We, academics and researchers based in Melbourne, strongly condemn
the pernicious personal attacks against Professors Ania Loomba, Suvir
Kaul and Toorjo Ghosh by the Hindutva lobby at the University of Pennsylvania.
Loomba, Kaul, and Ghosh, along with others opposed Narendra Modi's
invitation as a keynote speaker to the 2013 Wharton India Economic Forum
(WIEF). Their protest – in the form of a letter to the WIEF organisers
that gathered signatures of support from across the world – was
successful in making the organisers disinvite Modi: no mean feat given
the widespread support that Modi receives from several industrialists
and a majority of the Hindu, upper-caste, upper/ middle classes in
India, and the Indian diaspora in the US and across the world. It is
necessary to emphasise that it was the organisers who disinvited Modi,
and not those who lodged the protest.
There is ample evidence in the public domain – independent
fact-finding reports, survivor testimonies, damning revelations by
public servants, state-instituted inquiry commissions, media
investigations, and statements by the Supreme Court – that points to the
Gujarat state's complicity, under Modi's chief ministership, in
meticulously planning and executing the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom.
Events since 2002 have only seen the proliferation of spirals of
impunity, the celebratory hand-in-hand march of Hindutva and
neoliberalism, the spectacular rise and rise of the idea of Narendra
Modi, the co-option of the Muslim vote-bank by the Bharatiya Janata
Party in Gujarat, the marketing and distribution of fear, the
sanitisation of the public sphere in Gujarat, and the unending trials:
legal and personal of the survivors.
It is in this context that the protest letter was sent to the
organisers of WIEF, clearly stating the reasons for demanding that his
invitation be rescinded. In response,WIEF organisers stated that they
revoked the invitation because they didn't want to put Modi in a
“compromising position”. In a statement they declared: “We do not
endorse any political views and do not support any specific ideology.
Our goal as a team is only to stimulate valuable dialogue on India's
growth story...”
In support of the stand taken by Loomba and others at UPenn we
strongly oppose such a lame and purportedly neutral posturing of liberal
ideas. Inviting Modi, or for that matter even Montek Singh Ahluwalia
(unelected representative of the Congress party which is also culpable
of other kinds of genocidal violence in India) at WIEF is a clear
indication of the ideology and practice that they wish to follow. Any
“valuable dialogue on India's growth story” is incomplete if the voices
of the marginalised who bear the brunt of Modi's, or even Ahluwalia's,
violent economic visions are not adequately represented.
Many have accused those who resisted Modi's invitation of muzzling freedom of speech. Hindutva
and other right-wing protesters outside the UPenn English Department
(where Loomba and Kaul teach) recently carried placards with slogans
like 'Free Speech Killed at Wharton, by the English Department' and
'UPenn English Dept.: Intellectual Al-Qaeda'. Clearly, in this case, the
academic freedom to dissent and take unpopular political positions
against the powerful is being equated with censoring Modi's freedom of
speech.
This accusation against Loomba, Kaul and others is at best laughable,
and at worst tragic. It is laughable because it is oblivious to the
different capacity to speak and be heard that characterises the
distinction between a handful of academics resisting Modi, and Modi
himself, whose huge popularity among rich industrialists keep him in a
deified position of financial and political power. It is tragic because
in the name of upholding freedom of speech these accusations against the
dissenting professors are in fact an attempt at gagging their academic
freedom.
Yet, what has been remarkable about the protest is that it has indeed
succeeded in actually resisting Modi's presence, albeit virtual, at the
WIEF. The protests have successfully contaminated the antiseptic
discussions on economic growth in India that happens at similar
gatherings of the powerful (notably, the India Today Conclave, Google
Tech Summit and FICCI meet recently) who want Modi to share his story of
Gujarat's so-called economic miracle, without questioning its violent
foundations and accompaniments.
This success brings to light the acute importance of the humanities
within any university. In today's neoliberal academy where technocratic
education and courses are fast marginalising the humanities, this
incident foregrounds the value of humanities education and need for
those of us within the discipline of the humanities to resist its
marginalisation. The protests outside the English Department at UPenn
are a clear indication of how fascist forces actually fear the
humanities.
We stand in solidarity with Loomba, Kaul, Ghosh and others at UPenn
who are continuing their resistance, and again reiterate our strong
condemnation of the personal attacks aimed at them for their courage to
speak truth to power. We demand that the UPenn administration, which has
remained a silent spectator to these attacks against their own staff,
take a clear stand against these right-wing forces and uphold the
academic freedom to engage in critical and reasoned dialogue, to debate
and dissent within the university space.
Ben Silverstein, La Trobe University
Bina Fernandez, University of Melbourne
Debolina Dutta, University of Melbourne
Dianne Otto, University of Melbourne
Erica Millar, Deakin University
Fazal Rizvi, University of Melbourne
Jordy Silverstein, Monash University
Julia Dehm, University of Melbourne
Oishik Sircar, University of Melbourne
Patrick Wolfe, La Trobe University
Rajdeep Ghosh, La Trobe University
Randal Sheppard, La Trobe University
Sagar Sanyal, University of Melbourne
Sara Dehm, University of Melbourne
Sundhya Pahuja, University of Melbourne
Melbourne, 10 April, 2013