The Illiberal Left: AnAnatomyOf ThePetition
It is a fascinating fever that befalls the diaspora here in the United States when Narendra Modi comes calling. The same
fever rises again on the opposite coast even as an apposite debate begins about liberalism versus leftism
t was nearly a month ago that the
first draft of a statement targeting
India’s Prime Minister Narendra
Modi over his pending visit to Sili-
conValley appeared in my inbox. I
am on the faculty of the University of
Pennsylvania, but as a denizen of the
medical school, my interactions with
those in that anomalous realm of “South
Asian studies” are sparse. And it seemed
particularly misdirected coming to me,
when my views on academic freedom
and theWhartonModi debacle, and on
Modi’s inaugural visit to the U.S. were in
the public realm.
Still, this errant email gave me an en-
tertaining ringside seat to witness how
some of my colleagues in the academe
sublimate their ideological proclivities
into political activism. The first version
of the petition was 290 words and was
initiated by KamalaVisweswaran, on the
faculty of the University of Texas, and
currently a fellow at Stanford. Prof.
Visweswaran is no neophyte in the work
of leftist activism and amassing signa-
tures for sundry causes. Whether it was
penning an article with Harvard’s
MichaelWitzel — the Hindu American
community’s prime antagonist during
the California Textbook Controversy — a
signature campaign against Modi’s
speech atWharton, a letter condemning
another favorite target for her, Israel,
Visweswaran demonstrably joins or or-
chestrates sign-ons with fellow travelers.
Anjali Arondekar, a professor in femi-
nist studies at the University of Califor-
nia, Santa Cruz was promoting the
Visweswaran version of the email appeal
that I saw. Arondekar received a PhD in
English here at Penn, where two other
co-signatories of the anti-Modi state-
ment happen to teach English, Ania
Loomba and Suvir Kaul. Loomba’s son,
Tariq Thachil, a professor at Yale, also
signed the statement. Loomba and Kaul,
of course, spearheaded the very cam-
paign that successfully kept Modi’s ad-
dress out of theWharton India Economic
Forum three years ago. The internecine
connections that lead to these sorts of
petitions was becoming clear to me as
others signed on.
Meanwhile, the initial statement by
Visweswaran, then, morphed into 548
words after throwing in a fewmore para-
graphs now demanding that business
leaders in SiliconValley decry not only
ostensible religious persecution under
Modi, remember
the visa denial, but
curiously, instruct
that corporate re-
sponsibility im-
plies either
lecturing Modi or
refraining from in-
vesting in India
because his gov-
ernment commit-
ted such atrocities
as changing leadership at Nalanda Uni-
versity or at the Indian Council of Histor-
ical Research.
As I perused the list of signatories to
the statement that would make a
scathing criticism of Digital India its cen-
terpiece, what struck me was that while
Visweswaran evidently had no trouble
getting those from the disciplines of
South Asian studies, anthropology, Eng-
lish, gender studies, and the like to join
her, she could not prevail upon anyone
from a technical field to sign on.
The lack of a single signatory with
core competency in the nuances of the
Indian government’s initiative to create a
digital infrastructure–and its potential
vulnerabilities is striking. If the intent
was to limit the petition to a rolodex of
comrades that commonly join such
“open letters” and
statements, even
while a certain pur-
pose is served, the
anti-Modi state-
ment would cer-
tainly perpetuate
the image of an in-
cestuous academy
that many of us
seek to shed.
I could quibble
too that the indiscreet visceral revulsion
of many of the signatories for all things
Modi precludes the credibility of yet an-
other anti-Modi effort, but there is also
an undeniable visual authority to dias-
poric Indian academics criticizing India’s
socio-political trajectory. But then why
would these Indian Americans include
several non-Indian signatories (Wendy
Doniger and Sheldon Pollock among
them, no less), and also those of Pak-
istani origin in this effort?
The competency of a Shahzad Bashir
and Tayyab Mahmud, or Raza Mir and
Junaid Rana in their respective fields is
not in question, but did signatories won-
der as to the optics of Indian origin aca-
demics joining with Pakistanis to
demand that American businesses re-
consider investment in India? And that
too, when among other things, they are
protesting pending legislation regarding
such Indo-centric issues as autonomy of
the Indian Institutes of Management?
My inbox has not been populated yet
by this shining example of Indo-Pak-
istani unity inviting signatories for a con-
demnation of the Pakistan state’s
incontrovertible sponsorship of killings
inMumbai in 2008, or the recent spate of
attacks in Gurdaspur and Jammu. And if
it is Gujarat of 2002 and deaths of Mus-
lims that motivates the Pakistani signa-
tories, propriety would demand that the
same academics would have considered
a declaration against the genocide,
forced conversions, rape and abductions
of Ahmadiyyas, Hindus, and Christians
in Pakistan as detailed by the U.S. State
Department and other human rights re-
ports.
Since a number of signatories are self-
described leftists, this latest exercise ex-
poses in stark relief the yawning gulf
between liberal advocacy and leftist ac-
tivism. As Jonathan Chait brilliantly ex-
pounds, while liberalism exists as a
potent ideological vantage with dis-
cernible tenets, it lives within a dialogic
space that respects varying opinions. In
contrast, the Marxist left “always dis-
missed liberalism’s commitment to pro-
tecting rights of its political opponents.”
The “currency” of the power of liberal
ideas is so depleted, the leftists hold, that
liberal privileging of free speech is not
just quaint —but impotent.
Continued on page 00
I
Aseem Shukla
Co-founder
Hindu America
Foundation
ayantara Sahgal, India's first
prime minister Jawaharlal
Nehru's niece, who is known for
not holding back any punches,
says India is facing the gravest
danger to democracy under the current
BJP dispensation.
"Our country is facing the destruction
of the very idea of India as a great, multi-
religious, multi-cultural civilization.We
are facing the gravest danger we have
faced since independence. Our freedom is
not merely under threat, it is being
'openly attacked'," Sahgal, whose latest
work, "Nehru's India: Essays On The
Maker Of A Nation", has just been re-
leased, told IANS in an e-mail interview.
Sahgal, outspoken and erudite author,
held that India under Prime Minister
Narendra Modi's rule has moved back-
wards from reason and science to super-
stition and ignorance. "What else can one
call the absurd and dangerous nonsense
we now hear? Ganesh's elephant nose was
grafted byVedic surgery; Hindu women
must breed more Hindus and must have
10 children; the whole world will be
Hindu in a few years."
The Sahitya Akademi Award winner
says India's modern outlook that has been
cultivated since independence is under
attack by the dismissal of
qualified historians, scien-
tists, and filmmakers from
premier institutions.
"Obedient servants of the
RSS have been put in cru-
cial posts.Writers and
artists are under attack.
The media is heavily con-
trolled. Nearly 75 percent
of it is owned by one corporate house,"
she rued.
Holding both the BJP and the opposi-
tion Congress responsible for the washout
of the recently concluded monsoon ses-
sion of parliament, Sahgal said it is time
that rules were made that business can
proceed in both houses. "The BJP made a
washout of parliament sessions during
the previous regime. The Congress has
done it this time. Obviously parliament
must make rules that will keep it in ses-
sion so that business can proceed," she
said.
Parliament's three-week-
long monsoon session that
concluded on August 13 was
washed out over Congress de-
mands for the resignations of
External Affairs Minister
Sushma Swaraj and two BJP
chief ministers, Vasundhara
Raje Scindia and Shivraj Singh
Chauhan, on graft charges.
Sahgal was equally harsh on the Con-
gress.
Taking a swipe at the emergency
clamped during prime minister Indira
Gandhi's rule, she said: "The Indian peo-
ple justified Nehru's faith in themwhen
they defeated Indira at the next election. It
is up to the Indian people to do likewise
with Narendra Modi (at the next general
election)."
In a similar vein, Sahgal attributed to
Indira Gandhi, then the Congress presi-
dent, the dismissal of Kerala's first demo-
cratically elected communist government
in 1959.
"The decision was Indira Gandhi's, as
Congress president. I do not justify it,"
Sahgal said.
Sahgal also lamented the "systematic"
move to "wipe Nehru out of history", at-
tributing this to the "psychopathic fear" of
Hindutva forces.
"Hindutva has been waiting in the
wings since 1920 and can now, under its
own government, promote its ideology.
What you call Nehruvian ideology is in
fact the fundamental beliefs on which
modern India is based; it has led us to the
modern nation we have become and to all
the achievements which make us proud
today," she maintained.
LoomingDanger For IndianDemocracy
N
By Preetha Nair
Opinion
4
September 11, 2015
