Anti-Hindu prejudice on display: revered Hindu organisation vilified and equated with a terrorist army by Muslim novelist
United States 
3 September, 2026
Case Summary
In a recent interview, the Hindu organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was defamed and criminalised by British Indian Muslim novelist Salman Rushdie. He compared the Hindu organisation RSS with the designated terrorist organisation Irish Republican Army (IRA). The incident came to light after an interview with Salman Rushdie, aired on the Public Broadcasting Service, a nonprofit American public media organisation, on its show Firing Line with Margaret Hoover, on September 4, 2026. In the video, Salman Rushdie was asked about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat’s recent visit to New York. The anchor described the RSS as “a Hindu nationalist organisation that has been described as a far-right paramilitary organisation accused of committing human rights violations”. The first post report criticised the description of the RSS and stated that the framing of the questions was disturbingly biased. When the anchor questioned Salman Rushdie about his views on the RSS, he added, “It is unfortunately the case that a lot of Indian Americans, Hindu Americans, are attracted to the idea of Hindu nationalism. You can compare it, if you want, to the way in which Irish Americans used to support the IRA.” He further added, “I think it’s very regrettable, but there’s no question that it’s happening.” The interviewer further asked Rushdie whether the “secular India” in which he “grew up in a secular Muslim family” was gone forever; he replied: “Forever is a long time.” Notably, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was an extremist paramilitary organisation in Ireland that sought to end British rule in Northern Ireland and push for Irish reunification. The United States designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organisation under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 2021. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland both declared it an unlawful organisation. It was active from the 1960s until 1998 and, in this period, it carried out thousands of armed actions, shootings and bombings, killing thousands of civilians alongside security-force members and rival paramilitaries. The IRA killed approximately 1,800 people between 1969 and 1994, including 600 civilians. In 1972 alone, the Provisional IRA reportedly carried out more than a thousand bomb attacks. By the late 1990s, it had amassed a massive arsenal of weapons, enough for ten years of violence. The IRA raised large sums of money through blackmail and other illegal activities, and it used brutal methods to control its community. Social media users objected to the comparison, calling the analogy historically inaccurate and inflammatory and describing it as extraordinarily reckless.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of Hate speech against Hindus. Within it, the sub-category selected is: Mocking, denigrating Hindu leaders. Hate speech is defined as any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, or display that is prejudicial against a specific individual and/or group of people, which is leading to or may lead to violence, prejudicial action or hate against that individual and/or group. Religious leaders are often seen as representatives of the community, especially the community’s religious faith and beliefs. Mocking or denigrating a religious leader specifically owing to his religious identity and/or the religious rituals he observes can be considered hate speech because the motivating factor of the speech is animosity and/or dislike for what he represents – the religious beliefs and faith of the community. It is important to note that mere insulting words against an individual do not constitute hate speech. It is entirely possible that insulting words are used for an individual; however, the specific speech is not the result of religious hate and/or animosity towards the professed faith of the religious leader, but the individual himself. For the speech to be considered hate speech, the speech itself or the motivating factor behind the speech has to be religious in nature. Such speech that denigrates Hindu religious leaders specifically owing to animosity towards the faith they profess and the community faith they represent will be treated as hate speech under this category. This case was included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because Salman Rushdie compared the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a prominent Hindu organisation, with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a terrorist organisation associated with decades of bombings, armed violence and civilian deaths. By placing the RSS in the same conceptual framework as the IRA, the comparison portrayed a Hindu organisation as comparable to a terrorist group. The RSS is a Hindu volunteer organisation that works through social service, community welfare and disaster relief. Its volunteers have assisted people during floods, earthquakes, cyclones, pandemics and other natural calamities. Further, the organisation has also been active in issues concerning the protection of cows, opposition to practices such as Love Jihad, forcible or lured religious conversions, which it considers harmful to Hindu society, and the protection of Hindu religious and cultural interests. These activities showed why the RSS had a strong presence within the Hindu community. Its role in standing up for Hindu interests also made it a direct target for those seeking to portray Hindu mobilisation as something dangerous. Choosing the IRA as the comparison sent a clear message. The IRA was a terrorist organisation known for bombings, shootings and killings. It killed approximately 1,800 people between 1969 and 1994, including civilians. Comparing the RSS with such an organisation therefore did more than just criticise it. It attached the image of terrorism, violence and criminality to a Hindu organisation that worked through volunteers and community activities. The comparison sought to make the Hindu organisation itself appear threatening, violent and dangerous. The comparison also sought to influence how Hindu nationalism and its supporters were perceived. Rushdie specifically referred to “Indian Americans, Hindu Americans” who were attracted to Hindu nationalism and compared their support with the historical support of Irish Americans for the IRA. By making this comparison, he blurred the distinction between peaceful political or religious mobilisation and violent extremism, making support for Hindu nationalism appear morally comparable to support for terrorism. The religious dimension was made explicit when Rushdie referred to “Indian Americans, Hindu Americans” who support Hindu nationalism and compared them with Irish Americans who supported the IRA. This effectively equated support for Hindu nationalism with support for terrorism, blurring the distinction between peaceful Hindu political and cultural mobilisation and violent extremism. The interview framing further reinforced this portrayal. The RSS had already been described as a “far-right paramilitary organisation” accused of human rights violations before Rushdie was asked about Hindu Americans supporting Hindu nationalism. His IRA comparison consequently reinforced an already negative framing of the organisation and its Hindu supporters. By associating a prominent Hindu organisation, Hindu nationalism and Hindu supporters with terrorism, the statement stigmatised Hindu collective identity and political expression. The comparison therefore showed clear religious bias against Hindus and the Hindu organisation being discussed. Rushdie portrayed the RSS as an extremist organisation and equated peaceful Hindu mobilisation with a terrorist organisation and thereby sought to stigmatise Hindu collective organisation and Hindu nationalism. This portrayal of Hindu identity and its collective expression as inherently extremist formed the basis for including the case in the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Unknown
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
