Hindu family threatened by local politician for protesting against removal of tilak at Christian school
Sonitpur, Assam, India 
24 June, 2025
Case Summary
In Sirajuli, Assam, the family of a Hindu kindergarten student was threatened by a Congress leader after they lodged a police complaint against a Missionary school and a Christian teacher named Rini Rose, who had forcibly removed the tilak from the child’s forehead. The politician also attempted to downplay the incident and remarked, "What is the big fuss?" According to the reports, the harassment began on June 23 when the Christian teacher wiped off the tilak from the minor Hindu child's forehead, deeply distressing the child. Despite assurances from the school principal that it would not recur, the teacher repeated the act the next day and threatened the child with punishment if she wore the tilak again. Disturbed by these events, the victim’s uncle, Avadh Kishor Verma, filed a complaint with the police, citing religious discrimination and a violation of the fundamental right. The school authorities visited the police station on June 24 and assured officials that such incidents would not happen again. However, the very next day, a local Congress leader named Milkhas Topo, who claimed to be a part of the school's management, called the child’s father, Binay Kumar Verma, to know the victim's side. However, he attempted to downplay the incident and remarked, “What is the big fuss if the tilak of the kid was wiped off?”. He tried to shield the perpetrators from the responsibility by saying that the Principal cannot keep an eye on everyone. He further insisted that it’s a trivial matter and subtly justified the teacher's action by saying, “This is a Christian school. You were given a diary at the time of admission. Read the guidelines written there.” Furthermore, he also used abusive language, hurling expletives such as ‘kela’ at the family and threatened them by saying that members of the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) would be visiting Binay’s office, berated the family for expressing their religious identity in the school and used abusive language. According to Avadh Kishor Verma, Milkhas is the President of the Congress party in the Sonitpur district of Assam. Additionally, the school principal personally visited the family’s residence on June 25 and requested that the complaint be withdrawn. The family, however, chose to change the girl's school altogether. .
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected is: - Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice. 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. This case has been added to the tracker because a Hindu family was threatened by a local politician who not only attempted to silence them through intimidation but also downplayed an incident that constituted clear religious hostility towards Hindus. The tilak is not merely a symbolic mark but a sacred expression of religious identity for Hindus. Its forced removal by the Christian teacher was an overt act of erasure of cultural identity of Hindus, essentially targeting the child’s faith and stripping her of the right to religious expression, which is constitutionally protected. However, instead of addressing this grave violation, the local Congress leader, Milkhas Topo, dismissed the seriousness of the incident and berated the family for asserting their rights. He used threatening language, directed them to confine their religious practices to their homes, and cited school guidelines as justification for religious suppression, thereby effectively endorsing a system where public expressions of Hindu identity are delegitimised and result in hostility towards them. Regardless of what the school guidelines are, a child’s right to express her faith cannot be violated. Schools must respect the religious identity of all students, especially minors. Such acts of denial and trivialisation serve as powerful tools in the architecture of hate speech. By calling the persecution of Hindus a “small matter” and trying to justify it under the excuse of school guidelines, the politician contributed to the ongoing erasure and dehumanisation of Hindus. It sends a message that Hindus have no right to complain, that their pain doesn’t matter, and that any resistance will be met with intimidation. Denial, trivialisation, and justification of religious hostility are common tools used to suppress legitimate grievances. Over time, this creates an environment where hatred is normalised, and future attacks or restrictions on Hindus become easier. Moreover, by directing Hindus to keep their religious symbols hidden, the school essentially restricted the expression of Hindu identity, a subtle attempt at alienating Hindus from their own faith. These actions lead to a public culture where Hinduism is treated as inferior or inappropriate for display. When this is combined with threats and abuse, as in this case, it escalates from mere prejudice to an active form of discrimination against Hindus. The politician’s intervention did not merely fail to protect the rights of a vulnerable child; it enabled and legitimised the persecution she faced. By trivialising the whole matter and threatening those who spoke up, he contributed to a climate of fear, denial, and normalisation of anti-Hindu bias. This is not just a school incident; it reflects a broader pattern of how Hindu identity is restricted, shamed, and suppressed, even when the victims are children.
Case Status
Complaint not filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Unknown
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
