Hindu minor girl barred from entering school for wearing Tilak and Kalawa

Case ID : ea34b36 | Location : Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Sun, 11 May, 2025

Case ID : ea34b36

Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, India

11 May, 2025

Hindu minor girl barred from entering school for wearing Tilak and Kalawa

Restriction/ban on Hindu practices

Restriction on expression of Hindu identity

Administration restricting religious practice

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for Hindu identity

Predatory Proselytisation

Proselytisation by grooming, brainwashing, manipulation or subtle indoctrination

Case Summary

In the Budaun district of Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu girl student was denied entry into the school by the teachers, due to wearing a Tilak on her forehead and a Kalawa on her wrist, both of which are Hindu religious symbols. The incident occurred at Pre Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kanya Usahit, located in Block Usawan. The student, a recent admission in class 6, had been attending school daily with the Tilak and Kalawa. According to her statement, two female teachers, Farah and Savita, objected to her appearance. One of the teachers told her not to come to school if she wore a Tilak, while the other asked her to remove the Kalawa before attending class. The student returned home and narrated the incident to her family. Upon being approached by the student's family, the teachers maintained that school rules prohibit the display of religious symbols and would not be altered for any student. Following this, the student's brother filed a formal complaint with the District Basic Education Officer (BSA), urging disciplinary action against the teachers involved. Responding to the public outcry, the BSA ordered an inquiry into the incident. In response to the controversy, the school’s headmaster, Tayyab Ali, stated that he was on leave when the incident occurred and asserted that no student was prevented from entering the school. He also suggested that the teachers' comments may have been misinterpreted. As of the date of writing this report, the inquiry was ongoing, and the authorities had said that they would take necessary action based on the findings.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of: - Attack not resulting in death, within which, the sub-category selected is- Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalawa on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The second primary category selected is- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Within this, two sub-categories have been selected. The first 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 second sub-category under the above-mentioned main category selected here is- Administration restricting religious practice. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious practice owing to prejudicial orders and concerns, targeted specifically against the Hindu community. Such restriction/prohibition would be considered documented as a hate crime because the orders are often a result of pressure by groups that harbour animosity towards Hinduism and Hindus. Often, the restriction by the authorities is driven by bias, hostility, or prejudice against the specific community being stopped from holding a religious practice, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since practices are intrinsic to the faith of the Hindus, such prejudicial restriction is considered a curtailing of the fundamental rights of the Hindu community. In several cases, for example, the authorities ban a Hindu religious practice due to pressure from groups opposed to the religion. In other instances the prohibition is selectively enforced against one religious group (Hindus) while others are allowed to proceed. There are still other cases where the authorities preemptively restrict a religious practice by Hindus because those who hold animosity towards Hindus may get “provoked” leading to them being violent, thereby assuaging the sentiments of those who hold animosity towards Hindus by curtailing the religious rights of Hindus. Such acts and orders are prejudiced, indicating discriminatory motives owing to the capitulation to groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus and therefore, would be categorized as a religiously motivated hate crime since the original pressure leading to the order itself is a result of hatred/bias/prejudice/religious hate against Hindus. The third primary category relevant here is- Predatory Proselytisation. Within this, the sub-category 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. In this case, the actions of the school teachers reflect clear religious bias and an attempt to suppress the Hindu identity of a minor. Forcing or pressuring a child to remove the Tilak from her forehead and cut the Kalawa from her wrist directly targets symbols of deep spiritual and cultural importance in Hinduism. These sacred markers represent protection, blessings, and religious devotion. Their removal was not only an insult to the faith but a deliberate act of humiliation aimed at discouraging public expression 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 kalawa 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. When such acts are carried out by teachers—authority figures in a position of trust—they become a form of subtle religious indoctrination. This kind of manipulation, especially when directed at minors, can gradually create disaffection toward their own religion and lay the groundwork for future conversion. It is also important to recognise that minors, by definition, cannot provide informed consent or undergo a genuine change of conscience. Children are still developing emotionally, cognitively, and socially, making them especially vulnerable to external influence and far less capable of critically evaluating such pressures. Subtle tactics used by such figures are often difficult for parents to detect, making it harder to safeguard children against religious grooming. These dynamics make this more than a disciplinary issue—it is a case of religiously motivated hate involving the targeting of Hindu practices, suppression of religious freedom, and elements of predatory proselytisation through manipulation. Given the circumstances and the age of the victim, this case merits documentation under multiple hate crime categories in the database.