Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Episode: Feminism and Critical Hindu Studies with Shreena Gandhi, Harshita Kamath, Sailaja Krishnamurti, and Shana Sippy
Date: February 16, 2026
Host: Ajantha Subramanian
Guests: Members of the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective (Shreena Gandhi, Harshita Kamath, Sailaja Krishnamurti, Shana Sippy)

Episode Overview

This episode features an in-depth conversation with the Feminist Critical Hindu Studies Collective—dubbed "The Auntie Lectuals”—about their journeys into Hindu Studies, the intersections of caste and feminism, and the political stakes of scholarship and activism in the field. The conversation, hosted by Professor Ajantha Subramanian, unpacks how caste, race, gender, and politics operate both within the academy and in broader South Asian and diasporic contexts. The group reflects on their own positionalities, challenges conventional frameworks in Hindu studies, considers critiques from caste-oppressed scholars, and discusses the politicization of identities in law and public discourse.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal Pathways & Positionality in Hindu Studies

(01:23–15:20)

• Shreena Gandhi (02:49):

  • Childhood memories of inter-caste marriage in her family and its resulting stigma.
  • Caste was a background fact, downplayed in community narratives, especially in the diaspora:

    “When I look at how I was taught about Hinduism, caste was always pushed to the side as something that happened back then or wasn’t as prevalent until colonialism or doesn’t really, you know, travel over to the US...” (03:42)

  • Joining the collective prompted self-reflection and recognition of her own caste privilege.

• Harshita Kamath (04:55):

  • Entered the field as a pre-med student, drawn into religious studies through influential professors.
  • Recognizes that efforts to diversify the field mainly included dominant-caste South Asian voices:

    “Those students that were naturally drawn to those conversations were of course dominant caste students who could talk the talk.” (07:08)

  • Notes how the collective prompted deeper reflection on how caste shapes access to the field.

• Sailaja Krishnamurti (08:44):

  • Describes her “accidental” entry into Hindu studies via research on Amar Chitra Katha comics.
  • Considers herself an interdisciplinary outsider, questioning the very definition and boundaries of Hindu Studies.

• Shana Sippy (11:00):

  • Babri Masjid demolition (1992) marked a “major turning point” in recognizing the political stakes of Hinduism in academia.
  • Describes the dual obligation to defend mentors (often white scholars) against right-wing attacks while also being critical of the field’s erasures and complicities:

    “We found ourselves in an interesting position of simultaneously defending our mentors and defending the field. While…some of these critiques had some validity...” (12:48)

  • The collective arose from shared moments of discomfort with the field’s whiteness and male dominance, as well as its neglect of caste.

2. The Collective: Foundations, Feminist Praxis, and Interrogating “Middle Grounds”

(15:20–21:52)

• Formation and Motivation:

  • The collective formed to resist both the field’s (primarily white, male) mainstream and its co-option by Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) voices.
  • Rather than occupying a “middle ground,” they aim for a “third space” that interrogates all axes of power—caste, race, gender, sexuality, diaspora. (18:29)

• The Political Nature of Hinduism:

  • Sailaja Krishnamurti:

    “We can’t study Hinduism without thinking about the way in which our understanding…is constructed through a history of colonialism and … casteism.” (17:24)

• Feminism as an Organizing Principle:

  • The group’s feminist approach stresses intersectionality, constant self-interrogation (“interrogative positionality”), and a network of trust and accountability:

    “That feminist dimension of having a network of care and learning and together that is safe at the same time as … really challenging and demanding, I think has been a really key piece of what we mean by feminist critical Hindu studies.” — Shana Sippy (21:34)

3. Caste, Diversity Politics, and Gatekeeping in the Field

(21:52–31:55)

• The Limits of Diversity as Racial Inclusion:

  • The push to diversify Hindu studies often overlooked caste, allowing dominant-caste South Asians to benefit from “minority” status in U.S. academia, often at the expense of caste-oppressed voices.
  • Harshita Kamath:

    “...There is a way that caste disappears from view when inclusion is principally thought of in racial terms...we’ve benefited in a way that almost depends on the invisibilizing of caste...” (21:57)

• Caste Privilege as Gatekeeping:

  • Upper-caste scholars have acted as gatekeepers, limiting access for caste-oppressed students:

    “Savarna scholars...in the field of Hindu studies...have played a role as…gatekeepers and...limited the training and mentorship of caste oppressed students.” — Sailaja Krishnamurti (26:33)

    • Introduces the concept of “Brahman fragility” (drawing from “white fragility”).
  • The biggest critique from caste-oppressed scholars: “Is it useful to be talking about Hindu studies at all, and if actually our lens should be changed?” (27:26)

• Allyship and Ongoing Learning:

  • Guests highlight meaningful learning from Dalit feminists and anti-caste scholars, striving to be active allies and supporting legislative anti-caste efforts:

    “What we’re doing…is completely dependent on the fact that they’ve helped us to learn and see and they have shared their experiences...” — Shana Sippy (29:03)

4. Rethinking the Field: Self-Annihilation and Critical Caste Studies

(31:55–35:29)

• Should Hindu Studies be Abolished?

  • The group wrestles with whether true anti-caste scholarship means dissolving Hindu Studies in favor of Critical Caste Studies.
    Arshita Kamath:

    “If we take Dr. Ambedkar’s work seriously, then why should we be participating in this disciplinary formation or researching this to begin with?” (32:18)

  • Recognize that academic Hindu Studies is not going away, and see their disorienting presence as a necessary intervention in maintaining accountability and discomfort.

• Critical Caste Studies as Overlapping but Distinct:

  • Shana Sippy:

    “It’s not fair to Critical Caste Studies to suggest that the only subject of caste is Hinduism… Hinduism has many dimensions…and caste is only one important piece of it.” (35:04)

5. Hindutva, Hinduphobia, and the Weaponization of Multiculturalism

(35:29–58:22)

• Denial and Politicization of Caste:

  • Outlines common strategies in diaspora:
    • Denying the persistence of caste in the U.S.
    • Framing caste as mere “culture.”
    • Accusing anti-caste activism of being “anti-Hindu” or “Hinduphobic.”
  • Definitional projects (such as pushing for a legal definition of Hinduphobia) are modeled after similar efforts by pro-Israel organizations conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
  • Shana Sippy:

    “Groups like the Hindu American Foundation...have taken their cues in creating definitions of Hinduphobia explicitly from the IHRA definition (of antisemitism).” (38:12)

  • The resultant conflation of caste critique with anti-Hindu sentiment serves to fortify both caste and Hindu nationalist politics.

• Distinguishing Hinduism and Hindutva:

  • Guests caution against naive separations—

    “When we have progressive Hindu groups that say Hindutva is not Hinduism, that’s some other political thing…we’re getting into an argument about who is more authentically Hindu.” — Sailaja Krishnamurti (42:55)

  • Shana Sippy:

    “Hindutva gains its power precisely because it is using the language, the symbols, the narratives of Hinduism, the rituals.” (43:06)

• Multiculturalism, Model Minority, and the Politics of Injury:

  • Analyzes how liberal multiculturalism can be wielded in the service of ethno-religious nationalism and even fascism:

    “This is also where we see how the work and institutionalization of multiculturalism and pluralism as a project actually… functions well to serve fascism.” — Shana Sippy (49:12)

  • Different groups strategically claim “injury” under the banner of multicultural harm, as seen in legislative campaigns against “Hinduphobia” (example: Georgia’s Hindu phobia bill, 53:02).

• On “Hinduphobia” and Real Injury:

  • While acknowledging real prejudice against Hindus in some contexts, the guests clarify that “Hinduphobia” is a newly constructed and weaponized category, unlike the longstanding histories of antisemitism or racism.
    Shana Sippy:

    “To talk about caste is not Hindu phobic. And if you’re going to insist that there’s something called Hindu phobia...we can tell you these things are not it.” (58:01)

Notable Quotes

• On Caste and Scholarship:

  “Caste was always pushed to the side as something that happened back then or wasn’t as prevalent until colonialism or doesn’t really, you know, travel over to the US… And as I reflect back, I realize the disconnect and the incongruencies there.”
  — Shreena Gandhi (03:42)

• On Field Formation:

  “What has been surprising to me about the formation of this field is actually how apolitical it is, how scholarship on Hindu studies has continued to just to work in a very sort of Orientalist manner.”
  — Harshita Kamath (24:10)

• On Feminism and Collectivity:

  “That feminist dimension of having a network of care and learning and together that is safe at the same time as it is really challenging and demanding, I think has been a really key piece of what we mean by feminist critical Hindu studies.”
  — Shana Sippy (21:34)

• On Gatekeeping and Fragility:

  “Savarna scholars, upper-caste scholars...have played a role as a sort of, you know, as gatekeepers and...limited the training and mentorship of caste oppressed students...I think it comes down to...what we talked about as kind of Brahman fragility.”
  — Sailaja Krishnamurti (26:39)

• On Abolishing Hindu Studies:

  “If we take Dr. Ambedkar’s work seriously, then why should we be participating in this disciplinary formation or researching this to begin with?... I think ideally, if we could get to a place where Hindu Studies is critical Hindu Studies...then we as a collective wouldn’t need to exist.”
  — Harshita Kamath (32:18, 34:10)

• On the Political Stakes of Definition:

  “They have actually partnered with (Jewish organizations) and have taken their cues in creating definitions of Hinduphobia explicitly from the IHRA definition (of antisemitism)...Any critique of caste...as a critique of Hindus...the Hindus aren’t the victims.”
  — Shana Sippy (38:12, 41:00)

• On Multiculturalism and Fascism:

  “The institutionalization of multiculturalism and pluralism as a project actually... functions well to serve fascism.”
  — Shana Sippy (49:12)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:23 – Host and guest introductions; context on caste and Hindu studies
• 02:49 – Shreena Gandhi on family, inter-caste marriage, and the invisibility of caste
• 04:55 – Harshita Kamath on academic entry-points and “diversity” in Hindu Studies
• 08:44 – Sailaja Krishnamurti on interdisciplinary entry and critical distance
• 11:00 – Shana Sippy on Babri Masjid moment, field politics, and forming the collective
• 17:21 – Why studying Hinduism is inherently political; the “third space” approach
• 21:34 – On feminist intellectual practice and collective care
• 23:22 – Caste, representation, and the limits of merely racial diversity
• 26:33 – Brahmin fragility and the gatekeeping of caste-oppressed scholars
• 31:55 – Debating the necessity or “self-annihilation” of Hindu Studies
• 35:29 – Diaspora denials of caste; framing caste as culture or “Hinduphobia”
• 38:12 – Definitions, anti-Semitism analogies, and the legal/political weaponization of “Hinduphobia”
• 42:55 – On separating or conflating Hindutva and Hinduism
• 49:12 – Multiculturalism as both liberal ideal and support for exclusionary nationalism
• 53:02 – The case of Georgia’s proposed “Hinduphobia” law
• 56:35 – Real injuries vs. the construction and weaponization of “Hinduphobia”
• 58:22 – Closing reflections and thanks

Memorable Moments

• The group’s candid admission of benefiting from caste privilege while working to disrupt its structures: “I’m really deeply cognizant of the ways in which that was an important step, but also didn’t quite work…” — Harshita Kamath (24:45)
• The analogy between “Brahmin fragility” and “white fragility” as an obstacle to real anti-caste engagement: “Especially those of our…senior mentors…to now be…challenged by saying, you actually had access to a certain kind of privilege through caste is really difficult...for some folks to hear.” — Sailaja Krishnamurti (26:53)
• The pointed critique of how legal and advocacy frameworks are being mobilized to conflate caste critique with anti-Hindu bigotry, and the U.S. legislative context (GA bill, CA activism).

Tone & Takeaways

The conversation is probing, self-aware, and reflective—unafraid to address personal complicity, institutional failures, and uncomfortable truths regarding caste, gender, and race. The collective speaks in a collegial, supportive, but critical manner, pushing each other and the audience to rethink core assumptions in both the study and public representation of Hinduism and caste. Their call is for a feminist, anti-caste, accountable, and intersectional scholarship and activism that is vigilant against both right-wing cooptation and liberal multicultural complacency.

For listeners concerned with the politics of academia, South Asian studies, intersectionality, or anti-caste struggles, this episode offers a nuanced, deeply grounded roadmap for critical engagement.