“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.” – Dr. Subramanian Swamy
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. – DNA, Mumbai, July 16, 2011
» Dr. Subramanian Swamy is president of the Janata Party, a former Union minister, and a visiting professor of economics at Harvard University.
» Contact Dr. Swamy at swamy39@gmail.com
» Contact DNA editor Ajay Sinha at asinha@dnaindia.net
» Post comments in support of Dr. Swamy at http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/7/27/swamy-harvard-india-petition/
» Post comments in support of Dr. Swamy at http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/07/27/swamy-op-ed-stokes-furor-at-harvard/
» Post comments in support of Dr. Swamy at http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-stand-by-DrSubramanian-Swamy-his-DNA-article/212069138845948
Filed under: india, islam, jihad, muslim, nationalism, religion, terrorism Tagged: | islam, islamic jihad, islamic terrorism, kashmiri separatists, mumbai terror blast
Islam reach all part of the world, never cant stop islam
I am an untouchable, though highly educated with a Ph. D degree; nevertheless I am hated and discriminated by the very Hindus who have created their codes for hatred.
I do not believe the hateful and discriminatory Hindu will ever treat me with dignity and respect. They will continue to treat millions of untouchables like me as their slaves. I have bitterest experiences of maltreatment and discrimination from Brahmans. How do I forget it? Hindu raj to me is a slaughter house and the same for millions of untouchables. You do not open you schools and colleges for us. I hate to go to temples. I am against temples and the priests who, in my view, spring head of all vices.
Hello DR Sanket Beswas
whatever you have written in your comment is true upto to some extent. i agree with you that they donot treat dalits with dignity and respect. but the point of confusion in my mind is why we people are expecting such kind of thing from our opponents. and it very strange to know that we people(dalit) give respect to these upper castes hindus the prople is in our old and age long thinking why donot we stop respecting to these people. why we people dont stop going in temple where the god which were high biased toward them are sitting. we gives respect to them and their gods very much and even donate money which they use aganist them. we feel proud when brahmin came to our homes and eat with us why we dont get happy when a dalit came to our homes gives respect to us. we are expecting respect from them because we are still living with the mind set of age long tradration. lets stop expecting anything from them and let do pledge not to give the same to them. Lets start thinking our self above than all like Britishers they called them dogs. and you must know that they people still accept them as superior and fell happy when they came to their homes and temples in the same as we are doing in the case of Brahmins. in addition to this i also want to say that we should not hate to brahmins but we should hate to the system of brahminism which is highly based on unequlity and unjustis. you may find some prople from upper caste who donot believe in this system so they are not our enemies at the same time you may find some people we are from the lower community but believe in the system of brahimnism therefore we should hate to those peole also. now it is time to change thinking…………
Very good article
Chidambaram behind ‘inflammatory’ article case, says Swamy – Times of India, New Delhi, Jan. 17, 2012
NEW DELHI: The crime branch of Delhi Police on Monday questioned 2G petitioner and Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy in connection with a case of writing an ‘inflammatory article’. The leader, officials say, during the questioning claimed that his writings were edited by the newspaper before publication. After the questioning, Swamy alleged that the case was registered against him at the behest of home minister P Chidambaram.
Swamy, accompanied by lawyers, reached the inter-state cell of crime branch in Chanakya Puri around 10.50 am and the questioning lasted for about two hours. The Janata Party chief, who has been granted interim protection till January 30 by the Delhi high court against his arrest, claimed that he was called as a witness in the case. Swamy was called by crime branch with his raw article, which he had written. Crime Branch has also reportedly questioned two editors of the publishing organization in connection with the case.
“I was asked about the meaning of certain words. I told police that my original article was about 4,000 words and the published one was about 1,100 words. I told police that all passages were deleted,” he told reporters. He claimed he wrote the article and emailed it to the newspaper when he was in the United States. “If you read the whole article, no case can made out of it,” he said.
Delhi High Court rules Dr. Swamy can’t be arrested until Jan. 30th – Times of India, New Delhi, Jan. 13, 2012
NEW DELHI: Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, accused of writing an inflammatory article, can’t be arrested till Jan 30, the Delhi High Court ruled Friday even as it asked him to refrain from penning such pieces.
“Seek undertaking from your client that he will not write any such article (which can spread enmity between communities) in future,” Justice M.L. Mehta told senior counsel K.T.S Tulsi appearing for Swamy.
Tulsi assured the court that Swamy would not do so in future.
The court also issued notice to Delhi Police and directed it not to take any action against Swamy till the next date of hearing.
Swamy moved the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the case registered by Delhi Police against him Oct 3, 2011.
Swamy is facing a criminal case for writing an anti-Muslim article in DNA newspaper in which he suggested that voting rights of Indian Muslims be revoked.
The Harvard-educated economics scholar, in the article ‘How to wipe out Islamic terror’, published July 17, 2011 had suggested Indian Hindus collectively respond to terror acts.
Subramanian Swamy and his Harvard enemies
by NS Rajaram
http://folks.co.in/2011/12/swamy-and-his-harvard-enemies-the-real-story-part-1/
http://folks.co.in/2011/12/swamy-and-his-harvard-enemies-the-real-story-part-2/
[...] Indian Law Minister Dr. Subramanian Swamy published an op-ed in a mainstream Indian daily called ‘How To Wipe Out Islamic Terror’. Dr. Swamy is not much loved by the current Indian government as it was through his anti-corruption [...]
Harvard’s decision to rusticate Swamy a breach of free speech – Vivek Gumaste – The New Indian Express, Chennai, Dec 18, 2011
The unsavoury campaign spearheaded by a Harvard don and her Indian water boys lugging a baggage of bigotry from their native land that pushed the Harvard faculty to rusticate Dr Subramanian Swamy from teaching a summer economics course at the university can’t be categorised as a task with a higher moral mission. It is basically a vicious unprincipled assault on free speech; a devious charade to silence one’s ideological adversaries or to put it more bluntly, a vindictive hatchet job.
Dr Swamy’s teachings at Harvard were confined to the intricacies of economics, a topic far removed from the complexities of political polemics. There is no proof he deviated from his brief. Attestations by his supervisors at the university point not only to his academic excellence but also to his ethical probity: he strictly refrained from abusing his economic platform to further his political views. To dock his privileges to teach economics as a penalty for his supposed political vagrancy (Op-ed, DNA July 16) is nothing short of rank absurdity; it does not subscribe to common sense and cannot be justified by any rational tenet.
Moreover, the whole episode smacks of a blow beneath the belt; a ploy that has chicanery written all over it. His opponents would have earned more laurels had they invited him to an open debate on the topic, stridently confronted his views and demolished his arguments in a logical manner. Instead they chose to adopt devious under-arm tactics that abrogated his right to respond. Paradoxically, in this process they exposed their own inherent intellectual bankruptcy; an inability to counter his views coherently.
Free speech comes with the caveat that it cannot incite violence. While some may find Dr Swamy’s suggestion to disenfranchise a select group articulated in his op-ed article reprehensible, it would be a stretch to deem it as incendiary. When we allow such exaggerated and self-serving extrapolations, we are setting a dangerous precedent that may be used arbitrarily and recklessly to censure the scope of free speech: a death knell for democratic tradition. Extremely disappointing is the role of the Harvard faculty in exercising its intellectual acumen. Not only did they exhibit a deep ignorance of the topic but made no effort to scrutinise the article in question or the context in which it was written in an effort to gauge the validity of the allegations. In short, they were content to be taken for a ride.
For instance, the charge that Dr Swamy’s proposal to remove (not destroy) the masjid alongside the Kashi Vishwanath temple, one of Hinduism’s holiest shrine, was tantamount to “calling for violence against their (Muslim) sacred places” went unchallenged. Completely overlooked was the fact that the mosque had been forcibly erected at that site after the destruction of the original Kashi Vishwanath temple at the hands of the Muslim fanatic Aurangzeb.
The two students who initiated this petition against Dr Swamy make no bones about their motive: “Swamy draws a lot of prestige and legitimacy from his position at Harvard… If the Hindu Right were to come into power in India, he could very well be someone who takes up a position in government, so I think it’s important for members of this community to play a part in discrediting him…” So their motive was neither altruistic nor intellectual, but a narrow political one in which Harvard became an inadvertent accessory, suffering a serious loss of face in the process. Earlier in July, Harvard had defended Dr Swamy’s right to free speech by saying: “We are ultimately stronger as a university when we maintain our commitment to the most basic freedoms that enable the robust exchange of ideas.”
In order to regain its credibility and status as a beacon of free speech, it is imperative that Harvard restores this ‘commitment’ by reversing its decision.
SIGN PETITION ADDRESSED TO PRESIDENT OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY
President, Harvard University, honour Dr. Swamy’s right to free speech! Don’t give in to Islamist professors like Diana Eck and Sugata Bose!
Sir,
The World Hindu Council of America [ VHPA - http://www.vhp-america.org ] expresses its deep disappointment at the regressive step by Harvard University, in choosing to drop Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s courses this summer; apparently under pressure from a few faculty members, ideologically opposed to Dr. Swamy.
In the year 2011, it was heartening to see Harvard University, uphold its finest tradition of intellectual rigor and freedom of expression, (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/8/6/harvard-swamy-summer-school), when they refused to capitulate to calls for the dismissal of Dr. Swamy, for publicly castigating Islamic extremism.
But the recent flip-flop by the University, and its decision to remove Dr. Swamy from its faculty, causes concern on the following account –
1) It does not appear, that the University approached Dr. Swamy for his response to the allegations levelled against him. Is such a gesture, too much to expect that from a premier institution standing for freedom of speech?
2) In the Crimson article, fellow faculty members charge Dr Swamy of ‘racism’ and justify his dismissal. The 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.
Albeit, Dr. Swamy wrote in his article (http://www.dnaindia.com/ analysis/analysis_how-to-wipe- out-islamic-terror_1566203-all):“India, ie, Bharat, ie, 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)”.
Based on the content of the article, how is Dr. Swamy’s call to uphold the supremacy of the Indian Constitution, over the Quran or any other Pan-Islamic super-identity, comparable to racism or amount to racial discrimination?
If anything, Dr Swamy’s article highlights the historical fact, that both Hindu and Muslim ethnicities of the Indian subcontinent, have a common Hindu ancestry (and Hindu religion is a set of Universal philosophies, with no connotation to any individual “race”). His op-ed in DNA actually does not advocate anything extra-judicial, that has not been discussed before, in the political discourse of India. If anything, his op-ed echoes the frustration of the average Indian, who is subjected to relentless attacks by Islamic terrorists, and who is treated as a second-class citizen in Kashmir, under the provisions of Article 370, that Dr Swamy is critical of.
Thus, the opinion expressed by Diana Eck, Sugata Bose, among others, only offers one particular perspective in favor of the Islamists, on this issue.
We the undersigned, join the World Hindu Council (VHPA) in registering that, this latest decision by Harvard University is only going to strengthen the extremists and their apologists, especially in the Indian sub-continent. More importantly, Dr. Swamy has the right to freedom of speech, on political issues. We hope that the University will re-evaluate its decision and re-instate Dr. Swamy in keeping with its time honored tradition of intellectual probity.
[Your name] Click here to go to petition
Harvard Cosmopolitans Gone Wild – Carl L. Bankston III, Sociology Editor, The Moral Liberal, 13 Dec. 2011
Harvard economics Professor Subramanian Swamy has become the center of controversy at the university. Professor Swamy left teaching at Harvard during the regular academic year to enter politics in his home country, but continued to return to Cambridge to teach summer courses. Earlier this year, Professor Swamy published in the Indian newspaper Daily News & Analysis. In reaction to the Mumbai bombing by Muslim terrorists, Professor Swamy advocated declaring India an officially Hindu country and taking steps to enforce its Hindu identity.
Although Swamy did not identify himself as a Harvard Professor or link his ideas in any way to that institution, the ever-vigilant and concerned Harvard community soon learned of his publication of objectionable views. Students and parents petitioned the university to end its connection with the wayward academic, professing their adherence to the free expression of ideas, but asserting that Swamy had gone beyond the limits of acceptability. I have often noted that advocates of censorship in this country generally proclaim loudly their belief in the principle of free expression and then exclude whatever they don’t like from this principle because it “goes too far.” The petitioners also raised questions about Swamy’s ability to treat all students equally (another common strategy by enforcers of conformity), even though there is no evidence at all of his ever discriminating against non-Hindu students at Harvard.
This past week, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences responded to the controversy by cancelling Professor Swamy’s two summer courses. Diana L. Eck, the Harvard professor who made the proposal to cancel the classes reiterated the view that the university had to cut its ties to Swamy because his ideas involved limiting human rights and denying freedom of religion. The admirable Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has asserted Professor Swamy’s right to advocate radical social change, a right that he shares with Communists or adherents of other ideas that many might see as “going too far.”
Summer courses are assigned at the pleasure of the university and the university does have the right to cancel courses it does not want to offer. Nevertheless, Harvard’s faculty body clearly made a very bad decision here. At the most basic level, an employer is making a decision about the continuation of an employee on the basis of political activities completely unrelated to the job, there being no support whatsoever for the claim that Swamy “might” be unfair to some students. Beyond that, FIRE is correct that the university is a special kind of employer, one that has a moral obligation to protect and promote intellectual pluralism. In a university, ideas that someone finds objectionable should be rebutted, not silenced or excluded. But this case actually goes beyond the open expression of views on campus. Harvard’s Arts & Sciences faculty, in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, is taking action to officially repudiate an article published in a newspaper in India about politics in India by an Indian citizen.
Anyone aware of my own paper trail should expect me to uphold the right of individuals in Massachusetts or anywhere else to hold informed, semi-informed, and utterly uninformed opinions and judgments about everything under and beyond the stars. While we cannot extend the protections of the U.S. Constitution to people outside the U.S., as human beings we can certainly be certainly be concerned about how our fellow human beings treat other humans everywhere and at all times. But I cannot see why the organization of the faculty at Harvard, as an institutional entity, should have any business taking positions on what are acceptable or unacceptable opinions for Indians on political and social questions in India.
Finally, an intelligent rebuttal of Diana Eck’s very stupid complaint against Swamy.
Harvard is going to pay dearly for this unjust dismissal in the long run.
May be Swamy should have gone to Yale, A light article
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/maybe-subramanian-swamy-should-have-gone-to-yale/249970/
Prof Carl Bankston III again
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/12/14/note-on-the-swamy-case/
He has refered to Hashimpura case, the link does not work. Here is the pucl link on that and excerpts
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/hashimpura.html
Subramanian Swamy went for fast unto death for this incident.
In keeping with times
yo boys i am singing song
Harvard soup song
Flop justice song
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
Swamy correct
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
No sacking please
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
distance la dollar-u dollar-u
dollar-u color-green-u white-hair-Eck-u
Witzel background dirt-u dirt-u
dirt-u color-u black-u
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
white skin-u diane eck-u
lady-u heart-u black-u
Witzel eyes-u eyes-u meet-u meet-u
Harvard future dark
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
Sugata notes eduthuko
apdiye kaila Amartya Senkku koduthuko
da da dollar da da dollar da da da dollar
sariya Ayesha ke kudu
super dismissal order ready
ready 1 2 3 4
whaa wat a change over Swamy
ok Swamy now tune change-u
kaila dismissal
only english..
hand la dismissal
Harvard la censor
eyes-u full-aa fear-u
Harvard life-u
censor-u come-u
Harvard reverse gear-u
Sugata Sugata
oh you Sugata
you showed the dismissal-u
bull-u bull-u servile bull-u
i want u hear now-u
god i m dying now-u
Sugata your white lady is happy how-u
this song for Harvard soup boys-u
we dont have choice-u
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
why this harvardveri harvardveri di harvardveri di
Harvard soup song
Super! The song has been sent to Dr. Swamy.
Harvard Drops Subramanian Swamy – Tripti Lahiri, Wall Street Journal, New York, Dec. 8, 2011
Harvard University faculty voted on Tuesday to drop two summer economics courses taught by Subramanian Swamy in response to a July piece by the Janata Party politician that made sweeping remarks against Muslims and proposed depriving them of the vote unless they declared their families were converts from Hinduism.
Harvard University has decided to drop summer courses taught by Subramanian Swamy. Above, the university’s main campus.
In an e-mail to a research group informing them about the vote, Michael Witzel, director of graduate studies in the Department of South Asian Studies, described Mr. Swamy as “insidious” and the head of the “miniscule” Janata Party.
The Crimson, the university’s student newspaper, reported Wednesday that the proposal to drop Mr. Swamy’s courses had come from Comparative Religion Professor Diana L. Eck.
“Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community,” said Ms. Eck, according to the Crimson.
Mr. Swamy could not immediately be reached for comment but on Thursday he tweeted that, “IIT/D sacked me in 1973. Four years later, I became a member of the IIT Board Governors–the very body which had sacked me!”
Mr. Swamy’s official biography says he was sacked from his position as a professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi in 1972 for “crusading for academic freedom” and for supporting union rights for non-teaching employees.
In response to a query from a Twitter follower on what was happening, he said, “Nothing serious. Non economists at Harvard don’t like my views on how to protect India.”
He didn’t seem very bothered about the vote, devoting several tweets instead to his efforts to see Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram personally investigated in connection with the corruption scandal over how telecom spectrum was allotted to companies in 2008. A court on Thursday ruled that Mr. Swamy can question two witnesses that he says will help him prove there is actually case to be made against Mr. Chidambaram, who has so far refrained from commenting on this development.
Mr. Swamy’s July 16 piece, called “How to Wipe Out Islamic Terror” was published in the Mumbai-based DNA paper but the text of the story is no longer available on DNA’s website.
However, several right-wing Hindu websites have posted the text of the article with admiring phrases, in one case calling it “nice and staunch.”
Students and faculty at Harvard would describe it another way – as hate speech. Soon after Mr. Swamy published his piece in July, the Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard circulated a petition calling on the university to “end its association with religious extremist Subramanian Swamy.” Initially, the university appeared to be standing by him. A group for freedom in academia also urged the university not to undertake an investigation against Mr. Swamy, the Crimson reported in July.
This week, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted almost unanimously to oust Mr. Swamy, according to Mr. Witzel’s e-mail, with even those who had previously supported retaining him changing their minds.
“I was persuaded … that the views expressed in Dr. Swamy’s op-ed piece amounted to incitement of violence instead of protected political speech,” Sean D. Kelly, chair of the Philosophy Department, told the Crimson via e-mail.
Yet in India, with the exception of comment on niche blogs and websites, Mr. Swamy’s words did not provoke an outcry similar to the one at Harvard.
The majority of comments on the Wall Street Journal’s previous blog on Mr. Swamy’s op-ed defended the politician. One reader, “Uma S,” said Mr. Swamy was “standing up and addressing the problems in India” and claimed “Muslim terrorists and Christian missionaries are destroying the country.”
Sugata Bose Prof of History at Harvard married to Ayesha Jalal
Diana Eck and Witzel
THE GANG OF FOUR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayesha_Jalal
Coauthored with her husband Sugata Bose, Modern South Asia is the first exploration of modern South Asian history by an Indian and Pakistani in collaboration.
Jalal taught at Columbia University for several years during which period the number of students taking her course on Modern South Asia doubled. However, she was denied tenure in 1995 amidst great controversy. This occurred just after Jalal vociferously opposed Columbia accepting a large grant from the powerful Indian business Hinduja Group to establish a research institute for Indic studies (which has since been closed by the university). Jalal alleged that Indian and India-centric faculty “were uncomfortable with a Pakistani woman teaching Indian history” and sued Columbia claiming religious and ethnic discrimination.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/12/swamy-racism-dismissal/
A reply to the crimson red article. Now google Alan Dershowitz
As long as we at Harvard are cutting courses of professors that advocate retaliation against certain groups in response to terrorist attacks, why don’t more students pressure Harvard to cut Alan Dershowitz’s courses? In 2002, he wrote an op-ed on terrorism in Israel and how to respond to it. He essentially said the same thing as Swamy did regarding a tit-for-tat response against terrorism, only on a much worse scale; Dershowitz literally called for Israel to destroy a Palestinian village every time a terrorist attack was carried out on Israeli soil. If Harvard is so anti-hate speech, why aren’t more students trying to oust him from his position? My bet is that it is because he is a prominent figure in America, which sounds pretty hypocritical to me… If Harvard University is going to try to curb what it perceives to be hate speech, it should at least be consistent with its policies. Likewise, all of the students here that have expressed outrage at Swamy’s comments should express an equal amount of outrage, if not more, toward Dershowitz for his explicit call to kill Palestinians in response to terrorist attacks.
For those that are interested, the quote to which I am referring comes from an article in the Jerusalem Post titled, “New response to Palestinian terrorism.” The quote is as follows: “It will announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations.”
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=53
Gist of Alan Dershowitzs article .
Israel should announce an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation against terrorist attacks. This moratorium would be in effect for a short period, say four or five days, to give the Palestinian leadership an opportunity to respond to the new policy. It would also make it clear to the world that Israel is taking an important step in ending what has become a cycle of violence. Following the end of the moratorium, Israel would institute the following new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume. It will announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings. The response will be automatic. The order will have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action. The soldiers would simply be acting as the means for carrying out a previously announced policy of retaliation against a designated target.
Compared to Alan D’s write up , Swamys article was very very mild. Alan D is still a Felix Professor at Harvard Law School.from 1993. They could not dismiss Swamy, but they removed the course. They will surely rename the course and appoint someone.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg3_4
by Irfan Hussein
One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines. And many Hindus converted to Islam to further their military or civil service careers. As a result of this intermingling, despite proud boasts of pure bloodlines, most Pakistanis have many Hindu ancestors.
Has Witzel and Diane Eck read this
or
Given that most Muslims in South Asia are converts from Hinduism, it is interesting to note that there are hardly any references in their names pointing to their immediate religious past. Most have somehow leapfrogged to remote geographies to serve as their ideological and spiritual geocodes.
by Murtaza Haider
http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/28/the-identity-crisis-of-the-urban-middle-classes.html
Harvard University has decided to dissociate itself from Dr Subramanian Swamy’s controversial article in Mumbai’s DNA newspaper. George Joseph reports from New York.
A meeting of the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard University in the United States has voted to remove the summer economic courses taught by Janata Party leader Dr Subramanian Swamy.
The decision was taken after a heated debate, according to The Harvard Crimson, the campus newspaper.
Comparative Religion Professor Diana L Eck brought the amendment to exclude Dr Swamy’s Economics S-110 (Quantitative Methods in Economics and Business and Economics) and S-1316 (Economic Development in India [ Images ] and East Asia) from the Summer School catalogue.
Dr Swamy got his PhD in economics in 1965 from Harvard and served as an assistant and associate professor.
Ever since Dr Swamy wrote an op-ed article in the Mumbai newspaper DNA in July, calling for the disfranchisement of non-Hindus who do not acknowledge Hindu ancestry and a ban on conversion among other contentious demands, he has been in the eye of a storm. Dr Swamy’s article came days after the serial bombings in Mumbai on July 13.
Two PhD students, Umang Kumar and Sanjay Pinto, started an online petition asking for the removal of courses taught by Dr Swamy, which received more than 450 signatures from students and faculty. However, Harvard sided with Dr Swamy on the principle of free speech.
‘Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonising 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.
According to the Crimson, ‘There is a distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political views.’
Many faculty members felt the article was not free speech, but 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, a grandnephew of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.
Dean of the Summer School Donald H Pfister explained that courses included in the catalog are chosen by individual departments. ‘I find (Dr Swamy’s) position reprehensible, but on the other hand, it is our duty to support departments and their offerings,’ he said.
‘I was persuaded… that the views expressed in Dr Swamy’s op-ed piece amounted to incitement of violence instead of protected political speech,’ Philosophy Department Chair Sean D Kelly wrote in an e-mail to the Crimson.
Umang Kumar and Sanjay Pinto’s petition was launched under the banner of Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard.
It said ‘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.’
According to Kumar and Pinto, Swamy’s comments crossed a line. “They stereotype an entire population of people. How can this man who expresses these views, who’s basically saying that India should only be for Hindus and not for other people, and denigrating all Muslims, how can he teach students at Harvard?” asked Pinto.
“Both of us decided we really needed to take action. His comments are wrong on many levels. They put forth a vision of Indian society in which not all religious groups are welcome, which is very different from the India that both of us know,” Pinto said after the petition was launched.
Dr Swamy told the Crimson that he was a religiously tolerant person. ‘I can’t condemn all Muslims. I’m not against them. I never said Muslims as a whole are terrorists.’
He claimed that the response in India to his op-ed was positive. ‘I don’t think anyone in India, except the left wing, has been upset by my article. There has been wholesale support,’ he said.
Ultimately, Harvard university said it was distressed by his statements, but stood by Dr Swamy on the principle of free speech.
In a statement, Division of Continuing Education spokesperson Linda A Cross said, ‘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.’
The petitioners later said they were not aiming to silencing Dr Swamy. ‘Rather, it calls on Harvard to dissociate itself from someone who engages in hate speech… Dr Swamy’s comments stand in opposition to the goal of fostering reasoned civil discourse at Harvard,’ they said in a statement.
‘In short, we the undersigned condemn Subramanian Swamy and the views that he has expressed in the strongest terms,’ they added. ‘Someone who voices such ideas while continuing to teach at Harvard seriously compromises the university’s integrity, undermining its commitment to diversity and tolerance.’
Harvard has made a mistake. It has set a precedent it will regret later. What Swamy says and does within the Indian context really has nothing to do with his courses on economics.
Prof. Diana Eck, Hinduism’s great friend, has shown her true colours!
History Professor Sugata Bose’s statement “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,” is absurd. There is no parallel between the white Anglo-Saxon colonizers of the US, who destroyed the native aboriginal culture of the Americas, and Hindu civilization which is the root civilization on India.
If truth be known, Harvard is playing to its Arab Muslim donor gallery. They are afraid their funds will get cut off if they don’t expel Swamy.
So much for intellectual integrity and free speech in America’s premier university!
Witzels mischief in removing S Swamy . They could not do it directly , they did it by divisive divinity. All divinity schools in USA must be closed as they have clowns like Clooney and Wicked Witzel. None of them know Sanskrit or Arabic and as you have said, all is done for money and survival.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/15626
Swamy threatens to move court against Delhi Police – ZeeNews, Oct. 8, 2011
New Delhi: Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy on Saturday threatened to move court against Delhi Police if it does not provide to him by tomorrow a copy of the FIR registered against him for spreading enmity between communities.
In a letter to Police Commissioner BK Gupta, Swamy said he had already sought a copy of the FIR but has not been provided with it.
“The courts have now come to recognise that law of torts provides for a suit against misfeasance in performance of duty and therefore the police failure to act according to the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution will invite a suit of damages against Delhi Police,” Swamy said.
He also said the FIR was registered on September 26 or 27 according to media reports and it was more than two months after a controversial article written by him was published.
“Hence you are required to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay and if the said explanation is not satisfactory in court, it will vitiate the FIR itself, and liable to be quashed,” he said.
Delhi Police had recently registered a case of spreading enmity between communities against Swamy for his certain suggestions made by him.
The Crime Branch registered a case under Section 153A (spreading enmity between communities) of Indian Penal Code for his newspaper article in July this year.
In a sense he is right. India is the birthplace of Hinduism, our culture and traditions speak of Hinduism, we are the Hindustanis. Why is it dificult to accept that? Why is it difficult for a Hindu to propagate Hinduism, but all the Muslims and Christians can stick banners and recruit mercilessly at their own convenience. Its a little stupid, if you ask me. All in the name of Minority…..
Although I do not agree with Swami on the point of mixing religion with politics. These concepts are poles apart and bringing them together is chaos!
FIR against me has been registered under Chidambaram’s pressure, says Swamy | By ANI
Chennai/New Delhi, Oct 3 (ANI): Terming the FIR registered against him to be a political vendetta, Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy accusing Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram today said the motive seems to have been his stand on the 2G spectrum scam.
Swamy, who is the chief petitioner in the 2G spectrum case, said: “I don’t know anything about it. It has not been told to me. I learnt it from the newspaper people. I was told that police stations refused to register the FIR. This article was written in July. One Tilak Nagar Police Station refused to register the FIR and then Nizamuddin Police Station refused to register the FIR.”
” So, I was told that under the pressure of Mr. Chidambaram (Home Minister P. Chidambaram), the Delhi Crime Brach has registered it. This must have something to do with 2G naturally. They want to prevent me from going to court,” he added.
Swamy further said the FIR has been filed against him on baseless charges.
“But there cannot be any charge, once I get the FIR I will go to the High Court and get it quashed because you cannot file an FIR on baseless charges. Whatever I have said is within the Constitution of India. But I have not been informed about it (FIR),” he added.
Delhi Police has filed an FIR against Swamy in connection with an editorial he wrote on Islamic terrorism in an Indian newspaper in July this year.
Swamy had earlier last month submitted to the Supreme Court documents indicating that Chidambaram, as the then finance minister, was along with jailed former Telecom Minister A. Raja, involved in deciding the price of 2G spectrum.
Former Telecom Minister Raja was forced to resign from the Union Cabinet last year after the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) faulted him for undervaluing spectrum to favour companies who were largely ineligible for 2G spectrum, and added that the government had probably lost Rs.1.76 lakh crore in estimated revenue. (ANI) – Yahoo News, Oct. 3, 2011
This is absolute cruelty. If you speak of ancestory and religion , lets date back to the olden ages when people never knew culture and tradition. So there is no hardcore evidence on whether ancestory is hindutva or muslim or christianity. Why do people create such barriers of religion . Lets have harmony , love our fellow beings be it a hindu , christian , muslim … we are humans and for God sake , Humans need to love each other and think of goodness. Mr. Swamy is just trying to create separations and poison in human mind and this is absolute inhuman act . We have enough of terrorism and hardships seen all through out the world and people like Swamy should understand that he should be a cause of love and kindness and history should place him in the good books of kindness and forgiveness. Lets not fight for religion and power and have the best in life with good ness and kindness. I kindly request Mr. Swamy to think twice about this and he will understand the real history . I consider you as a fellow humanbeing and we all need each others kindness for a peaceful existence in this world .
“Mr. Swamy is just trying to create separations and poison in human mind and this is an absolute inhuman act.” This your observation is simply wrong. Salamji you separate two things when you find them to be united.Tell me at what point of time in the long and eventful history of Hindu-Muslim relationship both the Hindu and Muslim communities lived in harmony? I am sure you cannot give any such instance. Because the fact is that right from the first Islamic assault on India till date Hindu-Muslim unity has been a mirage.The reason is that the differences between the Hindu thought system and the Muslim one are fundamental and unbridgeable.The Ideology of Islam is exclusive and intolerant. Hence there can not be any friendship between Hinduim and Islam.
Its a shame that such a soul-stirring article by Dr. Swami has been lambasted by the “Pseudo-secularists” in our country. The single biggest failure of Islamic Aggression has been that 800 years of tyranny has not helped them to convert Bharatvarsha into an Islamic nation.The Muslims tried all sorts of “below the belt” tricks, yet disastrously failed
1. Killing lakhs of Sanatana Dharma people (for the sake of simplicity we shall refer to them by their present name “Hindus”) by leaving them to rot in the cold climes of Paariyatra Parvatmaalaa. If you all are wondering what am I referring to, let me clarify – I am referring to the Hindu Kush Mountains. Paariyatra Parvatmala was its Vedic name, meaning the mountain range signified the western boundaries of Jambudwipa (Rose Apple Continent). Going past them meant one had crossed the borders of Jambudwipa. Paar (beyond) Yatra (travel) is self explanatory. Hindu Kush means eradication of Hindus. Just goes to show how much pleasure the Muslims got in killing our ancestors.
2. Marrying Hindu Princesses: A common practice in the Mughal era. This was based on the philosophy of “If we cant drive out Hinuds, Lets breed them out genetically”
3. Financially breaking the backs of Hindus: Imposition of Jaziya Tax is the most notorious example.
One could go on.
Also the very fact that the History taught to us is so biased in favor of Muslims, lends further strength to Dr. Swami’s already true / genuine article. 1 page is devoted to Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj or Rana Pratap or Prithviraj Chauhan. Whereas 2-3 pages are devoted to a tyrant like Aurangzeb or a homosexual like Humayun. If this is not bias then what else is.
We are all with Dr. Swami. As on date he along with Narendrabhai Damodardas Modi are the pride of Hindus.
I totally agree with u.There is an urgent need to mobilize hindu masses against pseudo secularists and muslim fanatics alike. Hindus have taken enough of atrocities since historical times and its time we retaliate back to show these scoundrel hatemongers that when we strike back we strike back hard. As they say that offence is the best defence, we must retaliate economically, socially and politically to ensure a safe and secure future for our generations to come. I salute u Dr Swami for being so straightforward and pinpoint in your observations. We need more people like you.
Hindus need to compliment Sri Swamy for the unflinching courage he has displayed in baring the criminal face of Islam. In a nation, where the multitude of pseudo-intellectuals never get tired of lecturing us Hindus about the virtues of Nehruvian secularism, about the danger lies in the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, about India being multi-national in character and not Hindu, and about how Islam is the religion of peace and the terrorists who engineer bomb blasts do not understand the true meaning of Islam, Sri Swamy’s article is both path breaking and trend setting.
The best way to deal with Islamic terrorism is to expose the predatory character of Islam. That is to say, to show that the set of dogmas that constitute Islam is meant only to capture the lands of the infidels by converting them to Islam by the use of every conceivable violent method and that Islam has nothing to do with religion as it is understood by the Hindus. The terror attacks against India are nothing but attempts to islamize India, to complete the unfinished agenda of turning India into Darul Islam, the land of Islam. It is nonsense to say that Islamic terrorism will automatically end once Kashmir problem is solved that is once Kashmir is annexed to Pakistan. Because, Islam never permits its followers to rest in peace till the last infidel is converted to Islam. So, as long as India is a Hindu land Islamic terrorism will continue to ravage her.
In the fight against Islam Hindus must remember that whenever an opportunity arrives before the Indian Muslims to choose between India and Islam they invariably side with Islam. That is how Pakistan came into being .Similarly; in the midst of the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir in 1947 October all the Muslim soldiers in King Hari Singh’s army deserted the Maharaja to either join the invading Pakistani army or remain mute spectators. Well aware of this traitorous quality of a majority of India Muslims Sardar Patel the first Home Minister of India and the unifier of India “told the Mahatma that Muslims not loyal to India should leave, and he could not help adding that he suspected a majority of disloyalty.” (Patel A Life by Raj Mohan Gandhi page 431).
I can proudly and happily say that whatever Mr. Subramanya Swami wrote about “eradication of Islamic terror” is praiseworthy. We belongs to Hindustan and deserve to live our entire life as a Hindustani and not an Islamic nation. We Indian people and specially Hindus are suffering everyday in our life because of Islamic terrorism and it must be our duty to do something for the nation. I am not saying that leave your job and join or form a Hindu political party but atleast we can try to be united Hindus so that nobody can raise their fingers on us. In India most of the Hindus forgot their culture and trying to follow western culture which is very negative. Adopting English is not bad but avoiding our own culture, tradition and language is not worth. We were the best amongst the entire world if you check our history, its only because of foreign invaders who destroyed our educational system, looted our entire wealth and converted most of the Hindus to Christians and Muslims. Even Mohd. Ali Jinnah commented at the time of Independence that “90% Indian muslim population were Hindus”. I request to every Hindus to be united and fight for our country, culture, tradition and specially for our rights in this country which we are depriving because of congress govt. rule in this country. We Hindus must help to get the glory of this country back. Thanks to Mr. Subramanya Swamis article which might help to create some attention among Hindus about the growing problem in this country “HINDUSTAN”.
On How to wipe out Islamic terror by Subramanian Swamy
A former student of mine brought this article to my notice and wanted my reaction. Subsequently I found a number of email friends forwarding the web link. The following is my reflection and response on Dr Swamy’s analysis on how to wiope out Islamic terror
My immediate reaction is that it was brilliant. That the HM-P Chidambaram must be thankful to him and pick up this blueprint and implement these if he really wants to counter terrorism. Instead of creating a mirage of saffron terror and picking on that as an extension of the appeasement policy the GOI is betraying Indians and India’s security. It has defaulted all these years and we have watched this betrayal with hollow promises-we will fight terrorism’ but allowed the Hindus to be led to the slaughter house with their hands tied behind and with absolutely no defensive action .The GOI-has made the Hindus immobile so to say and a soft target with their minority appeasement policy.
Instead of being thankful to Dr Swamy they are raising all sorts of doubts and accusing him of spreading hatred. Where is the hatred in ‘Analysis: How to wipe out Islamic terror”? That Islamic terror is a fact-a reality cannot be denied because it has cost the nation dearly with lives and blood. The recent Mumbai blast on July 13th 2011 after 31 month this terror attack has shaken us to the reality that we have to live and die with Islamic terror-otherwise some soul searching much be done and strategies to defend ourselves must be envisaged and implemented. It is in this context that one would think that P.Chidambaram and the GOI should be grateful to Dr Swamy. Otherwise it is proof that they really are not keen on countering terror but using it against the Hindus and furthering the vote bank by the appeasement policy. It seems to remind us of the tragic situation Hindus are.
The response/reaction of the GOI is not only hollow but hypocritical. The lame duck excuses from a lame duck government are-human error, systems failure, intelligence failure, intelligence gap and finally no intelligence failure because it never picked up the intelligence. Yet we have five Intelligence agencies and with what audacity does the GOI give such excuses for the loss of lives, loss of limbs, pieces of flesh strewn on the roads, streets bathed in blood, families orphaned and untold misery and pain and suffering? Candle lights and flowers to sedate the bruised psyche and the battered bodies?
So Dr Swamy proposes this brilliant defense strategy. Mind you it is defense and not an offence strategy and yet those in the power echelons are trying to spread canards about him and his strategy. They bring in caste-as usual a strategy by which they have divided and ghettoed the nation. The caste of Dr Swamy is not the issue but the issue is terrorism and countering Islamic terror.
P.Chidambaram,Rahul Gandhi,Digvijaya Singh et al are only bothered of ‘Saffron’ terror while more virulent,more blasting more terrifying,more numerically and more real is the Islamic terror not only in the Indian context but also globally.In the Indian context it is abetted or backed by cross terror from Pakistan.This is a well know fact.Yet these Congressmen want to shadow box the ‘saffron’ terror.What is ridiculous is that while the Mumbai blast of July 13th is being investigated PC is cautioning of ‘saffron’ terror’-which according to him is more dangerous. How has he arrived at such a theory? Facts and figures do not prove his theory.
I have nothing more to add to Dr Swamy’s five goals except that I would shuffle the five goals and prioritize them in the following order
Creating of a Hindu mind set-an essential mental attitude as is put- it is a necessary part of a virat(committed) Hindu.This is what will call for the whole Hindu community becoming one .Nothing strange and new because the Catholic Church has this as a belief. It is called the paschal mystery of Christ. Right from the Pope down to the small lay catholic are all united as one body in Christ. Hence if one part is affected the whole body reacts and is affected. This is exactly why the Kandhamal incident made the Pope sit up-it made the European Union pull up the Prime Minister. This kind of evolving as one is not there in the Hindu community. Each seeks salvation through adhering to Sanatana Dharma. So Dr Swamy is not calling for anything that does not exist in other religions but only inserting it in the Hindu context and giving the call to be united and be sensitize because everyone must feel this Oneness and there must be a collective response to anything that affect one/a few Hindus.I would put this as priority one
The rest can follow if this is acquired. His goal 3 must become second because this can be easily achieved. A common civil code is something that has been demanded by women’s groups and for the empowerment of women. .Wonder why the NAC is silent on this instead of adopting all patronizing programmes and making the women more bonded.
Goal number 4 becomes three because the migration policy and the Family Planning are changing drastically the demographic pattern of India.Goal number one becomes goal four and Goal 3 becomes five. Except for the changes in priorities I find the proposal of Dr Swamy not only brilliant but enforceable, achievable and relevant and above all Hindus must start changing the mindset and becoming one. Unless politically too there is a vote bank nothing can be achieved. We are seeing this and politicians understand only this-Why not then form a vote bank on the above mentioned premises?
Dr. Mrs. Hilda Raja
Vadodara
Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s article might have sounded harsh, but has, surprisingly, struck a positive chord with many Indian Muslims, proportionately more than it has with Hindus. The reason being, one point made in the article talks of Indian Muslims re-affirming the fact that their forefathers were Hindus. Incidentally, about 99% of India’s Muslim population strongly affirm that their forefathers were indeed Hindus, who were converted to Islam by force. Very few had converted voluntarily. But after being converted, they were not allowed to re-convert, even from amongst members of their family. This caused a degree of alienation. But, though they are now staunch Muslims insofar as religion is concerned, they still value their ancestry. Many a Muslim in the sub-continent, goes out of the way to assert his cultural roots, when he is in the Middle-East. This is as much true of Indian Muslims as it is of Pakistani Muslims. In fact, as everyone is aware, Pakistan had been since its inception, divided against itself on various fronts. One of the “invisible” area of demarcation, is the sidelining of those sections of Muslims, who are not considered as originating from the sub-continent. Even though more than 90% of the Pakistanis are of Indian origin, there are sections whose forefathers had been from Central/ West Asia. The Pakistani State’s approach had been from its inception, to isolate these communities. In fact, these communities feel safer when they are in India. The Lashkar, a notorious jihadi terror group of Pakistan does not allow people of “non-Indian”origin, to join its ranks. Such fault-lines are there in Afghanistan also. The notorious Taliban for example, has made it clear that its membership is only for Pashtuns in Afghanistan, who are the majority and of Indian origin. The Taliban is out of bounds for those Afghans who are of Uzbek, Tajik, Persian or Turkmen ethnicity, even though these people have also been in Afghanistan for generations.
Petition Calls Op-Ed by Harvard Summer School Instructor Offensive to Muslims by Leanna Ehrlich
A group of Harvard students have started a petition calling on the University to sever ties with Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard Summer School economics instructor who wrote an op-ed against Islamic terrorism that many have called offensive and inflammatory.
In an article published July 16 in the Indian newspaper Daily News and Analysis, Swamy recommended demolishing hundreds of mosques, disenfranchising non-Hindus who do not acknowledge their alleged Hindu ancestry, and banning conversion from Hinduism.
The op-ed came in response to a series of bombings in Mumbai that killed 23 on July 13.
“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,” Swamy wrote.
His op-ed spurred over 200 people to sign a petition condemning Swamy and calling on Harvard to end its relationship with him.
“These are statements you’d expect a demagogue on the extreme right to say,” Umang Kumar, a student at Harvard Divinity School, said, “but a professor who comes here, who got his Ph.D. from Harvard?”
Kumar and Sanjay J. Pinto, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology and social policy, organized the petition with a small group of peers and then emailed it out to an initial group of 80 students.
“Both of us decided we really needed to take action,” Pinto said. “His comments are wrong on many levels. They put forth a vision of Indian society in which not all religious groups are welcome, which is very different from the India that both of us know.”
In an interview with The Crimson, Swamy said that he is a religiously tolerant person.
“I can’t condemn all Muslims. I’m not against them,” Swamy said. “I never said Muslims as a whole are terrorists.”
However, the petition accuses Swamy of using the July 13 bombings to write a piece that is inflammatory towards Muslims.
“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,” the petition states.
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.”
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.”
Pinto and Kumar plan to deliver their petition to the Harvard administration early next week.
“Swamy draws a lot of prestige and legitimacy from his position at Harvard,” Pinto said. “If the Hindu right were to come into power in India, he could very well be someone who takes up a position in government, so I think it’s important for members of this community to play a part in discrediting him and saying, ‘No, he does not represent us.’”
In India, Swamy leads the Janata party, a political party that held the majority of India’s Parliament decades ago but has since fragmented. At Harvard, he earned his Ph.D. in economics in 1965 and has served as an assistant and associate professor.
Swamy said that the Indian response to his op-ed has been positive.
“I don’t think anyone in India, except the left wing, has been upset by my article,” he said. “There has been wholesale support.”
But the backers of the petition were hardly supportive of the piece.
“Not allowing Hindus to convert to any other religion, not allowing other groups to vote unless they proudly declare their Hindu ancestry—it’s honestly kind of absurd,” Pinto said.
Kumar and Pinto both said that while freedom of speech is an integral part of a thriving academic community like Harvard, Swamy’s comments crossed a line.
“They stereotype an entire population of people,” Pinto said. “How can this man who expresses these views, who’s basically saying that India should only be for Hindus and not for other people, and denigrating all Muslims, how can he teach students at Harvard?”
— Staff writer Leanna B. Ehrlich can be reached at lehrlich@college.harvard.edu.
Swamy Op-Ed Stokes Furor at Harvard by Paul Beckett
The idea of a clash of civilizations – a phrase typically used to denote what some see as a winner-takes-all battle between “western values” and fundamentalist Islam – is now a topic of debate here and in the U.S. thanks to an extraordinary op-ed by political gadfly and Harvard Summer School teacher Subramanian Swamy.
Prakash Singh/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Subramanian Swamy penned down a controversial op-ed, soon after the Mumbai bombings. Above, police officers at one of the blast sites in the city.
His controversial piece, published in DNA, a Mumbai newspaper, July 16, followed the most recent deadly bombings in Mumbai. Police have no suspects but are focusing their attention on an Indian Islamist group called Indian Mujahideen.
Mr. Swamy, however, doesn’t note that, so far, there is no one to blame or any apprehended suspects. His column includes such inflammatory statements as “Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus.” He suggests that only Muslims in India who “acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus” should be allowed to vote. We might pause here to note that India, under its Constitution, is established as a pluralistic society.
Mr. Swamy, in a telephone interview from Harvard, said that he didn’t have a process in mind whereby Muslims could profess to their Hindu ancestry but he wanted to know that, if asked, they would say “yes.”
For good measure, he accuses Sonia Gandhi, president of the ruling Congress party, of being “semi-literate.” When asked to define semi-literate, he said it was somebody who “can just read and write.” That would appear to define literacy, but he termed her semi-literate because to be fully literate she “would have read some books, read some philosophy, have a world view.”
He also suggests in the op-ed that the Kashmir Valley be settled with ex-servicemen to demonstrate a sort of civilian shock-and-awe campaign that would establish it as Hindu and Indian once and for all.
Oh yes, he also wants to make it illegal to convert from Hinduism. If that sounds unconstitutional, he clarified in the interview that this would only apply to induced conversion.
In the piece, he also brings in the Jews, noting: “If the Jews could be transformed from lambs walking meekly to the gas chambers to fiery lions in just 10 years,” then India can solve its “terrorist problem” in five years.
When asked if that might be offensive to Jews, he said in the interview that he is a “great supporter of Israel.” He also noted that his brother-in-law is Jewish, his son-in-law Muslim, his sister-in-law Christian and his wife Parsi.
Mr. Swamy’s views have stoked several protests, including a petition circulating at Harvard seeking that the storied university repudiate his remarks and terminate Mr. Swamy’s employment as a summer Economics teacher. The petition accuses him of being a “bigoted promoter of communalism in India.”
It adds: “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.”
The Harvard Crimson, the university’s newspaper, said in an article dated today that 200 signatories had signed the petition. The article said that the dean of Harvard Summer School will examine the issue.
“Professor Swamy is a long-time member of the Harvard Summer School faculty who previously was a member of the Department of Economics here,” a spokesman for the Dean was quoted as saying. “We will give this matter our serious attention.”
When asked if he planned to continue teaching at Harvard, Mr. Swamy said: “Let others decide and tell me.” In the interview. he characterized his critics and those who signed the petition as “Communists; they are all pro-Soviet.”
This article is reposted in support of Dr. Swamy’s right to free speech and because his views are of paramount interest to Hindus in India.