When Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Dr. Mohan Bhagwat addressed roughly 5,000 people at Madison Square Garden on Aug. 29, his opponents had already mobilized against his appearance.
The Raksha Bandhan-inspired Universal Oneness Celebration brought together leaders from 16 faith and wisdom traditions. Bhagwat described diversity as the decoration of unity and urged Hindu Americans to remain loyal to the United States (their karma bhumi) — while exuding the values of their matru bhumi, or motherland.
Bhagwat urged Hindu Americans to remain loyal to the U.S. while living the values of their motherland.
Whatever one thinks of the RSS, that was the gathering’s stated message. Outside the hall, however, Bhagwat was denounced as “far-right,” “supremacist,” and “paramilitary.” Prism Reports portrayed his appearance as an RSS “influence operation,” relying heavily on Savera, a coalition organized to combat what it calls “Hindu supremacy.” Yet the organizations demanding transparency from Bhagwat’s hosts receive remarkably little scrutiny of their own affiliations, funders, and coordinated campaigns.
That double standard is the real story.
Among the organizations campaigning against the appearance was Hindus for Human Rights, which describes its mission as opposing Hindu nationalism and caste, while focusing heavily on the RSS, Narendra Modi, the Ram temple, and India’s government — cofounded by Sunita Viswanath. Ahead of the event, HfHR urged supporters to call and email Madison Square Garden to demand its cancellation, providing a script describing Bhagwat’s politics as hateful and exclusionary.
HfHR’s development was closely tied to Jewish Voice for Peace. Viswanath’s husband, Stephan Shaw, is a JVP activist. Jewish Currents reported that former JVP Deputy Director Alissa Wise trained HfHR’s staff and board, coached its leadership, and facilitated retreats. Shaw called it a “JVP for Hindus.”
HfHR has also repeatedly worked alongside the Islamic Circle of North America’s Council for Social Justice. In September 2019, ICNA-CSJ said it “took the lead” in coordinating a massive anti-Modi demonstration outside the United Nations. ICNA organized volunteers and buses for the demonstration. HfHR cosponsored it, and Viswanath addressed the crowd.
In December 2021, HfHR and ICNA-CSJ joined other organizations in urging then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken to designate India a “Country of Particular Concern.” These examples demonstrate recurring political cooperation.
ICNA is legally separate from Jamaat-e-Islami, and cooperation with ICNA does not prove control by Jamaat. But the history is relevant. Historian and anthropologist Karen Leonard has written that ICNA was founded by Pakistani members of Jamaat-e-Islami. Contemporary American Religion describes ICNA as “deeply influenced” by the writings of Jamaat founder Abul A’la Maududi. Brookings has called Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan the country’s “Muslim Brotherhood analogue.”
Savera’s network includes HfHR, the Indian American Muslim Council, and India Civil Watch International. HfHR lists them and Savera among its partners or coalitions. Several groups within this network also supported the controversial 2021 Dismantling Global Hindutva conference, where Madhu Hebbar has argued that some speakers crossed from opposing nationalism into portraying Hinduism and its scriptures as inherently oppressive.
Here, Savera’s methodology deserves a mirror test. HfHR’s collaboration with ICNA-CSJ and its organizational training, conducted by a former JVP leader, are documented connections. They do not establish foreign direction. The same distinction should guide scrutiny of Hindu American organizations: shared events, personnel, and ideas warrant questions, but claims of foreign control require evidence of that control.
ICNA states that ICNA-CSJ was established by ICNA. This establishes an operational alliance with an American institution born from the Jamaat milieu — a stronger connection than the cultural affinity Savera invokes to portray Hindu-American organizations as components of a foreign-controlled network.
Meanwhile, Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh USA (HSS USA) is a separately registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit group with public federal filings. That status does not settle questions about its relationship with the RSS. Those questions should be examined through evidence of governance, funding, and operations, applying the same standards used for other advocacy organizations.
A database compiling IRS-derived grant records lists approximately $2.2 million in grants to HfHR between 2020 and 2024, including $1.3 million from the Tides Foundation, its largest identified funder. Those figures warrant verification against the underlying filings, but the principle is straightforward: questions about institutional funding should apply consistently to advocacy groups across this debate.
JAMES TALARICO SAID HE ‘HATES CHRISTIANITY.’ HERE’S WHY
The RSS, HSS, and Bhagwat’s American hosts should answer legitimate questions about their organizations and disclosures. So should their accusers. Hindu Americans should not face a political litmus test under which attending a cultural gathering, donating to an organization, or participating in Raksha Bandhan outreach becomes evidence of foreign subversion.
Scrutiny is not bigotry. Selective scrutiny at the behest of foreign influence is.
Adelle Nazarian is a journalist, entrepreneur, and commentator covering politics, culture, technology, and the ideas shaping America.