How Wharton Scored a Huge Self-Goal

imageThe most important thing before we begin is to call things by their proper name. One, our clever-by-half media and secularati have twisted the retraction of Wharton School India Economic Forum’s invitation to Narendra Modi as a “snub.” Two, it was Wharton that had invited Modi. Modi hadn’t sought it out.

Two pithy and succinct commentaries nicely sum up this shameful incident. The first is a tweet by Rajiv Malhotra: “Wharton snub of Modi is meddling in Indian democracy. Like Oxford training East India Co. officers. Except now Indian sepoys are professors.” The second is a blog post by Pamela Geller:

American stalwart institutions giving up our most basic freedom to Islamic supremacists, goons and thugs….The loss of our most basic freedoms without firing a shot is stunning.

Wharton’s fault is not so much as cancelling Modi’s invitation but cancelling it in the face of bullying tactics by a handful of fascist bigots that includes both professors and students. With this, Wharton has accomplished two things together: it has demonstrated that it’s no longer a stalwart institution, and it has violated the spirit of the American First Amendment.

Rajiv Malhotra’s point is closer home, and a deeper examination of the folks and forces who orchestrated the invitation-revocation reveals disturbing things.

The first point is that the Government of India is a sponsor to this event. As we note, the Government hasn’t uttered a single word of condemnation against the band of bigots who got Modi’s invitation revoked. As a Constitutionally-elected (thrice) Chief Minister, it becomes the Government’s responsibility to refuse to kowtow to this ragtag group of muckrakers. Whatever the ruling party’s politics at home, it should realize a basic fact when abroad: it needs to strongly condemn people of other countries who try to dictate who gets invited or whose invite gets cancelled. And when such a thing occurs, it needs to unilaterally withdraw from the event on moral grounds. As we see, it hasn’t done so. Why? The simple answer: the current dispensation doesn’t mind being held hostage to a group of virulent Narendra Modi-haters even if it means India’s image abroad takes a beating.

The longer answer lies precisely in the composition and agenda of these Professor-Sepoys. But first, here’s the Facebook group that lists more than 900 people who wanted—and got—the cancellation of Modi’s invitation. What also unites these folks is the fact a whole lot of them supported mercy petitions for the Indian Parliament attack mastermind Afzal Guru, and the Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab who mowed down innocent Indians in cold blood on 26/11/2008 in Mumbai.

But when we distill this group to get to the key players who assiduously worked towards and pulled off this shameful deed, we get the following key names:

  • Ania Loomba and Suvir KaulProfessors of English at University of Pennsylvania, they were two of the three professors who kickstarted this free-speech-violating petition.
  • Toorjo Ghosh—Assistant Professor of English, the third kickstarter. Here’s how he gloats about the cancellation: “It is the result of the pressure that we were able to bring over the organisers… in the last two days. I am very very proud of Wharton as well as the Penn University.” In other words, he’s proud that Wharton and Penn acquiescence in choking free speech and democracy.
  • Shabnam Hashmi—No surprises here. Owner of the highly communal NGO named ANHAD, she’s been one of the key players in the Gujarat Riots Cottage Industry, and continues to be highly active in demonizing Narendra Modi.
  • TV18—A sponsor of the IEF. This is the same group that owns the news channel CNN-IBN, headed by Rajdeep Sardesai, a known Modi-baiter. He was also caught with his pants down in that shameful Cash for Votes scandal of 2008.
  • Adani Group—Another sponsor, which withdrew after Modi’s invite was cancelled.

Indeed, the name of that Facebook group is very telling of the attitude of these academic fascists and the students and others who supported them: Ban Narendra Modi From Speaking At Wharton. A terminology typically representative of the free-speech-hating Left. Nobody is denying them their right to criticize Modi, yet what is their first response when they hear that Modi is invited to speak at Wharton? BAN him, muzzle free speech, and murder democracy. However, something else also becomes clear when we look at a partial list of participants at the IEF:

  • Montek Ahluwalia
  • Dilip Cherian
  • Milind Deora
  • Javed Akhtar and his wife, Shabana Azmi
  • Rajeev Masand
  • Samir Mitra
  • Suresh Prabhu (who dropped out after news of Modi)

All of these except Suresh Prabhu are in one way or the other related either to the ruling Congress party or supportive of its brand of twisted secularism. But it doesn’t end there. Here’s what the note sent out by the IEF Organizing team says:

our goal as a team is to provide a neutral platform to encourage cross pollination of ideas as we all work towards contributing to India’s success…We do not endorse any political views and do not support any specific ideology.

I suppose the neutral and “not endors(ing) any political views” part doesn’t apply to Union Minister Milind Deora.

The strident opposition to Narendra Modi stems from two reasons. The first is the obvious desire to push a Leftist agenda that thrives on India-baiting. The second is the string of successes that Narendra Modi has recently achieved beginning with his third consecutive, thumping electoral victory and his massive show-stealer at the BJP National Council in Delhi yesterday. These have decisively set the stage for a larger role in national politics. Except a few motivated folks, nobody has really been able to dispute his stupendous Gujarat Development Story that has consistently delivered quality governance and economic development. This precisely is the fear of the fascist professors and other fellow travellers: a scenario in which Narendra Modi had spoken at Wharton. There’s little doubt that he’d be the undisputed giant in that assemblage of the aforementioned pygmies who simply cannot think beyond spurious secularism and socialist platitudes. Indeed, that cancellation note explicitly records all these achievements of Modi.

Equally, the fact that the fascist pressure group was led by Left academics is also consistent with their decade-long record of Modi-baiting. It’s both symbolic and symptomatic of the rot that pervades almost all humanities departments in universities worldwide. These Left-infiltrated universities actively discourage critical thinking by substituting reason with theory and rhetoric. Be it the Jaipur Literary Festival or the current disgrace at Wharton, we see the same or familiar faces. What business does Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi have in a Business School? And why were they even invited? Which exposes—yet again—another facet common to events where the Left is involved: preying on taxpayer money.

But what’s clear is this: Wharton and indeed, UPenn itself has scored a massive self-goal by giving in to these Left Professors’ bullying tactics. A goldmine of a sponsor like Adani has pulled out. The former Union Minister, Suresh Prabhu has pulled out. And they haven’t taken this lightly. The social media world began to slam Wharton almost as soon as news of the invite cancellation was reported, and the slamming torrent hasn’t abated. More importantly, Narendra Modi doesn’t need Wharton.

We end this with a self-explanatory and highly revealing snippet:

Curiously enough, not a single professor from the Wharton School, one of the most prestigious business schools of the US, which is part of the University of Pennsylvania, was a signatory to this letter.

46 comments for “How Wharton Scored a Huge Self-Goal

  1. May 30, 2013 at 6:43 PM

    Modi is is the only candidate of BJP who deserve next PM post.

  2. naresh
    March 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM

    DON’T EVER. HANDOVER. YOUR. MOTHERLAND BHARAT. TO CONGRESS. AND GREEDY. POLITICAL PARTIES. WHO WILL LOOT AND SWINDLE. YOUR. MONEY .VOTE. IN GREAT MAJORITY. FOR SHRI MODIJI AS P.M OF BHARAT.
    Narendra Modi’s India Today Conclave 2013 Speech (Video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E6E-_KhMgs&feature=player_embedded#t=35s
    Gujarat gov should take a initiative to care them,they all our people,mizo,naga,manipuri,meghalay,protect them otherwise new christian country develop after 50 yrs, geographically we can see that..gog should give reservation to them in job,school…
    Girls from Mizoram meets Narendra Modi
    http://deshgujarat.com/2013/03/20/in-pictures-girls-from-mizoram-meets-narendra-modi/

  3. Jooske
    March 21, 2013 at 4:50 AM

    “I really wish that more of us would get involved in rebutting these one-sided hit-pieces, because the more we just shut up and do nothing, then the more we deserve to lose. It’s really sad that Modi is out there fighting hard for all of us, and yet we don’t have the decency to stand up for him.”

    http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/modi-wharton-left-wing-censorship.html

  4. SeethaRamaraju
    March 19, 2013 at 11:13 PM

    I am eagerly waiting to see your views on Mr Modiji’s speech at India Today Conclave.

  5. SeethaRamaraju
    March 19, 2013 at 11:12 PM

    I am very eager to see your response on Mr Modiji’s speech at India Conclave.

  6. Amit
    March 15, 2013 at 7:23 AM

    “Why isn’t it free speech for idiots like Ghose to try to stop this event?”

    That is the most idiotic statement you’ve made. Stopping others from speaking is free speech? Not sure what you’re smoking. Ghose is free to protest or engage in a debate with someone with whom his views differ – and that would be free speech for Ghose (and others), but maybe your Randriodian logic says that stopping others from speaking falls under “free speech.”

    Other than that, please-re-read my last two comments – that should be sufficient to convey my views.

  7. thisisrubbish
    March 12, 2013 at 6:28 PM

    @Amit, and I have already said before on this comment thread that I agree, this does not bode well for free speech, in general. But this particular situation does not really seem to violate NaMo’s free speech rights.

  8. thisisrubbish
    March 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM

    @Amit, I’m sorry, what does ‘Randroidian’ mean? Universities have a mandate to promote free speech? Why isn’t it free speech for idiots like Ghose to try to stop this event? Again, no one is stopping NaMo from speaking in public. They are attempting to stop NaMo from speaking at an event to which they invited him previously – the event in question being a private one.

  9. Jay
    March 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM

    @Itachi, that “Saffron Thaliban” is all about that Pramod Muthalik’s outfit SriRam Sena which comes to light on every Valentine’s Day beating romantic couples and in some occasions conducts marriages on-the-spot of lovers.. Btw Sanghpariwar has no relation with this org. Liberal pals had a pink chaddi campaign some years ago through which pink chaddies were sent by post to Muthalik.. :)

  10. Rajesh
    March 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM

    I would like to introduce World Hindu Economic Forum. A true representative of Hindu entrepreneurs, Indrustalists, businessmen, academics, and professionals spread accross world.
    Please visit http://www.wheforum.org

    The WHEF was quitely launched last year at HongKong. The second conference is being held at Bangkok on 10 and 11 August, 2013.
    Please become member of WHEF and strenthen Hindu economy.

  11. ItAcHi
    March 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    Whenever I have pointed out radicalisation and moral policing in north kerala, or communal build up of say a south 24 parganas and so on, all my liberal pals have been pointing to ‘hindutva extremism’ in coastal karnataka including violence against women,moral policing and other such.They are making up a case of saffron taliban in coastal karnataka. Can anyone throw some light on this matter?

  12. Amit
    March 11, 2013 at 4:27 AM

    Shankar wrote:
    “Coming from an academic institution which is expected to have high ideals, that too situated in a country that prides itself on being founded by high ideals, such cowardice does not bode well for free speech.”

    Exactly! One cannot just label this action/issue as inconsequential based on “private” argument.

  13. Amit
    March 11, 2013 at 4:22 AM

    thisisrubbish, you are spouting classic textbook Randroidian arguments. Yes, it’s a private event, but that’s not the only criteria to look at it. This is an event at a university, and universities in the US also have a mandate to not muzzle speech and encourage exchange of ideas, even differing ones.

  14. JayP
    March 9, 2013 at 10:35 PM

    Outstanding article!

  15. J
    March 9, 2013 at 10:30 PM

    Sandeep, you got the Adani thing wrong. Adanis weren’t part of conspiracy. They pulled out in support of NaMo.

  16. Jooske
    March 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM

    “Toore Ghose said he did not believe it was a free speech issue because Modi had been invited as an honored, plenary speaker and this position was “tantamount to the conference endorsing his development ideas.”
    “We are under no obligation as an institution to endorse his brand of politics and that’s exactly what we would have done” had the invitation gone through,” Ghose said.

    In fact, Ghose is lying, and U Penn had every obligation to let the Wharton students’ invitation stand. By inviting Modi to speak at their conference, the student organizers of the Wharton India Economic Forum had expressed their intention to do exactly this: facilitate a distinguished guest who represents certain ideas of development and a certain brand of politics. The WIEF conference is organized by students of the Wharton School, and should they choose to endorse certain ideas of development by association with the guests they invite, it is entirely within their rights of open expression, guaranteed by the University of Pennsylvania itself, to do so.

    See the Provosts’ Guidelines for Open Expression, as listed on the U Penn website:
    http://provost.upenn.edu/policies/pennbook/2013/02/15/guidelines-on-open-expression

    Of particular relevance here is:
    “D. In case of conflict between the principles of the Guidelines on Open Expression and other University policies, the principles of the Guidelines shall take precedence.”

    Where was Ghose,Professor of English,(and Ania Loomba and Suvir Kaul also Professors in English-not Government or Political Science)when Ahmadjinad delivered his speech at Columbia University. Was Columbia University not endorsing his brand of politics and that’s exactly what Columbia University did? Where was Ghose protest then, even though it was a separate institution?

  17. thisisrubbish
    March 9, 2013 at 1:22 AM

    @Kalyanaraman Subramaniam – Apologies for the delay in responding, I did not see this comment until now.
    “1) you say this is a private event by a private entity in its private space: when it gets sponsorship from Government of India, does it still remain private or will the government say that it is no more private?” – It’s still a private event. Sponsorship by the Government of India does not change that. Just like Wharton changed it’s mind about letting NaMo speak, the Government of India can change their mind about their willingness to sponsor the event. Governmental willingness to fund an event does not imply it’s conversion into a public forum, where NaMo’s free speech rights may be threatened by not letting him speak.

    “2) Did the Indian government know that Narendra Modi was invited to speak at this event before they sponsored it ? if they knew and yet sponsored that, it would only that either they do not worry about who speaks at the forum or that they sponsor only because Modi is speaking?” – Sir, I have no clue what the government knew or did not know at the time of committing to the sponsorship. I would not expect that this government knows much about anything, anyway!

    “3) if the government did not worry about who was the speaker, then Wharton has indeed succumbed to the pressure from the anti-Modi group and probably the other sponsors, like TV18, who are bigger sponsors?!?!!?” – Wharton has succumbed to someone’s pressure. This may be sponsors, or may be other professors at UPenn or third parties or some combination of the above, how do we know?

    “4) if the government sponsored only because Modi was speaking, then Wharton is guilty of deception, as it has used Modi’s name to wrangle a sponsorship and if Modi was not the speaker, then Wharton should return the sponsorship money to the government!” I agree with you wholly about this. If taxpayer money has been taken on the basis that a CM of a fast-growing state in India will be a speaker, and then there is no such speaker, the money should, in good faith, be returned or the matter atleast explained to the government.

    “5) When government knew that Wharton would not allow Modi to speak and yet remained silent, does it indicate a collusion between the strident academics and the government? if yes, can the government wage a war against an individual by proxy?” It does not definitively indicate anything of the sort. All it indicates is that the government does not care where the sponsorship money went or whether Wharton is morally justified in changing their mind….. To the extent the government was aware of all of this (which I doubt), if they so choose to wage war against an individual by proxy, there’s not much we can do about it. Is the government justified in doing so? – not really, but then the government is not justified in doing a lot of the rubbish it is up to these days.

  18. vjoshi
    March 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM

    Watch the following video to see how Kiran Kher of BJP gives a befitting reply, especially to the professor from wharton who led the petition to have Modi’s talk cancelled.

    http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/left-right-centre/wharton-says-no-to-modi-will-he-always-be-dogged-by-controversy/267239

  19. March 7, 2013 at 10:08 PM

    No army can stop an idea whose time has come. Alas! However a group on Facebook feels that it has been successful in running a campaign to Ban Narendra Modi From Speaking At Wharton. Though they have been successful but there’s more than meets the eye.

    The moment you access this “closed” group community page, you are greeted with a line which urges all its (handpicked/strictly by invitation) members to see Ania Loomba’s post written in ALL CAPS. There’s an English saying: Your friends are your introduction. So I headed straight to Ms. Ania’s Facebook profile to checkout her friends list. I have the following observations to make:

    # One of her friends happens to be Siddharth Vardarajan (Editor, The Hindu).
    # Another of her friends is Ms. Sania Hashmi. I went to her profile& checked out the people she is “following”. There were only two. One of them happens to be Ms. Teesta Setalvad.
    # One more friends of hers, Amba Sanyal has added Amartya Sen in her “likes”.
    # One of her friends & also a signatory to the petition is Ms. Kavita Krishnan (Secretary, AIPWA). AIPWA is a women’s association of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation.

    After this, I went through the text of their petition & was mighty disappointed. Modi critics are getting so predictable. That same old 2002 riot mumbo-jumbo & the US visa rhetoric formed the basis of this petition. Though Modi never applied for any US visa nor did any court in India find him guilty of any of the crimes he has been charged with (& still continues to be), by the anti-Modi brigade. In fact, the Supreme Court appointed SIT has given him a clean chit.

    Has this group (or any group for that matter) ever done a similar campaign against the Gandhi’s for the 1984 genocide? It was much more brutal & heinous. Why has this group never done any such campaign to stop Sonia or Rahul Gandhi from entering USA?

    The Tytler’s & Sajjan Kumar’s were given important roles in the government & Congress party. They still have Congress membership & given important responsibilities till date. Why do the wheels of justice get selective for some?

    Anyway, moving forward, I moved to the Wharton clarification as to why it cancelled Narendra Modi’s keynote address. It states: We do not endorse any political views and do not support any specific ideology.

    Isn’t this statement by Wharton self contradictory given the kind of people who signed this petition making their political & ideological leanings quite clear? Why has Wharton overlooked at their political/ideological leanings?

    The Wharton statement continues: However, as a responsible student body within the University of Pennsylvania, we must consider the impact on multiple stakeholders in our ecosystem. Our team felt that the potential polarizing reactions from sub-segments of the alumni base, student body, and our supporters, might put Mr. Modi in a compromising position, which we would like to avoid at all costs, especially in the spirit of our conference’s purpose.

    It requires no further explanation to prove the credentials of the stakeholders involved in thisBan Modi campaign.

    As far as the alumni base is concerned, majority of the signatories are not even from the Wharton School or UPenn. Only a minority fraction of them belong to it. So which alumni base is Wharton referring to? They must come clean on it.

    Some of the prominent members of its alumni which ought to be mentioned here are as follows:

    1) Kanishka Singh. He is a close friend of Rahul Gandhi.
    2) Sachin Pilot. A minister under the present central govt & MP of the Congress Party.
    3) Vikram Chatwal (Son of Shri Sant Singh Chatwal). Shri Sant Singh ji was awarded Padmabhushan by the present govt on Jan 26, 2010.

    Even if we keep all this aside, some very pertinent questions need to be addressed:

    1) Is it right to stop a democratically elected CM of an Indian state from addressing people at any function/seminars? Tomorrow, if the same is meted out to a democratically PM or any other leader, would that be correct?
    2) We may like/hate Narendra Modi or his politics but is it right to block anyone’s freedom of speech?
    3) I remember PV Narsimha Rao asking Vajpayee to present India at UN because of his exemplary oratory skills. This shows that outside India, we must do away with internal petty political differences & keep our country above everything else. Should we take our internal disputes at international platforms? Aren’t we giving them an opportunity to interfere in our internal matters? And most importantly, is this the picture of India we wish to present globally?

    In my honest opinion, had Modi been allowed to give the keynote address, the general public & media would not have carried it the way they are doing it now. As always, by keeping quiet, Modi has yet again turned this issue to work in his favor. Every media channel is talking about it. Many of the influential in media & intelligence agencies who have been open critics of Modi are supporting him & condemning the act of this group by not letting him speak. Soon after the news broke, Wharton was trending on twitter.

    He is making news over an event which he shall not attend. His critics may gloat & celebrate but they don’t realize that the immature action has just widened his support base.

    In the end, one can only say that there is one man in Gujarat who must be comfortably sitting in his chair & having the last laugh. His fans ought to be doing a NaMo Namah.

  20. Logic Induction
    March 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

    Three successive victories, many fake encounters, 12 years of no Lokayukta, thousands of parked nono’s and lakhs of geet govinda’s later what is there to make of it ?

    Goo and Gobar is both yours. Narendra and Namard is yours too !

    There is no case proven against Namard Narendra because the GJ police worked overtime to wash off the evidence, the SIT was constituted from the GJ police officers sympathetic to Namard. Thats why he always blocked the appointment of Lokayukta.

    Glad to see that there are people still in US academic circles who draw the line.

  21. Logic Induction
    March 7, 2013 at 1:03 PM

    Three successive victories, many fake encounters, 12 years of no Lokayukta, thousands of parked nono’s and lakhs of geet govinda’s later what is there to make of it ?

    Goo and Gobar is both yours. Narendra and Namard is yours too !

    There is no case proven against Namard Narendra because the GJ police worked overtime to wash off the evidence, the SIT was constituted from the GJ police officers sympathetic to Namard. Thats why he always blocked the appointment of Lokayukta.

    Glad to see that there are people still in US academic circles who draw the line.

    If you and your sympathiser’s are too pissed off, feel free to drink urine to cool your thirst !

  22. Kalyanaraman Subramaniam
    March 7, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    @thisisrubbish, i have only some comments on both your posts:

    1) you say this is a private event by a private entity in its private space: when it gets sponsorship from Government of India, does it still remain private or will the government say that it is no more private?

    2) Did the Indian government know that Narendra Modi was invited to speak at this event before they sponsored it ? if they knew and yet sponsored that, it would only that either they do not worry about who speaks at the forum or that they sponsor only because Modi is speaking?

    3) if the government did not worry about who was the speaker, then Wharton has indeed succumbed to the pressure from the anti-Modi group and probably the other sponsors, like TV18, who are bigger sponsors?!?!!?

    4) if the government sponsored only because Modi was speaking, then Wharton is guilty of deception, as it has used Modi’s name to wrangle a sponsorship and if Modi was not the speaker, then Wharton should return the sponsorship money to the government!

    5) When government knew that Wharton would not allow Modi to speak and yet remained silent, does it indicate a collusion between the strident academics and the government? if yes, can the government wage a war against an individual by proxy?

  23. HM
    March 7, 2013 at 8:06 AM

    Death of Hindus is OK.
    Death of muslims is an attack on secular values of India.

    Modi has done great work for Gujarata. Those who can’t stand to see India progress hate him for that. Leftists and communal bigots want India to remain poor so they can preach their brand of socialism to it. Sadly, our current gov is part of this cabel.

    Narendra Modi should snub any further invites from US !!

  24. Savio D
    March 6, 2013 at 10:30 PM

    Shabnam Hashmi’s name reminds me of an article “Ten Days in Modi’s Constituency” by her. It was written some years back, and shows how far she is removed from reality. “Modi is losing and his government is going. But his political defeat in elections is only the first step.” Guess what, Modi won elections twice after the riots, and not a single riot happened during his reign. The 2002 riots happened just a few days after Congress left, leaving one to wonder who should actually be blamed for creating the atmosphere of hatred that led to the riots.

  25. wp
    March 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM

    and if I am not wrong, this is the same montek ahluwalia who spent 35lakh to renovate 2 toilets and defended it also.

  26. JK
    March 6, 2013 at 7:09 PM

    Even in 2009 US’s Enemy NO 1, Ahmadjinad delivered speech at Columbia University…..This itself unmasks US…That they cant differentiate between religiostics and secularists. But for sure Free Speech Freedom is provided in US the way this guy was allowed and FOX News channel carryout 24*7 anti-obama news we can trust US in that respect. In Modi’s case also US as such did’t had any problem all headaches was for Indian liberals.

    Muni (Liberals and Secular Indians) Badnam Hui Darling (Modi) Tere Liye…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD1PnbJwfSw

    Was under impression that US is ruled by Corporates and Jews but now it seems that they where over thrown by our great Indian Liberals/seculars…

    It makes me feel proud that our Indian can make US to do what US cant do and make US listens to them (Indian Liberals) already Gujarat has refused and rejected theories lay down by this bunch of wholesale dealers of secularists

  27. Aman
    March 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM

    Can’t agree more with “thisisrubbish”.
    Wharton’s choice not to invite him. Wharton is a democratic community. There were people there who protested against modi sullying their sterling reputation and Wharton saw sense.
    It’s fantastic that the three professors who started the petition were of Indian origin. It’ll take Indians to keep India clean!

    Also, it’s a known fact by now that modi’s hired apco to lobby for him everywhere. There’s a fat chance that the Wharton invite in the first place was the outcome of this lobbying. One newspaper said it like it is: modi is desperate to be seen at events such as these to gain some respectability. May India’s hitler wannabe never get any respectability.

  28. RSKumar
    March 6, 2013 at 1:25 AM

    Varun says: “Somebody is serving their political masters!”. I don’t think all these opponents of Modi serve congress. You see, the real problem lies elsewhere: the so-called social sciences are not sciences. These social scientists are not doing any science at all. So, the students and professor are just reproducing what they have learned. Balagangadhara calls it secularization: social sciences, as a whole, are secularized Christian theology: check, http://goo.gl/CqEhO

    The other problem is with BJP, which does not have intellectuals: http://xyz4000.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/bjp-does-not-have-intellectuals/

  29. sanjay
    March 6, 2013 at 12:48 AM

    I am not an extreme rightist, nor am I a marxist. But Indians in Wharton have lost it. The more folks talk shit on Modi he gets stronger. I hope he leads BJP into power in the next elections and lets see where these marxist motherfuckers go scurrying

  30. SP
    March 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM

    Shall we say brown whores have joined Wharton Whores? Like to get Italian barmaid of termite kind as main speaker!

  31. talonx
    March 5, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    Pamela Gellers blog seems to be blocked in India. Wonder why…

  32. March 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM

    All lobbies – either favoring or against a theme, topic or an individual – are political in nature. What Wharton did to Modi was wrong. It’s as simple as that. They are expected to know better and fight lobbies or vested political interests. After all, it’s all about his (Modi’s) speech/address. You can invite his (Modi’s) harshest critics the next time and give them all time to call into question all Modi’s claims and achievements or his policy itself. The autonomy of an academic institution is under threat here, as I see it. Modi will sure get or create his own opportunities. The twist in the tale is today’s news report that Rahul Gandhi was invited but turned down the offer to speak. No, it’s not from Faking News.

    This is all clearly political. If you have a strong, fact-based argument to defeat an ideology or an individual’s vision, the only thing you should do is encourage him to speak more, not less. Behind the decision to cancel the invitation to Modi to speak is not exactly cowardice – which it probably is, but a political goal. Somebody is serving their political masters!

  33. thisisrubbish
    March 5, 2013 at 7:04 PM

    @Shankar, it may be cowardice, but it does not amount to a violation of free speech. To violate free speech norms, you must be prevented from saying what you want to say IN PUBLIC. That is not what is happening here. A private society decided they wanted NaMo to speak, and then changed their mind. Even if this change of mind is out of cowardice, it is their prerogative to be cowards. We can be upset about it, but they are not really violating free speech norms. Insofar as this not boding well for free speech is concerned, I agree with you completely, it does not bode well at all.

    The whole episode is vastly different from Harvard’s treatment of Subramaniam Swamy – there the issue was whether his free speech rights were coming in the way of his role as a professor at Harvard – and Harvard made the wrong decision to stop him teaching classes.

  34. March 5, 2013 at 5:02 PM

    Mr. modi is disappoint with this year budget!!!

  35. voodoo
    March 5, 2013 at 3:08 PM

    Rajeev Masand has no business being there as well, he is nothing but a movie critic on CNN IBN

  36. Kumar
    March 5, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    Now the question – is Wharton Or FARTon !!

  37. March 5, 2013 at 10:57 AM

    Trust me,loss is not that of Modi.It is Wharton who is the loser.It is difficult to accept a scene that Govt here had no indirect role in the cancellation.
    In fact,it is less about Modi,it is more about insult to the Govt of India.

  38. JS
    March 5, 2013 at 8:58 AM

    Great post!

  39. Madrassi
    March 5, 2013 at 7:49 AM

    So Wharton invited Modi, then Lefties screamed and Wharton withdrew the invitation. This may actually be a good thing. First Modi was to be suppressed in India and it backfired – and real bad too. Now the same in international fora. Following this episode, some people in USA will also start asking: who is this Modi guy the lefties hate so much? When people ask questions, answers also are forthcoming, and some of them will be the right ones. Truth will out.

  40. Shankar
    March 5, 2013 at 4:24 AM

    thisisrubbish: Agree it is a private event and at a private society, but your argument is valid only if Modi was not invited to speak and people cited free speech to complain about the lack of invitation. Here, OTOH, Modi was invited and and then the invitation was rescinded based on some protests. This is tantamount to cowardice. Coming from an academic institution which is expected to have high ideals, that too situated in a country that prides itself on being founded by high ideals, such cowardice does not bode well for free speech.

  41. Anonymous
    March 5, 2013 at 4:07 AM

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/For-liberals-and-leftists-NaMo-is-still-No-Go-area/articleshow/18802914.cms

    Rajeev Malhotra is right in saying ” Wharton snub of Modi is meddling in Indian democracy. Like Oxford training East India Co. officers. Except now Indian sepoys are professors.”

    Dr Toorjo Ghose, who kickstarted the online petition last week to scupper Modi’s schedule address to the Wharton India Economic Forum (WIEF), is an assistant professor at University of Pennsylvania’s social policy school.

    This Ghose wants tenure and doing all this for tenure. He will soon become a Professor and may get some awards. I have lived in US and worked in academia. Indians stoop to such low levels of chamchagiri esp in social sciences to get tenure. In sciences it is not much , bec you cannot be very patronizing, you have to show results. . Shame on these sepoy Profs . Looks like water is flowing in their body.

  42. thisisrubbish
    March 5, 2013 at 2:30 AM

    Shabana Azmi and Javed Akhtar are invited there to speak at a panel about media in India. There’s plenty of other panels and panelists as well – two minutes on the website would have easily shown you as much. It’s hardly wrong to have them there – given the context in which they are appearing.
    ‘it has violated the spirit of the American First Amendment…’ This is nonsense – Wharton has done no such thing. Surely you cannot use nonsensical free speech arguments about why NaMo should be allowed to speak at Wharton. It’s a private event at a private society within Wharton; their space, they get to choose who should or should not be allowed to speak – end of story. They may be idiots, but your argument tantamounts to saying ‘idiots should not stop my freedom of speech even if I want to speak to them in their homes’… No one’s stopping NaMo from speaking in the United States or indeed, to people from Wharton – they are only stopping him speak at a private event which they no longer wish him attend. It might be a self-goal from a reputational standpoint, but it is not one from a ‘harming free speech’ standpoint.

  43. RSKumar
    March 5, 2013 at 1:59 AM

    1. What is the hidden role of India forum at Wharton? It is a platform for Indian MBA students there to get good jobs back in Indian market, like Reliance group, Ambani group, etc.

    2. Who invites the speakers? Who recommends the speakers? Usually, these students go to their Wharton MBA alumni, who working in India. This is all about getting lucrative jobs for brown Wharton MBAs in India.

    3. No American voter votes for some candiate based on what a group of Wharton/Harvard/Stanford professors say. In fact, professors in American universities have no role in American politics–in terms of shaping public opinion. The so-called public intellectuals in the states are far and few between: like Paul Krugman, etc. Contrast this situation in the Continental Europe (like France, Belgium), where professors from local universities debate on local TV channels.

    4. No one in India (but for MBA wannabes or MBA types) know of Wharton or UPenn. Thanks to Modi, Wharton is getting the publicity.

    5. What has Wharton produced? It has produced humans who want to make money for next 10 generations while screwing the common man. Look at all those Wharton MBAs on Wall street, and what they have contributed to American Society. They are trained to steal legally from the system via derivatives, trading 401ks, inventing new schemes to loot, etc.

    6. Javed Akhtar and his wife, Shabana Azmi, Montek Singh etc, won’t get any jobs for these brown MBAs. Sure, these Wharton students know that. They are just succumbed to the pressures. Don’t blame the organizers. Organizers purpose is for Indian students there to get jobs in top Indian corporate power houses.

  44. Rex
    March 5, 2013 at 1:46 AM

    The Facebook group you link to doesn’t exist anymore..hardly surprising to see the rogues’ gallery of whoever was a part of it.

Leave a Comment