"Many aspects of Hinduism misrepresented, portrayed negatively": Indian-American student on Hindu religion course offered by Houston University

Washington, DC: Indian-American student and activist Vasant Bhatt has said that many aspects of Hinduism were "misinterpreted and portrayed negatively" in the Hindu Religion Course offered by Houston University. He said that the course heavily emphasised that Hinduism is a modern social construct tied to fringe theory or a debated concept.
In an interview with ANI, Bhatt said that the professor called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a "Hindu fundamentalist" and made a false claim that India is persecuting minorities.
On accusing Houston University of being Hinduphobic and distorting India's political landscape, he said, "There were many aspects of Hinduism that were misrepresented and portrayed negatively in the university course. There was little to no meaningful discussion of Hinduism spiritual frameworks in the earlier weeks of the course. Instead, the course heavily emphasise that Hinduism is this modern social construct tied to colonial identity and nationalism. The idea that Hinduism was invented 120 years ago was not presented as a fringe theory or debated concept."
"It was presented as a given and any affirmation of Hindu identity was framed as potentially fundamentalists and so that sort of creates this atmosphere where Hinduism is framed through suspicion and far as misrepresenting India's political landscape is concerned, I mean, in the early weeks of the course. The professor called the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, a Hindu fundamentalist, made the false claim that India is persecuting religious minorities, when in fact, a Pew Research study, from 2021, says that 89 per cent of Muslims in India feel safe to practise their religion. So, clearly a lot of this, in the earlier weeks of this class, the course content was like overshadowed by, constant references to Hindu nationalism and political dominance, and it just creates this like ...picture of this, you know, tradition, and it just, leaves students with a sense of discomfort rather than, any meaningful insight or understanding of Hinduism," he added.
He said that the syllabus of the course mentioned that the word Hindu is recent and not found in scripture. He said that reading that in the syllabus was very painful as "it was not phrased as an academic interpretation among many, but rather positioned as the baseline framing of the course."
Elaborating on how it started and what he experienced in the university, he said, "I guess it began with specific examples from the course content and materials that sort of demonstrated this Hinduphobic bias. The clearest and most troubling example was found in the core syllabus itself and it stated that the word Hindu is recent, not found in scripture. Hindutva or Hinduness is a term that Hindu nationalists, those who believe Hinduism should be the official religion of India, used to designate their religion and denigrate others, namely Islam. This is what was said in the syllabus, and this is not some neutral academic statement, right? It's a sweeping claim that delegitimizes the identity of over a billion people worldwide. It implies that the term Hindu is not historically or spiritually grounded and it's rather this political invention that's tied to colonialism and religious intolerance and as a practising Hindu, and I imagine a lot of other Hindus, in my class, reading that in the syllabus was very painful because it was not phrased as an academic interpretation among many, but rather positioned as the baseline framing of the course.
"And I want to make it very clear, this kind of language would never be used on a course on Judaism, Christianity or Islam, right? No one, nobody would claim in a core syllabus, about the religion of Islam that it's this political construct or Judaism as a colonial identity, because that would be considered offensive and Islamophobic or anti-Semitic if if it was a Judaism course. So, you know, my question is that why is it acceptable when it's about Hindus," he added.
Bhatt said that he had written a formal complaint and submitted it to the Dean of the College of Liberal Liberal Arts and Social Sciences to raise his concerns over the syllabus. He said that in response, he was told that why he did not approach the professor directly.
When asked whether he has raised his concerns with the department, Vasant Bhatt responded, "The course content was presented in the earlier weeks of the semester and I did not speak directly with the professor and that was a very conscious decision. I was concerned about the possibility of academic retaliation and and this may sound dramatic, but, in this current climate, Hindu students who defend their tradition are often painted as, you know, aggressive or politically motivated even when they speak respectfully and in good faith. So, I was advised by people around me to not engage with the professor said, I decided to write a formal complaint and submit it to the Dean of the College of Liberal Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. The dean then forwarded my concerns to the Department of Religious Studies and the department, department's response was very disappointing."
"Rather than address the concerns in my complaint, which included direct quotes from the syllabus and course forming, they responded by questioning why I hadn't approached the professor directly and cited my previous positive....which are weekly assignments, as if those somehow discredited or undermined my concerns and it sort of felt like a deflection, and a way to avoid addressing the actual problem by focusing on process and tone instead. And at no point did the university's department offer to review the content or invite a broader conversation about the misrepresentation of Hinduism? The response made it very clear that this institution was more interested in protecting its internal authority rather than engaging with a legitimate concern that was raised by me as a student," he added.
Meanwhile, the University of Houston (UH) has reaffirmed its commitment to academic freedom after Bhatt complained about a course titled "Lived Hindu Religion."
"The University of Houston values academic freedom, which includes allowing faculty to explore complex and sometimes challenging topics in their teaching. While UH does not typically review individual lectures, the university maintains oversight of the curriculum to ensure it meets established academic and pedagogical standards," according to the official statement.
He said that the curriculum has remained the same for years and stressed course needs to be grounded in the actual lived experience of Hindus, not just in external political theories. He said that the course should not only be about caste and nationalism but rather regarding devotional movements, yoga, poojas and upanishads.
Asked whether the curriculum remained same for years or were changes made to it recently, he responded, "From my understanding, this course has remained, the curriculum has remained the same for a couple of years now. I guess as far as the changes I would make to the curriculum or teaching approach, first and foremost, the course needs to be grounded in actual lived experience of Hindus, right, not just in external political theories. This means teaching not just about caste and nationalism, but rather about poojas, yoga, the upanishads, devotional movements, and daily spiritual practises of Hindus that define the lives of ordinary Hindus around the world."
"Second, bring in primary sources, not just, Western academics or political theorists, right? I mean, include translations of sacred texts, commentaries from traditional scholars, right? Writing from Hindu thinkers. let students encounter Hinduism on its own terms before trying to discredit it through ideological frameworks, right? and treat Hinduism, this is the most important point, treat Hinduism with the same balance and empathy and care that you would treat any other religion and it doesn't mean avoiding critique, but it just means recognising that every tradition is more than just it's false controversy," he added.
Whether the experience has affected him, he said, "I'm very disappointed from the response I received from the Dean and and department, trying to discredit my concerns. The university's public response has been to defend the course by saying it uses multiple perspectives and academic frameworks and they claim that the controversial language from the syllabus, such as Hinduism being a colonial construct is being taken out of context. I mean, to me, it's very disingenuous. The quote in question is printed in the syllabus and sets the tone for the entire course and the fact that the university has not shown any willingness to engage with Hindu, with the Hindu community or people, students like me who raised concerns and said it has it has positioned itself as above trying to engage with, students like me who are concerned."
"It just makes me feel very unheard, disrespected, and quite frankly alienated from the university as a Hindu student. Obviously, this has heavily, uh, you know, affected the way that I see my faith but this particular incident, uh, you know, has made me feel. Um, very alienated, especially given the fact that the university has not shown any willingness or effort to engage with me on this matter and the fact that their response has been to defend the course content and say that the course content is not intended to be the perspective, it just feels very disingenuous and it's just a very, very big problem for me," he added.
On how he would differentiate between academic criticism of religious practices, he said, "This course uses academic terminology that may differ from public understanding. I mean, when the university talks about academic freedom and maintaining curriculum oversight, then its quite literally failing because what I experienced was not a balanced academic curriculum, it was a politically slanted narrative that reduced Hinduism to cast nationalism and colonial garbage, right?"
"While actively erasing its philosophical and devotional depth, right? Academic freedom does not mean freedom from truth or responsibility. No professor has any right to teach falsehoods, especially about a marginalised religious community and then hide behind the word freedom. This is a very convenient way for the university to say that we'll use whatever language we want, even if it distorts how you understand your own tradition and terms like fundamentalism and colonial construct don't just differ from public understanding, they mislead, they alienate Hindu students in the classroom. And if the terminology confuses or offends the very people being studied, then maybe the problem isn't our understanding, it's the university's framework," he added.
On Professor Aaron Michael Ullrey saying that his quotes have been taken out of context, Vasant Bhatt said, "Yes, that's simply not true. Nothing was taken out of context. The statement about Hinduism that he wrote, being a colonial construct was made explicitly in the syllabus itself. It wasn't the slip of the tongue. It wasn't a very quick comment. It was embedded in the courses foundational....When the professor writes in the official course description that the word Hindu is recent, not found in scriptures, and that Hinduwa was only poisted 120 years ago and then links these claims to British colonial rule, that is not an academic observation. That is a loaded narrative, right? This is not a context being misunderstood, right? because when students hear when they read, things like your tradition is not real, it's invented, it's political, it's not sacred, right?"
"This fosters doubt, shame, and quite frankly alienation, especially for Hindu students like me, who come in looking to explore their own heritage and good faith. And let's be honest, no professor would ever frame Judaism as a construct of diaspora survival or Islam as a late-stage product of Arab tribal consolidation in a core syllabus because they know that it would be deeply offensive and theologically inappropriate. But with Hinduism, it suddenly becomes fair game and, if this is a framework being used to teach a lived religion course, and then what's being lived is, is erasure, right? Not exploration. So this is not context. This is a narrative that's being designed by the professor to undermine the spiritual legitimacy of the tradition from, day one," he added.
Ullrey has claimed the quotes that have been referenced in the media were taken out of context and do not accurately reflect the content or intent of the course.
"Hinduism ... was not an ancient, lived tradition but a colonial construct, a political tool weaponized by Hindu nationalists, and a system of oppression against minorities," Aaron Michael Ullrey said. He stated, "I did not say anything like this. I never refer to Hinduism as anything essential." Ullrey explained that there are many Hinduisms, and there is no essential and ahistorical Hinduism.
Vasant Bhatt said that he hopes that the university publicly addresses the factual inaccuracies of the course content and makes the immediate course correction. He also wants university to engage with Hindu American community on this matter.
When asked whether he is worried regarding the consequences as he still has sometime to spend in the university, he said, "First and foremost, I'm hoping for the university to publicly address the factual inaccuracies of this course content and make an immediate course correction, that's first and foremost. I want the university to engage with the Hindu broader Hindu American community on this matter, and I am not worried about the consequences from the university at this point in time because it's very important that we speak up and the fact of the matter is that, there needs to be a differentiation between academic criticism of religious practises versus Hinduphobia in an educational contex and this is a very really important distinction, right? and when the university says that what's written in the core syllabus is academic criticism and it's not Hinduphobia, right?"
"There has to be a distinction that needs to be made, right? because Hinduphobia is when a tradition is presented primarily through a lens of suspicion and delegitimization. Right? It's when, when the only things that are being highlighted are caste oppression and violence. It's when spiritual practises are excluded from shaping the narrative, right? In the context of this course, Hinduism was not treated with the same care or neutrality given to other major world religions. The course is not invited us to understand Hinduism and it invited us to doubt Hinduism. So, you can teach critically without reducing an entire religion to its worst moments and it's important for us to call that out I am not thinking about the consequences from the professor, university to come because I think this needs to be called out, and I think an immediate course correction needs to be made, and I think that's the number one priority going forward," he added.
In response to a student complaint about a course titled "Lived Hindu Religion," the university's dean and the director of religious studies reviewed the concerns and discussed them with the instructor, following the university's process for responding to complaints.
"The course is grounded in the academic discipline of religious studies, which uses specific terminology -- such as "fundamentalism" -- as analytical tools to understand religious movements across traditions, including those rooted in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism," the statement added.
Further, the University emphasised that "these academic terms can carry different meanings from how they are used in public or political discourse, which sometimes leads to misunderstandings."
In a statement, the university explained, "In religious studies, fundamentalism refers to a movement that claims to preserve the 'true' or original version of a religion -- asserting a strict, ahistorical, literal interpretation of scripture, dogmas or ideologies -- often in reaction to modern changes. Studying fundamentalism is not an act of judgment or bias but a way to understand how religions evolve and identify through discourse analysis."
"The course applies academic frameworks to analyze how Hinduism, the religion of those who revere Hindu gods, like other world religions, has developed in historical, social and political contexts. Professors are encouraged to connect course content to current events when appropriate, as long as it is done in a balanced way that improves understanding of course content. For example, discussing the political rise of Hindu nationalism in India is part of understanding how religion and religious discourse function in the modern world, but it is not a critique of Hinduism as a whole," it added.
The university statement, as shared with ANI, in which Professor Aaron Michael Ullrey stated, "The essence of this course's methodology is to use descriptive anthropology rather than any prescriptive theology. Throughout the course, my goal is to show the sophistication, rationality, and historical complexity of the many religions deemed Hindu throughout the history of South Asia. I never declared anything to be the essence of Hinduism, which would not only contradict the course but would also contradict my own research and teaching over the last 25 years."