As the United States marked its 250th Independence Day on July 4, India is about to begin its 80th year as a modern sovereign republic. Modern India’s history took a major turn 79 years ago, on Aug. 15, 1947. This day marked freedom from British colonial rule, but it is also remembered for the tragedy of Partition, which Indians always refer to with a capital P.

The Indian Independence Act, passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947, created two new countries: India and Pakistan. On that day, the great Indian nation, home to one of the world’s oldest civilizations, was divided.

When Louis Mountbatten was appointed viceroy of India in February 1947, he was tasked with ending British rule by August. He arrived in India later that year in March. The British government also chose Cyril Radcliffe, a lawyer with little knowledge of India’s culture or geography, to lead the Boundary Commission and gave him only a few days to draw the new borders. As a result, Pakistan, East (now Bangladesh) and West, was created on Aug. 14, and India declared independence on Aug. 15, 1947.

The violence before and after Partition remains one of history’s greatest tragedies. Some estimates say nearly 2 million people died, though the real number may be even higher. It was a tragedy that no one expected and none deserved.

Some British historians see India’s Partition as a generous act, saying Britain left India peacefully and helped set up the Commonwealth after two centuries of colonial rule. Others argue that Partition shows colonialism failed to bring real modernization. Historian David Gilmartin described Partition as “an illustration of the failure of the ‘modernising’ impact of colonial rule, an unpleasant blip on the transition from the colonial to the post-colonial worlds” in the Journal of Asian Studies (November 1998).

As India emerged from the shackles of centuries of British and Islamic colonization, its leaders made a clear choice to build the world’s largest democracy, even though many doubted it was possible. Despite widespread poverty and challenges from Partition, India introduced universal adult suffrage, adopted a Constitution with guaranteed rights, established an independent judiciary and kept the press free. Eighty years later, India remains a vibrant multiparty democracy and holds the largest elections in the world. It also stands as the third- and sixth-largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity and nominal GDP, respectively.

Democratic traditions run deep in Indian civilization, and it is fair to say that India is a pluralistic society. While academic and popular accounts often describe India as a monarchy, the country had many forms of self-rule, a cooperative self-government similar to Greek republicanism in the West.

The Vedas, India’s ancient texts, hint at self-government through terms like sabha, samiti, parishad and sabhapati, but clearer evidence appears during the time of Gautama the Buddha in 600 B.C.E. (according to J.P. Sharma, Republics in Ancient India c. 1500 B.C.-500 B.C.). At the time of Alexander of Macedonia’s invasion, several sovereign republics existed in India. Greek writings, such as Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, include eyewitness accounts of Alexander meeting “free and independent” Indian communities almost everywhere he went.

The Ashtadhyayi by the well-known Sanskrit grammarian Panini includes complex terms such as ganaand sangha that refer to self-governing groups (V.S. Agrawala, India as Known to Panini). It contains one of the earliest descriptions, dating from the seventh to ninth century C.E. The Uthiramerur temple inscription in Tamil Nadu has one of the earliest descriptions, dating from the seventh to ninth century C.E., of some essential elements of a democratic process, such as conducting an election.

India’s status as a modern republic has roots in a civilization that has lasted thousands of years. India’s long tradition of inquiry, debate and disputation has been the bedrock of the civilization.

Before independence, India was a major center of learning. As early as the fifth century C.E., Nalanda University attracted scholars from across Asia. The mathematician Aryabhata introduced the concept of zero and early ideas about the solar system. Takshashila saw progress in medicine, law and philosophy. Sanskrit texts on grammar, logic, astronomy and metallurgy appeared before similar works in Europe. Ayurveda and yoga, also a school of philosophy, both important Indian contributions, are now practiced worldwide. Several abstractions of the modern notion of computing are found in the sutras, or aphorisms, of Sanskrit grammarian Panini’s Ashtadhyayi.

Owing to its long knowledge tradition, India plays an important role in science, technology and higher education. The focus on knowledge in Indian society is also seen in U.S.-India collaborations, such as partnerships between NASA and ISRO and joint work in artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Many Indian scientists, engineers and academics hold key positions in American universities, research labs and tech companies.

Each country shows its commitment to democracy in its own way, and politicians from both the United States and India often describe their relationship as a partnership between the world’s “oldest” and “largest” democracies. However, during most of the Cold War, historians called India and the United States “estranged democracies.”

The distance between the two countries came from India’s nonalignment policy, its close ties with the Soviet Union, and events like the 1971 war and the 1998 nuclear tests. Things changed in the early 2000s, especially after the 2005 U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which let India join the global nuclear community even though it had not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then, politicians from both U.S. parties have seen India as an increasingly important partner, mainly because of shared concerns about China’s rise, growing trade and technology links, and the large Indian diaspora in the United States.

The immediate years leading up to the 80th anniversary were challenging. In 2025, during the second term of President Donald Trump, the relationship between India and the United States was at its lowest point in a generation. The United States imposed severe tariffs on Indian imports that strained a relationship built over two decades and gave other countries a chance to strengthen their ties with New Delhi.

Over the past 80 years, India and the United States have progressed from a careful and distant relationship to one that is now deep, although at times frosty and unpredictable. As the events of the past years have shown, short-term political considerations can still influence it in both countries. However, despite some bumps and roadblocks, the U.S.-India relationship is significant. Their common economic, technological and geopolitical interests indicate that as India reaches its centennial of independence in 2047, its partnership with the United States will continue to be one of the most important relationships of the 21st century, guided by shared democratic values and practical decisions.

The prominence of Gen Z in Indian public discourse has increased significantly in recent weeks. The term has been frequently invoked following the Cockroach protests in Delhi. Similar to other popular trends, the concept of Gen Z appears to have been adopted in India from the United States, often without critical examination, and no sociologist has contextualized the definition in Indian terms.

“Gen Z” typically refers to individuals born between 1997 and 2012, although the precise boundaries differ among various definitions. This generational label does not constitute a rigorously defined scientific category.

Three primary characteristics are commonly attributed to members of Generation Z: Generation Z is the first cohort to experience smartphones and social media from early childhood. This distinction separates those who have been immersed in digital technology from an early age from those introduced to it later in life. In the Indian context, the definition may shift slightly older, as the widespread adoption of such technologies occurred later than in the United States. Members of Generation Z came of age during, or were influenced by, significant global events such as the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change concerns, and heightened political polarization. However, the impact of the financial crisis was less pronounced in India compared to the United States; climatism change is not as big a religion in India as it is in the US, and the extent of political polarization in India remains subject to debate. In the United States, Generation Z is characterized by greater racial and ethnic diversity than previous generations and a higher level of comfort with open discussions of gender and sexual identities. In India, however, these factors are largely absent or remain marginal. Similarities between Indian and American members of Generation Z can also be identified. Both Indian and American Generation Z individuals increasingly experience mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Additionally, there is a growing interest in alternative career paths, such as content creation on platforms like YouTube, rather than pursuing traditional employment. Generational labels such as Gen Z are not definitive markers, as they obscure significant differences in class, geography, and culture. Many findings regarding Generation Z are based on self-report surveys, which may reinforce stereotypes as much as they reflect actual trends. Furthermore, researchers continue to debate the precise boundaries of this generation.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi released a video message on his social media platforms, stating that he forgave the “Cockroach” protestors for using abusive language against him and his late mother, some detractors interpreted this gesture as a sign of weakness, while others characterized it as patronizing.

During the Cockroach Janata Party’s student protest against the NEET paper leaks and related grievances, Mr. Modi posted a video message on Instagram expressing forgiveness toward protesters who used abusive language. He described these students as “misled children” who should be guided toward the right path rather than prosecuted or punished according to the law.

Forgiveness, or kshama, holds a highly esteemed position within Hindu tradition. It is regarded not only as a virtue but also as a spiritual discipline, or tapas, essential for moral and personal development. Kshama is not merely a favor extended to those who have erred; rather, it is considered a gift to oneself. In this context, forgiveness functions as an introspective, self-corrective measure rather than a punitive act directed at others.

Hindu shastras teach that holding onto anger, hurt, and a sense of victimhood imposes a burden that intensifies over time, binding individuals to past pain long after the event has passed. Forgiveness serves to release this attachment.

kshama does not entail forgetting, excusing harm, or denying the existence of a wound. Instead, it involves consciously choosing not to allow past hurt to dictate the future. By releasing resentment, individuals reclaim energy previously devoted to grievances and redirect it toward healing, growth, and connection. At its core, forgiveness represents an act of courage and liberation from the bondage of hurt, signifying a decision to no longer remain captive to the past.

Hindu classical texts identify kshama as one of the core virtues. Individuals are encouraged to cultivate forgiveness alongside truth, non-violence, self-control, and compassion.

The Hindu epic Mahabharata assigns kshama a foundational role within Dharma, which is often translated as righteousness.

The Mahabharata depicts kshama as a form of strength rather than weakness. Yudhishthira, a principal character in the Mahabharata, exemplifies the principle of forgiveness and emphasizes its role in achieving peace and spiritual advancement.

Bhishma’s teachings to Yudhishthira in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata extensively discuss kshama, presenting it as a quality of the truly strong. Only those capable of retaliation demonstrate genuine forgiveness by choosing restraint. Yudhishthira’s willingness to forgive the Kauravas for their transgressions illustrates his strength of character.

Ambarish, a pious king who forgave Rishi Durvasa for his anger, demonstrates that forgiveness can result in divine grace and protection. Bhagwan Krishna also forgave his cousin Shishupala one hundred times.

In Hindu philosophy, anger and the desire for revenge are regarded as products of ahamkara, or ego, and attachment to the transient self. Since the atman, or soul, is considered eternal and unaffected by worldly harm, holding onto grudges is viewed as a misunderstanding of one’s true nature. Forgiveness, by contrast, is associated with spiritual wisdom, recognizing that the self which was “wronged” is not the ultimate reality. Persisting in anger further binds an individual to samsara, the cycle of birth and rebirth, through negative karma.

Since actions generate karmic consequences, harboring hatred is believed to produce additional negative karma for those who refuse to forgive. Conversely, forgiveness enables individuals to disengage from cycles of retribution. Anger is frequently described as a fire that harms the person who harbors it more than its intended target.

The Bhagavad Gita emphasizes samatva, or equanimity, in the face of praise and blame, pleasure and pain, encouraging practitioners to respond to injury without becoming destabilized. Forgiveness is also integrated into family and social duties. Parents, teachers, and rulers are often instructed to forgive those under their care as an expression of compassion (daya) and patience (titiksha).

Beyond its association with strength, Hindu tradition does not portray forgiveness as unconditional passivity. The Mahabharata acknowledges that there are circumstances in which resisting wrongdoing is appropriate. Excessive or misplaced forgiveness that enables continued harm is sometimes discouraged. The ideal is discernment, or viveka: knowing when forgiveness restores balance and when decisive action is necessary to uphold dharma.

In summary, forgiveness in Hindu thought is conceptualized both as a spiritual practice that liberates the forgiver from attachment to anger and ego and as a social virtue that sustains harmony, order, and dharma within society.

Forgiveness also plays a significant role within Islamic and Christian traditions. In Islam, forgiveness is encompassed by the concept of maghfirah, with tawbah, or repentance, serving as the primary mechanism. Similarly, Christianity’s foundational assertion that “all have sinned” places forgiveness and reconciliation at the center of Christian theology.

Criticism of Mr. Modi’s act of forgiveness has primarily come from left-leaning academics, public intellectuals, and political opponents. Secular-leftist perspectives often do not prioritize forgiveness, as their theoretical frameworks focus on property, class, oppression, and the state rather than moral or spiritual considerations. These perspectives are frequently philosophically and ideologically opposed to religion. Karl Marx famously stated that “religion is the opium of the masses.”

In classical religious frameworks, “sin” is understood as an act committed by an individual, for which repentance is possible. In Marxist class analysis, however, the relationship to guilt is often determined by class position, making repentance more complex, as the category itself is problematic rather than a specific action. Within the Marxist framework, the only judge is History itself.

Mr. Modi is a distinctive Indian politician who openly embraces his Hindu identity. His Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) background and his spiritual journey to the Himalayas, where he spent two years as an ascetic, provide him with deep insights into Hindu thought. When he issued his video of forgiveness, it is likely that he was motivated by deeply religious convictions.

The Global India Diaspora Foundation (GIDF) hosted the first India-Israel Friendship Day in Chicago at the Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue in Evanston, IL.

Rakesh Malhotra from the GIF welcomed everyone. Guests included K.D. Thokchom, Deputy Consul General of India in Chicago; Elad Strohmayer, Consul General of Israel in Chicago; Delphine Gamburg, Deputy Consul General of Israel in Chicago; local officials; and members of the Indian and Israeli communities.

You can read the rest of the report here:

https://www.newindiaabroad.com/english/indian-diaspora-community/chicago-celebrates-indiaisrael-friendship-day

Watch the video report here:

The Cockroach movement has demonstrated that, despite his media persona, Prime Minister Modi is vulnerable. Nevertheless, both the BJP and Prime Minister Modi have exhibited resilience, a willingness to learn from mistakes, and the capacity to outlast their political adversaries.

The summer of 2026 in India has been characterized by an unexpected controversy. Rather than the customary discussions about the monsoon and the delicious varieties of Indian mangoes, public discourse on major television channels and in social media groups has centered on the topic of cockroaches.

Let me explain.

It all began with some gratuitous remarks by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, which led to significant repercussions. The Indian judiciary, known for making provocative statements, to put it mildly, inadvertently incited unrest that escalated to public demonstrations in Delhi. This situation presented considerable challenges for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, currently in its twelfth year under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

On May 15, 2026, during a Supreme Court hearing, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant, referred to a group of youth activists as “cockroaches” and “parasites of society.” Although the CJI later issued a clarification, these remarks provoked widespread public outrage and resonated with millions of young Indians who already face systemic pressures in education and employment.

On May 16, 2026, Abhijeet Dipke, a 30-year-old political communications strategist and former university student, transformed the CJI’s insult into a rallying point for protest. He posted on social media, “What if all cockroaches came together?” This post catalyzed the formation of the Cockroach Janata Party (Cockroach People’s Party).

Initially conceived as an online satire page, the initiative quickly evolved into a significant digital movement. Its focus shifted from satire to addressing substantive student grievances, particularly the recurring leaks of entrance examination papers for educational institutions and job recruitments, such as the NEET medical exams. The movement called for structural reforms to national testing agencies and demanded the Minister of Education’s resignation, holding him directly responsible for these examination paper leaks.

There is broad consensus that the concerns raised by students are legitimate. Authorities, including political leaders, academics, and bureaucrats, have all repeatedly played a significant role in the corruption and should be held accountable. Examination paper leaks and delayed academic sessions have affected Indian colleges and universities for decades, predating both the BJP’s tenure and Prime Minister Modi’s leadership. Many individuals who grew up in India experienced these challenges firsthand. Even during Prime Minister Modi’s tenure, numerous irregularities have occurred outside the federal government’s jurisdiction, as state governments manage their own affairs under India’s federal structure. However, the current generation of Indian youth, shaped by rapid advancements across various sectors, has only seen Modi at the helm and possesses limited familiarity with pre-Modi-era India and the historical context of such irregularities. They hold Prime Minister Modi responsible for the mess.

India is the most populous country in the world, with a population four times that of the United States. Over 50% of India’s citizens are under the age of 25. The Indian approach to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), along with affirmative action policies such as quotas and reservations in educational institutions and employment, is perceived as disadvantaging specific groups, generating significant resentment among youth.

Additionally, Indian youth face anxiety about their future amid a rapidly evolving geopolitical and economic landscape shaped in part by innovation in Artificial Intelligence. This generation must also navigate a complex environment in which the influence of a 5,000-year-old civilization intersects with the demands of modernity, resulting in widespread unease.

By June and July 2026, scenes reminiscent of the early 1990s anti-quota student movement, known as the “Anti-Mandal” movement, began to emerge. Opposition politicians and left-wing activists, frequently associated with opportunistic involvement intended to undermine Prime Minister Modi’s government, joined the protests. The legitimacy of the movement has been questioned due to the participation of leaders who have consistently opposed the BJP and Prime Minister Modi and have been repeatedly discredited and rejected by the electorate.

Critics of the Cockroach movement contend that its rapid transformation from a satirical online campaign to mass street mobilization exceeded its organizational capacity. Consequently, the leadership was not adequately prepared to manage large crowds or prevent confrontations with law enforcement. Allegations of violence were made against both protestors and police. Reports and images of vandalism and violence, including incidents involving journalists covering the protest, have circulated widely on social media. Political violence reflects a failure to engage constructively and must be unequivocally condemned.

The right to protest is a fundamental component of a democratic society. However, the movement’s demands, which focus on the resignation of a single minister, appear disproportionate to the extent of disruption in central Delhi. These disruptions include blocked traffic affecting tens of thousands of commuters and increased pressure on police resources during the monsoon season. Employing tactics such as a ‘fast unto death’ to demand a resignation constitutes coercive pressure and does not represent an appropriate method for seeking accountability.

Numerous commentators have expressed concern and disappointment that the protesters’ platform was used to exhibit anti-Hindu bigotry.

Some commentators argue that the movement’s adoption of the term “cockroaches,” which has gained significant traction on social media, risks transforming a legitimate concern about examination integrity into a branding exercise driven by online popularity rather than substantive policy proposals. Furthermore, critics assert that by repeatedly organizing marches toward Parliament despite anticipated police resistance, the organizers share responsibility for injuries sustained by both protesters and security personnel.

The sustained pressure from the protests, primarily centered in Delhi at Jantar Mantar-- a common protest site in the New Delhi capital region-- led to negotiations with the Modi Government. These negotiations culminated in the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, the key demand of the protestors. Following commitments toward exam reform, compensation for affected student families, and immunity for student protesters, organizers have called off the protest.

Many observers may interpret this outcome as a setback for Prime Minister Modi’s image and his government. However, Prime Minister Modi is a seasoned grassroots politician widely regarded as a visionary leader in contemporary India. Contrary to media portrayals of him as a firm and ruthless autocrat, he is a committed democrat who remains attuned to public sentiment. He has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to listen and adapt, as evidenced by his actions during the anti-Farm Bill agitation and in the aftermath of legal and legislative setbacks, such as the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill (2014-2015).

The Cockroach movement has demonstrated that, despite his media persona, Prime Minister Modi is vulnerable. Nevertheless, both the BJP and Prime Minister Modi have exhibited resilience, a willingness to learn from mistakes, and the capacity to outlast their political adversaries.

As the United States of America celebrates its semi-quincentennial this year, the nation stands at a crossroads. And as Americans across the length and breadth of this vast land—from sea to shining sea—and beyond gather around their barbecue and watch the spectacular fireworks in the night sky, this milestone also invites reflection and assessment of the Great American Experiment.

The American experience, unique in many ways, is an ongoing journey in “pursuit of a more perfect union.” Inherent in this assertion, as lettered in the Preamble of the Constitution, is the fact that the “union” is far from being perfect.

While the nation’s founding documents laid a framework of liberty, equality, and representation—revolutionary as it was at the time—the realization of those ideals has been an evolving, intergenerational endeavour.

Today, as America confronts a rapidly shifting demographic and cultural landscape, and anxiety over geopolitical conflicts and certain technological innovations, the Indian American community is poised to play a key role in the American project. This community shows how modern immigration has both positively added to and redefined the existing architecture of the American Dream.

At the heart of the American experience is the Declaration of Independence. Subhash Kak, a Regents professor of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Oklahoma State University and a Hindu philosopher, calls the Declaration “the great experiment in human history.” The Declaration reads like a mission statement and is unparalleled in what it aims to achieve.

Among the most significant sentences of the Declaration is the following. It reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These powerful words from the United States Declaration of Independence, drafted primarily by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, serve as the moral and philosophical foundation of American democracy. By declaring that human rights are “self-evident” and “unalienable,” the document argues that fundamental freedoms are not granted by kings or governments, but are inherent to human existence itself endowed by our “Creator.” The state, however, guarantees the protection of these inalienable rights.

The American state, wrote Kak in an email, “dedicates itself to liberty and human agency in a realistic system of checks and balances” among its executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government. American federalism, on the other hand, prevents the American government from becoming so strong that it threatens its citizens’ fundamental rights.

While the historical reality of 1776 glaringly contradicted some of its ideals—as women, Indigenous peoples, and enslaved Black Americans were excluded from full participation in the nation’s democratic process—the Declaration evolved into a powerful, living creed. Over the centuries, it has been continuously invoked by civil rights leaders, abolitionists, and suffragettes to demand that the nation close the gap between its founding promises and its actual practices. “Although flawed in practice, [this American experiment] has strived to improve itself,” adds Kak.

THE MAKING OF THE INDIAN AMERICAN STORY

For much of its first two centuries, the American narrative was predominantly seen through a Eurocentric lens. However, the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 opened the doors to a wave of highly educated and skilled immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, including India. Over the subsequent decades, Indian Americans, still a minuscule minority, transitioned from a relatively small, tight-knit diaspora into one of the most affluent, well-educated, and influential demographic groups in the country.

Today, Indian Americans lead major Fortune 500 tech giants, drive groundbreaking scientific research and innovation, add spice and colour to the American cultural tapestry, and mould public policy at the highest levels of local, state, and federal government. This evolution demonstrates that being American is defined not by ancestral origin, but through a shared commitment to the nation’s cultural and civic fabric.

THE U.S.-INDIA TANGO

This Indian American story deeply influences the US-India relationship, which is undergoing a structural reset. The strategic reorientation post-Cold War that saw India as an important partner in the Indo-Pacific to counter the mercurial rise of China has, of late, also seen a major rebalancing act by the US under the current administration.

Ramesh Rao, a strategic communications professor at Columbus State University, calls the US-India relationship “troubled,” a characterization that has belied its potential. In an email, Rao points to several factors behind it, including legacy Cold War estrangement, mismatched perceptions of India, unstable personal relationships among leaders, and jaundiced commentary from the American media, India-baiting US academics mostly of “South Asia” centers, and ideologically slanted bodies such as the USCIRF (US Commission on International Religious Freedom).

The relationship between the US and India has historically been defined by “periods of alignment, disinterest, frustration, and convergence.” India is not a treaty ally of the US. American leadership, according to Rich Verma, former US ambassador to India, does not consider India one of its closest friends and partners. “Few would assert that the US and India have become allies, natural or otherwise,” writes Verma in his 2020 Georgetown University doctoral dissertation. The two largest democracies in the world, Rao adds, “have not yet firmly tied the diplomatic and trade knots over the past eight decades that might have reshaped the world for the better.”

President Donald Trump has been one of the most unorthodox leaders in world history. He governs by businessman-like instinct rather than ideology, and he harbored a few chaotic, wild ideas. He had the American electorate sold on those ideas as he won a landslide victory in his second term after a four-year gap, over his Democrat opponent, Kamala Harris, the favorite of the elites and President Joe Biden’s deputy. However, Mr Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 has spelled disaster for the US-India relationship. Mr Trump is remaking the world by breaking the World Order that has existed since the end of World War II.

While the Trump administration’s second incarnation initially introduced questions regarding strategic continuity and trade frictions, some of the bilateral dynamics have stabilized around concrete frameworks that favor high-tech manufacturing, defense co-production, and supply chain security. However, moving past historical bottlenecks to achieve economic pragmatism, technology co-development, and a clear-eyed convergence on regional security will take steadfast commitment from both countries.

Rao, however, is skeptical that anything positive will happen during Mr Trump’s remaining second term, “as Indian leaders and citizens fret about the unnecessary needling and provocations by the administration.”

But Rao is also hopeful, as he thinks Americans are “pragmatic,” and Indians are willing to bide their time. “Indians will consult their many fortune-tellers until the time is ripe for a trusting, long-lasting relationship,” said Rao jokingly. “Meanwhile, we can only hope that the 250th anniversary of American independence will usher in a new era that will be inspired and led by the two largest and greatest of democracies in the world,” Rao continued.

WHERE FROM HERE?

At America’s 250th anniversary, the Indian American experience points to a broader cultural shift toward a more pluralistic nation. This milestone is less about looking back at a static past and more about acknowledging how new communities expand the definition of what it means to be American. Indian Americans, with their own experience of native pluralism and democracy, have easily and successfully navigated the complexities of hyphenated identity—preserving robust cultural, linguistic, and spiritual traditions while fully investing in the democratic responsibilities of their adopted home.

Furthermore, the community’s high rates of civic engagement and philanthropy underscore a deep-seated patriotism. Like many immigrant groups before them, Indian Americans have embraced the core promises of 1776—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—that broadly aligns with the Hindu Purushartha of Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Yet, Rao cautions, given the deep divisions in present-day American politics and the gamesmanship of many establishment power-wielders, “Indian contributions to the idea of America might not even get a footnote in the July 4 celebrations.”

As India seeks to become a Viksit (developed) $30 trillion economy while placing Hindu civilizational values at the center of cultural and political life, there is room to learn from the American experience too.

Even without external bottlenecks and despite its rich civilizational history, India suffers from fundamental weaknesses and handicaps. One of the things that has shaped America is its spirit of entrepreneurship and the quest for meritocracy. India’s quest for Viksit Bharat conflicts with its own brand of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and wokeness. According to Kak, India’s “extreme-woke political arrangement with pervasive quotas and reservations, laws such as SC/ST Act, and gender based laws that have been weaponized against specific groups and lead to corruption by the law and order machinery.”

At 250 years old, the story of the United States is no longer a singular narrative, but a grand anthology of plural voices. The Indian American community stands as a tribute to the lasting vitality of the American experiment. By infusing the nation’s economy, culture, and governance with unique perspectives and persistent drive, they have helped ensure that America looks toward its next century as a dynamic, resilient, and truly global republic.

God Bless America!

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” – George Orwell

History writing requires navigating between objectivity and the subjectivity with which facts are selected, interpreted, and presented. Rather than being neutral, history writing, however, often involves interpretation and selection from incomplete and biased evidence. This complexity underscores that history writing is not purely objective or “scientific.” It is often contested, subject to revision, and deeply influenced by current political and cultural debates.

The ongoing controversy involving the interpretation of the “Pashupati” Seal from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), now referred to as the Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization (SSC), and Audrey Truschke’s challenge to its traditional reading illustrate the difficulty of making objective claims about the past. This example also highlights how the act of history writing shapes and is shaped by our perspectives and assumptions.

An X post by Audrey Truschke, a Professor of South Asian History at Rutgers University, responding to an image of a seal shared by India’s Ministry of Culture on May 27-28, 2026, sparked a heated debate about the Pashupati Seal from the IVC, discovered at Mohenjo-daro in 1928-29. The steatite seal, roughly 4,300 years old, depicts a man, possibly a three-faced figure wearing a horned headdress, seated cross-legged, resembling a yogi. This posture has often been likened to Mulabandhasana. Animals, including an elephant, a tiger, a rhinoceros, and a buffalo, surround the yogi. British archaeologist John Marshall called it a “Proto-Shiva” or early form of Pashupati (“Lord of Animals”), linking it to later Hindu traditions of Shiva.

India’s Ministry of Culture had posted the image of the seal on X, calling it “one of the most powerful symbols of India’s unbroken civilizational continuity.” The post highlighted the yogic posture, Shaivite symbolism, and continuity with modern temples, yoga, and worship.

Truschke replied directly to the Ministry of Culture X post, contradicting its statement, writing: “This isn’t Shiva. It’s more likely adapted from proto-Elamite iconography, showing a Eurasian deity “lord of animals.” Truschke cautioned against projecting later Hindu identities onto undeciphered IVC artifacts.

Critics accused her of selective interpretation while downplaying indigenous continuity. Some saw this as part of a colonialist-Marxist narrative and a trend of “denialism” of Hindu roots.

Lavanya Vemsani, Professor of History and Religious Studies at Shawnee State University, responded with her own X post claiming there was conclusive evidence “that seal depicts Pashupati-Shiva.” Vemsani dismisses Truschke’s claim. “Colonialist historians use marginal details to overstate their conclusion and override the obvious conclusion,” wrote Vemsani in an email.

Subhash Kak, a noted Hindu philosopher and the Regents Professor of the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Oklahoma State University, also supports viewing the image as Shiva. “The yogi posture and the surrounding animals represent Shiva as lord of the ‘pashus’ (animals),” Kak wrote in an email. “It doesn’t appear Elamite since the animals—buffalo and elephant—are native to India.” Kak also cites the discovery of the Gundestrup Cauldron silver bowl from Denmark. A paper by Thomas E. Petray Jr. in the “Indian Journal of History of Science” argues that interior motifs on the cauldron parallel Indic motifs.

Author Amish Tripathi pointed to animals (elephant, rhino, buffalo) found only in the Indian subcontinent, not Elam. He asked, rhetorically, if yoga is now considered “Elamite.” He also shared a conversation with Dr Bharath Rao, a cryptographer who worked on deciphering the IVC script, to support his claim.

JOHN MARSHALL’S INFLUENTIAL INTERPRETATION

In the early 1930s, British archaeologist Sir John Marshall, who oversaw IVC excavations, proposed that the image on the seal was a “Proto-Shiva,” an early form of Pashupati (“Lord of Animals”), an epithet of the Hindu deity Shiva (or his Vedic precursor, Rudra). Marshall noted several features that supported his claim: the figure’s three possible faces (tricephalic), horned headdress, yogic posture connecting to Shiva as Mahayogi, and the wild animals suggesting Pashupati’s dominion over beasts.

Marshall’s view became widely accepted and shaped popular views of IVC religion as a precursor to Hinduism. The seal is now on display at the National Museum in New Delhi.

COLONIAL AND MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

The core issue raised by the Pashupati Seal debate is the ongoing challenge of defining India’s civilizational identity through the interpretation of ancient artifacts. Specifically, the argument centers on whether the Indus Valley represents a continuous thread within Indian civilization—including elements such as yoga and Shaivite symbolism—or whether later traditions retroactively apply such connections. This controversy exemplifies how interpretations of history are shaped by broader debates over identity, legitimacy, and the acceptance or rejection of the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory.

Colonized peoples can come to distrust themselves. Colonization also clouds our understanding of our culture and past. Colonial and Marxist historiography from Indian academia often downplays indigenous roots and labels dissenting views as unacademic. Western Indologists thought Indians lacked access to the meaning of their own texts. They believed Indians never developed critical and scientific thinking, so Indian texts should not be read as Indians do. Marxist historians did nothing to correct this view. However, as philosopher S.N. Balagangadhara says, modern history writing, and for that matter all of the social sciences, is nothing more than post-enlightenment secularized protestant theology.

The debate shows that this 4,300-year-old artifact continues to provoke reflection on identity, heritage, and our historical roots. Indian scholars in this debate are dismissed as “Hindu Right” or “Hindutva” just for questioning historical narratives. “Left historians,” according to Vemsani, “inherit Colonialist history and promote it as the final truth, resisting new efforts to understand Indian history. They label scholars who ask questions as ‘Hindu Right/Hindutva’ to minimize these new perspectives.”

According to philosophers Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee (“Cry Hindutva: How Rhetoric Trumps Intellect in South Asian Studies”), using the Hindutva epithet in academic circles is an effort to “discipline non-conforming [Indian/Hindu] scholars.” They write: “To use Hindutva as a smokescreen is to instrumentalize real pain and suffering.”

TRUSCHKE’S SCHOLARSHIP QUESTIONED

With reference to Truschke, she often asserts her “superiority” by flaunting her PhD and publications in peer-reviewed journals. “The argument that [Truschke] is a professor and publishes in peer-reviewed journals and hence carries more heft than any other Joe Schmo is stupid in this context,” says Kak. “She doesn’t know the literature, and also in art we can only speak of plausible judgments.”

Scholars have also pointed to several flaws in Truschke’s scholarship of Indian history. Truschke, in one of her social media posts a few years ago, claimed that during Agnipariksha in Valmiki’s Ramayana, Mata Sita tells Bhagwan Ram that “he is a misogynist pig and uncouth.” She further added that during the Mriga Maricha incident, Mata Sita accuses Bhagwan Lakshman “of lusting after her.”

When challenged for original verses and source of her translation, Truschke provided a reference to wrong verses and attributed her “loose” translation to Prof Robert Goldberg of the Department of South and Southeast Asian Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

On his part, Prof Goldberg was quick to write an email rejoinder saying: “I find it extremely disturbing… to learn that AT [Audrey Trushcke] has used such inappropriate language and passed it off as coming from Valmiki. Neither the great poet nor we [his co-translator and himself] used anything like such a vulgar diction and certainly, Sita would never have used such language to her husband even in the midst of emotional distress. Nowhere in our translation of the passage do we use words such as you mention AT as using.”

NEED FOR A NON-DOGMATIC HISTORY

A contested historiography is healthy—it prevents dogmas and orthodoxies, and encourages critical thinking. But it also creates tension. When history is treated as a gospel of revealed Truth, challenges feel like attacks on the group itself. This feeling explains “history wars” in school curricula, museums, and public memory across communities and countries. Ultimately, history writing is contested because the past is not dead—it is a living resource for understanding who we are, why the world is as it is, and what futures are possible. Different answers to those questions produce different histories. The best historians acknowledge this contestation openly, present evidence transparently, and engage counter-arguments rather than claiming finality.

History writing is also not a uniquely academic exercise. We all have our stories to tell, and hence we are all historians in our own right.

Modern history writing faces several recurring criticisms from both inside and outside the academic profession. These often stem from tensions between the ideal of objective, evidence-based reconstruction of the past and the realities of how historians select, interpret, and present material.

Vice President JD Vance caused an uproar this past fall when he expressed his wish that his wife, Usha, a practicing Hindu, would one day follow his spiritual path. Many in the billion-strong global Hindu community were outraged at his declared hope that Mrs. Vance would convert to Catholicism.

Different religions perceive proselytization differently. Religious conversions, normal in the Western world, have never held much place in nonproselytizing traditions. Christianity and Islam, the world’s largest religions, both actively seek converts from other faiths through persuasion, education, outreach and sometimes coercion.

One visible result is that even today discussions of freedom of religion have a pro-proselytizing tint. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the freedom of thought, conscience and religion—including the right to change one’s religion or belief. The declaration doesn’t specifically protect the right to retain one’s faith. Nonproselytizing religions face an asymmetry, and their efforts to safeguard followers from predatory proselytization are routinely labeled violations of religious freedom and human rights. That India’s anticonversion laws are criticized by international rights organizations exemplifies this asymmetry and systemic misunderstanding.

From the perspective of nonproselytizing religions, people have a right to stay in their religion and not be bothered by those who wish to convert them. There is a disconnect in human-rights discourse. The right to change religion is unqualified by its nature, but the right to try to change someone’s religion can’t be unqualified without interfering with and violating others’ religious freedom.

This disconnect is visible in the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which has no Hindu commissioners. Conferences on freedom of religion routinely have inadequate representation of Hinduism. The United Nations’ 2022 Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions had “minimal” representation, according to prominent Hindu leaders.

The root of this general dismissal of nonproselytizing religions is the dominance of Christianity and Islam. The former is known for promoting evangelism, as seen in Jesus’ directive in Mark 16:15: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Islam emphasizes dawah, instructing Muslims to invite people to Islam. Muslims ruled large parts of India from the early 13th to the 19th century, and during this era Muslim preachers and Sufi mystics actively proselytized for Islam. The pattern of seeking converts is manifested in the missionary work of both Christianity and Islam.

As these forms of faith came down to the present day, they tended to ignore the strain of religions that are mostly nonproselytizing—Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto and tribal indigenous traditions. In these nonproselytizing religions, actively seeking new converts serves no theological purpose.

Some of these faiths teach that spiritual experiences transcend sectarian boundaries and aren’t limited to one faith. Key Hindu beliefs illustrate this idea: Hinduism holds that many paths access one underlying Truth. The Rig Veda, Hinduism’s oldest text, concisely reflects this with the aphorism “Truth is one, but the wise call it by many names.”

At the heart of proselytizing is exclusivity. There is a belief within proselytizing traditions that their faith alone has access to spiritual experiences in this life and beyond. Such exclusivism has led to violence. Over the half-millennium following Constantine’s conversion to Christianity and the Edict of Milan in 313, Christian leaders and followers actively destroyed sites and traditions of paganism as they expanded across Europe. Catherine Nixey’s 2014 book, “The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World,” argues that this marked a turbulent and violent transformation, giving rise to what some have described as the “savage birth” of Christian Europe.

Islam often spread in the Arab world and Indian subcontinent with the might of the sword. Several scholars have described the destruction of Hindu temples and deities in the Indian subcontinent.

Colonialism is closely linked to religious conversion, as British missionaries sought to convert Hindus. Many British Christians believed their religion was more advanced and enlightened than those of the people they ruled, motivating their missionary activities.

The result of all this history is the echo that still persists in the contemporary views of human-rights organizations, with their definitions of religious freedom as centered around the freedom to proselytize.

And thereby such major religions as Hinduism—the world’s third-largest faith—are excluded from human-rights discourse, international bodies and religious-freedom monitoring organizations. This asymmetry needs to be addressed.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) Sarkaryavah Dattatreya Hosabale visited the United States in April 2026 as part of the RSS centenary celebrations. The visit aimed to engage with US think tanks, academia, policymakers, tech entrepreneurs, and the Indian diaspora to clarify the RSS’s position on a wide range of issues and to counter misconceptions about the RSS, India, and Hinduism.

Centuries of Islamic and British colonization resulted in widespread misrepresentation of India and Hinduism, both academically and popularly. Because India is a Hindu civilization, distortions of the Hindu faith shape perceptions of the society and the country. While the common stereotypes of caste, curry, and cow are familiar, they merely scratch the surface. Orientalist narratives primitivized Hindus to legitimize their colonial rule, casting Indians as primitive and uncivilized and presenting colonizers as civilized and enlightened.

Indian-Americans have been fighting an ongoing battle against such misrepresentation from the earliest years of their immigration to America. California textbook case concerning the portrayal of Hinduism, and the political and judicial battle against“caste” legislation in California, have tested the Hindu American resolve to fight misrepresentation of our culture and history.

As the West gained control over intellectual discourse in its colonies, natives of the traditions became profoundly influenced—even in their self-understanding—by Western interpretations of their own religious and cultural heritage. Colonial consciousness, in a colonized mind, hinders the process of self-experience.

One of quantum theory’s most intriguing ideas is the observer effect — that the act of observation influences reality. This idea serves as a powerful analogy for Western scholars studying India and Hinduism. It helps explain Hindu concerns that Western academic scrutiny not only records Hinduism incorrectly but also reshapes it, often in ways Hindus consider unfamiliar or even negative. Suffice to say that the “observer bias” of external scholars has altered both the tradition’s perception and its self-understanding.

Driven by a more confident Hindu society’s desire to reclaim agency in representing Hinduism and India, nearly 79 years after India’s independence and 100 years after the RSS’s founding, Dattaji traveled to places such as Stanford, Washington, DC, and Chicago in the US. ​

At the THRIVE 2026 conference at Stanford University, Datta ji stressed that scientific and technological progress must prioritize ethics, equality, and ecology over economic gain. Highlighting these Hindu principles—ethics (Dharma), equality (all living beings in God and God in all living beings, BG 6.29), and ecology (Prakriti, the Bhoomi Sukta of the Atharva Veda)— he cautioned that unchecked technology could deepen inequality and social fragmentation.

Dattaji participated in the Hudson Institute’s “New India Conference,” hosted by the Washington, DC-based think tank. He joined Hudson Scholar Walter Russell Mead—also Alexander Hamilton Professor at the University of Florida’s Hamilton School—for a fireside chat on India’s global role. The conference additionally addressed Indo-Pacific dynamics and India-US strategic and economic ties. Dattaji was accompanied by a high-level Indian delegation comprising India Foundation’s Ram Madhav, BJP’s Vijay Chauthaiwale, and former opposition MP Priyanka Chaturvedi.

After the Hudson conference, a Washington, DC area reception on “India’s Global Vision and Role in the Emerging World” featured Indian-American community members and scholars such as Walter Andersen and Walter Russell Mead

.

During his talks, Datta ji stated Hindus have never invaded, enslaved, or committed acts warranting apology. He rejected ‘Hindu supremacism’ labeled against the RSS in certain sections of the media and academia, affirmed Hindu philosophy’s universal oneness, strong family values, and put impetus on strong community building.

At a Chicago community event, while heralding Hindu pluralism, Datta ji stressed the need for Hindu unity, lamenting that the lack of unity among Hindus has been a bane of the Hindu society, resulting in political vulnerability. He argued that preserving pluralism, religious freedom, and tolerance depends on maintaining a strong Hindu presence worldwide. He said that only Hinduism can claim, “Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti” (Rigveda 1.164.46), meaning “Truth is one, but the wise speak of it in many ways.”

Dattaji highlighted the RSS’s role in organizing society, promoting nation-building, encouraging community service, providing disaster relief, advancing education, and fostering social harmony.

Media coverage highlighted the visit’s goal of presenting the RSS’s perspective to Western audiences and of building cultural and strategic ties. The diaspora response was mostly positive; however, groups hostile to Hindu causes were unsettled by the RSS’s growing influence as a community-building organization. In DC, a vocal anti-Hindu activist protested outside the Hudson Institute during the “New India Conference.”

Barak Morag is one such Jew. His resilience in the face of death, devastation, and horrors is awe-inspiring. He also exemplifies, par excellence, the adage: “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”

I met Barak Morag last December at Kibbutz Nir Oz in Israel, where he had built a joyful life with his wife Ziv and their two children, Gaya and Itamar. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists shattered that normalcy, storming the kibbutz and killing and abducting residents—women, children, and senior citizens. Now, two years later, Barak stood amid the rubble of what was once his home, his voice flat as he recounted the nightmare to a group of strangers.

As Barak calmly shared his story with a US delegation, his poise contrasted sharply with the sadness in his eyes.

On October 7, at 6:30 am, terrorists stormed the fence of Barak’s kibbutz. It was a coordinated attack. Sirens wailed. Barak, Ziv, and their children raced to their safe room and locked themselves inside. For hours, they clung to each other in darkness. Hamas gunmen killed residents and torched homes. Smoke crept under their door as flames consumed nearby houses. Through the walls, they heard voices. Some spoke flawless Hebrew, trying to coax terrified families into the open.

Nir Oz suffered deeply that day. Nearly a third of residents were killed or taken hostage, and homes were destroyed. But Barak decided not to play a victim but to inspire people with his story. Barak began sharing his family’s story in his talk, “Choosing Life: From Survival to Resilience,” which explores loss and grief while also highlighting hope and the community’s determination to rebuild.

“How do you do it?” I asked him. “How do you live through the trauma of retelling your story?” Barak stared blankly and then looked down at me (he is a tall guy, about 6’), and said that retelling his story is therapeutic for him. He does not go to a therapist for counseling.

Barak and his family joined healing initiatives, such as Hug for Hope, seeking solace while mourning their loss. Welcomed by Canadian host families, they found a sense of safety. Now, as he travels widely, Barak shares their journey—his voice trembling with emotion as he honors cherished loved ones and inspires resilience through his firsthand account.

Today, Barak calls himself a father, a refugee, and a storyteller. Stories of resilience and survival brought him to the US. He was sharing his stories in many cities, including in Chicago, where he was a guest of the Global Indian Diaspora Foundation, a Chicago-based nonprofit dedicated to fostering stronger ties between the Indian diaspora and the global community through cultural exchange, dialogue, and collaborative initiatives. According to founding president Rakesh Malhotra, the Foundation “remains committed to advancing understanding, promoting shared values, and creating platforms for meaningful engagement.”

A multi-faith gathering in Chicago welcomed Barack. People from many communities came to hear Barak’s story.

The evening began with remarks from Somnath Ghosh, Consul General of India in Chicago.

Ghosh reminded the audience of Swami Vivekananda’s historic 1893 address at the Parliament of Religions. There, Swamiji highlighted India’s long-standing tradition of offering refuge and acceptance to persecuted communities, including Jewish populations over the centuries. He emphasized that this enduring ethos continues to unite communities today.

Delphine Gamburg, Deputy Consul General of Israel, shared reflections from her visit to Kibbutz Nir Oz with Indian community leaders. She described the devastation witnessed firsthand. She also spoke about the importance of global solidarity.

Many delegation members who had visited Israel were present, adding to the sense of shared experience.

Listen to Barak’s story in his own words.

Here are a few pictures of Barak’s burned-down home I took when I was in Israel.

Washington, DC

The quest for an entente in the US-India relationship remains unfinished. When it comes to this relationship, mutual trust and understanding, or lack thereof, both of India and the Hindu faith, figure prominently in political, diplomatic, and popular discourse.

Indian-Americans have been fighting an ongoing battle against this misrepresentation from the earliest years of their immigration to America. As the West gained control over intellectual discourse in its colonies, natives of the traditions became profoundly influenced—even in their self-understanding—by Western interpretations of their own religious and cultural heritage. Colonial consciousness, in a colonized mind, hinders the process of self-experience.

One of the most intriguing ideas in quantum theory is the observer effect — the principle that the very act of observation influences the reality being observed. This concept offers a powerful analogy for the study of India and Hinduism by Western scholars. It provides a useful framework for understanding concerns that Western academic scrutiny does not merely document Hinduism. Still, it actively reshapes it — often in ways that Hindus believe are not for the better. In this sense, the “observer bias” introduced by external scholars has altered both the perception and its self-understanding.

“The New India Conference,” on April 23, 2026, organized by the Hudson Institute, a Washington, DC-based conservative think tank, was a small step towards overcoming that misrepresentation.

The conference highlighted the U.S.-India partnership as essential for addressing 21st-century challenges and yet in need of deliberate recalibration. India’s rising global importance—now among the world’s leading economies with rapid digital transformation—contrasts with notable knowledge gaps in Washington.

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed “The Delicate U.S. Task of Courting India,” columnist and Hudson Institute fellow Walter Russell Mead observed that one persistent obstacle to stronger U.S.-India ties—from Washington’s perspective—is “the scarcity of real Indian expertise in America.”

To outsiders, this claim may seem counterintuitive. After all, Indians and Indian-Americans populate many of the country’s prominent South Asia programs in universities and think tanks. Yet much of this scholarship often proves superficial or strangely detached from the complexities of contemporary India. The roots of this disconnect are longstanding. Many U.S. South Asian Studies centers began with ties to America’s national-security or missionary goals. Even scholars of Indian origin later found that aligning with prevailing academic norms, rather than challenging them, was better for advancing their careers.

The conference had a star-studded panel. The Indian side was represented by the Indian Ambassador to the United States, Vinay Kwatra; the BJP’s Vijay Chauthaiwale; India Foundation (a New Delhi-based think tank) ‘s Ram Madhav; and former opposition MP Priyanka Chaturvedi. The US side included former U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Juster and former U.S. State Department officials Nisha Biswal and Kurt Campbell. The Asia Group’s chair Ashok Malik, Center for the Strategic & International Studies’ Richard Rossow, Stimson Center’s Elizabeth Threlkeld, and World Bank’s Hemang Jani were also on the panel. A fireside chat featured RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale with Hudson’s Walter Russell Mead.

After the Hudson conference, a Washington, DC area reception on “India’s Global Vision and Role in the Emerging World” featured Indian-American community members and scholars such as Walter Andersen and Walter Russell Mead, who interacted with the Indian delegation.

Although short-term stresses persist in the US-India relationship, the conference emphasized long-term optimism tied to shared democratic values and strategic interests. Continued high-level dialogue is needed to close knowledge gaps and realize the relationship’s full potential.

The conference portrayed the U.S.-India relationship as strategically vital yet at an inflection point, in need of fresh momentum beyond old rhetoric. The conference served as a platform for candid dialogue between policymakers, strategists, and intellectuals from both countries.

The conference addressed three core questions:

What does the “New India” want on the world stage?

How is it reshaping its economy?

What will it take to build a robust U.S.-India partnership?

Discussions highlighted a strategically vital but currently strained bilateral relationship marked by a growing trust deficit, economic frictions, and misaligned expectations. Speakers called for renewed mutual respect, clearer priorities, and sustained high-level engagement to rebuild confidence. Despite short-term stresses, optimism prevailed about long-term convergence in defense, technology, supply chains, and Indo-Pacific stability.

India’s foreign policy reflects a shift from Cold War-era non-alignment to flexible “multi-alignment” in a multipolar world. Speakers noted closer U.S. ties driven by shared concerns over China, yet India maintains strategic independence. Kenneth Juster emphasized India’s commitment to partnerships “without surrendering its independence.” Regional outreach (e.g., to Bangladesh and Nepal) and initiatives such as the Quad, I2U2, and the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor were highlighted as priorities.

Panelists discussed India’s ambitions to integrate into global supply chains, boost manufacturing, and reach ambitious bilateral trade targets (e.g., $500 billion). Concerns included U.S. tariffs, agricultural sensitivities, and net negative FDI flows from the U.S. Priyanka Chaturvedi questioned the feasibility of certain trade goals under pressure.

Speakers described the US-India relationship as durable yet undergoing a “stress test.” A recurring theme was the erosion of mutual trust due to geopolitical shocks, economic frictions (tariffs, visas, immigration uncertainty), and perceived misreadings of each other’s constraints. Ram Madhav stated, “There is a big lack of mutual trust today. We need to build that trust once again.”

Kurt Campbell called the partnership “the most important… for the United States in the 21st century” but noted a “deep, profound hurt” from recent strains. Elizabeth Threlkeld observed that each side tends to view the other’s limits as “choices” while seeing their own as “necessities.” Recommendations focused on rebuilding mutual respect, sensitivity, sustained political engagement, and practical cooperation in defense, energy, space, and supply-chain resilience.

Pakistan did come up a few times during the conference. Despite repeated claims that the U.S.–India partnership has moved beyond “hyphenation,” the country’s shadow continues to loom large in discussions. President Trump’s newfound proximity with Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir has led Pakistan to play a significant role on the international stage, most notably by mediating between the US and Iran in the Middle East conflict.

The Truth Social “hellhole” post by President Trump, where he shared the transcript of the Savage Show, almost derailed the spirit of the conference. That post put a damper on the overall enthusiasm and kept resurfacing, overtly and otherwise, throughout the conference. But the Indian conference panelists handled the delicate situation with visible irritation but with grace. After all, this wasn’t the first time a US president had spoken uncharitably about India. President Obama had chided India about human rights and religious freedom during an official trip to India. He said: “In past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs— acts that would have shocked Gandhi-ji,” meaning Mahatma Gandhi.

President Biden, on the other hand, called India xenophobic.

What hurts the US-India relationship the most is that Indian Americans were expecting better from the Trump administration. It is almost impossible to maintain complete harmony in a growing relationship. As the US-India engagements grow, so will the areas of divergence. While Indian Americans remained a loyal voting bloc for the Democratic Party, a significant number broke away to support Mr. Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and it did not go unnoticed at the conference. One of the panelists, a former U.S. administration official, engaged in thinly veiled political messaging, gently nudging Indian-American audiences on why their electoral support in 2024 to the GOP was a mistake.

Hosting RSS-linked leaders drew both applause for engagement and criticism from some advocacy groups. Hated by the left-dominated academia, both in the US and India, the RSS brings that missing native insider perspective to the table and provides the plurality of opinions so lacking in contemporary academic discourse. US Congressman Ro Khanna, a strong votary of free speech and dialogue and willing even to talk to the likes of Hasan Piker, was quick to dismiss the RSS to placate Islamist elements.

Reacting to the “hellhole” comment, Indian billionaire Sridhar Vembu made a call to Indians in the US to return to India. However, a befitting response to such ill-advised calls is the advice Bhagwa Krishna from the Gita:

न दैन्यं न पलायनम् (Na Dainyam Na Palayanam; Sanskrit; No weakness, No flight).

“Mayor Zohran Mamdani may benefit from the lessons learned from previous efforts like his. A prominent example comes from the country of his ancestors, India: the Super Bazar. It was India’s first six-story superstore—and government controlled. Once a Delhi landmark, it now lies forgotten, lost to time and neglect. The Bazar, which opened in 1966, embodied every aspect of a socialist enterprise: from subsidized sugar and palm oil to fresh vegetables, wrist watches, stationery, construction materials, transistors and eventually even computers. Unsurprisingly, the Bazar incurred huge losses—due to “overstaffing, failure of management, inadequacy of working capital, and a lack of competitive approach on the part of the management,” a government report concluded. The Bazar finally shut down in 2002.”

India Abroad published this article in its opinion section.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its 2026 annual report on March 4, sparking a firestorm both within the U.S. and abroad. While foreign nations, such as India, criticized the report as “motivated and biased,” domestic criticism centered on policy. These controversies underscore the urgent need to question the State Department bureaucracy’s relevance and effectiveness and to examine whether USCIRF should continue in its current form.

The U.S. Congress created the USCIRF through the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA, 1998) to monitor and report on religious freedom abroad. With 9 members, the Commission uses “international standards” to assess violations of religious freedom and provides annual recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. The Commission recommends certain countries or entities to the State Department for inclusion on the “Special Watch List,” “Countries of Particular Concern,” or “Entities of Particular Concern.”

Countries with particularly severe violations of religious freedom are designated as Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs). In contrast, countries with lesser, though still severe, violations are placed on the Special Watch List (SWL).

The Commission defines “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” meaning “systematic, ongoing, [and] egregious violations,” including violations such as: (A) torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; (B) prolonged detention without charges; (C) causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction or clandestine detention of those persons; or (D) other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.”

Over the years, however, the Commission has become grossly ineffective, extremely partisan, and a source of religious tension.

The Commission is ineffective because its recommendations carry no binding authority over the State Department, which routinely disregards them. This raises questions about the reliability and credibility of these recommendations. The State Department, equipped with its own intelligence resources and as part of the U.S. Intelligence Community, makes its own judgments. For example, except for Algeria and Azerbaijan, the State Department flatly ignored USCIRF’s 2025 Special Watch List recommendations. USCIRF’s recommendations frequently diverge from the State Department’s assessments.

Even when the U.S. government follows USCIRF’s CPC recommendations, it faces no obligation to impose punitive sanctions on the offending country. Pakistan, for example, maintained its “Country of Particular Concern” designation, yet received a “national interest waiver,” making it clear that sanctions would contradict U.S. priorities.

U.S. domestic partisan politics have repeatedly compromised USCIRF’s recommendations and designations. Since 2009, the Commission has persistently advised a CPC designation for Nigeria. The Trump administration acted decisively in 2020, labeling Nigeria a CPC, only for the Biden administration to reverse course in 2021. The Trump administration returned Nigeria to CPC status in 2025, demonstrating that the Commission is a tool of political swings.

The Commission also demonstrates partisan conflict and political bias. When it criticized cuts to USAID programs, Republican appointees on the Commission firmly dissented from Democrat-endorsed criticisms. Many Republicans actively denounce USAID, arguing it serves political interference domestically and abroad.

One source of religious tension is the Commission’s composition. Critics have argued that the Commission lacks representation from diverse minority religions, which often results in ignoring their perspectives on matters of religious freedom.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which provides the framework for USCIRF’s recommendations, protects the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. It guarantees the right to change religion or belief, and to manifest them—alone or in community, in public or private—through teaching, practice, worship, and observance, shielding individuals from coercion or discrimination.

The UDHR, however, fails to protect the right to retain one’s faith. Non-proselytizing religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto, and tribal traditions, face repeated mischaracterization: their efforts to safeguard followers from predatory proselytization are routinely labeled violations of religious freedom. The Commission’s reporting on India, treating anti-conversion laws as negatives, exemplifies this systemic misunderstanding.

These fundamental misunderstandings are inevitable when major world religions like Hinduism– the oldest surviving and the third largest (over a billion followers) religion– are systematically excluded from Commission representation. Of the nine commissioners, not a single one represents a non-Abrahamic tradition or has expertise in comparative religion. Hindu Americans and Indians have consistently and forcefully condemned this glaring deficiency.

Critics also identify grave methodological failings in the Commission’s work. They assert that USCIRF’s reports frequently lack robust, macro-level evidence and rely on cherry-picked narratives to represent entire nations. As Anang Mittal put it: “The Commission has no investigative arm. There is blatant overreliance on advocacy organizations with their own agendas.” USCIRF offers neither standardized vetting of report contributors nor systematic fact-checking. Mittal notes, “There is zero transparency about which incidents the Commission spotlights in country reports.” Mittal is a communications strategist and a former Hill staffer serving Speaker Mike Johnson and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

For Columbus State University communications professor Ramesh Rao, the Commission, with a $3.5 million budget, is simply another dated bureaucracy whose continued existence cannot be justified. Rao is clear: the USCURF “should have been shut down in 2016 but was needlessly revived by Congress, allowing mediocrities and politically compromised commissioners to entrench themselves in Washington influence networks.”

Lalit Jha and I spoke with Rakhi Israni about her campaign on the Rooted & Roaming podcast.

Israni pledged to prioritize results-driven leadership over symbolism and outlined a policy-focused vision on affordability, jobs, and representation. “My commitment, actually, to the Indian American community” is to be a real voice for the community in Congress, not a ceremonial one. Actually advocating for things that are not only good for our community, but that are good for the larger community as well, that bring prosperity to everybody,” said Israni.

Here is the link to our conversation.