Skip to main content

Rutgers academic event on Hindutva draws political backlash, security concerns

By A Representative
 
An academic event at Rutgers University examining Hindu nationalism in the United States has triggered controversy and political reactions, with its organizers reporting online harassment and threats.
The October 27 discussion, titled “Hindutva in America: A Threat to Equality and Religious Pluralism,” was hosted by the university’s Center for Security, Race, and Rights (CSRR). The event explored findings from a recent report that documents what it describes as the growing influence of Hindutva-linked networks in the U.S., including their alleged role in promoting hate and intimidation.
Following the announcement of the event, Rutgers professor of South Asian history Audrey Truschke (photo) said she and fellow panelists received death threats, including one post urging that the speakers be “burned alive.” Truschke has previously faced online harassment for her criticism of Hindu nationalist politics in India.
The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), a Washington-based advocacy group, called for protection of all organizers, academics, and students involved. IAMC president Mohammed Jawad said that academic scrutiny of Hindu nationalism “is not only protected free speech but necessary to safeguard minority rights,” while emphasizing that Hinduism as a faith must not be conflated with political Hindutva ideology.
However, several lawmakers — Congress members Sanford Bishop, Suhas Subramanyam, Rich McCormick, and Shri Thanedar — criticized the event and the CSRR report, arguing that it risked “singling out Hindu Americans” and urging Rutgers to promote “diverse perspectives.”
The episode echoes earlier disputes over academic discussions of Hindutva, such as the 2021 Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference, which faced similar backlash and online abuse directed at speakers.
Scholars and human rights researchers say that conflating Hinduism with Hindutva can stifle legitimate academic inquiry and debate. Groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative have previously documented connections between U.S.-based Hindu nationalist organizations and far-right movements in India.
IAMC urged civic groups and universities to support Rutgers’ academic independence and the safety of its participants amid continuing online threats.

Comments

TRENDING

Gujarat Sachivalaya blacklists, denies entry to woman social activist: Will NHRC probe?

By Kantilal Parmar*  I have approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) seeking an independent, impartial, and transparent investigation into a serious incident that took place at the Gujarat Secretariat in Gandhinagar on August 18, 2026. The matter concerns social activist and women’s rights leader Chandrikaben Solanki, who, according to the information available to me, was denied an entry pass to the Secretariat when she went there to meet Gujarat’s Social Justice and Empowerment Minister, Dr. Manishaben Vakil, to raise an issue concerning social justice.

Tibetan activist’s self-immolation sparks fresh concerns over cultural rights

By Kumar Krishnan*  The question of Tibet has once again entered international discourse, raising difficult questions about human rights, religious freedom, cultural identity, language, and the relationship between political power and the rights of indigenous communities. On 20 August 2026, the Kashag and the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile jointly organised a solidarity prayer service and peace march to mark the 49th day since the death of Lobga Rangzen, a Tibetan activist who died after self-immolating on 2 July in front of the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

IMF's policies 'stabilise' external creditors' balance sheets, 'generate' crisis in Africa

By Grieve Chelwa, Vijay Prashad   Across Africa, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) presents itself as the custodian of macroeconomic stability. Its latest Article IV staff reports on Ethiopia . Malawi , Nigeria , South Africa , and Zambia are written for economies with very different histories and institutions. Yet they converge on a familiar prescription: fiscal consolidation, tighter monetary policy, market-determined exchange rates, subsidy reform, deregulation and ‘private-sector-led growth’. No serious economist can dismiss macroeconomic stability.