On 25 January, the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi publicly acknowledged that it had received “serious concerns” regarding the conference titled “Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race”, which was held on its campus from 16 to 18 January. Responding to the objections raised, IIT Delhi issued an official statement clarifying that it had sought explanations from the faculty members involved in organising the event.

The institute also confirmed that it had set up a fact-finding committee that includes independent members to examine the concerns related to the selection of speakers and the nature of the content presented during the conference.

IIT Delhi further stated that once the committee submits its findings, appropriate action would be taken strictly in line with institutional protocols. At the same time, the institute reiterated its stated commitment to national objectives, academic integrity, and adherence to established institutional guidelines. This response marked a formal acknowledgment by one of India’s most prestigious technical institutions that the event had triggered concerns serious enough to warrant administrative scrutiny.

What the Conference Set Out to Do

The three-day conference, officially titled “Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race” or CPCR3, was held at the Senate Hall in IIT Delhi’s main building. It was projected as an academic gathering marking 25 years of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, which took place in Durban, South Africa.

According to the organisers, the stated aim of the conference was to examine caste as a form of descent-based discrimination and place it alongside race within a global human rights framework. The event brought together academics, activists, writers, and international speakers for keynote addresses, panel discussions, roundtable conversations, book launches, and film screenings. These sessions were centred on themes such as caste, race, gender, religion, and global advocacy.

On the surface, the structure appeared to align with standard academic practice. However, the content and framing of the conference reflected a distinctly one-sided narrative of caste politics. The overall design of the sessions conveyed the impression that discrimination against minorities and marginalised communities in India is pervasive and uniform, leaving little room for alternative interpretations or internal social complexity.

The conference was organised by Divya Dwivedi of IIT Delhi along with Sowjanya Tamalapakula, with support from the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. Divya Dwivedi is the same professor who previously claimed on a television debate that Hinduism was invented in the 20th century. She has also referred to Hinduism as a “hoax” in an article written for The Caravan.

Among the invited speakers were several international “activists” and “scholars”, including Thenmozhi Soundararajan, the founder of Equality Labs. Her work has been controversial due to its consistent framing of caste through race-based and international advocacy narratives. Equality Labs has been actively promoting the idea in the United States that upper-caste Indians who have migrated there routinely engage in caste-based discrimination against Indian-origin colleagues from SC and ST communities.

Multiple sessions at the conference explicitly linked caste with race, global governance, religion, and present-day political movements. Some discussions went further by comparing Dalit issues with international conflicts and calling for transnational alliances to address “caste-based discrimination”. The ideological orientation of these sessions, the speakers involved, and the activist-driven framing of caste within a premier technical institution have now come under sustained scrutiny.

Divya Dwivedi: The Ideological Anchor of CPCR

Divya Dwivedi is a professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at IIT Delhi and the key figure behind the CPCR conferences. She teaches philosophy and literature and has, over the past decade, emerged as an ideologue who consistently frames Hindu identity, caste, and Indian society through a confrontational political lens rooted in race discourse and global activist frameworks.

Her academic career includes publications with international publishers, fellowships at European institutions, and advisory roles linked to UNESCO-affiliated platforms. This international positioning is central to her work, as it allows her influence to extend well beyond classroom discussions. Through conferences, publications, and global media engagement, she actively seeks to shape how India’s social structures are interpreted, critiqued, and judged in international intellectual and political spaces.

Her Public Statements on Hinduism and Hindu Identity

Dwivedi’s ideological positioning has been openly expressed on several public platforms. During a television debate in 2019, she stated, “The Hindu religion was invented in the early twentieth century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India.” She further claimed that Mahatma Gandhi “helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity”, adding that this political construct must be “discarded”.

These views were later expanded in an essay she co-authored for The Caravan, titled “The Hindu Hoax”. In this piece, Hindu identity was portrayed as a deliberate political fiction created by upper-caste elites. Dwivedi argued that there is “no innocent use of ‘Hindu’” and described the term as inseparable from caste oppression and political domination.

Such assertions are not presented as one interpretation among many. Instead, they are framed as settled conclusions, leaving little space for historical continuity, internal reform traditions, or the lived religious experiences of millions of Hindus across caste lines. By describing Hinduism as a “hoax”, she effectively denies followers of Sanatan Dharma a legitimate place within India’s religious and civilisational landscape, reducing a living faith to a political device and disregarding how people themselves understand and practise their religion.

G20 Moment and the Global Projection of Her Narrative

Dwivedi’s ideological stance became even more explicit during India’s hosting of the G20 in 2023. In an interview with the French broadcaster France 24, she argued that India’s future must move beyond Hinduism altogether.

She stated, “There are two Indias. One is the India of racialised caste order and then there is the India of the future, an egalitarian India without caste oppression and Hinduism.”

When presented with examples of social mobility and economic change on the ground, she dismissed them as “mediatised anecdotes” and reiterated that “10% of the upper caste occupy 90% of the lucrative and powerful positions”. She also described Hinduism as a “false to hoax representation” and labelled the RSS a “fascist organisation” representing “upper caste supremacist interests”.

These remarks were not made casually. They reflected a sustained effort to present a particular narrative about India to global audiences at a moment when international attention was focused on the country. The same ideological framework that underpins her academic work was projected through international media, reinforcing her long-standing positions.

What She Presented at the IIT Delhi Conference

At CPCR3, Dwivedi presented a paper titled Remnants of Durban: Towards a Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race. While the full paper or a video recording of her presentation has not yet been made public, the abstract itself provides clear insight into her arguments.

In the paper, published by Oxford Press in March 2025, she reiterated the claim that “caste is race plus”, a slogan that originated at the 2001 Durban conference. She argued that caste and race share a deep structural similarity rooted in what she described as a pre-colonial and colonial “Aryan doctrine”. According to her, this represents not merely discrimination but a form of “paleo racism” that predates modern racial categories.

She further suggested that resistance to equating caste with race exists mainly to avoid confronting this alleged structural similarity. The abstract described caste as having “calypsological powers”, enabling it to sustain oppression through concealment and denial. It concluded by calling for new global anti-caste and anti-racist struggles, presented as unfinished political projects awaiting activation.

The core aim of this argument is to portray Hindu society as neither reformable nor internally plural. Instead, it presents society as an inherently racialised order whose foundations must be challenged through global ideological mobilisation.

Why This Ideological Lens Raises Concerns

Dwivedi’s framework collapses religion, history, social practice, and political power into a single accusatory narrative. Hinduism is reduced to a tool of domination, caste is racialised in absolute terms, and alternative interpretations are dismissed as moral evasions rather than legitimate scholarly disagreements.

This approach reflects a broader tendency among certain Left-liberal intellectual circles, where debate is often framed as “my way or the highway”. Any attempt to offer a counter-narrative or nuanced perspective is quickly labelled as right-wing, regardless of the argument’s substance or evidence.

By framing caste as race and Hindu identity as a hoax, her work invites external intervention into India’s internal social processes. It delegitimises indigenous reform movements, philosophical traditions, and examples of social mobility that do not fit her thesis. In doing so, it replaces social complexity with ideological certainty.

Most importantly, her repeated use of global platforms shows that this is not merely academic inquiry. It is political advocacy presented as scholarship.

Why Her Position at IIT Delhi Is Significant

When such an ideological framework is embedded within a publicly funded institution like IIT Delhi, it naturally raises serious questions. Jawaharlal Nehru University has long been viewed as a centre for Left-liberal, anti-Hindu, and anti-India narratives, largely because these ideologies were allowed to flourish without effective administrative oversight.

Academic freedom does not mean ideological monopoly. Yet the conference curated by Dwivedi overwhelmingly reflected her worldview, with little sign of balance or counter scholarship. The concern is not that controversial views exist, but that they are presented as academic consensus, amplified by elite institutions, and projected internationally as representative of Indian reality. This is why scrutiny of her role and her conferences has become unavoidable.

Thenmozhi Soundararajan and Equality Labs

Thenmozhi Soundararajan is the founder and executive director of Equality Labs. She describes herself as a transmedia artist, theorist, and futurist, and is a Dalit American commentator on religion, race, caste, gender, technology, and justice. Her views on Hinduism, Hindu society, and culture have drawn strong objections. At the conference, her topic was “25 Years of Racial and Caste Equity Impact of Durban on Dalit Americans”.
Source: IIT Delhi

Equality Labs has emerged as one of the most influential anti-Brahminism advocacy groups in the United States. Soundararajan is also the author of The Trauma of Caste and has positioned herself as a leading voice seeking to internationalise caste discourse by framing it in terms of race, systemic oppression, and genocide.

Under her leadership, Equality Labs has consistently promoted narratives portraying Hindu society, particularly Brahmin communities, as structurally oppressive, often relying on broad generalisations rather than case-specific evidence.

Equality Labs’ Activism and Public Controversies

Equality Labs gained international attention when former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey posed with a placard reading “Smash Brahminical Patriarchy”, a poster designed by Soundararajan. The image became symbolic of the organisation’s confrontational activism, which critics argue promotes social antagonism rather than reform.

The organisation has also collaborated with the Organisation for Minorities in India (OFMI) on reports alleging widespread caste discrimination among South Asian Americans. OFMI was founded by Bhajan Singh Bhinder, a known ISI operative, and included Pieter Friedrich, who has repeatedly targeted Hindu political figures and organisations. Despite these associations, Equality Labs continued to be cited by activist lawmakers and media outlets as an authoritative source on caste.

Political Campaigning and Legislative Efforts

Equality Labs holds notable influence within the Justice Democrats wing of the US Democratic Party. The organisation actively campaigned against India’s Citizenship Amendment Act in the United States, amplifying allegations of genocide and promoting slogans such as “Stop Hindu fascism”.

Disputed Claims and Workplace Resistance

Soundararajan has made several controversial claims, including assertions that Sanskrit was restricted to Brahmins during the Vedic period and that the Manusmriti prescribed molten lead to be poured into the ears of Dalits. These claims have been challenged by multiple scholars. She has also accused yoga traditions and instructors of fostering sexual control and predatory behaviour.

In April 2022, Google cancelled a scheduled talk by Soundararajan following internal concerns that the session could create division within the workplace. Google clarified that while caste discrimination has no place at the company, it would not host talks that risked polarising employees.

Khalistan Links and the SB403 Debate

Soundararajan has also been criticised for sharing a stage with Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun of Sikhs For Justice, an incident highlighted by US Congressional candidate Ritesh Tandon. The event took place in Washington DC, and images were later circulated by Hindu advocacy groups.

Equality Labs was among the most vocal supporters of California’s SB403, an anti-caste discrimination bill that relied heavily on the now-collapsed Cisco caste case. After the bill was returned by Governor Gavin Newsom, Soundararajan described the outcome as “heartbreaking”, indicating the organisation’s continued push to legislate caste narratives into American law.

Aarushi Punia and the Dalit–Palestinian Comparison

Another speaker at the conference, Aarushi Punia, addressed the topic “What’s common between Dalits and Palestinians?” She is an IIT Delhi-trained scholar who completed her PhD comparing Dalit and Palestinian literature and narratives of suffering.

Her work focuses on caste, Palestine, gender, and what she terms racialised oppression. She has been a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge and has written for platforms including The Indian Express and Middle East Eye.

In a May 2024 article in The Indian Express, she argued that Dalits and Palestinians experience similar forms of oppression, segregation, and erasure under what she described as ‘ethno-national states’. She portrayed Indian society and the state as structurally analogous to Zionism, framing caste as a form of racial domination similar to Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

This comparison is deeply problematic. Dalits are Indian citizens with constitutional rights, political representation, affirmative action, and legal remedies. Palestinians are situated within an active geopolitical conflict involving borders, war, and armed groups such as Hamas. Equating social discrimination within a civilisation to an ongoing military conflict collapses historical and political specificity and crosses the line from scholarship into ideological flattening.

A Pattern, Not a One-Off Event

The controversy surrounding CPCR3 highlights a broader trend within Indian academic spaces. What was presented as a scholarly discussion on caste ended up advancing a narrow narrative that portrayed Hindu society as inherently oppressive and beyond reform.

The involvement of Divya Dwivedi and Equality Labs founder Thenmozhi Soundararajan clarifies the ideological direction of the conference. Their past statements and activism show a consistent effort to frame Hindu identity as a political conspiracy and caste as a racial system comparable to global conflict zones.

Such conferences are becoming more common across campuses, where activist positions are presented as academic consensus and dissenting perspectives are sidelined. When academic spaces prioritise ideological advocacy over balanced inquiry, dialogue gives way to division.

IIT Delhi’s decision to seek explanations and set up a fact-finding committee is a necessary step. However, this episode suggests a deeper issue that goes beyond one conference. Unless such patterns are examined carefully, academic institutions risk drifting away from their core purpose as spaces for rigorous, open-ended learning and debate.