Authorities restrict DJ music for Ram Navami procession, no curbs on Eid celebrations
Gaya, Bihar, India 
25 March, 2025
Case Summary
In Bihar’s Guraru Police Station area, authorities imposed restrictions on DJ music and ‘objectionable’ songs during the Ram Navami procession. A peace committee meeting was held ahead of Ram Navami, Chaiti Chhath, and Eid, where BDO Sambhav Kumar Singh, CO Nupur, and SHO Chahat Kumar urged people to celebrate peacefully. However, the administration’s directives specifically curtailed aspects of the Hindu festival, prohibiting DJ music and certain songs during the procession.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added under the primary category- Restriction/Ban on Hindu Practices. The first 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 categorised as a hate crime. The second subcategory selected is- Administration disallows religious procession, and the tertiary category chosen within this is- 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 categorised 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 has been added to the Hinduphobia Tracker as it highlights institutional prejudice against Hindu religious expressions. Ram Navami is an important religious procession, and halting the DJ sound system under the pretext of maintaining public order, specifically in a Hindu event, raises serious concerns about bias. What is even more concerning is that no such restrictions were implemented on the Muslim festival of Eid. This decision was discriminatory and indicative of religious bias. Further, it is important to mention here that every individual has the right to practice their religious faith, and restricting someone from doing that can also be considered a prejudicial order, denying the Hindu community its fundamental rights. Such arbitrary actions taken against Hindus are prejudicial to the rights of Hindus and stem from animosity and prejudice against Hindu beliefs. This incident reflects a broader issue of selective restrictions, where Hindu religious expressions are consistently regulated, limited, or obstructed in areas with significant Muslim populations. This action is discriminatory and indicative of religious bias. Consequently, this incident is being categorised as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
State and Establishment
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
