Friday, December 9, 2011

Did Dr Swamy say something that Dr Ambedkar had not said?

What Dr Swami wrote in his article on how to wipe out Islamic terror from India is nothing contradictory to common sense if we recall what Dr Ambedkar, one of the founding fathers of our Constitution had said so many times on the sincerity and patriotism of Indian Muslims.  Dr Ambedkar had been very vocal that Indian Muslims will not have their loyalty to India. If Dr Swamy is wrong, then Dr Ambedkar is very much wrong. Would anyone in India stand up and say that Dr Ambedkar was wrong?

Here are Dr Ambedkar's views as given in the Wikipedia article on him:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar

Between 1941 and 1945, he published a number of books and pamphlets, including Thoughts on Pakistan, in which he criticized the Muslim League's demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan but considered its concession if Muslims demanded so as expedient.[13]

In the above book Ambedkar wrote a sub-chapter titled If Muslims truly and deeply desire Pakistan, their choice ought to be accepted. He wrote that if the Muslims are bent on Pakistan, then it must be conceded to them. He asked whether Muslims in the army could be trusted to defend India. In the event of Muslims invading India or in the case of a Muslim rebellion, with whom would the Indian Muslims in the army side? He concluded that, in the interests of the safety of India, Pakistan should be acceded to, should the Muslims demand it. According to Ambedkar, the Hindu assumption that though Hindus and Muslims were two nations, they could live together under one state, was but an empty sermon, a mad project, to which no sane man would agree.[13]

****************

From


http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/12/facultys-religious-political-free.html


Faculty's Religious & Political Free Speech gaged at Harvard; Civil liberties violated. Restore Swamy as Prof. at Harvard.


From:
निरवधि सीमा


To,
Faculty & Staff,
Harvard University

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am absolutely appalled and would like to register my protest against your injudicious and ill advised decision to remove Economics Professor Dr. Subramanian Swamy from teaching roster. (http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/12/7/faculty- final-meeting/) Dr. Swamy is not some unknown new figure at Harvard rather a respected faculty member, whose so far proud association with the University goes back at least 4 decades.

 

(http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=IteO05kaY-8)

 

 I do not find any merit in your argument to classify his article "How to wipe out Islamic terror" as hate speech. Bold and alternative political speech may be, but far from hate speech. (http://janamejayan.wordpress. com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe- out-islamic-terror-dr- subramaniam-swamy/) He was merely exercising his basic human right of Right to Free Speech guaranteed under our First Amendment, which even protects, as it should, worst of the worse hate speeches. With all due respect, your unwise decision smacks of clear ideological and selection biases, and decision process influenced by emotions and various cognitive traps such as anchoring and confirming evidence.



Expression of Free Speech especially alternative Political & Religious viewpoints are basic human needs and these should not be denied to anyone. Political and Hate Speech are both protected under First Amendment as they are subjective. Because who is to decide what is hate speech and what is not? You, me or other Harvard faculty? Just because I don't agree with what some other person said in his personal capacity, I have no Right to discriminate against him because of his political or religious views. It is very unfortunate that some of the Harvard faculty members have allegedly let their personal ideology and religious biases affect their professional decision making process. It a matter of shame and grave concern that Harvard has reprimanded Dr. Swamy for his protected political speech, which he gave in a different country on a topic which is completely unrelated to what he teaches at Harvard in the US.



Dr. Swamy is an Economics professor and Harvard administration has a right to judge his subject knowledge merits and teaching history only. Certainly not on the basis of what religious or political ideology he ascribes to or on grounds of his protected political speech. It is an alleged case of discrimination based on political ideology and civil liberties violated. This is a very bad precedence unwittingly set by Harvard which may have a chilling effect on the campus as student and faculty will now be scared to freely share and speak alternative viewpoints. Best way to deal with hate speech is either debate it or ignore it. Harvard allegedly did neither in case of Dr. Swamy. If the faculty found his views distasteful, why didn't they challenge him for an open debate to publicly present and defend his views rather than unilaterally punishing him for speaking his mind in personal capacity? This may set an unhealthy precedence as per which every Harvard faculty member may now be held accountable and may face excoriation, at the whims of Harvard's few biased faculty members, for anything he or she may say anywhere in world, without being given any fair chance to defend himself or herself. Should all those anti-Swamy faculty members who spearheaded this allegedly prejudicial campaign against Dr. Swamy's free speech be now held accountable in India for what these people say, write or print in the US? Reprehensible. Correct, Dean Pfister?


What is even more ridiculous is that those who decided and coerced other faculty members to drop Dr. Swamy's courses are not even related to his subject of expertise. Could Harvard please explain to us how and why is a History Professor Sugata Bose, known for his far-Left political ideology, deciding if Dr. Swamy should continue to teach Economics? That too when Dr. Swamy wasn't even present there to defend himself. What Economics subject credentials does Prof Bose have to decide Dr. Swamy's courses fate? How Dr. Swamy's personal viewpoints on how to deal with terrorism in India can be used as a yardstick to censor him in the US and throw out his economics courses? How can Dr. Swamy's protected political speech on dealing with terrorism in India influence his capabilities to teach Economics in US? There is no bridge between these two acts then how can he be reprimanded for it? This is essentially Heckler's Veto to curb Dr. Swamy's civil liberties. Will Harvard now reprimand anyone whose political and religious views doesn't align with few of its faculty's political leaning?


It is sad to see that Philosophy Department Chair Sean Kelly got "persuaded" to be part of those who like to censor others protected political speech.

Let us consider the faculty's justification to censor Dr. Swamy. Is the faculty claiming that there is no Islamic terror in the world? As per terrorism research experts, there have been over 18000 Islamic terrorist attacks (small to big events classified by number of people murdered) in the world since 9/11. Just because main stream media doesn't cover all them doesn't mean these attacks aren't happening. I am sure all you learned people have heard of Schrödinger's cat experiment. India has been suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists for over 25 years. Third anniversary of brutal 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai just passed a few days ago. Do you expect Dr. Swamy and other Indians to simply ignore these facts because Harvard faculty is just too uncomfortable and sensitive to face the truth? Political correctness cannot be an excuse for poltroonery and censorship.


Until a few decades ago, it was mostly Pakistan sponsored terrorists attacking India. Since past decade, various domestic terrorist groups like Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Popular Front of India (PFI), Indian Mujahideen, etc. have also started committing terrorist attacks in India. Now it is clear that US citizens are involved in worldwide terrorist activities also. As exposed by PBS Frontline-ProPublica (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/david-headley/ ), American-born Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley was one of the main co-conspirators of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. He was trained and indoctrinated in Islamic theology by Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. Then there is Faisal Shazad (Times Square bomber), Major Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Anwar Al-Awaki, Underwear bomber, et.al. Unfortunately they are all self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. You cannot just brush these facts under the carpet.


It is not Dr. Swamy who is calling Muslim terrorists as Islamic terrorists, rather it is these terrorists themselves who are proudly proclaiming themselves to be Mujahideen i.e. Islamic warriors fighting for Allah. Then why is Harvard allegedly punishing Dr. Swamy for speaking against these self-proclaimed Islamic warriors? Why is Harvard allegedly shooting the messenger? There is no line, let me say it again, there is no line in that article where Dr. Swamy has "demonized an entire religious community" as terrorists. I am sorry to say but Professor Diana Eck is wrong and her inference is grossly exaggerated. There is no way all of the decision making faculty members could have construed Dr. Swamy's argument as a call for destruction of religious places. This shows a clear case of selection bias and anchoring. Dr. Swamy said the following (an excerpt from the article),


In a brilliant research paper published by Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva this year ('Deterring Terrorism' International Security, vol 30, No 3, Winter 2005/06, pp 87-123) has provided the general principles to structure such a strategy.


Goal-strategy
Applying these principles, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India, provided the Muslim community fail to condemn these goals and call them un-Islamic:

Goal 2: Blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple complex, and 300 others in other sites as a tit-for-tat.

Dr. Swamy has not proposed that Hindus or Government of India should proactively remove Mosques (aka masjid) rather as a consequence of an unfortunate event (tit-for-tat). As per his proposal, if Islamic terrorists continue to blast Hindu temples and devotees then instead of cowing down, remove their controversial Mosques from encroached land. For those who may not know, Kashi aka Varanasi is the holiest site in the world for Hindus just like Kabba is for Muslims and Wailing wall is for Jews. About 600 years ago a Muslim bandit ruler ordered destruction of Holy Hindu temple of Kashi Vishwanathji and built a Mosque on top of it, compare it to Dome of Rock controversy. Not only at Kashi but Muslim Mughal bandit rulers did the same to prime Hindu temples at other holy sites such as Ayodhya, Mathura, Somnath, etc. Can you see a pattern? Prof Diana Eck is a professor of comparative religious studies, she ought to know better. Rather than thinking rationally, some faculty decision makers seem to have taken an extreme position influenced by an emotional reaction to a rational viewpoint (based on well thought out research).


For the sake of argument let us agree for a moment with the standards that Harvard faculty has applied to misconstrue Dr. Swamy's free speech as hate speech. Then the same standards should be applied to the following,


Quran (2:190-193) - "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."



Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants.


Quran (9:73) - O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination


Quran (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise


Quran (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire


Quran (5:60) - Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"


Bukhari (59:727) - Allah's Apostle [said]... "Allah's curse be on the Jews and the Christians"

Verse 59:727 was spoken on Mohamed's death bed, and was one of the last things that he ever said. Isn't Mohamed preaching annihilation of non-Muslims? Hasn't Mohamed crossed the line by demonizing an entire non-Muslim religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places? So would the esteemed faculty at Harvard now call for censorship of Quran, Hadith, Sira and other Islamic texts and publicly reprimand Mohamed for hate speech? Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology? Would Harvard now cancel classes by Professors who euoligize Mohamed and teach such hate speech? Would Harvard now throw out students who emulate Mohamed? If no then isn't it hypocrisy on part of the same decision making faculty and Harvard administration? Standards set and enforced by the faculty in Dr. Swamy's case should be unambiguously applied in this case also.


Since Harvard is willing to overlook Dr. Swamy's professional accumen and rather use his personal views as a yardstick to decide if he should continue, let us analyze this fallacy also. Dr. Swamy has already publicly clarrified in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=K3lv71xEBs0 that he doesn't have any problem with Muslims. He is one of the most pluralist public figure I have ever known of. He is a Hindu who is married to a Parsi (Zorashtrian) and one of his daughter is married to a Muslim. Cannot get more Secular than that.


Now lest I am accused of being some fringe Right winger, let me prove my Centrist credentials by giving another rational argument that will sound tune to the Leftist gallery. For those who may not know, Dr. Swamy, as a lawyer, has been spearheading a massive anti-graft lawsuit against some of the most corrupt and powerful politicians and corporates in the world who have allegedly committed at least $50 Billion scam during the distribution 2G spectrum in India. Think of it as the Occupy Wall Street but this one actually works, and has a clear direction and goals. The anti-corruption movement has a leader in Dr. Swamy, who has already fell many politicians, bureaucrats and corporate heads, and there are some big fishes yet to be brought to book. One of the alleged corrupt big fish is ironically a Harvard alumni. Now since Harvard disassociated itself from Dr. Swamy's political viewpoints on terrorism, hence, by applying its faculty's logic as a corollary we can inference that Harvard would not agree with Dr. Swamy's political position on bringing corrupt individuals including the alleged person who is also a Harvard alumni to justice. Therefore, it may be concluded that Harvard supports corruption in Politics and Business. Sounds weird right? Doesn't make sense as this sounds like a far-fetched conclusion. Harvard would never support corruption. So now you can see how some of your biased faculty's emotional argument, that there is a connection between a political speech on the menace of theologically sanctioned terror and teaching economics, sounds-like to a rational mind.


In the end I would like to thank you for reading my protest letter and I hope some sanity will prevail in Harvard administration. I hope that you will promptly apologize to Dr. Subramanian Swamy, reinstate his popular courses without prejudice, and invite him back with all due courtesy. Please null and void this reprehensible precedence set by Harvard, before it is too late. My respects where due as I mean no malice to anyone. Just speaking against the injustice done.


Best Regards,
Seema

Dallas, TX

 

7 comments:

seadog4227 said...

I posted some unconnected posts on the usual political/ current affairs websites regarding this and found the comments deleted. It cannot be that 2 post graduate students cooked up this whole issue: there is much more than that below the surface. Some familiar names are there in the list of petitioners. Swamy has had a very long-term relationship with Harvard. Yet, the univ. chose not to hear his side.
BTW, there is no harm in being right-wing: it is in fact the need of the hour.

jayasree said...

Smacks of hypocrisy. While the UN Chief and Hillary Clinton are preaching against curbs on freedom of speech in social forums, Harvard is doing this to Swamy! Some arm twisting must have happened. Hope they would soon correct the mistake.

jayasree said...

An interesting mail in support of Harvard decision I read in a web site:-

From: Dasarath Manji
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:47:01 -0800 (PST)
To:
Subject: Thanks for dropping Dr Swamy's courses ..

Dear President - Harvard University,

I'm an Indian and want to sincerely thank your university for dropping Dr Swamy's summer courses on economics.

The reason is we Indians need his leadership and time very badly to fight against corruption and religious fundamentalism (particularly that of Islamic) in India.

Now we got his 2 months of additional time to focus on motherland's issues than helping foreign students. We knew that Dr Swamy may not consider our request if we ask him to leave Harvard as he is such a person that once he gives a committment to help would never turn his back for them.

You should feel proud that your university was lucky to have such a genius as visiting professor in the past.

We knew this is GOD's help for true Indians including muslims who treat themselves as good humanbeings first and then religious next.

Thanks,
Dasaradh.

jayasree said...

A mail questioning Harvard decision circulated through email:-
For Favor of Circulation:

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.

(cont'd)

jayasree said...

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.


(cont'd)

jayasree said...

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 at drjagankaul@rosenet.net and/or via phone at 541-957-8414.

Sincerely yours

Dr. Jagan Kaul, (Rtd) Prof Int’l Law; Chairman Diversity-USA

seadog4227 said...

In keeping with its' high tradition, the rotten Slimes publishes a gloating,prominent article wrt Dr. Swamy, who is otherwise relegated to the remote backpages with 4 lines of cryptic coverage.