Why Fear Naming Hinduphobia?

The first step to solving a problem is to understand and recognize it. We live in a world where lawmakers, media and institutions have long supported and understood the value of using terms like antisemitism and Islamophobia, in discussing specific types of hate. Georgia Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) does something similar  – only this time the group in question is Hindus, members of a microminority faith in the US, yet one that have been facing escalating levels of hate. 

SB 375 does not add any new penalties nor does it impose any restrictions on free speech, and it certainly does not prohibit criticism of any religion or state. It merely adds Hinduphobia to the state’s list of documented forms of discrimination—alongside antisemitism and racism. 

As John Farmer, the former Attorney General of New Jersey wrote in the foreword to the historic 2022 NCRI Report on Hinduphobia,  there is “unfortunately, nothing new to the bigotry and violence faced by the Hindu population…in a manner similar to antisemitism, today’s Hinduphobia exploits tropes that are centuries old to re-ignite hatred.” He added that “hate has a long memory. While hate speech — and the acts of violence it spawns — may wane and lie dormant, it never entirely disappears. The ‘dot busters’ may no longer be active in New Jersey, but their ideology surfaced as recently as 2021 in Atlanta.”

Yet this simple ask often triggers a vocal group of academic and activists who make it a point to deny the religious underpinning of dot buster attacks, temple vandalism and more. Why do they ignore data from California Civil Rights Department, where anti-Hindu hate has been found as second only to antisemitism?  Why the fear of naming Hinduphobia?  

Let us take on some of the most commonly raised objections

Claim 1: ‘Hinduphobia bills silence criticism of India or Modi.’

SB 375 makes no mention either of India or the current Indian Prime Minister; it has nothing to do with American foreign policy either. It is a state Bill that seeks to address crimes against Hindus that are happening in Georgia—like the “No Dots” signs that appeared in Forsyth County, GA, echoing the Dotbusters violence of the 1980s. Framing the Bill as an Indian government plot serves only one purpose, and that is to delegitimize the Hindu community’s civic engagement efforts and, ultimately, smear a diaspora-heavy community with a tired dual loyalty tag. 

Claim 2: CoHNA and similar groups are “right-wing”, “Hindutva” organizations and more

The accusatory labels vary but they all serve the same purpose: to insinuate that Hindu advocacy groups are driven by extremist ideologies and seek to propagate foreign agendas. Recently we have seen anti-Hindu activists Pieter Friedrich with a documented history of bigotry making such claims, using what they call a ‘Georgetown University report’. In fact, this “report” has been produced by the Bridge Initiative—a project that’s only HOUSED at Georgetown University—but has not been endorsed by any Georgetown University scholar. Funded by Saudi-linked sources as well as the Qatari government, the Bridge Initiative had issued a factsheet in coordination with articles written by Al-Jazeera journalist Raqib Hameed Naik, that made accusations against Hindu American organisations without offering any proof whatsoever. Now we see a purposely spun web of lies, funded by a Middle East-funded advocacy group misusing Georgetown’s academic authority to create a facade of credibility.

Claim 3: Hindutva extremism is a domestic threat, and Rutgers’ says so!

Yet another baseless claim stemming from yet another baseless report which simply regurgitates anti-Hindu propaganda that has already been debunked. The author of the report in question – Rutgers Law School’s Center for Security, Race, and Rights (CSRR) – is itself under investigation by aSenate Judiciary Committee. Even more disturbing, one of CSRR’s sponsors, prominent Houston attorney Feras Mousilli (of the Law Firm of Lloyd and Mousilli) was charged with pedophilia!

Clearly, none of the claims against the validity of Hinduphobia have any merit. But when they are deployed, repeatedly, in sequence, in the corridors of power and through whisper campaigns in the public square, they make Hindu advocacy look foreign, suspicious, and dangerous. This is a classic sort of disinformation campaign that must be nipped in the bud.