Case Summary

At Don Bosco School in Sirajuli, Sonitpur district, Assam, a Hindu student was subjected to harassment by a Christian teacher named Rini Rose. The minor student was forced to remove her tilak and threatened with corporal punishment if she didn't abide by it. According to an OpIndia exclusive report, the victim was a kindergarten student whose tilak was wiped off by her class teacher, Rini Rose. The incident left the child traumatised. When the victim informed her parents, they rushed to the school and lodged a complaint with the Principal (Father), who assured them that such an incident would not be repeated. However, the following day, the child was subjected to a similar treatment by Rini Rose. The tilak, which holds deep religious and cultural significance in Hinduism, was again forcibly removed from her forehead. The victim was also threatened with punishment if she arrived at school with the tilak on her forehead again. This threat from Rini caused the child significant emotional distress. Disturbed by these events, the victim’s uncle, Avadh Kishor Verma, filed a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Dhekiajuli Police Station. In his complaint, Verma stated, “This act not only hurts our religious sentiments but also amounts to an infringement of our fundamental right to practise and express our religion, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It is a direct act of religious discrimination and a deliberate insult to the Hindu faith.” He further stated, “I am ready to co-operate fully with the investigation and can provide any additional details or evidence required. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.” As per the victim's uncle, a police team reached Don Bosco School in Sirajuli soon after his complaint, but the Principal (Father) informed them that the accused teacher, Rini Rose, had already left for her home. The victim was left traumatised by the consecutive incidents and the threat of corporal punishment. The child had been deeply affected by the teacher’s behaviour. Verma said, “We want action against the teacher and the school authorities.” He was also committed to taking legal action against Don Bosco School in Sirajuli for their act of disrespect and religious intolerance. In an exclusive conversation with OpIndia, Verma also revealed that, a few days earlier, the Tulsi Mala of a Hindu Bengali student was forcibly removed by the authorities of the Catholic school.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category- Attack on Hindu religious representation. Within this, the subcategory selected is- Desecration of Hindu religious symbol. Icons and symbols or a religious representation of a spiritual ideal are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations, is driven by animosity towards the faith itself which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. Another primary category relevant in this case is- Attack not resulting in death. Within this, the subcategory 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. Another primary category selected is- Restriction/ban on Hindu religious practice. Within this, the subcategory 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. Another primary category relevant in this case is- Hate Speech against Hindus. Within this, the subcategory 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 primary category selected here is- Predatory Proselytisation. Under 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 forms the basis of predatory proselytization, such cases are considered religiously motivated hate crimes. The incident at Don Bosco School in Sirajuli, Assam, where a Hindu child was subjected to the forcible removal of her tilak and threatened with corporal punishment by a Christian teacher is a clear example of religious intolerance and a hate crime against a Hindu child. This act goes beyond mere disciplinary action and enters the realm of targeted hostility against a Hindu student for her religious identity, raising serious questions about the protection of Hindu students in educational institutions. The tilak is not merely a decorative mark; it holds profound spiritual and cultural significance for Hindus. It is an emblem of Hindu religious identity, often applied during prayers, rituals, and as a daily affirmation of faith. By forcibly wiping off the tilak, the teacher did not just remove a physical mark, but symbolically attempted to erase the child’s religious identity and expression. Such an act is deeply disrespectful and is an attack on the core values and practices of Hinduism. Moreover, this incident represents a clear restriction on the expression of the Hindu identity of the Hindu child. The teacher’s action sends a chilling message that Hindu symbols are not welcome and that Hindu students may be punished or harassed for displaying them. This not only infringes upon a Hindu child’s fundamental right to religious expression but also sets a dangerous precedent for other Hindu students who may feel compelled to hide their faith to avoid similar treatment. The targeting of the child specifically because of her Hindu identity further underscores the gravity of the incident. The teacher’s actions were not random or based on a general school policy prohibiting all religious symbols; rather, she directed her target specifically at a Hindu child for wearing a tilak, a visible marker of her faith. The involvement of a Christian teacher in this incident also raises concerns about religious bias and the misuse of authority. Teachers hold a position of trust and responsibility, and their actions have a profound impact on the emotional and psychological well-being of their students. When a teacher uses their authority to target and threaten a child on the basis of her religious identity, it constitutes a grave abuse of power. Such actions contribute to an environment of religious intolerance where Hindu students feel unsafe about expressing their own religious identity. Another point to highlight is that the Hindu child was threatened with corporal punishment if she wore the tilak again. This showcases the element of intimidation and coercion involved in targeting the religious identity of the Hindu victim. This is not merely an act of discipline, but an attempt to suppress a particular religious identity through fear and humiliation. Finally, the emotional trauma experienced by the child as a result of this incident cannot be understated. Being singled out, humiliated, and threatened for expressing her faith can have a profound impact on a child’s sense of self-worth and belonging. It sends a message that Hindu identities are less valued or even unwelcome. Such actions are common tactics in environments where subtle or overt pressure is used to alienate Hindu children from their roots. It serves as the first step in a larger pattern of grooming, where consistent ridicule and punishment for Hindu practices make a child more susceptible to abandoning their faith and embracing another under pressure. Further, according to the victim's uncle, this was not an isolated event; just a few days prior to this event, a Hindu Bengali student was also forcibly asked to remove their Tulsi Mala, another sacred Hindu symbol. Such repeated actions indicate a deliberate attempt to suppress Hindu religious practices and intimidate Hindu students who display their faith, thereby creating an atmosphere of fear and exclusion based on religious identity. This systematic targeting of Hindu symbols and students amounts to religious intolerance within the school environment. Such acts are motivated by religious hostility towards Hindus and their expression of their religious 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 doesn’t change the appearance of the uniform itself. This religious symbol is benign and does 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 school teacher 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. In conclusion, the forcible removal of the tilak, the attack on a Hindu symbol, the restriction on religious expression, the targeting of a Hindu child for her Hindu identity, and the threat of corporal punishment by a Christian teacher collectively constitute a serious case of religiously motivated hate crime. Therefore, this case is being added to the hate crime database.