IAS coaching institute’s article dehumanises Hindus, dismisses religious persecution and vilifies Hindu culture as misogynistic
India 
15 April, 2025
Case Summary
Triumph IAS, a coaching institute, published an article titled 'Love Jihad and Moral Policing: Gendered Communalism in Contemporary India'. It was presented as a study material for Sociology Paper I: Gender and social stratification; Religion and Society and Sociology Paper II:Religion and society; Challenges of Social Transformation: Communalism. The article reveals a deeply problematic and prejudiced narrative that dehumanises Hindus, denies the legitimacy of religious persecution faced by Hindu women, and paints Hindu culture as inherently oppressive and misogynistic. The article described Love jihad, a phenomenon in which Muslim men prey on helpless Hindu women, entice and deceive them, convert them to Islam against their will, torture and rape them, and then either kill or leave them, as a 'controversial and politically charged term'. The article also said that there was no legal or statistical backing, still, the narrative gained traction in certain political and media circles in India. The blog employs various sociological theories to dissect these phenomena. Sylvia Walby's theory of patriarchy is used to explain how male dominance is maintained across institutions like family, religion, and the state, highlighting how women's sexuality is controlled to uphold patriarchal authority. Pierre Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence is applied to understand how power is exercised subtly, legitimizing the portrayal of Muslim men as predators and Hindu women as naïve victims, thereby justifying moral policing. Nira Yuval-Davis' work on gender and nationalism is referenced to illustrate how women are positioned as cultural reproducers of the nation, making interfaith relationships a perceived threat to communal identity. Emile Durkheim's concept of the collective conscience is also discussed, suggesting that rigid interpretations of shared norms can lead to social control mechanisms like moral policing. The article concluded that the intersectionality of gender, religion, and power reinforced patriarchal and communal hierarchies in contemporary Indian society and was deeply embedded in the cultural fabric that seeks to control women’s autonomy under the guise of protecting societal values and community honour.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category- Hate Speech against Hindus. The sub-category relevant in this case is- Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution. Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution/ethnic cleansing refers to the act of denying or minimizing the fact of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. This often involves denying the scale, mechanisms, religious intent, or even the occurrence of the ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus. Hate speech of this kind involves the dissemination of falsehoods that deny or distort established historical facts or mock the suffering of Hindus by saying that they deserved the persecution, motivated by Hinduphobia. Denying such atrocities is not only about the denial of facts or rewriting/revising history, but it also delegitimises the religiously motivated persecution of Hindus, the religious hate/motivation/animosity that led to the persecution, and dehumanises Hindus as a religious group. Such denial of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide and/or religious persecution of Hindus not only denies the suffering but also paves the way for future/present atrocities and hate speech, inciting prejudice and violence against Hindus. It also provides a justification for violence by delinking religious animosity from religiously motivated crimes committed against Hindus. Since such denial and/or mocking of genocide/ethnic cleansing/atrocities motivated by religious animosity leads to present and future ramifications of creating more hate speech, violence, dehumanisation and delegitimisation, it would be considered hate speech under this category. The other sub-category relevant 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 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 article published by Triumph IAS coaching institute under the title “Love Jihad and Moral Policing: Gendered Communalism in Contemporary India” reveals a deeply problematic and prejudiced narrative that dehumanises Hindus, denies the legitimacy of religious persecution faced by Hindu women, and paints Hindu culture as inherently oppressive and misogynistic. This amounts to hate speech against Hindus and warrants inclusion in the Hinduphobia tracker under the sub-category Denial or mocking of genocide/large-scale persecution. Rather than recognising the recurring pattern of deception, coercion, and abuse suffered by Hindu women at the hands of radical elements, many of which have been documented with legal proceedings and victim testimonies, the article instead frames such concerns as mere fabrications rooted in patriarchy and communalism. It reduces ‘Love Jihad’—a term emerging from numerous genuine cases involving grooming, false identity, and coercion into religious conversion—to a baseless conspiracy theory allegedly manufactured by Hindu right-wing elements. This sweeping dismissal effectively trivialises the trauma of the victims and suppresses the lived realities of Hindu families who have lost daughters to targeted, predatory proselytisation. Moreover, the article subtly yet insidiously portrays Hindu society as patriarchal and backward, framing concerns about interfaith exploitation not as a response to rising religious aggression but as a manifestation of male Hindu anxiety and gender control. Through references to Sylvia Walby, Bourdieu, and Nira Yuval-Davis, it attempts to academically rationalise its position by implying that Hindu outrage over religious grooming and coerced conversions is nothing more than symbolic violence driven by a hyper-masculine, misogynistic collective Hindu conscience. This form of scholarship does not merely express a critical opinion; it denies and mocks an ongoing, large-scale issue faced by the Hindu community. It indirectly absolves radical perpetrators by shifting blame entirely onto Hindus, thereby vilifying the victim community and shielding the aggressors. Furthermore, by presenting Hindu parents’ concerns as patriarchal paranoia and not a legitimate defence of their children's rights and safety, it dehumanises Hindu society and faith as a whole. In effect, the article participates in a broader trend of intellectualised Hinduphobia—using academic jargon and sociological framing to invalidate real suffering, stoke anti-Hindu bias, and paint Hindu cultural resistance to religious coercion as oppressive. This erasure of victimhood and the normalisation of the aggressor's viewpoint fits squarely within the framework of hate speech and deserves to be included in the Hinduphobia tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
