Inside the global network shaping narratives on Hindu identity
The recent cancellation of a Hindi book exhibition in Maryland, alongside efforts to stall the Minnesota Hinduphobia Resolution (SF4115), should not be viewed as isolated incidents. Taken together, they point to a broader and increasingly coordinated ecosystem shaping narratives around Hindu identity, particularly within diaspora spaces.
This ecosystem draws from a mix of philanthropic funding, advocacy networks, academic platforms, and political amplification. Among the most frequently cited actors in this context are George Soros and institutions linked to the Open Society Foundations (OSF), alongside political engagement from figures such as Rahul Gandhi.
While each of these actors operates within its own domain, the convergence of their efforts, particularly in discourse around Hinduism, Hindutva, and Indian state policy, has raised questions about alignment, intent, and long-term impact.
The $50 million “Endow Lasting Power” strategy
According to publicly reported internal documents, the Open Society Foundations (OSF) outlined a commitment of up to $50 million toward an initiative titled “Endow Lasting Power in India[1].” The stated objective is to build a “sustainable infrastructure” supporting “open society advocates” in India.
While such language aligns with OSF’s global mission, critics argue that, in the Indian context, this funding has contributed to the growth of a transnational advocacy ecosystem that disproportionately scrutinizes Hindu institutions and narratives.
Organizations such as Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR) and Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) are frequently referenced in this discussion. Both groups have been active in US policy spaces, academic forums, and public campaigns addressing India-related issues, including religious freedom and minority rights. Their goal is to malign India and silence Hindu voices as much as they can, not always successfully, however.
Political alignment and diaspora amplification
The interaction between diaspora advocacy groups such as HfHR and Indian political figures has become more visible in recent years. During visits to the United States, Rahul Gandhi, whom critics describe as a “HINO” (Hindu in Name Only) based on his positions and public statements, has engaged with members of civil society, including figures such as Sunita Viswanath of HfHR. The HfHR Board comprises members of Indian origin; critics argue that many within such networks adopt a “HINO” positioning in their public advocacy.
Such engagements are not unusual in democratic politics. However, critics argue that the overlap between political messaging, advocacy campaigns, and externally funded networks creates a reinforcing loop, particularly when narratives emerging from these engagements are subsequently reflected in international policy discussions or media framing.
A central point of contention remains the distinction between “Hinduism” and “Hindutva.” I have argued previously, and continue to maintain, that this distinction is often constructed and selectively applied, particularly by those advancing narratives critical of Hindu civilizational identity. They make ideological distinctions and increasingly apply them in ways that delegitimize broader Hindu identity, especially in diaspora contexts.
The Maryland book exhibition controversy, where over 160 Hindi literary works were reportedly labeled as “Hindutva propaganda,” illustrates how this debate can extend beyond academic discourse into questions of access, representation, and censorship.
A similar pattern has been observed in Minnesota, where SF4115, focused on recognizing Hinduphobia, has at times been reframed by opponents as a geopolitical or nationalist initiative rather than a civil rights measure.
Mapping the network: Reports, institutions, and individuals
The comprehensive report “The Invisible Hands” by DisinfoLab provides one of the more detailed attempts to map funding flows and institutional linkages across this space[2]. It outlines connections between philanthropic funding, advocacy groups, and academic platforms engaged in India-related discourse, mostly negative.
In parallel, individual actors such as Pieter Friedrich have played visible roles in monitoring and critiquing Hindu organizations. His recent tracking of RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale during US engagements, including events at the Hudson Institute, has been interpreted as part of a broader effort to influence institutional engagement with Hindu leadership.
Institutional bodies such as the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) have also contributed to the discourse. Its reports and recommendations, including those referencing the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have been both cited and contested, reflecting deeper disagreements about the framing of religious freedom in India. There is evidence to suggest a linkage between USCIRF Commissioners and Soros funding.
Beyond a single funding source
It is important to note that OSF is not the sole funding source referenced in these discussions. Reports such as The Invisible Hands identify a broader landscape of philanthropic and institutional contributors supporting advocacy, research, and narrative-building efforts related to India.
This complexity underscores that the issue is not reducible to a single actor but rather reflects an interconnected ecosystem operating across borders, institutions, and disciplines. An example of this complex web of actors and funding sources is illustrated in many charts included in The Invisible Hands. One of those charts is shown below.
Conclusion: Civilizational identity in a contested space
Across multiple contexts, from local library decisions in Maryland to legislative debates in Minnesota, a consistent pattern emerges: discussions of Hindu identity are increasingly mediated through institutional, academic, and policy frameworks that are themselves shaped by global networks.
The core issue is not the existence of critique; open debate is essential in any democratic society. Rather, it is whether such a critique is applied evenly, transparently, and without distorting or pre-judging an entire civilizational identity. Recent responses from HfHR[3], IAMC[4], and Friedrich[5], in just a day, to my earlier article reflect a continuation of this pattern of critique, reinforcing the broader dynamics described above[6]. Clearly, they coordinated their response. This article, in part, is a further reflection of my strong belief in our Dharma and to dispel the global nexus working against Hindus.
As Hindu communities in the diaspora continue to engage in civic and legislative processes, the need for clarity becomes more urgent:
- Clarity around funding sources
- Clarity in distinguishing critique from bias
- Clarity in ensuring that civil rights protections are not selectively framed
The long-term question is not simply about narrative control, but about whether Hindu identity, like all others, can be represented on its own terms within global discourse. The time is now for Hindu communities everywhere to engage constructively and support advocacy efforts by organizations such as the Coalition of Hindus in North America (CoHNA) and the Hindu American Foundation (HAF).
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
Reference:
[1] George Soros’s $50 million India plan surfaces in strategy document – Mar 1, 2026, The Sunday Guardian
[2] The Invisible Hands – DisinfoLab
[3] Who gets to speak for Hindu Americans? Not the far Right – Apr 24, 2026, New India Abroad
[4] VHPA’s unholy connection with India’s Hindu nationalists – Apr 27, 2026, New India Abroad
[5] From the library to the legislature: What VHPA’s and CoHNA’s own records reveal – Apr 27, 2026, New India Abroad
[6] Dismantling diaspora rights: Reclaiming the Hindu voice – Apr 23, 2026, New India Abroad
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
Formerly, a researcher in Italy, Japan, and France, he has widely travelled and came to the US in 1978. He was a faculty and academic administrator in several different universities in PA, TX, NJ, MN, WI, and NY, and an Executive Fellow in the White House S&T Policy during the Clinton administration.
