Anti-Hindu hate speech: Indian politician compares Hinduism with diseases and calls for its eradication
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 
1 September, 2023
Case Summary
An anti-Hindu hate speech occurred on 2 September 2023, delivered by Udhayanidhi Stalin, Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The accused called for 'eradication' of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism) and compared it with mosquitoes and diseases. The accused is associated with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party. This occurred while he addressed the audience at an anti-Hindu conference named the 'Sanatana Abolition Conference.' During this conference, he equated Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism with mosquitoes, dengue, malaria, corona and stated that it required eradication. “Mosquitoes, dengue, flu, malaria, corona – we should not oppose these things. They require eradication completely. The same holds true for Sanatanam (Hinduism). Our first work should be to abolish or eradicate Sanatanam instead of opposing it. So, my appreciation to you all for giving an apt title to the meeting,” Stalin stated at the event organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Forum. He continued his tirade against Hinduism and defined Sanatan Dharma in his own words, stating, “What is Sanatanam? The name Sanatanam itself comes from Sanskrit. Sanatanam is opposed to equality and social justice. What is the meaning of Sanatanam? Eternal or something that can’t be changed. Something that can’t be questioned. That is the meaning of Sanatanam.” The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader further added, “Sanatanam divided people by caste and segregated them. But our Kalaignar brought every community in one village and gave the name ‘Samathuvapuram’, giving a whip to Sanatanam.” Later, he extended his tirade against the Hindu civilisational religious philosophy on social media. While posting on X (formerly Twitter), Udhayanidhi Stalin wrote, “Sanatan Dharma constitutes a principle that divides people in the name of caste and religion.” “Uprooting Sanatan Dharma upholds humanity and human equality. I spoke on behalf of the oppressed and marginalised, who suffer due to the Sanatan Dharma,” he reiterated his sinister plan. Following this, the Tamil Nadu Police demonstrated greater dexterity in silencing those questioning Stalin than the initiator of the anti-Hindu hate speech, Stalin himself. On 6 September 2023, the Tiruchirappalli police stated that they filed a First Information Report against Bharatiya Janata Party’s Amit Malviya for allegedly ‘distorting’ the remarks made by Udhayanidhi Stalin. However, on 20 January 2026, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a First Information Report filed against Bharatiya Janata Party Information Technology Cell head Amit Malviya in 2023, stating that the speech delivered by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader Udhayanidhi Stalin at the “Sanatana Abolition Conference” constituted “hate speech” against the Hindu community. Justice S Srimathy stated that constant attacks targeted Hinduism over the last 100 years, first by Dravida Kazhagam and later by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Regarding Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks against Sanatan Dharma, the judge stated, “The minister’s remarks amounted to hate speech.” Justice S Srimathy noted that while those who reacted to the Tamil Nadu deputy chief minister’s anti-Hindu hate speech faced booking, the law failed to activate against the one who initiated the hate speech.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is added to the tracker under the primary category- 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. The other subcategory selected in this case is- Violent Threats. Violent threats, explicit, implicit or implied, is the most dangerous form of hate speech since it goes beyond discriminatory and prejudicial language to express the intent of causing harm to an individual or a group of people based on their religious identity and faith. There could be several different kinds of threats that are issued to Hindus based on religious animosity. An explicit threat would mean the direct threat of violence towards an individual Hindu, a group of Hindus or Hindus at large. Physical violence, death threats, threats of destruction of property belonging to Hindus and threats of genocide would mean explicit threats against Hindus for their religious identity. Implicit threats may not be a direct threat but implied through the use of symbols of actions – for example – in the Nupur Sharma case, other than explicit threats, there were also implicit threats when Islamists took to the streets to burn and beat her effigies. It implies that they want to do the same to Nupur Sharma – thereby is considered an implicit threat. Violent threats can be delivered in person, through letters, phone calls, graffiti, or increasingly through social media and other online platforms. It would be important to understand that a threat – explicit or implicit, online or offline – to an individual who happens to be a Hindu does not qualify as a religiously motivated threat. Such a threat, while vile and dangerous, could be owing to non-religious reasons and/or personal animosity. To qualify as a religiously motivated threat, it would need to exhibit an indication that the individual is being targeted for religious reasons and/or owing to his/her religious identity as a Hindu. This case constitutes a clear instance of religiously motivated hate speech, as the perpetrator, Udhayanidhi Stalin, delivered derogatory remarks against Hinduism and explicitly called for its eradication. He equated Hinduism with mosquitoes, dengue, malaria, and coronavirus, then demanded its complete removal from society. Stalin portrayed Hinduism as anti-humanity and anti-social justice, insisting it solely divides people along caste lines, all of which establishes this as targeted religious vilification. Firstly, by denigrating the Hindu faith through comparison with deadly diseases and pests, he revealed deep-seated animosity towards the Hindu community, reducing their ancient spiritual tradition to something worthy only of extermination. Hinduism thrives as a diverse religion followed by millions worldwide, encompassing profound philosophies of dharma, karma, and universal harmony that guide daily lives and festivals for families across generations. Denigrating this faith assaults the sentiments of every Hindu devotee, embodying religious bigotry and anti-Hindu hate speech that seeks to humiliate an entire community's sacred beliefs. Hinduism encompasses multiple perspectives on social issues, including caste, with numerous reformers and traditional saints who actively opposed discrimination throughout history. Yet Udhayanidhi Stalin weaponised this complexity, labelling Hinduism inherently anti-social justice and claiming it exists only to divide people by caste. This malicious caricature of Hinduism as mere casteism qualifies as religiously motivated hate speech, deliberately distorting a multifaceted faith to incite contempt. Hinduism features vibrant bhakti movements and tantric traditions that emphasise devotion over birth-based hierarchy, welcoming all seekers regardless of their caste, gender or other backgrounds. Despite such richness, the accused fixated on caste, exaggerating it to vilify the entire religion, which exposes his animosity towards Hindu spiritual heritage. Another point to highlight is that this upper-caste versus lower-caste rhetoric mirrors tactics employed by anti-Hindu groups, including Islamists, leftists, and Christian missionaries, who exploit diverse identities within Hindu society to fracture Hindu unity and undermine the faith itself. By equating Hinduism with caste discrimination, Stalin followed this destructive pattern, aiming to sabotage Hindu solidarity. Furthermore, Udhayanidhi Stalin's explicit call to eradicate Hinduism entirely embodies raw, unfiltered hatred, as advocating the complete obliteration of a living faith cherished by over a billion people worldwide signals genocidal intent against Hindu identity, culture, and existence. This transcends mere criticism, issuing a violent threat to annihilate an entire religion's practices, temples, festivals, and spiritual heritage that sustain Hindu families daily, evoking historical atrocities where faiths faced systematic extermination. By framing eradication as a moral imperative akin to destroying diseases, he incites his followers to view Hindus not as fellow citizens but as societal pathogens requiring elimination, which qualifies as hate speech through its dehumanising rhetoric and implicit endorsement of violence against the community. The Madras High Court observed that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, to which the accused belongs, repeatedly engaged in anti-Hindu activities and speeches over decades, establishing this incident not as an isolated event but as a persistent pattern of anti-Hindu hatred embedded in Dravidian politics, particularly within parties like the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Justice S Srimathy affirmed Stalin's remarks as hate speech, noting consistent attacks on Hinduism spanning a century, first by Dravida Kazhagam and later by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which shielded perpetrators while targeting critics. This institutional bias amplifies the crime's severity, as political power enables unchecked religious incitement against vulnerable Hindu citizens. Overall, this incident qualifies as a clear instance of religiously motivated hate speech, as the accused denigrated the Hindu faith by likening it to malaria, corona, and other scourges, reduced it to caste oppression alone, and demanded its total eradication. In totality, these elements form anti-Hindu slurring combined with violent threats towards the Hindu community and their faith, constituting a profound offence that wounds the dignity of millions of Hindus. Therefore, this case enters the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Perpetrator held guilty by court
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
