Minor Hindu students barred from tilak and kalava; teacher denigrated and ridicules Hindu deities
Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, India 
18 September, 2025
Case Summary
In Chhatarpur district, Madhya Pradesh, minor Hindu students were prohibited from wearing a kalava and tilak by their school teacher, Bhavanidin Ahirwar, who also denigrated and abused Hindu deities. At the Government High School in Niwari, Chhatarpur, the teacher forbade children from wearing kalava (sacred threads) and applying a tilak on their foreheads. He also made offensive remarks about Hindu deities in front of students. One of the students stated, "Our teachers forbid us from wearing a tilak or a sacred thread on our foreheads, and they call Goddess Kali a buffalo and Lord Hanuman a monkey." Children were also threatened with expulsion or removal from school if they did not comply. On 19 September 2025, parents of the Hindu students gathered at the school to protest against the teacher's conduct. Police, led by Gadhimalhara station in-charge Rita Singh, and the tehsildar arrived at the scene, along with Vyom Kumar, ADPC, from the District Education Department, to assess the situation. Parents submitted a written application requesting action against Bhavanidin Ahirwar. One of the villagers, Omprakash Pandey of Niwari village, stated that the teacher used foul language and behaved indecently with the children. He stated that the teacher asked the children not to come to school wearing a tilak and garland, called the Baba of Bageshwar Dham a fraud, and used abusive language against Hanuman ji and Kali Mata. The matter was formally recorded, and authorities initiated an investigation into the incident to determine appropriate action.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the 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 categorized as a hate crime. The other primary category selected here is - Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category 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 third primary category selected here is - Predatory Proselytisation. Within it, 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 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 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 proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The other sub-category relevant here - 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. This case has been added to the tracker because Hindu children were prohibited from wearing a tilak and a kalava. The accused went further and ridiculed Hindu gods and brainwashed minor Hindu students. These actions constituted a direct attack on the religious identity of Hindu children and represented a clear example of religious intolerance and a hate crime. It is important to note here that all 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 their actions and are not in a position to give informed consent or resist pressures when someone tries to distance them from their faith. The tilak, or a kalava, is not a mere decorative symbol but holds profound religious and cultural significance in Hinduism. It is an emblem of Hindu religious identity, often worn during prayers, rituals, and as a daily affirmation of faith. Forcing Hindu students to remove these religious symbols is a deliberate effort to erase their religious identity and expression. Such an act is deeply disrespectful and is an attack on the core values and practices of Hinduism. 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 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 and kalava do not change the appearance of the uniform itself. This religious symbol is benign and does not cause disruption or harm, raising serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. When an ostensibly secular institution, such as a government school, 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 teacher amounted 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. Moreover, this incident represents a clear case of hate speech against Hinduism and Hindu gods and goddesses. The accused ridiculed Hindu gods, calling Goddess Kali a buffalo and Lord Hanuman a monkey. This directly undermined the faith of the Hindu students and was an attempt to alienate them from their faith. Such verbal denigration, coupled with prohibitions on wearing a tilak and kalava, sent a strong message that Hindu beliefs and symbols are unwelcome and subject to ridicule. By targeting children specifically for their religious practices, the accused abused his position of authority, impacting the emotional and psychological well-being of students. These actions contributed to an environment of religious intolerance, where Hindu children were made to feel unsafe expressing their faith. These actions cannot be seen in isolation. They represent a wider pattern where Hindu children are pressured, prohibited, and punished for practising their religion. Such actions serve as the first step in a larger pattern of grooming, where consistent ridicule and suppression of Hindu practices make a child more susceptible to abandoning their faith. These actions leave Hindu children in a state of confusion about whether their religious practices are wrong or unacceptable in society. At an impressionable age, when children are still forming their sense of self, being told that their sacred symbols cannot be worn and their deities are being ridiculed creates inner conflict and weakens their connection to their faith. Over time, this can instil a sense of shame or embarrassment about openly practising Hinduism, making them hesitant to uphold their traditions in public spaces. Furthermore, the children were threatened with expulsion if they refused to comply. This not only infringes upon a Hindu child’s fundamental right to religious expression but also sets a dangerous precedent for other Hindu students who may feel compelled to hide their faith to avoid similar treatment. This also showcases the element of intimidation and coercion involved in targeting the religious identity of the Hindu victim. This is not merely an act of discipline, but an attempt to suppress a particular religious identity through fear and humiliation.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
