But I did read the article! On the surface, it seems that the HAF is inserting itself to argue a side point. The core issue is about whether caste is a protect

But I did read the article! On the surface, it seems that the HAF is inserting itself to argue a side point. The core issue is about whether caste is a protected category, and whether discrimination actually occurred at Cisco. HAF isn't really talking about that at all! Instead, they're just trying to make sure that court documents don't describe the caste system as "part of Hinduism". On the face of it, that doesn't seem so bad. Now, I do see that some people view this as a diversionary tactic by the HAF, and that it should not to be taken at face value: > According to Anil Wagde of the Ambedkar International Center, HAF’s intervention is an attempt to obfuscate the matter and confuse the court. It seems you also do not take HAF's objections at face value? But on the surface, their demands are -- a little distracting, but basically orthogonal. It feels like the solution to this is to say, "fine, we'll change the language used here (i.e., the description of Hinduism), and then get on with dealing with the core issue (i.e., the discrimination)".