Hindu saints denigrated, compared to stray bulls
Satna, Madhya Pradesh, India 
26 March, 2025
Case Summary
Congress MLA Rajendra Kumar Singh’s remarks about Hindu saints sparked controversy, leading to strong reactions from political circles. Speaking at a Congress workers’ conference in Satna, Singh likened Hindu saints to “stray bulls” deployed by the BJP to advance its Hindutva agenda. His comments drew sharp criticism from the BJP, which accused the Congress of fostering an “anti-Hindu mentality.” The presence of Madhya Pradesh Congress chief Jitu Patwari at the event further intensified the political debate. Singh said that the BJP had strategically used religious figures to promote its ideological and political interests. He criticised the concept of India as a “Hindu nation,” arguing that the idea, initially championed by RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar and Syama Prasad Mookerjee, had taken deep root in the country’s political landscape. His remarks suggested that the BJP had been instrumental in mobilising saints and spiritual leaders to reinforce its Hindutva narrative, particularly in the context of the Ram Mandir inauguration and the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj. Referring to these religious events, Singh remarked that the BJP had “set these saints, sadhus, and Mahamandaleshwars loose among the people, instructing them to speak about Hindutva, promote the BJP, and spread the idea of Sanatan Dharma.” He further stated, “These bulls are now grazing in others’ fields,” implying that religious figures had been manipulated for political gain. The remarks ignited political tensions, with BJP leaders condemning Singh’s statements as disrespectful to Hindu religious figures and an attack on Sanatan Dharma. The Congress, however, did not immediately issue an official response. As the controversy unfolded, it remained to be seen whether Singh would face further political backlash or if the party would take a stance on his remarks.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the prime category- Hate speech against Hindus. The sub-category relevant in this case is- Mocking/denigrating Hindu leaders. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially, the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual, however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech which denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category. Congress leader's remarks directly targeted Hindu religious leaders, not as individuals but as representatives of their faith, reducing them to mere political tools. By comparing them to “stray bulls” and implying they were being manipulated to spread a particular ideology, he mocked their religious identity and the sacred role they play within the Hindu community. Such statements did not critique a political strategy alone but denigrated the religious figures themselves, reinforcing negative stereotypes and fostering resentment towards them. This form of speech, rooted in animosity towards the religious beliefs they uphold, aligns with the definition of hate speech as it seeks to diminish and belittle Hindu religious leaders due to their faith. Furthermore, such rhetoric has the potential to incite hostility against Hindu saints and religious figures, portraying them as instruments of political propaganda rather than spiritual guides. It encourages prejudice against Hindu religious leaders and, by extension, the wider Hindu community, by questioning the legitimacy of their beliefs and practices. By ridiculing those who promote Hindu traditions, Singh’s words not only insulted individuals but also attacked the faith they represent, which could lead to broader societal divisions and discrimination. Given the underlying religious animosity in his remarks, this case falls under the category of hate speech against Hindus, specifically targeting Hindu leaders.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
