The Parallel Shadows: White Supremacy in the West and Caste Supremacy in India

 

The Parallel Shadows: White Supremacy in the West and Caste Supremacy in India

In an increasingly globalized world, discussions about discrimination often focus on race or caste as isolated phenomena. Yet, beneath the surface, striking parallels emerge between white supremacist ideologies in the West — particularly in the United States — and caste supremacist attitudes in India. Both systems, rooted in notions of inherent superiority and inferiority, have historically justified oppression and continue to fuel resistance against efforts to level the playing field. This article explores how both groups decry affirmative action (or reservations in India) as “reverse discrimination” and selectively highlight underperformance among marginalized groups to perpetuate myths of lesser capability, intelligence, or work ethic — echoing the justifications once used to defend slavery.

Historical Foundations: Myths of Inferiority

White supremacy in the West didn’t emerge in a vacuum. During the era of transatlantic slavery, enslavers propagated the idea that Black people were inherently inferior, biologically suited for subjugation. This “myth of Black inferiority” portrayed Africans as less intelligent, more primitive, and naturally subservient, making slavery not just economically expedient but morally defensible.

Enslaved individuals were seen as wearing a “racial uniform” that marked them for exploitation, with pseudoscientific arguments claiming their supposed traits made them ideal for labor-intensive roles. After emancipation, these ideas intensified, evolving into Jim Crow laws and segregation to maintain white dominance.

Similarly, India’s caste system has long entrenched hierarchies based on birth, with upper castes (particularly Brahmins) viewing themselves as superior. Dalits (formerly “untouchables”) and other lower castes, including Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), were historically deemed impure and fit only for menial tasks. This system, predating modern racism, shares ontological roots with white supremacy, where discrimination is cyclical and self-reinforcing.

As Isabel Wilkerson argues in her book Caste, both caste supremacy and racism function as hidden structures of domination, with white supremacy in the U.S. mirroring the “Caucasian caste” that enforces solidarity to secure privilege.

In India, caste manifests in servitude and disproportionate incarceration of Dalits, much like racism’s impact on Black Americans.

These parallels aren’t coincidental. Both ideologies rely on descent-based discrimination, where one’s birth determines worth. Efforts to equate caste with race have been debated globally, with Dalits pushing for recognition at forums like the UN, arguing that caste supremacy is a form of racism.

While differences exist — caste is more fluid in some contexts than race — the core mechanism of exclusion through perceived inferiority binds them.

Affirmative Action as “Reverse Discrimination”: A Shared Refrain

One of the most telling similarities is the backlash against policies aimed at rectifying historical injustices. In the U.S., affirmative action — designed to address systemic racism — has been lambasted by white supremacists as “reverse racism.” They claim it unfairly disadvantages whites, promoting a colorblind narrative that ignores ongoing white privilege. Phrases like “it’s OK to be white” have been co-opted to frame affirmative action as anti-white discrimination, echoing broader supremacist rhetoric. Critics argue it violates meritocracy, but this often masks resistance to challenging white supremacy’s hold on power. Even post-civil rights, “respectable” white supremacist ideas adopt reverse discrimination frames to delegitimize such programs.In India, caste-based reservations for SC/ST communities — quotas in education, jobs, and politics — face analogous attacks. Upper-caste opponents, often embodying caste supremacist views, decry them as “reverse casteism,” arguing they compromise efficiency and merit by favoring the “undeserving.” They claim reservations perpetuate division rather than dismantle caste, with some asserting that SC/ST beneficiaries are inherently less capable, thus lowering standards.

This mirrors the U.S. narrative: both frame equity measures as unfair advantages, ignoring centuries of exclusion that created the need for them in the first place.

Data, however, debunks efficiency losses, showing reservations often enhance representation without sacrificing quality — yet the myth persists to preserve upper-caste privilege.

On platforms like X (formerly Twitter), anti-reservation discourse amplifies these caste supremacist arguments, often under hashtags like #EndReservation and #FightForMerit.

Users frequently share examples of candidates with negative or low scores securing positions via reservations while high-scorers are denied, claiming this proves reservations reward “birth over worth” and push beneficiaries toward “lifelong shame.”

Common refrains include calls to “stop rewarding birth” and assertions that reservations undermine meritocracy, leading to inefficiency and a lack of dignity for all involved.

Influential accounts highlight stories of general category successes without quotas to argue that the system punishes talent, framing reservations as a “permanent seat” rather than a temporary ladder.

Others label anti-Brahminism or criticism of upper castes as “reverse discrimination,” drawing parallels to broader caste politics and votebank strategies.

These online echo chambers reinforce the narrative that reservations are a form of “new-age reverse casteism,” often ignoring socioeconomic contexts and portraying them as tools for division rather than justice.

Politicians in both contexts exploit these divisions. In the U.S., resistance to affirmative action aligns with broader anti-Black policies; in India, caste politics fuels anti-reservation sentiments, uniting upper castes against perceived threats.

As one analysis notes, these arguments serve as a “smokescreen” for maintaining hierarchy.

Weaponizing Performance to Reinforce Inferiority

Both ideologies selectively use data on “poor performance” to imply innate deficiencies. White supremacists historically cited enslaved Blacks’ supposed laziness or low intelligence to justify slavery, postulating that freedom would expose their “inferiority.”

Today, this evolves into claims that affirmative action admits “unqualified” minorities, whose underperformance “proves” racial hierarchies. Such narratives ignore structural barriers like unequal education and bias, instead blaming victims.In India, caste supremacists point to lower academic or professional outcomes among SC/ST groups as evidence of lesser capability, arguing reservations “prove” their point by promoting the unprepared. This overlooks systemic discrimination: unequal access to resources, prejudice in evaluations, and intergenerational trauma from caste oppression. Studies show that disparities stem from “unequal treatment” rather than inherent traits, yet the rhetoric endures to undermine reservations. Just as slavery’s defenders used pseudoscience, modern caste supremacists wield anecdotal “evidence” to argue that SC/ST communities are less hardworking or intelligent, echoing the racial justifications for bondage.These tactics aren’t just rhetorical — they perpetuate cycles of marginalization. In both societies, extractive capitalism thrives on such divisions, with racism and caste supremacy fueling exploitation.

Why These Parallels Matter

Recognizing the similarities between white supremacy and caste supremacy isn’t about equating experiences but understanding shared mechanisms of power. Both systems rely on myths of inferiority to resist change, framing equity as oppression. In the U.S., caste-like racism persists in incarceration and wealth gaps; in India, caste discrimination mirrors Jim Crow in exclusion and violence. Global migration has even exported caste to places like the U.S., where South Asians report ongoing bias.Dismantling these requires confronting the myths head-on. Affirmative action and reservations aren’t perfect, but they’re essential counters to entrenched privilege. As debates rage — from U.S. Supreme Court rulings to India’s reservation expansions — acknowledging these parallels can foster solidarity across borders, challenging the hierarchies that divide us.

Note: Views expressed are based on historical and sociological analyses; this article aims to inform, not endorse division.

The Role of Hindu Nationalism in Shaping India's Global Image: A Cycle of Misrepresentation and Prejudice

 India, a nation celebrated for its cultural diversity and historical richness, has increasingly faced accusations of racism and stereotyping abroad. While these perceptions are often rooted in misinformation and generalizations, they are exacerbated by specific actions and ideologies within India, particularly those associated with Hindu nationalism. The propagation of practices like consuming cow urine and dung, alongside the suppression of minorities, especially Muslims, has fueled cringe-worthy narratives that dominate foreign media and social platforms. These elements, amplified by viral videos and news reports, contribute significantly to the negative stereotyping of Indians as a whole, despite such behaviors being far from representative of the country's 1.4 billion people.

Hindu Nationalism and the Cow Worship Narrative

Hindu nationalism, often encapsulated under the ideology of Hindutva, promotes a vision of India as a Hindu-centric nation. This ideology, championed by groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political affiliate, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has led to the aggressive promotion of practices tied to Hindu religious traditions, including the veneration of cows. While cow worship is a legitimate aspect of Hindu culture for many, the fringe practice of consuming cow urine (gomutra) and dung has been sensationalized by Hindu nationalist groups as a health cure or spiritual ritual.

In January 2025, a controversy erupted when the director of IIT Madras, V. Kamakoti, commented on the medicinal properties of cow urine, sparking a debate among scientists. The Hindu reported that while the research was merely an analysis of bovine urine, its promotion as a health benefit was criticized by experts like Dipshikha Chakravortty, who warned that consuming any urine is "detrimental and dangerous". Similarly, in April 2025, the principal of Delhi University’s Laxmibai College faced backlash after sharing a video of classroom walls being coated with cow dung to "beat the heat," a move that went viral and drew mockery online. One X user sarcastically remarked, “If drinking cow urine is made compulsory in colleges, then no one can stop the country from becoming a Vishwa Guru,” highlighting the ridicule such actions invite.

These incidents are not isolated. In August 2023, Union Minister Parshottam Rupala suggested that cattle owners could profit from selling cow urine and dung, further mainstreaming these practices. Such endorsements from public figures lend credibility to fringe behaviors, which are then amplified by social media. Videos of Hindu nationalists consuming cow urine or promoting dung-based products have become fodder for foreign content creators, who use them to paint Indians as backward or superstitious. A 2024 report by The Wire noted that such practices are often mocked globally, contributing to a narrative that all Indians engage in these rituals.

International Incidents and the Amplification of Stereotypes

The global reach of these practices has been further highlighted by incidents involving Indian travelers. In 2019, The Times of India reported that Indian passengers were detained at international airports, including in the United States and Australia, for carrying cow dung cakes and bottles of cow urine in their luggage. These items, often intended for religious or medicinal use, violated biosecurity laws and led to headlines like “Indian Passengers Caught Smuggling Cow Dung” in foreign tabloids. Such stories, while affecting a minuscule fraction of travelers, are disproportionately amplified by foreign media, reinforcing stereotypes about Indian hygiene and cultural practices.

Social media platforms like YouTube and TikTok have worsened this trend. Videos titled “Indians Drink Cow Urine” or “Cow Dung Medicine in India” garner millions of views, often posted by foreign influencers who cherry-pick extreme examples to generate clicks. A 2023 analysis by The Hindu noted that such content, devoid of context, shapes foreign perceptions, leading to comments like “This is why India will never progress” or “All Indians are cow worshippers”. These generalizations ignore that the majority of Indians, including Hindus, do not engage in these practices, but the damage is done when such content goes viral.

Suppression of Minorities and Its Global Fallout

Beyond cultural practices, the suppression of minorities, particularly Muslims, under Hindu nationalist policies has provided further ammunition for foreign critics. Since the BJP came to power in 2014, reports of anti-Muslim violence and discriminatory policies have surged. A 2025 report by India Hate Lab documented a 74% increase in anti-minority hate speech in 2024, with 75% of incidents occurring in BJP-ruled states. The report highlighted conspiracy theories like “love jihad,” which falsely claim Muslim men seduce Hindu women to convert them, as tools to demonize Muslims. Such rhetoric has led to vigilante violence, including lynchings over alleged cow slaughter, as noted in a 2024 Journal of Democracy article comparing Hindu nationalist tactics to Jim Crow-era oppression.

High-profile policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Waqf Amendment Bill have also drawn international condemnation. The CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim refugees while excluding Muslims, was criticized by the Council on Foreign Relations as discriminatory. In March 2025, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemned the Waqf Bill as “severely harming the rights of the Muslim community,” accusing the BJP of “systematic discrimination”. These policies, coupled with events like the 2002 Gujarat riots under then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi, have cemented India’s image in some foreign circles as a nation hostile to minorities. A 2024 Salon article warned that Modi’s Hindu nationalist agenda threatens not just India’s Muslims but also global perceptions of India, as Indian-American communities advocating for the BJP inadvertently legitimize this narrative.

Foreign media outlets like Al Jazeera and CBC News have extensively covered these issues, often framing India as a hotbed of religious intolerance. A 2024 Al Jazeera report noted that the Indian government’s blocking of India Hate Lab’s website under the IT Act signaled an attempt to suppress evidence of anti-Muslim hate. Such actions reinforce perceptions of India as an authoritarian state, further fueling anti-Indian sentiment. On platforms like X, posts criticizing Modi’s policies, such as one from April 2025 stating that “Hindutva has grown more radical under Modi, targeting minorities,” reflect global unease.

The Cycle of Misrepresentation and Racism

The combination of sensationalized cultural practices and minority suppression creates a vicious cycle. Hindu nationalist actions—whether promoting cow-based rituals or enacting discriminatory policies—generate domestic controversy that is picked up by international media. These stories are then exaggerated or decontextualized, leading to racist tropes about Indians being “cow fetishists” or “religious extremists.” A 2025 Firstpost article lamented that the “instantaneous dissemination of images of attacks on Hindus” fails to garner sympathy, while negative stereotypes dominate. This selective outrage means that while Hindu nationalists may intend to assert cultural pride, they inadvertently invite mockery and prejudice.

Foreign perceptions are further skewed by a lack of nuance. A 2024 BBC report on migration noted that Hindus make up 80% of India’s population but only 41% of its emigrants, while Muslims are overrepresented among emigrants due to discrimination. This suggests that minorities face pressures that drive them abroad, yet foreign narratives often lump all Indians together, ignoring the diversity of experiences. The result is a blanket racism that targets Indians regardless of their beliefs, as seen in online comments calling Indians “dirty” or “backward” based on cow-related content.

Breaking the Cycle

To counter this, India must address the root causes of these perceptions. Hindu nationalist groups need to recognize that promoting fringe practices like cow urine consumption invites global ridicule, overshadowing India’s scientific and cultural achievements. The government must also curb hate speech and violence against minorities, as these not only violate India’s secular ethos but also provide fodder for anti-Indian propaganda. A 2024 The Hindu report on AI misuse highlighted how technology disproportionately targets Muslims and Dalits, suggesting that ethical governance is crucial to improving India’s image.

Moreover, Indians abroad can play a role by challenging stereotypes and showcasing the nation’s diversity. Community leaders should counter the influence of BJP-aligned diaspora groups that amplify Hindutva abroad, as noted in a 2025 Al Jazeera article. Finally, foreign media and influencers must be held accountable for perpetuating racist tropes without context, as their selective reporting fuels prejudice.

Conclusion

The racism India faces globally is not a vacuum but a reflection of specific actions amplified out of proportion. Hindu nationalist practices like promoting cow urine and dung, combined with the suppression of minorities, provide easy targets for foreign critics. While these behaviors are not representative of most Indians, their visibility—through viral videos, news reports, and travel incidents—shapes a distorted narrative. By addressing these issues domestically and advocating for a more nuanced global discourse, India can begin to dismantle the stereotypes that fuel anti-Indian racism, reclaiming its image as a diverse and dynamic nation.

Unveiling the Racist Undertones in the Rigveda

The Rigveda, one of the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism, is often hailed as a cornerstone of spiritual and cultural heritage. Comprising over 10,000 verses spread across ten books, it’s a treasure trove of hymns praising deities like Indra, Agni, and Soma. But beneath its poetic veneer lies a troubling thread—verses that, when stripped of euphemism and scholarly whitewashing, reveal a starkly racist worldview. Let’s dive into some specific examples and face the evidence head-on, without the usual hand-waving about “cultural differences.”

The Evidence in Black and White

Take Rigveda 1.130.8: "Indra in battles help his Āryan worshipper… Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin; Blazing, ’twere, he burns each covetous man away." Here, Indra, the warrior god, is depicted as favoring the Aryans—often interpreted as a lighter-skinned group—while condemning those with "dusky skin" to defeat. The implication is clear: skin color marks the enemy, and victory belongs to the fair.

Then there’s Rigveda 9.41.1-2: "ACTIVE and bright have they come forth… Driving the black skin far away. Quelling the riteless Dasyu…" The "black skin" isn’t some metaphorical flourish—it’s a literal descriptor tied to the Dasyus, a group portrayed as adversaries. The text doesn’t mince words: these dark-skinned foes are to be driven out, their existence an affront to the divine order.

Rigveda 7.5.3 doubles down: "For fear of thee forth fled the dark-hued races, scattered abroad, deserting their possessions…" The "dark-hued races" aren’t just losing a battle—they’re fleeing in terror, their homes razed by Agni’s fire. It’s a scene of ethnic cleansing, painted in vivid hues of racial superiority.

Rigveda 2.20.7 adds to the tally: "Indra… scattered the Dāsa hosts who dwelt in darkness." The Dāsas, consistently linked to darkness, are crushed by Indra’s might. Darkness here isn’t just a poetic stand-in for ignorance—it’s a physical trait, a marker of those deemed lesser.

Rigveda 5.29.10 gets grotesque: "Thou slewest noseless Dasyus with thy weapon…" Not only are the Dasyus dark and defeated, but they’re also physically deformed—"noseless"—a caricature that dehumanizes them further. It’s not subtle.

Finally, Rigveda 9.73.5 seals it: "…burning up riteless men, Blowing away… the swarthy skin which Indra hates." Indra’s hatred for "swarthy skin" isn’t ambiguous—it’s a visceral rejection of an entire group based on their appearance.

These translations, pulled from Ralph T.H. Griffith’s 1896 work (available at Sacred Texts), aren’t modern inventions. They reflect the text as it’s been handed down, and they demand we confront what’s written.

The Aryan Myth and Its Roots

These verses aren’t isolated quirks—they fit a broader narrative tied to the Aryan invasion theory. This idea, born in the 19th century, posits that a light-skinned Indo-European people swept into the Indian subcontinent, subjugating darker-skinned natives. The Rigveda’s Aryans versus Dasyus/Dāsas dynamic gave colonial scholars fuel for this fire, and it’s hard to argue they were entirely off-base. When the text celebrates Indra handing "dusky skin" to Manu’s seed or blasting away "swarthy skin," it’s not a leap to see racial hierarchy at play.

Sure, some argue these terms—Dasyu, Dāsa—refer to cultural or religious outsiders, not races. But when "black skin" and "dark-hued" keep popping up alongside violence and disdain, that defense feels flimsy. The text doesn’t just say “they don’t worship right”; it ties their unworthiness to their bodies. That’s racism, plain and simple.

Why It Matters

Admitting this doesn’t mean trashing the Rigveda’s spiritual depth or poetic brilliance. It’s a product of its time—ancient, brutal, and unapologetic. But pretending these verses don’t say what they say does a disservice to honesty. The Aryans saw themselves as superior, and they coded that into their hymns, with skin color as a battle line. It’s not “cultural nuance”—it’s prejudice etched in scripture.

Modern Hinduism has evolved far beyond this, with figures like Krishna and Draupadi, both dark-skinned, revered as divine. That’s a testament to growth. But the Rigveda’s words remain, a raw glimpse into a past where “swarthy skin” was something to hate, and Indra’s might was wielded against it. We can’t rewrite history—or these hymns—but we can face them head-on.

Dig Deeper

Want the raw text? Check out Sacred Texts for Griffith’s translation. The verses are there, unfiltered. Decide for yourself—but don’t let anyone tell you it’s just “misunderstood.” The Rigveda speaks for itself, and it’s not whispering.