Opinion: Hindutva Lobby or Simplistic Allegations? A Critical Rebuttal of Andrew Cockburn's Article
In his recent piece, The Hindutva Lobby, Andrew Cockburn paints a broad and alarming picture of Hindu nationalism infiltrating U.S. politics, primarily through affluent Indian Americans. But beneath the sensational narrative lies an oversimplification of complex issues, relying on anecdotal evidence and speculative inferences rather than a rigorous examination of the facts. While caste discrimination and the rise of Hindutva ideology in India deserve serious scrutiny, Cockburn’s analysis of its supposed influence in America is, at best, flawed and, at worst, a distortion of the political realities.
Overplaying the “Hindutva Influence”
Cockburn begins his article by linking the veto of California’s caste discrimination bill to the influence of wealthy Hindu-American donors. He portrays Governor Gavin Newsom’s decision as a capitulation to the so-called "Hindutva lobby" rather than an informed and principled stance against redundant legislation. But this ignores the more plausible and grounded explanation: Newsom vetoed the bill because California’s existing civil rights laws already cover caste discrimination under categories like ancestry and national origin. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), for example, prohibits discrimination on grounds of ancestry, which is broad enough to address caste-based concerns.
Even more broadly, federal civil rights laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 similarly prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The attempt to single out caste as a distinct category, while well-intentioned, risked stigmatizing an entire diaspora community based on anecdotal evidence of caste-based discrimination, which lacks comprehensive empirical backing.
The veto was not driven by a covert agenda or "Hindutva lobby" influence, but rather a recognition that the legislation was unnecessary and risked opening the door to overreach in civil rights law. Critics like Cockburn fail to acknowledge this broader context.
Misrepresenting Political Participation of Hindu Americans
Cockburn’s framing of the Hindu-American community as a monolithic bloc aligned with right-wing, Hindu-nationalist politics is not only reductionist but factually inaccurate. He suggests that wealthy Indian Americans, especially those aligned with the tech industry, are uniformly pushing a Hindutva agenda. Yet, Hindu Americans, like any other ethnic group in the U.S., have a diversity of political views, and assuming that financial contributions from this community are evidence of Hindutva sympathies is problematic.
For example, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which Cockburn references as a key player in this alleged lobby, advocates for a wide range of issues affecting Hindu Americans, including civil rights and religious freedom. It has also worked to combat stereotypes against Hindus and protect Hindu religious practices. Casting it as an arm of Hindutva nationalism overlooks its broader mandate and trivializes its legitimate advocacy work.
Even Cockburn’s mention of political contributions from figures like Shalabh Kumar and Ramesh Kapur falls short of proving undue influence. Political donations from immigrant communities are not new or unique to Hindus. African Americans, Latinos, Jewish Americans, and others have long participated in political fundraising without being accused of “foreign influence.” Yet, when Indian Americans engage in the same practices, Cockburn frames it as part of a dangerous lobby intent on shaping U.S. policy to benefit Hindu nationalism.
Exaggerating the Caste Discrimination Problem in the U.S.
One of the central claims in the article is that caste discrimination is a pressing problem within the Indian-American community, particularly in tech companies. However, much of the evidence supporting this claim comes from highly contested sources. The Equality Labs report, often cited by activists pushing for caste-based legislation, has been criticized for its lack of rigorous methodology and its reliance on a small, self-selected sample size. In a study with such a limited scope, conclusions about the pervasiveness of caste-based discrimination across the U.S. should be treated with caution.
Cockburn repeats these claims without providing a critical analysis of the data, perpetuating the narrative that caste-based oppression is rampant among South Asians in the U.S. While individual cases of discrimination certainly exist, these isolated incidents do not justify sweeping legislation that risks singling out an entire ethnic community as inherently discriminatory.
Additionally, by focusing exclusively on Hindu Americans, the article ignores the fact that caste divisions, though more prominent in Hinduism, also exist among other South Asian religious communities, such as Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs. This selective targeting further illustrates the flawed reasoning behind this narrative.
Painting Indian Politics with a Broad Brush
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of Cockburn’s article is the way it connects Indian domestic politics, particularly the rise of Hindutva under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with the actions of the Indian-American community. While it is true that Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has emphasized Hindu identity in its politics, the implication that this extends to the broader Indian-American diaspora in the U.S. is an overgeneralization.
Cockburn’s attempt to liken the Indian-American community’s political engagement to the influence of the pro-Israel lobby further muddies the water. Unlike the organized and powerful pro-Israel lobby, which has a long history of influencing U.S. policy, Hindu American advocacy in the U.S. is still in its nascent stages. Grouping these two communities together obscures the distinct political histories, concerns, and influence of each.
Furthermore, casting Indian-American political involvement as uniformly “Hindutva” ignores the diversity within the community itself. While some Indian Americans may support Modi’s government, many others are critical of it. The assumption that the entire community shares the same political ideology is simplistic and reinforces damaging stereotypes.
Criticism Without Nuance
A significant flaw in Cockburn’s article is its lack of nuance when discussing issues of caste, Hindutva, and Indian-American political engagement. His focus on sensationalism overshadows the more pertinent questions that should be asked: How do we address legitimate cases of discrimination without stigmatizing an entire community? How do we promote religious freedom while condemning extremism in any form? And how do we ensure that political participation from immigrant communities is respected rather than vilified?
By framing the debate in terms of a nefarious Hindutva lobby pulling the strings of American politics, Cockburn distracts from the real challenges. The Indian-American community, much like any other diaspora group, is politically diverse, economically successful, and increasingly engaged in civic life. Reducing their engagement to an agenda driven by Hindu nationalism does a disservice to the community and undermines efforts to promote genuine dialogue on the issues.
Conclusion: Let’s Move Beyond Simplistic Narratives
Andrew Cockburn’s article purports to expose the rise of a Hindu nationalist lobby in the U.S., but it ultimately falls short of making a compelling case. The piece relies too heavily on sweeping generalizations, unverified claims, and a one-sided perspective that fails to recognize the diversity within the Indian-American community and the legitimate concerns that motivated Governor Newsom’s veto of the caste bill.
It is crucial to approach these sensitive issues with nuance, care, and a commitment to understanding the complexities involved. Rather than pitting communities against each other with inflammatory rhetoric, we should focus on building a more inclusive and equitable society where all forms of discrimination are addressed, and all communities are respected.