Opinion‎ > ‎Agenda Bharat‎ > ‎

Why I Stand By Dr. Subramanian Swamy

posted Aug 4, 2011, 4:52 PM by SACRIR -USA   [ updated Aug 28, 2011, 10:18 PM ]

(SACRIR Desk: Agenda Bharat)


From: contact_sacrir@ gmail.com

Sent: Monday, July 31, 2011 5:57 AM

To: president@ harvard.edu

Subject: Why I Stand For Dr. Subramanian Swamy

 

Dear Professor Drew Faust,

 

Re: Why I Stand By Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Many could realize a Jihadist uproar, but were shocked at the so-called ‘Leftist’ maneuver against Dr. Subramanian Swamy, all for his piece of Op-ed published on an Indian newspaper Daily News and Analysis (DNA). Well, I was not. ‘Left Liberal’ is an oxymoron.

Red-robes, be under Stalinist brand of Socialism, Maoist brand of communism or disguised neo-Leftists of 21st century, have never upheld people’s freedom and democratic rights. Historians are of opinion that at least 3 million lives were butchered during Stalin’s regime, at his or his ‘Socialist’ machinery orders. Mao’s period too, that witnessed slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, saw one of the worst and widespread red-terror in China and neighboring nations. Horror of red-robes continues in the remote pockets of this world till date which the ‘Devil’s Advocates’ or neo-Leftists try to either exonerate or mute down.

Neo-Leftists of Modern Earth, who have infiltrated into press, academics and public lives of democratic countries, pose a greater threat to human rights and freedom. In India, to get lost power restored, extreme Lefts have set-up entente with Jihadists. What? Leftists and faith together?  Yes. No surprise. Atheist Stalin who destroyed hundreds of churches, massacred monks and nuns, also reopened many of the shutdown shrines toward a later point of his reign for political benefits. Collaboration between the Left extremists of India, also known as Naxalites, and Jihadists from parts of Kashmir, illegally occupied by Pakistan are well documented. Neo-Leftist sects in Indian media sympathize with Islamists – is not a mere perception. In U.S press too, there is no scarcity of people of the ilk of Helen Thomas, the Jihadists’ delight.

So, it is not unnatural on their part to demonize Dr. Swamy. In his op-ed article on Daily News and Analysis (DNA), he defines terrorism as “… the illegal use of force to overawe the civilian population to make it do or not do an act against its will and well-being”. To bear in mind that he wrote it mere a couple of days after terrorists’ bombs shook Mumbai again (7/13) citing al-Qaeda’s declaration of India as their priority enemy. The wounds were fresh, but facts remain perpetual.  It is gullible to deny that India is on Jihadist radar for anything other than religion. It is too naive to believe that agents like Ghulam Nabi Fai cook an issue out of Kashmir without a brush of religion. And it is utter falsehood that the act of terrorism on Hindu India and her people following the Islamic invasion of Mahmud of Ghazni (971 – 1030 AD) was anything but contrasting religions. Hindus of Indian subcontinent have been the targets of various forms of Jihad, in the same way Christians of Medieval Europe and Modern Americas or Jews of Middle East.

Dr. Swamy, like millions of Hindus of India and Indian origin, believes that, by character, India is a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ or a ‘Hindu Nation’. There are many stalwarts of Indian electoral democracy and society who believe in the same. ‘Hindu Rashtra’, here, does never imply a Hindu theocratic state but is founded on the pluralist and democratic tenets Hindutva. Hindutva is a legitimized socio-cultural practice approved by the democratic apparatus and constitution of India. Needless to say, Hindutva is the single most significant political principle that India votes on – for or against.

In his article, Swamy went on prescribing antidotes for Jihadi or Islamic terrorism that India has been suffering since 10th century. He urges sensible and patriot Muslims of India to accept their Hindu ancestry.  Now, at this point one may not find it justifed. Not because it could spark off a debate but the seer question, will acceptance or denial of Hindu ancestry make Indian Muslims any different? Islam is not an Indic faith; hence it does not require an anthropologist to utter it loudly that barring a minuscule of direct descendents of Central Asian invaders, all Muslims of India bear the same Hindu lineage as any Hindu does. One may agree or disagree or debate over acceptance of this truth, but who can deny truth?

The famous Muslim poet of undivided India Nazrul Islam wrote ‘Hindus and Muslims – in India we are the two buds on the same stalk’. Another noted Muslim scholar Mohammad Iqbal urged Indian Muslims to accept Rama, an avatar of Hindu God Vishnu or Krishna, as ‘Imam-e-Hind’ or ‘Prophet of India. Learned Muslims have shown Indians the way. If Nazrul, the national poet of Muslim dominant Bangladesh or Iqbal, the national poet of Islamic Pakistan are still hailed, why should Dr. Swamy be condemned? Do you find anything illogical or hateful enough to impeach someone off his conscience and wisdom?

Dr. Swamy who has been a sound parliamentarian, twice a minister with the Government of India, a renowned economist, an acclaimed academician, rationally a patriot, and a summer professor in the Harvard also belongs to the center right political quarters. He has always been targeted by Indian Leftists on various issues. He is now leading a stringent legal drive against ministers in the present government who are directly charged with some of massive financial corruption and forgery cases. Leftist or rightist bias in media is nothing new in democracies. Similarly it is quite known, neo-Leftist sects in Indian media find an ally in the Indian ruling party Congress; more after the Left parties have lost last traces of power. And they are, naturally, upset with Swamy’s legal activism.

The petition raised by some neo-Leftists in Harvard, almost none of whom are his students, urging the university to sever relationship with Dr. Swamy is hence, politically motivated. It is a result of Leftist frustration with Swamy. Many of the proponents of this malicious petition have links with the neo-Leftist camps in India. Surely, one can have his or her political views but I request you not to degrade Harvard, the global marvel, to an amphitheater of narrow Indian political drama and ad hominem. Nothing in Dr. Swamy’s op-ed is an assault to a person, creed or nation. If we cannot protect one’s Freedom of Expression in the very epitome of democracy, United States, we will perhaps fail the forefathers of this nation who struggled to uphold nothing but Freedom. We must defend both – Freedom of Expression and Freedom from Jihad that our great nation stands for.

There are counter-petitions active on the internet supporting not only Dr. Swamy’s right to express but the content too. Few of them are:

1.       Support for Dr. Swamy's Right to Free Speech Petition to Harvard University – Around 550 signatures and still counting

 2.      I stand by Dr Subramanian Swamy & his DNA article Petition to Harvard University, Sanjay Pinto & Umang Kumar – Around 350 signatures and still counting

Dr. Swamy is truly a tolerant Indian Harvard scholar who is married to a Parsi, who has his two children-in-law a Muslim and a Christian, his brother-in-law a Jew perhaps embodies the spirit of India. I request you Ms. Drew G. Faust, the esteemed President of Harvard University, to support any endeavor to uphold Freedom of Dr. Swamy or any Harvardian, to be generic, and ignore politically motivated name calling. 

Still dreaming of a fear-free United States and Jihad-free World!

--

Warmest Regards,

Ajoy Chatterjee,

South Asian Center for Reintegration and Independent Research

NW Arkansas, USA

PS. Disclaimer: Views expressed is strictly author’s own.                                

Comments