Hindu student denied permission to celebrate Hindu festival of Holi by Aligarh Muslim University authorities
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India 
24 February, 2025
Case Summary
Authorities at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in Uttar Pradesh have denied permission to Hindu students to organize a Holi Milan event on campus to celebrate the Hindu festival of Holi. The students had requested approval to hold the gathering at the university club, but their request was rejected by the administration. Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi Bareilvi, the national president of the All India Muslim Jamaat, justified the decision, arguing that since Muslims form the majority of the university’s student population, Holi should not be celebrated there. He further stated that mutual respect is crucial for maintaining peace and that if Muslim students oppose the event, it does not necessarily need to be held on campus, especially given the small number of Hindu students at AMU. The denial of permission has sparked outrage among Hindu students, who have accused the university administration of discrimination. They pointed out that while their request to celebrate Holi was rejected, AMU has no objections to religious gatherings such as Iftar parties organized in various departments and hostels, as well as Tazia, Muharram, and Chehlum processions within the university premises. Following the outrage, the Proctor of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Professor Wasim Ali Khan, said, "On 26th February, five students had given to me a signed letter addressing the Vice-Chancellor requesting the VC to assign them a location to organise a special event for Holi celebrations on March 9. The University decided that as no such special permission has ever been granted before, so the same will be followed now. Holi is celebrated by students in their respective departments and hostels at the university. The University is not in favour of granting permission for any special celebrations." Meanwhile, members of Akhil Bharatiya Karni Sena held a protest against the Aligarh Muslim University administration after they declined to grant permission for the Holi event to be organised by the Hindu students on March 9. Reacting to the controversy, former mayor Shakuntala Bharti asserted that if Holi celebrations are prohibited, then Eid festivities should also not be permitted on campus. Notably, a similar uproar occurred last year when Hindu students at AMU were attacked and beaten by Muslims during Holi celebrations. A video of the incident had surfaced on social media, showing Hindu students fleeing for their lives as Islamists launched a violent assault on them. The official complaint described how hundreds of Muslim students had quickly gathered, wielding pistols and sticks, while hurling abuses at Hindu deities. The attackers reportedly made derogatory remarks about Hindu Gods and Goddesses and even proclaimed, “Today, let us teach a lesson to the children of prostitute Sita.” The assailants then brutally assaulted the Hindu students, who barely managed to escape with their lives.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category of- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. Under this, the first 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 second sub-category selected here is- Administration restricting religious practices. 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. This case exemplifies clear discrimination against Hindu students, as they were denied permission to celebrate their festival on university grounds, while religious events of another community continue to be allowed without restrictions. The refusal to permit Holi celebrations was not based on logistical concerns but on the assertion that the festival should not be observed because the institution has a Muslim-majority student body. This reasoning effectively marginalises Hindu students and disregards their religious rights, fostering an environment where their traditions are seen as unwelcome. The administration’s decision reflects a broader pattern of selective suppression of Hindu practices within the institution. Despite the presence of Hindu students, their right to express their religious identity is being curbed, even though events such as Iftar gatherings, Muharram processions, and other religious observances face no such restrictions. Such differential treatment creates an exclusionary atmosphere where Hindu students are made to feel like outsiders within their own university. Moreover, this incident is not an isolated one. In the past, Hindu students have been physically attacked for celebrating their festival on campus, with Muslim students of the University hurling abuses at Hindu deities and resorting to violence. The university administration’s consistent failure to uphold the religious freedoms of Hindu students while permitting other religious groups to observe their traditions without interference demonstrates a systemic bias and hostility they harbour for Hindus and their faith, warranting the inclusion of this incident in the Hinduphobia tracker..
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
