American university displays blatant Hinduphobia; falsely links Hinduism to extremism in its newly introduced course
Houston, Texas, United States 
27 March, 2025
Case Summary
The University of Houston’s online course, Lived Hindu Religion, has sparked outrage for its blatant Hinduphobia, misrepresenting Hinduism and falsely framing it as a political tool of oppression. The course, taught by Professor Aaron Michael Ullrey, pushes controversial narratives, including the claim that Hinduism is not an “ancient, lived tradition” but rather a construct weaponised by “Hindu nationalists” to suppress minorities. Indian-American student Vasant Bhatt, who enrolled in the course, exposed its distortions and raised concerns with the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. Vasant Bhatt, a political science major at the university, filed a formal complaint with the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, alleging that the "Lived Hindu Religion" course misrepresents Hinduism as a political tool used by Hindu nationalists. He said that the course materials described Hindutva as a tool for denigrating other religions, particularly Islam. "The word 'Hindu' is recent, not found in scriptures. Hindutva, or 'Hindu-ness', is a term that Hindu nationalists, those who believe Hinduism should be the official religion of India, use to designate their religion and denigrate others, namely Islam," the course content stated. Bhatt said he wrote to the dean complaining about the course material. However, he said, "The department attempted to deflect from the core issue by questioning my process and discrediting my valid concern — rather than investigating the substance of the complaint." Despite strong backlash, the university defended the course under the guise of “academic freedom,” dismissing concerns about its anti-Hindu bias. Professor Ullrey denied the allegations, insisting his statements were taken out of context. However, the university’s justification that “academic terms can carry different meanings” has failed to quell concerns that the course is deliberately misrepresenting Hinduism and fueling anti-Hindu narratives.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case has been added to the tracker under the category- Hate speech against Hindus. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Subversion of scriptures. Subverting the religious scriptures of Hindus has particularly devastating consequences. Subversion of the scriptures of Hindus is often done to justify or promote hatred, discrimination, or violence against specific individuals or groups of Hindus. Religious scriptures are often nuanced and those who harbour religious animosity towards Hindus often misquote or misrepresent the scripture to legitimise their animosity and hate towards the faith and its adherents. Any such misquoting of scriptures or subversion to justify hate, violence and discrimination against Hindus owing to religious animosity is hate speech and is categorised as such. The second sub-category selected is- Anti-Hindu subversion and prejudice. 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. Media plays a specific and overarching reach in perpetuating prejudicial attitudes towards a community owing to unfair, untrue coverage and/or misrepresentation/misinterpretation, selective coverage and/or omission of facts of/pertaining to issues affecting a specific religious group. This type of bias can dehumanise the victim group, making it easier for others to justify harmful actions against them, which aligns with the objectives of hate speech laws aimed at preventing such harm. It is often observed that the media takes a prejudicial stand against the Hindu community driven by their need to shield the aggressor community which happens to be a numeric minority, however, is the one perpetrating violence against Hindus. For example, the media is often quick to contextualise religiously motivated crimes against Hindus, omit or misrepresent facts that point towards religiously motivated hate crimes, justify and/or downplay religiously motivated hate crimes or simply present fake news to stereotype Hindus. Such media bias leads to the denial of persecution and is often used to dehumanise Hindus, leading to justification for violence against them. For example, the media covered several fake allegations of Hindus targeting Muslims and forcing them to chant Jai Shree Ram. Most of these cases were proved false and fabricated after police investigation. These fake news reports were subsequently never retracted or clarified. Such fake news led to the justification of violence and dehumanisation of Hindus based on the argument that since Hindus targeted Muslims and forced them to chant Jai Shree Ram, the dehumanisation of Hindus and violence against them was par for the course and merely a retaliation. Such media bias leads to prejudicial portrayal of Hindus and offers a justification for violence against them and therefore, is considered hate speech under this category. The University of Houston’s Lived Hindu Religion course is a blatant example of Hinduphobia, warranting its inclusion in the database as it deliberately distorts Hinduism and maligns its sacred traditions. By falsely portraying Hinduism as a political tool of oppression rather than an ancient, lived tradition, the course actively subverts Hindu scriptures and misrepresents the faith’s core principles. This calculated misinterpretation of Hinduism, particularly the assertion that the word ‘Hindu’ has no historical basis and that Hindutva is a form of religious supremacy, is a direct attack on the identity and beliefs of Hindus. The attempt to delegitimise the faith and its historical continuity falls squarely under the category of 'Subversion of Scriptures', as it seeks to erase the indigenous Hindu narrative and impose a falsified version of history. Moreover, the course's usage of ‘Hindutva’ as a term to vilify Hindus and associate them with extremism is a clear case of hate speech. Hindutva is often used as a euphemism to make the targeting of Hindus more palatable, masking anti-Hindu animosity behind the pretext of ideological criticism. In reality, Hindutva is a unifying ideology for Hindus that became essential to preserve their cultural and religious identity, which had been eroded due to Islamic invasions, British colonisation, Christian theological impositions, and conversion attempts. It is not a destructive ideology, as some attempt to portray, but rather a means for Hindus to reclaim and protect their heritage. The course employs semantic jugglery to manipulate discourse, conditioning Hindus into believing that their own persecution is somehow justified because their oppressors frame Hindutva as an ideology that warrants hostility. This strategy enables supremacists to justify their aggression against Hindus while erasing the historical context of why Hindus sought unification in the first place. The fact that ‘Hindutva’ is used in this manner in the course demonstrates that the real target is not an ideology but Hindus as a whole, vilifying their identity and faith under the guise of academic freedom. Furthermore, the course’s framing of Hinduism as a mechanism of oppression mocks the faith by reducing its spiritual and philosophical depth to mere political rhetoric. Such a portrayal is not an impartial academic analysis but a deliberate effort to malign Hindu beliefs, reinforcing anti-Hindu biases and fostering an atmosphere of discrimination. The sub-category of 'Mocking Faith' is evident in the way Hinduism is misrepresented, stripped of its spiritual significance, and framed as an oppressive force, which fuels misconceptions and potential hostility towards Hindus. Given the wider implications of such narratives, this incident constitutes a clear case of religiously motivated hate speech, as it fosters prejudice and marginalisation of Hindus under the guise of academic discourse.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
unknown
Sources 
