Shocking Anti-Hindu Hate in Western Societies

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.

***

Main Photo by Himesh Mehta

How the DEI Program Fostered Biases

How the DEI Program in USA Contributed to Fostering Biases

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.

***

Photo by cottonbro studio

The Demonization of Brahmins

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.

Source: static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/11/anti-oppressive-dei-report-8.pdf

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?

How Long Must We Wait?

Religious fundamentalism is gradually rising in Kerala. Yet few dare to question it. Perhaps because it originates outside the Hindu community.

Members of the Muslim League, an ally of Congress in Kerala, now openly claim that the hijab is not a choice and are pushing for gender segregation in public spaces like the Mec7 exercise program. Recently, a religious leader criticized a Muslim widow for traveling to Manali, insisting that widows should remain at home and devote themselves to prayer. Others are now openly urging community members to refrain from participating in non-Muslim festivals, further deepening social divisions. Meanwhile, Hamas and Hezbollah supporters freely display posters of their leaders in Kerala, despite these groups’ ties to Pakistani terrorist organizations like JeM and LeT, which have carried out multiple attacks in India.

Was there any outrage from political parties or within the community? None at all.

When you point out the lack of internal criticism, the common response is that speaking out invites real danger and that reforms take time. While it’s true that advocating change within the Muslim community is difficult and radicals may threaten dissenters, how long must we wait? Another century? Should we remain silent and allow religious fundamentalism to grow unchecked? If no meaningful reforms have happened so far, what guarantees change in the future? If the community cannot challenge extremist views now, how will they resist when these forces become even stronger and impose their rules on others?

We are already seeing glimpses of this with the Waqf Board’s land disputes, where properties legally owned by other communities are being claimed. Why should non-Muslims be bound by Waqf rules? If the land originally belonged to Muslims, the claims may hold merit. However, many of these properties now belong to other communities. If they were encroachments, why did the Waqf Board fail to prevent them? In cases where the land was legally sold, why is it being reclaimed now? The Board’s mismanagement highlights the urgent need for Waqf reforms to prevent future disputes.

Unfortunately, political parties are misleading the Muslim community, falsely claiming that reforms would lead to property seizures. The reality is that corrupt politicians have more to lose than ordinary Muslims, especially the poor. Many are likely benefiting from Waqf properties, living in luxury through corruption. The revenue generated from Waqf assets is disproportionately low compared to their vast holdings, raising questions about where the money is going. Instead of being used for community development, it is likely being siphoned for personal gain.

This is why reforms are crucial. However, many in the community rely on their leaders for information, unaware that they are being misled. These leaders manipulate facts for their own interests, radicalizing and mobilizing people with lies. This is why it’s important that citizens seek information from multiple sources—both left- and right-leaning—to avoid being deceived.

It is a mistake to believe that only the BJP spreads communal hatred. Congress leaders have also exploited the Manipur issue, framing it as a Hindu vs. Christian conflict when it is, in fact, an ethnic dispute. When Hamas posters appear in Kerala and critics raise concerns, Congress dismisses them as “Islamophobia.” This selective outrage makes them unreliable as leaders. They are vocal against Hindu extremism but silent when it comes to Islamist fundamentalism.

Some progressive Muslims argue that meaningful reforms require both external pressure, such as government intervention, and internal efforts from within the community. However, in India, any government-led push for reform risks being labeled Islamophobic. This, in turn, gives radicals more ammunition and invites criticism from the Western world, which often misinterprets such actions as oppression rather than necessary change. Moreover, since Hindus form the majority, any move by the Indian government is framed as an attack on Muslims, further polarizing the discourse and making genuine reform even harder to achieve.

At this point, the situation feels like a deadlock. Either we wait indefinitely for internal reforms, which may never come, or the government steps in, triggering backlash and further polarization. Both paths are fraught with challenges, and in either case, things could turn messy. The fear of being labeled Islamophobic limits external intervention, while internal resistance to change keeps fundamentalist views unchecked. This leaves little room for meaningful progress, making the prospect of reform seem increasingly distant.

***

Photo by Pixabay

An Ode to The Mehta Boys

Wholesome movies are rare these days in Indian cinema, making them feel like an oasis in a desert when they do appear. The demand for feel-good movies is higher than ever, as seen in the success of re-releases like Laila Majnu and Sanam Teri Kasam, which prove that Indian audiences are eager for romance and uplifting cinema. It is during such a time that The Mehta Boys has arrived on OTT (Amazon Prime).

The Mehta Boys is a poignant, understated father-son drama centered on their dysfunctional relationship. Open communication and emotional expression are not their strengths, often leaving them struggling for words. Boman Irani portrays a grieving husband learning to cope with his loss, while Avinash Tiwary plays his talented yet self-doubting son. The heart of the story lies in their journey toward accepting each other’s imperfections.

We often see such father-son dynamics play out in real life. In many Indian families, open displays of affection are rare, making the relationship feel more formal than familial. Conversations typically revolve around daily chores and future plans, with emotions deliberately left out. The Mehta Boys captures this dynamic perfectly, portraying characters who have much to say but choose to hide behind silence.

Boman Irani has done an exceptional job as a first-time director, leaving me eager to see what he creates next. Avinash Tiwary, as always, excels, effortlessly bringing out the angst, anxiety, and awkwardness of a character who gradually finds his voice. He shines, leaving you wondering why you don’t get to see him on-screen more frequently. Instead, audiences are repeatedly offered star kids given endless chances to prove themselves, while talented actors like Avinash, who have already showcased their brilliance in just a film or two, are left waiting. It’s unfair, but all one can do is wait for movies like The Mehta Boys to arrive, offering a well-deserved cinematic experience.

Codemning Hamas without Justifications

For the uninitiated, in February 2025, during the annual Uroos festival at a mosque in Thrithala, Palakkad district, Kerala, a procession featured banners displaying images of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders.

These banners were prominently displayed atop elephants. The event drew over 3,000 participants and sparked widespread controversy and discussions on social media. Critics questioned the organizers’ decision to include images of individuals associated with designated terrorist organizations. The participation of local political figures, including Congress leader VT Balram and Minister MB Rajesh, further intensified the debate. They maintained the status quo of excusing terror sympathizers by criticizing media outlets for allegedly using the incident to target the Muslim community and Kerala at a national level.

During a News18 Kerala debate, a Malayalee Muslim from Palakkad admitted that what happened at the Uroos was wrong. However, he dismissed concerns by saying, “The event was organized by kids who randomly picked images from the Internet. They had no idea who these people were, so we shouldn’t make a big deal out of it.”

This raises an important question: Why is it that when left to “randomly” select images, they chose figures linked to terror groups instead of respected Muslim leaders, scientists, or sports personalities? A former Indian Army officer who was stationed in Kashmir responded thoughtfully: “If they were simply Googling, why not Abdul Kalam, cricketers like Siraj or Shami, or Muslim soldiers who died protecting our nation? Why did they choose a group in cahoots with Pakistani militant groups like LeT and JeM? Instead of dismissing this, we should educate young people about who should be admired and who should not. Only then can our nation progress. We also cannot keep excusing such incidents as the actions of innocent children. Recently in Europe, a teenager attempted a suicide bombing, and in another case, four children from the same family were radicalized into extremism.”

The Malayalee panelist logged out before responding, but a Muslim League leader acknowledged the need for change. However, like many others accused of spreading hate, he quickly shifted the discussion, saying, “Yes, all of this is bad, BUT Israel is committing genocide.”

This pattern of deflection is becoming more common. When doctors in Australia were suspended for their hate speech, the response from left-leaning supporters and a major Australian Muslim group was, “They should not have been suspended because Israel is committing genocide.” When California faced wildfires, some even claimed, “Well deserved because the U.S. supplies arms to Israel.”

The Israel-Hamas war is being used to justify hate and extremism worldwide. While criticism of geopolitical events is valid, it cannot be a shield for promoting radicalism or excusing problematic behavior.

If we applied the same logic, we could say, “Islamophobia is wrong, BUT Islamist groups like ISIS have mass-murdered people.” That would be an absurd and dangerous argument, just as deflecting discussions on extremism with geopolitical grievances is.

Condemning violence and radicalization should not come with conditions. No ifs or buts—wrong is wrong, no matter who commits it.

Why don’t we see progressive Muslim nations like the UAE and Bahrain glorify Hamas on the streets, unlike India? Because they understand the consequences— supporting such groups could destabilize their own countries and invite extremism. They firmly recognize the Muslim Brotherhood, the group from which Hamas originated, as a terrorist organization and have banned it, seeing it as a source of extremism. In contrast, many Western countries have not taken similar action in their attempt to uphold secular values. This could also explain why leaders of many Muslim nations maintain ties with Modi, meeting him and discussing business, decorating him with awards and honors, instead of ostracizing him. They likely recognize where some of the propaganda against him stems from.