SAMAJ WEEKLY UK
Bal Ram Sampla
Geopolitics
The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) presents an contradiction in its approach to discrimination. While the organization campaigns against racism faced by Hindu Americans and South Asians, it opposes laws designed to prevent caste-based discrimination.
HAF’s Opposition to Anti-Caste Laws
The Hindu American Foundation has consistently opposed legislation that would prohibit caste-based discrimination in the United States. The organization argues that such laws violate religious freedom by incorrectly suggesting that caste discrimination is an integral part of Hindu religious practice. HAF maintains that caste is a social construct imposed during British colonial rule rather than a genuine aspect of Hindu religion.
The Contradiction
This selective approach to discrimination reveals several concerning patterns in HAF’s advocacy:
1. Inconsistent Application of Civil Rights Principles
HAF applies civil rights arguments when defending Hindu Americans from external discrimination but rejects these same principles when they might protect lower-caste individuals within South Asian communities. This suggests that their commitment to equality is conditional rather than universal.
2. Protection of Social Hierarchies
By opposing anti-caste legislation while fighting racism, HAF appears to want protection from discrimination while preserving the ability to maintain traditional social hierarchies within their own community. This approach seeks to shield the organization’s members from external prejudice while potentially enabling internal discrimination.
3.Strategic Use of Religious Freedom
HAF’s religious freedom arguments regarding caste seem ‘strategically deployed rather than genuinely principled’. The organization does not typically invoke religious freedom to defend other controversial practices, suggesting this argument is used selectively when convenient.
4. Historical and Organizational
HAF’s contradictory stance becomes more understandable when examining its organizational background. The foundation has historical connections to Hindu nationalist organizations like Vishav Hindu Parishad America and Hindu Student Council. This background may explain why the organization is comfortable fighting external discrimination while resisting internal reform.
Consequences of This Approach
This inconsistent stance creates several problems:
1. Damaged Credibility
HAF’s selective approach to discrimination undermines its credibility as a civil rights organization.
2. Community Division
This position creates tensions within South Asian American communities between those advocating for comprehensive anti-discrimination protections and those supporting HAF’s selective approach.
3. Contradiction
By opposing anti-caste protections, HAF contradicts their stated commitment to fighting prejudice.
4. Legal Weakness
Courts have rejected HAF’s religious freedom arguments regarding caste discrimination, recognizing the inconsistencies in their position.
Conclusion
The Hindu American Foundation’s contradictory stance on discrimination reveals the hypocrisy of its advocacy. It is not based in universal principles of equality. While HAF is quick to defend Hindu Americans from racism but their opposition to anti-caste protections suggests their commitment to civil rights is selective rather than principled.
True advocacy for civil rights must be consistent and universal. One cannot credibly fight discrimination while at same time oppose protection for other marginalized groups. If the organization genuinely believes in civil rights and religious freedom, they should support comprehensive anti-discrimination protections that protect all people, regardless of their position.
The courts have already recognized this contradiction, rejecting HAF’s religious freedom arguments. This legal defeat highlights the weakness of using civil rights language selectively while opposing the same protections for others. For HAF to maintain credibility as a civil rights organization, they must adopt a consistent stance that opposes all forms of discrimination.
References
1. https://scroll.in/article/1084874/why-us-court-rejected-hindu-groups-claims-that-caste-discrimination-cases-violate-religious-freedom
2. https://www.hinduamerican.org/issues/
3. https://thewire.in/politics/caste/the-hindu-supremacist-disinformation-campaign-against-the-caste-discrimination-litigation-in-us
