of the media where Hindu beliefs are either misrepresented, mocked, or falsely associated with violence, thereby fuelling religious prejudice. This deliberate distortion qualifies as hate speech because it perpetuates negative stereotypes and misinformation that can incite contempt or hostility towards Hindus and their practices. This false rhetoric is often used to paint Hinduism as inherently violent or regressive. In reality, such propaganda is an example of blatant Hinduphobia, using misinformation to provoke fear, contempt, or hatred against Hindu beliefs and customs. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that the report does not specify the exact date when the remarks against Kamakhya Devi were issued. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
