CoHNA Says New York Caste Bills S.6531 and A.6920 Would Institutionalize Bias

Two New York bills—Senate Bill S.6531 and Assembly Bill A.6920—failed to advance during the state’s legislative session, according to coverage of the Coalition of Hindus of North America’s campaign against adding “caste” as a protected category under New York’s Human Rights Law.

“Menú Actualidad Global Sociedad Sostenibilidad Cultura Varios Boletín Aportaciones a Nuevatribuna domingo”

Diario digital Nueva Tribuna

CoHNA said the proposed legislation would have “institutionalized bias” by introducing what it described as a “religiously-coded ethnic classification” that could disproportionately affect New Yorkers of Hindu, Indian, and South Asian heritage.

Global Voices en Español

CoHNA framed the bills as lacking facial neutrality and as advancing “colonial stereotypes,” while arguing that caste-based mistreatment of any New Yorker is already prohibited without laws that create inequality based on demographics.

The Times of India reported that the coalition cheered as the bills failed to advance, and it said the coalition urged residents to appeal to their assembly member or senator to vote against the measures.

CoHNA director of government relations Sudha Jagannathan said, “This is a win for advocacy and civil rights in the face of immense pressure from elite academics and activists with access to powerful media and political players,” linking the outcome to what the group called pressure around caste protections.

Jagannathan also said, “I find it offensive that New York State would try to weaponize my identity against my own culture and traditions that provide me solace and strength.”

PR Newswire

CoHNA President Nikunj Trivedi argued that the failed bills were “yet another attempt to misuse a noble desire for social justice and subvert it to drive hate against a minority,” and he said the coalition viewed the legislation as part of a broader effort that could unfairly stigmatize Hindu and Indian communities.

The Times of India added that the coalition’s position included urging that, instead of making caste a protected category, New York’s Human Rights Law should consider adding ancestry as a category.

CoHNA cited a 2024 study conducted by the Rutgers University Social Perception Lab and the Network Contagion Research Institute, saying it found that discussions and training related to caste could contribute to negative perceptions of Hindus and Indian Americans.

“Bills introduced in 2025 and 2026 lacked facial neutrality and furthered colonial stereotypes ALBANY, N”

PR Newswire

The PR Newswire version of the same argument said the study found that even casual references and talk on caste from people with institutional power have “severe consequences,” including making individuals more likely to agree with “Hitler-like” statements against Hindus and Indian Americans.

CoHNA also pointed to a 2021 lawsuit filed against Sundar Iyer and said California misused its institutional power to assign both a religion and a caste to an atheist, while it described a Cisco caste discrimination lawsuit as withdrawn “with prejudice.”

In the Times of India account, the bills’ defenders argued that existing laws do not have caste protection and that victims may be reluctant to report discrimination without explicit protections, while the bills were sponsored by state Senator James Sanders Jr and Assemblymember Steven Raga.