Dec 102011
 

Honorable Sir/Madam

I happened to read this statement about Dr Swamy from Harvard University, and I think I have something to share with you. There are some doubts and some clarifications, and also hope you will be reading this when you get enough time for it.

‘In short, we the undersigned condemn Subramanian Swamy and the views that he has expressed in the strongest terms,’ they added. ‘Someone who voices such ideas while continuing to teach at Harvard seriously compromises the university’s integrity, undermining its commitment to diversity and tolerance.’

My question to you about the above statement which was reported in various newspapers, is the following..

Swamymade some important suggestions-

  1. A strong strategy to wipe out Islamic terror.
  2. Implement the uniform civil code.
  3. Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset to counter the hate vulgar writings.
  4. Prohibit conversion to foreign religion .
  5. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline.
  6. Remove the masjids , and Re-build temples
  7. Create a Brihad Hindu Samaj which includes Muslims as well.

 

These seven points forms the core of Swamy’s allegedly controversial, which you called a hate-speech. Can you, or can anyone who wanted Swamy out of Harvard, tell us which of the above seven points you consider a hate? All of them, some of them, or a few of them? I must assume, the article as a whole was condemned by you in the strongest possible terms, else you would not have made U-turn by scrapping the two courses taught by Dr. Swamy. So let me clarify each of these points, and make you realize how hypocratic you sounded when you read out the above statement.

  1. Swamy in his article advocated a strong and zero tolerance strategy to wipe out Islamic terror. Harvard University is in US, and a few years ago the US experienced how disastrous and venomous is the Islamic terror. Unless your university is occupied by hardline left and Islamists, I do not think you will deny the very reality called Islamic terrorism which arises out of wahabi and hardline Islam which in turn has its roots in the same book which the moderate and peaceful muslims call a book of peace. How did the US react against the perpetrators of 9/11 ? I don’t need to tell you how many muslims your country has killed in the name of war against terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in many other Islamic countries for many other reason. Yes, we understand it is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the muslims are killed by US forces. Can Harvard assure us, that no one of their staffs, support American government’s brutal massacre of Muslims in Asia? If yes, have you condemned US weird policies on war against terror ? If no, was any action  taken against those who support this weird policy of killing innocents in the name of wiping out Islamic terror ? Dr Swamy, spoke or wrote as an Indian social worker/politician about Indian social realities. As far as I know, he did not write on subjects which he teaches at Harvard.  And whatever he writes is his responsibility and is not accountable to Harvard. Swamy did NOT advocate violence in any form, rather he wrote an article condemning the violence that happened in Mumbai, July 13th 2011. He said Hindus must be united against terrorism which is directed against them. It is a fact, in any terror attack aimed generally at Indians, majority victims will be Hindus. So he wanted Hindus to be vigilant, and be united, so that the government can be pressurized to act against the common enemies. Can Harvard authorities enlighten, whether defending ourselves is a form of violence?
  2. Uniform Civil code is a must for any secular democratic country. The civil rights and duties of the citizens cannot be on the basis of the caste-religion-language. We Indians, even after sixty years of Independence, has no Uniform civil code. We have government, which have drafted a  “Communal Violence Bill” which is in effect, divide the crime also on the basis of religion language and caste. So Uniform Civil Code is not an Idea which is worth to be condemned, but rather it should be endorsed. Hope your university do not fall to cheap standards of Indian pseudo secular politicians, who condemn Uniform civil code also.
  3. Most of the petitioners against Dr Swamy directly or indirectly support people like M.F Hussain who draw porn taking the characters from Hindu mythology. MFH is a person who escaped from India fearing legal action, and became a Hero to many left-liberal-pseudo secular mafia. Hindus have the right to counter such people using peaceful democratic methods. Dr Swamy said, propogate Hindutva, what is wrong in it? Is propagating Hindutva in a country which is overwhelmingly Hindu, a crime?
  4. Conversion is an issue which is very sensitive, especially in countries where the people who convert are a minority. It causes hate between communities and sometimes it promotes separatism also. Gandhiji, Father  of Indian nation has condemned the practice, in whatever forms. He even said, if he had the power , he would legislate a law against conversions. So does Harvard condemn Gandhiji also for his statement against conversions ?
  5. I happened to read, an article on some Harvard professor, who criticized Hindus for being castists. Caste as such is not a bad idea, because any society need some teachers, police, merchants and servants to survive . But caste on the basis of birth can be dangerous, adding to it the discrimination on the basis of caste is a great sin. Dr Swamy said, he actually echoed what Sri Krishna in Gita said, let caste be on the basis of duties people perform, not on the basis of birth alone. Actually Hindu critics in Harvard should have supported Swamy for saying this, isn’t it
  6. ‘Swamy’s op-ed clearly crosses the line by demonizing an entire religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places, Eck said, adding that Harvard has a moral responsibility not to affiliate itself with anyone who expresses hatred towards a minority group. Respected madam Eck, violence against any places, not only sacred places is a barbarism. But where in that article Swamy asked for violence? Swamy said in reaction to Islamists blasting and vandalizing temples, the strategy should be to remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites. Madam Eck, In US Islamists attacked your Twin Towers, and suppose they make a mosque at that site and am sure many of the Americans will protest and the government will be forced to Remove the mosque.  Removing does not mean Demolishing, Thousands of temples were demolished during Mughal rule in India, and also in post 1947 India. The most important temples like Somnath and Ayodhya were claimed by Hindus, and the first government of India removed the masjid which was present at Somnath and built a temple there. The same strategy could have applied to other sacred places, but some pseudo secularists prevented it to happen. So Removal is a safe strategy, if not done, can lead to demolition in future. Swamy used the word wisely, and  your Harvard colleagues mislead you nicel
  7. “Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement is like saying Jewish Americans and African Americans should not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said History Professor Sugata Bose. I did not expect such a nonsense analogy will come from a person who happens to be the Grandnephew of Great Indian patriot Subash Chandra Bose. Also a History professor of Indian origin , just because he hates Hindutva ideology and the people advocating it deliberately twist the meaning. What swamy Said was this “Declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus”. The history professor compares Jewish Americans and African Americans to the term non Hindus and white Anglo Saxon Protestants to Hindus. Jews and Christian Protestants are religious communities, whether they are white, black or European or Africans. But Hindutva or Hindu-ism is not a religion, it is a geographical term. Even Pandit Nehru, Gandhiji and Supreme court of India has called it a geographical term. Swamy himself in his article mention the fact “If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus.” Anyone who considers this nation, Bharath, as his motherland, fatherland and holy land is a Hindu. So what doehiss it mean when someone in Bharath calls themselves non-Hindus. That means they are not accepting that their culture, traditions do not match with the mainstream of this country. Given that Hindutva or ism approve any path, be it monotheistic, pluralist, polytheistic, atheistic as a true path to god, what do the opposite of Hindutva mean? Hindutva means open minded ness , then Hindus are open minded, so are those who are ashamed of Hindus , ashamed of open minded ness ? Does such closed minded people who always want to revolt against the mainstream of this nation have the right to determine who should rule this country ? Sugatha bose not only compared the incomparable, he added some imagination of his own into Swamy’s words. He says acknowledging Hindu ancestry is like acknowledging the supremacy of anglo Protestants. From where does the word supremacy come? Swamy did not say Hindus are superior to any race or religion, Hindus are not at all superior infact. Comparison between Abrahamic religions with Hindu-ism is not valid, because the latter is not a religion as per the modern definitions. So any non-Hindu, is a closed minded by default. Why is not Harvard condemning these closed minded extremists? There are bunch of closed minded people studying and teaching in their university? Does not Harvard offer a course on Islam, which is almost a hate ideology against open thoughts? So what mistake did Swamy do, is it that he spoke openly against these ideological hate.

 

Although I criticize you for your mindless action against Dr Swamy,I would also like to thank you for helping us get our Swamy back. He is doing an excellent job, by bringing corrupt to justice in India, and we need him and he needs us. So bye bye Harvard..

 

Thank you

A Virat Hindu

Related posts:

  10 Responses to “An open Letter to Harvard University”

  1. Beautiful post. His unjust SACK a blessing in disguise because we may have Dr. Swamy more time in Bharath n work for its upliftment.

  2. outstanding.the educated and the not so educated indians are enriching america.the students must boycott in protest.we lose respect because they get our services easily.

  3. Kindly note- Sugata bose is a male, please read every She as He. Thanks

  4. Please copy paste this at 7th point, by removing the present one.

    7. “Swamy’s position on disenfranchisement is like saying Jewish Americans and African Americans should not be allowed to vote unless they acknowledge the supremacy of white Anglo Saxon Protestants,” said History Professor Sugata Bose. I did not expect such a nonsense analogy will come from a person who happens to be the Grandnephew of Great Indian patriot Subash Chandra Bose. Also a History professor of Indian origin , just because he hates Hindutva ideology and the people advocating it deliberately twist the meaning. What swamy Said was this “Declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus”. The history professor compares Jewish Americans and African Americans to the term non Hindus and white Anglo Saxon Protestants to Hindus. Jews and Christian Protestants are religious communities, whether they are white, black or European or Africans. But Hindutva or Hindu-ism is not a religion, it is a geographical term. Even Pandit Nehru, Gandhiji and Supreme court of India has called it a geographical term. Swamy himself in his article mention the fact “If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus.” Anyone who considers this nation, Bharath, as his motherland, fatherland and holy land is a Hindu. So what doehiss it mean when someone in Bharath calls themselves non-Hindus. That means they are not accepting that their culture, traditions do not match with the mainstream of this country. Given that Hindutva or ism approve any path, be it monotheistic, pluralist, polytheistic, atheistic as a true path to god, what do the opposite of Hindutva mean? Hindutva means open minded ness , then Hindus are open minded, so are those who are ashamed of Hindus , ashamed of open minded ness ? Does such closed minded people who always want to revolt against the mainstream of this nation have the right to determine who should rule this country ? Sugatha bose not only compared the incomparable, he added some imagination of his own into Swamy’s words. He says acknowledging Hindu ancestry is like acknowledging the supremacy of anglo Protestants. From where does the word supremacy come? Swamy did not say Hindus are superior to any race or religion, Hindus are not at all superior infact. Comparison between Abrahamic religions with Hindu-ism is not valid, because the latter is not a religion as per the modern definitions. So any non-Hindu, is a closed minded by default. Why is not Harvard condemning these closed minded extremists? There are bunch of closed minded people studying and teaching in their university? Does not Harvard offer a course on Islam, which is almost a hate ideology against open thoughts? So what mistake did Swamy do, is it that he spoke openly against these ideological hate.

  5. I think Sugata Bose like Mohandas Gandhi’s bloodline has been bought by the pseudo-secular mafia. Harvard now has no right to talk about “freedom of speech”. They have bent down to organised corruption of anti-Indian elements. Dr. Swamy could have won the Noble prize if he had continued his research, instead he fought for India during the Emergency. This Harvard is not even a foot note in Dr.Swamy’s legacy.

  6. excellent, well said

  7. Extremely well said.

  8. Do post this in a forum where Harvard professors and students can read. Open letters are effective only if published in mass media.

    The least we can do is explain the great work Dr. SS has been doing. We can even reach out to Dr. SS students or ex students who will all stand by him.

  9. Its surprising to see this action coming from a university which is known to the epitome of quality education and thought-inspiring professors.
    This just the result of Petro Dollars of the Wahabi’s speaking/acting through the Harvard University.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.