Harvard Professor’s Op-Ed Sparks Free Speech Debate

Swamy went to study at Harvard University on a full Rockefeller scholarship. You know what that means buddy!! He received a Ph.D. in Economics in 1965. His thesis adviser was Nobel Laureate Simon Kuznets.Swamy using Harvard connection!!! You must be kidding.  His oped does not say anything about Harvard.  He is a politician and he uses his Political Party’s platform to carry his political agenda, not Harvard’s platform. You should ask Dr Eck what personal agenda is she carrying out when using Harvard’s platform to defame Dr Swamy. He does not carry his political agenda on Harvard campus. You are free to post garbage in the name of free speech without doing adequate research, that’s fine!! There are people who can correct you :)

Wonderful interview today, guys. keep up the good work. Diana Eck had a big chance with the a lot of people around the world eagerly listening today for her to boldly counter Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s article on facts and silence her critics. RESULT: ZIP. She did not counter one fact. And it’s not surprising at all. She simply latched on the “its dangerous” word from a caller and repeated that 2-3 times until time was called.

Her twitter profile says she is the “Director of Pluralism Project”. Yet she seemed to have absolutely no problem with Harvard taking something like $20Million from a Saudi Royal Prince (who represent the exact opposite of Pluralism).  Will she recognize Pluralism if it hits her in the face?  Why is Harvard holding on to such mediocre faculty / self-proclaimed experts ? I’m sure there are some brilliant young and balanced people ready to fill her shoes today.

With every passing day, the decision to fire Dr.Swamy says “Hatchet Job”. Shame.

Harvard’s biggest blunder comitted by expelling Dr.Swamy.

Can we download the audio file?

Swamy did not bring politics to Havard.  He is doing great job to fight violence and corruption in India.

What is the least expensive and quick way for android users to listen to this itunes based interview? Appreciate any help

harvard has shown that nothing against middle eastern/west asian religions can be tolerated by it. diana eck as a christian asks for forgiveness on behalf of christians from the muslims on the issue of crusuades using her harvard credentials. but never ask  hindus to forgive when christianity officially consider path of hinduism to be the path of evil/devil

As Prof Lewis pointed out, this will open the door for ‘firing’ faculty/instructors based on their political view. A dangerous precedence for Harvard, even the person (Muslim) called in for show worried about that!!!
Many people many not agree what Subramanyam Swamy said, but there are plenty of people supports his argument. 

Diana Eck commented that Dr.Swamy’s speech after the Mumbai blasts was dangerous as it  would incite vengeful reaction from Hindus…but NOTHING, no violent incident happened for 4 months after the Op-Ed was published. In fact, even an FIR could not be pursued in a court simply because it lacked any substance.
Diana Eck was probably settling a personal score or acting on the behest of a prominent Indian-Italian in India.
Anyway you dissect it, this issue has cast a smear on the credibility of Harvard itself.

Having successfully engineered Dr. Swamy’s devious ouster by apparently conspiring with a web of anti-Hindu forces, Diana Eck and her ilk have effectively tarred Harvard’s esteem that was built on  sublime academic ideals. Faced with scathing criticism, she now scrambles to hide behind the hair-splitting logic of permitting, but not hiring “extreme” speech! On top of that she flagrantly advocates double standards for tenured/non-tenured faculty!! She is probably trying to cover her own b**t, realizing that she could soon get a taste of her own medicine and that her right to offend is at risk, now that a precedent has been set.

She has written utterly false, obnoxious and revolting stuff about Hindu culture and it is entirely possible for a sack-Eck petition to gain steam. If she thinks masquerading as a Hindu/India/Sanskrit scholar confers legitimacy to her stance and slander, she is grossly mistaken. Well-informed Hindus can easily see through the irreverential, distorted studies of her and her cohort charlatan  “indologists”.

If the gang at Harvard was so offended and concerned, they could have countered Swamy with the might of their reason. Instead they chose to hit him below the belt. Finally, the merits/demerits of Swami’s ideas and whether they are reprehensible or not is for Indian politics and the collective wisdom of Indians to judge. It is none of Harvard’s business.  

If Swamy was inciting violence, did you hear or read a single incidence of violence against muslim minorities in India?. No, there was not a single incidence, then the logic of Subramanian Swamy’s Op-ed being a hate political speech is wrong. If Eck can come out of her western perspective of how Indian dynamics work, then she can understand that it was a normal political speech “op-ed” and does not bare any hate or incitement.�
Meghna, your comparison of Hindu’s vs Muslim’s in India to Black’s vs White’s is totally wrong, you forgot the logic of Apple’s comparison with Apple’s. Lastly, this incident will be seen as a remark on Harvard University and has set a wrong precedence for things to happen in future.

u ppl are biased… here i give you an example….if converted whites of america proudly acknowledge their real origin & themselves as of distinguish themselves from the terrorist group will in fact bring the whites of america together rather that isolating minority white moslems  …  

India need that to unite all religion on basis of there origin… this thing can only bring Indians citizens together… otherwise identity crisis will lead this nation to wrong path…..

Diana Eck corrupt faculty member got paid $100mn by sonia gandhi.

Interesting discussion. I personally agree with the views of Professor Lewis. A few words on Indian Muslims from my knowledge. Except for the few who are descendents of foreign invaders from Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkey, etc., who would be probably 5 to 10 percent of Indian Muslims, the rest are all native Indians (racially, ethnically, linguistically Indians). The latter are historically descendents of their Hindu ancestors. The difference is like for example the Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians, the latter are 100% Indians, only the religion is Christianity, their Ancestors were Hindus. This is an objective fact, there cannot be any controversy here. Where the controversy arises probably is when Dr Swamy proposes that they accept this fact. Well, think for a moment, why the Afghan Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas – carved out with great precision, love and dedication by their own ancestors who could not be anything other than Buddhists?! Tolerance implies your disagreement is peaceful.

I cannot agree with Prof. Eck’s view that banning conversion from Hinduism would hurt “human rights”. How can that be? The Christian Evangelists for example convert based on the premise that non-Christians would go to hell! Isn’t that a fundamental violation of Human Rights and healthy respect for diversity? In the whole of North America, South America and Australia what is the status of the original natives? Where are they? What happened to Persia? What happened to so called “Aboriginees”? Dont we know? Should Hindus go through the same (although in a more diluted and sophisticated form)? Prof Eck should know very well that Hindus adhere to “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanti”, but the same is not shared by Christians and Muslims – they both believe that the whole world should be converted to their own religion, thus wiping out all diversity from the Human society. Is that an acceptable belief to be spread under the protection of “human rights”?

Next, I cannot agree with Meghna’s comparison of India/Hindus/Muslims with US/Whites/Blacks. Blacks were imported from Africa, we know all that history. Not so Indian Muslims, they are 100% Indians, as I already said the number of descendents of foreign invaders is insignificant like the number of Anglo-Indians. The Brahmin/Dalit comparison is also not valid at all. Hindu society is one that evolves on a continual basis. We are not based on a single prophet, or a single book or any such thing. Indian History is very controversial, most of it is from the mouths of foreigners! And most people in this debate often speak of Manu and the like, whom Hindus themselves have forgotten. Hindus derive their societal values from the Gurus of Contemporary times. Gurus like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi, Mata Amritanandamayi etc. This fact is almost always forgotten by scholars who are mainly Western educated and are more exposed to Abrahamic religions.

Meghna ,It was a good show and Radio Boston has become a favorite in India now because of this indepth Program. My tweet was read out and I thank you for that. But a feedback
Prof Lewis was all grace but was opposed to procedure-He did not take a view on Dr Swamy’s thoughts-fine enough but one more panelist assessing Dr Swamy to counter Diana Eck would be in order,since Dr Swamy was not in a postion to counter Diana Eck. Also if you had brought one more call in programmer for a Hindu perspective it would have been better since twitter is just 140 ch and not same impact as a voice call
Hope you would respond to my suggestions
Truenationalist

The interview did not shed any new light on Harvard’s actions or the rationale for it. Diana Eck’s comments are as irrational as they were when the decision was first explained in the harvard magazine. Eck’s defensive position on how Saudi money from a state that denies basic religious rights to non-muslims should not be attributed to all of Saudi Arabia when the money is offered by the State’s foremost representative, the prince, is representative of her twisted logic in the backdoor ouster of Swamy. I dont know what right she retains to call herself an India expert. A lot of disservice was also done to India’s plural ethos – both by Eck whose decision and understanding of plurality in the Indian context is highly suspect because it smacks of a certain colonial attitude that attempts to save an intolerant India from itself, just as colonial britian sought to save an uncivilized India from itself —- and to a certain extent by the interviewer Meghna.  ‘Blood feud’ is a characterisation of Hindu-Muslim relations apt in the context of the subcontinent’s Partition, not in the pre-British era when Hindus were butchered by invading Islamic groups and not in modern India where riots take place in the context of specific political grievances or incidents of terrorism. The gujarat riots of 2001 for example happened in the aftermath of the burning to death of hundreds of innocent Hindu pilgrims, including women and children, on a train. And yet after the bloodshed that followed India has been remarkably calm in the face of grave provocations. Despite one terror attack after another, there has been no retributive or revenge violence against Muslims. This is plural coexistence in the face of extreme provocation. Contrast this with the US: A single terrorist incident changed US’s relations with Muslims who are US citizens as well as the entire Muslim world. India has held on to its plural values despite millenia of such incidents – a past and a present littered with Islamist violence of one kind or another. What is also left out of the purview of the discussion is the role of british colonialism in arbitering Hindu-muslim relations. Its a very complex setting, with layers of discourses and actors and yet highly unjust comparisons have been drawn between India and the US.

There is a movement to make Malaysian Muslims part of Malaysia and same with Indonesia. What is wrong in projecting Indian Muslims as part of India so disconnecting from the Wahhabi sect?
I think Swamy did the same. But now there is lot of chatter and smoke that the original idea is lost.

I apologise for the lenghty comment. However I want to present the evidence as it is, and let you decide. Dr. Swamy was very nice and professional in the interview. But  the interest of america, american universities, freedom of speech should not become an asset of one indiviual/community or one with the big purchasing power. I see a pattern, I do not want to be called biased. But you look , analyse and conclude.
�
1) Diana Eck is the greatest philiosopher who sees no evil in terrorists of 9/11, but she told Meghna : in the thugs who destroyed the structure build over their temple. Here is her interview in PBS after 9/11.
�
One of
the themes in “Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero” is the question of evil, and the
way President Bush and others have used the term “evil” as a noun, evil as this
thing. Do you think that an effort to unpack this term, to think about
what we mean by it, is a helpful exercise as we try to enter into a new dialogue
with people of other religions? Or does it become a stumbling block?

I think
it’s very useful to think about the question of evil — what we mean when we use
that term as a noun or when we use that term as an adjective — but I am not at
all in agreement with the notion that we need to personify evil, in terms of
persons and in terms of empires, and that sort of thing. I think actually we
deceive ourselves when we do that. But I do think that the discussion of what we
mean by evil could be very productive as a way of beginning to unpack the use of
that term in our time by people of Jewish and Christian and Muslim faiths, all
of which share a sense of Satan in one way or another. And, of course, Hindus
and Buddhists, especially Tibetan Mahayana Buddhists, are very lavish in their
personifications of just about everything — the personification of divinities
and of the obstructive forces is very common. And we might actually learn a lot
about one another that way.

But I am
less inclined to want to approach the whole question of Sept. 11 through the use
of terms like evil. I mean, I think we can describe deeds as evil, and this
certainly was an evil deed. But the more we describe persons as “evildoers,” and
think we know what we mean, the more we alienate all the things that are
abhorrent to us from our own understanding. And I think that it is very
important for us to try to understand what has been happening in the world, and
what may have been the motivations behind the people who have takenus as
evildoers. Mind you, the term evil is one that’s very reciprocal. And clearly,
Al Qaeda and the bombers of Sept. 11 had a very forceful sense that we ourselves
are evil and were perpetrating evil in the world. So I’m not sure how much it
helps us simply to label them as evil. I think we need, not necessarily to
psychologize or politicize, but to try to understand what it is that we’re
encountering here.
�
�
2) Now Diana eck view on 9/11 mosque published in harvard crimson:
 In sum, the life’s work of both Feisal Rauf and Daisy Khan has been dedicated to fostering better relations between Islam and the West.In the midst of this media maelstrom, we all need to ask some serious questions: How did this Cordoba vision become dubbed “the mosque at Ground Zero?” What political interests are at stake in perpetuating this public controversy, long after the official bodies of the city of New York have given it resounding approval? If it is really about “sensitivity” and “proximity to Ground Zero,” why are protesters holding signs with the words “Sharia” lettered in red and dripping with blood? Why the rise of a frightening spate of Islamophobia just now?The Pluralism Project at Harvard has followed the targeting of progressive Muslim leaders in America for the past 20 years. What has happened to Feisal Rauf is not new. It is part of a deeply disturbing and continuing pattern of groundless accusation, guilt by association, and the distortion of both words and motives. All these suspicions find fertile soil in which to grow, given the general inexperience most Americans have with Muslims, Muslim communities, and the Islamic faith. Now, more than ever, we need just the kind of Cordoba House that Feisal Rauf proposes—and we need one in every city and town in America.
�
 

#) DIANA L. ECK does not want voice of Islam shut. But then????

Shutting out a voice for Islam

By Diana L. Eck | February 2,
2006

WHY IS THE American Academy of Religion, with more than 10,000 members who
teach religion in colleges and universities, suing Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff? It takes a
matter of grave concern for an academy of scholars who study everything from the
Bible to Buddhists to join the American Civil Liberties Union in bringing a case
against the US government. The concern is this: Our colleague, Tariq Ramadan, an
Islamic scholar and theologian, has been barred from entering the United States
to participate in the discussion of one of the most important topics of today:
contemporary Islam in the West.
For 18 months, the government has withheld his visa on the basis of the
”ideological exclusion” provision of the Patriot Act, interpreted so broadly as
to be a danger to the enterprise of debate and exchange in a free society.
At first it seemed an ignorant mistake. Ramadan, a Swiss national of Egyptian
ancestry, had previously lectured at universities and attended conferences in
the United States. But in August 2004, he suddenly had his visa revoked by the
Department of Homeland Security on the eve of his departure to teach at Notre
Dame. Those of us who had known and admired his work were astounded. He was at
the top of my reading list as an articulate spokesman for Islamic engagement in
civil society and in the dialogue of religions. I had met Ramadan that summer at
the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Barcelona. I looked forward to
hearing his plenary address at the annual meeting of the American Academy of
Religion in November 2004. So why would the US government revoke the visa of a
scholar whose entire body of work was dedicated to an emergent ”reformist”
Islam? Why would the United States deny entry to someone able to contribute
constructively to public discussion in Western countries with growing Muslim
populations?
That very summer, Rice had spoken at the US Institute of Peace, calling for
the United States to dramatically expand ”our efforts to support and encourage
the voices of moderation and tolerance and pluralism within the Muslim world.”
So why would she be party to the exclusion of one of the most prominent of these
voices?
The government has invoked a provision of the Patriot Act that allows it to
deny a visa to anyone who ”endorses” or ”espouses” terrorism. It is chilling
to see that this provision has been interpreted to ban a prominent intellectual
who has been a consistent public critic of Islamic extremism and terrorism.
Of course the government has and should have the power to exclude known
terrorists. But this provision of the Patriot Act is being used to exclude
people whose voices the government does not want us to hear and to block critics
of US policies from engaging in public discussion and academic debate.
In November 2004, Ramadan did deliver that keynote address, sitting at a bare
table somewhere in Canada, speaking to us on a large-screen video monitor.
Ramadan articulated the themes he has long emphasized. He spoke of the ”new
reality” of American Muslims and of the importance of being ”fully Muslim and
fully American.” Without a trace of bitterness, he spoke of the ”ethics of
citizenship” and participation as Western Muslims. Western Muslims must be able
to say ”This is our country. It is not an alien space in which we forever
perceive ourselves as foreigners. It is our home.” He spoke of the ”silent
revolution” of reformist Islam taking place today. And he spoke of the critical
significance of interfaith dialogue, grounded for him in the Muslim doctrine of
tawhid, the oneness of God. It was a stirring message by a Muslim
theologian of the stature of a Reinhold Niebuhr or Paul Tillich, delivered to us
from the other side of the walls we ourselves have built. While heartened by his
message, I felt saddened, ashamed, and fearful for my country.
The study and analysis of religion is indisputably important in the world in
which we live today. Religious and theological studies are integral to the
curriculum of more than 2,000 colleges, universities, and seminaries across the
country. Our community of colleagues is global. Denying us face-to-face access
to scholars and theologians who contribute to critical reflection on the
religious currents of our world is an intolerable impoverishment of the academic
enterprise.
Diana L. Eck, a professor of
comparative religion at Harvard University, is president of the American Academy
of Religion.
�
Now ottawa citizen giving an introduction to Mr. Ramadana, Ecks favourite
By Robert Sibley, The Ottawa CitizenMarch 18, 2010
( Part of article where
various indiviuals have raised and questioned his credibility, links to terror,
etc.)
Ramadan’s reputation as a “moderate” has come into question in recent
years, with some reputable commentators suggesting Ramadan is a master
practitioner of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, or dissimulation.
“Ramadan is a dangerous
radical who, far from modernizing Islam, is in fact attempting to Islamize
modernity,” says Pakistani-born scholar and Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq.
“I don’t see anyone today who is as effective as Tariq Ramadan in
furthering fundamentalism in France,” says French journalist Caroline Fourest,
the author of a book on Ramadan.
Fourest says Ramadan is known for saying one thing to Muslims and another
to western audiences. His purpose, she said in a 2004 interview with L’Express,
is “to modify the secular state and help matters evolve toward ‘more Islam.’
Unfortunately, the Islam in question is not an enlightened and modern Islam, but
a reactionary and fundamentalist one.”
Paul Berman, a journalist who teaches at New York University, and the
author of studies on totalitarian ideology, offers perhaps the most rigorous
analysis of Ramadan’s ideological background. Ramadan comes across as reasoned
and moderate, Berman says in a recent essay, but his reformist image is
compromised by his admiration of and abiding attachment to extremist Muslim
ideologues, including his father and grandfather.
“The problem lies in the terrible fact that Ramadan’s personal milieu —
his grandfather, his family history, his family contacts, his intellectual
tradition — is precisely the milieu that bears the principal responsibility for
generating the modern theoretical justification for religious suicide,” Berman
writes.
1) Normally, you don’t hold a
man’s family against him. In Ramadan’s case, however, it is permissible because
he makes so much of his heritage.
Ramadan’s
maternal grandfather was Hassan Al-Banna, who in 1928 founded the Muslim
Brotherhood to promote Salafism; a term that refers to the dream of returning
Islam to the strict practices of sharia that prevailed in the seventh century.
In the late 1940s, when the UN voted to create Israel, the New York Times quoted
him as saying, “If the Jewish state becomes a fact, (the Arabs) will drive the
Jews who live in their midst into the sea.”
Tariq Ramadan’s father, Said Ramadan, was Al-Banna’s son-in-law and
personal secretary. After being expelled from Egypt, Said went to Saudi Arabia
and became a founder of the World Islamic League, a charity devoted to spreading
Islam.
He then moved to Switzerland to raise a family — Tariq was born in 1962 —
and establish the Islamic Center in Geneva to promote the Muslim Brotherhood’s
ideas.
2)Tariq Ramadan’s “heritage”
has also been linked to those who promote terrorism. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a
scholar of Sunni Islam, directed funeral prayers for Ramadan’s father when he
died in 1995 — a fact Ramadan proudly mentions in his book The Roots of the
Muslim Revival. However, Qaradawi is better known to westerners for issuing a
fatwa in 2003 justifying the use of women as suicide bombers. Nevertheless, as
Berman notes, Ramadan “reveres Qaradawi above all other present-day Islamic
scholars, and in one book after another he has left no room for doubt about his
fealty.”
3)To be sure, Ramadan has
never publicly condoned violence. But then he has never outright condemned
terrorism. After the 9/11 attacks, he said, “we should condemn bin Laden’s
statement and actions.” (Why “should”? Why not say outright he condemns the
attacks? ) In an interview with the French magazine Le Point, he referred to the
attacks on New York, as well as ones in Bali and Madrid that killed hundreds, as
“interventions.” He’s said killing Israeli children in acts of terrorism is
“morally condemnable,” but “contextually explicable.”
4)In light of such
equivocation it is not unreasonable to wonder at Ramadan’s motives, particularly
when you consider how proudly he proclaims his intellectual and spiritual
attachments to those who endorse violence.
Jean-Charles Brisard, an internationally recognized expert on terrorism
financing, says Tariq and his older brother Hani Ramadan “co-ordinated a meeting
(in Geneva) in 1991 attended by Ayman Al Zawahiri and Omar Abdel Rahman.”
Zawahiri would become the second in command of al-Qaeda. Rahman is serving a
life sentence in the U.S. as the planner of the 1993 World Trade Center
attack.
Perhaps, though, the most telling exposure of taqiyya was Tariq’s response
to a statement by his older brother Hani, who once endorsed stoning to death
women who commit adultery.
5)In a
2003 debate on French television, Tariq was asked to comment on his brother’s
views. Did he agree? His interlocutor was none other than Nicolas Sarkozy, the
then-French interior minister and now president.
“I am in favour of a moratorium so that they stop applying this sort of
punishments in the Muslim world,” Ramadan said.
Sarkozy was stunned. “A moratorium … Mr. Ramadan are you serious? … We
should, for a while, hold back from stoning women?”
Sarkozy’s reaction rattled Ramadan. He equivocated, asking about the
meaning of “moratorium,” arguing that a “true debate” was needed so that “if we
arrive at a consensus among Muslims, it will necessarily end.”
The future French president
wouldn’t let Ramadan sidestep his moral incoherence. “You have just said
something particularly incredible, which is that the stoning of women, yes, the
stoning is a bit shocking, but we should simply declare a moratorium, and then
we are going to think about it in order to decide if it is good.”
Sarkozy was right.
What is there to debate? You don’t seek a “consensus” on such a barbaric
practice. What if you don’t get a consensus? Would Ramadan let the “moratorium”
– which my dictionary defines as “a temporary ban on the use or production of
something” — lapse? (In 2005, Ramadan again called for an “immediate
moratorium” on the application of hudud– prescribed Islamic penalties — such
as corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in all majority Muslim
countries. However, nowhere in the announcement does he condemn stoning.)
Did Ramadan’s mask slip? Berman suggests this was the case. “Six million
French people watched that exchange. A huge number of Muslim immigrants must
have been among them — the very people who might have benefited from hearing
someone speak with absolute clarity about violence against women. Ramadan
couldn’t do it. … The seventh century had suddenly appeared, poking out from
beneath the modern rhetoric of feminism and rights. A moment of
barbarism.”
Might this
“moment of barbarism” have something to do with the “heritage” of which Ramadan
is so proud? In an interview with Le Monde diplomatique, Ramadan acknowledged
his intellectual debt to his grandfather’s ideas. “I have studied Hassan
al-Banna’s ideas with great care and there is nothing in this heritage that I
reject.”
Nothing? If so, then it is not unreasonable for anyone listening to Ramadan
to suspect he is engaged in taqiyya. His message, as Berman observes, “is a
double message.”
This kind of doublespeak, says Fourest, confers an indirect legitimacy on
the Islamist agenda, and thus, implicitly, justifies terrorism. Thus, Ramadan
remains “scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a
strategy of advance stage by stage” toward making sharia a reality in western
liberal society. Along the way, Ramadan, soft-spoken, ever elegant, always
charming, “disarms those who are wary of Islamism.”
Perhaps those attending Friday’s lecture will not be so disarmed, will not
settle for dissimulation, will not let wishful thinking replace justifiable
wariness.
Robert Sibley is a
senior writer with the Ottawa Citizen.

Dr. Swamy clearly said how to wipe out Islamic TERROR. He did not say wipe out Islam.
BTW Dr. Swamy is right simply coz a terrorist attack of this magnitude cannot be possible without LOCAL SUPPORT..Sad to see that Americans have already forgotten who caused 9/11 !Sad to see that Americans have already forgotten who caused 9/11 !

THE REAL QUESTION IS IF HARVARD KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY FALL PREY TO THE SINISTER DESIGNS OF THE 2G CORRUPT SCAMSTERS/LOOTERS TO AVENGE OR PUNISH DR.Swamy ON THE MEGA CORRUPTION BATTLE.
Only a internal investigation in harvard will answer this.But this is what the unbiased media should call for.But this question should not remain unanswered.

The op-ed article was just a pretext to throw out Dr. Swamy. Their concern for muslim is an eyewash.If there was no petrodollar, arabs would know camel is a better friend.
The real reason is the 2G Scam.Dr. Swamy was the main petitioner in the supreme court of India, making sure that It is the greatest scam on earth, and thanks to the honest officers in Indian government including Mr. Aseervatham Achary, Journalist Mr.Gopikumar, News paper Daily pioneer, CAG Vinod Rai, Mr. Bhushan and Dr. Swamy.
If not for Dr. Swamy and Mr. Bhushan the corrupt polticians who instigated this would have had a free run with 40 billion dollars from the state exchequer.However now one by one are going to prison, thanks to the supreme court of India.
Even the media which was the fourth pillar was part of this scam. They report it very biased and hesitantly for they do not want to face the anger of the ruling and part because of their involvement.
However it has not been easy for those fighting the corruption. Mr. Bhushan was blackmailed with concoted tape, Mr. Hazare who wanted to bring bill to accountability in indian investigation agency was mudslinged, Baba Ramdev a yogi was brutally attacked when he raised the question of corrupt black money of the ruling class stashed in the Swiss banks. Now it is Dr.Swamy ‘s turn.

Meghna – I did not receive any response for this feedback and hence again putting it up for your view�
Meghna ,It was a good show and Radio Boston has become a favorite in India now because of this indepth Program. My tweet was read out and I thank you for that. But a feedbackProf Lewis was all grace but was opposed to procedure-He did not take a view on Dr Swamy’s thoughts-fine enough but one more panelist assessing Dr Swamy to counter Diana Eck would be in order,since Dr Swamy was not in a postion to counter Diana Eck. Also if you had brought one more call in programmer for a Hindu perspective it would have been better since twitter is just 140 ch and not same impact as a voice callHope you would respond to my suggestionsTruenationalist 

Diana Eck associated with India studies for more than 28 year, than she should know what happened during 1990 in Kashmir. All mosque started preaching hatred against Kashmiri pundits.

In 1948, Javaharlal Nehru (first prime minister of India) also made same speech at Allahabad University convocation that, all Indian Muslims have Hindu ancestry. By proving same ancestry Dr. Swamy want to prove that, there is no need to fight against each other.

By the way Diana Eck made hate speech by calling “Hindu Thug”, does she dare to call 9/11 terrorist a “Muslim Terrorists”  without loosing 20 million Saudi (9/11 attackers were mostly Saudi ) endowment?? if you meet her again please ask her this question.

Which of those thugs has come forward and taken responsibility for that act of vandalism yet? If they cannot do that, clearly it was an illegal act performed by cowards taking refuge in legal loopholes.

I am sorry, it’s still not relevant, all i detect is a hatred of Muslims, Islamophobia and an immature attempt to play the dirty politics post any terror attack, to justify atrocities and human rights violations.

Firstly, that was the age of conquests and kingdoms and religious wars, we live in civilized times now, there can be no justification for the repeating the same acts of vandalism even if that were true. Secondly, it has been shown that the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India of India were fudged and in reality there was no such temple in existence at the site.     

were fud

The concept of ‘righting historical wrongs’, is ridiculous and vindictive, especially so, when those wrongs are fictitious and part of a sustained campaign of lies and propaganda designed to establish Hindu supremacy and malign other communities. It is no secret that that is what the RSS and other fringe lunatic organizations doing since years pursuant to their fantasy of some Hindu land. It is no secret that such propaganda has been used to win elections and stir up a frenzy of pseudo-nationalism among people like you, people who gloat in private when Muslims are massacred en masse, when their places of worship are demolished by barbaric vandals and who consider it to be some sort of justice for some real or imaginary wrong done to them under Islamic rule ages ago. And if you still deny it than you are indeed a bigot and a hypocrite.

@f1b9dfed88cbad9231959d6832e0d419:disqus I support the recommendations from @PointJabber:disqus 

Though the debate was about ‘Free Speech’ it was in context of ‘Wiping out Islamic Extremism from India’

People around the world are aware of the terms ‘Jihad’, ‘Fatwas’, ‘Halals’ and many have indepth knowledge on Islamic books Quran, Hadith etc…

However we need to discuss the topic in context of India and Indian history!

Muslims are a fraction of American population around 2 million whereas in India the Muslim population is close to 200 million. Muslim votes have became crucial in swinging the elections in India.

Talking about ‘Free Speech’, Diana says U.S is very generous in it’s guidelines for ‘free speech’ however she goes on to define & categorizing Dr. Swamy’s views as ‘hate speech’.

In India there are Pakistan ISI sponsored Separatist leaders who openly speak & protest against India. The Tibetians are allowed to openly express themselves & protest in India. Dr. Swamy’s views as a Political leader were for the citizens of India participating in democracy.

American democracy has allowed it’s citizens to choose fearless leaders who had the U.S. Army cross it’s borders and fight a war on various Islamic Republics as a response of single 9/11 Terrorist Attack!

India has been a victim of Islamic Extremism for a million years witnessing countless deaths, while we practice tolerance people like Diana Eck start treating us like ‘doormats’ and call Hindus something between ‘Nationalists’ and ‘Thugs’, has she found the right word yet?

Harvard has blown the issue out of proportion by calling itself a Global Institute and trying to have an influence on Indian Politics and on lives and sentiments of Indians.

If you are going to have discussion in Global context then we need to talk about the Human Rights violations in all Islamic nations & Muslim majority nations, and if this discussion is going to be viewed only in Indian context, we need to keep everyone including the Americans out of it!

I’ll like to end my comments with the request for you to host a follow-up show, perhaps you can take questions from people in advance, 18 minutes was too short!

@f1b9dfed88cbad9231959d6832e0d419:disqus  If you host another show, probably you should invite Harvard Students Umang Kumar, Sanjay J. Pinto, Harvard Professors Sugata Bose & Ajantha Subramanian, they were the people from Indian Orgin who triggered this ‘Free Speech’ debate by starting a petition.

Diana Eck seems to have wanted everyone to protest in a Gandhi style satyagraha, however due to her interfaith ideology she seems to caught up!

So when is he being a lying two faced opportunist, then; http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1702/17020950.htm , or now with his recent inflammatory filth.

Meghna, why do your people keep deleting my image, aren’t you the defenders of free speech? Surely, my image is not more offensive than that bigot swamy’s article! Or is my picture worth more than the thousand words here and you can’t have that…

Ok here’s an interesting fact about Diana Eck. Check out her twitter page https://twitter.com/#!/dianaeck. This “so called” expert on India is all exultant in passing on the “EID wishes” (an Islamic festival) from the muslim community but totally forgets and ignores wishing for DIWALI – which the biggest Indian festival of Hindus. How convenient, right?!

And her tweets start by mentioning love for muslim painter who painted obnoxious and inflammatory drawings of Hindu goddesses.

Does anyone not see her inner motives here? Hah!!! DOUBLE STANDARDS EXPOSED.

SACK ECK HARVARD!!!

Hereby provide the numbers of hindus killed from 600 AD. Looking at the numbers it is greater than the combined massacre of all the wars in the world, genocides, holocaust put togather ever since the mankind learned to fight.

This is the fairy tale according to Huyogi.Let the history be the judge.

AUTHENTIC sources to make our point clear. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has compiled Indian History in 11 volumes and the project was financed by the Nehru Government (who no one can ever accuse of being ‘communal’). The chief editor is world-famous historian the late R C Majumdar, who was India’s representative to UNESCO and is one of the most respected historians. The Volumes on Indian History are contributed by many eminent historians, including those from the then East Pakistan (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan. To see the past- we simply quote Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s “History and Cultutre of Indian People”. It is hoped that these authentic quotes make everyone (Indian Muslims included) realize the truth of Islam’s spread and atrocities on Hindus.
The chronology that follows is incomplete but indicative-

636 AD – Arabs attacked Thane, near Mumbai [i]

c. 643 – Arabs invaded Debol at the mouth of the Sindhu[ii]

c. 660 – Arabs invaded Sindh[iii]

c. 661- -Arabs sent six expeditions against Sindh[iv]
680
661-680 -Arabs sent expeditions against Kabul and Zabul[v]

685 – The Arabs killed the king of Zabul[vi]

699 – The Arabs ravaged Zabul[vii]

712 – Muhammad-bin-Qasim slaughtered many Hindus, killed King
Dahir and captured Sindh and gave settlement to 4000 Muslims[viii]

724-738- The Arabs sent several expeditions against Gujarat, Jaisalmer,
Jodhpur, Broach, Malava, Vallamandal, Ujjain[ix]

c. 739 – The Arabs invaded Kathiawar[x]

776 – The Arabs sent expedition against Barda, near Porbandar[xi]

c. 948 – Alptigin of Ghazni plundered Punjab several times[xii]
to 963

977-997- Subuktigin of Ghazni plundered Punjab several times & carried
immense wealth and killed many Hindus and converted many
Hindus of Peshawar. [xiii]Jaipal was the King at that time.

998- – Mahmud of Ghazni carried out several invasions, looted immense
1030 treasure, killed many Hindus and converted many Hindus [xiv]

1000 – Mahmud of Ghazni seized some parts near Peshawar[xv]

1001 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked the kingdom of Jaipal, slaughtered
many Hindus, captured Jaipal and collected 250000 dinars and 25
elephants as ransom[xvi]

1004 – Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Bagi Ray’s kingdom Bhatiya,
plundered Bhatiya and converted many Hindus[xvii]

1005-6 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Anandapal; in a battle near Peshawar,
Anandapal was defeated[xviii]

1007 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Sukhapal and plundered 400000
dirhams[xix]

1008 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Anandapal. 20000 Hindus were
killed. Bhimnagar (=Nagarkot=Kot Kangra) was laid waste and
[xx] looted its treasury which consisted of 70,000,000 royal dirhams,
700400 mands of gold and jewellery & precious stones; clothes and
garments[xxi]

1009 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Narayanpur in Rajputana, broke many
idols, killed many Hindus and took booty[xxii]

1010 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Multan and killed a large number of
Hindus[xxiii]

1010 – Anandapal had to agree to send Mahmud of Ghazni annually 50
big elephants laden with valuables and 2000 men to serve the
court of Ghazni[xxiv]

1011 – Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Thaneswar, broke a large number of
idols and plundered[xxv]

1013 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Nandana, killed many Hindus,
captured booty and a host of elephants[xxvi]

1014 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Kashmir- took many Hindus as
prisoners and converted many Hindus to Islam[xxvii]

1015 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Lokhot, a hill-fort in Kashmir[xxviii]

1018 – Mahmud of Ghazni crossed the five rivers of Punjab and crossed
Yamuna on 2 December 1018. The king of Baran (Bulandshahar)
surrendered and paid 1,00,000 dirhams and 30 elephants.[xxix]

Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Mahaban in Mathura and killed
nearly 5000 Hindus. The king Kulachand killed his wife first and
then himself.[xxx]

Mahmud of Ghazni plundered Mathura and captured idols of pure
Gold weighing 98,300 miskals. The idols of silver numbered 200.
He ordered to burn all temples and the houses. Mathura was
pillaged for 20 days.[xxxi]

Mahmud of Ghazni plundered Kanauj. King Rajyapal fled. The
Hindus were slaughtered. Kanauj had 10,000 temples. The idols
were destroyed.[xxxii]

Mahmud of Ghazni attacked and devastated Mung, near Kanpur.
Many Hindus were killed and all valuables taken.[xxxiii]

Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Asni, near Fatehpur. Its ruler,
Chandrapal, fled. The Hindus were slaughtered.[xxxiv]

1019 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked & plundered Sharva, near Saharanpur.
Its ruler, Chand Rai, fled. The booty of gold, silver and pearls
worth 30,00,000 dirhams and many elephants were captured. A
large number of Hindus were taken as slaves and sold at Iraq’s
Khurasan. In January 1019 Mahmud of Ghazni returned to Ghazni
with 20,000,000 dirhams, 53,000 prisoners and 350 elephants.[xxxv]

1020 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked the Chandella kingdom of Vidyadhar
near Yamuna. The Hindu Sahi kingdom was completely ravaged.
Vidyadhar & Trilochanpal fled.[xxxvi]

Mahmud of Ghazni attacked and plundered Bari, the Pratihar
capital. Bari was razed to the ground.[xxxvii]

Mahmud of Ghazni chased the Chandella King Vidyadhar.
Vidyadhar fled. Mahmud of Ghazni captured a huge booty and 580
elephants.[xxxviii]

1021 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Qirat & Nur and forced the Hindu
rulers to embrace Islam. Their temples and idols were destroyed.[xxxix]

Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Lohkot, In Kashmir.[xl]

1021-22- Mahmud of Ghazni again launched an attack on the Chandella
Vidyadhar. Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Gwalior and Lakangara.[xli]

1024 – Mahmud of Ghazni started to attack the Somnath temple. On the
way- he ravaged Ludrava, Anahillapataka, Mundur, Dewalwara
etc. The Chalukya king Bhim I fled. [xlii]

1025 – He reached Somnath in January 1025. More than 50000 Hindus
were killed. The booty was worth 20,000,000 dirhams. The temple
was razed to the ground.[xliii]

1027 – Mahmud of Ghazni attacked Jats, killed thousands of Jats,
plundered their wealth.[xliv] He died in AD 1030.

1034 – Ahmad Niyaltigin plundered Banaras and carried away immense
booty[xlv]

1036 – Mahmud’s son Masud attacked Hansi, Sonpat and the kingdom of
Ram Rai.[xlvi]

1178 – Muhammad Ghuri attacked Gujarat and plundered Nadol[xlvii]
1191 – Battle of Tarain. Ghuri attacked Prithviraj- and was routed[xlviii]

1192 – Second battle of Tarain. He again attacked Prithviraj. One lakh
Hindu soldiers lost their lives. Prithviraj was killed. Temples were
demolished. Ghuri left behind his fanatic general Qutubuddin
Aibak to look after the affairs of India.[xlix]

1193 – The battle of Chandawar. Muhammad Ghuri killed Jayachandra;
plundered Asni and Banaras.[l]

1194 -Qutubuddin Aibak ousted Hari Raj and captured Ajmer,
demolished 27 temples[li]

1195 -Muhammad Ghori attacked Bayana and Gwalior[lii]

1196 -Qutubuddin slaughtered 50,000 Rajputs and enslaved 20,000[liii]

1197 – Qutubuddin invaded Gujarat[liv]

1200 – Muhammad Khalji plundered Magadha; slaughtered Buddhist
monks of Odantapuri Vihar[lv]

1205 – Qutubuddin and Muizzuddin in the battle between Jhelum and
Chenab killed Khokars and enslaved many others[lvi]

1233 -Iltutmish captured Bhilsa and plundered Ujjain[lvii]

1296 -Alauddin Khalji invaded Devagiri of Maharashtra[lviii]

1296 to -His discriminatory regulations ruined the Hindus[lix]
1316

1305 – Alauddin invaded Malava[lx]

1309 – His general Malik Kafur invaded Warangal[lxi]

1310 – Pandya kingdom invaded- immense booty and 250 elephants
were captured[lxii]

1325 to- Muhammad Tughlaq ruined Kakatiya, Yadava, Hoysala and
1351 Pandya dynasties of the South [lxiii]

Nagaya Gauna, Harihar, Bukka were forced to embrace Islam[lxiv]

1361 -Firoz Tughlaq slaughtered nearly one lakh Hindus near the Chilka
lake.[lxv]

1362 – Muhammad Shah defeated Telangana king Vinayaka Deva and
killed him with barbarous cruelty[lxvi]

1458 to – Mahmud Begarha held Hindus of Gujarat in thrall[lxvii]
1511

1467 – He invaded and plundered Girnar[lxviii]

1469 – He attacked Junagadh and forced Mandalika to embrace Islam[lxix]

1482 – Malik Sudha killed many Hindus of Champaner[lxx]

1483 – Mahmud Begarha plundered Champaner and killed and converted
Hindus[lxxi]

1527 – Babur defeated Rana Sangram and killed him and Rajputs[lxxii]

1528 – Babur defeated Medini Rai- killed Hindus in Chanderi [lxxiii]

1565 – In Talikota- alliance of 4 Muslim kings defeated Vijaynagar king
Rama Raya and thousands of Hindus were killed[lxxiv]
This was a huge disaster. Within hours of Vijaynagar empire’s defeat, the great city was Vijaynagar was ruined, people fled, thousands were killed, all houses looted, burned and within a few hours the great prosperous city of Vijayanagr was ruined.
1568 – The battle of Chitor: Akbar defeated the Rajputs and ordered
massacre of 30,000 non-combatant Hindus[lxxv]

1663 – The Bijapur Sultan plundered Tirucherapalli[lxxvi]

1665 – Aurangazeb imposed taxes on Hindu traders[lxxvii]

1669 – He ordered demolition of schools and temples of Hindus. Many
temples were demolished-including Kashi, Mathura and Patan
Somnath[lxxviii]

1679 – Aurangazeb reimposed jizyah tax on Hindus. Unable to pay this tax
many Hindus converted to Islam[lxxix]

1704 – Fifth attack on Anandpur by Vazir Khan. Guru Govind Singh’s
mother, brothers, followers were killed; his two sons bricked up
alive in a fort wall and then beheaded because they refused to
embraced Islam on 27 December 1704[lxxx]

1708 – Two Pathan Muslims stabbed Guru Govind Singh- he died soon[lxxxi]

1715 – On Farukh-Siyar’s orders Abdur Samad Khan geared up to
vanquish Sikh leader Banda. Many Sikhs were massacred[lxxxii]

1716 – Banda was brutally killed (Details too horrific)[lxxxiii]

1739 – Nadir Shah of Persian entered Delhi. People of Delhi suffered
terrible horrors. Their property looted, houses burnt, womenfolk
raped, the men slaughtered. Three to four lakhs were killed, treasure
worth 50 crores was plundered.[lxxxiv]

1748 – Ahmad Shah Abdali’s first invasion of India[lxxxv]

1750 – His second invasion of India [lxxxvi]

1751 – His third invasion of India[lxxxvii]

1756 – His fourth invasion of India[lxxxviii]

1759 – His fifth invasion of India[lxxxix]

1761 – His sixth invasion of India and the Third Battle of Panipat (on 14
Jan 1761) –in which the Hindus were crushed[xc]
1764 – His seventh invasion of India[xci]

1767 – His eighth invasion of India[xcii]

These are just a few (repeat, just a few) examples. All these were foreigners’ attacks on India. But even after the end of the foreign Muslim rule-and during the British rule- there were numerous riots between Hindus and Muslims in India. In almost all these riots- Hindus suffered far more than Muslims. Even Mahatma Gandhi had to acknowledge this.
In 1921- in Malabar Moplahs committed horrible atrocities on Hindus- thousands were killed and thousands converted.[xciii]

In 1926 Swami Shraddhananda was murdered by a man named Abdul Rashid.[xciv]

And in 1946- on 16 August was the Direct Action Day of the Muslim League- and this saw the great Calcutta killings[xcv]

At the same time- horrible Naokhali riots were also seen.[xcvi]

The past is- never ever- far from the present. Hindus suffered horribly at the hands of foreigners for many centuries. This is just a brief summary. The horrid, lurid details of these events will make one’s hair stand on end. We saw after 1947 how Islam finished the entire Hindu population in Pakistan where Hindus are reduced to just 1-2 % now from 20 % in 1947 in West Pakistan and just 10 % in 2001 in Bangladesh from 29 % in 1947 and 34 % in 1901. In Pakistan, it was the world’s biggest unreported genocide, holocaust and massacre of minorities never reported or protested by anyone. And the West, until recently used to consider Pakistan as a tolerant Islamic state! Of course this is because the 20 % population finished by Pakistan was of Hindus.

Hindu population in India declined by 80 million from AD 1000 to AD 1525, perhaps the biggest ever holocaust in human history. This doesnt mean a mere 80 million killings. Many estimates put the number of Hindus killed in India as 280 million while Swami Vivekananda opined that the number was more than 400 million (Hindus reducing from 60 crores to 20 crores).

“The counsel also said that Dr. Swamy had written the article based on a book, which he had written six years ago, but no untoward incident had happened after that and suddenly the police registered a case against him soon after he exposed the 2G scam.-”
It takes 6 years for harvard and police to act!!!! probably took 6 years for scamsters to petition!!!So much for their concern for muslims!!!!

Terrorist fighters get sent to court by the current scamster government . Terrorists are going around freely.Parliament bomber has not yet been hanged even after supreme court verdict.

The home minister thought he could put Dr.Swamy to prison using some  pretext. Now the prosecutor turned blue when the judge gave the bail.

Dr.Swamy is going to present his case on 21 january  against the home minister regarding the biggest scam on the earth.

Only Dr.Swamy can fight against this scamsters.

1. Adult suffrage is not a matter of human rights.

2. Swami’s op-ed never said that Muslim’s can practice their religion (India is a secular country)

3. Harvard knows nothing about the socioeconomic conditions of India and its history. (the conclusion that swami reached about was on well-researched facts and it wasn’t gone into)

4. Audi Alterem Partem is a rule of natural law which was bypassed.