Pointers from removal of Swamy’s courses in Harvard


There is a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard who has on more than one occasion thrown hateful innuendos at Hindus and Hinduism. On one occasion he also made slanderous remarks on a genetics researcher of Indian origin since his research results were unfavorable to his pet theory. This fellow has defended all of his hate-filled bile under free speech and academic freedom. In this regard 3 useful documents:

  1. Kanchan Gupta’s article: Harvard Don denigrates Hindus
  2. A well compiled dossier
  3. Slanderous remarks on an Indian genetics researcher

I believe readers are also familiar with Kancha Ilaiah, author of “Why I am not a Hindu” (WIMNAH), and “Post Hindu India” (PHI). Both these books are outright hate manifestos against Hindus. WIMNAH makes caricatures of Hindus reminiscent of Nazi propaganda against Jews. PHI subtly (or not) makes a clarion call for civil war in India. There were some protests at Osmania University where this fellow is a professor of political science, and he defended his writings under academic freedom and free speech.

There is also this other character John D., a rabid anti-Hindu who used to write for Dalitstan.org, a site which was listed under a hate-patrol watch group in North America which lists hate sites on the internet.

All these characters are celebrated as secular, liberal and what not. Why?

  1. Because the target of their unadulterated hate are the savage heathen idolaters who need to be made subservient and converted to the true faith.
  2. Because the discourse is conveniently subverted to suit agendas as needed.

Consider the example of this comparative religion professor in Harvard, who heads a project (as it now turns out) fancifully named as “Pluralism”. This individual in an article on this project very eloquently says,

Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. The process of public discussion will inevitably reveal both areas of agreement and of disagreement. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table — with one’s commitments.

Now, this very individual proposed an amendment to exclude Swamy’s economics courses. Exclusion of his courses of course being a euphemism for sacking. Clearly, as it turns out, her disagreement with Swamy’s views implied he had to be excluded from the table. The hell with whatever she earlier wrote about dialogue! Because now some of the native heathens are at an antagonistic position, the discourse is easily subverted to suit sundry agendas.

A key feature in this chicanery is the ready role played by the sellouts among the natives who for ideological and/or careerist reasons act as enablers of the hypocrisy and subversion. The example in this particular episode is provided by the Indian origin communist leaning love partner of an Islamist academic of Pakistani origin, who either out of idiocy or arrogance made one of the most nonsensical analogies I have ever heard. Unfortunately, as history teaches us, the American “progressives” looking to get their dirty work done with help from native enablers, are merely following the path laid out by the “secular” invaders starting late pre-medieval period and then by the “civilizing” colonizers later on. A big reason for both these groups being able to gain upper hand was conniving natives looking to gain personal success at the cost of country and community. What else is new!

Personally I don’t subscribe to all of Swamy’s views, and given his track record I tend to take his stands and his intentions with a pinch of salt. I disagree with some views he expressed in the DNA piece on Islamic terrorism, while I agree with some. I feel he went overboard with that potentially ill-advised piece and blundered by not providing scholarly, genetics and history references to back up some of the assertions he made. But the double standards in hounding Swamy while providing a free run to other characters like some mentioned in this post, provides some pointers.

  1. It is extremely foolish to look for certificate of legitimacy from institutions in nations that are at civilizational odds. Unfortunately even many institutions in our own country have been subverted by people at ideological odds with our civilization.
  2. Such institutions have their own and that of their in-situ characters’ interests at heart. Not those of the savage idol worshipping heathens.
  3. Such institutions are mostly infested by academics of certain ideological bent, who are at odds with Hindu revival and survival.
  4. The effort should be to render such institutions and their agendas irrelevant.
  5. The effort should be to turn the gaze back on their civilization using Hindu mores and Hindu institutions.
  6. The effort should be to cut down to size, intellectually decimate, make irrelevant and publicly advertise the treachery of those natives who take the side of the opponents for ideological or careerist reasons.