Figure 1. Discrepancies in NSERC‑CGRS‑D doctoral scholarship selections at the capital heart of Canada (University of Ottawa) over the past five years show continued underrepresentation of Brown Hindu Canadian citizens.

Highlights:

• Identifies recurring underrepresentation of Brown South Asian Hindu Canadian citizens in NSERC‑CGRSD doctoral scholarship results across multiple Canadian universities.
• Shows that these patterns may be linked to broader structural issues, including the continued influence of colonial racial hierarchies on institutional decision making.
• Empowering marginalized men, including Indigenous and Hindu Canadian men, is essential for maintaining gender balance and upholding Canadian and UN human rights standards.
• Emphasizes the need for scholarship decisions based on merit research experience, publications, and proposal quality rather than identity‑based factors.
• Introduces a model proposing a proportional‑representation approach, including a 30% allocation for qualified Hindu Canadian citizens, supported by fair screening based on leadership and Canadian research experience.

The analysis of NSERC CGRSD doctoral scholarship outcomes across four Canadian universities reveals a consistent pattern of underrepresentation affecting Brown South Asian Hindu Canadian citizens over a five‑year period. This trend appears at the University of Ottawa, Memorial University of Newfoundland, the University of Guelph, and McGill University, indicating that the issue is not isolated to a single institution but may reflect broader systemic challenges in national scholarship evaluation and policy‑making.

In parallel, several applicants have informally raised concerns about the transparency of internal university nomination processes for federal scholarships. Some applicants with Hindu‑sounding names reported being wiped out at the institutional stage without receiving meaningful feedback. When they sought clarification, they were told only that “the process is competitive,” an explanation they felt was insufficient—particularly because they perceived that peers with names commonly associated with white, Christian, or Muslim backgrounds did not appear to encounter similar patterns of rejection or limited communication.

While these applicants are self‑reported and may partly reflect resource constraints within institutions, they align with the statistical patterns observed in award outcomes. Together, they underscore the need for greater transparency, clearer communication, and more consistent guidance in institutional triage and nomination procedures. They also highlight the importance of strengthening fairness, accountability, and equity in both university‑level and national‑level scholarship processes.

 The continued absence of Brown South Asian Hindu Canadian citizens from scholarship results, even when they have strong research backgrounds, raises questions about how evaluation rules are applied. Students point to the influence of networks, language preferences, and demographic priorities. These observations align with broader critiques that colonial racial hierarchies, though historically rooted, may continue to shape institutional structures and decision making processes in the 21st century. These patterns may unintentionally exclude certain groups, including Hindu Canadian men, and contribute to a wider sense of conflict within Canadian academia.

 Advocates argue that men’s empowerment particularly for those who feel structurally excluded is an essential component of a fair academic system. They emphasize that Hindu Canadian men should be recognized as equal participants in academic and national opportunities, rather than being viewed primarily through political or demographic categories. Ensuring equitable access for all applicants is critical for maintaining trust in federal funding systems and upholding principles of fairness.

 Canada has laws that protect the religious rights of Hindu Canadian citizens, but an important question remains: will these protections be applied consistently across universities to address differences in scholarship results and academic hiring? Turning legal rights into real, everyday practice is essential for reducing inequality and strengthening confidence in academic institutions [23–25].

 Figure 2  offers a model that responds to these findings. It proposes a proportional‑representation approach shown through a 30% allocation for qualified Hindu Canadian citizens and calls for proper screening based on leadership, Canadian research experience, and Canadian publication record. The model is presented as a practical way to reduce long‑standing barriers, limit systemic conflict, and create a more balanced and transparent scholarship system.

 A scholarship process that focuses on merit research experience, publications, and proposal quality rather than identity‑based factors is seen as necessary for building a more inclusive, open, and secular academic environment. Continued review of selection practices, clearer evaluation rules, and stronger accountability will be important for ensuring that all Canadian citizens have fair access to doctoral scholarship opportunities.

REFERENCE

Sikdar, Arindam. "Systemic Conflict in Federal Research Funding: Empirical Indication of Bias against Brown South Asian Hindu Canadian Citizens in Canadian Doctoral Scholarship Selection." Cultural Conflict and Integration 3.1 (2026): 87-101. https://doi.org/10.55121/cci.v3i1.1140