Hindu students targeted for their religious Identity: Missionary college expels students for wearing tilak and kalava
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India 
7 May, 2025
Case Summary
In Mother Teresa Nursing College, Saharanpur, Hindu students stated that the college administration instructed them to remove religious symbols such as tilaks and sacred threads (Kalava) and beards. According to reports, a teacher and the college administration forced the Hindu students to comply with these instructions and those who resisted were expelled. In response, members of the Hindu groups gathered at the college, raised slogans, and accused the administration of religious discrimination. During the confrontation, a girl student also chanted "Allah Hu Akbar," further escalating tensions. The college administration denied any religious bias, stating that grooming rules, such as being clean-shaven, had been communicated to students earlier through formal notices. Police arrived at the scene and managed to calm the protesters. As of the date of this report, the police were investigating the case.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Within, it the sub-category 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 category selected is- Predatory Proselytisation. Within this, the subcategory 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 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. This case represents a clear instance of a hate crime, wherein Hindu students were compelled by the college administration to remove essential markers of their Hindu religious identity, such as the tilak and kalava. This reflects a pattern of subtle pressure aimed at reducing or suppressing visible Hindu identity within an institutional environment. Hindu students were instructed to remove tilaks and sacred threads, which are important cultural and religious markers. Such directives create an atmosphere where Hindu practices are discouraged and replaced with enforced conformity that aligns with another belief system promoted within the institution. Students who resisted this pressure reportedly faced punitive action, which further reinforces behavioural conditioning and signals that retaining Hindu symbols could lead to consequences. This kind of environment does not rely on overt force but instead uses authority, discipline, and repeated messaging to reshape the students’ sense of identity. By pushing students to abandon Hindu markers while simultaneously allowing or normalising other religious expressions, the institution fosters an unequal and coercive framework. These actions reflect attempts to subtly influence or reorient the religious identity of Hindu students through compliance-based indoctrination rather than open dialogue or genuine neutrality. Moreover, much like the beard in Sikhism, the tilak and kalava are significant expressions of faith in Hinduism, symbolising devotion, cultural heritage, and spiritual identity. Forcing their removal is not only an act of religious suppression but also an attempt to erase visible expressions of Hindu identity. Here, it is important to mention that in 2022, a massive controversy had erupted in Karnataka, which took a national form, after Muslim women had insisted that they should be allowed to wear Burqas and Hijabs in their schools and classrooms. That time, the argument that was given by several politicians, social commentators, Hindu activists and even the Judiciary was that that schools have the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms bring 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 or kalava doesn’t change the appearance of the uniform itself. These symbols are benign and do not cause disruption or harm, raising serious concerns about the motivations behind such enforcement. When a non-Hindu or ostensibly secular institution 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 college administration amount 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.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Unknown
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
