Representative Image. / Pexels

In Part 1 of this series, we examined the controversial report Hindutva in America: A Threat to Equality and Religious Pluralism, published by Rutgers University’s Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR). One key question remained unresolved: Who are the anonymous authors behind this report?

Our further research reveals that the report is not the work of isolated individuals but part of a broader academic network critical of Hindu identity and India’s democratic and economic rise under Modi 3.0. These actors, way beyond Rutgers, frame Hindu civilizational resurgence as a threat, an argument that distorts both Hinduism and India’s political landscape. The networks, including individuals and organizations discussed below, may be a potential threat to Hinduism rooted in Sanatan Dharma, the civilization core of India, that is Bharat.

Also read: Rutgers University Part 1: A nexus for anti-Hindu and anti-India narratives

Who Is “AC,” and Who Else Is Behind the Curtain?

We previously speculated that one of the authors, referred to as “AC” was Dr. Audrey Truschke, a Rutgers professor with a known history of inflammatory commentary about Hinduism. This hypothesis gains traction with the discovery of the South Asia Scholar Activist Collective (SASAC), formed in 2021, which includes:

• Audrey Truschke (Rutgers University–Newark)
• Manan Ahmed (Columbia University)
• Ananya Chakravarti (Georgetown University)
• Rohit Chopra (Santa Clara University)
• Purnima Dhavan (University of Washington)
• Simran Jeet Singh (Union Theological Seminary)
• Davesh Soneji (University of Pennsylvania)
• Dheepa Sundaram (University of Denver)

This author believes that seven of these eight individuals are of Indian origin, with Truschke often functioning as a central and loud voice against Hinduism/Hindutva. 

Truschke has recently written a book titled “A 5,000-Year History of India.” While ambitious in scope, the project raises serious concerns about both scholarly qualification and intent. Truschke’s academic training is primarily in Persian and Sanskrit textual studies, not in archaeology, Vedic philosophy, or Indian political history across millennia. Her prior work has focused on interpreting Mughal sources, often through a lens that marginalizes indigenous civilizational voices. Given this background, her attempt to present a 5,000-year narrative of India risks repeating the same ideological bias, selective historiography, and civilizational erasure under the guise of academic storytelling.

The anonymity of authors from Columbia (Ahmed) and the University of Denver  (Sundaram) is also revealed. Together, the SASAC team represents a well-coordinated campaign rooted not in objective inquiry but in ideological activism aimed at delegitimizing Hindu identity and India’s democratic ethos.

SASAC’s Agenda and Publications

Far from being neutral scholars, SASAC members present themselves as activist academics committed to “progressive, inclusive politics.” Their collective output includes not only support for the Rutgers report but publications such as Hindutva’s Threat to Academic Freedom (2021). This piece served as a precursor, asserting that Hindutva has transformed India into an "ethnonationalist" state defined by Hindu supremacy and human rights violations.

Like the Rutgers report, SASAC literature draws an artificial and ideologically driven line between “Hinduism” (portrayed as spiritual and benign) and “Hindutva” (cast as violent and exclusivist). This framing erases the civilizational continuity of Hindu thought and reflects a colonialist impulse to fragment Indian identity.

SASAC’s Hindutva Harassment Field Manual further illustrates this intent. It outlines how so-called “Hindutva forces” operate, conflating legitimate dissent or diaspora activism with violence, misogyny, and casteism. The document promotes a narrative that increasingly portrays Hindu advocacy as inherently suspicious or dangerous. 

A Network of Influence: Beyond SASAC

SASAC’s reach extends beyond universities. For example, their efforts align closely with groups like Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), a U.S.-based organization housed at Columbia University. In one campaign, more than 400 self-proclaimed scholars and writers signed a statement opposing the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) in a defamation lawsuit.

Many of these signatories, drawn from various countries and faith backgrounds, reflect a global but ideologically cohesive opposition to Hindu civic expression. While the HAF lawsuit was eventually dismissed, the scale and coordination of this response suggest an increasingly organized campaign to stigmatize Hindu advocacy under the guise of protecting academic freedom. The Solidarity Statement from these groups also lists 40 supporting organizations, many of which have a documented history of anti-Hindu or anti-India activities.

Concluding Reflections

Our investigation confirms that the Rutgers report is part of a much larger and more insidious movement—one that leverages academic credentials to discredit Hindus, distort India’s democratic evolution, and fracture diaspora cohesion. While Professors Aziz and Truschke appear to be leading voices at Rutgers, they are not alone.

This nexus of activist-scholars is expanding its reach across university campuses, nonprofit networks, and local community organizations. Their narrative, often cloaked in progressive language, misuses academic platforms to cast suspicion on Hindu communities and India’s global role.

Such efforts parallel the rise of antisemitism in their method: targeting a community’s cultural identity under the pretense of opposing extremism. While academic freedom must be protected, it must also be held accountable when used to propagate bigotry.

“All politics is local,” as Tip O’Neill famously said. The same holds for civilizational advocacy. While the national discourse matters, the real battleground is often in our own backyards. We urge Hindu Americans to remain vigilant not only at the national level but also within their local communities, where narratives are quietly shaped and amplified. Organizations like the India Association of Minnesota (IAM), and individuals such as Anantanand Rambachan, former Professor of Religion at St. Olaf College, and Anna Seastrand, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota—both listed as signatories in the list of 400 plus—must be scrutinized. Does their rhetoric or affiliations echo the same harmful tropes and ideological distortions we have exposed in this series?

Alarmingly, the political ecosystem is not immune. In Minnesota, for instance, a Congresswoman with a well-documented record of anti-Hindu rhetoric introduced an "Islamophobia" bill. While it may be well-intentioned in name, it raises concerns about selectively protecting religious groups while ignoring the surge in anti-Hindu bigotry. This illustrates how such academic narratives seep into legislative discourse, influencing policies and shaping public perception.

It is time for lawmakers and civil society to take Hinduphobia seriously. Just as racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia have no place in democratic discourse, neither should anti-Hindu bigotry—whether in classrooms, Congress, or community centers.

Next in the Series

In the upcoming Part 3, we will closely examine the deliberate attempt by these networks to fabricate a distinction between “Hinduism” and “Hindutva.” Contrary to these divisive portrayals, we will explore how Hinduism and Hindutva are deeply interconnected, rooted in the same civilizational foundation, expressed through different contexts, yet part of an unbroken cultural and spiritual continuum. The goal is to reclaim this narrative from those who misuse academic platforms to distort it.

NOTE: The author acknowledges the use of ChatGPT in researching topics and the meaningful improvement of content.

(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of New India Abroad)