Bollywood filmmaker dehumanises Brahmins with vulgar threat, fuelling hate against the community
India 
16 April, 2025
Case Summary
Filmmaker and actor Anurag Kashyap sparked outrage after publishing a series of vitriolic comments on his Instagram account targeting the Brahmin Hindu community. The remarks followed backlash against the upcoming film Phule, directed by Ananth Mahadevan and featuring actors Prateek Gandhi and Patralekha. The film, based on the lives of social reformers Jyotiba and Savitribai Phule, faced objections from Brahmin groups who took issue with its portrayal of caste dynamics. In response to the controversy and delays in the film's release, Kashyap shared an aggressive post criticising these groups and mocking their concerns. In his Instagram story, Kashyap launched a scathing diatribe, accusing Brahmins of living in a parallel India where caste oppression did not exist. He expressed frustration with the censorship process and argued that films exposing what he described as the casteist, regionalist, and racist tendencies of the government were being deliberately blocked. Kashyap named several films, including Punjab 95 and Dhadak 2, as examples of works allegedly suppressed for challenging uncomfortable social narratives. He questioned the legitimacy of Brahmin outrage and dismissed it as a refusal to confront historical truths. What drew the most attention was a comment he left in response to a user who sarcastically remarked that Brahmins were like his fathers. Kashyap wrote that he would urinate on Brahmins. Though the exact comment no longer appeared on his profile, many users shared screenshots of the exchange. Even without this remark, his broader posts contained deeply offensive language and insults directed at the Brahmin community. His words were widely condemned as hate speech, promoting contempt and hostility towards a specific group based on their religious and social identity.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the sub-category selected 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. The other 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 other sub-category selected is- Call for genocide/violence against specific sects of Hindus. 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. Often, animosity against Hindus or a specific panth/sampradaya/group of Hindus or a specific ideology they hold manifests itself into hate speech and calls for genocide/violence against that specific section of Hindus. For example, it has often been seen that those who hold animosity against the Hindu faith use specific sects/sampradaya/pant of Hindus as a proxy to express hate against Hindus as a whole. It has been seen that the word ‘Hindutva’ has been used to call for violence against those who say they believe in ‘Hindutva’. It is observed that ‘Hindutva’ is only used as a proxy to call for violence against Hindus as a whole, as seen in the Dismantling Global Hindutva conference where speakers admitted that ‘Hindutva’ cannot be eradicated till ‘Hinduism’ is eradicated. The eradication of an entire faith, in turn, is a genocidal call against the entire community that practices that faith. Further, it is also observed that violence against a specific section of Hindus is made, justifying these calls by weaving exaggerated tales of historical injustices. Often, those who hold animosity towards Hindus and their faith attempt to make their animosity more palatable by justifying their hate for a specific section, claiming that they are against that particular section because of their faith in the broader community and the religion they process. Such calls for violence against specific sections of Hindus, as mentioned, is a proxy for their animosity against the entire community and the faith they profess, and therefore, would be considered hate speech under this category. The other sub-category selected is- Anti Hindu subversion and prejudice, and within it, the tertiary category selected is- Anti-Hindu Fake News or Downplaying. Anurag Kashyap’s recent remarks, particularly the statement about urinating on Brahmins, constitute clear Hinduphobia rooted in deep-seated animosity towards a significant section of the Hindu community. Brahmins are not a separate entity but an integral part of the broader Hindu samaj, with centuries of contribution to religious, cultural, and intellectual traditions. To issue a direct and vulgar threat of physical humiliation towards Brahmins is not merely a personal outburst—it is a violent and dehumanising attack on the religious identity of Hindus. Such language does not remain in the realm of abstract outrage; it legitimises and fuels physical and social persecution of individuals belonging to this community. The portrayal of Brahmins as objects of hatred for their supposed historical role, without nuance or contextual understanding, encourages a narrative where an entire group is seen as deserving of public scorn and abuse. This rhetoric encourages social boycotts, discrimination, and even acts of violence by implying that Brahmins deserve to be targeted. Kashyap’s choice of words, particularly the threat of urination—a form of symbolic desecration—mirrors methods of dehumanisation that historically precede acts of persecution. Such expressions, even if framed as resistance or frustration, carry the dangerous potential of normalising hatred, especially when amplified through popular platforms and celebrity influence. Furthermore, while Kashyap targets Brahmins, his framing subtly shifts the blame towards the Hindu community as a whole. The Brahmin identity, in such discourse, becomes a proxy for vilifying Hindu civilisation, practices, and traditions. What begins as criticism of a caste quickly morphs into antagonism against Hindu beliefs and cultural heritage. This tactic of focusing ire on a subgroup, and then widening the lens to indict the larger faith, is a classic method of subversion. It enables justification for anti-Hindu prejudice under the guise of social justice, distorting the Hindu identity into a monolithic villain. In doing so, Kashyap’s statements not only promote hatred but also participate in a broader pattern of Hinduphobia that targets Hindus by maligning and fragmenting their internal social fabric.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
