Hindu girls barred from wearing Tulsi mala in school, sparking outrage over suppression of religious identity
North 24 Parganas district, West Bengal, India 
20 June, 2025
Case Summary
In the North 24 Parganas district of West Bengal, female Hindu students were prohibited from wearing the Tulsi mala—a sacred expression of Hindu identity—by the headmistress of their school. At Nabapalli Jogendranath Balika Vidyamandir, a girls' school, the headmistress, Indrani Dutta Chakraborty, issued a directive barring Hindu students from wearing Tulsi malas to school. An audio clip of the instruction was circulated via the school's WhatsApp group, leading to widespread concern. Parents of the students also objected to the decision being taken without consultation with the school’s management committee, stating that it violated the students' right to practise their faith. The order was soon withdrawn, and the headmistress issued an apology, stating that her remarks had been misinterpreted. Chakraborty explained that her intention was not to disrespect the sacred garland, but to prevent situations where the mala might fall to the ground and inadvertently cause offence. She said her concern arose after witnessing a student’s Tulsi mala on the floor and fearing it might hurt religious sentiments. She also added that she is a devotee of Lord Krishna and would never intentionally disrespect a sacred symbol.
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 primary category selected is - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, 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 Kalava 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. This case has been added to the tracker because female Hindu students were prohibited from wearing a Tulsi mala in school by the headmistress. Such a prohibition is not only an act of religious suppression but also an attempt to suppress and erase visible expressions of Hindu identity. In this case, Hindu religious expression was deliberately suppressed under the guise of enforcing school discipline. Restricting visible symbols of Hindu faith while holding a position of authority over impressionable students is a serious breach of the fiduciary and ethical responsibility educators are expected to uphold. The headmistress, by doing so, effectively tried to distance Hindu students from their religious identity and practices, which is often a precursor to soft conversion. It is also important to note that the Tulsi mala holds deep significance in Hinduism, especially among the Vaishnavites (followers of Vaishnavism). It is not just a spiritual accessory but a symbol of devotion and a visible assertion of their Hindu identity. Targeting this symbol reflects not just ignorance but also an institutional intolerance toward fundamental Hindu practices. Such targeting is not a neutral act; it stems from a place of prejudice and discomfort with the Hindu way of life, and therefore qualifies as a religiously motivated hate crime. It is further important to note here that 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. In this case, one could argue that schools have the right to enforce uniform rules, since wearing uniforms brings harmony and equality in the classroom, thus it was merely an enforcement of widely accepted uniform norms. However, it becomes important to mention here that most uniform codes focus on standardising clothing and accessories like shoes, belts, and hair. A tilak, kalawa or tulsi mala 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. This incident represents a clear violation of the rights of Hindu students to practise and express their faith freely. It is not merely about dress code enforcement; it involves abuse of authority and cultural suppression, all stemming from a position of religious bias. Moreover, this case is on the lines of a pattern where the Hindu identity is being increasingly marginalised even in supposedly secular and neutral spaces. It indicates a systematic attempt aimed at restricting any outward display of Hinduism and eliminating any of its visible forms from public life. It is for these reasons that the incident has been documented as a religiously motivated hate crime in the Hinduphobia Tracker. Chakraborty explained that her intention was not to disrespect the sacred garland, but to prevent situations where the mala might fall to the ground and inadvertently cause offence. But this stated concern is baseless and contradictory. Wearing a Tulsi mala is a deeply devotional act in Hinduism, often associated with personal piety, especially among Vaishnavas. To forbid students from wearing it on the pretext of “avoiding disrespect” undermines the very expression of devotion. If anything, prohibiting its use is the greater disrespect, not the rare chance it may accidentally fall. In Hindu tradition, if a sacred object like a mala or even a scripture accidentally falls, it is respectfully picked up and restored to its place. It is routine for devotees to wear Tulsi malas in crowded places, temples, homes, or public events—without concern that it might fall. To ban it outright due to a rare mishap reflects ignorance of both context and practice. If such reasoning were consistently applied, then schools would need to ban all religious or cultural symbols—such as turbans, hijabs, or crosses—that might also be disrespected if mishandled. Targeting only Hindu symbols under the guise of "protecting them" creates a discriminatory environment, even if unintended. Respect is not shown by hiding or banning symbols of faith, but by allowing their dignified and rightful presence in daily life. In summary, the justification that banning the Tulsi mala prevents its disrespect is flawed and counterproductive. In practice, it delegitimises Hindu religious identity in a public institution, and far from preventing disrespect, it actively causes it. Hence, this case is included in the hate crime database. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that the report does not specify the exact date when the prohibitory order was issued. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media.
Case Status
Complaint not filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
female
Sources 
