DEBATE @ THE HINDU The Gujarat Chief Minister’s proposed address to a university forum in the U.S. was part of a campaign by his Indian-American supporters to sanitise his image
It has been a strange experience to witness the unfolding of events and rhetoric after I, along with some colleagues, drafted a letter to the student organisers of the Wharton India Economic Forum, protesting their decision to invite Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to be a keynote speaker at its 17th Economic Forum on March 23, 2013.
What we did not expect is that the Wharton India Economic Forum would disinvite him so quickly. Large sections of the Indian media have projected this as a case of UPenn faculty (i.e. those of us who initiated the letter) or the administration pressurising hapless students. This is not true.
Was our letter’s promise to protest at the event and “to educate our community about the incalculable and continuing harm done by Modi’s brand of politics to the secular values enshrined in India’s Constitution” so threatening? Does that sound like a denial of freedom of speech, as has been made out by so much of the press? Student groups in the U.S. are free to invite whom they want, but that does not mean no one can protest their decisions. Few have noted that just last week, the President of Fordham University in New York blasted student Republican Groups for inviting the right-wing commentator, Ann Coulter, and that she was subsequently disinvited. When the questioning comes not from the administration but from faculty and students, as it did in the Wharton case, it is not anti-democratic but the essence of democracy.
Cancelling out atrocity
The reason so many commentators have chosen to project this particular incident as a freedom of speech issue is that it allows them to project Mr. Modi as a wronged party. Some commentators who argue that Mr. Modi should not have been disinvited connect the issue to the U.S.’s lack of concern for human rights, as if anyone who questions Mr. Modi is thereby condoning other atrocities. Others suggest that because the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 have also not been adequately redressed, we should simply move past what happened in Gujarat. This is the way in which a consensus begins to be built up in the public sphere, and in which pitting one atrocity against another exonerates those responsible for all of them.
Relaunching Modi
On virtually every TV show following the Wharton affair we have heard shrill voices harping on Mr. Modi being invited for his economic vision, and for his great skills as an administrator. They also repeat that there are no charges against him in the Supreme Court, and that he is a democratically elected leader. TV anchors across the board sound like Mr. Modi’s advocates as they press his critics to address this “fact.” We know that the so-called Gujarat model of development is hardly a model to be followed, that by the many indices of quality of life, it is doing worse and not better every year. But even if we discount those indices, the divorcing of economy from human rights is a very dangerous idea. In the brouhaha that has followed the Wharton affair, so-called impartial and unaffiliated commentators have also asserted this separation, which simply shows how far the rhetoric of Mr. Modi’s media machine has spread. The student organisers of the India Economic Forum assert that they have no ideology. One does not have to announce one’s political affiliations to have them. The Adani Group was a ‘Platinum sponsor’ of the event (they have since refused their sponsorship after the invitation to Mr. Modi was rescinded). Gautam Adani, chairman of Adani Group, is a well-known Modi supporter, and his pulling out is a reminder that his sponsorship was part of an attempt to relaunch the Gujarat Chief Minister in the U.S. We should remember that the State Department continues to deny Mr. Modi a visa. The reason right-wing Indian groups in the U.S. are so eager to provide him a forum is to pressurise their government to revoke its stance. Mr. Modi’s proposed plenary address fit very much with this sanitising campaign, since he was due to speak on his State’s economic record, and there was to be no scope for questioning his human rights record. We have been repeatedly asked why we did not let him come and then debate him at the Wharton forum. But the very nature of the event was not designed for any real debate about Mr. Modi’s record or indeed his views about the kind of India he wants to build.
If we allow a broad consensus to build up that economics and politics are separate spheres we become party to an extremely dangerous ideology that has historically justified the coming to power of anti-democratic and repressive regimes. Such regimes have used the idea of progress and development, and yes, have often been voted into power. Our letter of protest is a reminder that not everyone buys the efforts to whitewash Mr. Modi’s grim record. And that not everyone buys into the idea that economic growth can be divorced from questions of human rights and social justice.
(Ania Loomba is Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania.)
Keywords: Narendra Modi, Wharton India Economic Forum, Narendra Modi address cancellation, Wharton School, Arvind Kejriwal, Aam Admi Party
Mrs Ania Loomba.. an english professor who doesn't understand logic, finance or
economics, as usual. As you believe that the Gujarat model of development should
not be followed, and I am sure you also believe that the China model of development
is useless.. Do you think the Nehru-Gandhi model of Hindu rate of growth of 3% per
annum the only way to really develop? Why dont you offer an alternative and better
way to develop? People in humanities academia are completely dumb to the real
world and all they know is how to throw a spanner in other's work.
Most of the lies Loomba spouts here are too obviously blatant to merit dignifying by rebuttal; still, here's one she tries to sneak under the radar while shrilly claiming the moral high ground:
"Large sections of the Indian media have projected this as a case of UPenn faculty (i.e. those of us who initiated the letter) or the administration pressurising hapless students. This is not true."
Oh really? Then why did her cohort Toorjo Ghose gloat expressly in the Indian Express: " “It is the result of the pressure that we were able to bring over the organisers… in the last two days. I am very very proud of Wharton as well as the Penn University.”
Clearly, Ghose is "proud" of the thuggish abuse of institutional power by which these three Sepoy professors pressurized Wharton students into rescinding an invitation issued in good faith.
I wish India was not a country where fault lines are widened using violence.
What bothers me is that Indian leftists do not confront the Gandhi family for the
scores of riots which have happened under their watch; Or their justification for the
murder of 4000 Sikhs in 1984.
Does boycotting Modi absolve the Gandhi family of their role?
Modi's economic model has stuck a chord with many Indians; it provides hope to
many who aspire for a better life. It would have been worth while to analyze it,
critique it & learn from it. That debate did not require Modi to be answer; a panel
discussion after his talk would have done the job well enough
The irony couldn't be more obvious.
Loomba belongs to a family of important Communist leaders. However, she has no
qualms accepting a chaired position at one the temples of American capitalism.
While she enjoys the wealth which UPenn has to offer, she does not feel that the rest
of India has the right to hear or discuss alternative economic ideas
Addressed to Professor Loomba ,
Your protest was the right thing to do...but for the wrong reasons ...if one only reads the above report.
Would you be willing to publish your entire letter?
From the above, it is unclear as to why your protestation was taken so seriously and the invitation withdrawn by the student forum ( has anyone protested the withdrawal of the invitation by the student forum...in a fair society one expects to see that too).
While it speaks very well for your ethics on human rights it does not do the same for your support of free speech.
It is a very fine balance...micrscopically so to speak..and no Professor needs to be reminded of that....particularly in international scenarios such as this.
If US Universities make a habit of interfering in FREE speech of politicians of the most complex multiethnic, multireligious society that is floundering on the doorstep of Democratic idealism .... India....it had better be for the right reason.
Thanks to The Hindu for allowing Ania Loomba to present her side of the
story. Loomba has explained the rationale for her actions very well. By
protesting against Modi, Loomba has shown the world that there are
Indians who care about human rights, that India is not full of religious
fundamentalists ready to anoint someone with a very questionable track
record on religious plurality and human rights as the next leader of the
country.
Fantastic article. Really well reasoned. Articulates a position without
sounding defensive. It's shameful that in India we have to be defensive
about standing up for social justice. Growth or murder? What kind of a
rubbish choice is that?! Thanks to the Hindu for printing quality
pieces.
In the same vain professor, why not just let him present his view,
whatever it may be. And before judging others why don't you check your
hypocritical premises.
Before judging others as a section who's batting for Mr.Modi, why don't
you see yourself as a section who's just against him.
Tell me professor, how many protest letters you've written against
congress leaders who's responsible for anti-sikh riots, bombay blasts,
and so many other things.
Mrs Ania Loomba you live in US and you know about plight? I say NO. We
are sick of congress and its attrocities. You just know your propaganda
about marxism and anti Modi. Sorry but I strongly disagree with you to
snuff a voice before it is even allowed to speak. Particular communist
behaviour. To ban the voice of a leader whose opinions does not concide
with you. This is against freedom of speech in a country which is famous
for enabling freedom of speech. Go to China Mrs Loomba you may find you
ilk/type there in their parliament.
Sorry Professor, I find it hard to buy your cover up.
1. You can't protest against the students' right to invite someone to a "Student-run
forum". Yes, you can criticise, publish articles, posters, banners, and try to change
opinions as you please. You could have had a vote of concerned students on whether
they really want to hear the person. Instead you pressurised students by going to the
administration.
2. In this case particularly, Human rights politics and Economics are indeed broadly
separate, without making Human rights any less important. How could Modi's attempts
to forward Gujarat's economy by making canals, promoting education, agriculture,
service and retail sectors clash with human rights agenda? I'm sure people primarily
want to hear him on these subjects.
3. Sadly, what you achieved with this is make a martyr out of Modi at the expense of
your own university reputation. UPenn failed to promote basic values of courage and
respect among students.
this article shows the professor wants to behave like an all-in-one judge, jury,
prosecutor and hangman. she has no sense of fairness, much less respect for a due
process. she is blinded by her hellucination. she has made up her mind, and she is
not about to let facts get in the way. there is no way to reason with such politically
pre-programmed blowhard. i can feel sorry for her students. i know i wouldn't want
to take a course from her.
"What we did not expect is that the Wharton India Economic Forum would disinvite him so quickly. Large sections of the Indian media have projected this as a case of UPenn faculty (i.e. those of us who initiated the letter) or the administration pressurising hapless students. This is not true."
Ms. Loomba is shifting the blame to Wharton administration for the fiasco, not even taking responsibility for what happened. If she cannot stand by what she has done, why even start something like this?
you just dont make any sense.
your phoney human rights concern is a cover for your over blown self importance.
dont simply close your eyes and pretend that the world outside is dark.
Gem of an article. Anybody who has been blinded by Modi rhetoric must
read it to have a chance of opening their eyes.
[Was our letter’s promise to protest at the event and “to educate our
..."]
No - your letter PROMISED to protest in "various ways" - that was
THREAT that pushed young organizers to cave in.
[ last week, the President of Fordham University ..., Ann Coulter, ..
dis-invited. ]
Putting Narendra Modi in the same bucket as Ann Coulter is atrocious.
Narendra Modi is an elected leader of his state and is recognized as a
potential leader of the country.
[... Gujarat ... that by the many indices of quality of life, it is
doing worse and not better every year. ]
This is factually incorrect.
[Gautam Adani, chairman of Adani Group, is a well-known Modi ...
attempt to relaunch the Gujarat Chief Minister in the U.S.]
Please supply evidence before you cook conspiracy theories.
[..US...continues to deny Mr. Modi a visa.]
US has also invaded Iraq and killed thousands of Muslims, IF YOU WERE
HONEST then you would not bare to live in USA like you do - enjoying
luxury of capitalism.
"What we did not expect is that the Wharton India Economic Forum would disinvite him so quickly" - That's why it is said this whole scheme was designed to humiliate Modi and was Political.
Gujarat today is far more secular than any other state in India or even US and its universities. I can vouch for that.
"But even if we discount those indices, the divorcing of economy from human rights is a very dangerous idea" - What proof do you have???? and why are you discounting those indices???because your claims were fake and Modi is going to blast those claims on coming saturday.
First inviting someone saying we what to hear you and then not allowing him to speak by cancelling his invite is anti-democratic..no matter how much you justify it.
Praveen Nair.
This highly judgmental article by this lady is a great example of how the left/communists view themselves - as arbiters of society. For the leftists, debate means defeat for their ideas and philosophy. Rescinding an invitation is not done in a civilized society. The columnist lacks basic morality and ethics.
Please Email the Editor