The central argument of “Hindutva and the American Dream” is that the “Hindutva in America” report, published by the Rutgers University Center for Security, Race, and Rights, is not neutral academic scholarship but rather a “politicized and ideologically charged narrative” designed to malign American Hindus. It asserts that the Rutgers report deliberately mischaracterizes Hindutva and American Hindu organizations as an “ethno-religious threat,” conflates Hindu identity with extremism, and promotes recommendations that would lead to institutional discrimination against American Hindus. “Hindutva and the American Dream” posits that the Rutgers report is a “structured ‘hit piece'” that uses biased framing, selective sourcing, and misrepresentation to achieve its agenda of vilifying the Hindu American community and suppressing their legitimate civic engagement.
“Hindutva and the American Dream” claims the “Hindutva in America” report exhibits bias and prejudice through several analytical frameworks:
- Sentiment Analysis: The report maintains a “uniformly negative tone,” systematically omitting Hindu-centric perspectives and using “dysphemisms, misrepresentations, and omission of positive contributions” to construct an anti-Hindu and anti-India narrative. Terms like “Hindutva” appear over 200 times in negative contexts, conflated with fascism and extremism.
- Bias Analysis: It consistently frames Hindu identity as “political and extremist,” omits favorable counterpoints, uses “charged visuals,” and recycles negative tropes. Examples include describing Hindutva as an “ethnonationalist threat” and Hindu groups fostering “anti-Muslim bigotry.”
- Intent and Emotions Analysis: The report aims to “marginalize and discredit Hindu-American civic identity,” utilizing “fear-inducing language” and fostering mistrust towards American Hindu organizations. It uses emotional triggers and moral outrage by making misleading comparisons.
- Story Framing and Order of Information: The Rutgers report is structured to depict Hindus negatively, employing “pervasive selective omission and stereotyping.” It frontloads negative framing from the executive summary, emphasizing allegations of extremism and Islamophobia without including Hindu voices or pluralistic activities.
- Language and Word Choice: It uses inflammatory terms like “paramilitary RSS” and “indoctrinating Hindu children,” along with militarized metaphors, fostering fear and distrust. There’s a “lack of positive or neutral language” for Hindu traditions.
- Logical Fallacies and Misleading Statements: The Rutgers report relies heavily on “strawman fallacies,” “false analogies” (equating Hindutva with Nazism or white supremacy), “confirmation bias,” and “appeals to emotion” to present a one-sided portrayal.
- Misleading Statistics, Omission, and Cherry-Picking: It uses “misleading statistics” to inflate claims of Hindu violence, “omits” pluralistic statements, and “cherry-picks” negative incidents to create a hostile narrative.
- False Equivalence: The report draws “false equivalences” between Hindutva and ideologies like Nazism, white supremacy, and Islamist radicalism, and equates “caste” with racial apartheid, misrepresenting Hindu civilizational pride.
- Media and Source Bias: The Rutgers report is accused of “significant bias,” relying on “ideologically aligned outlets” and activist groups known for anti-Hindu rhetoric, while “nearly no genuine Hindu voices or counter-arguments are referenced.”
“Hindutva and the American Dream” defines Hindutva as “Hindu + tattva,” signifying “the essence of Hindu dharma” or Sanatana Dharma. It describes Hindutva as a nonviolent “civilizational response to the erosion of dharma,” aiming to preserve “Hindu dignity, sovereignty, and pluralism” and “cultural reawakening.” It emphasizes that Hindutva stands for “Vedic pluralism,” does not seek religious conversion or exclusion, and asserts the right of Hindu civilization to preserve its diversity. The document cites the Indian Supreme Court’s 1995 judgment, which stated that Hindutva is “a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism.”
This definition directly counters the “Hindutva in America” report’s portrayal of Hindutva as an “ethnonationalist threat,” “distortion of Hinduism,” and an ideology “conflated with fascism, violence, and extremism.” “Hindutva and the American Dream” argues that the Rutgers report fundamentally “misconstrues Hindutva” by reducing it to a political formulation disconnected from its philosophical and cultural roots, thereby “vilifying an entire tradition.”
“Hindutva and the American Dream” criticizes the “Hindutva in America” report’s recommendations as an attempt to “institutionalize discriminatory treatment” and “criminalize cultural continuity and political advocacy” against Hindu American organizations. The key criticisms are:
- Cessation of Partnerships: The recommendation to sever partnerships with U.S.-based Hindu organizations is deemed “legally indefensible and ethically problematic.” These organizations are described as “lawful, transparent, and socially beneficial nonprofit entities” engaged in humanitarian service, interfaith dialogue, and civil rights advocacy. Excluding them based solely on “ideological framing” is considered “viewpoint discrimination” and a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Sanctions and Entry Denial: The proposal to impose sanctions or deny entry to individuals based on alleged ties to anti-minority violence in India is called a “thinly veiled attempt to export ideological censorship.” “Hindutva and the American Dream” states there is “no credible evidence linking any U.S.-based Hindu organization to the funding or facilitation of violence,” arguing such actions would violate due process and set a dangerous precedent.
- Enhanced Financial Transparency: Demanding increased financial scrutiny of Hindu nonprofits is deemed “unnecessary and discriminatory” because they already comply with strict IRS regulations. Targeting Hindu organizations with additional requirements while exempting others is considered “religious profiling” and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- Mandating FARA Registration: The call for mandatory registration of American Hindu organizations under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is dismissed as lacking legal merit. The report argues there’s “no credible evidence” these U.S.-based groups operate under foreign government control, and compelling FARA registration based on “ideological associations” would be an “abuse of the statute and a violation of constitutional rights.”
- Promoting University Programs to Combat “Hindutva-Inspired Discrimination”: While protecting students from discrimination is commendable, the report argues that framing this recommendation implies Hindu identity and advocacy are inherently suspect, risking “creating a climate of bias against Hindu students and scholars.”
In essence, “Hindutva and the American Dream” concludes that these recommendations are “not grounded in rigorous scholarship or legal principles” but reflect “an ideological agenda aimed at marginalizing a minority community.”
“Hindutva and the American Dream” strongly refutes the accusation that U.S. Hindu organizations transport “Hindutva from India to America” as a “dangerous distortion” that vilifies peaceful diaspora communities. It asserts there is “no credible evidence that any Hindu-American advocacy or cultural organization” has engaged in or incited violence in the U.S. or abroad. Instead, groups like HAF, VHPA, HinduPACT, AHAD, HSS, and Sewa International engage in civic education, humanitarian relief, temple support, and interfaith dialogue, operating as “lawful, transparent, and socially beneficial nonprofit entities.” The report highlights that Hindu Americans are frequently targets of hate crimes and harassment themselves, citing temple defacements and protests outside leaders’ homes.
Regarding “maintaining links with Hindutva groups in India,” “Hindutva and the American Dream” describes this portrayal as a “gross distortion that conflates legitimate community organizing with malevolent intent.” It specifically addresses the Global Hindu Electronic Network (GHEN) and its Hindu Universe website, launched in 1993, as a “groundbreaking cultural archive and resource hub for the global Hindu community,” focused on knowledge sharing, digitized scriptures, and responding to misrepresentations. It argues that digital networks like e-shakhas are normal for global communities to stay connected and educate youth, not clandestine indoctrination. The report contends that Hindu organizations have the same right to community-building as any other group, and that to vilify these efforts as a “far-right network” is a “rhetorical attempt to suppress Hindu self-assertion in the digital age.”
To counter claims of “promoting Hindu nationalism” and “anti-Muslim and anti-minority attitudes,” “Hindutva and the American Dream” offers several arguments:
Promoting Hindu Nationalism:
- Legal Compliance and Civic Focus: U.S. Hindu organizations are legally registered nonprofits governed by American law, focusing on humanitarian service, educational reform, civil rights advocacy, and cultural preservation. Their public records show “no evidence of partisan political activity or foreign influence.”
- Normal Diaspora Advocacy: Advocacy for accurate representation and religious freedom is normal for diaspora communities (e.g., Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans) and does not equate to political nationalism.
- Misrepresentation of Youth Programs: Programs like Balagokulam or Bal Vihar are misrepresented as “caste-based indoctrination.” These programs actually emphasize compassion, self-discipline, and service, teaching stories of Dalit saints and social reformers.
- Hindu Pluralism: The accusation of claiming “sole authority” over Indian culture and excluding minorities is false. Hinduism is described as the “world’s most pluralistic tradition,” embracing diverse philosophical streams and interfaith collaboration.
- “Caste in America” Trope: The “caste narrative” is seen as a “discredited” proxy to delegitimize Hindu Americans, citing the collapse of the CISCO caste case due to lack of evidence.
- Cultural Preservation, Not Extremism: Initiatives like the Darshana exhibit, which introduces Hindu Dharma’s pluralistic worldview, are vilified as “far-right” propaganda, despite reflecting a vision of harmony and nonviolence. Defending the Hindu origins of yoga is framed as respecting cultural integrity, not “weaponizing” it.
Anti-Muslim and Anti-Minority Attitudes:
- Lack of Credible Evidence: Claims of “Hindu nationalist aggression” toward Muslims and Christians in the U.S. diaspora are deemed “unsubstantiated, exaggerated, and serve only to stigmatize.” The Rutgers report fails to cite “a single concrete incident” of targeted violence by Hindu groups in the U.S.
- Misinterpretation of Symbols: The “bulldozer float” incident in Edison, NJ, is presented as a misinterpretation of a symbol of “law-and-order governance” in India, not anti-Muslim violence.
- Legal Defense as “Attack”: HAF’s SLAPP lawsuit against defamatory claims is presented as a legitimate defense, not a “nonviolent attack” or act of suppression.
- Disregard for Hindu Victimization: The report is criticized for minimizing the Kashmiri Pandit genocide while amplifying “communal anxieties” from India onto American Hindu spaces.
- Interfaith Collaboration: Hindu organizations consistently participate in interfaith coalitions promoting tolerance and shared values, debunking claims of teaming with “white Christian nationalists.”
In essence, the response argues that the accusations are based on “innuendo rather than evidence,” “selective use of alarmist rhetoric,” and a “deep-rooted bias” that misrepresents normal civic and cultural activities as extremist.
HinduPACT makes several key demands for Rutgers University and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in response to the “Hindutva in America” report, reflecting concerns about systemic anti-Hindu bias and the impact of “cancel culture”:
Demands for Rutgers University:
- Author and Funding Disclosure: Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and Rights must disclose the names of the authors and their institutional affiliations, along with all funding sources, to identify potential conflicts of interest.
- Academic Receivership for SASP: Rutgers should adopt “academic receivership” for its South Asian Studies Program (SASP), appointing an external administrator to oversee curriculum reforms, faculty hiring, and protections for Hindu students. This is likened to the DOJ’s intervention in Columbia University’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) department due to antisemitism.
- Hiring Hindu Scholars: South Asian and religious studies departments must hire scholars who practice Hindu dharma and specialize in Hindu philosophy and dharmic studies to “counterbalance adversarial narratives.”
Demands for the U.S. Department of Justice:
- Investigate Institutions for Hinduphobia: The DOJ must investigate Rutgers University, the University of Denver, and Columbia University for “Title VI violations and discrimination against Hindu students,” given the report’s origin from Rutgers and the stated biases in other institutions.
- Investigate Report Authors: The DOJ should investigate the authors of the report and their connections to “designated terrorist organizations” (though no specific organizations are named in this demand, previous sections mention groups like Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) being banned in India).
- Investigate Advocacy Organizations: The DOJ should investigate advocacy organizations promoting systemic Hinduphobia, specifically naming the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Hindus for Human Rights, due to their alleged ties to “international organizations that aim to harm the interests of the United States of America.”
- Funding Disclosure and Compliance for DGH Supporters: South Asian Study Centers and Departments that supported the “Dismantling Global Hindutva” conferences and continue to promote their outcomes must disclose their funding sources and comply with Title VI. If they continue to foster “Hindu hate,” they should be placed under academic receivership, similar to the demand for Rutgers’ SASP.
These demands collectively seek transparency, accountability, and the enforcement of civil rights protections for Hindu students and organizations, arguing that existing biases violate principles of academic freedom and pluralism.
“Hindutva and the American Dream” connects the “Hindutva in America” report to broader issues of “cancel culture” and academic bias against Hindus by arguing that the report “embraces and reinforces” a trend of marginalizing Hindu viewpoints through social, professional, and institutional exclusion.
The report is presented as exemplifying several “mechanisms of Cancel Culture Targeting Hindus”:
- Guilt by Association: Hindu American organizations are “collectively blamed for political developments in India” over which they have no control.
- Selective Framing and Omission: The report neglects the significant humanitarian, educational, and interfaith work of Hindu organizations, offering a skewed view of their activities.
- Ideological Litmus Tests: Hindu organizations are implicitly required to “denounce certain Indian political figures or movements” to be considered acceptable in American civic life, a standard not applied to other diaspora communities.
- Institutional Barriers: The report’s recommendations, if enacted, would establish barriers to Hindu participation in public life, including “forced withdrawal of partnerships, increased legal scrutiny, and exclusion from academic forums.” This mirrors historical tactics of marginalization, such as those faced by Jewish Americans during the McCarthy era.
The document argues that this “normalization of cancel culture tactics” threatens academic freedom and democratic discourse by:
- Violating Pluralism: Stigmatizing and excluding Hindu voices violates the principles of intellectual pluralism and open exchange of ideas in universities.
- Fostering Self-Censorship: Hindu students and scholars report a “climate of fear and self-censorship,” avoiding discussions or challenges to dominant ideological orthodoxies due to concerns about social ostracism or academic retaliation.
- Legal Violations: The tactics raise “serious legal concerns” regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry, and the First Amendment’s protections for speech, association, and religious exercise. Federal lawsuits are cited as evidence of “concrete impact of cancel culture tactics on constitutional rights.”
- Hostile Campus Climate: Surveys indicate Hindu students face increased bullying, social isolation, and misrepresentation of their identity in academic settings, with universities criticized for failing to protect them.
“Hindutva and the American Dream” asserts that the “Hindutva in America” report “reflects and contributes to an emerging cancel culture targeting American Hindu civic participation and academic engagement,” ultimately undermining democratic pluralism and constitutional rights. It calls for rigorous enforcement of Title VI and First Amendment protections to safeguard Hindu voices in academia and public life.