Dear All,
It is very important people take time to call *and* write an email. This can be very effective. When hundreds and thousands call, it has an impact on them. Two key people to call are Dr. Faust (President) and Dr. Mike Smith (Dean of Arts and Sciences).
PLEASE CALL AND WRITE A SHORT & POLITE LETTER EMPHASIZING FREE SPEECH PROTECTION AND DISCRIMINATION.
ALSO URGE THEM TO GIVE AN APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SPEAK TO PRESIDENT AND DEAN.
President Dr. Faust office:
Phone: 617-495-1566 or 617-495-1502
Email: pres...@harvard.edu
Fax: 617-495-8550 (fax)
Address: Dr. Drew Faust, President
, Harvard University, Office of the President, Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138
Dean Dr. Mike Smith office:
Phone: 617-495-1566
Email:
mike_...@harvard.edu
Regards,
Satya
========================================
SUMMARY OF ALL LETTERS/ARTICLES SO FAR
Contents
Save India From Corruption writes to Dr. Faust. 1
FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education) write on Harvard firing of Dr. Swamy 4
Diversity USA writes to Dr. Faust. 7
Misrepresentation by Harvard Faculty Members
Diana Eck and Saugata Bose to Harvard Administration. 10
Does Free Speech Exist at Harvard? The Case of
Economist Subramanian Swamy by Jerry
Gordon from New English Review.. 16
Richard Benkin,
Independent Human Rights Activist writes to Dr. Faust. 20
Harvard, please explain? By Sekhar Vemula. 21
APPENDIX. 23
Subramanian
Swamy's column in DNA.. 23
Harvard Org,
“Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard’
Demand that Harvard end its association with religious extremist
Subramanian Swamy. 26
Harvard’s ‘Coalition against Bigotry’ Statements
on Dr. Swamy Op-Ed, Dec 7, 2011 and Aug 5, 2011. 27
Harvard Stands By Swamy, Writer of 'Distressing'
Op-Ed, Aug 6, 2011. 28
Harvard
Faculty Debates Free Speech, Harvard
Magazine, Nov-Dec 2011. 29
A Summer School Instructor and Speech. 30
Harvard Crimson report, Dec 7, 2011. 35
Save Indian Democracy
Save India From
Corruption
Web:
http://SaveIndianDemocracy.org
http://SaveIndiaFromCorruption.org
Dr. Faust
President
Harvard University
Harvard, MA
Dear Dr. Faust,
It is deeply troubling Harvard chose to drop Dr. Subramanian Swamy courses from
summer offerings due to pressure from few faculty members who might be
ideologically opposed to Dr. Swamy. You had initially stood for his
free speech rights and we are concerned that you have not intervened to address
this. There is enormous indignation in the community to such action by
Harvard. Please take few minutes to consider the following:
a) It does not appear that anyone from Harvard approached Dr. Swamy to give his
response? As a premier institution standing for free speech rights, is
this not the basic thing to do?
b) Crimson article (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/) mentions,
“[Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement] is like saying Jewish Americans and
African Americans should not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the
supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said History Professor Sugata
Bose.
Here is what Dr. Swamy wrote in the article (http://www.dnaindia.com/ analysis/analysis_how-to-wipe-
out-islamic-terror_1566203-all):
India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others
whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those
foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but
should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected
representatives).
How is, 'accepting the ancestry' be same as 'acknowledge the
supremacy'? How can someone teaching in Harvard twist the point so
poorly. This cannot but be a deliberate distortion. There are several such deliberate distortions
not only from viewpoint of Dr. Swamy article, but also from the view point of
protection of free speech by Harvard, engaged by Diana Eck and others, that is enumerated
in separate letters.
c) Let us take how Harvard conducted itself in similar such past
incidents. In March 2002, Dr. Alan Dershowitz published an article
in 'The Jerusalem Post', entitled 'New Response to Palestinian Terrorism",
where he write that in response to terrorism from Palestine, after due notice,
Israel should bulldoze all of the buildings in the village. In spite of
major protests, Harvard stood by Dr Alan's right to free speech. How about the publishing of Danish Cartoons
in student newspaper. Is there anything in Dr. Swamy's article close
to this? Is it because he is a brown person, he can treated this
manner so unceremoniously? Is this not a blatant case of racism?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz ). Is Harvard anymore a
champion of free speech?
Maybe someone can explain Harvard acceptance of 20 million
dollar from Saudi prince, who part of the ruling dynasty without any democracy, where women has little rights, not even to
drive, where there is no freedom of religion whatsoever and conversion invites
apostasy.
Note: Those who are reacting to
Dr. Swamy article has little knowledge of India's history or chose to ignore it
and posing themselves as Human Rights activists. Before any
statement be made on Dr. Swamy article, it is imperative to understand the
context of his article.
India is facing
relentless home grown terrorism that just between 2004 to 2008 the number of
terror victims and incidents is next to war torn Iraq (http://www.slideshare.net/truthaboutsoniagandhi/sonia-and-terrorism ). Security agencies have extreme difficulty
apprehending the culprits because they are harbored by the Muslim community.
The tragedy is even after more 3400 deaths, India did not catch a single
terrorist!! This is compounded by the vote bank politics in India.
Relentless illegal immigration from Bangla Desh into north eastern state of
West Bengal created a mini-pakistan where non-Muslims are leading a daily
battle of survival, for their property, for their live and honor of their
women.
According to famous
American historian, Will Durant, the period of Islamic Conquest as the
'bloodiest story in the history of mankind' (http://opposemosqueatgroundzero.wordpress.com/911-sioa-rally/) .
d) Dr. Swamy is close to his two daughters and one of his two
daughters is married to an Indian Muslim and from what we learnt they live in
same house. In Aug 1987 Dr. Swamy undertook a fast unto death (http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/hashimpura.html) to demand inquiry
into illegal killing of Muslim youth by Police. It is travesty of
justice to call him anti-Muslim and shows the ignorance and bigotry of those in
Harvard who supported this action.
e) Has those who took this decision look at the context of this
article? 'Article 370 abrogation, restoration of temples that were
demolished during Islamic rule' are being debated for many decades in India
from all sides. Dr. Swamy has every right to express his views as Indian
citizen.
f) What Dr. Swamy wrote about is about events in India and his
views are published in India. It is not about economy.
How can this be of concern to Harvard? Let us say, if tomorrow a
Harvard scholar expresses some views on any topic, would it be appropriate to
persecute that person in India.
g) Dr. Swamy is the unparalleled champion of India today fighting the corruption against enormous
odds risking both his and his family's lives. Freeing India from
corruption is paramount to even US interests. For e.g. a recent
multi-billion dollar defence deal that is mired in controversy is estimated to
cause loss of 22,000 high tech jobs in US. US laws does not allow
for paying bribes and US is believed to lost the contract because of these
restrictions. It is so shameful that Harvard chose to take such unfair
action at such a time hurting interests of both nations.
h) Many times it has become a habit of some left minded faculty
members labeling those who express their protest as fanatics and
fundamentalists. This will do no good just as it would if Harvard is
categorized as bigoted and racist. We need to view this together dispassionately.
As mentioned, there is indignation and deeply hurt feelings
pertaining to this action of Harvard. It does not help if administration
is not involved in this action, because if mistakes are committed anywhere,
administration has responsibility to repair. We have to ensure this does
not happen again. We sincerely hope you will take corrective actions
immediately.
Several members of community from various organizations would like to meet you
in person. Please respond to SaveIndiaFrom...@gmail.com or call 732 939 2060.
Thanking you.
Sincerely yours,
Satya Dosapati
For Save India From Corruption, Save Indian Democracy
http://SaveIndiaFromCorruption.org, http://SaveIndianDemocracy.org
http://thefire.org/article/13921.html
Harvard
Faculty Fires Economics Professor over Political Article Published in India
December 8, 2011
by Adam Kissel
Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) has effectively
fired a controversial economics professor by canceling
all of his courses due to an op-ed he published in India in the wake of the July 13
Mumbai terrorist bombing. Although Harvard's administration had defended
Professor Subramanian Swamy's rights after intervention by FIRE, FAS blatantly and
shamefully violated them in its meeting on
Tuesday. Anyone reading the op-ed will have no trouble detecting why it was
controversial, but this action by the Harvard faculty places speech and
academic freedom in danger at Harvard.
On July 16, 2011, Swamy published an opinion piece in
the Indian newspaper Daily News & Analysis in response to
series of terrorist bombing in Mumbai on July 13 that killed 26 and injured 130
people. The column makes several suggestions about how to "negate the
political goals of Islamic terrorism in India," advocating that India
"[e]nact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other
religion," "[r]emove the masjid [mosque] in Kashi Vishwanath temple
and the 300 masjids at other temple sites," and "declare India a
Hindu Rashtra [nation] in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly
acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus."
In response, a group of Harvard students began a petition against Swamy,
demanding that Harvard "repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his
association with the University" on the ground that he is "a bigoted
promoter of communalism in India" whose column "breaches the most
basic standards of respect and tolerance." The petition concludes that
"Subramanian Swamy can have no place in the Harvard community."
Harvard Summer School Dean Donald H. Pfister reacted to the controversy by
stating, "We will give this matter our serious attention."
FIRE wrote President
Drew Gilpin Faust on July 27, stating that "students certainly have the
right to request that Harvard violate its own promises of free expression, but
Harvard must not accede to such demands." Indeed, we wrote, Harvard is
obligated to uphold the promises of free speech contained in the "Free Speech Guidelines" adopted
by FAS in 1990:
Curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom
that defines our purpose. It also deprives some individuals of the right to
express unpopular views and others of the right to listen to unpopular views.
Because no other community defines itself so much in terms of
knowledge, few others place such a high priority on freedom of speech. As a
community, we take certain risks by assigning such a high priority to free
speech. We assume that the long-term benefits to our community will outweigh
the short-term unpleasant effects of sometimes-noxious views. Because we are a
community united by a commitment to rational processes, we do not permit
censorship of noxious ideas. We are committed to maintaining a climate in which
reason and speech provide the correct response to a disagreeable idea.
Members of the University do not share similar political or
philosophical views, nor would such agreement be desirable. They do share,
however, a concern for the community defined in terms of free inquiry and
dissemination of ideas. Thus, they share a commitment to policies that allow
diverse opinions to flourish and to be heard.
Although President Faust did not respond directly to FIRE's
letter, Harvard released a statement around August 1 defending free speech in line with the
promises made by FAS:
It
is central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including
that of Dr. Swamy and of those who disagree with him. We are ultimately
stronger as a university when we maintain our commitment to the most basic
freedoms that enable the robust exchange of ideas.
It seemed that Harvard and FIRE were in agreement on this issue.
After all, how would the situation presented here be any different in principle
from the firing, say, of a communist professor for his beliefs, which might
include the violent overthrow of the U.S. government? Both the U.S. and Harvard have
had experience with what we now call McCarthyism, and few are eager to return
to that.
Harvard's admirable promises now stand in sharp and unflattering
contrast to the action by FAS on Tuesday, led by Professor Diana C. Eck,
as reported on
Wednesday by The Harvard Crimson. (Disclosure: I once worked for
Professor Eck as a nonresident tutor at Harvard's Lowell House.) According
to Crimson journalists Radhika Jain and Kevin J. Wu:
"Swamy's
op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community and
calling for violence against their sacred places," Eck said, adding that
Harvard has a moral responsibility not to affiliate itself with anyone who
expresses hatred towards a minority group. "There is a distinction between
unpopular and unwelcome political views."
Did Professor Eck really
say, "There is a distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political
views"? How exactly would one objectively define that difference?
This hypocritical action by FAS was made worse by Eck's faulty rationale for
punishing a professor who had expressed his views. The Crimson article
adds that "[m]any faculty determined Swamy's article was not a product of
free speech-but of hate speech." This assertion has no meaning from a
rights perspective. There is no exception for "hate speech" either at
Harvard (a private university bound by its own promises) or in the First
Amendment, and there can be no agreement on what constitutes "hate
speech" since it cannot be determined objectively.
Equally indefensible is the
contention that Swamy's article was an incitement to violence. Yet, this is
exactly what the chair of the Philosophy Department, Sean D. Kelly,
said, according to the Crimson:
"I was persuaded ... that the views expressed in
Dr. Swamy's op-ed piece amounted to incitement of violence instead of protected
political speech," he wrote in an email to The Crimson.
Yet the op-ed comes nowhere near the careful definition of
unprotected "incitement" announced by the Supreme Court in 1969.
According to the Supreme Court, for speech to be considered
"incitement," it must be "directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and [be] likely to incite or produce such
action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). See
also Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) (holding that a protestor
who shouted, "We'll take the fucking street later" was not guilty of
incitement because his "threat" "amounted to nothing more than
advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.").
There are permissible reasons to cancel a professor's courses, but the Crimson article
suggests that FAS did not act on any of them. Instead, FAS broke its own
promises. Harvard must reverse FAS's violation of its moral obligation to
uphold freedom of speech. It would be most preferable for FAS to remedy its own
mistake. Failing that, higher-ups at Harvard must act to protect Harvard's
integrity. Harvard has already embarrassed
itself far too much over free speech issues in recent years.
DIVERSITY-USA
A National Democratic Think Tank on Minority Issues
3145 Gilbert Ave., Roseburg, OR 97471
Ph & Fax 541-957-8414
Dr. Drew Faust,
President, Harvard University
Office of the
President , Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138 Dec. 9, 2011
Dear Dr. Faust,
Sub: A Hero,
Victim of Harvard Bigotry.
When I
checked my mail last night and found that Harvard University, one of the leading Ivy League educational institutions
in the world, had decided to drop economic courses taught by Dr. Subramanian
Swamy, a world renowned economist, I was simply stunned. How could one of the
top educational institutions in our country go so wrong is beyond me? In view
of the fact that only a few months back the University had upheld the right of
freedom of expression of Dr. Swamy and rejected the pleas of his biased and
distortionist opponents, the reversal of the initial decision raises many
troubling questions.
We firmly believe that the initial decision by the University was
right, pragmatic, based on justifiable facts. Its reversal on the grounds of
hatefulness, communalism, narrow mindedness, anti-Indianism and anti-Hinduism
demonstrated by some of the faulty zealots is simply reprehensible. These
fellow travelers have seriously ruptured the credibility of a prestigious
educational institution and tarnished its good name. Please note that a billion
plus Indians worldwide particularly Hindus have noted this “backward
and regressive step” by the University with utter disappointment and disdain. To say
the least it has irreparably damaged the good reputation of your institution.
In paragraph 2 of his original article under reference Dr. Swamy has clearly stated that “Islamic terrorism is India’s
number one national security problem….and already the successor to Osama bin
Laden as the al-Qaeda leader has declared that India is the priority target for
that terrorist organization and not the USA” (see
attachment A). It should be obvious that Dr. Swamy’s imaginary hatred of
Muslims is not the issue. But Muslims must face the reality of their
civilizational war against Hindus and their aim of creating a Caliphate in Asia
with India as its major constituent that is at the root of the conflict.
Towards the concluding portion of his analysis Dr. Swamy has summarized the
goals of the Islamic terrorism in India. He believes that their number 1 goal is to overawe India on Kashmir. To
combat this goal of terrorists Dr. Swamy
proposed removal of article 370 of India’s
national constitution and creating Panun Kashmir for the exiled Hindu Pandit
community and look for an opportunity to liberate the portion of Kashmir which
was illegally occupied by Pakistan. And if Pakistan continues
to back terrorists, India should assist the Balauchis and Sindhis to get their independence.
Clearly the central issue raised by Dr. Swamy in his so called objectionable
analysis (which became the reason for cancellation of his courses) is the
“abrogation of section 370 of the Indian Constitution so the national
constitution and the body of laws built under it became applicable to Jammu & Kashmir State like other states and union territories of India. That would considerably improve the law and order situation
and afford protection to disenfranchised ethnic minorities. Needless to say
that section 370 (which was supposed to be a temporary section) gives special status
to this state and therefore, the Indian Constitution and the laws framed there
under are not applicable in it. Dr. Faust, abusing the current communally
shaped state authority the 20% Sunni Muslims of the Kashmir valley, mostly
followers of Wahabi Islam and Osama Bin Laden, who enjoy a monopoly of
political, economic, legislative and administrative power, have turned this
state in to a virtual “Talibanistan” and have imposed “Sharia” as
the law of the state. Thousands upon thousands of non-Muslims have been killed
in Muslim induced ethnic cleansing, genocide, massacres, kidnappings and
forcible occupation of their movable and immovable properties. More than 75,000
Kashmiris have lost their lives in this civilizational crusade unleashed by
radical Islam. In their quest
for wholesale Islamization of the state, more than a million non-Muslims have
been driven out of the state courtesy of Wahabi crusaders and their supporters
in the establishment. These
oustees have become homeless refugees in various parts of India and the
globe. Dr. Faust, I am myself a Kashmiri American and the lives of seven
members of my family were prematurely cut short during the avalanche of the
Islamic terrorism. It was Dr. Swamy who raised his voice against this human
tragedy but alas the policy makers at Harvard failed to see it.
You must know that Kashmir is progressively assuming the status of
another Kabul, Kandahar, Peshawar and Islamabad as a center of Islamic Jihad. Recognizing the fast deteriorating
conditions on the ground the Obama
Administration has also warned the Indian authorities about the spread and
linkage of Indian Taliban with Pakistani Muslim terrorist outfits. In the US itself a
Pakistani agent, G.N.Fai, of Kashmiri origin who has admitted to having
accepted instructions and millions of dollars from the Pakistani spy agency,
ISI, for influencing the US policy towards Kashmir and Pakistan,
was recently arrested in Virginia.
All these indicators reveal that unless speedy and preventive measures are taken Kashmir may be
developing in to yet another radical Islamist volcano ready to explode.
By demanding the abrogation of section 370 of the Indian
Constitution Dr. Subramanian Swamy has been trying to reverse the dangerous
advance of Wahabi Islam in the Indian sub-Continent and in the process saving
the US from having to deal with one more nasty, bloody and complex
development in the world. It will be foolhardy on any body’s part to ignore the
fact that India,
despite being known as a Hindu country, has the second largest Muslim
population in the world and the Indian Republic borders Pakistan, the epicenter of Islamic terrorism with
multi-continental reach. How unfortunate and regrettable it is that Dr. Swamy
is being banished because he showed the wisdom, fortitude and guts for doing
the right thing by fighting the Jihadis before it was too late. The UN, US, UK, NATO and the rest of civilized world are following similar
policies towards the Jihadis and the radical Islam. But Harvard seems to be adopting
a negative policy for extracting a price from Dr. Swamy for following their
lead. We must
not ignore the fact that it was these Johnnies ( Pakis and Arab Sunnis ) who
plotted and executed the first ever attack on mainland USA on 9/11 killing more
than 3,000 innocent Americans.
Dr. Faust, I hope you understand the basis of our anger,
frustration and disappointment against Harvard University’s decision to exclude Dr. Swami’s courses from your
summer offerings. In our opinion the latest decision of Harvard has provided
the greatest boost, encouragement and authentication to the forces of Islamic
Jihad every where particularly in the most volatile Indian sub-continent. By
this thoughtless action, your decision makers have not only violated the
University’s covenant of free speech and academic freedom, the University has
clearly appeared to have taken the side of the soldiers of the civilizational
conquest who have taken everything from us and are now threatening the very
integrity and sovereignty of India – the largest democracy of the world.
Honoring the sacrifices of a million non-Muslim humans who were
driven in to exile from Kashmir by the followers of Osama Bin Laden and Wahabi Islam and more than
75,000 Kashmiris whose lives were consumed by the Islamic terrorism, we request
you to kindly re-examine the matter dispassionately and reinstate the summer
courses taught by Dr. Swamy. How shameful and unfortunate it would be if the
promoters of Wahabi Islam, radical Jihad, the Bin Laden doctrine and the
decision makers of the world famous Harvard University stood side by side as
comrades-in-arms against the free and democratic world. That is exactly what
your University’s decision about cancelling the courses taught by Dr. Swamy conveys.
Let better sense prevail and let the decision making process of your University
not be allowed to be hijacked by some radical individuals acting under foreign
influences.
I would appreciate if you kindly inform me of the actions taken in
this regard and inform me of your decision. I can be reached atdrjag...@rosenet.net and/or via phone at 541-957-8414.
Sincerely yours
Dr. Jagan Kaul, (Rtd) Prof Int’l Law; Chairman Diversity-USA
Attachment A
Dr. Swamy article in DNA (Indian news media)
APPENDIX
Subramanian Swamy's
column in DNA
(DNA has removed this
from their website)
Please find below detailed misrepresentations made by Dr. Diana
Eck and Dr. Sugata Bose on Dr. Swamy article to Harvard
administration. There is also concern of India corrupt Indian
political administration against which Dr. Swamy is fighting with enormous risk
to his life and that of his family, could have influence on Harvard in
this matter. Who is the loser? Harvard or Dr. Swamy?
Diana Eck wrote to Dr.
Faust (per article below):
"Freedom of expression is an essential principle in an academic community,
one that we fully support. Notwithstanding our commitment to the robust
exchange of ideas, Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses
the line into incitement by demonizing an entire religious community, demanding their disenfranchisement, and calling for violence
against their places of worship. Indeed, India’s National Commission for
Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy, whose incendiary speech
carries the threat of communal violence. When Harvard extends appointments to
public figures, it behooves us to consider whether the reputation of the
university benefits from the association. In this case, Swamy's well-known
reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly advocates violence
against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own commitment to pluralism
and civic equality."
Item 1:
What Diana Eck is saying:
Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into incitement by demonizing an
entire religious community,
What Dr.
Swamy said:
We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist.The
Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That
they do I will not believe unless they acknowledge with pride that though they
may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus.
Misrepresentation
If Dr. Swamy is
demonizing the entire community, why would the article say that Muslims of
India can join Hindus in fight against Islamic terrorist.
Did Diana care to read the article carefully before making such blanket
allegations?
Item 2:
What
Diana Eck is saying:
... demanding their (Muslims) disenfranchisement,
What Dr.
Swamy said:
If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept
him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is
Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and
others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or
those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in
India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected
representatives).
Misrepresentation:
Dr. Swamy is saying those who do not accept their ancestry of Hindus, they
should be disenfranchised. Ancestors of all Muslims in India
are Hindus and unless they want to associate with Wahabbi intolerant version of
Islam, they should not have problem with this. In fact, Muslim leaders in
India are now crying loudly to their community for not to be influenced by Wahabbi
versions which is causing their young to take up to terrorism.
Please read this articlehttp://twocircles.net/2011oct16/deoband_wahabi_ideology_encouraging_islamic_extremism_india_sufi_groups.html.
NOTE: Sadly, people like Diana living in comfort of Harvard and America should
live in certain parts of India, more so as minorities in Islamic
countries. They have no clue what it is that non Muslims face where
Muslims are majority. In 1989, overnight 350,000 Hindus were driven
away at threat of murder and rape calling loudly over the Mosques throughout
the state from the only majority Muslim state of India, Kashmir and 20+ years
later they are living in make shift camps as refugees in their own nation,
sometimes several families in a single room. (Read the heart
breaking account in Hindu American Foundation report endorsed by leading
congressmen and senatorshttp://www.hafsite.org/sites/default/files/HHR2010.pdf ).
Between 2004 to 2008, just 4 years, 3400 were killed and not a single terrorist
was caught because they are harbored by Muslim community. Does
Diana know that Pakistan had 25 % of Hindus in 1947 and today less than 1% and
there is an ongoing genocide in Bangla Desh where 30% was reduced to less than
10% since 1947. Even a 8 year old girl has to live under threat of
a rape. Does she know that in the name of Love Jihad in Indian state
Kerala, many thousands of Hindu and Christian girls are encouraged by
Mosques with amenities like cash and car to allure and marry as many as
possible, impregnate them and even use them as terror bombs in areas like
Pakistan? Read it here http://opposemosqueatgroundzero.wordpress.com/911-sioa-rally/.
The tragedy of last few years where not a single terrorist was caught and 3400
Indians (overwhelmingly Hindus) were killed (and many thousands were maimed and
living life of a vegetable) is here http://www.slideshare.net/truthaboutsoniagandhi/sonia-and-terrorism .
ITEM 3:
What
Diana Eck is saying:
... calling for violence against their places of worship.
What Dr. Swamy said:
Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at
other temple sites.
Misrepresentation:
This is total lie and I
question Diana's scholarship and intentions. Masjid is place of prayers and NOT a place of worship. Even
Saudi Arabia says a Masjid can be removed if necessary.
These Masjids were build right across the temple wall, at times right inside
the temple grounds to force the Hindus to convert during brutal 800 year
Islamic rule. During Islamic rule of India, 80 million Hindus perished
and literally, I mean literally hundreds of thousands of temples were simply
demolished and Mosques build on them or the material is used as foot steps for
Mosques build to insult Hinduism. Diana should do some reading
of famous American historian Will Durant who called the Islamic conquest
of India is the 'bloodiest story of mankind'. This is
utterly insane for someone being a Harvard professor indulging in such
misrepresentation.
ITEM 4:
What
Diana Eck is saying:
..... whose incendiary speech carries the threat of communal violence...... who
publicly advocates violence against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s
own commitment to pluralism and civic equality."
What Dr. Swamy said:
His speech is given at http://www.dnaindia.com/ analysis/analysis_how-to-wipe-
out-islamic-terror_1566203-all (also given below). Diana should point out what are
incendiary (in addition to above three points)
Misrepresentation:
Not a single disturbance was seen in India due to his article. If
there is any disturbance and raking up the issue, it is not India or Indian
Muslims, it is so called Human Rights activists of Harvard. Dr. Swamy's own daughter is married to a
Muslim to whom he is very close to and even believed to live in same
house. In 1985, he undertook fast unto death for demanding inquiry into
illegal killing of Muslim youth by Police (http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/hashimpura.html). This kind of statements are not just
hollow, but an attempt to outright lies and misrepresentation.
ITEM 5:
What
Diana Eck is saying:
... it behooves us
to consider whether the reputation of the university benefits from the
association(of Dr. Swamy).
How did Harvard conduct itself in
similar such past incidents?
Let us see how Harvard conducted itself in the past. In March
2002, Dr. Alan Dershowitz published an article in 'The Jerusalem Post',
entitled 'New Response to Palestinian Terrorism", where he write that in
response to terrorism from Palestine, after due notice, Israel should bulldoze
all of the buildings in the village. In spite of major protests,
Harvard stood by Dr Alan's right to free speech. How about Danish cartoon reprinted in Harvard
student newspaper. Is there anything in Dr. Swamy's article close
to this?
Is it possible because he is a brown person, he can treated this manner so
unceremoniously? Or is it possible the donation from Saud Arabia or
even pressure from corrupt Indian administration that Dr. Swamy is fighting
against at great risk to his life and that of his family. Is there a blatant case of racism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz ). Did Diana
Eck speak against Alan Dershowitz, Danish cartoons (even if she was not in
Harvard at that time)?
What Sugata Bose said
per Harvard Crimson:
What Bose is saying:
“[Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement] is like saying Jewish Americans and
African Americans should not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the
supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said History Professor Sugata
Bose.
What Dr. Swamy said:
India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others
whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those
foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but
should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected
representatives).
Misrepresentation:
How is, 'accepting the ancestry' be same as 'acknowledge the
supremacy'? Sadly this speaks poorly of an Harvard professor.
What Ali Asnani said per
Harvard Magazine
What Ali
Asnani is saying:
Ali
Asani—professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic religion and cultures; chair of
Near Eastern languages and civilizations; and director of the Prince Alwaleed
bin Talal Islamic Studies Program—asked whether anyone had queried Muslim
students about their comfort level with a teacher who had, in print, expressed
Islamophobic views. His question went unanswered.
(In
a subsequent conversation, Asani said, “If students know a professor is
Islamophobic, how are you going to guarantee that the person’s prejudices are
not going to be reflected in grading and evaluating student work?”—a problem
that has been studied in other contexts, he noted. Swamy’s views do
matter, Asani maintained: “He’s in a classroom before students with a lot of
backgrounds, some of them perhaps Muslim.” What safeguards are there? he asked.
If this question about student perceptions and comfort had not been
pursued, he said, it was important for the faculty to know that: such teachers’
views are not separate from the classroom context.)
Ali
Asnani, need to explain:
Ali
Asnani is funded by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Suadi Arabia, a prince of a
kingdom that practices absolute intolerance of religions where one not just
cannot build places of worship of other religions, but cannot even engage in
worship, sometimes even in private places,
where women has no rights, even to drive. Billions of dollars are pumped from Saudi
Arabia funding the terrorism worldwide and Saudi practices the most intolerant
of Islam. On what basis Ali Asnani is
making such statements. If Dr. Swamy article will be an issue in teaching, then
what about his position being funded by such Saudi establishment? How would that make his students feel about
his courses?
Then
let us take the case of Diana Eck, who is believed to be a lesbian. There may be some students who are not
comfortable with it. Would that be a
criteria.
Did Indian Government
exert pressure on Dr. Swamy to undermine his fight against enormous corruption
in India at a great risk to himself and his family?
There are also many rumors that the corrupt administration of India against
which Dr. Swamy is relentlessly fighting at the risk to his life and that of
his family, has exerted pressure on Harvard for two reasons.
1) To undermine Dr. Swamy efforts against rampant political corruption in India
that according to well known intellectual Brahma Challaney, threatening the
very existence of India as a nation. Dr. Swamy is making enormous progress
and the whole country is with him on this war.
2) To use this incident as an occasion to get minority votes. (The same vote
bank politics Government used not to apprehend a single terrorist in 4 years
even after 3400+ terror related deaths).
View the heart
breaking story of India corruption below where 80% of India earn less than 2$ a
day due to massive political corruption, which Dr. Swamy is the leading
champion of India today. (This had 160,000 hits across different versions).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giAqjxvyRLw
(Slides for the presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/whattrulyhappened/corruption-inindia2010andbefore)
What should Harvard (Dr.
Faust) do?
Dr. Faust need to look closely at the misrepresentations, study the whole
matter dispassionately and decide the further action. Saying that
the decision was taken at the Department level does not help in a matter of
such significance. Dr. Faust also need to look at other activities of those
like Dr. Witzel whose representation of Hindus and Hinduism in many occasions
showing at best lack of scholarship and at worst outright
bigotry.
Who is undermined by
this action? Harvard or Dr. Swamy?
Dr. Swamy is highly respected individual in India today fighting the relentless
war on rampant corruption. He is considered a hero of
India. By undermining Dr. Swamy, Harvard undermined
itself.
We leave it to Dr. Faust to take time to study the material and take the right
decision.
==========================================
The Iconoclast
Thursday, 8 December 2011
![Subramanian Swamy.jpg]()
Indian Economist Subramanian Swany
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/39449
With thanks to Judy B.
I received this article from a friend in Connecticut that appeared
in today’s edition of Inside
Higher Education it
confirmed that some of the faculty and students at Harvard University in
Cambridge, Massachusetts are self appointed monitors supporting the OIC agenda
of punishing blasphemy. That translates to any criticism of Islam is
grounds for dismissal.
The Inside
High Education article, “Over the Line: Harvard
kills courses by controversial summer school instructor” is indicative of how dhimmified the groves of academia at elite
American universities can be when the subject of Islam comes up. In Prof.
Subramanian Swamy’s case it is because he has nationalistic views on how to
deal with Muslims in his native India. The Harvard Faculty, while
professing support for freedom of speech, doesn’t think it applies in the Swamy
case, because he is “destructively” attacking another of India’s great faiths,
Islam. This despite the fact that the Economics faculty at Harvard thought
him eminently qualified to teach his courses. It was left to the Harvard
faculty Indian religious expert to press for a faculty vote to cancel Swamy’s
summer school courses.
Note these aspects of the controversy as reported in theInside
Higher Education article:
In an unusual move, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and
Sciences voted this week to eliminate two summer school courses in economics
because of anti-Muslim statements the instructor made in an op-ed published in
India.
When word about the op-ed spread in July, some Harvard students demanded that Subramanian
Swamy be fired. At the
time, Harvard pledged to look into the situation, but noted that it is
"central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including
that of Dr. Swamy and of those who disagree with him." But faculty members
this week cited the nature of his statements as justifying the move to kill his
courses rather than permit him to return to Cambridge.
The op-ed ran in Daily
News & Analysis (and
while that newspaper no longer has the piece online, it can be readhere). The
piece, a response to a bombing by Muslim terrorists in Mumbai, said that India
could wipe out terrorism by taking certain steps, such as declaring India a
Hindu state where "non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge
that their ancestors were Hindus," or demolishing mosques, or banning
conversion from Hinduism to any other faith. Swamy was once an economics
professor at Harvard, but he returned to his home in India, where is an outspoken
nationalistic politician. But he has come back to Harvard each year to teach in
the summer school.
[. . .]
An account of the meeting in Harvard
Magazine said that
the economics department chair, John Y. Campbell, told the faculty that his
economics colleagues considered Swamy to be "competent" to teach the
courses, and that none of the students who took his courses last summer had
complained about him. The only student who mentioned the op-ed in a class
evaluation rated the course favorably. The department had "expressed its
view that it would not take a collective position on academic freedom or on
matters of speech, hate speech, or Harvard’s reputation -- issues on which
there were a wide range of views, in this case, within the department,"
Campbell was quoted as saying.
The proposal that eventually carried -- to decline to authorize
Swamy's courses -- was made by Diana L. Eck, a scholar of India's
religions. According to the Harvard
Magazine account,
she stressed that this was much more than an issue of a professor having some
controversial views. She called Swamy's views "destructive" and said
that his ideas involved limiting the human rights of others and denying freedom
of religion. In light of the nature of his comments, she also wondered why his
courses hadn't been "quietly dropped," rather than included in the
proposed offerings for the coming summer.
She also quoted from a letter she and other Harvard faculty
members sent to President Drew Faust last summer. The letter said in part:
"Freedom of expression is an essential principle in an academic community,
one that we fully support. Notwithstanding our commitment to the robust
exchange of ideas, Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into incitement by
demonizing an entire religious community, demanding their disenfranchisement,
and calling for violence against their places of worship. Indeed, India’s
National Commission for Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy,
whose incendiary speech carries the threat of communal violence. When Harvard
extends appointments to public figures, it behooves us to consider whether the
reputation of the university benefits from the association. In this case,
Swamy's well-known reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly
advocates violence against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own
commitment to pluralism and civic equality."
At least one American group, Philadelphia-based Freedom for Individual
Rights in Education (FIRE) has risen to Prof. Swamy’s defense.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has spoken out
against Harvard's taking any action against Swamy on the basis of his op-ed.
The organization's blog noted
that Swamy's op-ed calls for radical social change in India, but FIRE noted
that American principles of free expression extend to calls for radical social
change. As an example, it cited the legal right for people to call for the
United States to become a communist country.
"We tolerate the widest possible range of political, social,
cultural, and religious views because, for one thing, we trust in the
marketplace of ideas to eventually sort it all out," the blog post said.
Unfortunately at Harvard, that marketplace of ideas has been
censored by philo Islamic dhimmis like Professor Eck. In effect, she and others
like her are violating traditional faculty department control over curricula
and appointment of scholars to teach based on their credentials and
evaluations.
Sic ignominy dhimmitude in American academia.
Tags: Subramanian Swamy, Indian economist, Hindu nationalist, Harvard University Faculty, criticism of Islam,Inside Higher education, Harvard Magazine, Economics department
versus Indian religious scholars, Freedom for Individual
Rights in Education, Blasphemy
![]()
Submit Your Comment
Posted on 12/08/2011 8:04 AM by Jerry Gordon
December 10, 2011
Dr. Drew G. Faust
Office of the President
Harvard
University
Massachusetts
Hall
Cambridge,
MA 02138
http://www.interfaithstrength.blogspot.com/
RE:
TERMINATION OF DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY
Dear
Dr. Faust,
As a
human rights activist who spends are great deal of time in South Asia, a
friend, colleague, and admirer of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, and someone who
actually has read the article that led to his termination by a committee of
faculty of Arts and Sciences; I vigorously protest, one, that culturally-biased
decision and, two, the university’s failure to enforce its own standards of
free speech and academic freedom by not overturning or otherwise neutralizing
it. There are numerous methods by which this can be done, but the
university has chosen to let stand the committee’s culturally biased and
agenda-driven decision.
Dr.
Swamy’s relationship with Harvard goes back to his student days; his faculty
relationship since 1964. Over that period, he has established a clear
track record of academic excellence and intellectual acumen that the University
has acknowledged with ongoing appointments that dwarf those of faculty who
overturned them. Yet, the university has acquiesced in throwing that
record of excellence aside and deprived Harvard students of a non-Western
perspective.
At
least two of Harvard’s faculty have published and stood by “unwelcome political
views,” to use the words of Dr. Diana Eck who instigated this great leap
backward. Dr. Stephen Walt famously co-authored an anti-Jewish slander, The
Israel Lobby that still commands the attention of bigots despite vast
evidence exposing its flaws and underlying bias. Professor Michael Witzer
was widely accused of hate-speech toward Hindus through his academic writings
and statements in connection with his opposition to attempts to remove
anti-Hindu references in California schoolbooks. Their ideology-driven
and ongoing efforts to denigrate specific ethnic groups and their
representatives, including the Hindu American Foundation, have never been
sanction by Harvard faculty. This is the sort of inconsistency contributes to a
growing perception in the United States and elsewhere that many academics and
through them academic institutions prefer ideology over fact, agenda above
principle. And in fact that is what it appears to be.
I
strongly urge Harvard to redeem its reputation by instating Dr. Swamy and
sanctioning the faculty committee for its actions that fly in the fact of
principles of academic freedom.
Dr.
Richard L. Benkin
President,
Forcefield
Independent
Human Rights Activist
nteresting? Dr.
Swamy wrote an article that according to Harvard professor Diana Eck emphasized
the “destructive” nature of the positions Swamy advocated in India, and
characterized the proposals as going well beyond free speech to the advocacy of
abrogating human rights, curtailing civil rights, and intruding on freedom of
religion. I read the article too, but if I found
objectionable, it is his position that Muslims should be disenfranchised if
they do not acknowledge their Hindu ancestry. Excuse me, I find it
so laughable all the esoteric debates of protection of free speech, human
rights, protection of religion, civil rights engaged in the cozy halls of
Harvard rooms by faculty living in their little world with little or zero
knowledge of the happenings across the world. Nay, ignorance of what is
occurring in their own backyard.
Human rights, women rights, religious diversity and let us not forget
democracy, all this are mouthful words. Let us see.
Harvard happily accepted a donation of 20 million dollars from Saudi prince S
Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz in 2005 to establish a center for
Islamic Studies. Saudi prince is part of the
Saudi ruling establishment that enacted laws that give no rights to women,
even to drive, sadly even if raped they need four male witnesses, where a
5 year old girl is allowed by law to be given in marriage to a 50 year old for
settling financial disputes, where every little Saudi child is being
taught, 'Jews and Christians are pigs' and contributed 15 out of 17
well educated Saudi's who perpetrated 9/11 attack on US due to such
education, a country which allowed hundreds of girls die in fire because
the girls are not wearing a hijab, . "Protection of
religion", Saudi rules which Saudi prince is part of would just not
allow to build any places of worship of other religions, a Church, a Synagogue, a
temple but have curbs on even worshiping at your home! I
guess the color of the green wipes out all the so called high sounding
principles.
Now what is 'Islamic Studies' I imagine. Well there it is, Shariah
Law. Wait, does not US have its owns laws for which many thousands have
given and continue to give their lives to protect what is enumerated by our
forefathers and has withstood the test of time for last more than 200
years. Has this 'Harvard Sages' looked at what Shariah Laws
are? Death Penalty to Gays and Lesbians (Diana, be aware, under
Shariah law you will get death sentence), women to be stoned, death
sentence for apostasy, Jizya tax on non Muslims, women genital
mutilation, cutting of hands and limbs for even small robbery, no music, no
art, and it goes on and on. I see it now, one
hundred years from now, Harvard, the all male institution of Islam creating
students who will go out to the wide world to create a Dar Ul Harab, if
it had not been already, creating a world of peace and
tolerance where there is only Islam.
Talking about free speech versus hate speech? As FIRE indicated, is there
something to distinguish free speech versus hate speech and who would make such
a distinction. Diana? All these people, while they sit and ruminate
the high sounded ideals, worrying about violence in India due to Dr. Swamy
article and shooting down Dr. Swamy courses, there was not a single ripple in
India for something written widely in India. Mind you every small thing
that happened across the world would create an uproar, burning of buses,
stoning Government buildings etc etc but this did not cause a single ripple.
If there is anyone talking about this is Harvard, the great institution
that protects the human rights of all people of all religions.
Sadly, little did this 'Harvard sages' protecting 'human rights' know about
Swamy's own personal life (who has a Muslim son-in-law) or his political life
(when he fast unto death for justice to Muslims). Little do they
know India and its history or even the current developments.
Alan Dershowitz is free speech, Danish Cartoons is free speech,
Saudi prince money is acceptable, but Dr. Swamy is hate speech that he
does not even deserve a chance to explain his position. Harvard, enough
is enough, do not embarrass yourself. You will have more
respectability if you at least acknowledge your shortcomings and move on.
If Dr. Swamy decides to sue, not only you lose 20 million Saudi gave,
but more importantly your respect.
Sekhar Vemula
(DNA has removed this from their website)
------------------------------ ------------------------------
------------------------------ ------------------------------
------------------------------
http://www.dnaindia.com/
analysis/analysis_how-to-wipe- out-islamic-terror_1566203-all
Analysis: How to wipe out Islamic terror
Published: Saturday, Jul 16, 2011, 8:00 IST | Updated: Sunday, Jul
17, 2011, 18:23 IST
By Subramanian Swamy | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13,
2011, requires decisive soul-searching by the Hindus of India. Hindus cannot
accept to be killed in this halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day till
the nation finally collapses. Terrorism I define here as the illegal use of
force to overawe the civilian population to make it do or not do an act against
its will and well-being.
Islamic terrorism is India’s number one problem
of national security. About this there will be no doubt after 2012. By that
year, I expect a Taliban takeover in Pakistan and the Americans to flee
Afghanistan. Then, Islam will confront Hinduism to “complete unfinished
business”. Already the successor to Osama bin Laden as al-Qaeda leader has
declared that India is the priority target for that terrorist organisation and
not the USA.
Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu-dominated India
“an unfinished chapter of Islamic conquests”. All other countries conquered by
Islam 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion.
Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic
rule. That is jarring for the fanatics.
In one sense, I do not blame the Muslim fanatics
for targeting Hindus. I blame Hindus who have taken their individuality
permitted in Sanatan Dharma to the extreme. Millions of Hindus can assemble
without state patronage for the Kumbh Mela, completely self-organised, but they
all leave for home oblivious of the targeting of Hindus in Kashmir, Mau,
Melvisharam and Malappuram and do not lift their little finger to help organise
Hindus. If half the Hindus voted together, rising above caste and language, a
genuine Hindu party would have a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the
assemblies.
The first lesson to be learnt from the recent
history of Islamic terrorism against India and for tackling terrorism in India
is that the Hindu is the target and that Muslims of India are being programmed
by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide
against Hindus. It is to undermine the Hindu psyche and create the fear of
civil war that terror attacks are organised.
Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus
against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated or, worse, be
complacent because he or she is not personally affected. If one Hindu dies
merely because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This
is an essential mental attitude, a necessary part of a virat (committed) Hindu.
We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand
against the Islamic terrorist. The Muslims of India can join us if they
genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they
acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were
Hindus. If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can
accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society)
which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of
Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to
acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by
registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which
means they cannot be elected representatives).
Any policy to combat terrorism must begin with
requiring each and every Hindu becoming a virat Hindu. For this, one must have
a Hindu mindset that recognises that there is vyaktigat charitra (personal
character) and rashtriya charitra (national character). For example, Manmohan
Singh has high personal character, but by being a rubber stamp of a
semi-literate Sonia Gandhi and waffling on all national issues, he has proved
that he has no rashtriya charitra.
The second lesson for combating terrorism is
that we must never capitulate or concede any demand, as we did in 1989 (freeing
five terrorists in exchange for Mufti Mohammed Sayeed’s daughter Rubaiya) and
in 1999, freeing three terrorists after the hijack of Indian Airlines flight
IC-814.
The third lesson is that whatever and however
small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate massively. For example,
when the Ayodhya temple was sought to be attacked, we should have retaliated by
re-building the Ram temple at the site.
According to bleeding heart liberals, terrorists
are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty, oppression, and
discrimination. They argue that instead of eliminating them, the root cause of
these four disabilities in society should be removed. This is rubbish. Osama
bin laden was a billionaire. In the failed Times Square episode, failed
terrorist Shahzad was from a highly placed family in Pakistan and had an MBA
from a reputed US university.
It is also a ridiculous idea that terrorists
cannot be deterred because they are irrational and willing to die. Terrorist
masterminds have political goals and a method in their madness. An effective
strategy to deter terrorism is to defeat those political goals and to rubbish
them by counter-terrorist action.Thus, I advocate the following strategy to
negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India.
Goal 1: Overawe
India on Kashmir.
Strategy: Remove Article 370 and resettle ex-servicemen in the valley. Create
Panun Kashmir for the Hindu Pandit community. Look for or create an opportunity
to take over PoK. If Pakistan continues to back terrorists, assist the Baluchis
and Sindhis to get their independence.
Goal 2: Blast temples,
kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath
temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites.
Goal 3: Turn
India into Darul Islam.
Strategy: Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and
singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which
non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were
Hindus. Rename India Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors
were Hindus.
Goal 4: Change
India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt
family planning.
Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting
conversion from Hinduism to any other religion. Re-conversion will not be
banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline.
Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they
adhere to the code of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to
the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, the
northern third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle illegal
migrants.
Goal 5: Denigrate
Hinduism through vulgar writings and preaching in mosques, madrassas, and
churches to create loss of self-respect amongst Hindus and make them fit for
capitulation.
Strategy: Propagate the development of a Hindu
mindset.
India can solve its terrorist problem within
five years by such a deterrent strategy, but for that we have to learn the four
lessons outlined above, and have a Hindu mindset to take bold, risky, and hard
decisions to defend the nation. If the Jews could be transformed from lambs
walking meekly to the gas chambers to fiery lions in just 10 years, it should
not be difficult for Hindus in much better circumstances (after all we are 83%
of India), to do so in five years.
Guru Gobind Singh showed us how just five
fearless persons under spiritual guidance can transform a society. Even if half
the Hindu voters are persuaded to collectively vote as Hindus, and for a party
sincerely committed to a Hindu agenda, then we can forge an instrument for
change. And that is the bottom line in the strategy to deter terrorism in a
democratic Hindustan at this moment of truth.
The writer is president of the Janata Party, a former Union
minister, and a professor of economics.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~slam/petitions/swamy.php
We the undersigned members of the Harvard community are outraged to learn
that Subramanian Swamy, an Indian politician whose recent editorial shows him
to be a bigoted promoter of communalism in India, also teaches economics at
Harvard University Summer School. We demand that the
Harvard administration repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his association
with the University.
Swamy proposes a truly shocking set of "strategies" for
"deter[ring] terrorism" in an op-ed
appearing in the July 16th edition of the Daily News & Analysis, an Indian
newspaper. These include "declar[ing] India a Hindu Rashtra in which
non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were
Hindus"; "[r]emov[ing] the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the
300 masjids at other temple sites"; "[e]nact[ing] a national law
prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion"; and
"[p]ropagat[ing] the development of a Hindu mindset."
Writing in the wake of the July 13, 2011, bombings in Mumbai, Swamy has
exploited this event not only to promote a vision of Indian society based on
Hindu supremacy, but to disparage and cast suspicion on the entire Muslim
community in India. "Muslims of India," he states, "are being
programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into
suicide against Hindus."
While free expression and the vigorous contest of ideas are essential in any
academic community, so, too, are respect and tolerance for human difference. By
advocating measures that would grossly violate freedom of religion and the
unqualified right to vote for different religious groups, and by aggressively
vilifying an entire religious community, Swamy breaches the most basic
standards of respect and tolerance.
More specifically, Swamy's comments cast doubt on his ability to treat a
diverse community of students with fairness and respect. The highly insulting
and stereotypical nature of his comments suggest that he cannot be trusted to
regard Muslims -- and no doubt other groups--with anything but a jaundiced eye.
Swamy's views are deeply offensive; they are also dangerous. The measures he
proposes--far out of step with the everyday secularism and tolerance embodied
by most Indians--would threaten to tear apart the basic fabric of India's
pluralist democracy. And, as Indians know too well, the brand of rhetoric that
he employs has fueled violence against religious minorities in the past.
In short, we the undersigned condemn Subramanian Swamy and the views that he
has expressed in the strongest terms. Someone who voices such ideas while
continuing to teach at Harvard seriously compromises the University's
integrity, undermining its commitment to diversity and tolerance.
Subramanian Swamy can have no place in the Harvard community.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~slam/cabh/index.html
December
7, 2011
The Coalition Against Bigotry at
Harvard welcomes the vote of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to remove Dr.
Subramanian Swamy's courses from the Summer School catalog. Members of the
faculty recognized that this matter was not about free speech, but Harvard's
association with someone who engages in hate speech and advocates acts of
religious violence. Challenging such speech is important in any community, but
emphatically so in an academic community that aims to foster inclusive civil
discourse.
August
5, 2011
On August 1, 2011, a group of
Harvard graduate students submitted to university administrators a petition
calling on Harvard to dissociate itself from Summer School professor
Subramanian Swamy. The petition was a response to a July 16, 2011, op-ed
published in the Indian newspaper Daily News & Analysis, in which
Dr. Swamy denigrated all Muslims and advocated acts of hate against them.
As of August 5, 2011, the petition
has been signed by more than 400 individuals from Harvard and beyond — this
despite the fact that many in the Harvard community are currently away from
campus for the summer.
In a statement issued the day before
the petition was delivered, a Harvard spokesperson acknowledged the concerns of
petitioners but defended Dr. Swamy's right to free speech. However, the
petition is not aimed at silencing Dr. Swamy. Rather, it calls on Harvard to
dissociate itself from someone who engages in hate speech, grossly stereotyping
all Muslims and advocating the destruction of 300 mosques in India. Dr. Swamy's
comments stand in opposition to the goal of fostering reasoned civil discourse
at Harvard.
The strong support for the petition
is a call for Harvard's administration to further address this matter.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/8/6/harvard-swamy-summer-school/
By Leanna B. Ehrlich, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Saturday, August 06, 2011
x![http://www.thecrimson.com/media/photos/2011/07/28/001538_1255565_300x397.jpg]()
![picture]()
Unknown
Author
Subramanian Swamy, seen above, is accused of penning an
op-ed that is inflammatory towards Muslims.
Harvard is standing by Summer School instructor Subramanian
Swamy in the aftermath of his op-ed controversy, admitting that the article he wrote
is "distressing" to some but affirming its commitment to free speech
principles.
With the stated goal of addressing terrorism in India,
Swamy's article called for the removal of hundreds of mosques, the revocation
of voting rights from non-Hindus, and a ban on conversion from Hinduism.
The article provoked controversy, and more than 400 people
signed a petition calling on Harvard to fire him.
In a statement, Division of Continuing Education
spokesperson Linda A. Cross called the article "distressing" to many
Harvard affiliates.
"As an institution of research and teaching, we are
dedicated to the proposition that all people, regardless of color or creed,
deserve equal opportunities, equal respect, and equal protection,” Cross said.
“Recent writings by Dr. Swamy therefore are distressing to many members of our
community, and understandably so.”
But Harvard is choosing to stand by Swamy, an economics
instructor at Harvard Summer School and political leader in India.
"It is central to the mission of a university to
protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and of those who disagree with
him,” Cross said in the statement. “We are ultimately stronger as a university
when we maintain our commitment to the most basic freedoms that enable the
robust exchange of ideas."
The group that started the petition, which calls itself the
Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard, echoed its support for the University's
endorsement of free speech but clarified in a statement that "the petition
is not aimed at silencing Dr. Swamy.”
“Rather, it calls on Harvard to dissociate itself from
someone who engages in hate speech, grossly stereotyping all Muslims and
advocating the destruction of 300 mosques in India," the statement said.
"Dr. Swamy's comments stand in opposition to the goal of fostering
reasoned civil discourse at Harvard.”
At the Summer School, Swamy teaches Economics S-110:
“Quantitative Methods in Economics and Business” and Economics S-1316:
“Economic Development in India and East Asia.” The upcoming week is the final
week of the summer term.
The article was published in the July 16 edition of the
Indian newspaper Daily News and Analysis. Controversy erupted over a week ago
when the petition gained momentum.
At the time, Summer School Dean Donald H. Pfister said that
the school "will give this matter our serious attention."
—Staff writer Leanna B. Ehrlich can be
reached at lehr...@college.harvard.edu.
A seemingly routine, even boring agenda for
the December 6 Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) meeting at University
Hall—three memorial minutes for deceased colleagues, approval of the Harvard
Summer School courses, a report on information technology—in fact yielded some
of the most vigorous discussions in recent years.
![http://harvardmagazine.com/sites/default/files/swamy5.jpg]()
Photograph from the Janata Party
Subramanian Swamy
Then came an extended exchange on Subramanian Swamy, a long-time economics
teacher in the Summer School, whose opinion essay in an Indian newspaper last
summer, titled “How
to Wipe Out Islamic Terror” (no longer available at the newspaper website, but
reproduced elsewhere) provoked controversy worldwide. In the end, the
faculty decided overwhelmingly that Swamy had crossed the line between free
speech and hate speech—that the actions he advocated (restricting Muslims’
right to vote, razing mosques, and more) rose to the level of inciting violence
and deprivation of others’ rights—and his courses were stricken from the
catalog of offerings for this coming summer.
[Note: Under FAS rules, faculty members who speak at faculty meetings may
not be identified, cited, or quoted without their express permission. In the
following account, identifications are provided where permission has been
granted; this account will be updated if other identifications are
forthcoming.]
Subramanian Swamy, Ph.D. ’65, whose residence
is listed in the alumni directory as New Delhi, has regularly returned to
Cambridge to teach Economics S-110, “Quantitative Methods in Economics and
Business,” and Economics S-1316, “Economic Development in India and East Asia,”
for Harvard Summer School. The school’s course listing for 2012 came before the
faculty for approval; Swamy’s courses were included.
While teaching at Harvard last summer, Swamy—who leads the Indian political
party Janata—wrote an op-ed article for Daily News and Analysis, just after
three terrorist bombings in Mumbai on July 13. He advocated, among other
measures, that India “remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300
masjids at other temple sites” (i.e., tear down mosques at presumed Hindu
sacred sites); “declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only
if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus” (disenfranchising
Muslims and others); and “[e]nact a national law prohibiting conversion from
Hinduism to any other religion” and “[a]nnex land from Bangladesh in proportion
to the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, the
northern third…can be annexed to re-settle illegal migrants.” In the context of
the December 6, 1992, razing of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh—and
the ensuing riots that cost more than 2,000 lives across India, 19 years to the
day before the FAS debate—Swamy’s language had explosive political consequences
in his country.
As
the Crimson reported then, students petitioned the University to sever
ties with Swamy. That July 27 article noted, “In a statement sent by a
spokesperson, Donald H. Pfister, the dean of Harvard Summer School, said that
the school will examine the issue. ‘At this point we have only a basic
awareness of the situation and have not been contacted by the organizations
involved,’ Pfister said. ‘Professor Swamy is a long-time member of the Harvard
Summer School faculty who previously was a member of the Department of
Economics here. We will give this matter our serious attention.’” In
a follow-up article, the Crimson reported, a Summer School
spokesperson acknowledged that the article had been “distressing” to many
members of the community, but that Swamy’s right to free speech was protected. (Inside
Higher Education also reported on the controversy, and on issues raised in
the student petition, such as whether Swamy could teach objectively.)
Because course approvals and appointments of outside instructors, such as
Swamy, are annual, the time for examining the issues raised last summer
naturally fell to the December 6 faculty meeting, where the vote on the summer
school courses was scheduled.
Accordingly, the summer school list of courses was presented for approval,
with Swamy’s courses included.
Diana L. Eck, Wertham professor of law and psychiatry in society and Master
of Lowell House—a scholar of India’s religions, among other fields—then rose to
propose an amendment to exclude Swamy’s two courses from the faculty’s
approval. She noted that it was unprecedented for the faculty even to discuss
the course listing, but felt compelled to vote against approval if the two
courses were permitted to proceed. She cited a letter she and 39 other faculty
members had sent to President Faust and Dean Pfister last August concerning (as
the letter put it) “comments made by Subramanian Swamy, an economist and former
Minister of Parliament in India who has been teaching at the Harvard Summer
School for many years.” The letter went on to note:
Swamy used the recent blasts in Mumbai to cast suspicion on India’s entire
Muslim population. Swamy went on to advocate a shocking series of
“counter-terrorism” strategies including the destruction of mosques in India
and a denial of basic voting rights to religious minorities unless they
“proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus.”
We wish to bring it to the attention of the University administration that a
member of our faculty has expressed these extreme views, in a social context that
has witnessed episodes of collective violence. We understand that Harvard
occasionally benefits from the public profiles of those who teach at the
institution, whether they work in business, government, or media. However, we
feel that Swamy’s public profile is a detriment to Harvard. Freedom of
expression is an essential principle in an academic community, one that we
fully support. Notwithstanding our commitment to the robust exchange of ideas,
Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line into incitement by demonizing an entire
religious community, demanding their disenfranchisement, and calling for
violence against their places of worship. Indeed, India’s National Commission
for Minorities has filed criminal charges against Swamy, whose incendiary
speech carries the threat of communal violence. When Harvard extends
appointments to public figures, it behooves us to consider whether the
reputation of the university benefits from the association. In this case,
Swamy’s well-known reputation as an ideologue of the Hindu Right who publicly
advocates violence against religious minorities undermines Harvard’s own
commitment to pluralism and civic equality.
We trust that you share our dismay that someone who purveys inciteful speech
in this way is teaching in Harvard’s diverse classrooms. We believe that it
would be prudent for the Harvard Summer School to be willing to review its
appointment procedures in order to ensure that the teachers employed enhance,
rather than detract from, the reputation of the university.
In her remarks, Eck emphasized the “destructive” nature of the positions
Swamy advocated in India, and characterized the proposals as going well beyond
free speech to the advocacy of abrogating human rights, curtailing civil
rights, and intruding on freedom of religion. She wondered why the courses had
not been “quietly dropped,” rather than submitted for approval in 2012. Swamy’s
positions crossed the line to “incitement” and to “demonizing” Indian
minorities, and were therefore sharply at odds with Harvard’s pluralism, Eck
said. Given President Faust’s planned trip to Mumbai and New Delhi in January,
it would be important for people in that country to know where the faculty
stood on the views Swamy advocated.
The discussion on the amendment began with a review of how the summer school
vets courses. The substantive review depends, in essence, on each department’s
view of the merits of a course and the qualifications of the instructor.
Although the summer school might view a teacher’s views (as in the case of Swamy)
as reprehensible, it had a duty to offer courses as departments determined they
were suitable.
A faculty member rose to support the amendment, and asked that the vetting
of the course and instructor by the economics department be explained. He noted
that Swamy had not published in an economics journal for decades, and that
there were surely other qualified teachers for the courses. The speaker agreed
with Eck’s characterization of Swamy’s article, and noted, further, that Swamy
had proposed annexing one-third of Bangladesh; he further noted the anniversary
of the December 6, 1992, mosque razing and riots, and put Swamy’s advocacy for
razing 300 more mosques in that context. Swamy’s proposed disenfranchisement of
non-Hindu minorities would be comparable to disenfranchisement of American Jews
and blacks unless they acknowledged America as an Anglo-Saxon nation. Coming as
it did just days after the Mumbai bombing, the speaker said, Swamy’s article
crossed the line from free speech to hate speech.
John Y. Campbell, Olshan professor of economics and chairman of the
department, rose to explain that within the economics department, the chair
takes primary responsibility, with one other person, for reviewing summer
courses, and presents them to the department for approval. It is not easy to
find summer teachers, he said, and so there is a bias to continue with teachers
who have experience with a course and who receive satisfactory course ratings
from students. Swamy had been at Harvard in the 1960s; was a legitimate,
published economist; and received satisfactory ratings for his summer courses.
Only one student even mentioned the op-ed article in reviewing Swamy’s course,
and that student rated it favorably. The department had concluded that Swamy
was a competent summer teacher, even if a younger and more academically current
alternative might be preferable. The department, Campbell said, expressed its
view that it would not take a collective position on academic freedom or on
matters of speech, hate speech, or Harvard’s reputation—issues on which there
were a wide range of views, in this case, within the department. [Note: This
paragraph updated December 7, 5:10 p.m.]
Sean Kelly—professor of philosophy and chair of the department—rose to
explain the Faculty Council’s 14-0 vote to approve the summer courses of study
and bring the list before the faculty. His statement included these views:
Some Council members felt strongly that under no circumstances should an
otherwise qualified candidate’s political views be a factor in deciding whether
to hire him or her to teach. They felt this was especially true in
circumstances in which we were given strong assurances, as we had been both by
Chairman Campbell and Dean Pfister, that the political views in question in no
way played a role in the candidate’s teaching or the substance of his
courses. There was some dissatisfaction from these Council members that we
were even having a discussion about the issue. Other Council members felt
that this universal principle was too strong, and that there were circumstances
in which it is appropriate to use judgment in deciding such cases. In any
event, all members agreed that the principle of free speech is one to which a
University must be strongly committed, and that it sets a dangerous precedent
to fire or refuse to re-hire someone on political grounds alone. Many
Council members agreed nevertheless that there are circumstances in which one
might naturally be inclined to find so-called political speech
disqualifying—such as when it amounts in fact to incitement of violence or
perhaps to hate speech, or when it compromises the teacher’s ability to cover
course material responsibly. But given the materials available to us
[emphasis added], we did not judge any of these to be a factor in the case at
hand.
Many Council members agreed that the issues here are delicate. We must
balance the University’s identity as a protector of free speech, especially in
a political context, with the University’s identity as a protector and promoter
of diversity and tolerance. In the end, we felt it was more dangerous for the
University to take action against someone on the basis of unpopular or
unwelcome political views than it was to run the risk of seeming to be
endorsing those views by hiring him for a position unrelated to the expression
of them. But we also expected and welcomed a vigorous debate about these
issues at the faculty meeting.
(In the subsequent poll, Kelly—and insofar as could be determined, other
Faculty Council members present—reversed his vote; as he explained in an
e-mail, “For the record, I changed my position on the issue after the
discussion at the faculty meeting. I was persuaded, by the addition of new
evidence and new context for the interpretation of existing evidence, that the
views expressed in Dr. Swamy’s Op-Ed piece amounted to incitement of violence
instead of protected political speech. I therefore voted, with the majority of
faculty members, not to approve his courses.”)
Arthur Kleinman—Rabb professor of anthropology in FAS, and professor of
medical anthropology and professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School—rose
in his capacity as Fung director of the University Asia Center to offer an
“Asianist” perspective on Swamy. He understood the economics department’s
judgment of Swamy’s competence as a teacher. But in the context of contemporary
India, Kleinman said, Swamy’s article amounted to hate speech and the
incitement to violence—matters that would certainly arise in a normal review of
a prospective regular faculty appointment. He hoped that the faculty would draw
some line. As important as free speech in such instances, Kleinman said, was
weighing other evidence: imagine a 1938 appointment, for example, in which a
prospective faculty member stood up for Nazism and advocated killing Jews—in
which case, he hoped, the faculty would have voted to restrain free speech as
it evaluated the candidate. In considering the appointment of Swamy to teach
his courses in 2012, Kleinman said, the faculty could choose to use free speech
as a cover, or it could address expressed hatred of a minority and incitement
to violence.
Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer professor of science and technology studies at
the Harvard Kennedy School, who had known Swamy as a graduate student, said
that in teaching about India’s development, his teaching was surely touched by
his wider vision of the country, its inequalities, and its ethnic diversity. In
fact, students had objected last summer—witness their petitions—and expressed
their unease. FAS’s decision, she said, affected the reputation of other
Harvard schools and faculties as well.
Ali
Asani—professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic religion and cultures; chair of
Near Eastern languages and civilizations; and director of the Prince Alwaleed
bin Talal Islamic Studies Program—asked whether anyone had queried Muslim
students about their comfort level with a teacher who had, in print, expressed
Islamophobic views. His question went unanswered.
(In a subsequent conversation, Asani said, “If students know a professor is
Islamophobic, how are you going to guarantee that the person’s prejudices are
not going to be reflected in grading and evaluating student work?”—a problem
that has been studied in other contexts, he noted. Swamy’s views do
matter, Asani maintained: “He’s in a classroom before students with a lot of
backgrounds, some of them perhaps Muslim.” What safeguards are there? he asked.
If this question about student perceptions and comfort had not been
pursued, he said, it was important for the faculty to know that: such teachers’
views are not separate from the classroom context.)
After further debate, Eck reiterated her amendment, and noted that the
faculty faced not “unpopular” views, rightly protected as free speech, but
those that “commend an abrogation of human rights.”
With that, the faculty took a recorded vote on the amendment, but it was
passed overwhelmingly, with only a handful of votes against, and so a tally was
not reported. The Swamy courses having been stricken, the summer school courses
of study were approved—and President Faust could prepare for her initial visit
to India with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences having dissociated itself from
an instructor who advocated highly incendiary views of that nation’s peoples
and politics.
Read
the Crimson reports on the meeting here and here.
Harvard
Crimson report, Dec 7, 2011
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/
SUMMER SCHOOL TROUBLE
A subsequent vote for the approval of the 2012 Summer School
course catalog, which faculty acknowledged would normally take no more than one
minute, generated a heated debate when Comparative Religion Professor Diana L.
Eck proposed an amendment to exclude Swamy’s Economics S-110 and Economics
S-1316 from the catalog.
Swamy received significant criticism for an op-ed he
wrote last summer in the Indian newspaper
Daily News and Analysis, in which he called for the destruction of mosques, the
disenfrachisement of non-Hindus in India who do not acknowledge Hindu ancestry,
and a ban on conversion from Hinduism.
“Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an
entire religious community and calling for violence against their sacred
places,” Eck said, adding that Harvard has a moral responsibility not to
affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a minority group.
“There is a distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political views.”
Although Harvard chose to stand by Swamy in August in an effort to affirm its declared commitment to free
speech, faculty members shot down his two courses, effectively removing him
from Harvard’s teaching roster. Many faculty determined Swamy’s article was not
a product of free speech—but of hate speech.
“[Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement] is like saying
Jewish Americans and African Americans should not be allowed to vote unless
they acknowledge the supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said History
Professor Sugata Bose.
Dean of the Summer School Donald H. Pfister explained that
courses included in the catalog are chosen by individual departments.
“I find [Swamy’s] position reprehensible, but on the other
hand, it is our duty to support departments and their offerings,” he said.
Philosophy Department Chair Sean D. Kelly, who also serves
as vice-chair of the Faculty Docket Committee, initially defended the unanimous
decision of Harvard’s Faculty Council to keep Swamy on the teaching roster as
an effort to preserve free speech at the school and kick the vote to the
faculty-wide meeting.
Kelly ultimately voted—as did an overwhelming majority of
faculty members—for the amendment to remove Swamy’s courses. The revised
catalog was consequently approved.
“I was persuaded ... that the views expressed in Dr. Swamy’s
op-ed piece amounted to incitement of violence
instead of protected political speech,” he wrote in an email to The Crimson.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too much email ? Here are some options:
Reduce email overload by getting one email (digest email) per day
http://groups.google.com/group/stop-corruption-worldwide/subscribe?hl=en_US
To unsubscribe (remove) from this group, send email to
stop-corruption-wo...@googlegroups.com
Encourage others to join this group at link below:
http://groups.google.com/group/stop-corruption-worldwide/subscribe
