Talk:Satish Kolluri

By Rutvi Dattani

Satish Kolluri is an Associate Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Pace University, as of November 2022. According to his university profile, his research interests include Philosophy of Communication, Digital and Participatory Cultures, Asian Cinema, Aesthetics and Affect Theory, Parenting and Education, Media, Satire, Politics and Civic Engagement, and Cultural Studies.

In 2021, he along with Hibatullah Akhundzada, the supreme leader of the Taliban, co-signed a letter supporting "Dismantling Global Hindutva" Conference, as an academic and scholar and made the allegation

"the current government of India [in 2021] has instituted discriminatory policies including beef bans, restrictions on religious conversion and interfaith weddings, and the introduction of religious discrimination into India’s citizenship laws. The result has been a horrifying rise in religious and caste-based violence, including hate crimes, lynchings, and rapes directed against Muslims, non-conforming Dalits, Sikhs, Christians, adivasis and other dissident Hindus. Women of these communities are especially targeted. Meanwhile, the government has used every tool of harassment and intimidation to muzzle dissent. Dozens of student activists and human rights defenders are currently languishing in jail indefinitely without due process under repressive anti-terrorism laws."

In 2016, he signed a letter endorsing a letter submitted by the South Asia Faculty Group where it addressed the State Board of Education, California Department of Education, dated May 17, 2016. In this letter they requested removing the word India from textbooks. In addition, they falsely stated:

1. "There is no established connection between Hinduism and the Indus Civilization."
2. "It is inappropriate to remove mention of the connection of caste to Hinduism."

Publication Related to India

1. Kolluri, Satish, and Joseph Tse-Hei Lee. An Inter-Asian Perspective on China’s Rise and Power Shifts in Asia. Social Transformations in Chinese Societies, 2021, ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/STICS-12-2020-0030.
2. Kolluri, Satish, Joseph Tse-Hei Lee, and Lee. Hong Kong and Bollywood in the Global Soft Power Contest. Indian Journal of Asian Affairs, vol. 29, 2016, pp. 101–112.
3. Kolluri, Satish. Minority Existence and the Subject of (Religious) Conversion. Cultural Dynamics, vol. 14, 2002, pp. 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/09213740020140010701.
   • This article is full of generalizations, biases, and is unsubstantiated by facts. It does not adhere to the basic norm for scholarly papers. It indulges in inflammatory rhetoric that distorts the complexities of India’s socio-political landscape. Below is a critique of the key issues. Satish Kolluri’s article exemplifies everything wrong with agenda-driven scholarship: a reliance on sensationalism, ideological prejudice, and intellectual laziness. It fails to offer a credible critique of Hindutva or Hinduism and also actively distorts India’s socio-cultural realities to fit a colonial/racist narrative.
   • Fabrication of "Cultural Criticism" as a Framework: Kolluri concocts the term "cultural criticism" to claim that religious conversions from Hinduism to Christianity and Islam are deliberate acts of rebellion against Hinduism. This assertion lacks evidence. Conversions in India are well-documented and stem from socio-economic pressures, missionary inducements, and historical coercion that started during Islamic rule and later continued during British colonial rule—not as some imagined cultural crusade against Hinduism.
   • Baseless Claims of Hindu "Communalism": Kolluri asserts, without evidence, that Hindutva has led to increased violence by Hindus against religious minorities. This claim simplifies the cause of communal tensions in India showcasing his double-standard whereby he absolves other religious communities of their role in creating these tensions. The claim that Hindutva dismantles secularism ignores Hindutva’s critique of "pseudo-secularism".
   • Misrepresentation of Hindu dharma: Kolluri’s wrongly portrays dharma as a monolithic and oppressive tradition. "Brahmanical Hinduism" is a fake term that was used to showcase Hindu Dharma as an oppressive tradition and later disproven in academia as a colonial / racist construct. His continued use of this term reflects a deliberate attempt to malign Hindu culture.
   • False Equivalences and Alarmist Rhetoric: The author describes Hindutva as a fascist force that wants to erase minorities and claims that Muslims and Christians are "second-class citizens". The author doesn't even attempt to weight the most basic evidence that points to the significant political and cultural accommodations made for minorities.
   • Ahistorical and Ideologically Driven Assertions: Kolluri accuses Hindutva proponents of "ahistorical" narratives, while building his entire argument on ideological propaganda and colonial perspectives The claim that Hindutva’s vision of India is based on a "mythical past" ignores India's history predates the Islamic and British invasions of India. Hindu nationalism is often seen as a response to the oppression Hindus faced under hundreds of years of colonial oppression and exploitation.
   • Inflammatory Terms: The author reveals a political agenda by choosing to use colonial/racist terminology, such as "Brahmanical Hinduism" and "Hindu communalists." He demonizes Hindutva and Hindu dharma without a shred of nuance.
   • Shoddy Scholarship: Kolluri’s arguments aren't backed evidence and rely on ideological tropes. The article lacks primary sources, data, or even credible secondary references.
4. Kolluri, and Ali Mir. Redefining Secularism in Postcolonial Contexts: An Introduction. Cultural Dynamics, vol. 14, 2002, pp. 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/09213740020140010601.