Hindus barred from carrying Mahashivaratri procession, prohibited from using religious symbols
Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh, India 
23 February, 2025
Case Summary
Hindus in Salon, Raebarelli, Uttar Pradesh, were restricted from carrying out a Mahashivaratri procession by the police in Raebarelli. The police restricted the Hindus from carrying the procession and banned bells, conches, and saffron flags. The official X account of Sudarshan News Uttar Pradesh posted a video regarding this incident, which showed a Hindu man who said that the police did not allow them to carry out a religious procession. He stated that on 19th February 2025, he asked for permission from the District officer of Salon to carry out the Mahashivaratri procession. The police restricted the procession and asked the Hindus to celebrate the festival by only offering water to Shivalinga. The police did not allow more than nine Hindus to carry out a religious procession and banned the use of bells, conches, and saffron flags in the procession. The police said that strict action would be taken otherwise. The Hindu man stated that, "Under this Tughlaqi rule, it feels like we are living in Bangladesh." The Hindu man further questioned the authorities, asking why the Hindus were restricted from carrying out the Mahashivaratri procession. He said the authorities infringed on the religious rights of Hindus. While local Hindus showed the order passed by the Salon police, the police thereafter responded saying that a "peace committee" was organised by the police and refuted the allegations made by local Hindus. They claimed that the religious festivities would continue as usual and no new traditions would be established.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the primary category 'Restriction/Ban on Hindu practices' under the sub-category 'Administration disallows religious procession'. In several cases, it is seen that the administration/state disallows a religious procession 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 procession, by pressure groups that harbour animosity towards Hindus, intrinsic to their faith. Since the religious procession is inherent 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 procession 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 process 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. In this case, the local Hindus claimed that their religious rights were being infringed upon by the police after they disallowed a religious procession, restricting the procession only to 9 people. Further, they said they were not allowed to carry their religious symbols during the festivities as well. In an of itself, this would be a classic case of the administration infringing upon the rights of the Hindus and restricting them from practising their faith. The police in this case denied the charges and claimed that a "peace committee" was formed, after which, it has been reiterated that the festivities would continue unhindered, like previous years. While the police has denied the allegations of the Hindus, who even showed the police order, there are specific elements that we need to consider in this case. The police often denies such cases after news of such restrictions generate outrage by the people. In this case, the police, while denying that such an order was passed, also admits that a peace committee was formed. It is a fairly obvious question to be asked at this juncture that if there was no strife and such an order was not passed to begin with, why was a peace committee formed and why was the need for such a peace committee felt? It seems obvious that this order, as detailed by the Hindus, was passed and thereafter, strife ensued. To address the strife, a peace meeting was called after which, the police removed the restrictions and posted on social media that the version of the Hindus was incorrect. Since the police's version seems contradictory and the news channel has local Hindus on record detailing their ordeal, this case is being added to the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Case adjudicated
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
