Operation Sindoor logo. / PIB

The “Hindutva in America” report, released under the banner of Rutgers University and widely circulated, is neither scholarship nor sincere inquiry. It is an ideological weapon masquerading as academic scholarship without even identifying the authors. Cloaked in the credibility of a major American university, the report levels sweeping accusations, recycles discredited tropes, and seeks to stigmatize an entire religious and cultural tradition—Hindutva, and by association, Hinduism.

This anonymous report is, in essence, a declaration of war against Hindu civilizational identity, Indian democratic plurality, and Hindu diasporic dignity. It demands a response not from passive disagreement but from strategic resistance. That is why we propose Operation SINDOOR—the Strategic Initiative for Neutralizing, Dismantling, and Opposing the Overwhelming Rhetoric in the report.

Recently, the majority Hindu nation Bharat launched Operation Sindoor, a bold strike in response to cross-border terrorism against Hindus from neighboring Pakistan. It was necessary to protect its sovereignty and convey a decisive message to aggressors that Bharat has zero tolerance for terrorism. Similarly, the Hindu community finds itself under intellectual and ideological assault by the infamous Rutgers Report, which seeks to malign, stereotype, and delegitimize a millennia-old living tradition.

As we conclude this multi-part series on Rutgers Report, we offer a civilizational response inspired by Operation Sindoor.  To begin with, “sindoor” carries deep cultural resonance for Hindus. It evokes sanctity, identity, and strength.  Additionally, each word in this initiative is chosen with purpose, precision, and power, as discussed below.

Strategic Initiative: A Long-Term Response

This is not a moment for outrage alone, and not just by this author. It is a call for well-coordinated action by Hindus everywhere and in all walks of life. Sindoor is not just a slogan or sacred symbol for Hindus, but a multifaceted response mechanism aimed at restoring intellectual balance, protecting civil liberties, and reasserting the legitimacy of Hindu thought in the global arena.

It is strategic because it recognizes that we face not a lone report but a broader ideological assault with long-term institutional ambitions. Academicians, journalists with anti-Hindu thought in the Western media, and many organizations in North America have banded together to malign Hinduism and Hindutva (we call it HH to emphasize the unique identity, and no distinction as implied in the Rutgers Report).

It is an initiative because it calls for sustained, creative, concerted, and collective action, not just rebuttals, but the building of alliances, platforms, and research arms for cultural discourse on HH. With a focus on North America, this strategic initiative must include not only individuals but organizations such as CoHNA, HAF, VHPA, HUA, Infinity Foundation, HSS, OFJBP, Sewa International, GHHF, HMEC, and all others believing in and supporting HH.

Important to note is that the Rutgers Report cites many of these organizations as transnational, while others evolved organically in the United States to combat narratives purported by the Report under discussion.

Neutralizing: Preventing Further Harm

To neutralize the Rutgers Report means to render its toxic influence ineffective in practical and institutional terms. That starts by challenging its legitimacy in public discourse. Scholars, community leaders, and students must publicly expose the methodological flaws, selective sourcing, and ideological entrenchment behind the report.

The use of such flawed reports in policy recommendations and academic syllabi must be confronted with facts, petitions, and legal actions where necessary. Hindus of all ages, irrespective of where they came from (Bharat, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Caribbean or elsewhere) and organizations should not be shamed into silence or submission based on fiction framed as fact. We cannot and must not allow the use of similar reports like Equality Labs on caste in DEI trainings. Similarly, any academic institution taking liberties to discredit Hinduism in the classroom under the guise of academic freedom must stop.

Neutralization also requires arming the public at large with knowledge about the basic tenets of HH and how Dharma is different before falsehoods take hold. That is where advocacy at the grassroots level is critical. Keeping an eye on social studies curriculum in K-12 must be a part of Hindu focus groups to clamp any misinformation or disinformation imparted in the classroom to young and fertile minds. Therefore, the fact sheets, counter-studies, and infographics should be developed and shared widely across platforms.

Dismantling It:

To dismantle the report is to take apart its ideological, institutional, and intellectual architecture and structure filled with lies and innuendos.

The Rutgers Report is not an isolated effort.  The readers may recall the infamous ‘Dismantling Hindutva” conference. The report under discussion is the latest output from a transnational ideological network that includes radical left academics, postcolonial theorists, anti-Bharat activists, and caste-essentialist NGOs. Recall the list of 400-plus names in part 2 of this series. They not only opposed the existence of HAF, they collaborated to construct a worldview where Hindutva—and by extension Hinduism—is seen as a dangerous, Brahmanical, nationalist force antithetical to liberal democracy.

We must trace and expose this ecosystem. Who funds these authors and such projects? What are their affiliations? What are their political and ideological motives? We must challenge the uncritical media amplification of their narratives and show the broader public how pseudo-scholarship is being used as a weapon.

We must also deconstruct the theoretical scaffolding—the lazy analogies with Nazism, the absurd imposition of American racial binaries onto Indian social realities, the reduction of an indigenous pluralist ethos into a caricature of fascism. These are not academic errors; they are deliberate distortions.

Why Oppose?

Finally, we must oppose, stand firm, and speak out and up. This is the moral imperative of the moment. Silence is complicity. Letting such reports circulate unchallenged is to allow lies to become believable and  “common sense.”

We must oppose them in the classroom and the courtroom, in boardrooms and on social media. Hindu students must be supported with legal tools, talking points, and emotional confidence to speak up. Academics must band together to create new intellectual institutions free from ideological censorship. Organizations mentioned earlier must create collaboratives by breaking barriers and overcoming turf wars.

Public events, panels, and publications under the SINDOOR banner must become visible arenas of contestation and truth-telling. We need solidarity from interfaith allies, civil rights defenders, and free-speech advocates, many of whom understand the dangers of weaponized scholarship.

Why It’s “Overwhelming”?

To understand the threat, one must understand why this report qualifies as “overwhelming.” It is not overwhelming in its depth or truth; rather, it is overwhelming in its volume, reach, and manipulative framing.

The report is intellectually overwhelming because it presents sheer ideological overreach under the cover of academic rigor. It conflates Hindutva with fascism, authoritarianism, and supremacism using selective citations, cherry-picked anecdotes, and debunked narratives. The tone is accusatory, the citations circular, and the intent unmistakable—to establish Hindutva not as a political idea open to debate, but as an existential evil that must be eradicated.

It is emotionally overwhelming because it struck moral panic. It presents Hindutva as a creeping threat within the U.S. and Indian diaspora, instilling fear and shame among Hindu students, activists, and even apolitical community members. It cultivates a climate where Hindu self-expression is suspect, where spiritual vocabulary is interpreted as code for bigotry.

It is institutionally overwhelming because it has been accepted uncritically by segments of the media, policymakers, and progressive groups. Its ideological framing has begun influencing workplace training programs, campus policies, and even government dialogues, thereby mainstreaming a false and dangerous premise.

Further Reading:

The most critical and analytical response to the Rutgers Report is by the HinduPACT (a Hindu policy research and advocacy collective) and American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD). It argues that the Rutgers report is not objective academic scholarship but rather a “politicized and ideologically charged narrative,”  a point also made by this author. The Report exhibits significant anti-Hindu bias and promotes discriminatory recommendations. Additionally, the readers are advised to read another recent article, which explores the complex web of silence and complicity that surrounds anti-Hindu hate crimes in Western societies and the urgent need for redress.

Conclusions:

The Rutgers report is not scholarship; it is slander, sanctified by academia and aimed at a civilization. We do not oppose critique; we oppose defamation. We do not fear debate; we welcome it. But we will not tolerate erasure masquerading as inquiry.

SINDOOR is our line in the sand. It is a civilizational response—not of anger, but of clarity; not of victimhood, but of vision. It is a call to every scholar, student, and citizen who believes in truth and pluralism to join the fight—not just to refute a report, but to reclaim the narrative.

Let the world know: Hinduism and Hindutva will not be dismantled and will prevail as they already have for millennia. We must stand for Hindu rights, not in silence, but using tools like Operation Sindoor to combat narratives like the Rutgers Report. It will be a travesty if Hindus do not defend  Dharma and HH to restore Bharat’s golden age. 

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)