Briefing Note: Rutgers Hindutva in America Report Response

Source: Hindutva and the American Dream: A Case for Inclusion and Representation. A Critical Counter- v. 1.1 ©HinduPACT, 2025. Produced by American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD), an initiative of HinduPACT.

Overview: This document is a critical counter-response by HinduPACT (a Hindu policy research and advocacy collective) and American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD) to a report titled “Hindutva in America: An Ethnonationalist Threat to Equality and Religious Pluralism,” published by the Rutgers University Center for Security, Race, and Rights. HinduPACT’s response argues that the Rutgers report is not objective academic scholarship but rather a “politicized and ideologically charged narrative” that exhibits significant anti-Hindu bias and promotes discriminatory recommendations. The document asserts that Hindutva is a nonviolent civilizational response rooted in dharmic principles and that Hindu-American organizations play vital cultural and humanitarian roles, engaging in legitimate civic advocacy.

1. Executive Summary: Challenging the Rutgers Report’s Framework

The HinduPACT/AHAD response immediately frames the Rutgers report as a biased and ideologically motivated “hit piece” rather than neutral academic research. It argues that the Rutgers report “advances a politicized and ideologically charged narrative” that “characterizes Hindutva as an ethno-religious threat imported from India, portraying Hindu-American organizations as extensions of Indian political parties.”

Key points from the Executive Summary:

• NLP Analysis Reveals Bias: An Natural Language Processing (NLP) audit indicates “significant linguistic bias,” with “Hindutva” frequently appearing in negative contexts and conflated with “fascism, violence, and extremism.” The report uses “dysphemistic adjectives such as ‘radical,’ ‘supremacist,’ and ‘militant'” when referring to Hindu organizations.
  
  
• Mischaracterization of Hindu Identity: The Rutgers report “fundamentally misconstrues Hindutva as a distortion of Hinduism rather than a reflection of its civilizational ethos in modern political contexts.” It frames legitimate civic institutions like temples and cultural associations as “transnational political fronts.”
  
  
• Rejection of Rutgers’ Recommendations: HinduPACT highlights the “troubling aspects” of the Rutgers report’s recommendations, which include urging universities to “cut ties with Hindu organizations, label them as foreign agents, and examine their finances closely.” These are seen as “reminiscent of McCarthy-era tactics” and a “serious threat to the civil liberties of Hindu Americans.”
  
  
• HinduPACT’s Recommendations: To restore balance and protect civil rights, HinduPACT demands “full transparency about the authorship and funding of the Rutgers report,” federal investigations into “Title VI violations” for Hinduphobia, and assessment of academic programs for “faculty diversity, curricular neutrality, and the inclusion of scholars grounded in Hindu practice and philosophy.”

2. Analysis of Sentiments, Biases, Emotions, Intent, and Hate in the Rutgers Report

HinduPACT dedicates significant sections to a detailed analysis of the Rutgers report’s linguistic and structural biases, using what it calls “HinduHate Bias Detector Methodology” (developed by Tattwa.ai).

• Sentiment Analysis: The Rutgers report exhibits a “uniformly negative tone, extreme Hinduphobia risk, and systematically omits Hindu-centric perspectives.” The overall sentiment score is “markedly hostile, with a score of 4.67 on a 5-point scale, where 5 represents the most extreme negativity.”
  
  
• Polarity: “Overwhelmingly negative polarity toward Hinduism, Hindutva, and India.”
  
  
• Hinduphobia Risk Score (HRS): Rated 5 (high risk), indicating “Multiple HinduHateRules4.xlsx tropes present; the article uses ideological misrepresentations and false equivalence repeatedly.”
  
  
• Omission of Positive References: The report shows “severe” omission of positive contributions by Hindu organizations.
  
  
• Bias Analysis: The Rutgers document “consistently exhibits anti-Hindutva and anti-Hindu nationalist bias.”
• Examples of Biased Statements: “Hindutva is an ethnonationalist threat to equality,” “Hindutva groups foster anti-Muslim bigotry in America,” and “RSS is a fascist paramilitary organization influencing U.S. Hindu groups.” Each is rated Negative 5 for bias.
  
  
• Intent Analysis: The Rutgers report’s clear intent is to “marginalize and discredit Hindu-American civic identity.” The overall intent score is 5, “signaling a strong anti-Hindu bias, with explicit attempts to undermine Hindu perspectives within American civic and academic spheres.”
• Goals include “Frame Hindutva as an existential threat,” “Tie Hindutva to fascism and authoritarianism,” and “Promote deplatforming and governmental restrictions.”
  
  
• Emotions Analysis: The Rutgers report’s tone is “consistently hostile and emotionally charged,” primarily fostering “fear and alarm” towards Hindu American civic engagement and cultural expression.
• Emotional triggers include “Ethnonationalist threat,” “RSS is a fascist paramilitary,” and “Web of influence,” which provoke fear, disdain, and suspicion.
  
  
• Story Framing: The Rutgers document “is structured to depict Hindus and Hindu organizations in a profoundly negative light, employing pervasive selective omission and stereotyping.”
• It presents “false historical equivalence” by linking Hindutva to fascist movements and uses “loaded framing” against Hindu charities and civic advocacy.
  
  
• Order of Information: The structure “reveals a clear and deliberate bias that systematically leads readers to adopt a negative view of Hindu-American organizations.”
• It uses “Frontloading Bias” by presenting “extreme negativity” in the Executive Summary and Introduction, emphasizing “allegations of extremism and Islamophobia.”
  
  
• Language and Word Choice: Analysis reveals a “rhetorical strategy employing emotionally charged terms, negative framing, and selective omission that crafts a hostile narrative toward American Hindu identity.”
• Examples include “paramilitary RSS,” “indoctrinating Hindu children,” and “Hindutva has Nazi-era links.”
  
  
• 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.”
• Statements like “Hindutva ideology promotes violence” are cited as strawman fallacies.
  
  
• Misleading Statistics, Omission, and Cherry-Picking: The Rutgers report “displays systematic patterns of misleading statistics, omissions, and cherry-picking” to “inflate claims about Hindu involvement in violence and discrimination.”
• It “fails to acknowledge pluralistic statements, peace-building efforts, and the lawful activities of Hindu-American groups.”
  
  
• Euphemisms and Dysphemisms: The Rutgers report “relies heavily on a rhetorical pattern of dysphemisms and selective euphemisms to frame Hindu identity, advocacy, and cultural presence in a distorted light.”
• Examples of dysphemisms include “Hindutva extremists,” “militant Hindutva ideology,” and “RSS proxy groups.”
  
  
• False Equivalence: A “central narrative strategy” in the Rutgers report is connecting “Hindutva and Hindu civilizational pride with extremist ideologies like Nazism, White supremacy, and Islamist radicalism.”
• Quotes cited include: “Hindutva nationalism mirrors Nazi ideology,” “RSS is the Indian equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan,” and “Caste discrimination is equivalent to racial apartheid.”
  
  
• Media Bias and Media Source Bias: The Rutgers report “shows media bias by offering a one-sided narrative that reinforces negative stereotypes about Hindus and Hindutva.” It relies on “ideologically aligned outlets that criticize Hinduism, Hindutva, and India,” such as IAMC, HfHR, The Wire, and Al Jazeera, while excluding “Hindu-centric sources.”

3. Systematic Response to the Rutgers Report’s Specific Claims

HinduPACT systematically rebuts various claims made in the Rutgers report, offering counter-arguments and evidence.

• Attack on Hindu Dharma by Proxy: HinduPACT argues that the Rutgers report deceptively uses “Hindutva” to criticize “Hindu dharma and its practitioners.” It defines Hindutva as the “essence of Hindu dharma” and a “nonviolent civilizational response to the erosion of dharma,” promoting “cultural reawakening.”
• It cites the Indian Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling that “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism.”
  
  
• Credibility of Report Authors: HinduPACT questions the anonymity of the Rutgers report’s authors, alleging their “academic connections to institutions like Rutgers University, Columbia University, and the University of Denver… are known for fostering exclusionary narratives.” It criticizes their “reliance on adversarial and compromised sources” and highlights the “Wendy Doniger Controversy” as an example of academic bias.
  
  
• “Hindutva Networks in the U.S.”: HinduPACT asserts that American Hindu organizations (e.g., VHPA, Sewa International, HAF, CoHNA, HSS-USA, HinduPACT) are “lawful, transparent, and socially beneficial nonprofit entities” with missions emphasizing “humanitarian service, interfaith dialogue, educational reform, and civil rights advocacy.”
• These organizations “operate fully in compliance with U.S. federal regulations” and have “documented contributions to American society,” such as Sewa International’s disaster relief work and VHPA’s temple safety initiatives.
• HinduPACT emphasizes that “The California vs Hate Report (2024) documented that 23.3 percent of religious hate crimes in the state targeted Hindus.”
  
  
• “The Nexus of Adversarial Ecosystem”: HinduPACT identifies a “cluster of organizations consistently cited in reports and coalitions critical of Hindu-American civic engagement” including IAMC, HfHR, Sadhana, and Sikhs for Justice (SFJ, which it calls a “designated extremist organization”). It claims these form a “tactical alliance of Marxist, Islamist, and separatist networks united by a common hostility toward Hindu identity.”
• It also points to “Academic Collaborators and Institutional Patronage,” alleging that “Major U.S. foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, have provided significant grants to projects and centers that promote ‘caste in diaspora,’ ‘gender and Hindu nationalism,’ and ‘Hindutva threat’ narratives.”
  
  
• “Why These Actors Target Hindus”: HinduPACT argues that hostility toward Hindu identity is influenced by “broader historical, ideological, and political dynamics.”
  
  
• Challenge Posed by Hindu Dharma: Hindu dharma’s “principles of non-proselytization, pluralism, and civilizational continuity” challenge “Marxist, postcolonial, and critical theory frameworks” that dominate academia.
  
  
• Control of Academic and Public Narratives: There is a “desire to maintain control over academic and public discourse,” with scholars like Rajiv Malhotra and Koenraad Elst documenting how Western foundations shape South Asian studies to “privilege adversarial frameworks.”
  
  
• Political Interests and Strategic Alliances: “Alliances among Marxist, Islamist, and separatist groups further amplify anti-Hindu messaging,” aiming to “fragment Indian society and undermine Hindu civilizational narratives.”
  
  
• Postcolonial Guilt and Orientalism: “Hinduism, as a non-Abrahamic tradition with a history of resisting both colonialism and religious conversion, occupies an ambivalent position in Western intellectual discourse,” leading to “stereotypes of Hindu exoticism or barbarism.”
  
  
• “Transporting Hindutva from India to America”: HinduPACT refutes the claim that the “American Sangh has been growing in virulence,” stating “there is no credible evidence that any Hindu-American advocacy or cultural organization… has engaged in, promoted, or incited violence.”
• It highlights that “Hindu Americans have been frequent targets of hate crimes and vandalism,” citing temple defacements and public harassment of Hindu leaders.
  
  
• “Maintaining Links with Hindutva Groups in India”: HinduPACT refutes the portrayal of “Sangh Parivar’s digital presence as a means for global manipulation and harassment.” It defends the Global Hindu Electronic Network (GHEN) and the Hindu Universe website as “groundbreaking cultural archive[s] and resource hub[s] for the global Hindu community.”
• It argues that AHAD, founded in 1997, “is the first and only organization in the United States that systematically monitors media, products, and institutions for anti-Hindu bias and takes prompt and appropriate action.”
  
  
• “Hindutva Leverages Americans’ Unfamiliarity with India”: HinduPACT calls the assertion that U.S. institutions should scrutinize “light links” to Hindu American organizations “reckless and discriminatory.” It argues that Hindu Americans “have established an impeccable record of civic contribution” in the U.S.
• It dismisses claims of “indoctrination” in youth programs as “colonial paranoia” and “religious targeting cloaked in policy language.”
  
  
• “Eight Priorities of US Hindu Organizations”: HinduPACT provides specific rebuttals to each of the eight alleged priorities:

1. Promoting Hindu Nationalism: Denied; organizations focus on humanitarian service, education, civil rights, and cultural preservation, similar to other diaspora groups.
2. Spreading Anti-Muslim Sentiment: Denied; Hindu organizations engage in interfaith collaborations and condemn bigotry.
3. Conflating Indian and Hindu Identities: Defended as normal and constitutionally protected expressions of diaspora identity, common among other ethnic groups.
4. Attacking Scholars Critical of Hindutva: Rebutted as “constitutionally protected efforts to challenge academic bias and promote intellectual pluralism,” not attacks.
5. Opposing Civil Rights for Caste-Oppressed Communities: Denied; opposition to specific laws like CA-403 was due to concerns about discriminatory treatment, not opposition to civil rights.
6. Supporting Hindutva Agendas in Indian and U.S. Politics: Denied; American Hindu organizations operate independently, focusing on domestic issues.
7. Deflecting Criticism Through Claims of Hinduphobia: Argued that “Hinduphobia” is a documented reality, not a manufactured concept, citing FBI hate crime data.
8. Seeking Influence with Politicians: Defended as a “standard and lawful aspect of civic engagement protected under the First Amendment,” comparable to other diaspora groups.

• “Promoting Hindu Nationalism” (Detailed Rebuttal): HinduPACT strongly refutes the “upper-caste, martial, intolerant, homogenous” portrayal.
• It highlights the “discredited ‘Caste in America’ trope” and the withdrawal of the CISCO caste case due to “failing to produce evidence.”
• Youth programs like Balagokulam emphasize “compassion, self-discipline, respect for elders, and seva (service)” and critics have “not presented any credible evidence to support their broad claims.”
• It defends Hindu organizations’ efforts to acknowledge Hindu origins of Yoga and the Darshana exhibit as cultural preservation.
  
  
• “Anti-Muslim and Anti-Minority Attitudes”: HinduPACT calls the Rutgers report’s claims “unsubstantiated, exaggerated, and serve only to stigmatize.” It demands “verified cases, legal complaints, police reports, or media documentation showing targeted campaigns or violence by Hindu groups against Indian Muslims in the U.S.”
• It defends HAF’s SLAPP lawsuit as a “legitimate attempt to defend the community’s reputation against slander.”
• It refutes the “conspiratorial smear” of Hindu groups teaming up with “white Christian nationalists,” highlighting Hindu organizations’ consistent “interfaith coalitions.”
  
  
• “Whitewashing of History and Intimidation Campaigns Against Scholars”: HinduPACT labels the Rutgers report a “polemical instrument” that conflates “religious tradition, community engagement, and political ideology.”
• It states Hindu groups’ textbook reform efforts (like VEF, CAPEEM, HAF) are transparent and aim to correct “long-standing Orientalist distortions.”
• It defends Hindu student groups (HSC, Hindu YUVA) as providing “spaces for identity formation, community service, and interfaith dialogue,” not “soft recruitment” into “far-right ideology.”
• It denies “doxxing, swatting, and violent threats,” stating “No mainstream Hindu organization in the U.S. has been charged with such actions.”
  
  
• “Erroneously Conflating ‘Hindu,’ ‘Indian,’ and ‘Hindutva’”: HinduPACT calls this portrayal “historically inaccurate… and deeply prejudiced.”
• It defends the “indigenous identity of Hindus” as a “civilizational continuum” emerging from Indian soil.
• It strongly condemns the Rutgers report’s “dismissal of the Kashmiri Pandit genocide” as “historical erasure and moral bankruptcy.”
• It stresses that “The Swastika is one of the oldest sacred symbols of peace and prosperity,” and equating it with Nazism is “culturally violent and intellectually dishonest.”
  
  
• “Promoting Hindu Ethnonationalism” (Detailed Rebuttal): HinduPACT claims this section is a “deeply flawed and ideologically driven attack… using ‘caste’ as a proxy to delegitimize” Hindu Americans.
• It re-emphasizes the collapse of the CISCO caste case due to “no evidence of caste-based bias.”
• It argues that the “attack on caste is not about protecting rights—it is about stigmatizing Hindu dharma.”
• It states that America’s merit-based immigration system is “agnostic to caste” and that “all forms of discrimination are already covered under U.S. law.”
  
  
• “Reframing Criticism of Hindu Ethnonationalism as ‘Hinduphobia’”: HinduPACT calls the dismissal of Hinduphobia a “dangerous intellectual bias that equates Hindu identity itself with political extremism.”
• It cites FBI data: “84 anti-Hindu hate crimes were reported by the FBI in 2023—a 300% increase from previous years.”
• It calls the comparison to “Zionist suppression of criticism” an “antisemitic framing tactic” and questions why anti-Hindu biases do not receive similar scrutiny.
  
  
• “Influencing American Foreign Policy and Lobbying Politicians”: HinduPACT characterizes this as misrepresenting “legitimate democratic engagement.”
• It states that HinduVote (HinduPACT initiative) is a “civic education effort” comparable to other faith-based political advocacy groups.
• It clarifies that OFBJP’s FARA registration does not imply that other American Hindu groups are “foreign agents.”
• It defends the right of diaspora communities, including Hindu Americans, to engage on homeland issues, similar to Jewish or Irish communities lobbying for their respective homelands.
  
  
• “Discrimination Against Minorities within the Indian American Diaspora”: HinduPACT labels the Rutgers report’s claims “intellectually dishonest and deeply prejudiced.”
• It argues that Hindu organizations operate from “civilizational ethics, not electoral calculations,” and are not “ideologically inconsistent.”
• It critiques Vijay Prashad’s “The Karma of Brown Folk” for essentializing the community and making “racialized slur[s] disguised as academic critique.”
• It highlights universities’ failures to protect Jewish students as a parallel, arguing Hindu students deserve similar protections.
• It strongly refutes the connection of Hindu civic life to the Babri Masjid demolition, describing the Ram Janmabhoomi movement as a “cultural and spiritual reclamation” upheld by the Indian Supreme Court.
  
  
• “Attack Campaigns Against Public Schools and Scholars”: HinduPACT calls this a “distortion” of “legitimate, democratic, and inclusive effort[s]” by American Hindus to ensure accurate representation in education.
• It points out a “double standard”: while Islamic organizations promoting “World Hijab Day” are celebrated, Hindu efforts are criticized.
• It highlights that Hindu students “have reported being mocked for practicing vegetarianism, wearing bindis,” demonstrating “genuine harm.”
  
  
• “Promoting Islamophobia at the Local Level”: HinduPACT calls the portrayal of the “bulldozer float” incident a “gross distortion.” It asserts that the bulldozer is a symbol of “law-and-order governance” in India, not “targeted ethnic cleansing.”
• It accuses the Rutgers report of ignoring the “Kashmiri Pandit genocide” while amplifying “alarmist rhetoric” about the float.
• It highlights that “No complaints were filed with law enforcement” regarding the parade and that the “Teaneck Town Democratic Municipal Committee resolution condemning the float” was more likely “a campaign tactic.”

4. Impact of Cancel Culture

HinduPACT asserts that the Rutgers report “embraces and reinforces a broader trend of ‘cancel culture’ targeting American Hindu organizations, students, and civic leaders.”

• Mechanisms: The report employs “guilt by association,” “selective framing and omission,” and demands that Hindus “denounce certain Indian political figures” as “ideological litmus tests.”
• Implications: It poses a “significant threat to academic freedom and democratic discourse,” leading to “chilling effect” and “self-censorship among students and scholars.”
• Legal/Constitutional Dimensions: Cancel culture tactics against Hindus raise “serious legal concerns,” violating “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act” and “First Amendment” protections.
• Campus Climate: Surveys show that “one in three Hindu students had been bullied for their religious beliefs,” and “about half expressed feelings of awkwardness or social isolation.”

5. Rutgers University and Anti-Hindu Bias

HinduPACT explicitly critiques Rutgers University’s record, asserting “systemic anti-Hindu bias.”

• Lack of Intellectual Pluralism: Rutgers’ South Asian Studies Program “lacks permanent Hindu faculty and privileges adversarial frameworks that reduce Hinduism to caste, patriarchy, and political extremism.”
• It specifically names Professor Audrey Truschke for mocking Hindu deities and misrepresenting scriptures, which has “incited online harassment of Hindu students.”
• Hostile Campus Climate: Hindu students at Rutgers report “significant increase in social ostracism, verbal harassment, and classroom marginalization.” A 2023 survey found “78 percent of Hindu students at Rutgers felt their identity was misrepresented.”
• Title VI Complaint: CasteFiles (an allied Hindu advocacy group) filed a “Title VI complaint against Rutgers University in 2024” for failing to protect Hindu students and perpetuating an “unscientific, unproven caste discrimination narrative.”
• Kashmir Flag Controversy: HinduPACT cites Rutgers’ decision to display “flags of occupied peoples – including but limited to Palestine, Kurds, and Kashmiris” as evidence of Rutgers becoming “unwelcoming… for Hindu students, faculty, and staff,” given the history of violence against Kashmiri Hindus.

6. HinduPACT Demands

HinduPACT concludes with a list of specific demands to address the alleged biases and discrimination:

1. Transparency: Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and Rights must disclose the authors’ names and affiliations, and all funding sources for the Center, its faculty, and authors.
2. Investigation of Institutions: The Department of Justice (DOJ) should investigate Rutgers, University of Denver, and Columbia University for “systemic Hinduphobia” and “Title VI violations.”
3. Academic Receivership: Rutgers’ South Asian Studies Program (SASP) should be placed under “academic receivership” with an external administrator to oversee reforms and protect Hindu students.
4. Investigation of Authors and Organizations: The DOJ should investigate the Rutgers report authors for “connections to designated terrorist organizations” and advocacy organizations promoting Hinduphobia (IAMC, HfHR) for ties to “international organizations that aim to harm the interests of the United States of America.”
5. Funding Disclosure and Compliance for South Asia Study Centers: Centers that supported the “Dismantling Global Hindutva conferences” must disclose funding, comply with Title VI, and face academic receivership if Hindu hate continues.
6. Diversify Faculty: 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.”