Imagine being told that the aroma of your homemade meal is unwelcome, even offensive, in a shared space. This is exactly what happened to two Indian PhD students at the University of Colorado Boulder, sparking a controversy that culminated in a $200,000 settlement. But here’s where it gets controversial: was this a case of cultural insensitivity, systemic racism, or simply a misunderstanding blown out of proportion? Let’s dive into the story that has everyone talking.
On September 5, 2023, Aditya Prakash, a 34-year-old PhD student in the Anthropology Department, was heating his lunch—a traditional Indian dish called palak paneer—in a departmental microwave. Suddenly, a staff member approached him, complaining about the “pungent smell” and demanding he stop using the microwave for his food. Prakash, calm but firm, responded, “It’s just food. I’m heating and leaving.” Yet, this seemingly minor incident snowballed into a major legal battle.
And this is the part most people miss: the issue wasn’t just about the smell; it was about the broader implications of cultural discrimination. In September 2025, after filing a civil rights lawsuit, Prakash and his partner, Urmi Bhattacheryya, another PhD student, reached a settlement with the university. The terms? A $200,000 payout, the conferral of Master’s degrees, and a ban on future enrollment or employment at the university. This month, the couple returned to India, leaving behind a trail of questions about inclusivity and tolerance in academic institutions.
Prakash highlights the systemic issues at play: “The department refused to grant us Master’s degrees, which are typically awarded en route to a PhD. That’s when we decided to take legal action.” In their lawsuit, the couple alleged that after Prakash raised concerns about discriminatory treatment, the university retaliated with escalating harassment. They pointed to a departmental kitchen policy that disproportionately affected South Asians, making many Indian students hesitant to bring their lunches to shared spaces. This, they claimed, caused them emotional distress and mental anguish.
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 is denial enough? Critics argue that the settlement itself suggests there was some merit to the students’ claims.
Prakash, from Bhopal, and Bhattacheryya, from Kolkata, met in Delhi before pursuing their PhDs in the U.S. For them, studying abroad was a significant financial commitment. “We put all our savings into it,” Prakash recalls. The first year was uneventful, with Prakash securing grants and Bhattacheryya’s research on marital rape gaining recognition. But the food-heating incident changed everything.
Prakash argues that the issue was about more than just smell; it was about cultural pride and contextual understanding. “My food is my pride,” he says. “What smells good or bad is culturally determined.” He even challenged the department’s logic by asking, “How many groups face racism because they eat broccoli?”—a reference to a staff member’s claim that even broccoli was prohibited due to its odor.
What’s striking is the support the couple received. Twenty-nine fellow students in the Anthropology Department backed them, calling out the “harmful response” to discriminatory food policies. They cited the department’s own statement on systemic racism, emphasizing that anthropology, of all fields, should celebrate diversity, not suppress it.
Bhattacheryya faced her own repercussions. Two days after the incident, she invited Prakash to speak about his experience in a class on ethnocentrism—without naming individuals or detailing the event. Yet, she was accused of “inciting a riot” and lost her teaching assistant job without explanation. Is this a case of overreaction, or something more insidious?
The couple believes their experience reflects broader changes in the U.S. post-Trump era. “There’s a hardening, a narrowing of empathy,” Bhattacheryya observes. “Institutions talk about inclusion, but there’s less patience for discomfort, especially from immigrants or people of color.” As international students, they felt the message was clear: “You’re here conditionally, and that can be made painfully obvious.”
In May 2025, they 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 says. “I don’t see myself going back.”
Starting afresh isn’t easy, but Prakash remains hopeful. “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 adds.
What do you think? Was this a clear case of discrimination, or a misunderstanding taken too far? Does academia truly practice the inclusivity it preaches? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s keep the conversation going.
