Case Summary

The Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) Senate at UC Berkeley recently voted against the passage of Senate Resolution No. 2024/2025-042, which proposed the official recognition of October as Hindu Heritage Month. The discussion was dominated by Hinduphobic and disrespectful conduct, gestures, and actions of Senators Isha Chander, Jonathan Franco, and Carlos Gonzalez. The resolution, titled Hindu Heritage Month Proclamation, was introduced by Justin Taylor (ASUC Senator) and cosponsored by several Hindu student organisations and community leaders, including representatives from Hindu YUVA, Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA), ISKCON, Hindu Speakers Bureau, and several temple leaders from the Bay Area. The bill was authored by a Caribbean Hindu student. The resolution laid out a comprehensive series of "Whereas" clauses justifying the need to recognise Hindu Heritage Month. It highlighted the fact that there are over one billion Hindus globally, with more than 2.5 million residing in the United States. UC Berkeley is home to a significant Hindu population, including students of diverse South Asian origins (e.g., Indian, Nepali, Bhutanese, Sri Lankan). The academic and economic contributions of Hindus were highlighted in the resolution by stating that Hindus have significantly enriched academic fields at UC Berkeley, such as computer science, planetary science, psychology, and neuroscience, and Hindu Americans have excelled in sectors like law, science, technology, business, and governance. The resolution also discussed the religious and philosophical values like seva (selfless service) and ahimsa (non-violence), community service, vegetarianism, environmentalism, and harmonious living. The celebration of Hindu festivals, such as Diwali, by the campus community was also highlighted. The resolution also documented the discrimination and marginalisation faced by Hindus on campus and in the broader American context. The resolution stated that ASUC had previously acknowledged that Hindus have little or no formal representation in its senate or commissions. The resolution stressed the following points: 1) The persistent misrepresentation of Hindu symbols like the swastika leading to harassment. 2) Rising hate crimes targeting Hindus, as evidenced by FBI reports from 2023. 3) Increased incidents of Hinduphobia, defined as hostility and prejudice towards Hindu beliefs and practices, especially on college campuses. Despite the extensive documentation of the historical presence, cultural significance, and growing discrimination against Hindus in the UC Berkeley community, the ASUC Senate rejected the resolution on March 5, 2025. It is important to mention that Latiné, Armenian, and Jewish Heritage Month Proclamations were passed previously. During the talk, Hinduphobic statements were made by UC Berkeley Student Senators. During this meeting, Hindu students and organisations that sponsored a Hindu Heritage Month proclamation were accused of being “Hindu nationalists” and pushing Hindu supremacist ideology by Senator Isha Chander. UC Berkeley students ganged up and bullied Hindu representatives. Isha Chander also stated that other South Asian religions faced many disadvantages in the US, and they do not have the same set of opportunities that Hindu Americans have. She also stated that in a lot of instances, Hindu Heritage Month has been promoted and uplifted on platforms by communities that are Hindu nationalists and have said discriminatory things about other South Asian identities, whilst they are hyper-marginalised. Also, the publicly accessible meeting recording mysteriously disappeared from Facebook in April through early May during student elections, though all other recordings remained online.

Case Images

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the tracker under the primary category of - Hate speech against Hindus. The subcategory selected is - Anti-Hindu slurs, mocking faith. Anti-Hindu slurs and the deliberate mocking of the Hindu faith owing to religious animosity involve the usage of derogatory terms, stereotypes, or offensive references to religious practices, symbols, or figures. One of the common anti-Hindu slurs used against Hindus is “cow-worshipper” and “cow piss drinker”. The intention of using this term is to demean and mock Hindus as a group and their religious beliefs since Hindus consider the cow holy. Additionally, some symbols and the slurs attached to them have a historical context that exacerbates the insult, hate, stereotyping, dehumanisation and oppression against Hindus. Cow worship has been used for centuries to denigrate Hindus, insult their faith and oppress Hindus specifically as a religious group. There has been overwhelming documentation about how cow slaughter has been used to persecute Hindus with cow meat being thrown in temples and places of worship. There has also been overwhelming documentation where cow meat (beef) has been force-fed to Hindus to either forcefully convert them to Islam or denigrate their faith. Apart from cow worship, the Swastika – which holds deep religious significance for the Hindus – has also been misinterpreted and distorted to use as a slur against Hindus. Similarly, the worship of the Shivling has been used by supremacist ideologies and religions to denigrate Hindus owing to religious animosity. Such slurs and denigration stem out of inherent animosity and hate towards Hindus and their faith, therefore, it is categorised as hate speech targeted at Hindus specifically owing to their religious identity. The other 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 second category relevant here is- Restrcition/ban on Hindu practices, and within this, the sub-category selected is- Restriction on expression of Hindu identity. An example of the state-affected prejudicial and targeted orders against the Hindu community would be a government denying the right of a Hindu or a group of Hindus to hold a religious procession owing to the animosity of non-Hindu groups. Denial of the religious right of the Hindus to assuage the non-Hindu group which harbours animosity to a point where it could lead to violence against Hindus is not only a failure of law and order but is a prejudicial order against Hindus, denying them their fundamental rights to express their religious identity. An example of a hate crime against Hindus by a non-Hindu would be a non-Hindu institution forcing its Hindu employees to abandon religious symbols that a Hindu would wear as an expression of faith owing to inherent prejudice against the faith professed by the victim or a non-Hindu group of people restricting a Hindu group from constructing a place of worship simply because the demography of the area in which the temple is being built is dominated by non-Hindus. Such actions are driven by religious animosity and/or prejudice against Hindus and their faith and would therefore be categorized as a hate crime. In this case, the resolution, supported by multiple Hindu student organisations and authored by a Caribbean Hindu student, was backed by comprehensive documentation of the contributions, values, and struggles of the Hindu community. Yet, despite this, it was met not only with opposition but with overt hostility and prejudice during the public senate meeting. During this meeting, Hindu students and supporters were publicly accused of promoting “Hindu nationalism” and “Hindu supremacist ideology” merely for advocating the recognition of their faith and culture. These statements, made by Senator Isha Chander and others, delegitimised Hindu identity by conflating cultural expression with extremism, without any substantiated basis. This sweeping generalisation and stereotyping of an entire religious community amounts to targeted hate speech. The use of politically charged slurs under the guise of ideological concern is a longstanding tactic used to suppress Hindu voices and has historically served to mock and marginalise Hindu beliefs and practices. The ASUC’s rejection of the resolution also reveals a pattern of prejudicial treatment. Other heritage month proclamations, including those for Latiné, Armenian, and Jewish communities, were passed unanimously without similar controversy or suspicion. In contrast, the Hindu proclamation, despite detailed justification and visible community support, was singularly opposed and denied. This double standard highlights systemic subversion of Hindu representation and reinforces the perception that Hindu concerns are less legitimate or worthy of recognition. Hindu students and organisational representatives were bullied and ganged up. This illustrates a hostile and unsafe environment for the Hindu minority in the United States. Such behaviour, particularly when occurring within a formal student governance setting, amounts to harassment and intimidation rooted in religious animosity. It conveys a message that public advocacy for Hindu rights and identity will be met with ridicule and vilification. This incident also qualifies under the hate crime category of "Restriction/ban on Hindu practices" and its sub-category "Restriction on expression of Hindu identity." The very act of opposing a benign cultural and religious recognition, already extended to other groups, demonstrates an effort to silence Hindu expression. Labelling cultural observance as extremism effectively discourages public identification with Hinduism, thereby restricting the ability of Hindu students to freely and confidently express their religious identity. Given the overt discrimination, stereotyping, and institutional hostility involved, this incident warrants inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker.