Hindu students and faculty discriminated, Hindu festivals curtailed, traditions suppressed while Christianity promoted by Christian preacher at Gandhinagar's University
Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India 
3 March, 2026
Case Summary
In Gandhinagar, Gujarat, Hindu students and faculty at Pandit Deendayal Energy University (PDEU) faced discrimination under Director General Dr Sundar Manoharan. The DG promoted Christianisation on campus by favouring Christian staff, restricting Hindu festivals, and sidelining Hindu traditions. The issue surfaced after a letter circulated on social media that described the situation inside the university. In the letter, the Hindu staff and students explained how their Hindu festivals were curtailed, their traditions were sidelined, and Christian missionary influence was visible in university programmes. As per the letter, Dr Sundar Manoharan, the Director General, Pandit Deendayal Energy University (PDEU), was an active Christian missionary. He worked as a Christian preacher in prayer meetings in various churches and homes in Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad. It was expressed in the letter that Christian staff were given preference in recruitment and promotions, while Hindu staff and students were subjected to discrimination in academic and administrative matters. Special facilities were given to Christian faculty and staff like Paul Naveen, Annie Royson, Vinod Varghese, Susan George, Arya C.S., Gifton Senapati, Shiji John, Leena Santosh, Martin Siluvai and his wife Mary Hepzibah. It was further stated that DG's personal assistant, Shiji John, had been improperly promoted to the post of Manager. Sushila Rathod, a converted Christian, had been promoted to the post of Lab Assistant after the retirement of others. Anne Royson and Mary Hepzibah had been given PhD guidance without publication, while other professors had been deprived of this opportunity. DG brought Christian students for a PhD and also gave them mandatory permission for movement. The Christian visiting faculty were appointed to ad-hoc posts without going through the traditional process. Some Christian groups were given special promotion in the university, while other faculty, especially teachers from local Hindu backgrounds, were ignored. It was further stated that the number of Christian staff and faculty in the university had increased fivefold. Hindu Gujarati professors were ignored and harassed. Priests from other churches in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar also came and stayed for hours on the PDEU campus. Earlier, no questions were asked about religion or identity in the interview, but now religion was asked, and Christian applicants were even called before the process and given reassurance. The Hindu students expressed in the letter that their Diwali holidays had been reduced. Earlier, there was a 10-day holiday on Diwali, but now it has been reduced, and Saturday was also made up for by making it a working day. On the other hand, a whole week's holiday had been given on Christmas, and a special function in the name of 'Secret Santa' was also organised, and a separate budget was also allocated for it. The 'Agni Stuti', which had been going on since the foundation of the organisation, had been removed from the official video of the organisation. This hymn was in Sanskrit and was taken from the Rigveda. This hymn was inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Ganesh Vandana and Saraswati Vandana had also been stopped in the organisation. The budget for Navratri, Dussehra and Kite Festival had also been cut. The DG did not participate in Navratri and Aarti and did not even light a lamp in important programmes. The developments created unrest among students and faculty, who expressed fear that the university was being used as a platform for religious conversion and missionary activity. Hindu organisations and social media users demanded clarification from the university administration and called for an independent enquiry. At the time of reporting, PDEU had not issued a formal statement, and pressure mounted for the administration to clarify its position and ensure transparency.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, the sub-category selected is- Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination. 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 which 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. The other sub-category selected is - Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds, which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision, etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases, where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion, are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. The other primary category added in the case is- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. The subcategory selected is- Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances, the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked”, leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. This case was included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because the developments within Pandit Deendayal Energy University in Gandhinagar revealed a pattern where Hindu students and faculty were subjected to discriminatory treatment and restrictions on the expression of their religious identity, while the influence and visibility of another religion were institutionally encouraged. The curbs on Hindu festivals and traditions, combined with preferential treatment and the harassment faced by Hindu members of the university community, created an atmosphere that not only marginalised Hindu religious practices but also subtly shaped perceptions about religious hierarchy. Even though the media did not report an explicit act of conversion, the persistent discrimination and unequal treatment had the effect of psychologically pressuring Hindu students and faculty, fostering an environment where abandoning their own faith in favour of the one favoured by the institution appeared linked to acceptance and institutional benefit. The harassment and discriminatory treatment directed at Hindu students and faculty created conditions that subtly influenced religious perception and loyalty. When individuals were repeatedly marginalised because they practised Hinduism while those belonging to another faith received encouragement, institutional support, and visible benefits, it gradually shaped the minds of students and staff into believing that their own religion was inferior. Such an environment operated as a form of subtle indoctrination where the targeted community was psychologically pressured to distance itself from its own faith and gravitate towards the one favoured by the institution to gain acceptance and opportunities. The events at Pandit Deendayal Energy University in Gandhinagar demonstrated a pattern that curtailed the expression of Hindu identity and religious practices within the campus environment. Hindu students and faculty encountered restrictions on celebrating their festivals and traditions, while Christian religious presence and programmes were visibly encouraged through administrative decisions. When an educational institution selectively limited the ability of one religious community to observe its traditions while allowing another to flourish, it directly interfered with the community’s freedom to practise and express its faith in a shared academic space. Hindu festivals were not merely cultural gatherings but significant religious observances tied closely to spiritual identity and collective belief. By restricting the celebration of these festivals and discouraging visible expressions of Hindu traditions, the university administration effectively compelled Hindu students and faculty to suppress their religious identity within the institution. Such restrictions created an uneven environment where the open practice of one faith was curtailed, leading to the marginalisation of Hindu traditions in a space that should have remained religiously neutral. The conduct within the institution also reflected a pattern of discrimination that extended into administrative and professional spheres. Preferential treatment given to Christian staff in recruitment and promotions created an institutional structure where members of one religious community appeared to enjoy advantages not available to others. When such patterns persisted within an academic institution, they fostered a climate where individuals belonging to the Hindu community experienced exclusion and diminished opportunity purely on account of their religious identity. Universities were meant to remain neutral spaces where individuals from all backgrounds could pursue education without fear of religious bias or pressure. When administrative authority was used to suppress the religious practices of one community while promoting the influence of another, the neutrality of the institution was compromised. The actions within the university reflected more than isolated administrative decisions; they revealed a sustained pattern that restricted Hindu religious expression, discriminated against Hindu individuals, and created a climate that indirectly encouraged religious conformity. Taken together, the suppression of Hindu festivals, the discrimination faced by Hindu students and faculty, and the institutional encouragement of Christian influence established a broader pattern of hostility towards Hindu identity within the university. These actions curtailed the ability of Hindus to practise and express their faith freely and created psychological pressure that subtly pushed individuals towards abandoning their religious identity for institutional acceptance. For these reasons, the incident met the criteria of a religiously motivated act of discrimination and was therefore included in the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records the dates of incidents based on when the crime occurs rather than when it is reported by the media. However, in this case, media reports have not stated the exact date when the administration restricted, banned or discriminated. Henceforth, the date when the media first reported this incident, 4 March 2026, is being selected as the indicative incident date. This is recorded for documentation purposes only.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Christian Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
