Swamy, Harvard and freedom of expression
Just when you thought that Subramanian Swamy was lost in the wilderness of politicians not in power, he lifts his head and writes an article that was bound to raise heckles.
First things first though. Who is Subbu Swamy?
A politician from Tamil Nadu, he first came into prominence during the Emergency when he protested against the same and then went overseas to garner global media attention on the same.
He went on to head the Janata Party and was a Member of Parliament and was at one point of time a part of the Planning Commission. Off late, having been sidelined because of no noteworthy support among the mainstream, he has had to come up with startlingly tall claims to remain in the public glare.
The latest article (Link), however, does come as a surprise even by his standards. In brief, SS (Oh does it remind one of Nazi Germany?) dreams of an India which is a Hindu state. Not a problem with that, many others have demanded the same. Coming in the wake of the Bombay blasts, however, it was definitely an attempt to pour fuel over the embers of an ever existent communal flame. And he goes on to define what he calls 'strategies' to "negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India."
1. Remove Article 370
2. Remove the masjid at Kashi Vishwanath and 300 other temple sites
3. Declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus
4. Prohibit conversion from Hinduism to any other religion but re-conversion is possible.
5. Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset
And with a bang SS was back in the limelight. The article drew comments galore, ire and appreciation coming from the left and right (pun intended). And it would have died a natural death and SS gone back to oblivion, if not for a tiny issue. SS is part of the faculty at Harvard.
Now anything which affects democracy is taken as an insult by the self anointed Monarch of D, the United Sates. And Harvard being one of the shining jewels had to 'keep the faith'.
The result was an online petition (Link) by people affiliated to the big H calling for immediate termination of Big H's association with SS.
Their opinion other than disparaging SS's point of view was to question his ability to treat all students equally considering he does consider people belonging to certain religions 'children of a lesser God'. Subramanian Swamy can have no place in the Harvard community, they claimed.
No sooner had the above petition come up, 2 more popped up. One defending a right to free speech and another standing by SS's thoughts on the whole 'India should be made Hindustan' front. Here are the links (Link1) and (Link 2).
The second even had a point by point rebuttal of the Harvard petition.
When I first read the SS article, I too was taken aback by the sheer venom the man seemed to bring to his writing and I must admit that my first thought was "how could a mainstream daily publish this article?" I must say on deeper thought, I realize that is the true test of democracy.
Like my friend Ani Gupta said, "Anyone can support freedom of speech you like. The true test is to think of the most hateful, vile words you can imagine, and ask yourself whether you would want those words to be banned."
True Ani, for every Arundhati Roy, there needs to be a Subbu Swamy, for every Binayak Sen, there needs to be a Bal Thackeray. I cannot support free speech just because I like what is being said.
I haven't signed either petition. I do think SS has a right to his views as long as he does not get his party/goons to go about and act on it. I do think Harvard has a right to decide who to employ and who to associate themselves with. I think the third petition was barking up the wrong tree. They kept taking the example of the Vatican and Saudi Arabia to say why India should become a 'Hindu rashtra' just because those countries are Christian and Islamic. Why, they chose to compare a secular democracy to two nations which have a state religion is something I cannot fathom. The other example they gave is of the whole hoopla surrounding building a mosque at Ground Zero, where the WTC once stood. And above all, I think DNA possessed tremendous courage (and foresight) to be able to publish the article.
All said and done, SS is probably sitting and laughing while the country debates because after all the wily fox is now back in the limelight. Expect more soon.
A politician from Tamil Nadu, he first came into prominence during the Emergency when he protested against the same and then went overseas to garner global media attention on the same.
He went on to head the Janata Party and was a Member of Parliament and was at one point of time a part of the Planning Commission. Off late, having been sidelined because of no noteworthy support among the mainstream, he has had to come up with startlingly tall claims to remain in the public glare.
The latest article (Link), however, does come as a surprise even by his standards. In brief, SS (Oh does it remind one of Nazi Germany?) dreams of an India which is a Hindu state. Not a problem with that, many others have demanded the same. Coming in the wake of the Bombay blasts, however, it was definitely an attempt to pour fuel over the embers of an ever existent communal flame. And he goes on to define what he calls 'strategies' to "negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India."
1. Remove Article 370
2. Remove the masjid at Kashi Vishwanath and 300 other temple sites
3. Declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus
4. Prohibit conversion from Hinduism to any other religion but re-conversion is possible.
5. Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset
And with a bang SS was back in the limelight. The article drew comments galore, ire and appreciation coming from the left and right (pun intended). And it would have died a natural death and SS gone back to oblivion, if not for a tiny issue. SS is part of the faculty at Harvard.
Now anything which affects democracy is taken as an insult by the self anointed Monarch of D, the United Sates. And Harvard being one of the shining jewels had to 'keep the faith'.
The result was an online petition (Link) by people affiliated to the big H calling for immediate termination of Big H's association with SS.
Their opinion other than disparaging SS's point of view was to question his ability to treat all students equally considering he does consider people belonging to certain religions 'children of a lesser God'. Subramanian Swamy can have no place in the Harvard community, they claimed.
No sooner had the above petition come up, 2 more popped up. One defending a right to free speech and another standing by SS's thoughts on the whole 'India should be made Hindustan' front. Here are the links (Link1) and (Link 2).
The second even had a point by point rebuttal of the Harvard petition.
When I first read the SS article, I too was taken aback by the sheer venom the man seemed to bring to his writing and I must admit that my first thought was "how could a mainstream daily publish this article?" I must say on deeper thought, I realize that is the true test of democracy.
It is about being able to accept what the mainstream does not or would not like.
Like my friend Ani Gupta said, "Anyone can support freedom of speech you like. The true test is to think of the most hateful, vile words you can imagine, and ask yourself whether you would want those words to be banned."
True Ani, for every Arundhati Roy, there needs to be a Subbu Swamy, for every Binayak Sen, there needs to be a Bal Thackeray. I cannot support free speech just because I like what is being said.
I haven't signed either petition. I do think SS has a right to his views as long as he does not get his party/goons to go about and act on it. I do think Harvard has a right to decide who to employ and who to associate themselves with. I think the third petition was barking up the wrong tree. They kept taking the example of the Vatican and Saudi Arabia to say why India should become a 'Hindu rashtra' just because those countries are Christian and Islamic. Why, they chose to compare a secular democracy to two nations which have a state religion is something I cannot fathom. The other example they gave is of the whole hoopla surrounding building a mosque at Ground Zero, where the WTC once stood. And above all, I think DNA possessed tremendous courage (and foresight) to be able to publish the article.
All said and done, SS is probably sitting and laughing while the country debates because after all the wily fox is now back in the limelight. Expect more soon.
Slightly inaccurate, because what my initial-sake is saying reflects the view of the majority. Besides, it's always easier to rabble-rouse than to have a cogent argument. As to the comparison of Indian secularism with theocracies like Saudi Arabia, the argument would make equal sense (or nonsense) if India were to be compared with France, where the definition of secularism implies uniformity and conformity with 'white man's rules', i.e., no burqas and hijabs. Swamy should teach a course in political science instead of economics at Harvard.
ReplyDeleteMy point is India cannot be compared to either the extreme of a Vatican/Saudi nor the other extreme of a France. We cannot have a uniform set of rules because the ethnic/lingual differences are vast enough without even starting on the religion part.
ReplyDelete