Undercutting Hinduphobia: Why South Asian Left Fears the Rapid Growth of Second Generation Hindu Americans

During a time of unprecedented hatred toward Hindus across the United States from both the South Asian left and the Christian nationalist alt-right, I was surprised to read an article last week that argued that Hinduphobia was not a widespread problem in the U.S. What surprised me even more was that this article came from the co-founder of a Hindu activist group.

The article, which I initially felt was well-intentioned, is riddled with dual loyalty accusations toward Hindu American organizations and signals a fundamental lack of understanding on the issues facing the Hindu American diaspora— especially the second generation. The article, written by Raju Rajagopal, revealed less about the reality of Hinduphobia in the United States and more about the South Asian left’s captivation with “Hindutva” and its discomfort with Hindu self-representation.

The purpose of my commentary is to critically examine how the South Asian left utilizes dual loyalty accusations to downplay anti-Hindu violence under the guise of fighting “supremacist ideologies.” In doing so, I argue that the South Asian left faces a serious challenge to its long-term survival. That is, the dual loyalty slur becomes increasingly inaccessible to South Asian leftists as the Hindu population in the United States becomes younger, and critically— less concerned about political infighting in India, and more concerned regarding Hindu representation on the ground.

The South Asian Left’s Argument

On November 1, 2025, Raju Rajagopal, a co-founder of ‘Hindus for Human Rights,’ penned an article for American Kahani. The article, titled, “Cry Wolf: FBI’s Crime Data for 2023-25 Debunks Claims of Widespread ‘Anti-Hindu’ Hate in the U.S.,” makes several absolute statements regarding the present state of Hinduphobia in the United States— including that “Hindutva groups” are engaging in a “faux Hinduphobia victim narrative” in the United States. Rajagopal implies that “Hindutva groups” are attempting to broaden the definition of Hinduphobia by replicating the attempts of Zionist groups to expand the IHRA definition of anti-semitism.

There are several issues with this argument. First, despite Rajagopal’s preface in which he accurately acknowledges that the FBI’s data “may not be consistently accurate due to underreporting,” he chooses to dismiss this characterization when it is applied to Hindus, arguing that “Hindutva organizations” … “blame the FBI for undercounting anti-Hindu hate incidents,” leaving no room for a critical examination of the concerns raised by these ‘so-called’ Hindutva organizations.

Rajagopal fails to take into account that anti-Hindu hate crimes are significantly underreported due to both a lack of information channels and a large portion of the community holding immigrant visas. Even SAALT, a South Asian activist group with a checkered history of downplaying anti-Hindu violence, acknowledges that “hate violence is severely underreported” and that “many in our communities fear reporting such incidents, spurred by a fear of law enforcement and discriminatory government policies…” This is no surprise to the Hindu community, which makes up the largest religious group of H1B entrants into the United States each year. In 2024, Pew Research found that 57% of Hindus in the United States are U.S. citizens, compared to 98% of Jews, 93% of Christians, and 78% of Muslims. This makes approximately 43% of Hindus residing in the U.S. non-citizens, the largest religious group of documented non-citizens in the nation. Hindu visa holders choose to “stay out of trouble” and suppress their experiences rather than risk affecting their immigration status.

The “stay out of trouble” outlook doesn’t simply affect immigrant individuals— it also affects Hindu temples that have become targets of anti-Hindu vandalism in recent years. Temple leaders facing vandalism, in wanting to keep a low profile to avoid further attention or attacks, choose to let their experiences go unreported. In the Bay Area, where temple vandalism has especially spiked in the last two years, I have had the personal opportunity to speak to temple leaders who have likewise stated that it was better to stay silent than to risk a repetition of the incident.

Many of us have no concern for political infighting in South Asia. Others have a poor opinion of the Indian government and have no strong opinions on hot-button topics like Khalistan. What we do care about, however, is when our temples in the Bay Area are attacked by Khalistani extremists simply because we’re Hindu.

Rajagopal’s argument, at face value, makes sense. According to the FBI data, the number of anti-Hindu hate crimes reported in 2024 was 26, a marked decrease from 32 in 2023. But what he fails to take into account is that Hindus are uniquely situated as one the nation’s youngest immigrant groups with little to no established organized infrastructure present to effectively organize and advocate on their behalf. Even growing Hindu-advocacy organizations such as CoHNA and HAF pale in regard to Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish advocacy organizations when comparing for funding, longevity, established political networks, and institutional influence. It’s a good thing that, on average, anti-Hindu hate crimes declined in 2024. But don’t let averages fool you— the aggregate number of anti-Hindu hate crimes is unfortunately much, much higher than reported.

Despite the article’s title, Rajagopal spends nearly half of the article discussing Zionism in an attempt to compare the efforts of Zionist groups to those of (again, ‘so-called’) Hindutva groups. The new argument is that the definition of Hinduphobia is much too broad because these Hindutva groups are attempting to “expand the definition of anti-Hindu hate crimes to include any criticism of Hindutva or Prime Minister Modi’s rule in India.” Yet, a closer look at the source cited reveals that “the [HAF] definition never names India or the political project of Hindutva,” with the only link being a clandestine example of Hinduphobia the author takes issue with.

The example of Hinduphobia, according to the author, includes “accusing those who organize around or speak about Hindu­phobia . . . of being agents or pawns of violent, oppressive political agendas.” While I cannot speak for HAF, I can speak for myself. Second generation Hindu Americans such as myself who lead Hindu groups on American college campuses are tired of being called “Hindu nationalists” (i.e. wanting a Hindu state in a foreign country halfway across the world) simply because, for example, we want to celebrate Hindu Heritage Month. So yes— dual loyalty slurs are Hinduphobic. These arguments tend to collapse under scrutiny. For example, the originator of the Hindu Heritage Month proclamation was a Caribbean Hindu student. Is the new argument that Caribbean Hindus are part of the “evil Hindu Nationalist cabal” looking to take over India?

The newfound reality for the South Asian left is that the second generation Hindu American population is growing and that it’s growing fast. Many of us have no concern for political infighting in South Asia. Others have a poor opinion of the Indian government and have no strong opinions on hot-button topics like Khalistan. What we do care about, however, is when our temples in the Bay Area are attacked by Khalistani extremists simply because we’re Hindu. If your political movement halfway across the world inherently affects my ability as a Hindu American to visit and worship at a temple, that is Hinduphobia and I will not stand for it. Similarly, if your political movement has a strange obsession with applying dual loyalty slurs to any organization or individual who disagrees with your views on anti-Hindu hate, that is Hinduphobia and I will not stand for it. And finally, if your movement calls others a “Hindutvavadi” simply because they choose to speak out on international human rights atrocities committed against Hindus by extremists in Pakistan or Bangladesh, that is Hinduphobia and I will not stand for it.

The South Asian Left’s Last Stand

Due to this rapid demographic change in the Hindu American population, the South Asian left has been forced to confront an uncomfortable reality: (1) either double down and continue to call second and third generation Hindu Americans agents of a foreign state, or (2) acknowledge that applying dual loyalty slurs left and right is a dog whistle to shield accountability from the anti-Hindu hivemind that occupies South Asian left. As expected, the South Asian left chose the former.

On October 27, the South Asian left hosted an event with Audrey Truschke at Rutgers University highlighting a report “calling for federal investigations into Hindu student groups like Hindu YUVA and HSC.” The report suggests “sanctions on immigrants who participate in them” and labels these Hindu groups as “foreign agents.” My counterpart at CYAN Rutgers rightly called out the event for threatening “students’ immigration status, safety, and freedom to express their faith without fear.” These student groups largely function as cultural groups that host festivals like Diwali and support Hindu students on campus. Yet now, these same Hindu student organizations are being accused of being agents of the Indian state. Not only have some of the Hindu students in these groups never visited India, but many (as is in the Hindu Heritage Month case) do not identify as Indian Hindus.

Few Hindu students could protest the event because (you guessed it) many of the Hindu students at Rutgers are on student or H-4 (dependent) visas. However small the protest may have been, it was the first time Hindu students truly came out to advocate against anti-Hindu hatred on college campuses. As more Hindus become Americans—and their children become Hindu Americans—the diaspora will begin to see a demographic change historically akin to other groups in the United States. More Hindu Americans will engage with the humanities and arts. More Hindu Americans will go into politics, organizing, and advocacy. And more Hindu Americans will stand up for their rights.

The South Asian left’s outdated obsession with the ‘Hindutva slur’ is quickly becoming undermined by the realities of demographic change. The question remains: Will the South Asian left make space for Hindu Americans within their coalition? Or will they simply find new ways to push them out?

These are my personal views and not those of CYAN (CoHNA Youth Action Network) at UC Berkeley.

---

Aryan is a third-year student studying Political Science at UC Berkeley and the leader of the Hindu American activist group, CYAN Hindus @ Berkeley. His interests include Dharmic communities and their interactions with other sociopolitical groups, particularly through historical and epistemological frameworks.