According to the latest data from the Migration Policy Institute, 2.7 million Indian immigrants live in the United States, with thousands more coming into the country each year. These immigrants, as they enter their new home in the West, are not mere blank slates. Rather, they carry with them rich histories and cultures that interplay within the fabric of the diaspora. Contemporary political issues from their homeland find expression within the legal and political frameworks of the Western societies that they now inhabit.
Amongst these political issues is the endeavor to redefine India as a Hindu nation. Nationalist efforts have traveled far from the Indian mainland from which they originated, extending their influence into diasporic communities. This trend can be discerned through the emergence of a term that has become increasingly recognizable in the United States — “Hinduphobia.”
The working definition used by the Understanding Hinduphobia Initiative, an enterprise to increase public consciousness and discourse about Hinduphobia, describes the term as “a set of antagonistic, destructive, and derogatory attitudes and behaviors towards Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) and Hindus that may manifest as prejudice, fear, or hatred.” This term has sparked controversy between various segments of the South Asian community in the U.S. State governments across America have presented resolutions condemning Hinduphobia. Politicians and activists who have proposed to add caste as a protected category have also been accused of Hinduphobia.
How valid are these accusations? Hinduism, as a non-Judeo-Christian religion, has historically faced suspicion within the American zeitgeist, resulting in discrimination against Hindus for their religious practices. However, more recently, the term “Hinduphobia” has been frequently employed by groups in the U.S. that have ideological roots in Indian, Hindu nationalist paramilitary organizations — organizations with specific political aims that extend beyond a simple social justice narrative.
The wrongful labeling of valid ideological criticism as Hinduphobia is ubiquitous. It is used to ward off criticism against India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, to downplay the violence used against minority religious communities in India, and to stifle anti-caste discrimination bills that seek to reduce inequality. These instances, in which political advocacy has been demurred by critics as Hinduphobic, demonstrate the ways in which bad faith actors have blurred the line between legitimate political speech and actions discriminatory toward Hindus.
Global Hindu Nationalist Networks
Hindu nationalist organizations in India have a long history of violence, often working in tandem with the ruling political party: the BJP. This history is essential for understanding how their structures and power centers translate into the United States.
In 2002, riots that largely targeted Muslims in the Indian state of Gujarat led to hundreds of deaths, with some estimates even reaching up to 2,000 casualties. An independent report by Human Rights Watch found that the riots were a “concerted campaign” for the benefit of the BJP, adding that violence is often “supported at the local level by militant groups that operate with impunity and under the patronage of the state.” The report also singled out Hindu nationalist organizations, such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad and their overarching umbrella organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, as being primarily responsible for the violence.
These same organizations have established a network of power in the United States and other Western nations. Renowned political scientists Christophe Jaffrelot and Ingrid Therwath argue in an essay analyzing the Hindu diaspora in the West that “The Sangh Parivar, a network of nationalist Hindu organizations, was replicated among the Hindu diaspora and its structure was literally exported by a centralized body located in India itself.”
Vishwa Hindu Parishad America is an active and central group that promotes this fundamentalist ideology. While they emphasize on their official materials and website that “VHP of America is distinct, legally separate and operationally independent,” they clarify that they are “inspired by the same values and ideals as those followed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad of Bharat.” They are intricately connected to the ideologies and power initiatives of violent nationalist organizations in India. Dr. Audrey Truschke, an associate professor of South Asian history at Rutgers University, adds that VHPA follows “its Indian parent group in encouraging militant, including violent, behavior among Hindus.”
VHPA has hosted anti-Muslim speakers like Ashok Singhal, who once remarked that the 2002 pogrom was a “successful experiment” and that “what happened in Gujarat will happen in the whole of the country.” An archived organizational chart from 2003 outlines VHP India’s strategy for global coordination, encompassing various VHPs worldwide, including the one in America. VHPA has also disbursed significant amounts of money to organizations in India affiliated with RSS. Though perhaps not legally connected, it is apparent that ideologically, organizationally, and financially, VHP and VHPA are intrinsically linked.
These Hindu nationalist groups, with their connections and history of mass death and extremist ideas in the homeland, operate quietly and employ a framework of general Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion language to advance their agenda in the United States. The term Hinduphobia is almost exclusively used by such organizations as a benevolent front for their political goals.
Hinduphobia in the United States
It would be remiss to state that Hindus have not faced discrimination while residing within the United States. Religious minorities in America often bear an undue burden in carrying on their religious traditions and preserving their beliefs. However, religious discrimination does not justify the censorship of certain political ideologies under the guise of Hinduphobia.
Sravya Tadepalli, a student at Harvard Kennedy School and a member of the Board of Directors for Hindus for Human Rights, conveyed in an interview with HPR that “growing up in a town that was extremely White and extremely Christian, I faced a lot of discrimination for being Hindu, specifically for my religion.” Tadepalli’s experience is one that is resonant for many Hindus around the country. Social media is also a place where Hindu discrimination abounds, with offensive slurs and memes on all corners of the internet, from controversial websites like 4chan to more mainstream ones like X (formerly Twitter).
However, the term “Hinduphobia” is often used as a political tool to silence opposition to Hindu nationalism rather than to address genuine discrimination against Hindus. Sangay Mishra, a professor of political science at Drew University, has been deployed to “defend Hindu nationalist ideas, Hindu nationalist politics — any kind of criticism of what’s happening in India.”
Since gaining power in 2014, the BJP has attempted to institute many Hindu nationalist policies in India. Most controversially, the 2019 Citizen Amendment Act fast-tracks citizenship for certain religious minorities, excluding Muslims, which many scholars fear “makes it easier for the government to terrorize, imprison and deport Muslim migrants.” This act was passed alongside a thrust by the BJP to nationally expand the National Registry of Citizens. If implemented, the NRC would require all Indians born between 1950 and 1987 to prove their Indian birth, a challenge for many without proper documentation. However, due to the CAA, Hindus would be exempt — thus, according to scholars, these laws would have collectively established a de facto citizenship hierarchy based on religious background.
Recent initiatives aimed at addressing Hinduphobia in the U.S. have not focused on instances of discrimination faced by Hindus. Instead, they often target voices in the diaspora, especially Muslims, that have criticized CAA and NRC.
When a spokesperson from the VHP of America was asked what they thought was perpetuating Hinduphobia in the United States, they explained in a statement to the HPR that it was the “Deliberate misrepresentation of Hindu culture by religio-ethnic groups that have colonized Hindus in the past” — an apparent nod to Muslims.
Rasheed Ahmed, Executive Director of the Indian American Muslim Council, explained in an interview with the HPR the impact of accusations of Hinduphobia on their work over the past few years. The organization, originally founded in 2002 after the Gujarat riots, was established to conduct research and to educate the Indian diaspora community about the violence perpetrated by Hindu nationalist extremist organizations. He explains that “anything we speak about to educate people about the ideology of Hindu far-right, they push back and say ‘this is Hinduphobia.’” IAMC has publicly opposed CAA and NRC as part of their educational and advocacy efforts. Ahmed adds that “There is a great difference between Hinduphobia and trying to educate the average person about the far-right ideology of Hindu supremacism.”
Hindu nationalist organizations have labeled organizations like the IAMC as “Hinduphobic” for opposing the CAA and NRC, framing their political stance against these controversial bills as an attack on all Hindus.
Responding to the groups that have opposed the CAA and NRC, VHPA said in a statement sent to HPR, “We see a convergence of Hindu hating groups in America. For any given issue of importance to Hindus, the same groups line up against Hindus in utter disregard to underlying human cause or human suffering at the ground level.” They explain the need for such legislation in India, “For example, Hindus and Sikhs are severely persecuted in countries in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Government of India brought in a bill to give prioritized immigration to those fleeing existential threat. The Hinduphobic organizations opposed these bills in the U.S.”
This false narrative of Hinduphobia is also perpetuated by biased studies that target political criticism. A study conducted at Rutgers University researching Hinduphobia is often cited by Hindu nationalist organizations in the diaspora as proof of widespread Hinduphobia. Posed as neutral, some of the authors of the study are linked to VHPA and other Hindu nationalist organizations.
A section of the study states that they found more than 1.5 million tweets from state-sponsored Iranian trolls from the years 2010 to 2021, clarifying that many of those tweets were perpetuating “anti-Hindu disinformation.” However, the study cites fewer than ten examples from Twitter. Many tweets were collected during the Delhi riots following the passage of CAA, during which 40 Muslims were killed by a Hindu mob. These tweets mainly provide factual information about the situation, and approximately half of the examples don’t even mention the word “Hindu.” They primarily consist of political statements critical of the BJP government. When HPR reached out to one of the authors of the study about their research methods, data, and how they identified what counted as “anti-Hindu disinformation” from state-sponsored trolls, they declined to comment.
These Hindu nationalist organizations have primarily directed their efforts toward targeting individuals and groups who oppose the BJP rather than addressing instances of discrimination against followers of Hinduism based on their religious tradition. Tadepalli explained in an interview with HPR that this sort of rhetoric is counterintuitive — “We actually need to distinguish what is anti-Hindu. What is racism? What is xenophobia? What is misplaced Islamophobia, and what is just valid criticism of the Indian government and oppressive structures?” She explains that it’s important to make this distinction because “when you do that, no one takes actual anti-Hindu discrimination seriously.”
This rhetoric has permeated U.S. legislatures, as seen in the Georgia resolution condemning Hinduphobia, which cited the questionable Rutgers study as evidence. American political bodies may inadvertently be endorsing Hindu nationalists through their support of such resolutions. This advancement of a Hindu nationalist agenda by American politicians is especially nefarious given that many of them are being led to believe that they are preventing discriminatory practices.
Caste and Hinduphobia
Allegations of Hinduphobia have also been used to oppose another political movement by Diasporic South Asians: anti-discrimination bills based on caste identity.
Professors Paula Chakravartty and Ajantha Subramanian explain in an op-ed in the New York Times that “Caste is a descent-based structure of inequality.” They clarify that in India, caste identity often dictates who has jurisdiction over various domains, including land, education, and labor. The lowest caste Dalits — previously derogatorily called “untouchables” — face systemic discrimination in India and are often treated as unclean. They are also denied many opportunities for social mobility, including often not being allowed into schools and places of worship.
Caste is a complex identity that has worked its way over to the diaspora. However, the question of whether caste remains a significant mode of delineation within immigrant populations has remained controversial with Hindu nationalist organizations, who have alleged that legal acknowledgments of caste are just a proxy for Hinduphobia.
In 2023, Seattle became the first city to enact an ordinance specifically prohibiting caste-based discrimination, citing “social alienation and discrimination in housing, education and the tech sector.” A similar bill in California, attempting to add caste as a protected category, has been introduced by state Sen. Aisha Wahab. Some Hindu organizations have opposed such measures, contending that Hindu identity has been unfairly singled out. In a statement sent to HPR, the Hindu American Foundation said that they don’t believe there is a need for such laws since “existing laws prohibiting discrimination based on ancestry already provide a means of providing justice.” They added that passing these laws “also opens the door to racial profiling of Hindus and anyone from South Asia perceived as being Hindu.”
However, proponents like Seattle City Councilor Kshama Sawant and Professor Cornel West argue that to combat such discrimination, caste specifically needs to be identified. In an essay for the Jacobin, they jointly argued that “In reality, protections against caste-based discrimination are necessary because most often those who face it and those who perpetuate it are both South Asian or of a common racial background.”
VHP of America has adopted a more contrarian perspective, telling the HPR that there has been “no legitimate, proven, documented case of caste discrimination in the U.S.” In their view, “any legislation that refers to caste is nothing but a dog whistle for Hindus and Hinduism,” adding that “These bills are a direct attack on the Hindu way of life unleashed by Hindu haters in America.” Just last week, activist Geeta Sikand said, while protesting California’s anti-caste legislation, that if Governor Newson doesn’t veto the bill — “You will go in history as the Hitler for all of us. You will begin the cultural genocide of Hindus.”
These arguments posited by VHPA and HAF ignore the pervasive reality of caste discrimination. They deflect any attempts to correct systemic inequities as a targeted attack on Hinduism as a religion. A comprehensive survey conducted by Equality Labs, a Dalit civil rights organization, revealed that many Dalit individuals have experienced discrimination in educational and workplace settings. Alongside a lawsuit alleging discrimination conducted by the tech company Cisco against people of Dalit identity, these findings have brought the issue to the forefront of discourse, causing many Dalits to speak out about their troubling experiences.
Anil Wagde, a Dalit individual and member of Ambedkar International Center, said in an interview with HPR that the organization found caste discrimination to be quiet, beginning with inconspicuous questions that asked about your background, inquiring about your eating habits — trying to figure out who was a Dalit, which would lead to them “excluding you from the various projects,” referring to Dalit experiences working with other South Asians in the tech world.
It’s not a Hindus-versus-others situation as presented by VHPA — bills and ordinances that incorporate caste provide protection for Dalit Hindus against such discrimination. As Tadepalli emphasized to the HPR, “The vast majority of Hindus are not Brahmins or upper caste. They’re actually Dalits or other backward castes.’” She added that, “when you fight for an anti-caste discrimination law, you’re fighting for the majority of Hindus.”
This sort of caste-blind argument utilized by Hindu nationalist organizations obfuscates the reality of Hindu identity, narrowing it to a homogeneously privileged, upper-caste construction. In a 2021 interview with HPR, professor Ajantha Subramanian, a Harvard scholar focusing on caste in South Asia and the diaspora, observed, “One can sort of argue that one is caste-blind or race-blind, but that doesn’t negate the history of caste and race. In fact, the claim to caste blindness or race blindness is itself an expression of privilege.”
This “expression of privilege” in Hindu nationalist rhetoric is primarily concerned with the potential discrimination faced by upper-caste Hindus rather than the actual discrimination faced by the majority of lower-caste individuals who are treated as second-class citizens in India and face serious discrimination in America. “The Organiser,” an RSS newspaper, dramatically highlights the potential impact of such legislation, going so far as to say that “These youth and children will be branded as ‘upper caste’ and then bullied in their schools. They will be deprived of many academic opportunities. They will be made to feel guilty for their supposed privileged lives.”
They argue that the real issue lies in introducing the concept of caste into America, creating divisions — but the fact remains that it has always existed. It’s not “supposed privilege,” but rather actual privilege, that is finally being acknowledged. In an interview with the HPR, Seattle City Councilor Kshama Sawant discussed the opposition that the Seattle ordinance received from Hindu nationalist forces. She compares such arguments to those that have been raised in racial discourse in the United States: “We heard this all throughout the George Floyd protests. Talking about racism is divisive to society as if the racism itself is not what is divisive.”
To groups like VHPA, Hinduphobia only appears to be a concern when it targets their constructed upper-caste Hindu identity.
Religion vs. Ideology
These violent Hindu nationalist tactics, Sawant says, don’t have as much sway in the diaspora — “They’re much more emboldened in India because the entire state apparatus, big business, the billionaire, they’re all going along with it, which is not the situation here.”
However, these movements are gaining political power and the backing of traditional parties in America based on the facetious refitting of their violent political motives into benign-sounding rhetoric that seems, at face value, to be promoting acceptance and diversity. Instances of real-life violence have already occurred in pockets of the diaspora throughout the United States and, more significantly, throughout the U.K.
Hindu nationalists wear a sort of dual identity that obscures their origins — Ahmed of IAMC says that “they want to have both ways. They want to deny affirmative rights or any kind of facilities to neglected, discriminated people who are minorities in India, but here they would like to enjoy the same thing.” In America, “They would like to see affirmative action; they like to see religious freedom.”
Hinduphobia has been an essential term in making Hindu nationalist ideas palatable to those who don’t know the hatred that is ideologically backing these groups. While violently oppressing Muslims and Dalits in India, falsely presumptive Hinduphobic narratives ask for equality while perpetuating ethnic superiority.
Tadepalli explains that this isn’t true Hinduism. It’s a “kind of an idea of ethnic superiority and supremacy rather than any kind of theological understanding of social justice.” She continues,“ There are so many stories of resisting oppression in our tradition, and there are so many stories of the importance of accepting everyone is equal and accepting God is in everyone.”
The religion itself is inherently incompatible with the ideology that it’s been manipulated to be.
Correction (October 6, 2023): An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that “Hinduphobia” is a term that came into existence 5 years ago. The term is believed to have originated in the latter half of the 19th century.
Managing Editor
