Hindu American Foundation

Hindu American Foundation

Abbreviation	HAF
Formation	September 22, 2003 (2003-09-22)
Founders	Sanjay Garg, Nikhil Joshi, Mihir Meghani, Nagendra Rao, Aseem Shukla
Tax ID no.	68-0551525
Legal status	501(c)(3) non-profit
Purpose	Hindu advocacy, civil rights advocacy, religious freedom, and public education
Headquarters	910 17th St NW Washington, D.C.
Region served	United States
Executive Director	Suhag Shukla
Website	www.hinduamerican.org

The Hindu American Foundation (abbr. HAF) is an American non-profit Hindu advocacy organization founded in 2003. The organization states that its mission is to promote dignity, mutual respect, pluralism, civil rights, and religious freedom for Hindu Americans while increasing public understanding of Hindu traditions and concerns.

The organization has engaged in advocacy relating to religious freedom, hate-crime reporting, educational curricula, yoga, caste-discrimination policy, and the treatment of Hindu communities in South Asia.

HAF has been described by several scholars, journalists, and advocacy organizations as aligned with or influenced by the ideology of Hindutva and as part of wider Hindu nationalist networks in the United States. HAF disputes those characterizations and describes itself as an independent, non-partisan advocacy organization representing Hindu Americans.

Establishment

The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) was founded in September 2003 by Mihir Meghani, an emergency care physician; Aseem Shukla, an associate professor in urologic surgery; his wife, Suhag Shukla, an attorney; Nikhil Joshi, a labor law attorney; and his wife, Adeeti Joshi, a speech therapist.

Describing itself as a human-rights and advocacy group, the organization emphasized the Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance, and pluralism. Vinay Lal, a professor of South Asian history at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that the organization appeared to have benefited from the goodwill associated with Mahatma Gandhi in the West.

Previously, Meghani had founded the University of Michigan chapter of the Hindu Students Council (HSC), a nationwide network affiliated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad America (VHPA). He later served on the governing council of VHPA and authored an essay that attracted scholarly attention because of its discussion of Hindutva and Indian politics.

Some scholars and advocacy organizations have argued that HAF emerged from networks associated with the broader Sangh Parivar and sought to frame Hindu concerns through the language of civil rights and multiculturalism in the United States. HAF has rejected those characterizations and has maintained that it is an independent organization focused on advocacy for Hindu Americans.

Activism

The HAF was the first American Hindu advocacy organization to develop a professional organizational structure with full-time staff and is widely regarded as one of the most prominent organizations in the Hindu advocacy field.

The organization has collaborated with a variety of advocacy groups and religious organizations and has participated in public-policy discussions concerning religious freedom, civil rights, education, and minority rights.

Highlighting Hindu persecution

During 2004–05, the organization held events to educate legislators about issues affecting Hindu Americans, including the treatment of Hindus in Kashmir, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Since then, it has continued to publish reports and advocacy materials concerning the status of Hindu communities worldwide.

The HAF has advocated for greater attention to the treatment of Hindu minorities in South Asia and has supported efforts aimed at improving conditions for refugees and displaced persons from those communities.

The organization has also advocated closer strategic cooperation among India, Israel, and the United States in addressing terrorism and regional security concerns.

Advocacy for Hindu rights in the United States

In 2004, HAF challenged the public display of the Ten Commandments in Texas, appearing as amicus curiae in Van Orden v. Perry before the United States Supreme Court. The organization argued that the display represented government preference for particular religious traditions and was inconsistent with principles of religious neutrality.

In 2008, HAF joined a coalition of religious groups in litigation challenging Christian-themed license plates in South Carolina.

In 2015, as part of the Hate Crimes Coalition, HAF participated in efforts to encourage improved federal tracking of hate crimes directed at Hindus and other religious minorities.

Some scholars have questioned HAF's characterization of trends in anti-Hindu hate crimes in the United States, arguing that available data do not necessarily support claims of a significant increase in such incidents.

In 2016, HAF joined other organizations in supporting the issuance of a United States Postal Service commemorative stamp recognizing the festival of Diwali.

Pro-India advocacy

HAF has participated in public-policy debates concerning India and South Asia and has frequently advocated stronger relations between India and the United States.

In 2005, when members of Congress introduced a resolution criticizing Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 Gujarat riots, HAF opposed the measure. The organization argued that the resolution unfairly focused on India while overlooking religious persecution and extremism elsewhere in South Asia.

In 2013, HAF similarly opposed congressional legislation that criticized India's anti-conversion laws and called for additional scrutiny of religious-freedom conditions in India. The organization argued that the legislation selectively targeted Hindu-majority India while minimizing the impact of terrorism and political violence.

Critics of HAF have argued that these efforts contributed to defending or promoting policies associated with Hindu nationalism in India, while supporters describe them as advocacy on behalf of Indian and Hindu-American interests.

In 2016, HAF organized legislative briefings concerning Pakistan's support for militancy in Kashmir and broader regional security issues.

Following the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special constitutional status in 2019, HAF published materials emphasizing potential benefits of the policy, including equal legal protections and expanded economic opportunities.

Critics disputed those assessments and argued that the organization downplayed concerns regarding civil liberties and political rights in the region.

Anti-conversion laws and religious freedom

HAF has been a vocal defender of anti-conversion laws enacted by several Indian states, arguing that such legislation protects vulnerable populations from being induced into changing religion through material incentives, fraud, or coercion.

The organization maintains that freedom of religion includes protection against coercive conversion efforts and has argued that anti-conversion laws can be consistent with religious liberty when applied fairly.

Critics, including human-rights organizations and religious-freedom advocates, have argued that such laws have often been used disproportionately against Christians and Muslims and have contributed to discrimination against religious minorities.

Some journalists and advocacy groups have further criticized HAF's position, arguing that the organization has focused more heavily on conversions away from Hinduism than on campaigns encouraging conversion to Hinduism.

In 2013, HAF opposed House Resolution 417, which called attention to religious violence in India and criticized anti-conversion laws in several Indian states.

HAF argued that the resolution selectively targeted Hindu-majority India and failed to adequately address religious extremism and violence elsewhere in South Asia. Critics contended that the organization's lobbying efforts contributed to opposition against measures intended to address religious-freedom concerns in India.

Take Back Yoga campaign

In 2010, HAF launched the Take Back Yoga campaign, arguing that contemporary presentations of yoga often overlooked or minimized the tradition's historical and philosophical roots in Hinduism.

The campaign encouraged greater public awareness of yoga's historical development within Hindu traditions and criticized what HAF viewed as the commercialization and secularization of yoga in popular culture.

Supporters viewed the initiative as an effort to educate the public about the origins of yoga and acknowledge Hindu contributions to global culture.

Several scholars disagreed with aspects of the campaign's interpretation of yoga's history. They argued that yoga evolved through complex interactions among multiple religious and philosophical traditions and cautioned against presenting it as the exclusive product of any single tradition.

Caste

HAF has frequently addressed questions concerning caste and caste discrimination in both South Asia and the diaspora.

In 2010, the organization published a report titled Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste, which argued that caste discrimination should be opposed while also maintaining that caste is not an intrinsic or defining component of Hindu theology.

The report called for reform efforts led by Hindus themselves and argued that caste discrimination should not be treated as an essential feature of Hindu identity.

Over time, HAF has continued to oppose caste discrimination while also objecting to portrayals that, in its view, equate Hinduism with caste hierarchy.

Critics, including scholars and anti-caste activists, have argued that caste remains a significant social reality both in South Asia and among diaspora communities and that efforts to minimize its role may hinder attempts to address discrimination.

SB403

In 2023, HAF became one of the most prominent opponents of California Senate Bill 403, which sought to explicitly add caste to anti-discrimination protections under California law.

Supporters of the legislation argued that explicit protections were necessary because caste discrimination existed within diaspora communities and was not adequately addressed under existing law.

HAF opposed the bill, arguing that caste discrimination was already prohibited under existing anti-discrimination laws and that the proposal risked unfairly targeting Hindu and South Asian communities by reinforcing stereotypes linking caste exclusively to Hinduism.

After the bill passed the California Legislature, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it, stating that existing civil-rights protections already covered caste discrimination.

Supporters of SB403 criticized the veto and continued advocating for explicit caste protections. HAF welcomed the decision and argued that it preserved equal treatment under existing law while avoiding unnecessary religious profiling.

The debate became one of the most prominent public discussions concerning caste, religion, civil rights, and identity within the South Asian American community.

Academic controversies and criticism

Several scholars and commentators have criticized HAF's interventions in academic and educational debates, while the organization has argued that its efforts seek to challenge what it regards as inaccurate or biased portrayals of Hindu traditions and Hindu communities.

California textbook controversies

Main articles: California textbook controversy over Hindu history and 2016–17 California textbook controversy over South Asian topics

In March 2006, HAF filed a lawsuit challenging California's Curriculum Commission after it rejected most of the textbook revisions proposed by the Vedic Foundation and Hindu Education Foundation.

Supporters of the proposed changes argued that existing textbooks contained inaccuracies and negative portrayals of Hindu traditions and Indian civilization. They also contended that some descriptions of caste, gender, and ancient Indian history unfairly stigmatized Hindu students.

Numerous historians, Indologists, and South Asia scholars opposed the revisions, arguing that several proposed changes conflicted with established academic scholarship regarding caste, gender, and the history of ancient India.

The court ultimately ruled against HAF and retained the textbooks.

In 2016, HAF opposed proposals to replace the term "Indian" with "South Asian" in portions of California's middle-school curriculum. The organization argued that the changes diminished India's historical and cultural identity.

Opponents argued that the broader terminology more accurately reflected regional history and diversity and accused supporters of the revisions of attempting to minimize discussion of caste and other controversial historical topics.

Wendy Doniger controversy

In 2010, HAF publicly criticized the selection of Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History for recognition by the National Book Critics Circle.

HAF argued that the book contained factual inaccuracies and interpretations that many Hindus found offensive. The organization criticized what it viewed as sensationalized portrayals of Hindu traditions and deities.

Supporters of Doniger defended her scholarship and argued that criticism of controversial interpretations should not be used to restrict academic freedom or scholarly inquiry.

Defamation lawsuit

In May 2021, HAF filed a defamation lawsuit against several activists, scholars, and advocacy organizations who had publicly characterized the organization as linked to Hindu nationalist movements.

HAF argued that statements alleging ties to Hindu supremacist organizations were false and defamatory.

A number of academics and public intellectuals criticized the lawsuit, arguing that it could have a chilling effect on public debate and scholarship concerning Hindu nationalism and diaspora politics.

The lawsuit was dismissed in December 2022.

Opposition to Dismantling Global Hindutva conference

In 2021, HAF opposed the virtual academic conference Dismantling Global Hindutva: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, organized by scholars affiliated with numerous universities.

HAF argued that the conference promoted one-sided portrayals of Hinduism and included speakers who had previously made statements that many Hindus considered offensive or prejudicial.

Conference organizers and participating scholars rejected those claims and maintained that the conference examined Hindutva as a political ideology rather than Hinduism as a religion.

Several academic organizations subsequently issued statements supporting academic freedom and condemning threats directed at conference participants.

Following the conference, HAF filed a complaint with the Department of Education concerning the University of Pennsylvania's involvement, arguing that Hindu students and scholars had been subjected to discriminatory treatment.

Multiple faculty members disagreed with HAF's position and argued that criticism of Hindutva should not be conflated with criticism of Hinduism.

Funding Controversies

The HAF's funding sources have drawn scrutiny in this context. In April 2021, Al Jazeera reported that the HAF was one of five U.S.-based organizations linked to Sangh Parivar networks that had together received approximately $833,000 in federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Advances during the COVID-19 pandemic; the HAF received the largest individual share, around $378,064 in PPP funds and an additional $10,000 in EIDL Advance. The reporting placed the HAF alongside Sewa International, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, the Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation, and Rajiv Malhotra's Infinity Foundation, entities described in the article as having documented links to organizations that have been associated in India with violence against Christian, Muslim and Dalit communities. The HAF rejected this characterization and subsequently filed the defamation action.

Tax filings reviewed by Frontline and other outlets indicate substantial donor overlap between the HAF and U.S. foundations that fund Sangh-affiliated groups in India. The Bhutada Family Foundation, whose principal Ramesh Bhutada has served as a national vice-president of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (the U.S. arm of the RSS), donated $362,242 to the HAF between 2005 and 2018 while contributing more than $1 million during the same period to Sangh-affiliated organizations including Sewa International, Ekal Vidyalaya, the HSS and the VHPA, according to publicly filed IRS Form 990 records. Several of these recipient organizations, particularly Ekal Vidyalaya, which operates schools in Indian tribal areas, have been documented by scholars and journalists as participating in ghar wapasi and "Hinduization" programmes among Adivasi and tribal communities, including in regions where Christian populations have subsequently come under attack.

The HAF has also lobbied against United States legislative measures that drew attention to anti-Christian violence in India. In addition to its 2013 campaign against H.Res. 417, the HAF opposed the 2019 resolution introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal urging India to lift its Kashmir communications blackout and end mass detentions, and has issued statements criticising the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom for placing India on its Country of Particular Concern recommendation list which was a designation USCIRF has based in part on documented violence against Christians, including the destruction of churches during the 2023 Manipur violence. Writing in Harper's Magazine, Andrew Cockburn observed that the HAF's pattern of advocacy has functioned to insulate the Indian government from sustained Congressional engagement on its religious-freedom record, even as the conflict in Manipur produced documented attacks on Kuki-Zo Christians and the destruction of more than three hundred churches.

Reception

Scholarly consensus is that the HAF purveys a politics embedded in Hindutva. Sailaja Krishnamurti, a professor at Saint Mary's University (Halifax) who specializes in religious traditions of the South Asian diaspora, summarized that the HAF has "earned a reputation" of being a conservative group purveying Hindu nationalist politics. Ilyse Morgenstein Fuerst, a historian specializing in South Asian religions at the University of Vermont, qualified the HAF as a "deeply conservative" outfit. Sangay K. Mishra, an assistant professor of political science at Drew University, argued that the HAF had remolded Hindutva-leaning politics into the language of "Hindu rights" to be palatable in the American mainstream. Truschke finds the HAF to be an integral component of the "wider Sangh Parivar" and Hindu right in the United States.

Sundaram found among the group's aims to sanitize the exclusionary nature of Hindutva, in part by borrowing from decolonial vocabulary, misleadingly portraying terms like "Hindutva", "Brahminism", etc. as oriental pejoratives. Chad Bauman, a professor of religion at Butler University, contended the HAF's portrayal of Hinduism to be misleadingly monolithic and in service of a political agenda. Nishant Upadhyay, a professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, specializing in gender and sexuality studies found the group's queer-friendly portrayal of Hinduism to be embedded within a discourse of Hindutva homonationalism.

The BBC has noted that the HAF has lobbied support in favor of Narendra Modi, the incumbent Prime Minister of India, amongst the diaspora. Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative found the HAF board member Rishi Bhutada to have also served as the official spokesperson of "Howdy Modi", a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-backed rally in support of India's incumbent prime minister Narendra Modi held in Houston, Texas in 2020. They — as well as several journalists — documented numerous anti-Muslim statements made by the HAF board members, past and present. Academics and journalists have also investigated money trails linking the HAF to other Sangh Parivar groups via their donors.

Response

The HAF denies these charges, claims to be non-partisan, and has unsuccessfully filed defamation suits against a wide range of organizations and individuals that alleged its links to Hindutva. However, Arun Chaudhuri, an anthropologist of religion and politics at York University, cautions that such disavowals should not be taken at face value but rather as efforts at distancing the HAF from the overtly negative connotations of Hindu nationalism. Sonia Sikka, an academic specializing in the intersection of religion and politics, also rejects the HAF's claims of non-partisanship.

References

Sources

• Affiliations of Faith: Hindu American Foundation and the Global Sangh (PDF) (Report). Coalition Against Genocide. 15 December 2013.
• Bauman, Chad; Saunders, Jennifer B. (January 2009). "Out of India: Immigrant Hindus and South Asian Hinduism in the USA: Immigrant Hindus and South Asian Hinduism in the USA". Religion Compass. 3 (1): 116–135. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8171.2008.00121.x.
• Andrea Jain (2014). "Yogaphobia and Hindu Origins". Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture. Oxford University Press. pp. 130–157. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199390236.003.0006. ISBN 978-0-19-939023-6.
• Prema Kurien (2007). A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4161-7.
• Prema Kurien (2007a). "Who speaks for Indian Americans? Religion, ethnicity, and political formation". American Quarterly. 59 (3): 759–783. doi:10.1353/aq.2007.0059. JSTOR 40068449. S2CID 143780494.
• Prema Kurien (2012). "Chapter 7. What is American about American Hinduism? Hindu Umbrella Organisations in the United States on Comparative Perspective". In John Zavos; et al. (eds.). Public Hinduisms. New Delhi: SAGE Publ. India. ISBN 978-81-321-1696-7.
• Prema Kurien (2016). "Majority versus minority religious status and diasporic nationalism: Indian American advocacy organisations: Majority versus minority religious status and diasporic nationalism". Nations and Nationalism. 23 (1): 109–128. doi:10.1111/nana.12255.
• Prema Kurien (2022). "The Racial Paradigm and Dalit Anti-Caste Activism in the United States". Social Problems. 70 (3): 717–734. doi:10.1093/socpro/spac035. ISSN 0037-7791.
• Vinay Lal (2012). The Other Indians. HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 978-93-5029-261-7.
• Pyong Gap Min (2010). Preserving Ethnicity Through Religion in America: Korean Protestants and Indian Hindus Across Generations. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-9586-6.
• Vijay Prashad (2012). Uncle Swami: South Asians in America Today. The New Press. ISBN 978-1595588012.
• Dheepa Sundaram (2023). "Hindutva 2.0: How a Conference on Hindu Nationalism Launches a Change in Strategy for North American Hindutva Organizations". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 90 (4): 809–814. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfad028. ISSN 0002-7189.
• Nishant Upadhyay (2020). "Hindu Nation and its Queers: Caste, Islamophobia, and De/coloniality in India". Interventions. 22 (4): 464–480. doi:10.1080/1369801X.2020.1749709. ISSN 1369-801X. S2CID 218822737.

External links

• Documents from the HAF’s Lawsuit, audreytruschke.com, January 2023.