December 16 :
Margashirsha Krushna 6, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
By Prof Phyllis Chesler (Israel)
Harvard has come to the aid of Islamic fundamentalists in their quest to dominate India and South Central Asia by their dismissal of Indian Prof. S. Swarmy for writing of Muslim persecution in India. For shame!
First they came for the pagans and the Jews. Then they came for the Christians. And then they came for the Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and Ba’hai.
What am I talking about? I am talking about the Islamic persecution of infidels on every continent—a persecution which is still ongoing; about forced conversions to Islam; and about the genocidal extermination of 80 million Hindus over a period of six centuries (1000-1500 CE).
What I’ve just written is historically true as is Islam’s history of anti-Black racism, slavery, and gender and religious apartheid. Ibn Warraq has a new and very important book just coming out on this very subject. It is titled: Why the West is Best. A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy.
But, it is a crime to say any of this. And, it is a crime to suggest that a liberal or constitutional democracy must defend itself against jihadic terrorism.
This is not true only in the Middle East or in Islamic central Asia. It is true in the major and most prestigious universities in the United States.
For example, in the summer of 2011, Yale got rid of the elegant and sophisticated Dr. Charles Small (The Yale Initiative for the Inter-disciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism), because he dared to hold a conference in which Islamic anti-Semitism and Islamic terrorism were discussed. This outraged the “Palestinians”, south-Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians on campus. Calls were made, letters were written.
The Ivy League professoriate, including the Jews, were exceedingly nervous about having such a politically incorrect Jew in their midst and on their faculty.
Thus, although Yale did not have to pay a penny for Dr. Small’s endeavor (he came with his own funding), they dismissed him. Dr. Small was able to establish a beachhead for five full years. In these times—not bad but especially in these times, not good enough.
Now, Harvard has similarly dismissed a distinguished and highly respected Professor or Economics, an Indian Hindu, Professor Subramanian Swamy. He taught at Harvard for 20 years, every summer.
We do know that many professors all across America preach daily against Israel and against Jews without losing their jobs due to “hate speech” or racism.
What was his “crime?” In the wake of a second Islamic terrorist attack on Mumbai (July, 2011), in which 26 people were murdered and 130 were wounded, Professor Swamy wrote an article about this tragedy. Please recall that in 2008, Islamic jihadists launched a long and horrific attack on Mumbai, in which 164 people were murdered and 308 wounded. The Pakistani Islamist group behind this chose Mumbai because it is a densely populated commercial and entertainment center; they targeted Westerners, tourists, wealthy Indians, and, of course, Jews.
Professor Swamy, is also the President of the Janata Party and served as both India’s former minister of Commerce and Industry as well as the former minister of Law and Justice. This learned man published an op-ed piece in an Indian newspaper in which he reminded his readers of the long history of Hindu persecution at Muslim hands and of the contemporary stated intentions of Pakistani-based terrorist groups to convert all India or to kill those who resist. He suggested adopting a “Hindu mindset” as the first way of fighting back against this.
In a letter to Harvard President, Drew Gilpin Faust, Dr. Jagan Kaul, Retired Professor of International Law and Chairman, Diversity-USA, defended Dr. Swamy’s right to hold his opinion without being dismissed because that opinion was being viewed, by some Harvard students and by a handful of highly politicized faculty, as anti-Islamic “hate speech.” Professor Kaul writes:
“Dr. Swamy has clearly stated that ‘Islamic terrorism is India’s number one national security problem….and already the successor to Osama bin Laden as the al-Qaeda leader has declared that India is the priority target for that terrorist organization and not the USA.’ Towards the concluding portion of his analysis Dr. Swamy has summarized the goals of the Islamic terrorism in India. He believes that their number 1 goal is to overawe India on Kashmir….By demanding the abrogation of section 370 of the Indian Constitution Dr. Subramanian Swamy has been trying to reverse the dangerous advance of Wahabi Islam in the Indian sub-Continent and in the process saving the US from having to deal with one more nasty, bloody and complex development in the world.
"How unfortunate and regrettable it is that Dr. Swamy is being banished because he showed the wisdom, fortitude and guts for doing the right thing by fighting the Jihadis before it was too late.”
On December 6, 2011, Professor Swamy was formally dismissed by Harvard. I do not know if he has any legal recourse. Harvard’s reputation is certainly damaged—just as Yale’s has been.
Professor Swamy should be allowed to write op-ed pieces in India that are not held against him in the United States.
I am not sure whether he preaches against Muslims in his Economics classes. We do know that many professors all across America preach daily against Israel and against Jews without losing their jobs due to “hate speech” or racism. I do know that infidels are cursed in many mosques and madrassas and in Islamic state universities across the world. ”
This situation affects us all. The West must understand that silencing men like Professor Swamy is in a sense an act of Jihad. We are aiding the Islamic fundamentalists in their quest for domination in India and South Central Asia.
Prof. Phyllis Chesler
Prof. Phyllis Chesler is the author of fifteen books, including Women and Madness (Doubleday, 1972), The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) and most recently, The New Anti-Semitism. She is the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women's Health Network.
Source : israelnationalnews
Dr. Subramanian Swamy in support of Sant Shri Asaram Bapu
Maharashtra Govt succumbs to the strength of Hindus
December 16 :
Margashirsha Krushna 6, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
Hindus, the government has given you such assurances a number of times and cheated you. Hence do not fall prey to such assurances and keep opposing the Anti-Hindu,Anti-Superstitions Bill !
The law will not be passed until discussions are held with warkaris ! – Shivajirao Moghe - Minister for Social Welfare
The bill will not be placed in the present winter session of the assembly ! – Government’s assurance
Nagpur (Maharashtra): As the warkaris are opposing the Anti-Superstitions Bill we will discuss with the Chief Minister about naming a representative committee of the warkaris. Warkari representative committee will be named. The government will not place the bill in this winter session of the assembly and the bill will not be made a law until discussions are held with the warkaris. This assurance was given by Shivajirao Moghe – Minister for Social Welfare to the representative committee of warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations.
As the warkaris are opposing the Anti-Superstitions Bill we will discuss with the Chief Minister about naming a representative committee of the warkaris. Warkari representative committee will be named. The government will not place the bill in this winter session of the assembly and the bill will not be made a law until discussions are held with the warkaris. This assurance was given by Shivajirao Moghe – Minister for Social Welfare to the representative committee of warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations.
Aerial view of strong demonstrations held by Hindus
After the protest march was carried out by the warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations today, a representative committee of warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations met the Minister for Social Welfare Mr. Moghe in his office in the Vidhan Bhavan. Mr Moghe gave the above assurance at this time. On this occasion most knowledgeable and senior member of warkari community H.B.P. Nivrutti Maharaj Vakte gave the Minister a detailed memorandum and said, “This law is against Hindu Dharma. As a result there will result a ban on the rites, rituals, customs, traditions, etc of Hindu Dharma. Hence our opposition to this bill. The government should not pass this bill and make it a law.” On this occasion, Dinesh Waghmare – Secretary of Social Welfare Department was also present. At this time the minister told the representative committee of the warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations, “Give some names of your people for the representative committee.”
Strong feelings of the warkaris will reach the Chief Minister ! – Mr. Babanrao Pachpute
On this occasion the warkaris also met Babanrao Pachpute – Minister for Adivasi Development and Vitthal devotee, in the Vidhan Bhavan. At this time a memorandum on behalf of the warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations was given to the Minister. Mr Pachpute said, “Nothing will happen to warkaris due to this law – care will be taken to ensure this.” H.B.P. Vakte Maharaj replied, “This law is not only against the warkaris but it is against the Vedic Sanatan Hindu Dharma and Warkaris are a part of this Dharma. As this law is against the Hindu Dharma the warkaris are opoosing it. The Maharashtra government should not pass this law – we are giving you a memorandum on behalf of all saints and sages and warkaris from Pandharpur.” (Crossing the limits of warkari community for the sake of protecting Dharma at the age of 80 years and in the tradition of saints and sages for the benefit of Hindu Dharma H.B.P. Vakte Maharaj has given a fitting reply to the Minister. The entire Hindu society is thankful to him ! – Editor SP) Replying on this occasion Pachpute said, “I will personally meet the Chief Minister and inform him about the strong feeling s of the warkaris about the Anti-Blind Faith bill and I will also inform him about your memorandum.” Assuming that he had been requested to inform the Chief Minister of this matter, he agreed giving an assurance saying “I will inform the Chief Minister of this matter and also ensure tht this law will not be passed without taking the warkaris into confidence.”
Leader of Opposition Pandurang Fundkar also opposes the bill during the meeting with the Minister !
Leader of Opposition in the Vidhan Parishad Mr. Pandurang Fundkar and Shiv Sena MLA from Rajapur Mr. Rajan Salvi joined the representative committee of the warkaris when they went to meet the Minister Babanrao Pachpute and also demonstrated their opposition to the proposed law. On this occasion Mr. Fundkar said, “This bill has lot of shortcomings. Why is the government bringing this law? Everyone is opposing this law. Inform the government of these feelings.” Similar thoughts were expressed by Mr. Salvi in front of Mr. Pachpute.
Responses of respectable people participating in the Morcha
H.B.P. Mr.ram Maharaj Joshi : The nature of the Anti-Blind Faith bill is against Hindus. Warkari community will never tolerate this. We will oppose this bill with our lives. Today the demolition of Ram-Setu has been stopped; this is a result of the strength of the warkari brotherhood. Hence the Maharashtra government should not cross path with the warkari community.
H.B.P. Narayan Maharaj Shinde : This bill plays with the religious sentiments of the Hindus. Does the government only see the blind faith in Hindu Dharma ? This bill is unnecessary. Every Hindu is unitedly opposing the bill which is assaulting the faith of Hindus. ‘Sukhe Tari Deu Kaechi Langoti, Nathalacha Mathi Hanu Kathi! (‘If you are good to us we are good and can do anyrhing for you; If you are opposing us aimlessly we will oppose you tooth and nail!), the Maharastra government should remember this.
H.B.P. Vanve Maharaj : If this bill is made a law then there will be a ban on rituals such as Vat-Poornima, Gauri Vrat and SatyaNarayan Puja. While describing the biography of saints, we tell that Saint Dnyaneshwar rode a wall and he made a bull utter the Vedas; all this will be banned. You cannot evaluate non-human spirits and strengths using science. Saints and Maha Purush are knowledgeable by birth, we don’t need a law which slanders them !
National Kirtankar H.B.P. Shyambuwa Dhumkekar : By making this law do not play with the faith of Hindus. There are a number of people who take undue advantage in the name of Dharma; but we will always oppose a law which provides for destruction of Hindu Dharma.
Mr. Parmatma Prabhu, Vice President, ISKCON Temple, Nagpur : A number of imposters exist in every sector of society. That is why it is necessary that the thoughts and teachings of saints should be spread everywhere. Removal of Blind faith can be done by saints only. Those who do not accept the power of God are preparing the law for removal of blind faith – nothing can be more outrageous. We oppose this. Instead the government should take into consideration the thoughts of Dharma Gurus of all religions, heads of religious communities, saints and noble men and then form the law.
Mr. Shrikant Aaglave, VHP, Nagpur District Minister : This law is being framed intentionally. This law which assaults the faith of Hindus is not for the benefit of Hindus.
Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman Hindu Mitra Mandal : This law should not come into force. Why does the government not form such a law against Christians and Muslims? Hindu traditions are being attacked through the medium of this law. Hence it is wrong of this law comes into force.
Mr. Naresh Lalwani, Working President Mr. Yog Vedant Seva Samiti : This law plays with the faith of Hindus; so why is it that they see only the blind faith in Dharma ?
Dr. Ramcharan Dubey, District Chief, Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Sena, Nagpur : This law should be immediately scrapped. We are going to strongly oppose this law. Shiv Sena Chief Mr. Balasaheb Thakarey himself has told to oppose this law.
Demand for action against Dhabolkar for crating scams in the trust and cheating the government !
The Chairman of ANiS Dr. Narendra Dhabolkar has been creating scams in the trust ‘Maharashtra Andha Shraddha Nirmulam Samiti (ANS)’, Defaulting on the grants received from government and giving wrong information about not receiving funds from foreign countries when actually receving such funds; hence very strong action should be taken against him and his trust – this demand was made on behalf of the warkari community and right-wing Hindu organisations when they personally met the Minister for Social Justice Shivajirao Moghe and Minister for Adivasi Development Babanrao Pachpute. A memorandum making this demand along with proof was also handed over to the minister.
Names of the leaders in the representative committee
On this occasion the representitve committee consisted of senior-most warkari H.B.P. Nivrutti Maharaj Vakte, H.B.P. Mr.ram Maharaj Joshi, H.B.P.Laxminarayan Maharaj Dayma, H.B.P. Dyaneshwar Maharaj Wagh, H.B.P. Vasudev Maharaj Tapre, H.B.P. Narayan Maharaj Shinde, H.B.P. Vanve Maharaj from the warkari community and Mr. Ramesh Shinde – Spokesperson for HJS for Maharashtra.
During this meeting Minister for Social Justice Shivajirao Moghe and Minister for Adivasi Development Babanrao Pachpute were given a copy of the book ‘‘Removal of Blind Faith Law has grown on the roots of Hindu Dharma’ published by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti.
We will not allow the law which assaults Hindu Dharma ! - Opponents reiterate their resolve
Mr. Ramesh Shinde and warkaris handing the memorandum to Eknath Khadse
“Eknath Khadse, Repramand the Congress government for trying to bring the Hindu hatred law,” said H.B.P. Vakte Maharaj while handing over the memorandum.
When today's protest march was proceeding towards the Vidhan Bhavan, Mr. Ekanth Khadse – Opposition Party Leader in the Vidhan Sabha, Shiv Sena Group Leader Mr. Subash Deasi, Senior MLA of BJP Mr. Devandra Phadanvis, Shiv Sena MLA Prof. Sharad Patil met the protestors at Manas Chowk near Vidhan Bhavan. At this time the protestors reiterated their resolve of not allowing the law which assults the Hindu Dharma.
No need of the anti-Dharma law which places the biographies of saints under blind faith ! – Mr. Eknath Khadse, MLA
Leader of Opposition in the Vidhan Sabha Mr. Eknath Khadse said, “Hindu Dharma has a tradition of thousands of years. Thoughts saints and their teachings are the reason for the safety of Hindu Dharma until now. These thoughts are followed by Hindus in their daily life. This proposed bill has many shortcomings which endanger the very existence of Hindu Dharma. From Saint Dnyaneshwar to Saint Gajanan Maharaj have demonstrated the strength of spirituality. ANiS terms this as a fictitious and fabricated story. Saint Dyaneshwar Maharaj made a bull utter the Vedas, rode a wall – this is termed as blind faith. In short we will not tolerate this law which clubs the biographies of saints under blind faith. Earlier we have defeated this bill on the floor of the house, now we will not allow any discussions on this proposed law.”
We will not allow a faulty law to be passed ! – Mr. Subash Desai, MLA
Senior Shiv Sena leader Mr. Subash Desai said, “Maharashtra government is making useless law which assaults Hindu Dharma instead of making law beneficial to the society. Instead of making a Removal of Blind Faith law why is the government not insisting on making a law for common social justice for all? The joint government of Shiv Sena and BJP had brought a law banning the slaughter of cows, now they say that the centre’s approval is required. Why are they not following up on this? In the guise of blind faith Narendra Dhabolkar and Shyam Manav are trying to bring a law which assaults Hindu Dharma, its traditions, rites, rituals and practices. We will never allow this law. In this state workers, farmers, unemployed, everyone is participating in protest marches against the state government. Now the warkari community has had to come on the roads to protest – this is very unfortunate.”
Source : HinduJanjagruti Samiti
Margashirsha Krushna 6, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
Hindus, the government has given you such assurances a number of times and cheated you. Hence do not fall prey to such assurances and keep opposing the Anti-Hindu,Anti-Superstitions Bill !
The law will not be passed until discussions are held with warkaris ! – Shivajirao Moghe - Minister for Social Welfare
The bill will not be placed in the present winter session of the assembly ! – Government’s assurance
Nagpur (Maharashtra): As the warkaris are opposing the Anti-Superstitions Bill we will discuss with the Chief Minister about naming a representative committee of the warkaris. Warkari representative committee will be named. The government will not place the bill in this winter session of the assembly and the bill will not be made a law until discussions are held with the warkaris. This assurance was given by Shivajirao Moghe – Minister for Social Welfare to the representative committee of warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations.
As the warkaris are opposing the Anti-Superstitions Bill we will discuss with the Chief Minister about naming a representative committee of the warkaris. Warkari representative committee will be named. The government will not place the bill in this winter session of the assembly and the bill will not be made a law until discussions are held with the warkaris. This assurance was given by Shivajirao Moghe – Minister for Social Welfare to the representative committee of warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations.
Aerial view of strong demonstrations held by Hindus
After the protest march was carried out by the warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations today, a representative committee of warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations met the Minister for Social Welfare Mr. Moghe in his office in the Vidhan Bhavan. Mr Moghe gave the above assurance at this time. On this occasion most knowledgeable and senior member of warkari community H.B.P. Nivrutti Maharaj Vakte gave the Minister a detailed memorandum and said, “This law is against Hindu Dharma. As a result there will result a ban on the rites, rituals, customs, traditions, etc of Hindu Dharma. Hence our opposition to this bill. The government should not pass this bill and make it a law.” On this occasion, Dinesh Waghmare – Secretary of Social Welfare Department was also present. At this time the minister told the representative committee of the warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations, “Give some names of your people for the representative committee.”
Strong feelings of the warkaris will reach the Chief Minister ! – Mr. Babanrao Pachpute
On this occasion the warkaris also met Babanrao Pachpute – Minister for Adivasi Development and Vitthal devotee, in the Vidhan Bhavan. At this time a memorandum on behalf of the warkaris and right-wing Hindu organisations was given to the Minister. Mr Pachpute said, “Nothing will happen to warkaris due to this law – care will be taken to ensure this.” H.B.P. Vakte Maharaj replied, “This law is not only against the warkaris but it is against the Vedic Sanatan Hindu Dharma and Warkaris are a part of this Dharma. As this law is against the Hindu Dharma the warkaris are opoosing it. The Maharashtra government should not pass this law – we are giving you a memorandum on behalf of all saints and sages and warkaris from Pandharpur.” (Crossing the limits of warkari community for the sake of protecting Dharma at the age of 80 years and in the tradition of saints and sages for the benefit of Hindu Dharma H.B.P. Vakte Maharaj has given a fitting reply to the Minister. The entire Hindu society is thankful to him ! – Editor SP) Replying on this occasion Pachpute said, “I will personally meet the Chief Minister and inform him about the strong feeling s of the warkaris about the Anti-Blind Faith bill and I will also inform him about your memorandum.” Assuming that he had been requested to inform the Chief Minister of this matter, he agreed giving an assurance saying “I will inform the Chief Minister of this matter and also ensure tht this law will not be passed without taking the warkaris into confidence.”
Leader of Opposition Pandurang Fundkar also opposes the bill during the meeting with the Minister !
Leader of Opposition in the Vidhan Parishad Mr. Pandurang Fundkar and Shiv Sena MLA from Rajapur Mr. Rajan Salvi joined the representative committee of the warkaris when they went to meet the Minister Babanrao Pachpute and also demonstrated their opposition to the proposed law. On this occasion Mr. Fundkar said, “This bill has lot of shortcomings. Why is the government bringing this law? Everyone is opposing this law. Inform the government of these feelings.” Similar thoughts were expressed by Mr. Salvi in front of Mr. Pachpute.
Responses of respectable people participating in the Morcha
H.B.P. Mr.ram Maharaj Joshi : The nature of the Anti-Blind Faith bill is against Hindus. Warkari community will never tolerate this. We will oppose this bill with our lives. Today the demolition of Ram-Setu has been stopped; this is a result of the strength of the warkari brotherhood. Hence the Maharashtra government should not cross path with the warkari community.
H.B.P. Narayan Maharaj Shinde : This bill plays with the religious sentiments of the Hindus. Does the government only see the blind faith in Hindu Dharma ? This bill is unnecessary. Every Hindu is unitedly opposing the bill which is assaulting the faith of Hindus. ‘Sukhe Tari Deu Kaechi Langoti, Nathalacha Mathi Hanu Kathi! (‘If you are good to us we are good and can do anyrhing for you; If you are opposing us aimlessly we will oppose you tooth and nail!), the Maharastra government should remember this.
H.B.P. Vanve Maharaj : If this bill is made a law then there will be a ban on rituals such as Vat-Poornima, Gauri Vrat and SatyaNarayan Puja. While describing the biography of saints, we tell that Saint Dnyaneshwar rode a wall and he made a bull utter the Vedas; all this will be banned. You cannot evaluate non-human spirits and strengths using science. Saints and Maha Purush are knowledgeable by birth, we don’t need a law which slanders them !
National Kirtankar H.B.P. Shyambuwa Dhumkekar : By making this law do not play with the faith of Hindus. There are a number of people who take undue advantage in the name of Dharma; but we will always oppose a law which provides for destruction of Hindu Dharma.
Mr. Parmatma Prabhu, Vice President, ISKCON Temple, Nagpur : A number of imposters exist in every sector of society. That is why it is necessary that the thoughts and teachings of saints should be spread everywhere. Removal of Blind faith can be done by saints only. Those who do not accept the power of God are preparing the law for removal of blind faith – nothing can be more outrageous. We oppose this. Instead the government should take into consideration the thoughts of Dharma Gurus of all religions, heads of religious communities, saints and noble men and then form the law.
Mr. Shrikant Aaglave, VHP, Nagpur District Minister : This law is being framed intentionally. This law which assaults the faith of Hindus is not for the benefit of Hindus.
Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman Hindu Mitra Mandal : This law should not come into force. Why does the government not form such a law against Christians and Muslims? Hindu traditions are being attacked through the medium of this law. Hence it is wrong of this law comes into force.
Mr. Naresh Lalwani, Working President Mr. Yog Vedant Seva Samiti : This law plays with the faith of Hindus; so why is it that they see only the blind faith in Dharma ?
Dr. Ramcharan Dubey, District Chief, Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Sena, Nagpur : This law should be immediately scrapped. We are going to strongly oppose this law. Shiv Sena Chief Mr. Balasaheb Thakarey himself has told to oppose this law.
Demand for action against Dhabolkar for crating scams in the trust and cheating the government !
The Chairman of ANiS Dr. Narendra Dhabolkar has been creating scams in the trust ‘Maharashtra Andha Shraddha Nirmulam Samiti (ANS)’, Defaulting on the grants received from government and giving wrong information about not receiving funds from foreign countries when actually receving such funds; hence very strong action should be taken against him and his trust – this demand was made on behalf of the warkari community and right-wing Hindu organisations when they personally met the Minister for Social Justice Shivajirao Moghe and Minister for Adivasi Development Babanrao Pachpute. A memorandum making this demand along with proof was also handed over to the minister.
Names of the leaders in the representative committee
On this occasion the representitve committee consisted of senior-most warkari H.B.P. Nivrutti Maharaj Vakte, H.B.P. Mr.ram Maharaj Joshi, H.B.P.Laxminarayan Maharaj Dayma, H.B.P. Dyaneshwar Maharaj Wagh, H.B.P. Vasudev Maharaj Tapre, H.B.P. Narayan Maharaj Shinde, H.B.P. Vanve Maharaj from the warkari community and Mr. Ramesh Shinde – Spokesperson for HJS for Maharashtra.
During this meeting Minister for Social Justice Shivajirao Moghe and Minister for Adivasi Development Babanrao Pachpute were given a copy of the book ‘‘Removal of Blind Faith Law has grown on the roots of Hindu Dharma’ published by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti.
We will not allow the law which assaults Hindu Dharma ! - Opponents reiterate their resolve
Mr. Ramesh Shinde and warkaris handing the memorandum to Eknath Khadse
“Eknath Khadse, Repramand the Congress government for trying to bring the Hindu hatred law,” said H.B.P. Vakte Maharaj while handing over the memorandum.
When today's protest march was proceeding towards the Vidhan Bhavan, Mr. Ekanth Khadse – Opposition Party Leader in the Vidhan Sabha, Shiv Sena Group Leader Mr. Subash Deasi, Senior MLA of BJP Mr. Devandra Phadanvis, Shiv Sena MLA Prof. Sharad Patil met the protestors at Manas Chowk near Vidhan Bhavan. At this time the protestors reiterated their resolve of not allowing the law which assults the Hindu Dharma.
No need of the anti-Dharma law which places the biographies of saints under blind faith ! – Mr. Eknath Khadse, MLA
Leader of Opposition in the Vidhan Sabha Mr. Eknath Khadse said, “Hindu Dharma has a tradition of thousands of years. Thoughts saints and their teachings are the reason for the safety of Hindu Dharma until now. These thoughts are followed by Hindus in their daily life. This proposed bill has many shortcomings which endanger the very existence of Hindu Dharma. From Saint Dnyaneshwar to Saint Gajanan Maharaj have demonstrated the strength of spirituality. ANiS terms this as a fictitious and fabricated story. Saint Dyaneshwar Maharaj made a bull utter the Vedas, rode a wall – this is termed as blind faith. In short we will not tolerate this law which clubs the biographies of saints under blind faith. Earlier we have defeated this bill on the floor of the house, now we will not allow any discussions on this proposed law.”
We will not allow a faulty law to be passed ! – Mr. Subash Desai, MLA
Senior Shiv Sena leader Mr. Subash Desai said, “Maharashtra government is making useless law which assaults Hindu Dharma instead of making law beneficial to the society. Instead of making a Removal of Blind Faith law why is the government not insisting on making a law for common social justice for all? The joint government of Shiv Sena and BJP had brought a law banning the slaughter of cows, now they say that the centre’s approval is required. Why are they not following up on this? In the guise of blind faith Narendra Dhabolkar and Shyam Manav are trying to bring a law which assaults Hindu Dharma, its traditions, rites, rituals and practices. We will never allow this law. In this state workers, farmers, unemployed, everyone is participating in protest marches against the state government. Now the warkari community has had to come on the roads to protest – this is very unfortunate.”
Source : HinduJanjagruti Samiti
Can PC survive?
16 December 2011 :
Margashirsha Krushna 6, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
Home Minister faces High Command ire
Home Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday battled to retain his chair in the face of a strident call for his resignation within and outside Parliament. The decision of the Lt Governor of Delhi, Tejinder Khanna, to revoke the order for withdrawal of FIR against Chidambaram’s former client, hotelier SP Gupta, may have come too late. The damage control exercise will only give credence to allegations that the Home Minister’s directive to the Delhi Police to give relief to Gupta in three cases of serious fraud and cheating was legally untenable.
Despite facing such serious charges, Chidambaram did not make appearance in Parliament and remained out of bound for the media as well. The Government, the Congress and the Home Ministry did play proxy for the beleaguered Minister, but their defence was at best an exercise in evasion and at worst a ploy at making scapegoat of a junior official.
In addition to the tell-tale evidence establishing his complicity in the withdrawal of cases against the Gupta, the Home Minister also faces the ire of 10 Janpath — since the hotelier had floated a trust in the name of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and named Sonia Gandhi as its patron. Sources said Sonia was livid at her name being dragged in the unsavoury scandal and wanted legal process should not be interfered with.
Chidambaram also faces serious allegation of involvement in the 2G scam. The Supreme Court has reserved a judgement on a plea for CBI probe in his role and the lower court has already granted permission to Subramanian Swamy to proceed against him. While in both cases his fate will depend on judicial pronouncements, in the Gupta’s case it will be difficult for the Government to go on defending the indefensible.
Sensing the kill, the Opposition on Thursday went all out against Chidambaram in Parliament and both Houses saw disruption over demand for his resignation. While the Opposition stalled the Lok Sabha throughout the day, except for a brief interlude, Question Hour could not be taken in the Rajya Sabha.
As soon as the Rajya Sabha met for the day and Chairman Hamid Ansari commenced the Question Hour, BJP members, including Chandan Mitra and M Venkaiah Naidu, raised the matter.
Several BJP MPs as well as AIADMK leader V Maitreyan were seen waving copies of The Pioneer, which carried on the front-page an explosive story in its Thursday edition.
Evan as Ansari asked the members to refrain from showing the newspaper, sharp exchanges took place between Opposition and Treasury Benches.
In the midst of it, some Congress members were seen displaying copy of a newspaper which had a report that a trust, with Anna Hazare as a member, had allegedly grabbed land in Pune. As din prevailed, Ansari adjourned the House till noon at about 11.05 am.
The Lok Sabha witnessed uproar during Zero Hour with BJP and AIADMK members rushing into the Well of the House demanding Chidambaram’s resignation. AIADMK MPs, led by M Thambidurai and Semmalai, rushed to the Well along with several other party colleagues. The BJP’s protest was led by Murli Manohar Joshi and Yashwant Sinha.
Demanding the dismissal of Chidambaram from the Cabinet, BJP MPs and JD(U) MPs also trooped into the Well of the House. The AIADMK members were also seen waving copies of The Pioneer and demanded that Chidambaram be put in Tihar Jail along with former Telecom Minister A Raja.
The House was first adjourned at 12.30 PM, and when familiar scenes were witnessed on resumption at 2 pm, it was adjourned for the day.
Meanwhile, Chidambaram fielded Home Secretary RK Singh to put forward a strange argument in his defence. Singh claimed that order attributed to Chidambaram giving approval to withdraw cases against Gupta was drafted by a director in the Ministry and not seen by the Home Minister.
“The draft of a letter sent by the Home Ministry to the Delhi Government for withdrawal of the FIRs had not been shown to the Home Minister or Home Secretary or the Joint Secretary concerned and it did not reflect the proper deliberations of the Home Ministry. He suggested it could be a fault of drafting,” Singh said.
Defending Chidambaram, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said the Home Minister had specifically said on May 4, 2011 that his Ministry should not issue any direction to the Government of NCT and only forward the advice of the Law Ministry. These instructions are clearly there on the file, but still some official went ahead and issued direction for which the Minister should not be held responsible, he said.
Bansal, who is a lawyer, also agreed with Chidambaram’s plea that he did not remember having represented SP Gupta. He said it was difficult for a lawyer to remember whom he had represented ten years back.
Source : dailypioneer
Margashirsha Krushna 6, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
Home Minister faces High Command ire
Home Minister P Chidambaram on Thursday battled to retain his chair in the face of a strident call for his resignation within and outside Parliament. The decision of the Lt Governor of Delhi, Tejinder Khanna, to revoke the order for withdrawal of FIR against Chidambaram’s former client, hotelier SP Gupta, may have come too late. The damage control exercise will only give credence to allegations that the Home Minister’s directive to the Delhi Police to give relief to Gupta in three cases of serious fraud and cheating was legally untenable.
Despite facing such serious charges, Chidambaram did not make appearance in Parliament and remained out of bound for the media as well. The Government, the Congress and the Home Ministry did play proxy for the beleaguered Minister, but their defence was at best an exercise in evasion and at worst a ploy at making scapegoat of a junior official.
In addition to the tell-tale evidence establishing his complicity in the withdrawal of cases against the Gupta, the Home Minister also faces the ire of 10 Janpath — since the hotelier had floated a trust in the name of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and named Sonia Gandhi as its patron. Sources said Sonia was livid at her name being dragged in the unsavoury scandal and wanted legal process should not be interfered with.
Chidambaram also faces serious allegation of involvement in the 2G scam. The Supreme Court has reserved a judgement on a plea for CBI probe in his role and the lower court has already granted permission to Subramanian Swamy to proceed against him. While in both cases his fate will depend on judicial pronouncements, in the Gupta’s case it will be difficult for the Government to go on defending the indefensible.
Sensing the kill, the Opposition on Thursday went all out against Chidambaram in Parliament and both Houses saw disruption over demand for his resignation. While the Opposition stalled the Lok Sabha throughout the day, except for a brief interlude, Question Hour could not be taken in the Rajya Sabha.
As soon as the Rajya Sabha met for the day and Chairman Hamid Ansari commenced the Question Hour, BJP members, including Chandan Mitra and M Venkaiah Naidu, raised the matter.
Several BJP MPs as well as AIADMK leader V Maitreyan were seen waving copies of The Pioneer, which carried on the front-page an explosive story in its Thursday edition.
Evan as Ansari asked the members to refrain from showing the newspaper, sharp exchanges took place between Opposition and Treasury Benches.
In the midst of it, some Congress members were seen displaying copy of a newspaper which had a report that a trust, with Anna Hazare as a member, had allegedly grabbed land in Pune. As din prevailed, Ansari adjourned the House till noon at about 11.05 am.
The Lok Sabha witnessed uproar during Zero Hour with BJP and AIADMK members rushing into the Well of the House demanding Chidambaram’s resignation. AIADMK MPs, led by M Thambidurai and Semmalai, rushed to the Well along with several other party colleagues. The BJP’s protest was led by Murli Manohar Joshi and Yashwant Sinha.
Demanding the dismissal of Chidambaram from the Cabinet, BJP MPs and JD(U) MPs also trooped into the Well of the House. The AIADMK members were also seen waving copies of The Pioneer and demanded that Chidambaram be put in Tihar Jail along with former Telecom Minister A Raja.
The House was first adjourned at 12.30 PM, and when familiar scenes were witnessed on resumption at 2 pm, it was adjourned for the day.
Meanwhile, Chidambaram fielded Home Secretary RK Singh to put forward a strange argument in his defence. Singh claimed that order attributed to Chidambaram giving approval to withdraw cases against Gupta was drafted by a director in the Ministry and not seen by the Home Minister.
“The draft of a letter sent by the Home Ministry to the Delhi Government for withdrawal of the FIRs had not been shown to the Home Minister or Home Secretary or the Joint Secretary concerned and it did not reflect the proper deliberations of the Home Ministry. He suggested it could be a fault of drafting,” Singh said.
Defending Chidambaram, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said the Home Minister had specifically said on May 4, 2011 that his Ministry should not issue any direction to the Government of NCT and only forward the advice of the Law Ministry. These instructions are clearly there on the file, but still some official went ahead and issued direction for which the Minister should not be held responsible, he said.
Bansal, who is a lawyer, also agreed with Chidambaram’s plea that he did not remember having represented SP Gupta. He said it was difficult for a lawyer to remember whom he had represented ten years back.
Source : dailypioneer
15 Dec : Statement of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President Janata Party
15 December 2011 :
Margshirsh Krushna Panchami, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
I demand that the Prime Minister immediately call for the resignation of the Union Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram for his gross and reckless disregard of the Code of Conduct for Ministers regarding conflict of interest. Not only the FIR was not worthy of the attention of the Home Minister, because it was based on a private complaint by a private party against another private party, and hence not filed by any agency of the Government; but also that Mr. Chidambaram had been an Counsel for one of the parties, namely Mr. S.P. Gupta. The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice B.P. Singh and Justice Altamash Kabir in its judgment dated 3.7.2006 had held that “In our view, investigation (based on the FIR) cannot be quashed” thereby upholding the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 24.3.2005 in Writ Petition No. 1163/2003. Thus, for the Home Minister to intervene for his former client makes Mr. Chidambaram guilty of gross misconduct attracting Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is also guilty of having committed contempt of the Supreme Court by ordering the withdrawal of the FIR registered against Mr. Gupta.
Let the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh know that if he cannot act on such a blatant disregard of the laws of the country as well as the Code of Conduct of one of his Ministers, then he himself loses all moral right to continue as the Prime Minister of the country.
( SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY )
President Janata Party
Source : Janata Party
Margshirsh Krushna Panchami, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
I demand that the Prime Minister immediately call for the resignation of the Union Home Minister Mr. P. Chidambaram for his gross and reckless disregard of the Code of Conduct for Ministers regarding conflict of interest. Not only the FIR was not worthy of the attention of the Home Minister, because it was based on a private complaint by a private party against another private party, and hence not filed by any agency of the Government; but also that Mr. Chidambaram had been an Counsel for one of the parties, namely Mr. S.P. Gupta. The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice B.P. Singh and Justice Altamash Kabir in its judgment dated 3.7.2006 had held that “In our view, investigation (based on the FIR) cannot be quashed” thereby upholding the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated 24.3.2005 in Writ Petition No. 1163/2003. Thus, for the Home Minister to intervene for his former client makes Mr. Chidambaram guilty of gross misconduct attracting Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He is also guilty of having committed contempt of the Supreme Court by ordering the withdrawal of the FIR registered against Mr. Gupta.
Let the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh know that if he cannot act on such a blatant disregard of the laws of the country as well as the Code of Conduct of one of his Ministers, then he himself loses all moral right to continue as the Prime Minister of the country.
( SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY )
President Janata Party
Source : Janata Party
Delhi HC to decide fate of Electronic Voting Machines
December 15 2011(NEW DELHI) :
Margshirsh Krushna Panchami, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
The Delhi High Court will on January 10 next take a call on whether the upcoming Assembly elections in five States will be conducted through the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) or e-ballot papers.
Taking a note of the urgency involved in the matter given the Assembly polls in Uttarakhand, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Goa and Manipur early next year, the court allowed the plea of petitioner Subramanian Swamy for urgent disposal of the matter.
Janata Party president Swami had alleged that voting through EVMs lacked transparency and either paper printouts should be incorporated in the EVMs or the Election Commission should return to the ballot paper system to avoid tampering at the time of polls.
This assumes significance in wake of the controversy surrounding the use of EVMs in India amid allegations that they are not tamper-proof. The row over the issue had intensified after the general elections in 2009 with several Opposition parties including the BJP demanding that polls in India be conducted through ballot papers. Similar demand was made prior to the local body elections in Gujarat and Maharashtra.
Arguing before a division bench of acting Chief Justice AK Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Swamy insisted that ‘transparency’ had to be given priority over ‘efficiency’ in the poll process.
He said that the electronic database in the EVMs is controlled by micro-processor chips that are not tamper-proof. He cited instances of other European democracies where ballot paper continues to be the mode of voting despite being technologically advanced than India.
The counsel appearing for the Election Commission sought to convince that paper trail or the use of ballot papers was not feasible as not only it would require immense expenditure but also result in cutting down forests given the huge quantity of paper that would be required for the purpose.
“There are 10 lakh voting centres in the country and 73 crore voters. Voting through ballot papers would require huge expenditure besides cutting down of trees. We are still exploring the possible modifications in the EVMs. The EVMs have a benefit that electronic database in them can be reconstructed anytime,” the counsel said.
Interestingly, an expert committee appointed by the EC is considering introduction of “paper trail” so that voters can get a printout that will show symbol on which the vote was cast. The voter will be required to put it in a box before leaving the polling booth. For this, the a small printer can be installed along with the EVMs.
The technical expert committee on EVMs, headed by Prof PV Indiresan, former Director of IIT-M has also held discussion with officials of the Bharat Electronic Limited and Electronic Corporation.
The EC appointed the committee on October 8 last when at an all-party meeting majority of political parties backed the proposal to have a ‘voter verifiable paper trail’ in EVMs to counter the charges of tampering. The BJP had been in the forefront of this demand.
Referring the matter to the three-member committee, the EC in its Press note said, “Several political parties have suggested the possibility of incorporating a ‘voter verifiable paper trail’ in EVMs to be explored.”
In the background of severe indictment of EVMs and the fact that Indirsan committee is yet to take a final call on the matter, the stout opposition to the proposal by EC counsel seen as a surprising development.
Source : dailypioneer
Margshirsh Krushna Panchami, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
The Delhi High Court will on January 10 next take a call on whether the upcoming Assembly elections in five States will be conducted through the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) or e-ballot papers.
Taking a note of the urgency involved in the matter given the Assembly polls in Uttarakhand, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Goa and Manipur early next year, the court allowed the plea of petitioner Subramanian Swamy for urgent disposal of the matter.
Janata Party president Swami had alleged that voting through EVMs lacked transparency and either paper printouts should be incorporated in the EVMs or the Election Commission should return to the ballot paper system to avoid tampering at the time of polls.
This assumes significance in wake of the controversy surrounding the use of EVMs in India amid allegations that they are not tamper-proof. The row over the issue had intensified after the general elections in 2009 with several Opposition parties including the BJP demanding that polls in India be conducted through ballot papers. Similar demand was made prior to the local body elections in Gujarat and Maharashtra.
Arguing before a division bench of acting Chief Justice AK Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Swamy insisted that ‘transparency’ had to be given priority over ‘efficiency’ in the poll process.
He said that the electronic database in the EVMs is controlled by micro-processor chips that are not tamper-proof. He cited instances of other European democracies where ballot paper continues to be the mode of voting despite being technologically advanced than India.
The counsel appearing for the Election Commission sought to convince that paper trail or the use of ballot papers was not feasible as not only it would require immense expenditure but also result in cutting down forests given the huge quantity of paper that would be required for the purpose.
“There are 10 lakh voting centres in the country and 73 crore voters. Voting through ballot papers would require huge expenditure besides cutting down of trees. We are still exploring the possible modifications in the EVMs. The EVMs have a benefit that electronic database in them can be reconstructed anytime,” the counsel said.
Interestingly, an expert committee appointed by the EC is considering introduction of “paper trail” so that voters can get a printout that will show symbol on which the vote was cast. The voter will be required to put it in a box before leaving the polling booth. For this, the a small printer can be installed along with the EVMs.
The technical expert committee on EVMs, headed by Prof PV Indiresan, former Director of IIT-M has also held discussion with officials of the Bharat Electronic Limited and Electronic Corporation.
The EC appointed the committee on October 8 last when at an all-party meeting majority of political parties backed the proposal to have a ‘voter verifiable paper trail’ in EVMs to counter the charges of tampering. The BJP had been in the forefront of this demand.
Referring the matter to the three-member committee, the EC in its Press note said, “Several political parties have suggested the possibility of incorporating a ‘voter verifiable paper trail’ in EVMs to be explored.”
In the background of severe indictment of EVMs and the fact that Indirsan committee is yet to take a final call on the matter, the stout opposition to the proposal by EC counsel seen as a surprising development.
Source : dailypioneer
Harvard Sells Out Free Speech to Islamic Supremacism
by Pamela Geller
Dec 14 2011 :
Harvard University has dropped courses on economics taught by a Hindu professor, Subramanian Swamy, president of the Janata Party of India and a former Union Cabinet minister—not because they were poorly taught, or because Swamy advocated discredited economic theories (such as, say, socialism), but because he wrote an editorial last summer that Muslims find offensive.
University officials said that Swamy’s editorial was “reprehensible.” Harvard students formed a group called the Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard, and demanded that Harvard fire Swamy. Comparative religion Prof. Diana Eck explained: “There is a distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political views.”
Swamy, however, said that university authorities never even bothered to discuss the matter with him. “If there was an objection, they should have written to me.” With his firing, he said, “A dangerous precedent has been enacted.” That’s true, because when the protests first began, Harvard officials said they were going to keep Swamy on the faculty and defend his right to free speech.
The university had initially decided to stand by Swamy, citing principles of free speech. Harvard’s Faculty Council voted unanimously to keep him on board. But Swamy’s detractors didn’t give up with that vote: Philosophy Department Chairman Sean Kelly at first defended the Faculty Council’s decision, but then changed his mind and voted for the removal of Swamy’s courses from Harvard’s offerings. “I was persuaded,” he said, “that the views expressed in Dr Swamy’s op-ed piece amounted to incitement of violence instead of protected political speech.”
Neither Eck nor Kelly nor anyone else, however, bothered to mention that Swamy’s piece was called “How to wipe out Islamic terror,” and that it was written in the context of the Islamic jihad against India. I ran it on my website AtlasShrugs.com here on July 16, 2011. Swamy wrote: “The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, requires a decisive soul-searching by Hindus of India. Hindus cannot accept to be killed in this Halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day, till the nation finally collapses.” He noted that “there are about 40 reported and unreported terrorist attacks per month in the country. That is why the recent U.S. National Counterterrorism Center publication, 'A Chronology of International Terrorism,' states: ‘India suffered more terrorist acts than any other country.’ ”
In light of this fight for India’s very life, Swamy offered a series of strategies for India’s defense. He even invited Muslims of conscience to join in the defense against the jihad and Islamic supremacism: “In this response, Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu.”
Some of Swamy’s recommendations reflect the deep crisis that he sees in India. He urged that “whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate—not by measured and ‘sober’ responses, but by massive retaliation. Otherwise what is the alternative? Walk meekly to death expecting that our ‘sober’ responses will be rewarded by our neighbors and their patrons? We will be back to 1100 A.D., fooled into suicidal credulity. We should not be ghouls for punishment from terrorists and their patrons. We should retaliate.”
Accordingly, he recommended that when Islamic jihadists “blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees,” that mosques should also be “removed” as a “tit-for-tat.” In light of Islamic efforts to “make India into Darul Islam” (that is, the House of Islam, land ruled by Islamic law), Swamy said that India should “implement Uniform Civil Code, make Sanskrit learning compulsory and singing of "Vande Mataram" mandatory, and declare India as Hindu Rashtra in which only those non-Hindus can vote if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors are Hindus.”
People who sincerely believe in human rights and want to defend free societies against the Islamic jihad may disagree that some of Swamy’s recommendations are necessary or appropriate. But is it not central to this Ivy League university and every institution in these United States to “protect free speech, including that of Dr Swamy and of those who disagree with him”?
Where does Harvard address the truth of Swamy’s remarks, or the 80 million Hindus slaughtered in jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements?
India, along with Israel, southern Sudan and so many other places, have been the battlefields in endless bloody wars to install a universal caliphate, the objective of the global jihad.
Freedom of speech protects all speech, not just the ideas that we like. That’s the point. Who decides what’s good and what’s forbidden? Harvard? The Islamic supremacists who are seeking to impose the Sharia restriction on free speech?
Harvard has been bought and sold to the highest Sharia bidder. In December 2005, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to fund Islamic studies.
It is dire. I cannot believe this is America.
Source : humanevents.com
The Harvard Fatwa
December 13 2011 :
Margshirsh Krushna 3 ,Kaliyug Varsha 5113
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 to remove 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 a lesbian, 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.”
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.
Shame on you Harvard mullahs!
Source : harvardfatwa
Margshirsh Krushna 3 ,Kaliyug Varsha 5113
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 to remove 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 a lesbian, 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.”
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.
Shame on you Harvard mullahs!
Source : harvardfatwa
HINDU AVALANCHE IS GAINING MOMENTUM IN THE USA AGAINST HARVARD UNIVERSITY
December 13 2011
Margshirsh Krushna 3 ,Kaliyug Varsha 5113
Dear Readers:
Thousands of Indian Americans, several Human Rights Activists, including Dr. Dr. Richard L. Benkin, Diversity-USA, Fire (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), Save India from Corruption, Indian American Intellectuals Forum, several other institutions and highly placed professionals, living in India as well as USA have registered their protest to the President of Harvard, Dr. Drew Faust at 617-495-0505 or 617-495-1502 (president@harvard.edu) and Dean Dr. Mike Smith at 617-495-1566 (mike_smith@harvard.edu) against the curtailment of free speech at Harvard.
They view the dropping of Dr. Swamy’s cousrses at Harvard as politically motivated, unfair and unjustified and request reinstatement of the same.
Please express your dissent and disgust by calling and sending your emails in a decent and dignified manner.
Here is one more powerful letter written by Global Hindu Heritage Foundation to the President, Dean and other faculty members of Harvard saying that Harvard's decision to remove Dr. Swamy's courses is shocking, hateful, repulsive and totally biased.
[GHHF] Harvard University’s Decision to remove Dr. Swamy’s Summer Courses shocking, hateful, repulsive and totally biased
December 12, 2011
In 3000 years of our history people from all over the world have come and invaded us, captured our lands, conquered our minds. From Alexander onwards, the Greeks, the Turks, the Moguls, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Dutch, all of them came and looted us, took over what was ours. Yet we have not done this to any other nation. We have not conquered anyone. We have not grabbed their lands, their culture, their history and tried to enforce our way of life on them. Why? Because we respect the freedom of others. That is why my first vision is that of FREEDOM. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, Former President of India.
It is shocking to read that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) of Harvard University have voted to remove two courses from the Summer School offerings Dr. Subramanian Swamy was teaching for a number of years. The academic university, which is known for championing the free speech, has become pawn of self-professed liberal academicians who feel that Dr. Swamy’s speech was “hateful.” These academicians appear to have no knowledge about the atrocities committed by the Islamic terrorists, Islamic war on Hinduism, daily infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into West Bengal, professed killings of non-believers, and satanic verses demanding the destruction of Temples and Hindu Gods.
Dr. Swamy’s article is a peaceful approach to the most dangerous situation that is wrecking India. He did not advocate terrorism, did not mention about the extermination of any religion, did not advocate the forced conversion, did not call for burning the non-believers of Hinduism, did not advocate the demolition of Mosques, did not espouse the imposition of Jizya tax on non-Hindus, and did not declare fatwa on the haters of Hinduism. Any rational, fair minded, freedom loving, objective, logical, pluralistic persons irrespective of their religious affiliation would appreciate and applaud his article on “How to wipe out Islamic Terrorism?”
These academicians seem to know more than Dr. Abdul Kalam’s assessment of Hindus, their philosophy, their culture, their religion, their tolerance, their mindset, and their respect for freedom. For centuries Hindu have welcomed by almost all the religions with open hands, respected them and allowed them to practice their religion. Jewish people openly declared that the India is the only country that has not discriminated. Like wise Parsees, the descendents of Zoroastrians, were thrown out from their homeland, Persia, to be welcomed by India. Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and many others religions lived peacefully. In fact, on December 1, 2011 Sri Dalai Lama proudly announced that “I consider myself as a son of India” and carries the message of ahimsa across the globe and says that the country’s spiritual leaders should promote love and harmony in India and outside. Further he observed “that India has so many languages and dialects, yet remains strongly united because there is the freedom of speech and rule of law.”
Additionally, India welcomed with open hands two other religions – Islam and Christianity. These two religions profess their superiority and exclusivity. One is damned in hell if they do not believe in their God. In the name of God, Islamic invaders caused untold atrocities on Hindus. Suffice to mention the gloomy picture described by Koenraad Elst: “The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).” Goa inquisition is as bloodiest as Islamic onslaught on Hindus. Genocide of Hindus by these two religions is described in greater details if one is objective and rational. No Hindu would ever think of this kind of brutality, cruelty and viciousness even to their worst enemies, let alone do it.
The decision to remove two courses Dr Swamy was teaching for years is blot on the reputation of the university, blotch on the credentials of the faculty, stain on the objectivity of the faculty, blemish on the faculty’s grasp of the nearly eight centuries Islamic terror, spot on the integrity of the faculty, and a show case for the abuse of academic authority. Arrogance of academic power, pure hatred toward Hindus pluralism, alignment with religion that abhors human freedom and dignity, associating with no-productive petro dollars, and negation of the history of Islamic barbarism are unpardonable offenses committed by the pseudo secular scholars at Harvard.
The so-called liberal faculty members at Harvard thought the Dr. Swamy’s article is equal to incitement of violence and a hateful speech.
Amnesia at Harvard
It appears that many of the faculty members seem to experience Islamic amnesia – they experience memory loss, suffer from forgetfulness, and become totally blank when it comes to Islamic terror that reined India and continue to terrorize many countries. They close their eyes, plug their ears and tape their mouths when it comes to talk about the destruction of thousands of Hindu Temples by the Muslims, killing of millions and millions of Hindus, mass raping of untold number of Hindu women, pillage of national treasures and whole sale conversion of Hindus into Islam at gunpoint.
Would they be willing to remove all the Islamic courses because these courses talk about Terror, violence, destruction and mass killings? The faculty members at Harvard appear to either justify or ignore all the atrocities committed by Muslims on Hindus for more than eight centuries.
Are the Harvard Faculty Jaundiced eyed?
Any persons suffering from the medical condition known as jaundice would see everything as yellow. It means the person with jaundiced eye would have a prejudiced view, usually negative, prejudiced, subjective, biased or critical. The blind association with the so-called liberal thinking may have interfered with the objectivity, rationality, and balanced opinion – the hallmark of academicians – causing them to see Dr. Swamy’s article through jaundiced eyes.
Past History: The human beings are relentlessly tortured to make a decision by between two seemingly contrasting areas of human endeavor, namely, the pursuit of livelihood and the reality of existence. No matter how idealistic one may be, one cannot the escape from the past, present and future. Faculty members at Harvard chose to ignore the past history of the Islamic atrocities in India that experienced the untold misery. As many as 80 million Hindus were brutally murdered, millions of women were raped, millions of people were disfigured, thousands of Temples were destroyed, thousands of Hindu Temples were converted to Mosques including Taj Mahal, Qutub Minar & Kaaba in Saudi Arabia, a number of Mosques were built either on the Hindu religious places or built in front of them, and converted Hindus into Islam. Many people keep moaning and whining about the demolition of Babri Masjid forgetting the 14 centuries of destruction of Temples, mass killings, wholesale rape of Hindu women, and forced conversion of Hindus. Sitaram Goel compiled a list of 2000 mosques that were converted from Hindu Temples. He listed them by the present name of the mosques, the earlier name of the Hindu Temples and the location state by state, for any fair minded to read, digest and comprehend. They would not say a word about the horrific history.
Present status: Similarly the Faculty members decided to overlook the present conditions in India and how Muslims are aggressively planning to convert India in to three Muslim countries. At first SIMI, Indian Mujahideen, ISI from Pakistan, and others are relentlessly creating terror in the major cities killing scores of people, blasting Hindu Temples and Hindu pilgrimage centers and declaring fatwa against any body who criticizes Islam, imposing Jizya tax on Hindus in Muslim dominated cities and making India as part of Dar-ul-Islam (world Islam). For all practical purposes, Article 370 excluded Hindus to own any property. Can any of these distinguished professors find any parallels to this kind of provision in any other country? Will it be acceptable for these Faculty members to exclude Muslims from owning land in any one of the states in India? Nearly half a million Kashmiri Pandits were chased out from their homeland and forced to live in tents. Almost all the districts in West Bengal bordering Bangladesh have millions of Muslim infiltrators tilting the balance toward Muslim state. Rampage and terror continues even today forcing Hindus to flee from their villages. Converting many Hindus into Islam through Love Jihad is continuing openly. The Muslim Clerics openly asking their faithfuls to have eight children to make Kerala a Muslim State. The list goes on.
Future outlook: Like wise the Faculty members should also look at what might happen in the future based on the past history and present conditions. One does not have to be an expert in Islamic Expansion to find out what might happen. Just look around, you will see it. There are as many as 52 Islamic countries where other religions are abhorred or barred from practicing their religion. In Saudi Arabia no body can take even Bhagad Gita or any other Hindu scriptures. It is also a known fact that majority of these countries are undemocratic, mostly controlled and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists and Al Qaeda. Individual rights are denied. One has to submit to Allah, because “there is no God but Allah.” That means they do not accept neither Hindu Gods nor Christian Jesus. There would not be any freedom, pluralism and independence left in those countries. Neither the members of FAS nor an average citizen are worth any more. In Pakistan, at the time of Independence in 1947, Hindu population was about 20 percent. Today, not even a fraction of one percent is left. They were either brutally killed or converted to Islam. Out of 428 Hindu temples at the time Independence, not even 25 Temples are functional. Similar story continues in Bangladesh. At the time of Independence, Hindu population was between 28-30 percent. Today, Hindus account for less than 7 percent of the population. Most of them were either killed or forced to convert. In India, Muslim population was about 9 percent at the time of Independence; today their population increased to more than 14 percent. Their fertility rate is much higher than any other religious group.
Coexistence is anathema for Islam and to some extent for Christianity. Wherever they went they either terminated the local population, converted them, conducted inquisitions, imposed jizya tax, destroyed the Hindu Temples, or decimated the local cultures. Hindus accept dialogue, discussions, criticism and debate. Hindus do not believe in conversion by any means to hoist the flag of hegemony in other countries. How many faculty members can talk about these 52 plus countries and examine as to how they were able to make these countries Islamic nations? How come they cannot accept the concept of Hindu Nation and call Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s statement as hateful? Can they also declare the Islamic countries as hateful, vicious, and destructive? Have they ever examined the freedom of speech and freedom of worship of the minorities in these Islamic countries? Is it not their moral responsibility to question the freedom issue in these Islamic countries?
What is expected of Academicians?
Academicians in general are expected to demonstrate honesty, integrity, objectivity, fairness, rationality and professionalism conduct are expected. Their presentation of views and opinions should be couched in scientific evidence. They are also expected to have broad knowledge where they should give both side of the argument, rather than being biased based on affiliation, association, allurement and monetary inducements.
Faculty members have the responsibility of adhering to the Free Speech Guidelines adopted by the faculty. It states that the “Free speech is uniquely important to the University because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse. Free interchange of ideas is vital for our primary function of discovering and disseminating ideas through research, teaching and learning. Curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom…”
When Professor Diana Eck says “Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places,” and “Harvard has a moral responsibility not to affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a minority group.”
Professor Sugata Bose states that “[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”
Being a Historian, Dr Bose should know better than that and compare apples with apples. What a tragedy. These are the professors teaching young students and molding them to hate Dr. Swamy’s article but never open their mouths about the hateful, violent, destructive and demeaning verses in Quran. Hiding behind freedom of speech, they are distorting the views of Dr. Swamy. Comparing the statement that Muslims accept their Hindu ancestry to Jewish American and African American accept the supremacy of Anglo Saxon Protestant is nothing but a blatant distortion of Dr. Swamy. One wonders about the competency of these professors in teaching at Harvard.
Now the question is what kind of research they have conducted about Islamic terror in India and the satanic verses in Quran. How many of them know that as many as 3400 people were killed by Islamic terrorists in the last one decade? They have failed to follow the guidelines adopted by the faculty – disseminating ideas through research.
These faculty members are not lay people, uneducated, biased and subjective who express their opinions without any scientific research. They are expected to be authority on the subject they speak about. What kind of research they have done and how many of them have done research on Quran and Islamic open war against Hindus in India?
What happened to the moral responsibility of the faculty members in addressing these issues?
Academic abuse of authority
Based on the controversial decision taken at Harvard with regard to Summer School offerings, every University should look at the standard procedure of a group of faculty members approving the courses for that school. This has been a norm for centuries; it is nothing new. An incident like this opens every body’s eyes and wonder as to “how can it be.”
Decisions are made by the faculty members of a particular School as to whether a course can be offered in a given semester. In each School there may be as many as 10 – 30 departments representing different disciples. That means if the Economics Department would like to offer Economics 101, decision is made by overwhelming majority of non-economists. The faculty members in the field of Sanskrit, Comparative Religion, philosophy, Islamic Studies, History, Sociology, Anthropology, Music, Art, Mathematics, Statistics, English and other fields decide depending on their clicks, associations and / or favors. Traditionally the faculty members would follow the recommendations of the department concerned. They have over stepped their boundaries in removing these courses.
Regarding the two courses Dr. Swamy was teaching over the years, the distinguished professors used their biases, prejudices, hatefulness, narrow-mindedness, and vindictiveness in rejecting the courses. There is nothing wrong with the courses except that these courses were to be taught by Dr. Swamy. Many of these faculty members have no clue as to the ground reality in India. Many of them have no expertise in the field of neither Economics nor Islam. But they can dispose these courses even if the God proposes. They are given that kind of authority. It is time for all Academic Universities to probe the academic abuse of their authority.
Can these Academicians call the following verses in Quran HATEFUL?
If these distinguished faculty members consider Dr. Swamy’s article a hateful speech, what would they call the following verses in Quran. Just for their perusal, we listed only few.
What do Professors Eck, Witzel, Kelly, Bose and others say about these verses?
Quran contains many verses that offend the sentiments of Hindus, their worship practices, and their numerous gods because they are considered kafirs (non-believers). These verses create enmity between the religions, create disharmony, create poisonous climate for the destruction of Hind images, belittle the belief system, and encourage killing of non-believers (Hindus). Hindus believe in peaceful coexistence while the Quran believes in total domination with no rights for non-believers.
Idol worshippers
[31:13] Recall that Luqmaan said to his son, as he enlightened him, “O my son, do not set up any idols beside GOD; idolatry is a gross injustice.”
[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.
[4:48] GOD does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who sets up idols beside GOD, has forged a horrendous offense.
[4:116] GOD does not forgive idol worship (if maintained until death), and He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who idolizes any idol beside GOD has strayed far astray.
[39:65] It has been revealed to you, and to those before you that if you ever commit idol worship, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers.
[72:18] The places of worship belong to GOD; do not call on anyone else beside GOD.
Idolaters are unclean just because they are idolater
9.28: O you who believe! The idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He pleases; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
Forcing non-believers to pay tax
9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
2.62, 5.69 : All except Muslims / Jews/Christians / Sabians will go to hell
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers
8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Smite the neck of unbelievers
47.4: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
Now, would the Faculty Cancel courses on Islam?
As documented above, these verses openly advocate the killing of non-believers, destruction of the idols, smiting the necks of unbelievers, the imposition of taxes on nonbelievers, and condemning nonbelievers to hell. How many distinguished faculty members would like to vote on these verses as vicious, inciting, hateful, vicious, and evil? If you cannot vote, how many of them are willing to conduct research on these verses? How many of them are willing to discuss each of these and other verses in Quran openly in the University campus? All the faculty members who voted to scrap these courses from the Summer School denying Dr. Swamy to teach should be honest to their consciousness, integrity, and professionalism. Pascal may have Muslims in his mind when he stated that “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
Reinstate Dr. Swamy, restore credibility, and regain the lost prestige
We earnestly request the President of the University, the faculty, the staff and the students to reintroduce these courses and reinstate Dr. Swamy to teach these courses. It is the right thing, a noble thing and an honest thing to do. Freedom of speech cannot be railroaded by select group of non-experts in the field. The reasons for removal of these courses are based on the supposed hatefulness in Dr. Swamy’s article, then the University should apply the same yardstick to all the Islamic courses based on Quran since it contains hundreds of hateful passages about non-believers. University’s reputation cannot be a sacrificial lamb for certain vested interested, anti-Hindus and self-professed secular liberals. University is a citadel for research, investigation and reasoning. The faculty should look at all sides of the issues rather than carried away by personal prejudices, ignorance and associations. It takes courage, guts and nerve to reverse the decision. The faculty and the President have this rare opportunity to correct the wrong. Every body will be a winner. No body will be a looser for doing the right thing.
Global Hindu Heritage Foundation [GHHF]
Our mission is to preserve, practice, propagate and protect our heritage and abolish Endowment Act and free Temples from the government control. If we have to make an impact on our movement to bring changes to preserve our culture, we need you financial support. Your generous donations to continue our efforts to free Hindu Temples from government control, awaken the Hindus about the plight of Hindu Temples and the impending danger of illegal conversion techniques are essential. We are requesting all the individuals and organizations to support financially to continue our movement to free Hindu Temples from the government control and stop these conversions.
Source : Shri Narain Kataria
Margshirsh Krushna 3 ,Kaliyug Varsha 5113
Dear Readers:
Thousands of Indian Americans, several Human Rights Activists, including Dr. Dr. Richard L. Benkin, Diversity-USA, Fire (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), Save India from Corruption, Indian American Intellectuals Forum, several other institutions and highly placed professionals, living in India as well as USA have registered their protest to the President of Harvard, Dr. Drew Faust at 617-495-0505 or 617-495-1502 (president@harvard.edu) and Dean Dr. Mike Smith at 617-495-1566 (mike_smith@harvard.edu) against the curtailment of free speech at Harvard.
They view the dropping of Dr. Swamy’s cousrses at Harvard as politically motivated, unfair and unjustified and request reinstatement of the same.
Please express your dissent and disgust by calling and sending your emails in a decent and dignified manner.
Here is one more powerful letter written by Global Hindu Heritage Foundation to the President, Dean and other faculty members of Harvard saying that Harvard's decision to remove Dr. Swamy's courses is shocking, hateful, repulsive and totally biased.
[GHHF] Harvard University’s Decision to remove Dr. Swamy’s Summer Courses shocking, hateful, repulsive and totally biased
December 12, 2011
In 3000 years of our history people from all over the world have come and invaded us, captured our lands, conquered our minds. From Alexander onwards, the Greeks, the Turks, the Moguls, the Portuguese, the British, the French, the Dutch, all of them came and looted us, took over what was ours. Yet we have not done this to any other nation. We have not conquered anyone. We have not grabbed their lands, their culture, their history and tried to enforce our way of life on them. Why? Because we respect the freedom of others. That is why my first vision is that of FREEDOM. Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, Former President of India.
It is shocking to read that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) of Harvard University have voted to remove two courses from the Summer School offerings Dr. Subramanian Swamy was teaching for a number of years. The academic university, which is known for championing the free speech, has become pawn of self-professed liberal academicians who feel that Dr. Swamy’s speech was “hateful.” These academicians appear to have no knowledge about the atrocities committed by the Islamic terrorists, Islamic war on Hinduism, daily infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into West Bengal, professed killings of non-believers, and satanic verses demanding the destruction of Temples and Hindu Gods.
Dr. Swamy’s article is a peaceful approach to the most dangerous situation that is wrecking India. He did not advocate terrorism, did not mention about the extermination of any religion, did not advocate the forced conversion, did not call for burning the non-believers of Hinduism, did not advocate the demolition of Mosques, did not espouse the imposition of Jizya tax on non-Hindus, and did not declare fatwa on the haters of Hinduism. Any rational, fair minded, freedom loving, objective, logical, pluralistic persons irrespective of their religious affiliation would appreciate and applaud his article on “How to wipe out Islamic Terrorism?”
These academicians seem to know more than Dr. Abdul Kalam’s assessment of Hindus, their philosophy, their culture, their religion, their tolerance, their mindset, and their respect for freedom. For centuries Hindu have welcomed by almost all the religions with open hands, respected them and allowed them to practice their religion. Jewish people openly declared that the India is the only country that has not discriminated. Like wise Parsees, the descendents of Zoroastrians, were thrown out from their homeland, Persia, to be welcomed by India. Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and many others religions lived peacefully. In fact, on December 1, 2011 Sri Dalai Lama proudly announced that “I consider myself as a son of India” and carries the message of ahimsa across the globe and says that the country’s spiritual leaders should promote love and harmony in India and outside. Further he observed “that India has so many languages and dialects, yet remains strongly united because there is the freedom of speech and rule of law.”
Additionally, India welcomed with open hands two other religions – Islam and Christianity. These two religions profess their superiority and exclusivity. One is damned in hell if they do not believe in their God. In the name of God, Islamic invaders caused untold atrocities on Hindus. Suffice to mention the gloomy picture described by Koenraad Elst: “The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).” Goa inquisition is as bloodiest as Islamic onslaught on Hindus. Genocide of Hindus by these two religions is described in greater details if one is objective and rational. No Hindu would ever think of this kind of brutality, cruelty and viciousness even to their worst enemies, let alone do it.
The decision to remove two courses Dr Swamy was teaching for years is blot on the reputation of the university, blotch on the credentials of the faculty, stain on the objectivity of the faculty, blemish on the faculty’s grasp of the nearly eight centuries Islamic terror, spot on the integrity of the faculty, and a show case for the abuse of academic authority. Arrogance of academic power, pure hatred toward Hindus pluralism, alignment with religion that abhors human freedom and dignity, associating with no-productive petro dollars, and negation of the history of Islamic barbarism are unpardonable offenses committed by the pseudo secular scholars at Harvard.
The so-called liberal faculty members at Harvard thought the Dr. Swamy’s article is equal to incitement of violence and a hateful speech.
Amnesia at Harvard
It appears that many of the faculty members seem to experience Islamic amnesia – they experience memory loss, suffer from forgetfulness, and become totally blank when it comes to Islamic terror that reined India and continue to terrorize many countries. They close their eyes, plug their ears and tape their mouths when it comes to talk about the destruction of thousands of Hindu Temples by the Muslims, killing of millions and millions of Hindus, mass raping of untold number of Hindu women, pillage of national treasures and whole sale conversion of Hindus into Islam at gunpoint.
Would they be willing to remove all the Islamic courses because these courses talk about Terror, violence, destruction and mass killings? The faculty members at Harvard appear to either justify or ignore all the atrocities committed by Muslims on Hindus for more than eight centuries.
Are the Harvard Faculty Jaundiced eyed?
Any persons suffering from the medical condition known as jaundice would see everything as yellow. It means the person with jaundiced eye would have a prejudiced view, usually negative, prejudiced, subjective, biased or critical. The blind association with the so-called liberal thinking may have interfered with the objectivity, rationality, and balanced opinion – the hallmark of academicians – causing them to see Dr. Swamy’s article through jaundiced eyes.
Past History: The human beings are relentlessly tortured to make a decision by between two seemingly contrasting areas of human endeavor, namely, the pursuit of livelihood and the reality of existence. No matter how idealistic one may be, one cannot the escape from the past, present and future. Faculty members at Harvard chose to ignore the past history of the Islamic atrocities in India that experienced the untold misery. As many as 80 million Hindus were brutally murdered, millions of women were raped, millions of people were disfigured, thousands of Temples were destroyed, thousands of Hindu Temples were converted to Mosques including Taj Mahal, Qutub Minar & Kaaba in Saudi Arabia, a number of Mosques were built either on the Hindu religious places or built in front of them, and converted Hindus into Islam. Many people keep moaning and whining about the demolition of Babri Masjid forgetting the 14 centuries of destruction of Temples, mass killings, wholesale rape of Hindu women, and forced conversion of Hindus. Sitaram Goel compiled a list of 2000 mosques that were converted from Hindu Temples. He listed them by the present name of the mosques, the earlier name of the Hindu Temples and the location state by state, for any fair minded to read, digest and comprehend. They would not say a word about the horrific history.
Present status: Similarly the Faculty members decided to overlook the present conditions in India and how Muslims are aggressively planning to convert India in to three Muslim countries. At first SIMI, Indian Mujahideen, ISI from Pakistan, and others are relentlessly creating terror in the major cities killing scores of people, blasting Hindu Temples and Hindu pilgrimage centers and declaring fatwa against any body who criticizes Islam, imposing Jizya tax on Hindus in Muslim dominated cities and making India as part of Dar-ul-Islam (world Islam). For all practical purposes, Article 370 excluded Hindus to own any property. Can any of these distinguished professors find any parallels to this kind of provision in any other country? Will it be acceptable for these Faculty members to exclude Muslims from owning land in any one of the states in India? Nearly half a million Kashmiri Pandits were chased out from their homeland and forced to live in tents. Almost all the districts in West Bengal bordering Bangladesh have millions of Muslim infiltrators tilting the balance toward Muslim state. Rampage and terror continues even today forcing Hindus to flee from their villages. Converting many Hindus into Islam through Love Jihad is continuing openly. The Muslim Clerics openly asking their faithfuls to have eight children to make Kerala a Muslim State. The list goes on.
Future outlook: Like wise the Faculty members should also look at what might happen in the future based on the past history and present conditions. One does not have to be an expert in Islamic Expansion to find out what might happen. Just look around, you will see it. There are as many as 52 Islamic countries where other religions are abhorred or barred from practicing their religion. In Saudi Arabia no body can take even Bhagad Gita or any other Hindu scriptures. It is also a known fact that majority of these countries are undemocratic, mostly controlled and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists and Al Qaeda. Individual rights are denied. One has to submit to Allah, because “there is no God but Allah.” That means they do not accept neither Hindu Gods nor Christian Jesus. There would not be any freedom, pluralism and independence left in those countries. Neither the members of FAS nor an average citizen are worth any more. In Pakistan, at the time of Independence in 1947, Hindu population was about 20 percent. Today, not even a fraction of one percent is left. They were either brutally killed or converted to Islam. Out of 428 Hindu temples at the time Independence, not even 25 Temples are functional. Similar story continues in Bangladesh. At the time of Independence, Hindu population was between 28-30 percent. Today, Hindus account for less than 7 percent of the population. Most of them were either killed or forced to convert. In India, Muslim population was about 9 percent at the time of Independence; today their population increased to more than 14 percent. Their fertility rate is much higher than any other religious group.
Coexistence is anathema for Islam and to some extent for Christianity. Wherever they went they either terminated the local population, converted them, conducted inquisitions, imposed jizya tax, destroyed the Hindu Temples, or decimated the local cultures. Hindus accept dialogue, discussions, criticism and debate. Hindus do not believe in conversion by any means to hoist the flag of hegemony in other countries. How many faculty members can talk about these 52 plus countries and examine as to how they were able to make these countries Islamic nations? How come they cannot accept the concept of Hindu Nation and call Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s statement as hateful? Can they also declare the Islamic countries as hateful, vicious, and destructive? Have they ever examined the freedom of speech and freedom of worship of the minorities in these Islamic countries? Is it not their moral responsibility to question the freedom issue in these Islamic countries?
What is expected of Academicians?
Academicians in general are expected to demonstrate honesty, integrity, objectivity, fairness, rationality and professionalism conduct are expected. Their presentation of views and opinions should be couched in scientific evidence. They are also expected to have broad knowledge where they should give both side of the argument, rather than being biased based on affiliation, association, allurement and monetary inducements.
Faculty members have the responsibility of adhering to the Free Speech Guidelines adopted by the faculty. It states that the “Free speech is uniquely important to the University because we are a community committed to reason and rational discourse. Free interchange of ideas is vital for our primary function of discovering and disseminating ideas through research, teaching and learning. Curtailment of free speech undercuts the intellectual freedom…”
When Professor Diana Eck says “Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places,” and “Harvard has a moral responsibility not to affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a minority group.”
Professor Sugata Bose states that “[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”
Being a Historian, Dr Bose should know better than that and compare apples with apples. What a tragedy. These are the professors teaching young students and molding them to hate Dr. Swamy’s article but never open their mouths about the hateful, violent, destructive and demeaning verses in Quran. Hiding behind freedom of speech, they are distorting the views of Dr. Swamy. Comparing the statement that Muslims accept their Hindu ancestry to Jewish American and African American accept the supremacy of Anglo Saxon Protestant is nothing but a blatant distortion of Dr. Swamy. One wonders about the competency of these professors in teaching at Harvard.
Now the question is what kind of research they have conducted about Islamic terror in India and the satanic verses in Quran. How many of them know that as many as 3400 people were killed by Islamic terrorists in the last one decade? They have failed to follow the guidelines adopted by the faculty – disseminating ideas through research.
These faculty members are not lay people, uneducated, biased and subjective who express their opinions without any scientific research. They are expected to be authority on the subject they speak about. What kind of research they have done and how many of them have done research on Quran and Islamic open war against Hindus in India?
What happened to the moral responsibility of the faculty members in addressing these issues?
Academic abuse of authority
Based on the controversial decision taken at Harvard with regard to Summer School offerings, every University should look at the standard procedure of a group of faculty members approving the courses for that school. This has been a norm for centuries; it is nothing new. An incident like this opens every body’s eyes and wonder as to “how can it be.”
Decisions are made by the faculty members of a particular School as to whether a course can be offered in a given semester. In each School there may be as many as 10 – 30 departments representing different disciples. That means if the Economics Department would like to offer Economics 101, decision is made by overwhelming majority of non-economists. The faculty members in the field of Sanskrit, Comparative Religion, philosophy, Islamic Studies, History, Sociology, Anthropology, Music, Art, Mathematics, Statistics, English and other fields decide depending on their clicks, associations and / or favors. Traditionally the faculty members would follow the recommendations of the department concerned. They have over stepped their boundaries in removing these courses.
Regarding the two courses Dr. Swamy was teaching over the years, the distinguished professors used their biases, prejudices, hatefulness, narrow-mindedness, and vindictiveness in rejecting the courses. There is nothing wrong with the courses except that these courses were to be taught by Dr. Swamy. Many of these faculty members have no clue as to the ground reality in India. Many of them have no expertise in the field of neither Economics nor Islam. But they can dispose these courses even if the God proposes. They are given that kind of authority. It is time for all Academic Universities to probe the academic abuse of their authority.
Can these Academicians call the following verses in Quran HATEFUL?
If these distinguished faculty members consider Dr. Swamy’s article a hateful speech, what would they call the following verses in Quran. Just for their perusal, we listed only few.
What do Professors Eck, Witzel, Kelly, Bose and others say about these verses?
Quran contains many verses that offend the sentiments of Hindus, their worship practices, and their numerous gods because they are considered kafirs (non-believers). These verses create enmity between the religions, create disharmony, create poisonous climate for the destruction of Hind images, belittle the belief system, and encourage killing of non-believers (Hindus). Hindus believe in peaceful coexistence while the Quran believes in total domination with no rights for non-believers.
Idol worshippers
[31:13] Recall that Luqmaan said to his son, as he enlightened him, “O my son, do not set up any idols beside GOD; idolatry is a gross injustice.”
[12:106] The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol worship.
[4:48] GOD does not forgive idolatry, but He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who sets up idols beside GOD, has forged a horrendous offense.
[4:116] GOD does not forgive idol worship (if maintained until death), and He forgives lesser offenses for whomever He wills. Anyone who idolizes any idol beside GOD has strayed far astray.
[39:65] It has been revealed to you, and to those before you that if you ever commit idol worship, all your works will be nullified, and you will be with the losers.
[72:18] The places of worship belong to GOD; do not call on anyone else beside GOD.
Idolaters are unclean just because they are idolater
9.28: O you who believe! The idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He pleases; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
Forcing non-believers to pay tax
9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
2.62, 5.69 : All except Muslims / Jews/Christians / Sabians will go to hell
Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Smite the neck and cut fingertips of unbelievers
8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Smite the neck of unbelievers
47.4: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
Now, would the Faculty Cancel courses on Islam?
As documented above, these verses openly advocate the killing of non-believers, destruction of the idols, smiting the necks of unbelievers, the imposition of taxes on nonbelievers, and condemning nonbelievers to hell. How many distinguished faculty members would like to vote on these verses as vicious, inciting, hateful, vicious, and evil? If you cannot vote, how many of them are willing to conduct research on these verses? How many of them are willing to discuss each of these and other verses in Quran openly in the University campus? All the faculty members who voted to scrap these courses from the Summer School denying Dr. Swamy to teach should be honest to their consciousness, integrity, and professionalism. Pascal may have Muslims in his mind when he stated that “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
Reinstate Dr. Swamy, restore credibility, and regain the lost prestige
We earnestly request the President of the University, the faculty, the staff and the students to reintroduce these courses and reinstate Dr. Swamy to teach these courses. It is the right thing, a noble thing and an honest thing to do. Freedom of speech cannot be railroaded by select group of non-experts in the field. The reasons for removal of these courses are based on the supposed hatefulness in Dr. Swamy’s article, then the University should apply the same yardstick to all the Islamic courses based on Quran since it contains hundreds of hateful passages about non-believers. University’s reputation cannot be a sacrificial lamb for certain vested interested, anti-Hindus and self-professed secular liberals. University is a citadel for research, investigation and reasoning. The faculty should look at all sides of the issues rather than carried away by personal prejudices, ignorance and associations. It takes courage, guts and nerve to reverse the decision. The faculty and the President have this rare opportunity to correct the wrong. Every body will be a winner. No body will be a looser for doing the right thing.
Global Hindu Heritage Foundation [GHHF]
Our mission is to preserve, practice, propagate and protect our heritage and abolish Endowment Act and free Temples from the government control. If we have to make an impact on our movement to bring changes to preserve our culture, we need you financial support. Your generous donations to continue our efforts to free Hindu Temples from government control, awaken the Hindus about the plight of Hindu Temples and the impending danger of illegal conversion techniques are essential. We are requesting all the individuals and organizations to support financially to continue our movement to free Hindu Temples from the government control and stop these conversions.
Source : Shri Narain Kataria
Petition : Reinstate Dr. Swamy's courses at Harvard University
Margashirsh Shukla Chaturdashi, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
Dec 9 :
INCIDENT
Dr. Subramanian Swamy teaches couple of economics courses at Harvard University. He wrote an op-ed piece in online publication DNA India (see appendix) wherein he gave his views on Islamic terror and how to deal with it. As it is well known, Dr. Swamy is crusading against the massive corruption and scandals underway in India. In retaliation to his views on Islamic terror, a cabal of Leftists, Islamists and retainers of Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty combined, represented by co-opted faculty at Harvard, launched a campaign to have Swamy removed from Harvard. Initially, Harvard University stood by Dr. Swamy as a matter of its long-standing principle of supporting free speech and academic freedom ( Ref - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/8/6/harvard-swamy-summer-school/ ), but came to its knees as a result of continuous attack by the aforementioned cabal. Finally, Harvard University has dropped Dr. Swamy's courses from its summer school offering. (Ref - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/ ).
ASSESSMENT
Dr. Subramanian Swamy is a feisty public activist crusading against corruption in India. He is also troubled by the wave of Islamic terror that has engulfed India. Dr. Swamy's op-ed in DNA actually does not advocate anything extra-ordinary that has never been mentioned before in the political discourse in India. Moreover Dr. Swamy does not have any political clout to translate his ideas into a public policy. If at all anything, his op-ed echoes frustration that any common man would feel in India, who is subjected to the relentless attacks by Islamic terrorists. Where Dr. Swamy is being highly effective is his crusade against corruption that is exposing corrupt politicians who have looted a poor nation of its wealth. If anyone has to gain from actions against Dr. Swamy, it is this class of looters.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
In order of effectiveness:
(a) TELEPHONE CALL
(very effective)
Call up Harvard University's President and complain, and ask her to reinstate Dr. Swamy's courses.
Dr. Drew Faust, President
Telephone Number: +1 617-495-1502
(b) FAX
(significantly effective)
Compose a protest and demand letter (see sample letter enclosed below)
Dr. Drew Faust, President
Harvard University
Office of the President
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Fax Number: +1 617-495-8550
(c) POSTAL MAIL
(medium effective)
Send the protest/demand letter in postal mail. See (b) for further details.
(d) E-MAIL
( ineffective as such protest e-mails go to the bit bucket )
Send E-mail protest
E-Mail: president@harvard.edu
Feedback: Please send an e-mail to < hindu.vigil@vhs-net.com > if you take any of the aforementioned actions, stating what action you took, and your name/e-mail please.
SAMPLE LETTER
(Please DO NOT use the sample letter verbatim)
Dear Dr. Faust,
It is very disheartening to note that your institution has dropped Dr. Subramanian Swamy's courses from your summer offerings http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/ ), under pressure from the few faculty members, who might be ideologically opposed to Dr. Swamy. You had initially stood by his freedom of speech ( http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/8/6/harvard-swamy-summer-school/ ) few months back. The flip-flop is even more troubling.
It does not behoove a world renowned institution such as yours to take such a regressive step. Such actions reminds me of Nazi Germany's Gestapo and Soviet Russia's Gulag. If Dr. Swamy's detractors are indeed serious about the issues that are pertinent, then they should engage with him at an intellectual level, instead of gagging his academic career.
Moreover, if you study his supposedly "offensive" article dispassionately, you would not find anything that has not been part of the Indian political discourse before (Abrogation of Article 370, restoration of Hindu temples that were demolished to build mosques). Further, Dr. Swamy does not seem to have any significant political clout to have a say in Indian public policy.
What is indeed at stake is that, the actions of your institution signify a victory of looters of India's public wealth in the form of massive scandals of corruption that Dr. Swamy is relentlessly pursuing. By your thoughtless actions, you have not only violated your covenant of free speech and academic freedom, you have appeared to have taken the side of corrupt politicians of India who have robbed a poor country's wealth and stashed in tax havens all over the world. You have become an indirect partner in acts of economic criminality by victimizing a crusader against corruption.
I request you to kindly examine the matter dispassionately and reinstate Dr. Swamy's summer courses as was the case in the past. Kindly inform me of the actions taken in this regard and inform me of your decision. I can be reached via e-mail at _______________and/or via phone at _____________.
Thanking you.
Sincerely yours,
Source : Hindujagruti.org
Dec 9 :
INCIDENT
Dr. Subramanian Swamy teaches couple of economics courses at Harvard University. He wrote an op-ed piece in online publication DNA India (see appendix) wherein he gave his views on Islamic terror and how to deal with it. As it is well known, Dr. Swamy is crusading against the massive corruption and scandals underway in India. In retaliation to his views on Islamic terror, a cabal of Leftists, Islamists and retainers of Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty combined, represented by co-opted faculty at Harvard, launched a campaign to have Swamy removed from Harvard. Initially, Harvard University stood by Dr. Swamy as a matter of its long-standing principle of supporting free speech and academic freedom ( Ref - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/8/6/harvard-swamy-summer-school/ ), but came to its knees as a result of continuous attack by the aforementioned cabal. Finally, Harvard University has dropped Dr. Swamy's courses from its summer school offering. (Ref - http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/ ).
ASSESSMENT
Dr. Subramanian Swamy is a feisty public activist crusading against corruption in India. He is also troubled by the wave of Islamic terror that has engulfed India. Dr. Swamy's op-ed in DNA actually does not advocate anything extra-ordinary that has never been mentioned before in the political discourse in India. Moreover Dr. Swamy does not have any political clout to translate his ideas into a public policy. If at all anything, his op-ed echoes frustration that any common man would feel in India, who is subjected to the relentless attacks by Islamic terrorists. Where Dr. Swamy is being highly effective is his crusade against corruption that is exposing corrupt politicians who have looted a poor nation of its wealth. If anyone has to gain from actions against Dr. Swamy, it is this class of looters.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
In order of effectiveness:
(a) TELEPHONE CALL
(very effective)
Call up Harvard University's President and complain, and ask her to reinstate Dr. Swamy's courses.
Dr. Drew Faust, President
Telephone Number: +1 617-495-1502
(b) FAX
(significantly effective)
Compose a protest and demand letter (see sample letter enclosed below)
Dr. Drew Faust, President
Harvard University
Office of the President
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Fax Number: +1 617-495-8550
(c) POSTAL MAIL
(medium effective)
Send the protest/demand letter in postal mail. See (b) for further details.
(d) E-MAIL
( ineffective as such protest e-mails go to the bit bucket )
Send E-mail protest
E-Mail: president@harvard.edu
Feedback: Please send an e-mail to < hindu.vigil@vhs-net.com > if you take any of the aforementioned actions, stating what action you took, and your name/e-mail please.
SAMPLE LETTER
(Please DO NOT use the sample letter verbatim)
Dear Dr. Faust,
It is very disheartening to note that your institution has dropped Dr. Subramanian Swamy's courses from your summer offerings http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/ ), under pressure from the few faculty members, who might be ideologically opposed to Dr. Swamy. You had initially stood by his freedom of speech ( http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/8/6/harvard-swamy-summer-school/ ) few months back. The flip-flop is even more troubling.
It does not behoove a world renowned institution such as yours to take such a regressive step. Such actions reminds me of Nazi Germany's Gestapo and Soviet Russia's Gulag. If Dr. Swamy's detractors are indeed serious about the issues that are pertinent, then they should engage with him at an intellectual level, instead of gagging his academic career.
Moreover, if you study his supposedly "offensive" article dispassionately, you would not find anything that has not been part of the Indian political discourse before (Abrogation of Article 370, restoration of Hindu temples that were demolished to build mosques). Further, Dr. Swamy does not seem to have any significant political clout to have a say in Indian public policy.
What is indeed at stake is that, the actions of your institution signify a victory of looters of India's public wealth in the form of massive scandals of corruption that Dr. Swamy is relentlessly pursuing. By your thoughtless actions, you have not only violated your covenant of free speech and academic freedom, you have appeared to have taken the side of corrupt politicians of India who have robbed a poor country's wealth and stashed in tax havens all over the world. You have become an indirect partner in acts of economic criminality by victimizing a crusader against corruption.
I request you to kindly examine the matter dispassionately and reinstate Dr. Swamy's summer courses as was the case in the past. Kindly inform me of the actions taken in this regard and inform me of your decision. I can be reached via e-mail at _______________and/or via phone at _____________.
Thanking you.
Sincerely yours,
Source : Hindujagruti.org
FHA(Forum for Hindu Awakening) condemns Harvard University dropping Dr. Swamy’s courses !
Dec 09 : Margashirsh Shukla Chaturdashi, Kaliyug Varsha 5113
By FHA
In India a lot of "vote bank" politics, often unconstitutional, is going on to appease the Muslim minority. For example, the demands made by the Sachar Committee to provide preferential treatment to Muslims in the Indian Army, which undermines the secular nature of the Indian Armed forces. To curb such vote bank politics malpractices, Dr. Swamy's article has merely made recommendations regarding voting policy for Muslims in India.
In India Muslims are often known to support pro-Pakistan, anti-Hindu agenda, and oppose decisions like construction of a temple for Hindus' revered Incarnation Rama at the Incarnation's birth place, Ayodhya. Dr. Swamy's article, to reduce such tensions, has urged Indian Muslims to realize that they are not some immigrants from the Middle East, but that their ancestors a few centuries ago were Hindus themselves.
Dr. Swamy, in an interview with Karan Thapar over his article, has well clarified that he is not against Islam or Muslims, that if it were so, he would not have accepted his daughter's marriage to a Muslim man !
It is clear from these examples that views such as expressed in Dr. Swamy's article are often distorted in the media. In India some anti-Hindu political figures tried to sue Dr. Swamy over this article, but the cases were not even accepted in the Indian courts of law. Only after some political pressure has a case been entered in a high court in India recently, but the court has yet to rule for or against Dr. Swamy. In such a case, how can
Harvard University declare Dr. Swamy guilty of hate speech ?
In the name of freedom of speech, Universities like Harvard are known to hold conferences that have an anti-Hindu, anti-India agenda, such as the pro 'Kashmir cessation/freedom' conferences held by the organization of Ghulam Nabi Fai, who has now confessed in US courts about the source of his funding being Pakistan's ISI, to influence US policy on Kashmir. This has promoted policies that have virtually enabled genocide of Hindus in Kashmir ! Don't such conferences demonize an entire religious community, namely the Hindu community and aren't they allowed in the universities in the name of freedom of expression ? It smacks of double standard that Harvard University should feel justified to brush aside this very freedom of speech to cancel Dr. Swamy's courses, citing some imaginary distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political views ! In light of this and in the name of democratic principles, Forum for Hindu Awakening condemns Harvard University's decision to cancel Dr. Swamy's courses on Economics.
Source : forumforhinduawakening
By FHA
In India a lot of "vote bank" politics, often unconstitutional, is going on to appease the Muslim minority. For example, the demands made by the Sachar Committee to provide preferential treatment to Muslims in the Indian Army, which undermines the secular nature of the Indian Armed forces. To curb such vote bank politics malpractices, Dr. Swamy's article has merely made recommendations regarding voting policy for Muslims in India.
In India Muslims are often known to support pro-Pakistan, anti-Hindu agenda, and oppose decisions like construction of a temple for Hindus' revered Incarnation Rama at the Incarnation's birth place, Ayodhya. Dr. Swamy's article, to reduce such tensions, has urged Indian Muslims to realize that they are not some immigrants from the Middle East, but that their ancestors a few centuries ago were Hindus themselves.
Dr. Swamy, in an interview with Karan Thapar over his article, has well clarified that he is not against Islam or Muslims, that if it were so, he would not have accepted his daughter's marriage to a Muslim man !
It is clear from these examples that views such as expressed in Dr. Swamy's article are often distorted in the media. In India some anti-Hindu political figures tried to sue Dr. Swamy over this article, but the cases were not even accepted in the Indian courts of law. Only after some political pressure has a case been entered in a high court in India recently, but the court has yet to rule for or against Dr. Swamy. In such a case, how can
Harvard University declare Dr. Swamy guilty of hate speech ?
In the name of freedom of speech, Universities like Harvard are known to hold conferences that have an anti-Hindu, anti-India agenda, such as the pro 'Kashmir cessation/freedom' conferences held by the organization of Ghulam Nabi Fai, who has now confessed in US courts about the source of his funding being Pakistan's ISI, to influence US policy on Kashmir. This has promoted policies that have virtually enabled genocide of Hindus in Kashmir ! Don't such conferences demonize an entire religious community, namely the Hindu community and aren't they allowed in the universities in the name of freedom of expression ? It smacks of double standard that Harvard University should feel justified to brush aside this very freedom of speech to cancel Dr. Swamy's courses, citing some imaginary distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political views ! In light of this and in the name of democratic principles, Forum for Hindu Awakening condemns Harvard University's decision to cancel Dr. Swamy's courses on Economics.
Source : forumforhinduawakening
Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology?
Protest Letter written in support of Dr. Swamy
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am absolutely appalled and would like to register my protest against your injudicious and illadvised decision to remove Economics Professor Dr. Subramanian Swamy from teaching roster. (http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/12/7/faculty- final-meeting/) Dr. Swamy is not some unknown new figure at Harvard rather a respected faculty member, whose so far proud association with the University goes back at least 4 decades. (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=IteO05kaY-8) I do not find any merit in your argument to classify his article "How to wipe out Islamic terror" as hate speech. Bold and alternative political speech may be, but far from hate speech. (http://janamejayan.wordpress. com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe- out-islamic-terror-dr- subramaniam-swamy/) He was merely exercising his basic human right of Right to Free Speech guaranteed under our First Amendment, which even protects, as it should, worst of the worse hate speeches. With all due respect, your unwise decision smacks of clear ideological and selection biases, and decision process influenced by emotions and various cognitive traps such as anchoring and confirming evidence.
Expression of Free Speech especially alternative Political & Religious viewpoints are basic human needs and these should not be denied to anyone. Political and Hate Speech are both protected under First Amendment as they are subjective. Because who is to decide what is hate speech and what is not? You, me or other Harvard faculty? Just because I don't agree with what some other person said in his personal capacity, I have no Right to discriminate against him because of his political or religious views. It is very unfortunate that some of the Harvard faculty members have allegedly let their personal ideology and religious biases affect their professional decision making process. It a matter of shame and grave concern that Harvard has reprimanded Dr. Swamy for his protected political speech, which he gave in a different country on a topic which is completely unrelated to what he teaches at Harvard in the US.
Dr. Swamy is an Economics professor and Harvard administration has a right to judge his subject knowledge merits and teaching history only. Certainly not on the basis of what religious or political ideology he ascribes to or on grounds of his protected political speech. It is an alleged case of discrimination based on political ideology and civil liberties violated. This is a very bad precedence unwittingly set by Harvard which may have a chilling effect on the campus as student and faculty will now be scared to freely share and speak alternative viewpoints. Best way to deal with hate speech is either debate it or ignore it. Harvard allegedly did neither in case of Dr. Swamy. If the faculty found his views distasteful, why didn't they challenge him for an open debate to publicly present and defend his views rather than unilaterally punishing him for speaking his mind in personal capacity? This may set an unhealthy precedence as per which every Harvard faculty member may now be held accountable and may face excoriation, at the whims of Harvard's few biased faculty members, for anything he or she may say anywhere in world, without being given any fair chance to defend himself or herself. Should all those anti-Swamy faculty members who spearheaded this allegedly prejudicial campaign against Dr. Swamy's free speech be now held accountable in India for what these people say, write or print in the US? Reprehensible. Correct, Dean Pfister?
What is even more ridiculous is that those who decided and coerced other faculty members to drop Dr. Swamy's courses are not even related to his subject of expertise. Could Harvard please explain to us how and why is a History Professor Sugata Bose, known for his far-Left political ideology, deciding if Dr. Swamy should continue to teach Economics? That too when Dr. Swamy wasn't even present there to defend himself. What Economics subject credentials does Prof Bose have to decide Dr. Swamy's courses fate? How Dr. Swamy's personal viewpoints on how to deal with terrorism in India can be used as a yardstick to censor him in the US and throw out his economics courses? How can Dr. Swamy's protected political speech on dealing with terrorism in India influence his capabilities to teach Economics in US? There is no bridge between these two acts then how can he be reprimanded for it? This is essentially Heckler's Veto to curb Dr. Swamy's civil liberties. Will Harvard now reprimand anyone whose political and religious views doesn't align with few of its faculty's political leaning?
It is sad to see that Philosophy Department Chair Sean Kelly got "persuaded" to be part of those who like to censor others protected political speech.
Let us consider the faculty's justification to censor Dr. Swamy. Is the faculty claiming that there is no Islamic terror in the world? As per terrorism research experts, there have been over 18000 Islamic terrorist attacks (small to big events classified by number of people murdered) in the world since 9/11. Just because main stream media doesn't cover all them doesn't mean these attacks aren't happening. I am sure all you learned people have heard of Schrödinger's cat experiment. India has been suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists for over 25 years. Third anniversary of brutal 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai just passed a few days ago. Do you expect Dr. Swamy and other Indians to simply ignore these facts because Harvard faculty is just too uncomfortable and sensitive to face the truth? Political correctness cannot be an excuse for poltroonery and censorship.
Until a few decades ago, it was mostly Pakistan sponsored terrorists attacking India. Since past decade, various domestic terrorist groups like Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Popular Front of India (PFI), Indian Mujahideen, etc. have also started committing terrorist attacks in India. Now it is clear that US citizens are involved in worldwide terrorist activities also. As exposed by PBS Frontline-ProPublica (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/david-headley/ ), American-born Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley was one of the main co-conspirators of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. He was trained and indoctrinated in Islamic theology by Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. Then there is Faisal Shazad (Times Square bomber), Major Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Anwar Al-Awaki, Underwear bomber, et.al. Unfortunately they are all self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. You cannot just brush these facts under the carpet.
It is not Dr. Swamy who is calling Muslim terrorists as Islamic terrorists, rather it is these terrorists themselves who are proudly proclaiming themselves to be Mujahideen i.e. Islamic warriors fighting for Allah. Then why is Harvard allegedly punishing Dr. Swamy for speaking against these self-proclaimed Islamic warriors? Why is Harvard allegedly shooting the messenger? There is no line, let me say it again, there is no line in that article where Dr. Swamy has "demonized an entire religious community" as terrorists. I am sorry to say but Professor Diana Eck is wrong and her inference is grossly exaggerated. There is no way all of the decision making faculty members could have construed Dr. Swamy's argument as a call for destruction of religious places. This shows a clear case of selection bias and anchoring. Dr. Swamy said the following (an excerpt from the article),
In a brilliant research paper published by Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva this year (‘Deterring Terrorism’ International Security, vol 30, No 3, Winter 2005/06, pp 87-123) has provided the general principles to structure such a strategy.
Goal-strategy
Applying these principles, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India, provided the Muslim community fail to condemn these goals and call them un-Islamic:
Goal 2: Blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple complex, and 300 others in other sites as a tit-for-tat.
Dr. Swamy has not proposed that Hindus or Government of India should proactively remove Mosques (aka masjid) rather as a consequence of an unfortunate event (tit-for-tat). As per his proposal, if Islamic terrorists continue to blast Hindu temples and devotees then instead of cowing down, remove their controversial Mosques from encroached land. For those who may not know, Kashi aka Varanasi is the holiest site in the world for Hindus just like Kabba is for Muslims and Wailing wall is for Jews. About 600 years ago a Muslim bandit ruler ordered destruction of Holy Hindu temple of Kashi Vishwanathji and built a Mosque on top of it, compare it to Dome of Rock controversy. Not only at Kashi but Muslim Mughal bandit rulers did the same to prime Hindu temples at other holy sites such as Ayodhya, Mathura, Somnath, etc. Can you see a pattern? Prof Diana Eck is a professor of comparative religious studies, she ought to know better. Rather than thinking rationally, some faculty decision makers seem to have taken an extreme position influenced by an emotional reaction to a rational viewpoint (based on well thought out research).
For the sake of argument let us agree for a moment with the standards that Harvard faculty has applied to misconstrue Dr. Swamy's free speech as hate speech. Then the same standards should be applied to the following,
Quran (2:190-193) - "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants.
Quran (9:73) - O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination
Quran (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise
Quran (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire
Quran (5:60) - Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
Bukhari (59:727) - Allah's Apostle [said]... "Allah's curse be on the Jews and the Christians"
Verse 59:727 was spoken on Mohamed's death bed, and was one of the last things that he ever said.
Isn't Mohamed preaching annihilation of non-Muslims? Hasn't Mohamed crossed the line by demonizing an entire non-Muslim religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places? So would the esteemed faculty at Harvard now call for censorship of Quran, Hadith, Sira and other Islamic texts and publicly reprimand Mohamed for hate speech? Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology?Would Harvard now cancel classes by Professors who euoligize Mohamed and teach such hate speech? Would Harvard now throw out students who emulate Mohamed? If no then isn't it hypocrisy on part of the same decision making faculty and Harvard administration? Standards set and enforced by the faculty in Dr. Swamy's case should be unambiguously applied in this case also.
Since Harvard is willing to overlook Dr. Swamy's professional accumen and rather use his personal views as a yardstick to decide if he should continue, let us analyze this fallacy also. Dr. Swamy has already publicly clarrified in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=K3lv71xEBs0? v=K3lv71xEBs0 that he doesn't have any problem with Muslims. He is one of the most pluralist public figure I have ever known of. He is a Hindu who is married to a Parsi (Zorashtrian) and one of his daughter is married to a Muslim. Cannot get more Secular than that.
Now lest I am accused of being some fringe Right winger, let me prove my Centrist credentials by giving another rational argument that will sound tune to the Leftist gallery. For those who may not know, Dr. Swamy, as a lawyer, has been spearheading a massive anti-graft lawsuit against some of the most corrupt and powerful politicians and corporates in the world who have allegedly committed at least $50 Billion scam during the distribution 2G spectrum in India. Think of it as the Occupy Wall Street but this one actually works, and has a clear direction and goals. The anti-corruption movement has a leader in Dr. Swamy, who has already fell many politicians, bureaucrats and corporate heads, and there are some big fishes yet to be brought to book. One of the alleged corrupt big fish is ironically a Harvard alumni. Now since Harvard disassociated itself from Dr. Swamy's political viewpoints on terrorism, hence, by applying its faculty's logic as a corollary we can inference that Harvard would not agree with Dr. Swamy's political position on bringing corrupt individuals including the alleged person who is also a Harvard alumni to justice. Therefore, it may be concluded that Harvard supports corruption in Politics and Business. Sounds weird right? Doesn't make sense as this sounds like a far-fetched conclusion. Harvard would never support corruption. So now you can see how some of your biased faculty's emotional argument, that there is a connection between a political speech on the menace of theologically sanctioned terror and teaching economics, sounds-like to a rational mind.
In the end I would like to thank you for reading my protest letter and I hope some sanity will prevail in Harvard administration. I hope that you will promptly apologize to Dr. Subramanian Swamy, reinstate his popular courses without prejudice, and invite him back with all due courtesy. Please null and void this reprehensible precedence set by Harvard, before it is too late. My respects where due as I mean no malice to anyone. Just speaking against the injustice done.
Best Regards,
Seema
Dallas, TX
Source : haindavakeralam
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am absolutely appalled and would like to register my protest against your injudicious and illadvised decision to remove Economics Professor Dr. Subramanian Swamy from teaching roster. (http://www.thecrimson.com/ article/2011/12/7/faculty- final-meeting/) Dr. Swamy is not some unknown new figure at Harvard rather a respected faculty member, whose so far proud association with the University goes back at least 4 decades. (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=IteO05kaY-8) I do not find any merit in your argument to classify his article "How to wipe out Islamic terror" as hate speech. Bold and alternative political speech may be, but far from hate speech. (http://janamejayan.wordpress. com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe- out-islamic-terror-dr- subramaniam-swamy/) He was merely exercising his basic human right of Right to Free Speech guaranteed under our First Amendment, which even protects, as it should, worst of the worse hate speeches. With all due respect, your unwise decision smacks of clear ideological and selection biases, and decision process influenced by emotions and various cognitive traps such as anchoring and confirming evidence.
Expression of Free Speech especially alternative Political & Religious viewpoints are basic human needs and these should not be denied to anyone. Political and Hate Speech are both protected under First Amendment as they are subjective. Because who is to decide what is hate speech and what is not? You, me or other Harvard faculty? Just because I don't agree with what some other person said in his personal capacity, I have no Right to discriminate against him because of his political or religious views. It is very unfortunate that some of the Harvard faculty members have allegedly let their personal ideology and religious biases affect their professional decision making process. It a matter of shame and grave concern that Harvard has reprimanded Dr. Swamy for his protected political speech, which he gave in a different country on a topic which is completely unrelated to what he teaches at Harvard in the US.
Dr. Swamy is an Economics professor and Harvard administration has a right to judge his subject knowledge merits and teaching history only. Certainly not on the basis of what religious or political ideology he ascribes to or on grounds of his protected political speech. It is an alleged case of discrimination based on political ideology and civil liberties violated. This is a very bad precedence unwittingly set by Harvard which may have a chilling effect on the campus as student and faculty will now be scared to freely share and speak alternative viewpoints. Best way to deal with hate speech is either debate it or ignore it. Harvard allegedly did neither in case of Dr. Swamy. If the faculty found his views distasteful, why didn't they challenge him for an open debate to publicly present and defend his views rather than unilaterally punishing him for speaking his mind in personal capacity? This may set an unhealthy precedence as per which every Harvard faculty member may now be held accountable and may face excoriation, at the whims of Harvard's few biased faculty members, for anything he or she may say anywhere in world, without being given any fair chance to defend himself or herself. Should all those anti-Swamy faculty members who spearheaded this allegedly prejudicial campaign against Dr. Swamy's free speech be now held accountable in India for what these people say, write or print in the US? Reprehensible. Correct, Dean Pfister?
What is even more ridiculous is that those who decided and coerced other faculty members to drop Dr. Swamy's courses are not even related to his subject of expertise. Could Harvard please explain to us how and why is a History Professor Sugata Bose, known for his far-Left political ideology, deciding if Dr. Swamy should continue to teach Economics? That too when Dr. Swamy wasn't even present there to defend himself. What Economics subject credentials does Prof Bose have to decide Dr. Swamy's courses fate? How Dr. Swamy's personal viewpoints on how to deal with terrorism in India can be used as a yardstick to censor him in the US and throw out his economics courses? How can Dr. Swamy's protected political speech on dealing with terrorism in India influence his capabilities to teach Economics in US? There is no bridge between these two acts then how can he be reprimanded for it? This is essentially Heckler's Veto to curb Dr. Swamy's civil liberties. Will Harvard now reprimand anyone whose political and religious views doesn't align with few of its faculty's political leaning?
It is sad to see that Philosophy Department Chair Sean Kelly got "persuaded" to be part of those who like to censor others protected political speech.
Let us consider the faculty's justification to censor Dr. Swamy. Is the faculty claiming that there is no Islamic terror in the world? As per terrorism research experts, there have been over 18000 Islamic terrorist attacks (small to big events classified by number of people murdered) in the world since 9/11. Just because main stream media doesn't cover all them doesn't mean these attacks aren't happening. I am sure all you learned people have heard of Schrödinger's cat experiment. India has been suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists for over 25 years. Third anniversary of brutal 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai just passed a few days ago. Do you expect Dr. Swamy and other Indians to simply ignore these facts because Harvard faculty is just too uncomfortable and sensitive to face the truth? Political correctness cannot be an excuse for poltroonery and censorship.
Until a few decades ago, it was mostly Pakistan sponsored terrorists attacking India. Since past decade, various domestic terrorist groups like Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Popular Front of India (PFI), Indian Mujahideen, etc. have also started committing terrorist attacks in India. Now it is clear that US citizens are involved in worldwide terrorist activities also. As exposed by PBS Frontline-ProPublica (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ pages/frontline/david-headley/ ), American-born Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley was one of the main co-conspirators of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. He was trained and indoctrinated in Islamic theology by Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. Then there is Faisal Shazad (Times Square bomber), Major Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Anwar Al-Awaki, Underwear bomber, et.al. Unfortunately they are all self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. You cannot just brush these facts under the carpet.
It is not Dr. Swamy who is calling Muslim terrorists as Islamic terrorists, rather it is these terrorists themselves who are proudly proclaiming themselves to be Mujahideen i.e. Islamic warriors fighting for Allah. Then why is Harvard allegedly punishing Dr. Swamy for speaking against these self-proclaimed Islamic warriors? Why is Harvard allegedly shooting the messenger? There is no line, let me say it again, there is no line in that article where Dr. Swamy has "demonized an entire religious community" as terrorists. I am sorry to say but Professor Diana Eck is wrong and her inference is grossly exaggerated. There is no way all of the decision making faculty members could have construed Dr. Swamy's argument as a call for destruction of religious places. This shows a clear case of selection bias and anchoring. Dr. Swamy said the following (an excerpt from the article),
In a brilliant research paper published by Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva this year (‘Deterring Terrorism’ International Security, vol 30, No 3, Winter 2005/06, pp 87-123) has provided the general principles to structure such a strategy.
Goal-strategy
Applying these principles, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India, provided the Muslim community fail to condemn these goals and call them un-Islamic:
Goal 2: Blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple complex, and 300 others in other sites as a tit-for-tat.
Dr. Swamy has not proposed that Hindus or Government of India should proactively remove Mosques (aka masjid) rather as a consequence of an unfortunate event (tit-for-tat). As per his proposal, if Islamic terrorists continue to blast Hindu temples and devotees then instead of cowing down, remove their controversial Mosques from encroached land. For those who may not know, Kashi aka Varanasi is the holiest site in the world for Hindus just like Kabba is for Muslims and Wailing wall is for Jews. About 600 years ago a Muslim bandit ruler ordered destruction of Holy Hindu temple of Kashi Vishwanathji and built a Mosque on top of it, compare it to Dome of Rock controversy. Not only at Kashi but Muslim Mughal bandit rulers did the same to prime Hindu temples at other holy sites such as Ayodhya, Mathura, Somnath, etc. Can you see a pattern? Prof Diana Eck is a professor of comparative religious studies, she ought to know better. Rather than thinking rationally, some faculty decision makers seem to have taken an extreme position influenced by an emotional reaction to a rational viewpoint (based on well thought out research).
For the sake of argument let us agree for a moment with the standards that Harvard faculty has applied to misconstrue Dr. Swamy's free speech as hate speech. Then the same standards should be applied to the following,
Quran (2:190-193) - "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants.
Quran (9:73) - O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination
Quran (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise
Quran (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire
Quran (5:60) - Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
Bukhari (59:727) - Allah's Apostle [said]... "Allah's curse be on the Jews and the Christians"
Verse 59:727 was spoken on Mohamed's death bed, and was one of the last things that he ever said.
Isn't Mohamed preaching annihilation of non-Muslims? Hasn't Mohamed crossed the line by demonizing an entire non-Muslim religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places? So would the esteemed faculty at Harvard now call for censorship of Quran, Hadith, Sira and other Islamic texts and publicly reprimand Mohamed for hate speech? Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology?Would Harvard now cancel classes by Professors who euoligize Mohamed and teach such hate speech? Would Harvard now throw out students who emulate Mohamed? If no then isn't it hypocrisy on part of the same decision making faculty and Harvard administration? Standards set and enforced by the faculty in Dr. Swamy's case should be unambiguously applied in this case also.
Since Harvard is willing to overlook Dr. Swamy's professional accumen and rather use his personal views as a yardstick to decide if he should continue, let us analyze this fallacy also. Dr. Swamy has already publicly clarrified in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=K3lv71xEBs0? v=K3lv71xEBs0 that he doesn't have any problem with Muslims. He is one of the most pluralist public figure I have ever known of. He is a Hindu who is married to a Parsi (Zorashtrian) and one of his daughter is married to a Muslim. Cannot get more Secular than that.
Now lest I am accused of being some fringe Right winger, let me prove my Centrist credentials by giving another rational argument that will sound tune to the Leftist gallery. For those who may not know, Dr. Swamy, as a lawyer, has been spearheading a massive anti-graft lawsuit against some of the most corrupt and powerful politicians and corporates in the world who have allegedly committed at least $50 Billion scam during the distribution 2G spectrum in India. Think of it as the Occupy Wall Street but this one actually works, and has a clear direction and goals. The anti-corruption movement has a leader in Dr. Swamy, who has already fell many politicians, bureaucrats and corporate heads, and there are some big fishes yet to be brought to book. One of the alleged corrupt big fish is ironically a Harvard alumni. Now since Harvard disassociated itself from Dr. Swamy's political viewpoints on terrorism, hence, by applying its faculty's logic as a corollary we can inference that Harvard would not agree with Dr. Swamy's political position on bringing corrupt individuals including the alleged person who is also a Harvard alumni to justice. Therefore, it may be concluded that Harvard supports corruption in Politics and Business. Sounds weird right? Doesn't make sense as this sounds like a far-fetched conclusion. Harvard would never support corruption. So now you can see how some of your biased faculty's emotional argument, that there is a connection between a political speech on the menace of theologically sanctioned terror and teaching economics, sounds-like to a rational mind.
In the end I would like to thank you for reading my protest letter and I hope some sanity will prevail in Harvard administration. I hope that you will promptly apologize to Dr. Subramanian Swamy, reinstate his popular courses without prejudice, and invite him back with all due courtesy. Please null and void this reprehensible precedence set by Harvard, before it is too late. My respects where due as I mean no malice to anyone. Just speaking against the injustice done.
Best Regards,
Seema
Dallas, TX
Source : haindavakeralam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




