Protest note: Harvard's unconstitutional act.
The Harvard Fatwa - Kalavai Venkat.
Harvard, explain - Sekhar Vemula.
Shocked - Lulu Liu, former student of Prof. Swamy
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/12/harvard-us-unconstitutional-act-of.html
12.12.11
Harvard U's unconstitutional act of dropping Swamy's courses. Protest note to Faust, Harvard U. President (Sathyanarayanan, Dec. 12, 2011)
- Protest note to Faust, Harvard U. President (Sathyanarayanan, Dec. 12, 2011)
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Darkest Hour of Harvard
Protest note I sent to the president of Harvard University for suspending Dr.Subramanian Swamy's Summer courses
Honorable President,
I am writing this to you on hearing the news that Harvard has removed Dr.Swamy's summer courses from its roster. The institution which is supposed to be beacon light to the entire world for Right to Expression has put the same in jeopardy and it is disturbing to learn this. Let's enquire in which way Dr.Swamy's infringed some one's right when he wrote an article which has become a reason to suspend his courses. The focal point of his article was that Indian Muslims were targeted by wahabi brand/Jihadist Islam which in a way says "My way or No way" you can either be a believer or Non believer. And it is a known fact that Non-Believers are not entitled to live on this earth. One thing that binds dwellers of Indian Sub-continent is Hinduism which is not only a scientific religion but a way of life. The bloody Muslim invaders converted Hindus to Islam as British converted Hindus to Christianity in its brutal rule. The Wahabi brand is so successful in its strategy of indoctrination that it turned many innocent Muslims to terrorists who are otherwise true patriots. And the effective strategy is to tell populace the truth i.e., everyone in this country is undoubtedly Hindu as supported by DNA genetic studies and everyone should realize that their common ancestry is Hinduism, if once this is realized they would not act against their own country. World looks at elite of Harvard as a bunch of jokers as of now due to its irresponsible act. Another problem with Harvard is like any other educational institution it is infiltrated by leftists and cultural Marxists who want to see the complete destruction of Hindu faith and culture.
Harvard should stop behaving like a world court. If Dr. Swamy writes a lecture in India which is specific to the context and circumstances exist in India and you condemn him in America. There is an allegation that Harvard dancing to the tune India's GOP expecting favors for FDI in education. Only time will tell us if that is true. When Harvard in its initial response said that it stood by Dr.Swamy's right to expression it was not a surprise. But later a group of politically inclined members bar his courses virtually keeping him out of Harvard is totally uncalled for and unbecoming of Harvard's stature. These cultural Marxists and educated illiterates relate Swamy's comments to Jewish Americans and African Americans accepting the Anglo Saxon Supremacy, how unwitting argument this could be. Dr.Swamy did not ask anybody to accept any one's supremacy but to realize the fact about their ancestry and not to become a victim of radical Islam and what's wrong in accepting the truth which is unsullied. The govt. of Saudi Arabia which funds so generously to Harvard propagates gender discrimination though they don't write articles like Dr.Swamy's which speaks truth. In a case Harvard should suspend its relations with that senseless state. Women cannot drive cars in that country and the reason is they would loose virginity, as far as I know that no one looses virginity if they drive cars. (http://www.radicalislam.org/analysis/saudi-arabia-%E2%80%93-moderate-voice-or-draconian-monarchy). In this context I would like to quote what Newt Gingirch said - "On the one hand, Harvard accepts money from Saudis. Saudi Arabia, by the way, executes homosexuals. Saudi Arabia represses women. Saudi Arabia does not allow Christians or Jews to practice their religion, but Saudi money is fine"
As you know in France Burqa is banned in public places. Now there are two dimensions to this, narrower and the broader one. On a narrow view mullahs might argue that it is about taking away religious freedom and in a broader view it is saving the state from terrorists. In same way Belgium law makers banned Burqa and Swiss move to ban minarets are backed with different reasons. Now does this mean if someone from French/Belgium/Swiss cabinet seeks admission to Harvard in future, should you deny it? If you deny the admission on this grounds then that will be another darkest hour in the history of Harvard, the first one being suspension of Dr.Swamy's summer courses on a flimsy ground. I fear you might deny admission to the cabinet members of the mentioned European countries because you have already set an example for your intolerance as an institution. The other way I could see this as a group of people taking Harvard's reputation to ransom, but as a president you must have intervened.
I was reading a report on the judgment given by Supreme Court of USA on Westboro church case. For all that Westboro church's activists have done ie. Picketing military funerals with hateful language and offensive gestures such as dragging the American flag on the ground, their constitutional rights have come to their rescue.
Let me quote what chief justice John Roberts told "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain" and he conceded that "On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." By an 8 to 1 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. right to free speech, even if the speech is that of the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church. So your action of suspending Dr. Swamy's summer courses is against the grain of American constitution and you are not above the U.S constitution. Harvard's action is highly condemnable as it violates the basic principles of Natural Justice.
With regards,
Sathyanarayanan.D
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/12/harvard-fatwa-kalavai-venkat.html
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2011
The Harvard Fatwa
Subramanian Swamy is an Indian politician that has been waging an incessant battle against corruption, especially against the infamous USD 40 billion 2G Spectrum telecom license scam orchestrated by the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), and to prosecute the Indian politicians who have hidden away their ill-gotten wealth in secret Swiss bank accounts. Not surprisingly, Swamy remains a high-profile target of the corrupt and the powerful. Ironically, the ones to fire the first shots at him have been the secular leftists of the famed Harvard University, where Swami has once been an associate professor of economics, and where he continued to teach summer courses until last year.
On July 16, 2011, Swami wrote an op-ed in the online newspaper, DNA India, where he addressed the threat of Islamic terrorism directed at the Hindus and India. He predicted a Taliban takeover of Pakistan which would be followed by an escalation of terrorism directed at India since the successor to Osama bin Laden has already announced that India is the top priority. Swamy rubbished the "bleeding heart liberal" claim that "terrorists are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty, oppression, and discrimination," and the liberal advocacy "that instead of eliminating terrorists, the root cause of these four disabilities in society should be removed," by pointing out that "Osama bin laden was a billionaire," and that "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." Swamy also ridiculed the argument that "terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational and willing to die" by pointing out that "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."
Swamy proposed means to deal with Islamic terrorism by pointing out that every goal of terrorists must be strategically defeated. Some of his advocacies are:
1. Abrogate special privileges such as governance by Islamic Hadiths in civil cases that Muslims enjoy in India and enforce uniform civil code of law; abrogate Article 370 that grants Kashmir special status and sustains Islamic terrorism.
2. If Pakistan continues to back terrorists, India should assist the Baluchis and Sindhis to become independent of Pakistan.
3. Remove the mosques that were built after forcibly demolishing the Hindu temples, and rebuild Hindu temples in their sites.
4. Mandate every Indian to sing the national song Vande Mataram, which personifies India as the mother goddess, and which song many Indian Muslims refuse to sing under the pretext that praising the motherland in sacred feminine terms is against Islam. Every Indian should also learn the Sanskrit language as it embodies India's heritage.
5. Hindus as well as non-Hindus can vote provided they all acknowledge their heritage as descendants of Hindus.
6. A ban on proselytizing of the Hindus.
Swamy's op-ed was opposed by Islamists and leftists, who also petitioned Harvard to have his summer courses removed, under the pretext that his op-ed was inflammatory towards Muslims, while his powerful political opponents in India whom Swamy has been prosecuting for scams clamored for his arrest using the same op-ed as the pretext. Initially, Harvard refused to capitulate, and vowed to defend Swamy's right of freedom of speech only to make an eventual u-turn toremove Swamy's summer courses. It is as if freedom of had been abrogated by a cabal of leftists!
Diana Eck, who advocated issuing a fatwa against Swamy's courses said that "Swamy's op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire (Muslim) religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places," and reminded that "Harvard has a moral responsibility not to affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a minority group." Sugata Bose, who also favored the fatwa, stated that "Swamy's position on disenfranchisement (of the Muslims) is like saying Jewish Americans and African Americans should not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants."
This is extremely troubling for numerous reasons which we will discuss next.
1. One may very well disagree with Swamy's views but freedom of speech is not contingent upon the acceptability of what is spoken. If an academic fatwa may be issued against a faculty for expressing certain opinions it is tantamount to, citing Harvard professor James Russell's words, "Stalinism without Stalin" because it forces academics to conform.
2. Swamy only called for legally removing 300 mosques that were built by Islamic rulers after demolishing the Hindu temples that stood there earlier. If Diana Eck thinks this is a "call for violence," would she agree that the earlier demolition of the Hindu temples is actually an instance of organized violence? Is it her expectation that the Hindus can never ask for the restoration of their most sacred places that were violently razed?
3. Since Diana Eck thinks that "demonizing a religious community" is sufficient grounds to remove a faculty, I would like to know whether she supports a fatwa against her Harvard counterpart Michael Witzel who too demonized all American Hindus that asked for a fair portrayal of Hinduism in California textbooks by portraying them as extremists. Not that I support any such fatwa but Eck may want to be consistent lest she should be perceived as wearing her mullah's mantle only against those that do not fit the proverbial mould of Gunga Din.
4. Quite contrary to what Bose claims, Swamy did not ask for an acknowledgment of Hindu supremacy. He asked every Indian to acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. I see this as a meaningless exercise but the fact is that dar-ul-Islam requires pan-Islamic brotherhood, and this sometimes means that an Indian Muslim bonds with his counterparts in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and sometimes even wages jihad against India, as evident from terrorist attacks such as 11/26 which could not have happened without local accomplices. Every nation requires loyalty to itself first, and since Islam is a political ideology, the only way India can secure the loyalty of Muslims is by having them relate to their Hindu legacy and by severing their imaginary link with the worldwide umma. The ways for accomplishing this transformation of the Muslim mindset can be debated but Swamy's is hardly a call for Hindu supremacy.
5. In the recently concluded American Academy of Religions (AAR) conference, many leftist academics, while discussing freedom of speech in the context of the Danish cartoon controversy, always qualified their support for freedom of speech with the caveat that it cannot offend Muslim sensibilities. It seems that leftist academics accord freedom of religion a higher precedence over freedom of speech. Well, votaries of this thought such as Eck, who is also alesbian, must remember that in an Islamic state she would receive death penalty for marrying her lesbian partner. Islam is intolerant of the lifestyle Eck espouses just as it is intolerant of the "idolatrous" ways of the Hindus. I can understand why a Hindu such as Swamy would not want to tolerate the intolerant religion but I fail to understand Eck's suicidal tolerance, and even advocacy, of Islam.
6. Eck's warning that Harvard should not associate itself with any intolerant agency is commendable. Is it not true that the Saudi prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz in 2005 donated USD 20 million to found an Islamic Studies Center at Harvard? Eck surely knows that these Saudi rulers are the same ones that award death penalty to women for adultery (or even for getting raped), whip them for revealing a strand of hair, and who certainly do not allow the immigrant Hindu workers to carry any images of their divinities. Eck should fervently argue that Harvard return the money to the Saudis and call for the center to be shut down unless she wants us to conclude that in her worldview USD 20 million transforms the "intolerant" into "tolerant."
One should not make the mistake of assuming that the Harvard fatwa is an isolated incident. Recently, Government of India, in an undisguised effort to suppress all news regarding political corruption, initiated measures to shut down Internet portals that disseminate news exposing corrupt politicians. It is against these politicians that Swamy has been waging a courageous and honorable battle. DNA India was forced to remove the op-ed from its website clearly indicating the involvement of a powerful political hand. Is it the same hand that is behind the Harvard leftists' concerted effort against Swamy?
Leftists proclaim that freedom of religion is an inviolable right, and this assertion must be accepted as an axiomatic truth claim even though the same leftists do not value freedom of speech as much, especially when what is spoken is not to their liking. This proclamation should not prevent others from asking the legitimate question: Is freedom of religion a right or a privilege? If a religion is intolerant, and seeks to conquer everything in its way, why should society tolerate it? A tolerant society and an intolerant religion are as incompatible as a peaceful woman and her rapist. Islam seeks to conquer the world through jihad and demographic warfare. Non-Muslims have every right to discuss this threat and propose legitimate and reasonable means to deal with it.
A call for a Hindu state where Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, as well as other Indian tribal traditions would be protected by the state is legitimate considering that these religions are the collective target of Islam and Christianity for the purposes of conquest through proselytizing. If that were to happen, India would not be the first religious state. The UK, Germany, and many European states are religious states that accord special status to Christianity and even fund the church. These states regularly enact laws to constrain and disenfranchise Eastern religions, the case of the Christian Hungary proposing a new law to suppress Eastern religions being a recent example. America is secular (and secularism itself favors Christianity – but that is a different topic) but the American government funds the church extensively. Many Arab countries are Islamic theocracies and do not tolerate Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism in their land. One never comes across these leftists defending Hindu rights yet they are the first to pontificate to us about the need to be tolerant of Islam or Christianity.
It would be an act of utmost stupidity on the part of the Hindus to be blindly tolerant towards intolerant religions. A few Gunga Dins amidst us might wear the secular hat because it brings them rewards but the rest of us cannot afford to ignore reality. Let us not forget that that these leftists who want to silence Swamy are the same ones who were silent when the church, in collusion with the Indian government, banned the Da Vinci Code in India.
Harvard should pay heed to what one of its own professors, James Russell, wrote about freedom of expression:
"As I understand it, liberalism has to do with freedom. As a boy I marched for civil rights: that meant equal opportunity and integration, not affirmative action, Black separatism, and the licentious advocacy of violence. When as a college student I fought for gay rights, I wanted homosexuals to be able to express the love we naturally feel without fear of violence, ridicule, or condemnation; (…) It has been distressing to witness the Left's misguided take on foreign affairs morph into full-blown, murderous anti-Semitism, coupled with an utterly illogical worship of political Islam, which is anti-homosexual and misogynist just for starters. But the Left has always flirted with totalitarian violence and has indulged in an easy demonization of America that relieves one of the need to think with greater complexity and depth about the problems of our world. Most of the 101 academic rogues of Horowitz's list would probably describe themselves as liberals, but nothing could be more illiberal that their censorious intolerance. They abuse their position of authority and the captive audience of the classroom to impose their views on students (…) They abuse academic standards to hire and promote those who think as they do."
Kalavai Venkat Dec. 12, 2011
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2011/12/harvard-kindly-explan-sekhar-vemula.html
12.12.11
Harvard, kindly explan? - Sekhar Vemula
Interesting? Dr. Swamy wrote an article that according to Harvard professor Diana Eck emphasized the "destructive" nature of the positions Swamy advocated in India, and characterized the proposals as going well beyond free speech to the advocacy of abrogating human rights, curtailing civil rights, and intruding on freedom of religion. I read the article too, but if I found objectionable, it is his position that Muslims should be disenfranchised if they do not acknowledge their Hindu ancestry. Excuse me, I find it so laughable all the esoteric debates of protection of free speech, human rights, protection of religion, civil rights engaged in the cozy halls of Harvard rooms by faculty living in their little world with little or zero knowledge of the happenings across the world. Nay, ignorance of what is occurring in their own backyard.
Human rights, women rights, religious diversity and let us not forget democracy, all this are mouthful words. Let us see. Harvard happily accepted a donation of 20 million dollars from Saudi prince S Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz in 2005 to establish a center for Islamic Studies. Saudi prince is part of the Saudi ruling establishment that enacted laws that give no rights to women, even to drive, sadly even if raped they need four male witnesses, where a 5 year old girl is allowed by law to be given in marriage to a 50 year old for settling financial disputes, where every little Saudi child is being taught, 'Jews and Christians are pigs' and contributed 15 out of 17 well educated Saudi's who perpetrated 9/11 attack on US due to such education, a country which allowed hundreds of girls die in fire because the girls are not wearing a hijab, . "Protection of religion", Saudi rules which Saudi prince is part of would just not allow any build places of worship of other religions, a Church, a Synagogue, a temple but have curbs on even worshiping at your home. I guess the color of the green wipes out all the so called high sounding principles.
Now what is 'Islamic Studies' I imagine. Well there it is, Shariah Law. Wait, does not US have its owns laws for which many thousands have given and continue to give their lives to protect what is enumerated by our forefathers and has withstood the test of time for last more than 200 years. Has this 'Harvard Sages' looked at what Shariah Laws are? Death Penalty to Gays and Lesbians (Diana, be aware, under Shariah law you will get death sentence), women to be stoned, death sentence for apostasy, Jizya tax on non Muslims, women genital mutilation, cutting of hands and limbs for even small robbery, no music, no art, and it goes on and on. I see it now, one hundred years from now, Harvard, the all male institution of Islam creating students who will go out to the wide world to create a Dar Ul Harab, if it had not been already, creating a world of peace and tolerance where there is only Islam.
Talking about free speech versus hate speech? As FIRE indicated, is there something to distinguish free speech versus hate speech and who would make such a distinction. Diana? All these people, while they sit and ruminate the high sounded ideals, worrying about violence in India due to Dr. Swamy article and shooting down Dr. Swamy courses, there was not a single ripple in India for something written widely in India. Mind you every small thing that happened across the world would create an uproar, burning of buses, stoning Government buildings etc etc but this did not cause a single ripple. If there is anyone talking about this is Harvard, the great institution that protects the human rights of all people of all religions. Sadly, little did this 'Harvard sages' protecting 'human rights' know about Swamy's own personal life (who has a Muslim son-in-law) or his political life (when he fast unto death for justice to Muslims). Little do they know India and its history or even the current developments.
Alan Dershowitz is free speech, Danish Cartoons is free speech, Saudi prince money is acceptable, but Dr. Swamy is hate speech that he does not even deserve a chance to explain his position. Harvard, enough is enough, do not embarrass yourself. You will have more respectability if you at least acknowledge your shortcomings and move on. If Dr. Swamy decides to sue, not only you lose 20 million Saudi gave, but more importantly your respect.
Sekhar Vemula
Dec. 12, 2011
12.12.11
Former student, Lulu Liu writes to Harvard U. President to restore Swamy's courses.
To: president@harvard.edu
Subject: In defense for Prof. Swamy
Sent: Dec 13, 2011 06:40
Dear Dr. Faust,
I'm Lulu Liu. I was prof. Swamy's student in Harvard Summer School in 2009
and now I'm a PhD student in Economics at University of Pittsburgh. I just
got the news about Harvard's decision to cancel the summer courses by
prof. Swamy, and I am totally shocked!
I'm from China and from my limited understanding of the States, free
speech is one of the characteristics that was treasured most by US people.
So my astonishment was beyond words when I know that the reason he was
fired is because of a political article he published in India!
I learned a lot in Prof. Swamy's class that summer and he stimulated me to
pursue a PhD which turned out to be most suitable for me.
So what I want to say is that Prof. Swamy is a really admirable economist
and I do hope that Harvard can reconsider its decision.
Thank you very much for your time!
I thank Swamy for not being a conformist idiot (using that word in the sense Nietzsche did) like Eck or Bose and for daring to think with clarity. The issues he has raised are pertinent. I may disagree with some of his methods but I do support his right to freedom of expression. Unlike the Harvard leftists, I am confident that the might of my pen is capable of challenging Swamy where I disagree with his methods, and that I do not have to resort to censorship.
***DIL SE DESI GROUP***
You can join the group by clicking the below link or by copying and pasting it in the browser bar and then pressing 'Enter'.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dilsedesigroup/join/
OWNER : rajeshkainth003@gmail.com (Rajesh Kainth}
MODERATOR : sunil_ki_mail-dilsedesi@yahoo.co.in (Sunil Sharma)
MODERATOR : dollyricky@gmail.com (Dolly Shah)
MODERATOR : boyforindia@gmail.com (Mr. Gupta)
To modify your list subscription, please send a blank email to:
SUBSCRIBE : dilsedesigroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE : dilsedesigroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
INDIVIDUAL MAILS : dilsedesigroup-normal@yahoogroups.com
DAILY DIGEST : dilsedesigroup-digest@yahoogroups.com
VACATION HOLD : dilsedesigroup-nomail@yahoogroups.com
FOR POSTING MESSAGES : dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment