Prof. Loomba,
I sincerely hope you get to read this and respond. If only to make your position clearer yet so the rest of us can understand it better.
In your responses to NYTimes blogger Niharika Mandhana's questions[1], you seem to have missed the point of inviting Narendra Modi, as controversial and as detestable as his actions - or some would argue a lack of actions, in 2002 and since may have been.
In one of your responses to Niharika's questions you ask, "Why did the organizers change their mind? Was it only because of us?" They just were not able to articulately defend their decision to invite Narendra Modi. Which is especially sad, given that Wharton is a highly regarded institution that purportedly produces the business leaders of future. I'd go so far as to say that members of Wharton India Economic Forum (WIEF), the organizers and student body of Wharton at large, got suckered, may be even bullied into rescinding their invitation to Narendra Modi.
Wharton, and UPenn, are institutions of higher learning and intellectual advancement after all. WIEF-2013 provided precisely the kind of forum where Narendra Modi could and should have been questioned about his role and thought process, during the violent riots that followed Godhra Train Carriage Burning Incident, and since. You, and the other petitioners, lost out an incredible opportunity to hold Narendra Modi's feet to the fire.
Once again, Wharton is a business school after all. Narendra Modi is arguably the most progressive of all the state Chief Ministers in India, especially when it comes to pushing the agenda of rapid economic growth and development. The b-school students should have cried hoarse upon even learning of the petition that you and your colleagues initiated. May be even counter-protested the protest that you and your colleagues led. How else are they going to be able to hear the competing arguments about various policy decisions that are being made by both the federal and various state governments in India? Now, the line up of speakers is so one sided in favor of the ruling coalition led by Congress that Sonia Gandhi and her coterie would be laughing their behinds off. This year's forum increasingly looks like an exercise where India's ruling combine will be stroking their own ego, without so much of a whiff of a counter argument.
I found your use of Amartya Sen's name and the "quote" from him that you "quoted", particularly disingenuous and facetious. Amartya Sen, in his book Argumentative Indian, was effusive in his praise for the Mughal Emperor Akbar: "Akbar's overarching thesis that 'the pursuit of reason' ... is the way to address difficult problems of social harmony included a robust celebration of reasoned dialogues." That was Amartya Sen's analysis of Indian tradition of argument and debate, using an example from 16th century India. 500 years later, in the 21st century, the petition that you and your colleagues penned, took as backward. Didn't it? And it would seem that you, and the rest of you at UPenn and Wharton, purportedly the progressive thinkers, just shredded the incredible heritage of "the pursuit of reason ... with reasoned dialogue" together with the principles that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and flushed it down the toilet bowl full of shit that is political correctness.
Go Quakers!
Sincere Regards,
- aman
[1] http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/a-conversation-with-ania-loomba-professor-at-university-of-pennsylvania/
I sincerely hope you get to read this and respond. If only to make your position clearer yet so the rest of us can understand it better.
In your responses to NYTimes blogger Niharika Mandhana's questions[1], you seem to have missed the point of inviting Narendra Modi, as controversial and as detestable as his actions - or some would argue a lack of actions, in 2002 and since may have been.
In one of your responses to Niharika's questions you ask, "Why did the organizers change their mind? Was it only because of us?" They just were not able to articulately defend their decision to invite Narendra Modi. Which is especially sad, given that Wharton is a highly regarded institution that purportedly produces the business leaders of future. I'd go so far as to say that members of Wharton India Economic Forum (WIEF), the organizers and student body of Wharton at large, got suckered, may be even bullied into rescinding their invitation to Narendra Modi.
Wharton, and UPenn, are institutions of higher learning and intellectual advancement after all. WIEF-2013 provided precisely the kind of forum where Narendra Modi could and should have been questioned about his role and thought process, during the violent riots that followed Godhra Train Carriage Burning Incident, and since. You, and the other petitioners, lost out an incredible opportunity to hold Narendra Modi's feet to the fire.
Once again, Wharton is a business school after all. Narendra Modi is arguably the most progressive of all the state Chief Ministers in India, especially when it comes to pushing the agenda of rapid economic growth and development. The b-school students should have cried hoarse upon even learning of the petition that you and your colleagues initiated. May be even counter-protested the protest that you and your colleagues led. How else are they going to be able to hear the competing arguments about various policy decisions that are being made by both the federal and various state governments in India? Now, the line up of speakers is so one sided in favor of the ruling coalition led by Congress that Sonia Gandhi and her coterie would be laughing their behinds off. This year's forum increasingly looks like an exercise where India's ruling combine will be stroking their own ego, without so much of a whiff of a counter argument.
I found your use of Amartya Sen's name and the "quote" from him that you "quoted", particularly disingenuous and facetious. Amartya Sen, in his book Argumentative Indian, was effusive in his praise for the Mughal Emperor Akbar: "Akbar's overarching thesis that 'the pursuit of reason' ... is the way to address difficult problems of social harmony included a robust celebration of reasoned dialogues." That was Amartya Sen's analysis of Indian tradition of argument and debate, using an example from 16th century India. 500 years later, in the 21st century, the petition that you and your colleagues penned, took as backward. Didn't it? And it would seem that you, and the rest of you at UPenn and Wharton, purportedly the progressive thinkers, just shredded the incredible heritage of "the pursuit of reason ... with reasoned dialogue" together with the principles that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and flushed it down the toilet bowl full of shit that is political correctness.
Go Quakers!
Sincere Regards,
- aman
[1] http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/a-conversation-with-ania-loomba-professor-at-university-of-pennsylvania/
No comments:
Post a Comment