Not so Salient - The Caste Police Strikes Again

Caricature forcing all Hindus into a presumed identity

The article portrays CoHNA as exclusionary radicals seeking to impose an hereditary hierarchy through its advocacy. We respond as leaders of CoHNA who are also members of Dalit and Bahujan groups – the very ones the caste activists claim to champion. And we are in good company. 

We would remind them of the tragic death of Milind Makwana, the Bahujan leader who passed away in July 2023, opposing the very SB403 law that was claiming to protect Hindus like him. 

The article’s core accusation that CoHNA wields a “theocratic veto” over Harvard and American policy rests on mischaracterization. Framing routine advocacy as “capture” or “pressure campaigns” dismisses the right of minority communities to push back against content they find demeaning, much as other groups do without being branded segregationist.

Incident involving insensitive image 

Consider the trigger incident at Harvard’s Department of South Asian Studies, which the article uses as its primary exhibit. The image in question depicted Bhagwan Krishna, in a reductive manner shorn of context – presenting a revered deity as a symbol of manipulation and control.  All this to illustrate an introductory Sanskrit course? 

The community response, led by CoHNA, was not an attempt to “dictate the limits of imagery” or impose a “Medieval” theology. It was a call to remove content that demeaned a sacred figure and perpetuated harmful stereotypes. Harvard’s Department of South Asian Studies acknowledged the image as insensitive, removed it, and issued a statement of regret. Framing this as evidence of a “bigoted fringe” dictating terms to academia inverts the reality. The episode highlights the need for institutions to treat Hindu religious sentiments with the same respect afforded to other faiths. 

Fueling conspiracy by elevating allegation as evidence 

The piece’s handling of the BAPS Swaminarayan investigation is equally tendentious. After a four-year federal probe by the DOJ, FBI into allegations of forced labor and exploitation, authorities closed the case in September 2025 with no charges filed. Multiple plaintiffs withdrew their claims, some stating under oath that no coercion or caste-based discrimination occurred. CoHNA hailed the outcome as closure to a prolonged smear that tarred an entire community based on unproven allegations. Yet the Salient twists this exoneration into evidence of evasion, implying innocence proves guilt of influence. This logic evades basic principles of due process: accusations require proof, not perpetual suspicion. A closed investigation is not evidence of a “puppetmaster”’s victory but a failure to substantiate claims.

Regarding legislation like California’s SB403, CoHNA opposed it not to shield discrimination but because existing laws already prohibit it based on ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, and religion. Creating a singular “caste” category risked profiling an entire community without evidence of widespread U.S. incidents. Research shows specific types of caste training are more likely to make average Americans stereotype Hindus and single them out as worthy of unjust punishment. 

California Governor Newsom’s veto cited caste as already protected in existing categories. This opinion bears alignment with conservative principles against excessive, redundant or targeted laws that get weaponized. To decry this as a “Brahminist veto” while conservatives typically oppose expansive identity-based legislation exposes selective outrage.CoHNA has always maintained that discrimination of any kind (including on caste) is abhorrent and needs to be tackled.

Theological Cherry-Picking

On Hindu theology, the piece regurgitated known attacks. The essay cherry-picks verses to assert an immutable “ethnic hierarchy” inherent to Hinduism (pejoratively called Brahminism). 

Their treatment of the Manusmriti is palpably erroneous. The Salient determined the Manusmriti as being the primary law book of Hindu tradition. Conveniently ignoring  that the Manusmriti took on unprecedented status as an applied legal document only after early British rule appointed Sir William Jones, who attempted to codify Hindu law, elevating one among hundreds of sacred texts called Dharmashastras. There is no historical evidence of propagation implementation of Dharmashastras and thinking of them as applied legal code is a misunderstanding of history.

They quoted from the Rig Veda’s Purusha Sukta (10.90.12)  “The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya [Kshatriya] made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced”. It conveniently omits the context: the passage is a reference linking elements of the universe to parts of a cosmic body, not a legal prescription for a rigid social order.

The Salient would learn the same if they cared to read the immediate next verse (10.90.13)  “The moon was born from his mind; the sun was born from his eye;  Indra and Agni were born from his mouth, Vayu from his breath,” linking elements of the universe to body parts (moon from mind, sun from eye….). Applying the logic used to analyze the earlier verse to the one that follows, would imply Hindus stand “accused” of ranking the Moon higher than the Sun and similar comical assertions. 

Editorial Bankruptcy

As a glaring sign of bankruptcy in editorial objectivity, Salient misreads (or perhaps does not read at all) its own referenced materials. The article accused CoHNA of playing semantic games and being unable to explain centuries of ethnic discrimination before British arrival. To prove their claim regarding the existence of caste rigidity and centuries of ethnic discrimination, the Salient cited as evidence an article in the International Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences. The article itself says “The first all-India census, conducted by the British in 1871–1872, documented caste and tribe classifications, although placing each group within the four-Varna framework proved challenging. Soon after, castes began petitioning for higher status.”  

Had the system been clear and rigid, one would expect census taking on caste to be a straightforward exercise with clear mappings to Varna. If a system was not fluid, then how would jati-groups attempt to scale up within a colonial state’s perceived hierarchy? 

This is because contrary to the Salient’s claim suggesting evidence of centuries of historical discrimination, neither their cited source nor a wider investigation would come up with specific historical examples of discrimination along colonial caste categories. Professor Sanjoy Chakravorty of Temple University, writing for the BBC, documents how the colonial census of the 19th century took what was a fluid, barely systematized set of social identities and hardened them into fixed, legally consequential categories purely for administrative convenience.

If we look at primary data from the colonizers’ even as they attempted to assign castes to Indians, we see the report from Mr. Middleton, a superintendent of the 1921 census survey of the Punjab Province of India, pointing out how “caste” was being created even as they counted.

“We pigeonholed every one (sic) by caste, and if we could not find a true caste for them, labeled them with the name of a hereditary occupation. We deplored the caste system and its effects on social and economic problems, but we are largely responsible for the system we deplore … Government’s passion for labels and pigeonholes has led to a crystallization of the caste system, which except amongst the aristocratic castes, was really very fluid under indigenous rule.”

Researchers and editors involved in the piece, if any, could benefit by considering alternate careers.

Closeted Colonialism 

Proving our point of colonialism impacting Hindus perceptions, the Salient suggests Harvard could “defend the Hindu faith against outdated and extreme misunderstandings”. This mirrors 19th-century attitudes, where British administrators claimed superior insight into Hindu traditions, often redefining them through a colonial lens to justify intervention and control. 

Harvard’s Latin motto of Veritas derives from a common Indo-European root word Ṛta or Sanksrit ऋतं (a central theme of the Rigveda) which brings Hindu reverence for cosmic order and truth. CoHNA invites honest engagement grounded in facts, historical nuance, and mutual respect not straw-man polemics.