As I write this, an Indian news channel is broadcasting peaceful protests by Kashmiris condemning the recent Pakistani terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam. One protester says, “Pakistan doesn’t want us to live in peace. They’re destroying our livelihood by constantly sending terror into our land.”
After years, Kashmir was finally seeing progress. Businesses were recovering, and for the first time in ages, children completed a full academic year, attending school instead of being pulled into stone pelting and street violence funded by Pakistan’s terrorist groups.
So, who exactly are these Pakistani terrorists fighting for? Themselves? Their religion? What does Pakistan gain by funding terrorism or sheltering terrorists on its soil, other than being rebranded year after year globally as a “terrorist state”?
Where are the voices of Pakistani celebrities, many of whom have large Indian fan bases, when it comes to condemning this violence?
A quick scroll through Pakistani Reddit forums shows users justifying the attack as “resistance.” When will ordinary Pakistanis tell their government and military to stop sponsoring terrorism in Indian Kashmir?
When will they let Kashmir breathe in peace?
So many grievances. And yet, silence ensues.
When Indians express anger toward Pakistan, many Pakistanis act surprised. They are unable to understand why Indians harbour so much hatred for Pakistan (or they may be feigning ignorance). The answer lies in the reactions, the deafening silence that follows whenever India gets attacked. It’s easy to speak of peace and brotherhood when you’re not the one burying your loved ones. How many Indians, soldiers and civilians, Hindus and Muslims alike, have lost their lives to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism? And yet, we’re expected to keep our borders open, welcome Pakistani artists, and pretend everything is normal. Most of these artists haven’t even spoken a word against the radicals who spill Indian blood. They want our money and admiration, while their country fuels terror against us.
Every time Kashmiris speak out against Pakistan or wave the Indian flag, Islamabad spins the same tired excuse: “They’re being forced by the Hindutva government.” Really? Was the Kashmiri Muslim man who died trying to save Hindu tourists in Pahalgam doing it under pressure from the Indian government? Make it make sense.
Pakistan is to India what Hamas is to Israel. Friendship is a fantasy. We may share history, but there’s no future unless Pakistan first cleans up the terrorism it breeds. Until then, no dialogue, no gesture, no cultural exchange can bridge this gap. The course correction has to begin on Pakistan’s side. Let Kashmir live in peace.
The 2023 report “Anti-Hindu Hate in Schools” by Charlotte Littlewood highlights a critical but under-researched issue: the presence of anti-Hindu sentiment in UK schools.
While this blog post draws upon insights from the report, the broader focus is on Hinduphobia as a global phenomenon – what it means, how it manifests, and the constructive steps that are being taken to address its rise.
The full report can be accessed here: henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HJS-Anti-Hindu-Hate-in-Schools-Briefing-final.pdf
The urgency to examine Hinduphobia stems from the way Hinduism is being misunderstood or misrepresented in Western societies. Many people, lacking a nuanced understanding of the religion, make casual remarks that are often bigoted in nature. They may be considered harmless or culturally acceptable in Western contexts.
This gap in awareness often results in prejudices being normalized, with little accountability or recognition of the harm caused.
What is Hinduphobia?
Hinduphobia is not a term widely recognized in mainstream discourse. In my view, “anti-Hindu bigotry” is a more accurate description, as the issue is not rooted in fear, but in prejudice, hostility, and a lack of understanding. It often stems from the fact that Hinduism operates differently from Abrahamic religious frameworks. This unfamiliarity can lead to stereotyping, dismissal, or open hostility, rather than genuine inquiry or respect.
As per the study, the working definition of Hinduphobia is as follows:
Hinduphobia is a set of antagonistic, destructive, and derogatory attitudes and behaviours towards Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) and Hindus that may manifest as prejudice, fear, or hatred.
Hinduphobic rhetoric reduces the entirety of Sanatana Dharma to a rigid, oppressive, and regressive tradition. This discourse actively erases and denies the persecution of Hindus while disproportionately painting Hindus as violent. These stereotypes are used to justify the dissolution, external reformation, and demonization of the range of indigenous Indic knowledge traditions known as Sanatana Dharma.
The complete range of Hinduphobic acts extends from microaggressions to genocide. Hinduphobic projects include the destruction and desecration of Hindu sacred spaces; aggressive and forced proselytization of Hindu populations; targeted violence towards Hindu people, community institutions, and organizations; and ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Examples of Hinduphobia
The study lays out several examples that can be identified as Hinduphobia, many of which occur casually in everyday settings. These instances often go unnoticed or unchallenged, largely because Hinduphobia is not yet treated as a serious form of bigotry.
Calling for, encouraging, or justifying violence against Hindus, often rooted in extremist or distorted views of religion and history.
Kidnapping Hindu women and children for forced marriage and religious conversion.
Denying, downplaying, or accusing Hindus of fabricating their persecution, including instances of genocide.
Advocating for the destruction of Hinduism, framing it as inherently irredeemable.
Discrediting individuals who speak about Hinduphobia by labeling them as agents of violent or oppressive ideologies.
Attributing all social issues in Indian society, such as caste, misogyny, sati, communal violence, or temple destruction, solely to Hinduism.
Evoking historical trauma (e.g., iconoclasm, cow slaughter, forced conversions) to intimidate Hindus in modern discourse.
Making baseless claims about the political motives of those simply practicing Hinduism.
Linking antisocial behavior directly to Hinduism, often by selectively sampling data or falsely attributing individual actions to the faith as a whole.
Caricaturing Hindu scriptures through selective citation, mistranslation, or exaggeration, and presenting these distortions as representative of the entire tradition.
Claiming that Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma is not a valid or cohesive spiritual system.
Erasing Hindu civilizational contributions and superimposing Western norms over its historical and cultural identity.
Conflating diasporic Hindu identity with Indian citizenship, nationalism, or ethnicity.
As per my own observation, a contributing factor is the lens through which Hindus are viewed. The bigotry is shaped by the globalized “oppressor vs. oppressed” narrative, often based on selective or misunderstood portrayals of India. As a result, anti-Hindu activities at home or anywhere else are often seen as justified acts of revenge, grounded in the belief that “Hindus in India are oppressing minorities.” A quick look at social media during incidents involving anti-Hindu sentiments offers clear evidence of this bias.
Reactions often downplay or dismiss the issue, and in many cases, even justify the hatred by invoking political narratives, rather than addressing the prejudice for what it is.
Context and Need of the Study
The context and need for the study on rising Hinduphobia in UK schools are explained as follows:
“Hinduism is the third largest religion in the UK making up 1.7% of the population according to the most recent census. From 4 to 20 September 2022, there was civil unrest in Leicester, extending to Birmingham, including vandalism of property, assaults, stabbings, and attacks on places of worship.
The Henry Jackson Society briefing paper, “Hindu-Muslim civil unrest in Leicester: Hindutva and the creation of a false narrative,” evidenced community tensions relating to youth violence and noise control issues in relation to festivals that had been falsely dressed as “Hindutva extremism” and even “Hindu terrorism”, creating fear and resulting in attacks on Hindu temples and properties.
The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) investigated the role social media played in the civil unrest. It concluded that social media narratives have characterised “a vulnerable, diasporic community – British Hindus – as an aggressive, hypernationalist, and fascist threat. Other narratives depicted Leicester Hindus as heretically evil and filthy, playing on age-old Hinduphobic tropes.”
Both the HJS report and the NCRI report noted the use of anti-Hindu slurs such as “cow piss drinkers” and references to polytheism, vegetarianism, physical weakness and mocking of Hindu deities and symbols.
When researchers began examining the unrest between Hindu and Muslim communities in Leicester, they encountered a notable gap: a lack of existing studies on anti-Hindu hate. This absence of research was one of the key motivations behind conducting a dedicated study on the subject.
The report also highlights how Hinduphobia has historically appeared in popular literature and academic discourse. For instance, E. M. Forster’s 1924 novel A Passage to India is cited as portraying Hindus as “perverted,” “clownish,” and “queer.”
Similarly, sociologist Max Weber viewed Hinduism as excessively otherworldly, a perception that contributed to the broader “theological othering” of Hindus. This form of othering continues today in the form of anti-Hindu slurs that mock the religion’s many deities and unique customs.
Another example comes from Allen Greenberger’s 1969 study on Indian stereotypes, where he described common portrayals of Indians as a “childlike race” who were “happy in their passivity, fatalistically so.”
Such characterizations may still influence how the media interprets Hindu behavior and presence. For instance, during and after the Leicester unrest, the press in the UK was criticized for failing to engage with the local Hindu community, instead relying on self-identified Muslim spokespersons who reportedly spread false narratives about Hindus in Leicester.
Moreover, rather than addressing the specific complexities on the ground, mainstream media coverage often diverted attention to political issues in India, as though those could explain or justify tensions in the UK. This approach not only homogenizes Hindus globally but also dismisses their individual and community experiences in diverse contexts like Leicester.
Abrahamic Othering
An interesting terminology used in the report was “Abrahamic Othering.”
The term ‘Hinduism’ was coined by British writers to refer to the family of Vedic religious traditions. Some modern Hindus prefer the name ‘Vedic religion’ or ‘Sanatana Dharma’ (‘eternal law’) rather than the label ‘Hinduism’.
Hinduism has multiple deities understood to be expressions of one ultimate Reality, be it God for theists or consciousness for monists. Hinduism does not follow one scripture but a number of scriptures that are given different emphases by different branches of the faith. Some argue the differences in the denominations are so great that they are separate religions entirely.
The preconceptions of Abrahamic faiths do not map neatly onto Hindu belief. Articulating Hinduism through the Abrahamic lens of Gods and scriptures is therefore problematic.
Respondents to this survey suggested that at least some UK schools continue to teach Hinduism through an Abrahamic lens without appreciating the limits of this approach. This fits with the findings and concerns of the Commission on Religious Education. Given the decentralised nature of religious curriculums in England and the lack of subject inspections in maintained schools, and given the considerable challenge of treating Hinduism sensitively in a UK context, such a finding is disappointing but unsurprising.
There are reports from some surveyed parents that lessons about Hinduism produce confusion and misconceptions about the Hindu belief in the existence of multiple Gods – 106 references were made to inaccurate perceptions of Hinduism with respect to polytheism/idol worship/multiple Gods.
Discrimination Against Hindus in UK Classrooms
Some of the discrimination observed in UK classrooms mirrored the forms of hate witnessed during the Leicester unrest between Hindu and Muslim communities.
In both settings, derogatory remarks were directed at Hindu identity and practices, including mockery of vegetarianism and the belittling of Hindu deities. These same types of insults were used by Islamist extremists during the rallies targeting the Hindu community in Leicester, highlighting a disturbing continuity between localized classroom prejudice and broader communal tensions.
Conclusion Based on Case Studies
Many case studies were conducted as part of the research, and based on these, the following conclusion was drawn:
This report highlights the prevalence of discrimination against Hindus in British schools, with 51% of Hindu parents surveyed reporting that their child has suffered anti-Hindu hate at school.
It is alarming that it is so hard to access information from schools on patterns of religiously-motivated bullying, and that the schools who did respond to this study’s FOI request either did not keep records of faith-based hate incidents or appeared to record very few incidents.
It is also alarming that only 19% of parents surveyed believe schools are able to identify anti-Hindu hate, indicating that the issue is not being addressed adequately. It may be that there is a tendency to downplay such incidents as ‘playground banter’.
However, several studies have observed that faith-based bullying has the potential to be more impactful than other forms of bullying, precisely because it targets not just the victim, but “their entire family, heritage, and culture”.
Schools should reflect on the harm such slurs cause, as well as the wider community divisions they may be helping to foster.
Constructive Steps
Small but significant steps are being taken to address Hinduphobia in Western nations.
Georgia recently became the first U.S. state to introduce a bill formally recognizing Hinduphobia and anti-Hindu bigotry. Similarly, the Scottish Parliament passed its first-ever motion to combat Hinduphobia, marking an important milestone in acknowledging the issue. The motion was influenced by a report on Hinduphobia in Scotland, which can be accessed here: nen.press/2025/02/28/gandhian-peace-society-shares-new-report.
These developments are a positive step toward challenging anti-Hindu bias and promoting awareness that, like all faiths, Hinduism, or Sanatan Dharma, deserves equal respect and protection from discrimination.
It took some time to complete Karin Slaughter’s Pretty Girls. This is not because the plot wasn’t interesting, but because I was trying to divide my time equally among other interests in life. The storytelling is intense, descriptive, and graphic. So, I had to take breaks. Anyone who cannot handle violence should stay away from the book. It’s by far the most violent book I have ever read.
The crime thriller follows the story of three sisters. One of them has been missing for years, while the other two navigate their lives without their eldest sister’s presence. Their parents are separated, unable to cope with their daughter’s absence. What happened to their eldest? Why aren’t the cops providing clear answers? This mystery forms the crux of the story.
If you enjoy thrillers, I’d highly recommend Pretty Girls. Personally, I felt the descriptions were a bit lengthy at times, which slowed the pace for me. However, readers who appreciate detailed scenes and emotional depth may find that aspect especially engaging.
Ending this review with some interesting quotes from the book:
That she ended up with a boy who had grown up less than twenty miles from her childhood home was just further proof that no matter how far you ran, you always ended up back where you started.
People did not change their basic, core personalities. Their values tended to stay the same.
“The world stops for you when you’re pretty. That’s why women spend billions on crap for their faces. Their whole life, they’re the center of attention. People want to be around them just because they’re attractive. Their jokes are funnier. Their lives are better. And then suddenly, they get bags under their eyes or they put on a little weight and no one cares about them anymore. They cease to exist.”
“Reductio ad Hitlerum.” Claire couldn’t stop quoting Paul. “It’s when you compare someone to Hitler to win an argument.”
“Dyadic Completion,” Paul would’ve told Claire. “The human brain tends to assume that, if there’s a victim, there has to be a villain.”
He reminds me of the worst kind of student I used to have—the kind who is certain that they already know everything worth knowing
A recent set of DEI studies explores a critical question: Do the ideas and narratives central to many DEI trainings truly promote inclusivity and empathy?
Or do they end up deepening divisions and fueling hostility toward groups labeled as oppressors?
DEI Study Source: static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/11/anti-oppressive-dei-report-8.pdf
Social Experiment #1 – Exposing One Group to DEI Essays
The study found that individuals exposed to DEI material were more likely to perceive problems even where none existed. For example, one group was presented with a DEI essay by Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, while another group was not. Both groups were then asked to analyze the following scenario:
A student applied to an elite East Coast university in Fall 2024. During the application process, he was interviewed by an admissions officer. Ultimately, the student’s application was rejected.
A simple, straightforward survey. The scenario was deliberately created without mentioning the race or ethnicity of either the student or the admissions officer and contained no indicators of racism. Participants were then asked to evaluate the scenario using questions meant to assess how much racism they perceived in the interaction.
Results: The analysis showed that participants who read the Ibram X. Kendi/Robin DiAngelo essay developed a hostile attribution bias. They viewed the admissions officer as significantly more prejudiced compared to those who read a neutral essay. Despite no evidence of discrimination in the scenario:
Perceived discrimination rose by 21%
Perceived unfair treatment increased by 12%
Perceived harm to the applicant rose by 26%
Perceived microaggressions jumped by 35%
These strong results led NCRI to replicate the experiment with a national sample of college students, confirming that the effects were not limited to the original set of students. The follow-up study found similar outcomes.
Social Experiment #2 – Exposure to Anti-Islamophobia Training
Similarly, a nationally representative sample was recruited via Amazon Prime Panels to assess the impact of anti-Islamophobia content. Participants were shown two identical terrorism trial scenarios, one involving Ahmed Akhtar and the other George Green, both convicted of the same crime. In the group that did not receive anti-Islamophobia training, both trials were perceived as equally fair, showing no inherent bias or perception of Islamophobia. However, in the group exposed to anti-Islamophobia content, perceptions shifted: while views on George’s trial remained unchanged, Ahmed’s trial was rated as significantly less fair.
This indicates that exposure to anti-Islamophobia messaging led participants to perceive bias where none existed, introducing a new bias in favor of Ahmed despite both cases being identical.
These results suggest that anti-Islamophobia training may lead people to assume discrimination against Muslims, even in the absence of actual bias.
Concerns: How much is too much?
This reflects a broader concern. The DEI programs that heavily emphasize victimhood and systemic oppression may unintentionally distort perceptions of fairness, as also seen in the case of Hindu Brahmins. While these trainings aim to highlight real injustices, they also foster hostile attribution bias, a tendency to see prejudice where none exists.
Such distortions risk undermining public trust in institutions, even when those institutions are acting fairly. This is especially troubling given that these institutions, such as ISPU, also provide Islamophobia sensitivity training to federal agents.
Food for Thought
It makes us, Indians, reflect on our own perspectives too. How much of what we believe is shaped by personal thought and observation, and how much is simply absorbed from what we’ve read, heard, or been told?
We’re constantly surrounded by voices telling us what’s right, what’s wrong, what to support, and what to reject, so much so that we often stop thinking critically. We rely on others to give us the “truth,” but how can we be sure those sources are unbiased or even complete?
In the pursuit of justice, I see a troubling pattern: one group being demonized, while another’s wrongdoings are overlooked. That’s not justice, it’s imbalance.
True justice can only be achieved when we hold all sides accountable, without bias, without exception. To do that, we need to cultivate a rational, balanced mindset, one that isn’t rigid or exclusionary. Listen to all sides, and stand with the truth, not with narratives that vilify entire communities or sections of society.
The following snippet is from a DEI study by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in the U.S. The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program, originally meant to raise awareness, appears to have backfired in some areas. By framing everything through an “oppressor vs. oppressed” lens, it has ended up vilifying the Hindu Brahmin community, similar to the Jewish community.
While DEI narratives often focus on Islamophobia and racial discrimination, caste-based bias among American Hindus has largely remained outside the spotlight. Though widely recognized in India, caste discrimination has only recently started gaining attention in the U.S., leading to the introduction of caste-sensitivity training in schools, workplaces, and policy discussions. But did they have the desired effect? Studies show otherwise.
The vilification of Brahmins began in India, where they are often targeted for everything, from their dietary habits to their lifestyle choices. What should have remained a focused activism against caste discrimination has unfortunately expanded into a broader mockery of the community as a whole. Even Brahmins who reject caste-based thinking are not spared.
Like anyone else, a Brahmin does not choose the caste they are born into. So, isn’t attacking them solely for their birth also a form of casteism? Every community should be open to critique for its flaws, but no one should be dehumanized for simply existing.
Awareness is important, but this study shows that excessive activism can cross a line and end up vilifying an entire community. In the findings, respondents described Brahmins as “parasites,” “viruses,” and “the devil personified.” How is that fair, or even acceptable, in the name of social justice?
Say the words “demographic concerns” in any other Indian state, and you’d likely be branded a bigot. But in Kashmir, the “insider vs outsider” narrative is not only common, it’s actively pushed. If the Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, has sworn allegiance to the Constitution of India, why the reluctance to openly embrace fellow Indians as equals? Kashmiris are free to work and settle anywhere in the country without being called outsiders. So why can’t someone from another Indian state do the same in Kashmir without facing hostility?
What India needs now more than ever is a spirit of unity. Not this constant “us vs them” divide.
These incidents make it clear: no one is truly secular, not even those who constantly criticize Hindu majoritarianism like Omar Abdullah. Let’s be honest. In Muslim-majority Kashmir, a fashion show during Ramadan sparked outrage, with people claiming it was against their “culture.” In parts of Malappuram and Kozhikode in Kerala, there have been cases where people were told not to eat in public during Ramadan. Meanwhile, in some Hindu-majority regions of North India, meat shops are ordered shut during Hindu festivals. Different standards, same mindset.
This isn’t just an Indian phenomenon. In the UK and the US, you’ll often hear people say, “We are a Christian country. This isn’t our culture!” whenever Hindu or Muslim festivals are celebrated in public spaces. The reaction is the same, just the setting changes.
Wherever you go, majority vs minority dynamics are always at play. What feels like a “religious restriction” to one person might feel like cultural protection to another. It all depends on your bias and perspective. Take Iran, for instance. Many of us might see it as deeply restrictive for women. But some Iranian Muslim women might see it as ideal because it strictly upholds their religious values. That’s religious bias in action – shaped by belief, identity, and comfort with the dominant culture.
Most people are secular only on paper. In reality, they tend to place their own religious beliefs a notch above others. They’re usually comfortable with the rules their faith imposes, no matter how restrictive those rules might seem to someone outside that belief system. It’s less about universal values and more about what feels familiar and justified to them.
The Monkey Dilemma 
You must be logged in to post a comment.