Imagine being told your traditional meal is too 'smelly' to heat up in a shared microwave. This is exactly what happened to two Indian PhD students at the University of Colorado Boulder, sparking a battle against systemic racism that ended in a $200,000 settlement. But here's where it gets controversial: was this an isolated incident, or a symptom of a deeper cultural intolerance? Let’s dive into the story that has everyone talking.
In September 2023, Aditya Prakash, a 34-year-old PhD student from Bhopal, was heating his lunch of palak paneer in the Anthropology Department’s microwave when a staff member approached him. She complained about the ‘pungent smell’ and demanded he stop using the microwave for his food. Prakash, calm but firm, replied, ‘It’s just food. I’m heating and leaving.’ Little did he know, this encounter would escalate into a two-year legal battle.
Fast forward to September 2025, the university settled a civil rights lawsuit filed by Prakash and his partner, Urmi Bhattacheryya, a 35-year-old PhD student from Kolkata. The settlement included $200,000 in compensation and the conferral of Master’s degrees, but with a catch: both were barred from future enrollment or employment at the university. This month, the couple returned to India, leaving behind a contentious chapter in their academic journey.
But this is the part most people miss: Prakash and Bhattacheryya argue that the university’s actions went beyond a single incident. They claim the Anthropology Department refused to grant them Master’s degrees—a standard milestone for PhD students—prompting them to seek legal action. In their lawsuit, they detailed a ‘pattern of escalating retaliation’ after Prakash raised concerns about discriminatory treatment. The couple highlighted a departmental kitchen policy that disproportionately affected South Asians, making many Indian students hesitant to bring their lunches to shared spaces.
‘The discriminatory treatment and ongoing retaliation caused us emotional distress, mental anguish, and pain,’ Prakash and Bhattacheryya stated. Their case shed light on the broader issue of ‘food racism,’ where cultural biases dictate what is considered ‘acceptable’ in shared spaces. And this is where it gets even more controversial: Is it fair to police the smells of certain cuisines while turning a blind eye to others? Prakash pointed out the hypocrisy when a staff member claimed even broccoli was prohibited due to its odor. ‘How many groups face racism for eating broccoli?’ he asked, challenging the cultural biases at play.
The university, however, denies any wrongdoing. In a statement to The Indian Express, spokesperson Deborah Mendez-Wilson said, ‘The university reached an agreement with the plaintiffs and denies any liability. We remain committed to fostering an inclusive environment.’ But for Prakash and Bhattacheryya, the damage was done. They describe a hostile environment where Prakash was frequently summoned for meetings, accused of making staff feel unsafe, and Bhattacheryya lost her teaching assistant job without explanation. When she and three other students brought Indian food to campus two days after the incident, they were accused of ‘inciting a riot.’
What’s striking is the support the couple received from 29 fellow students in the Anthropology Department, who condemned the ‘harmful response’ to discriminatory food policies. ‘Of all places, the Anthropology Department should celebrate diversity, not tolerate it begrudgingly,’ they stated, citing the department’s own stance on systemic racism.
Bhattacheryya links their experience to broader shifts in the U.S. under Donald Trump’s administration. ‘There’s a hardening, a narrowing of empathy,’ she observes. ‘Institutions talk about inclusion but show less patience for discomfort, especially from immigrants or people of color.’ As international students, they felt the message loud and clear: their presence was conditional, and they could be made to feel unwelcome at any moment.
By May 2025, the couple filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, alleging discrimination and retaliation. By the time the settlement was reached, neither felt inclined to return to the U.S. ‘Going back would mean re-entering the same system, with the same visa precarity,’ Prakash explains. ‘I don’t see myself going back.’
Starting afresh isn’t easy, but Prakash sees a silver lining. ‘If this case sends a message that ‘food racism’ cannot be practiced with impunity, that we, as Indians, will fight back, that would be the real victory,’ he says. But the question remains: How can institutions truly foster inclusivity while addressing cultural biases? What do you think? Is ‘food racism’ a real issue, or are we overreacting? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
