Total Pageviews


Tuesday, August 23, 2011




SEPARATIST PLOTTING                                       COMMUNALIZING 24X7

Perhaps Thomas Carlyle had SEDITIOUS ANARCHISTS like Arundhati Roy in view when he wrote as follows in 1841 in his famous book ‘On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History’: ““It is not honest inquiry that makes an Anarchist, but it is his crime, error, insincerity, half-belief and untruth that makes him”.

The famous Separatist Anarchist Arundhati Roy has attacked Anna Hazare in an article titled “I'd rather not be Anna” in The Hindu dated August 21st 2011. I am presenting below the facsimile of this article in The Hindu of August 21, 2011

August 21, 2011
I'd rather not be Anna
Arundhati Roy

While his means maybe Gandhian, his demands are certainly not.
If what we're watching on TV is indeed a revolution, then it has to be one of the more embarrassing and unintelligible ones of recent times. For now, whatever questions you may have about the Jan Lokpal Bill, here are the answers you're likely to get: tick the box — (a) Vande Mataram (b) Bharat Mata ki Jai (c) India is Anna, Anna is India (d) Jai Hind.

For completely different reasons, and in completely different ways, you could say that the Maoists and the Jan Lokpal Bill have one thing in common — they both seek the overthrow of the Indian State. One working from the bottom up, by means of an armed struggle, waged by a largely adivasi army, made up of the poorest of the poor. The other, from the top down, by means of a bloodless Gandhian coup, led by a freshly minted saint, and an army of largely urban, and certainly better off people. (In this one, the Government collaborates by doing everything it possibly can to overthrow itself.)

In April 2011, a few days into Anna Hazare's first “fast unto death,” searching for some way of distracting attention from the massive corruption scams which had battered its credibility, the Government invited Team Anna, the brand name chosen by this “civil society” group, to be part of a joint drafting committee for a new anti-corruption law. A few months down the line it abandoned that effort and tabled its own bill in Parliament, a bill so flawed that it was impossible to take seriously.

Then, on August 16th, the morning of his second “fast unto death,” before he had begun his fast or committed any legal offence, Anna Hazare was arrested and jailed. The struggle for the implementation of the Jan Lokpal Bill now coalesced into a struggle for the right to protest, the struggle for democracy itself. Within hours of this ‘Second Freedom Struggle,' Anna was released. Cannily, he refused to leave prison, but remained in Tihar jail as an honoured guest, where he began a fast, demanding the right to fast in a public place. For three days, while crowds and television vans gathered outside, members of Team Anna whizzed in and out of the high security prison, carrying out his video messages, to be broadcast on national TV on all channels. (Which other person would be granted this luxury?) Meanwhile 250 employees of the Municipal Commission of Delhi, 15 trucks, and six earth movers worked around the clock to ready the slushy Ramlila grounds for the grand weekend spectacle. Now, waited upon hand and foot, watched over by chanting crowds and crane-mounted cameras, attended to by India's most expensive doctors, the third phase of Anna's fast to the death has begun. “From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, India is One,” the TV anchors tell us.

While his means may be Gandhian, Anna Hazare's demands are certainly not. Contrary to Gandhiji's ideas about the decentralisation of power, the Jan Lokpal Bill is a draconian, anti-corruption law, in which a panel of carefully chosen people will administer a giant bureaucracy, with thousands of employees, with the power to police everybody from the Prime Minister, the judiciary, members of Parliament, and all of the bureaucracy, down to the lowest government official. The Lokpal will have the powers of investigation, surveillance, and prosecution. Except for the fact that it won't have its own prisons, it will function as an independent administration, meant to counter the bloated, unaccountable, corrupt one that we already have. Two oligarchies, instead of just one.

Whether it works or not depends on how we view corruption. Is corruption just a matter of legality, of financial irregularity and bribery, or is it the currency of a social transaction in an egregiously unequal society, in which power continues to be concentrated in the hands of a smaller and smaller minority? Imagine, for example, a city of shopping malls, on whose streets hawking has been banned. A hawker pays the local beat cop and the man from the municipality a small bribe to break the law and sell her wares to those who cannot afford the prices in the malls. Is that such a terrible thing? In future will she have to pay the Lokpal representative too? Does the solution to the problems faced by ordinary people lie in addressing the structural inequality, or in creating yet another power structure that people will have to defer to?

Meanwhile the props and the choreography, the aggressive nationalism and flag waving of Anna's Revolution are all borrowed, from the anti-reservation protests, the world-cup victory parade, and the celebration of the nuclear tests. They signal to us that if we do not support The Fast, we are not ‘true Indians.' The 24-hour channels have decided that there is no other news in the country worth reporting.

‘The Fast' of course doesn't mean Irom Sharmila's fast that has lasted for more than ten years (she's being force fed now) against the AFSPA, which allows soldiers in Manipur to kill merely on suspicion. It does not mean the relay hunger fast that is going on right now by ten thousand villagers in Koodankulam protesting against the nuclear power plant. ‘The People' does not mean the Manipuris who support Irom Sharmila's fast. Nor does it mean the thousands who are facing down armed policemen and mining mafias in Jagatsinghpur, or Kalinganagar, or Niyamgiri, or Bastar, or Jaitapur. Nor do we mean the victims of the Bhopal gas leak, or the people displaced by dams in the Narmada Valley. Nor do we mean the farmers in NOIDA, or Pune or Haryana or elsewhere in the country, resisting the takeover of the land.

‘The People' only means the audience that has gathered to watch the spectacle of a 74-year-old man threatening to starve himself to death if his Jan Lokpal Bill is not tabled and passed by Parliament. ‘The People' are the tens of thousands who have been miraculously multiplied into millions by our TV channels, like Christ multiplied the fishes and loaves to feed the hungry. “A billion voices have spoken,” we're told. “India is Anna.”

Who is he really, this new saint, this Voice of the People? Oddly enough we've heard him say nothing about things of urgent concern. Nothing about the farmer's suicides in his neighbourhood, or about Operation Green Hunt further away. Nothing about Singur, Nandigram, Lalgarh, nothing about Posco, about farmer's agitations or the blight of SEZs. He doesn't seem to have a view about the Government's plans to deploy the Indian Army in the forests of Central India.

He does however support Raj Thackeray's Marathi Manoos xenophobia and has praised the ‘development model' of Gujarat's Chief Minister who oversaw the 2002 pogrom against Muslims. (Anna withdrew that statement after a public outcry, but presumably not his admiration.)
Despite the din, sober journalists have gone about doing what journalists do. We now have the back-story about Anna's old relationship with the RSS. We have heard from Mukul Sharma who has studied Anna's village community in Ralegan Siddhi, where there have been no Gram Panchayat or Co-operative society elections in the last 25 years. We know about Anna's attitude to ‘harijans': “It was Mahatma Gandhi's vision that every village should have one chamar, one sunar, one kumhar and so on. They should all do their work according to their role and occupation, and in this way, a village will be self-dependant. This is what we are practicing in Ralegan Siddhi.” Is it surprising that members of Team Anna have also been associated with Youth for Equality, the anti-reservation (pro-“merit”) movement? The campaign is being handled by people who run a clutch of generously funded NGOs whose donors include Coca-Cola and the Lehman Brothers. Kabir, run by Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, key figures in Team Anna, has received $400,000 from the Ford Foundation in the last three years. Among contributors to the India Against Corruption campaign there are Indian companies and foundations that own aluminum plants, build ports and SEZs, and run Real Estate businesses and are closely connected to politicians who run financial empires that run into thousands of crores of rupees. Some of them are currently being investigated for corruption and other crimes. Why are they all so enthusiastic?

Remember the campaign for the Jan Lokpal Bill gathered steam around the same time as embarrassing revelations by Wikileaks and a series of scams, including the 2G spectrum scam, broke, in which major corporations, senior journalists, and government ministers and politicians from the Congress as well as the BJP seem to have colluded in various ways as hundreds of thousands of crores of rupees were being siphoned off from the public exchequer. For the first time in years, journalist-lobbyists were disgraced and it seemed as if some major Captains of Corporate India could actually end up in prison. Perfect timing for a people's anti-corruption agitation. Or was it?

At a time when the State is withdrawing from its traditional duties and Corporations and NGOs are taking over government functions (water supply, electricity, transport, telecommunication, mining, health, education); at a time when the terrifying power and reach of the corporate owned media is trying to control the public imagination, one would think that these institutions — the corporations, the media, and NGOs — would be included in the jurisdiction of a Lokpal bill. Instead, the proposed bill leaves them out completely.

Now, by shouting louder than everyone else, by pushing a campaign that is hammering away at the theme of evil politicians and government corruption, they have very cleverly let themselves off the hook. Worse, by demonising only the Government they have built themselves a pulpit from which to call for the further withdrawal of the State from the public sphere and for a second round of reforms — more privatisation, more access to public infrastructure and India's natural resources. It may not be long before Corporate Corruption is made legal and renamed a Lobbying Fee.

Will the 830 million people living on Rs.20 a day really benefit from the strengthening of a set of policies that is impoverishing them and driving this country to civil war?

This awful crisis has been forged out of the utter failure of India's representative democracy, in which the legislatures are made up of criminals and millionaire politicians who have ceased to represent its people. In which not a single democratic institution is accessible to ordinary people. Do not be fooled by the flag waving. We're watching India being carved up in war for suzerainty that is as deadly as any battle being waged by the warlords of Afghanistan, only with much, much more at stake.

Strangely enough there seems to be a subterranean ideological bond between the Christian anarchist terrorist Arundhati Roy and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid. Arundhati Roy made fun of Anna Hazare’s slogans like Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata ki Jai in nher article in The Hindu on 21st August, 2011. The very next day (22nd August 2011) Syed Ahmed Bukhari has made a call to all the Muslims of India to dissociate themselves from the INDIA AGAINST CORRUPTION MOVEMENT of Anna Hazare on the ground that his war cry slogans like Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata ki Jai are against the injunctions of Islam.

I am presenting below the Times of India Report on the anti-national and anti-social Islamic rantings of Syed Ahmed Bukhari against the Infidel Kafirs (Team Anna Hazare and the Indian masses) of India under the inviolable injunctions of Islam as ordained in the Koran.

 Bukhari calls stir anti-Islam, tells Muslims to stay away
August 22, 2011

NEW DELHI: Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid, has called upon Muslims to stay away from the Anna movement saying his war cry - Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata Ki Jai - are against Islam.

"Islam does not condone the worship of the nation or land. It does not even condone worship of the mother who nurtures a child in her womb. How can Muslims then join his stir with a war cry that is against the basic tenets of Islam. I have advised them to stay away," Bukhari told TOI.

Bukhari, who is not perceived to be close to the Congress, may have inadvertently voiced the very concerns that Congress leaders have been expressing off the record about how Anna's stir has isolated Muslims though none of them had ventured to make a public statement on this. The call has also reignited the centuries old debate of Vande Mataram being anti-Muslim.

Even though Team Anna includes lawyers like Prashant and Shanti Bhushan who have taken up cudgels against Narendra Modi for his alleged role in the Gujarat riots, the Shahi Imam, one of the tallest Muslim religious leader, is critical of the movement because he feels that communalism and not corruption is the bane of the country. "If Anna had included communalism in his agenda, I would have been more convinced of his intentions," he said.

While questioning where Anna is getting funds to organize such a massive rally, Bukhari has accused Anna of indulging in politics at the behest of the RSS and the BJP.

Our Constitution recognises the Vande Mataram Song as the National Song of India. By exhorting the Muslims to believe, that the Vande Mataram Song goes against the injunctions of Islam, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid is giving a WAR CRY on religious grounds to all the Muslims not to join the majority non-Muslims of India in the Fight against Himalayan Corruption. This Imam is behaving in the same manner as Mohammed Ali Jinnah or Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy did on the Direct Action Day organised by The Indian Muslim League in Calcutta in August 1946. This known Islamic fundamentalist has no business to question the sources of Funds mobilised by Anna Hazare. The whole of India, nay the whole world knows, that all the anti-national Muslim terrorists of India depend upon ISI of Pakistan and such agencies in Saudi Arabia for all their funding.
The Imam of Jamma Masjid has no Islamic Business to bring in the BJP and the RSS in his virulently communal attack on Anna Hazare.

What unites the Anarchist Christian Terrorist Arundhati Roy with Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid in their Abrahamic War against Kafir Anna Hazare’s Movement against Corruption in India? Both Arundhati Roy and Sayed Ahmed Bukhari are sworn inveterate enemies of BHARAT MATA AND VANDE MATARAM SONG.

It is common universal knowledge that Christianity and Islam have been in a state of fratricidal war ever since the last decade of the 11th Century beginning with the FIRST CRUSADE, in every part of the world. Even today the two major religions from the Middle East are in a state of war with each other every where in the world with the sole exception of India. In India these two lethal forces are united in their resolve to destroy Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma with the subterranean tacit political approval of the evangelical, pan-Islamic and pro-Muslim and determinedly anti-Hindu Government of India.

The CRUSADES were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. Crusades to restore European Christian control of the Palestine were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291. The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Palestine from Muslim rule and were launched in response to a call from the Christian Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.

The United States, the United Kingdom and the other NATO countries have attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in Recent years. There is no love lost between Global Christianity and Global Islam in the Middle East.

Only on the soil of India, these two warring Abrahamic religions are colluding, cooperating, conniving, contriving and collaborating against Sanatana Dharma and Hindus with the sole objective of converting all the Hindus to their own brand of monotheistic desert cult religion through organized violence, force, fraud and deception. Arundhati Roy is the self-chosen  representative of proselytizing Christianity. Syed Ahmed Bukhari considers himself a true representative of Fundamentalist Islam radiating from Saudi Arabia to engulf the whole world, by hook or by crook

Arundhati Roy has never hesitated to Champion the Cause of Terrorist Islamic separatists working whole time for making Kashmir a part of Pakistan or an Independent Country. In any other civilized country of the world which believes in its territorial integrity, a person like Arundhati Roy would have been dealt with properly under the Law. Pakistan recognizes her as a genuine reliable friend only because of her known anarchical and anti-Indian views on vital issues affecting the territorial integrity and unity of India. I am not therefore surprised that the AFP Report on Arundhati’s Article in The Hindu has been published in the Dawn Newspaper and their website DAWNCOM WORLD (see below)

 Arundhati Roy blasts India’s anti-corruption ‘saint’

NEW DELHI: Indian Booker prize-winning author Arundhati Roy launched a scathing attack Monday on the “aggressive nationalism” behind the anti-corruption drive led by hunger-striking campaigner Anna Hazare.

In a column entitled “I’d rather not be Anna” published in The Hindu newspaper, the novelist, essayist and rights activist condemned both the style and substance of Hazare’s campaign that has mobilised public opinion in India.

In particular she questioned Hazare’s use of the hunger strike and other tactics and symbols co-opted from his hero — India’s independence icon Mahatma Gandhi.

“While his means may be Gandhian, Anna Hazare’s demands are certainly not,” Roy said.
The focus of Hazare’s protest is a new anti-corruption bill.

The 74-year-old activist says the current draft is too weak and wants parliament to pass his own version which gives more scope and power to an ombudsman who would monitor politicians, bureaucrats and the judiciary.

While agreeing that the government bill was so flawed “that it was impossible to take seriously”, Roy said Gandhi would have been dismayed by Hazare’s vision of an all-powerful, centralised ombudsman.

“It will function as an independent administration, meant to counter the bloated, unaccountable, corrupt one that we already have. Two oligarchies instead of one,” Roy said.

Hazare, who has not eaten for six days and took his fast public on Friday, has drawn huge crowds to the open air venue where he is staging his hunger strike in central Delhi.
The atmosphere is one of celebratory protest, with the crowds singing along to patriotic songs and waving the Indian national flag.

But Roy, a vocal government critic, said she was dismayed by “the props and the choreography, the aggressive nationalism” of the Hazare movement.

“They signal to us that if we do not support the fast, we are not ‘true Indians’,” she said.
“Who is he really, this new saint, this Voice of the People?” she asked, accusing Hazare of remaining silent on other issues like farmers’ suicides in his home state of Maharashtra.

Mohhamad Adeeb, an independent Rajya Sabha MP, has the temerity (because of his known Islamic sympathy for ISI and Pakistan to boot !) to declare: “ We all are for a stronger Lok Pal Bill but it is becoming more clear that the RSS is the stage manager of the whole affair. Anna is just a mask”. If this anti-kafir MP can see nothing but the RSS anywhere and everywhere in India, I too can say that he is a whole-time sympathiser of the ISI and Pakistan. RSS IS AS MUCH PART OF THE SOIL OF INDIA AS DARUL ULLOOM IN DEOBAND. I condemn the Islamic attempt of Mohhamad Adeeb to communalise India Against Corruption Movement of Anna Hazare.

It is indeed reprehensible that Syed Ahmed Bukhari, Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid should have chosen to attack Anna Hazare on communal grounds viewing him as a kafir. By asking the Muslims of India to stay away from the India Against Corruption Movement of Anna Hazare on the ground that his followers are raising the Patriotic Slogans of Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata Ki Jai, this Islamic fundamentalist has clearly given the message that he openly supports the Himalayan Corruption agenda of Sonia Gandhi, Sonia Congress Party and the rabidly corrupt UPA II Government of India in New Delhi.

Syed Ahmed Bukhari has also sown the seeds of complete derangement of communal harmony in India. He can be prosecuted under Section 153A and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for deliberately wounding the religious, cultural and spiritual feelings, emotions, sentiments of the majority Hindus of India. I giving below the Full Text  of Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

1[153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—

(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, 2[or]

2[(c) Organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence of knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,] Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs

1[295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2[citizens of India], 3[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.]

Such a rabid, raucous and rabble rousing Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist like Syed Ahmed Bukhari has not been arrested by the Delhi Police for promoting ill feelings of enmity between the various religious communities of India. As I mentioned earlier, he is talking like a Pakistani Citizen or a Bangla Deshi Citizen when he attacks the Vande Mataram Song, the Official National Song of India under the Indian Constitution, as a Hindu Communal Song.

According to the Delhi Police (which only means the Sonia Congress UPA II Government of India) Syed Ahmed Bukhari is exempt from the Provisions of the Indian Penal Code like Sections 153A and 295A. Anna Hazare cannot even launch a peaceful and democratic agitation against the gargantuan corruption pervading the Sonia Congress Government of India which affects every citizen of India, whether Hindu or Muslim or Non-Muslims THE DELHI POLICE BEHAVED LIKE PARTISAN GANGSTERS BY GOING TO THE HOUSE OF ANNA HAZARE AND ARRESTING HIM AND HIS TEAM MEMBERS FOR BEING LODGED IN TIHAR JAIL!!

Syed Ahmed Bukhari is granted fundamental Minority Rights by the Union Government to heap Islamic insults on the National Song of India--the Vande Mataram Song of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. A leading national statesman, 5 times elected member of Parliament, Former Union Commerce and Law Minister of India, visiting Professor in Harvard University and President of a recognised Political Party like Dr.Subramanian Swamy is being hounded by the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), Government of India and The State minorities Commission of Maharashtra, for having written an article on “How to Combat Islamic Terrorism?” in the DNA Newspaper of Mumbai. Dr.Swamy is being denied freedom of thought, speech and expression by the Indian State. At the same time, the Indian State informally recognises the Right of Islamic Terrorists to indulge in wanton and unprovoked attacks on Hindu temples as an overriding Minority Right.

Against this background I would like to pose the following questions to the Indian State:

a) Why does not the National Minorities Commission or the Maharashtra Minorities Commission take suo moto notice of the criminal observations of Syed Ahmed Bukhari against Vande Mataram the Official National Song of India and issue a Notice to him to create a proper climate of trust among the non-Muslim Majorities of India?

b) If the Muslim Minorities of India can get provoked by the article of Dr.Subramanian Swamy, the Non-Muslim Majorities of India who recognise and adore the National Song of Vande Mataram can also get equally provoked by the barbarous observations of Syed Ahmed Bukhari and Arundhati Roy against the National Song of Vande Mataram and the slogan of ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’? The National Minorities Commission and the State Minorities Commission cannot remain neutral between the Fire-Brigade and the Fire.

The supremely corrupt Sonia Gandhi and her aggressively corrupt UPA II Government have provoked the Muslim and Christian Minorities of India to communalise the movement of Anna Hazare against corruption by making personal communal attacks on him. Despite the best attempts OF THE Government of India to mislead the people of India, Anna Hazare’s Movement has marched from strength to strength, involving millions and millions of people in India and abroad in his non-violent STRUGGLE AGAINST CORRUPTION. The Sonia Congress Government has blatantly and brazenly sown the wind of overweening corruption. They are now fully reaping the worldwind of Anna Hazare’s Movement against Corruption.


Sunday, August 14, 2011



Picture Courtesy: V.Kalyanam, Personal Secretary to Mahatma Gandhi (1943-1948)




Tomorrow (15-8-2011) will be the 64th Anniversary of our national Freedom and Independence which we achieved on the 15th of August 1947. I offer my salutations to our Tricolour National Flag on the eve of our sacred day of Independence tomorrow morning. We are all very proud of our tricoloured National Flag. Lord Acton was right when he wrote that patriotism is in political life what faith is in religion. On the day of our Independence we should recall with nostalgia and affection the selfless sacrifices made by millions of Indians in our struggle for freedom.

The historic evolution of the Indian National Flag is indeed an inspiring story. The things that our flag stands for were created by the blood, toil, sweat and tears of our people marching towards freedom under the inspiring leadership of great leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Rajaji and Jawaharlal Nehru and many other heroic captains in our epic struggle for freedom in all parts of India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari , and from Rann of Cutch to Bay of Bengal.

Everything our flag stands for was written by their lives. Our flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history. The inseparable nature of national unity and freedom was best expressed by Jawaharlal Nehru who became the youngest President of the Indian National Congress at its annual session in Lahore on 29 December 1929. At that session, the Indian National Congress adopted the attainment of Poorna Swaraj as the immediate objective of India.

At the turn of the century, the quest for a National Flag assumed greater urgency with the rise of Swadeshi Movement. Sister Nivedita, an Irish disciple of Swami Vivekananda was one of the first to conceive of a National Flag for India. In 1905, she designed one with Vajra (the celebrated weapon of Lord Indra) as its emblem. In a letter dated February 5, 1905 to one Miss Macleod, she wrote:

"We have chosen a design for a National Flag- the thunderbolt-and have already made one. Unfortunately I took the Chinese war-flag as my ideal and made it black on red. This does not appeal to India, so the neck is to be yellow on scarlet.” Keeping this in view, Sister Nivedita got anther flag made by her pupils, in scarlet and yellow. It was displayed in the exhibition organised by the Congress in its annual session at Calcutta in December 1906. Sister Nivedita's flag was square in shape, with a red field It had a hundred and eight jyotis all along the border and vajra in yellow at the centre with Vande on the left and Mataram on the right of it, in Bengali script. The legend Vande Mataram was also in yellow.

CALCUTTA  FLAG 1906 (First Flag)

The first national flag in India is said to have been hoisted on August 7, 1906, in the Parsee Bagan Square (Green Park) in Calcutta now Kolkata. The flag was composed of three horizontal strips of red, yellow and green. This Flag was unfurled on August 7, 1906, during a protest rally against the Partition of Bengal, by Schindra Prasad Bose in Parsi Bagan Square in Calcutta. That Flag came to be known as the Calcutta Flag. It had eight half-opened lotus flowers on the top stripe, and a picture of the sun and a crescent moon on the bottom stripe with the words Vande Mataram inscribed in the centre in the Devanagari script.

MADAME CAMA’S FLAG  1907 (Second Flag)

The second flag was hoisted in Stuttgart in Germany on August 22 1907 by Madame Cama and her band of exiled revolutionaries in 1907. That flag had green at the top, saffron in the center and red at the bottom, the green standing for Islam and the saffron for both Hinduism and Buddhism. The flag had eight lotuses in a line on the green band representing the eight provinces of British India. The words Vande Mataram, in the Devanagari script, inscribed the central band. On the lowest band, towards the hoist of the flag, a crescent, and towards the fly, a sun appeared. Bhikaiji Cama, Veer Savarkar and Shyamji Krishna Varma jointly designed the flag.

After the outbreak of World War I, the above Flag of Madame Cama became known as the Berlin Committee Flag after the Indian Revolutionaries adopted it at the Berlin Committee in 1914. Indian troops actively used that flag in Mesopotamia during the First World War.

 GHADDAR FLAG 1913 (Third Flag)

Patriots also used the Ghadar Party flag in the United States as a symbol for India for a short period of time.

 1916 (Fourth Flag)

The Fourth Flag went up in 1917 when our political struggle had taken a definite turn. Dr. Annie Besant and Lokmanya Tilak hoisted it during the Home Rule Movement. This flag had five red and four green horizontal strips arranged alternately, with seven stars in the saptarishi configuration super-imposed on them. On the upper left quadrant, the Union Flag appeared signifying the Dominion Status that the movement sought to achieve. A crescent and a star, both in white, display in top fly. Seven white stars show, sacred to Hindus, arranged as in the Saptarishi constellation (the constellation Ursa Major). That flag never become popular among the masses.

An interesting but less known fact that I have discovered is that C.Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) published a book titled “India’s Flag” in 1923 and it was published by Ganesh and Co., Madras. I have presented the Front Cover of the Book by Rajaji. This must have been a very path breaking and  exciting book  but very unfortunately I have not been able to trace the written text of this book. Ganesh and Company Madras and G.A.Natesan and Company in Madras were 2 of the leading publishers of Nationalist Literature between 1915 and 1947.

Pingali Venkayya’s Flag of 1921 (Fourth Flag)

The AICC met at a historic two day session at Bezwada (March 31 and April 1, 1921). It was at this session that this frail middle aged gentleman, Pingali Venkayya, approached Gandhi with the flag he designed for India. Pingali’s flag was made of two colours, red and green representing the two major communities of the country.

1921 (Fifth Flag) Pingali Venkayya’s Flag Modified by Gandhiji

Thus the Indian flag was born but it was not officially accepted by any resolution of the All India Congress Committee till 1931. Hansraj of Jallandar suggested the representation of the charkha, symbolising progress and the common man. Gandhi amended, insisting on the addition of a white strip to represent the remaining minority communities of India. Gandhiji’s informal approval of the above Flag (Fifth Flag)in 1921 made it very popular and it was hoisted at all Congress sessions between 1921 and 1931.
 1931 A (Type 1)                   1931 A (Type 2)                    1931 B (Type 1)
     (Sixth Flag)                          (Seventh Flag)                   (Eighth Flag)
                                                                                                                             Approved at 
                                                                                       Karachi session in 1931                                                                                                             

Later, the final resolution on a flag passed when the Congress committee met at Karachi in 1931. They adopted the tricolour flag featuring three horizontal strips of saffron, white and green, with a "Charkha" in the center. They interpreted colors thus: saffron for courage; white for truth and peace; green for faith and prosperity. The "Charkha" symbolised the economic regeneration of India and the industriousness of its people.


At the same time the Indian National Army of Netaji subash Chandra Bose used a variant of the earlier 1931 Flag ( approved at Karachi in 1931) that included the words "Azad Hind" with a springing tiger in lieu of the "Charkha" signifying Subhash Chandra Bose's armed struggle against the British Raj as opposed to Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence. That tricolour was hoisted for the first time on Indian soil in Manipur by Subhash Chandra Bose on 14th April 1944.

Courtesy: Shri V.Kalyanam, Personal secretary to Mahatma Gandhi from 1943 to 30th January 1948

India became independent on 15 August 1947. The tricoloured Indian National Flag with Ashok Chakra in the centre was presented to the Constituent Assembly by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru on 22 July 1947. and it was adopted by the Constituent Assembly as the Official Flag of Independent India

This Flag was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on July 22nd 1947 (Tuesday)

Unfurling the above National Flag from the ramparts of the Red Fort in Delhi on 15th August 1947 (Tuesday) Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru declared:
About 70 days before India gained its freedom on 15th August 1947, the Constituent Assembly formed an Ad Hoc Committee on June 6, 1947 to discuss and finalise the flag of the India. This Committee was headed by Rajendra Prasad and Abul Kalam Azad, Sarojini Naidu, C. Rajagopalachari, KM Munshi and B.R. Ambedkar were its members. This  Flag Committee, finally reached its conclusion when the Constituent Assembly  adopted the National Flag of India in its present form on 22nd July 1947, 23 days before India's independence from the British yoke on August 15, 1947. They selected a flag with three colours, Saffron, White and Green with the Ashoka Chakra. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who later became India's first Vice President, clarified the adopted flag and described its significance as follows:

“Bhagwa or the saffron colour denotes renunciation or disinterestedness. Our leaders must be indifferent to material gains and dedicate themselves to their work. The white in the centre is light, the path of truth to guide our conduct. The green shows our relation to (the) soil, our relation to the plant life here, on which all other life depends. The "Ashoka Chakra" in the centre of the white is the wheel of the law of dharma. Truth or satya, dharma or virtue ought to be the controlling principle of those who work under this flag. Again, the wheel denotes motion. There is death in stagnation. There is life in movement. India should no more resist change, it must move and go forward. The wheel represents the dynamism of a peaceful change.”

Wednesday, August 3, 2011



In wake of Mumbai bomb blasts on 13th July 2011, Dr. Swamy wrote an article that was published in Mumbai newspaper DNA Analysis.  I have already referred to this article in detail in Part I of this story. In that article Dr. Swamy gave an open and honest warning on what kind of threat and danger to National Integrity and Security that India and Hindus are facing from the Islamic fundamentalists.   

In response to that article, two articles appeared in USA commenting on that article:

1) Wall Street Journal
2) Harvard news media 'Harvard Crimson'.
Some of the hardcore Leftists in Harvard University had sent a Petition to the concerned Harvard university authorities to oust Dr.Subramanian Swamy from the Post of Visiting Professor of Economics on the ground that he is a Hindu Bigot and this could clearly be seen from a cursory perusal of Dr.Swamy’s article on how to effectively combat Islamic Terrorism which was published in the DNA newspaper issue dated 14th July 2011. These Leftists had obtained the signatures of 240 parents/students. According to Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the spokesman for the Dean of Studies in Harvard University mentioned that the Dean will give this matter serious attention.  

I cannot understand how can anyone call Dr.Subramanian Swamy a BIGOT. Dr.Swamy’s brother-in-law is Jewish, his son-in-law Muslim, his sister-in-law Christian and his wife Parsi.   One of his two daughters is married to an Indian Muslim with whom he has closest relations, and therefore how can he possibly be a bigot against the Indian Muslims or Christians.  India has been the biggest victim of terrorism during the last 20 years with Kashmiri Pundits being driven out of Kashmir Valley by Islamic terrorists from late 1980’s. It is against this background Dr.Swamy was responding to the Mumbai Bomb Blasts of 13th July 2011.

I am presenting below the Full text of the Public Petition that was sent to the Dean of Studies in Harvard demanding the immediate dismissal of Dr.Swamy from his teaching Post there.

Confront Religious Bigotry!
Demand that Harvard end its association with religious extremist Subramanian Swamy.
We the undersigned members of the Harvard community are outraged to learn that Subramanian Swamy, an Indian politician whose recent editorial shows him to be a bigoted promoter of communalism in India, also teaches economics at Harvard University Summer School. We demand that the Harvard administration repudiate Swamy's remarks and terminate his association with the University.

Swamy proposes a truly shocking set of "strategies" for "deter[ring] terrorism" in an op-ed appearing in the July 16th edition of the Daily News & Analysis, an Indian newspaper. These include "declar[ing] India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus"; "[r]emov[ing] the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites"; "[e]nact[ing] a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion"; and "[p]ropagat[ing] the development of a Hindu mindset."

Writing in the wake of the July 13, 2011, bombings in Mumbai, Swamy has exploited this event not only to promote a vision of Indian society based on Hindu supremacy, but to disparage and cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community in India. "Muslims of India," he states, "are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus."

While free expression and the vigorous contest of ideas are essential in any academic community, so, too, are respect and tolerance for human difference. By advocating measures that would grossly violate freedom of religion and the unqualified right to vote for different religious groups, and by aggressively vilifying an entire religious community, Swamy breaches the most basic standards of respect and tolerance.

More specifically, Swamy's comments cast doubt on his ability to treat a diverse community of students with fairness and respect. The highly insulting and stereotypical nature of his comments suggest that he cannot be trusted to regard Muslims -- and no doubt other groups--with anything but a jaundiced eye.

Swamy's views are deeply offensive; they are also dangerous. The measures he proposes--far out of step with the everyday secularism and tolerance embodied by most Indians--would threaten to tear apart the basic fabric of India's pluralist democracy. And, as Indians know too well, the brand of rhetoric that he employs has fueled violence against religious minorities in the past.
In short, we the undersigned condemn Subramanian Swamy and the views that he has expressed in the strongest terms. Someone who voices such ideas while continuing to teach at Harvard seriously compromises the University's integrity, undermining its commitment to diversity and tolerance.


280 signatures total
Student Groups (total: 3)
1. Student Labor Action Movement
2. Students for Choice
3. Progressive Jewish Alliance
Faculty (total: 3)
1. Mahmud Hussain, Post doctoral fellow
2. Ajantha Subramanian, Associate Professor of Anthropology
3. Frederike Alwes, Post Doctoral Fellow
1. Karen Narefsky, 2011
2. Abdelnasser Rashid, 2011
3. Nahlah melaih
4. Matilda Sokolov, 2014
5. Roland Yang, 2014
6. Talal, 2011
7. Erfan Soliman, 2012
8. Giacomo Bagarella, 2013
9. Emily Unger, 2013
10. Rabecca Andrew, 2014
11. Patrick Duffy, 2014
12. Fatoumata Binetou Fall , 2014
13. Rashid Yasin, 2012
14. Nima Hassan, 2014
15. Victoria Koski-Karell, 2012
16. Iman James, 2012
17. William Whitham, 2014
18. samra girma, 2012
19. Jai Chowdhry Beeman, 2013
20. Sarah Fouzia Choudhury, 2012
21. Zoe Tucker, 2013
22. Charlotte Lieberman, 2013
23. Adaner Usmani, 2008
24. Nico Hawley-Weld, 2012
25. Andrew Trott, 2011
26. Natali Alcala-Moreno, 2012
27. Hannibal Taubes, 2013
28. Shanti Kris, 2013
29. Ashwini Vasanthakumar, 2004
30. Abigail Brown, 2011/2012
31. V.V. (Sugi) Ganeshananthan, 2002
32. Robert Jay Ross, 2009
33. Arun S
34. Paul VanKoughnett, 2012
35. Joselyn Lai, 2013
36. Anna J. Johnson-Betty, 1997
37. Jane Newbold, 2012
38. rachael goldberg, 2012
39. Sandra Korn, 2014
40. Rachael Becker, 2012
41. zishan husain
42. Amortya Ray
43. Hasnain
44. Levi Roth, 2014
45. Vasudevan Rajaraman
Graduate Students (total: 61)
1. Sanjay Pinto, G7, Sociology and Social Policy
2. Fatin Abbas, G6, Harvard GSAS student
3. Bridget Hanna, 2012, Social Anthropology
4. Alireza Doostdar, G7, Anthropology & Middle Eastern Studies
5. Anand Vaidya, G4, Anthropology
6. Namita Dharia, Anthropology
7. Aleksandar Shopov
8. Daniel, 2011, NELC
9. Johan Mathew, History
10. Sam Asher, G5, Economics PhD Student
11. Arvind Nair, 2013, Student at KSG
12. Tara Gonsalves, 2011, International Education Policy
13. Umang Kumar, Harvard Divinity School
14. Tariq Omar Ali, History
15. Ankita Ritwik, 2013, Law student
16. Nichole Collins, G2, Molecular and Cellular Biology
17. Mircea Raianu, History
18. Aatif Iqbal, 2011, Law
19. Firas Naji, Clinical fellow medicine
20. Julia Stephens, History Department
21. Hassan Malik, G6, History Department
22. Andrew J McDowell, Anthropology
23. Ben Ewen-Campen, G4 OEB Graduate Student
24. Anouska Bhattacharyya, PhD candidate, History of Science
25. Dilan Yildirim
26. Benjamin Siegel, G4, History
27. Nancy Khalil, G4, Anthropology
28. Sai Balakrishnan, G4, Urban Planning
29. Tarun Cherukuri, 2011, HKS student
30. Sabrina Peric, Anthropology
31. Farhan Naqvi, 2010, MBA Graduate
32. Zahara Kassam, 2011, Harvard Business School
33. Iain Frame, SJD, Harvard Law School
34. Jen Scott, 2009, Kennedy School
35. Kristin Castillo, 2012, Harvard Medical School
36. Rajinder Balaraman, 2010, Business school
37. Marcelia Freeman, 2010, hbs
38. Fazle Rab Quadri, HU Extension School
39. Hunter Bandy, 2011, Center for Middle Eastern Studies
40. Tilsa Ponce, 2015
41. Philip Cartelli, G2, Anthropology

42. Mariam Chughtai, 2014, Doctoral Student
43. Emrah Yildiz, Joint PhD Candidate in Social Anthropology and Middle Eastern Studies
44. Pratibha Joshi, 2013, HKS Student
45. Aparna Das
46. Maryam Eskandari, 2011, Aga Khan Architecture
47. Reed Swier, 2011, education
48. Anita Rathod, 2007, MBA
49. Shalin Desai, 2012
50. Daniel Sheffield, A.B. '04 Ph.D. ', Ph. D. Candidate in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
51. Eunmi Mun, sociology
52. farhat, 1985, Restaurant er
53. Anita Wadhwa, lecturer, Harvard graduate school of education
54. tulsi dhanjani, business
55. Ujala Dhaka, Anthropology
Staff (total: 5)
1. Keith Rosenthal, Administrative Assistant
2. Geoff Carens, Union Rep, HUCTW [personal capacity]
3. Mohamed Khattab, Research Assistant at Children's
4. Anindya K. Sen, Research Fellow
Alumni (total: 43)
1. Chris Johnson-Roberson, 2011, History and Literature
2. Remeike Forbes, 2011, Visual and Environmental Studies
3. Darryl Li, 2001
4. Elizabeth Hang Le, 2009, Harvard Kennedy School
5. Corey Gaber, 2011, Graduate School of Education Alumnus
6. Ellora Derenoncourt, 2009
7. Susie An, Art History Phd candidate
8. Hala Iqbal, 2007
9. Komala Ramachandra, 2010, Law
10. Kaver Rajaraman, 2009, Alumnus - Graduate student in neuroscience at MCB, FAS
11. Iason Gabriel, 2008, Kennedy Scholar and Special Student GSAS (2007-2008)
12. Zahra Kanji, 2010, HBS MBA
13. Stephanie Skier, 2005, Harvard College Class of 2005
14. Hassan Al-Damluji, 2008, AM Middle Eastern Studies
15. Lindsay Schubiner, 2011, HSPH
16. Nowshad Rizwanullah, 2010, MBA
17. Alyssa Aguilera, 2009, College
18. Michael Gould-Wartofsky, 2007
19. Carlos Salazar, 2009, VES Concentrator
20. Colette Perold, 2011, WGS & RLL
21. Terry Ding, 2011, Applied Mathematics
22. Neal Meyer, 2011, history
23. Ann Shafer, 1998
24. Matt Cavedon, 2011, Religion concentrator
25. Shan Khan, 2011, AM, NELC
26. Steven B. Bloomfield, 1977
27. Kavita Shah, 2007, Harvard College
28. Daniel DiMaggio, 2004, Social Studies
29. Jonathan Dresner, 2001, History Ph.D.
30. Abby Schiff, 2011, Molecular and Cellular Biology
31. Momin Malik, 2008, History of Science
32. Denise Xu, 2011, Neurobiology
33. Madeleine Elfenbein, 2004, Social Studies
34. Anna Dresner, 1990, AM in Soviet Studies
35. Sadia Ahsanuddin, History concentrator
36. Ravind Grewal-Kok, 2000, JD
37. Vasuki Nesiah, 1993 & 2000, HLS alum.
Parents (total: 4)
1. Lorna Gonsalves, Parent
2. Peter Pinto, Parent
3. Frederique Apffel-Marglin, Parent
4. Margaret Gonsalves, 2011, Parent
Other (total: 107)
1. Bhrigupati Singh, 2011, Other, Anthropology Postdoctoral Scholar
2. Frank Sutton, Other
3. Lubabah Helwani, Other, Extension School Student
4. Aryt Alasti, Other
5. Asra, Other
6. Devin Letzer, Other
7. Ali Hussnain, Other, student
8. Jaideep Mallick, Other, Research Associate
9. Neeta Bhasin, Other
10. Sadia Abbas, Other, Asst. Prof. of Postcolonial studies, Rutgers-Newark
11. Smita Lahiri, Other, Affiliated Researcher, Anthropology
12. Mathew S, Other
13. Munira Wells, Other
14. Suryanarayan Ganesh, Other
15. Sibtain Rassiwalla, Other, Small Business Owner
16. Ismail, Other
17. Oishik Sircar, Other, Alumni of the Harvard Law School IGLP Workshop 2011
18. Anindya Sen, Other, Post doctoral Fellow
19. Kishwer Vikaas, Other, Sepia Mutiny
20. Salim Syed, Other
21. Jacon Orongo, Other, Government
22. Rothwell C. Polk, Jr., Other
23. Jawad Khan, Other
24. Attaulla Khan, Other, IAMC
25. M R Uddin, Other, Professor of Biology
26. Michael Sultan, Other, Principal Oprs Res Analyst
27. Haider khan, Other, My brother graduated from harvard
28. Sunanda Thali, Other
29. Yousuf Siddiqui, Other
30. Ramesh Rao, Other
31. Zainal Abidin Ali, Other
32. Jyothi Natarajan, Other
33. Laura Selvaraj, Other, Indian Citizen
34., Other, MEDIA, registered with Rolla Chamber of Commerce, Missouri
35. Shaik Zakeer Hussain, Other, Independent Writer and Blogger
36. Gulzar ahmed Wani, Other
37. David Rukstales, Other,
38. Khalid Malik, Other
39. Rebecca M. Miller, Other, CUNY student
40. Burhan Qureshi, Other
41. Wells R. Staley-Mays, Other
42. Swati Ramanathan, Other, Concerned Indian Citizen
43. mara ahmed, Other
44. Babar Rasheed, Other
45. Hanan Qureshi, Other
46. Anees Jeddy, Other, Concerned
47. Dr. Sammy, Other
48. Faisal Patel, 2011, Other, OPM43-HBS Executive Education
49. Nadia Mir, Other, OUTRAGED
50. Saurabh Mahajan, Other
51. Rakesh Sharma, Other, Film-maker

I am presenting below The News Item about Dr. Swamy that appeared in The Wall Street Journal

By Paul Beckett
The idea of a clash of civilizations – a phrase typically used to denote what some see as a winner-takes-all battle between “western values” and fundamentalist Islam – is now a topic of debate here and in the U.S. thanks to an extraordinary op-ed by political gadfly and Harvard Summer School teacher Subramanian Swamy.

Subramanian Swamy penned down a controversial op-ed, soon after the Mumbai bombings. Above, police officers at one of the blast sites in the city.
His controversial piece, published in DNA, a Mumbai newspaper, July 16, followed the most recent deadly bombings in Mumbai. Police have no suspects but are focusing their attention on an Indian Islamist group called Indian Mujahideen.

Mr. Swamy, however, doesn’t note that, so far, there is no one to blame or any apprehended suspects. His column includes such inflammatory statements as “Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus.” He suggests that only Muslims in India who “acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus” should be allowed to vote. We might pause here to note that India, under its Constitution, is established as a pluralistic society.

Mr. Swamy, in a telephone interview from Harvard, said that he didn’t have a process in mind whereby Muslims could profess to their Hindu ancestry but he wanted to know that, if asked, they would say “yes.”

For good measure, he accuses Sonia Gandhi, president of the ruling Congress party, of being “semi-literate.” When asked to define semi-literate, he said it was somebody who “can just read and write.” That would appear to define literacy, but he termed her semi-literate because to be fully literate she “would have read some books, read some philosophy, have a world view.”

He also suggests in the op-ed that the Kashmir Valley be settled with ex-servicemen to demonstrate a sort of civilian shock-and-awe campaign that would establish it as Hindu and Indian once and for all.

Oh yes, he also wants to make it illegal to convert from Hinduism. If that sounds unconstitutional, he clarified in the interview that this would only apply to induced conversion.

In the piece, he also brings in the Jews, noting: “If the Jews could be transformed from lambs walking meekly to the gas chambers to fiery lions in just 10 years,” then India can solve its “terrorist problem” in five years.
When asked if that might be offensive to Jews, he said in the interview that he is a “great supporter of Israel.” He also noted that his brother-in-law is Jewish, his son-in-law Muslim, his sister-in-law Christian and his wife Parsi.

Mr. Swamy’s views have stoked several protests, including a petition circulating at Harvard seeking that the storied university repudiate his remarks and terminate Mr. Swamy’s employment as a summer Economics teacher. The petition accuses him of being a “bigoted promoter of communalism in India.”

It adds: “The highly insulting and stereotypical nature of his comments suggest that he cannot be trusted to regard Muslims — and no doubt other groups–with anything but a jaundiced eye.”

The Harvard Crimson, the university’s newspaper, said in an article dated today that 200 signatories had signed the petition. The article said that the dean of Harvard Summer School will examine the issue.

“Professor Swamy is a long-time member of the Harvard Summer School faculty who previously was a member of the Department of Economics here,” a spokesman for the Dean was quoted as saying. “We will give this matter our serious attention.”

When asked if he planned to continue teaching at Harvard, Mr. Swamy said: “Let others decide and tell me.” In the interview. he characterized his critics and those who signed the petition as “Communists; they are all pro-Soviet.”

I am presenting below The News Item about Dr. Swamy that appeared in The Harvard Crimson on 27th July 2011:

Petition Calls Op-Ed by Harvard Summer School Instructor Offensive to Muslims
Article advocated for steps such as disenfranchising non-Hindus as a means of combatting terrorism, provoking outrage and calls for his ouster
Published: Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Subramanian Swamy, is accused of penning an op-ed that is inflammatory towards Muslims.
A group of Harvard students have started a petition calling on the University to sever ties with Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard Summer School economics instructor who wrote an op-ed against Islamic terrorism that many have called offensive and inflammatory.

In an article published July 16 in the Indian newspaper Daily News and Analysis, Swamy recommended demolishing hundreds of mosques, disenfranchising non-Hindus who do not acknowledge their alleged Hindu ancestry, and banning conversion from Hinduism.

The op-ed came in response to a series of bombings in Mumbai that killed 23 on July 13.

“The first lesson to be learnt from the recent history of Islamic terrorism against India and for tackling terrorism in India is that the Hindu is the target and that Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus,” Swamy wrote.

His op-ed spurred over 200 people to sign a petition condemning Swamy and calling on Harvard to end its relationship with him.

“These are statements you’d expect a demagogue on the extreme right to say,” Umang Kumar, a student at Harvard Divinity School, said, “but a professor who comes here, who got his Ph.D. from Harvard?”

Kumar and Sanjay J. Pinto, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology and social policy, organized the petition with a small group of peers and then emailed it out to an initial group of 80 students.

“Both of us decided we really needed to take action,” Pinto said. “His comments are wrong on many levels. They put forth a vision of Indian society in which not all religious groups are welcome, which is very different from the India that both of us know.”

In an interview with The Crimson, Swamy said that he is a religiously tolerant person.
“I can’t condemn all Muslims. I’m not against them,” Swamy said. “I never said Muslims as a whole are terrorists.”

However, the petition accuses Swamy of using the July 13 bombings to write a piece that is inflammatory towards Muslims.

“Swamy has exploited this event not only to promote a vision of Indian society based on Hindu supremacy, but to disparage and cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community in India,” the petition states.

At the Summer School, Swamy teaches Economics S-110: “Quantitative Methods in Economics and Business” and Economics S-1316: “Economic Development in India and East Asia.”

In a statement sent by a spokesperson, Donald H. Pfister, the dean of Harvard Summer School, said that the school will examine the issue.

“At this point we have only a basic awareness of the situation and have not been contacted by the organizations involved," Pfister said. "Professor Swamy is a long-time member of the Harvard Summer School faculty who previously was a member of the Department of Economics here. We will give this matter our serious attention."
Pinto and Kumar plan to deliver their petition to the Harvard administration early next week.

“Swamy draws a lot of prestige and legitimacy from his position at Harvard,” Pinto said. “If the Hindu right were to come into power in India, he could very well be someone who takes up a position in government, so I think it’s important for members of this community to play a part in discrediting him and saying, ‘No, he does not represent us.’”

In India, Swamy leads the Janata party, a political party that held the majority of India’s Parliament decades ago but has since fragmented. At Harvard, he earned his Ph.D. in economics in 1965 and has served as an assistant and associate professor.

Swamy said that the Indian response to his op-ed has been positive.
“I don’t think anyone in India, except the left wing, has been upset by my article,” he said. “There has been wholesale support.”

But the backers of the petition were hardly supportive of the piece.

“Not allowing Hindus to convert to any other religion, not allowing other groups to vote unless they proudly declare their Hindu ancestry—it’s honestly kind of absurd,” Pinto said.

Kumar and Pinto both said that while freedom of speech is an integral part of a thriving academic community like Harvard, Swamy’s comments crossed a line.

“They stereotype an entire population of people,” Pinto said. “How can this man who expresses these views, who’s basically saying that India should only be for Hindus and not for other people, and denigrating all Muslims, how can he teach students at Harvard?”

—Staff writer Leanna B. Ehrlich can be reached at

Even as some intolerant Leftist Groups and bigoted Student Groups in USA had come together to demand the ouster of Dr. Swamy from Harvard University, it is heartening to see that a US Civil Group has cautioned Harvard University on taking action against its Summer School Instructor Dr.Subramanian Swamy.

In a letter to University President Drew G. Faust, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a civil liberties group with a focus on academia, said the group is "concerned about the threat to freedom of expression" that may come about from that attention.

"The threat of a disciplinary investigation of Swamy stands in sharp and unflattering contrast to this admirable and appropriate understanding of the importance of freedom of expression in the academic community," Adam H. Kissel '94, vice president of programmes at FIRE, wrote in the letter as cited by Harvard Crimson, the university newsletter.

Harvard has not explicitly said that it is investigating Swamy or that it has considered such an investigation.

Kissel wrote that an investigation of Swamy's article would go against Harvard's commitment to free speech, as outlined in the "Free Speech Guidelines" adopted by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1990.

"If members of the Harvard community are given to understand that Harvard might begin an investigation-with possible disciplinary consequences-of the views they express, they likely will self-censor," he wrote. "This is precisely the result that a university dedicated to intellectual freedom must seek to avoid."
"Harvard must honour its own promises," he told the Crimson in a phone interview.
"Students have every right to protest for or against ideas in article, as does Harvard, but Harvard may not investigate or punish the expression."

I am happy to note that the sworn enemies and detractors in USA who sought the dismissal of Dr.Subramanian Swamy from the University of Harvard have kissed the dust. The Harvard University authorities have thrown out all the Petitions given to them for the ouster of Dr.Subramanian Swamy from Harvard University.

Harvard spokesman, Jeff A. Neal, released a statement Sunday July 31, 2011 that -- while noting the concern over Swamy's statements -- defended his free speech rights.
"As an institution of research and teaching, we are dedicated to the proposition that all people, regardless of color or creed, deserve equal opportunities, equal respect, and equal protection. Recent writings by Dr. Swamy therefore are distressing to many members of our community, and understandably so," the statement said. However, it added: "It is central to the mission of a university to protect free speech, including that of Dr. Swamy and of those who disagree with him. We are ultimately stronger as a university when we maintain our commitment to the most basic freedoms that enable the robust exchange of ideas."

America is the land of Liberty, where Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Thought are all guaranteed under The American Constitution. The kind of exemplary Justice Dr.Subramanian Swamy has been able to get from the authorities of Harvard University, he can never hope to get in India. In the Indian context he suffers from several disabilities. First of all he is not a Terrorist Muslim. To be a terrorist Muslim is a special privilege in India. Secondly he is not a Christian. In short he has no Minority status. He belongs to the condemned Majority Hindu community and therefore enjoys No Rights. That is why as directed by Sonia Gandhi, Chairman of the UPA Coordination Committee and P.Chidambaram Union Home Minister, the Muslim Chairman of the National Commission for Minorities Wajahat Habibullah and the Christian Vice Chairman of the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission Abraham Mathai have conspired together to somehow incarcerate Dr.Subramanian Swamy.

Christianity and Islam are at loggerheads in every part of the world excepting in India. In India the forces of Christianity and the forces of Islam have conspired to come together in order to exterminate Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism from the Soil of India forever. Dr.Subramanian Swamy taught a lesson to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during the Emergency in 1985. I have no doubt that the same fate awaits Sonia Gandhi and all her slavish chamchas like P.Chidambaram, Wajahat Habibullah and Abraham Mathai.

America is a truly secular country. India is a land of sham pseudo-secularism. When an average Muslim celebrates Muharram, he is only exercising his Minority Rights. When an average Christian celebrates Christmas or Easter, he is only exercising his Minority Rights. But when an average Hindu celebrates a Hindu Festival like Ganesh Puja he is indulging in communalism and disturbing the public peace.

The next part of my article will deal with the National Commission for Minorities.