A Columbia University seminar titled “Rapid Response: The India-Pakistan Conflict,” organised by the Institute of Global Politics (IGP) at the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), ignited significant controversy within the Indian community on campus due to its initial framing.
The event, held on the evening of May 12 (India time), drew sharp criticism for equating “Hindu nationalism in India” with “Islamism in Pakistan’s military-intelligence community” as root causes of the conflict, while omitting a recent terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir. Following a swift and forceful response from Indian students, alumni, and faculty, the IGP revised the seminar’s description.
Controversy Over Seminar Framing
The seminar, intended to address escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, initially described “Hindu nationalism” and “Islamism in Pakistan’s military-intelligence community” as parallel drivers of the conflict. This framing provoked outrage for drawing a false equivalence between India’s democratic governance and Pakistan’s documented support for terrorism.
Notably, the original description failed to mention the April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in the Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where The Resistance Front (TRF), a front for the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), killed 26 civilians, primarily targeting victims based on their religious identity in a religiously motivated massacre.
Aaditya Tiwari, a Columbia SIPA alumnus, brought attention to the omission on X, stating, “Columbia’s event description failed to mention the religiously motivated massacre, instead choosing to cite ‘Hindu nationalism’ as a root cause of the conflict—drawing false equivalence between a democracy and a terror-sponsoring state.” Tiwari’s post sparked a broader conversation within the Indian community at Columbia, amplifying concerns about biased academic narratives in Western institutions.
At @Columbia , @ColumbiaIGP is organizing a seminar on ‘The India-Pakistan conflict’ which sparked controversy after its organizers equated “Hindu nationalism in India” with “Islamism in Pakistan’s military-intelligence”. This drew widespread criticism from Indian community. pic.twitter.com/Sfg2BcnJzL
— Aaditya भारत (བྷཱ་རཏ) Tiwari (@aaditya_bharat1) May 12, 2025
Petition and Community Response
In response to the controversy, Tiwari and fellow SIPA alumnus Tarang Singhal spearheaded a petition titled “Statement by Indian Students, Alumni, and Faculty of Columbia University on the Framing of the Upcoming IGP Rapid Response Seminar.”
The petition, supported by over 100 Indian students, alumni, and faculty, condemned the seminar’s framing as “analytically flawed and morally irresponsible.” It argued that equating Hindu nationalism with Pakistan’s state-backed terrorism conflated India’s democratic dynamics with a nation known for supporting groups like LeT, responsible for attacks such as the 2008 Mumbai massacre and the recent Pahalgam attack.
The petition emphasised the gravity of the Pahalgam attack, stating, “This was not an ambiguous episode of ‘conflict’—this was a massacre of innocent civilians based on their faith.”
It accused Columbia of “obfuscating the truth” and contributing to a “growing and dangerous pattern” in Western academia that portrays Hindus and Hindu identity through a lens of suspicion. The petitioners demanded a revision of the seminar’s description to reflect the role of Pakistan-backed terrorism in the conflict accurately and to avoid misleading equivalences.
Within 48 hours, the petition gained significant traction, circulating widely on social media and among Columbia’s academic community. The pressure prompted the IGP to revise the seminar’s description on May 10, removing the controversial comparison and reframing the discussion to focus on the broader geopolitical implications of the India-Pakistan conflict.
@ColumbiaIGP responded:
“It was never our intention to suggest equivalence between Hindu nationalism and state-sponsored terrorism. We regret the inadvertent effects of the initial phrasing.” pic.twitter.com/YrW8KJxkLk— Aaditya भारत (བྷཱ་རཏ) Tiwari (@aaditya_bharat1) May 12, 2025
IGP’s Apology and Revised Framing
In a statement shared by Tiwari on X, the IGP acknowledged the backlash and clarified its position: “It was never our intention to suggest equivalence between Hindu nationalism and state-sponsored terrorism. We regret the inadvertent effects of the initial phrasing.”
The revised seminar description emphasised the need for a nuanced analysis of the India-Pakistan conflict, including the impact of recent events like the Pahalgam attack, without drawing parallels between India’s internal political dynamics and Pakistan’s military-intelligence support for terrorist groups. The updated framing also highlighted the role of international diplomacy in de-escalating tensions, aligning with the seminar’s goal of fostering informed discussion.
Seminar Details and High-Profile Panel
The seminar proceeded as scheduled on May 12, featuring a distinguished panel of experts and former U.S. officials. The panellists included, Shamila Chaudhary, former National Security Council Director for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Jon Finer, former Principal Deputy National Security Advisor and IGP Carnegie Distinguished Fellow, Rajan Menon, Emeritus Anne and Bernard Spitzer Chair in Political Science at the City College of New York, Mike Pompeo, 70th U.S. Secretary of State and IGP Carnegie Distinguished Fellow and Rumela Sen, Lecturer and Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies Affiliated Faculty Member.
The discussion was moderated by Stephen Biddle, Professor of International and Public Affairs, with introductory remarks delivered by Hillary Rodham Clinton, Professor of International and Public Affairs and 67th U.S. Secretary of State.
Broader Implications and Community Reflections
The controversy surrounding the seminar has sparked a broader debate about the portrayal of India and Hindu identity in Western academic institutions. Critics argue that narratives equating Hindu nationalism with state-sponsored terrorism reflect a lack of understanding of India’s complex socio-political landscape and risk perpetuating stereotypes.
The Pahalgam attack, in particular, highlighted the ongoing threat of Pakistan-backed terrorism, a factor that many felt was inadequately addressed in the seminar’s original framing.
The incident also raises questions about the role of Western academia in shaping global perceptions of conflicts like India-Pakistan tensions. Observers note that oversimplified or biased framings can distort public understanding and undermine efforts to address root causes, such as state-sponsored terrorism. The petition’s emphasis on the Pahalgam attack underscored the need for academic discussions to prioritise factual accuracy and contextual nuance.
