Prof. Loomba, you missed the point too, and here is why

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/

WIEF, WTF?

Note: If you do not begin to get what this post is about from the first few lines, you may want to read the 'essential background' at the bottom of this post first.
                                                                    -----o-----
WIEF, you just blew it. And you blew it big time.

Do any of your members, or any of the "chairs at whartonindia dot com" for that matter, have any clue as to what WIEF's goal  is? It certainly doesn't seem so from the way you so quickly went about rescinding your invitation to CM-Gujarat Narendra Modi to deliver the keynote address at this year's WIEF. The 'About' page on your website[1] says that WIEF is a forum to " ... to discuss India's evolution from an emerging nation to a prominent global economic power ...". So you decided that you didn't quite want to listen to the guy who would inform you about exactly that. Bravo.

Not only did you lose out on the opportunity to listen to an Indian politician who is rapidly pushing through an agenda for economic development, you also missed out on the opportunity to ask him some hard hitting questions about his role, or lack there of, in the horrendous violence that followed the Godhra incident in the March of 2002. A ready question that could and should have been asked of CM Modi would have been: Mr. Modi, how do you envision making the growth in Gujarat inclusive - inclusive such that the minority communities of the state are also able to reap the benefits of that growth ... without fear? Now there is a conversation starter, isn't there?

There is something else that you did not think through. The official statement that you released announcing your decision to un-invite CM Modi says, " ... our goal as a team is to provide a neutral platform to encourage cross pollination of ideas as well as work towards contributing to India's success". A neutral platform? You have two speakers from the current Congress led coalition government - a 'Minister of State' in Milind Deora and Planning Commission of India's Deputy Chairman (and one of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's chums) Montek Singh Ahluwalia - as keynote speakers, don't you? But having un-invited CM Modi, you will not have any speaker from the any of the parties in the opposition (which CM Modi would been, owing his affiliation to the BJP). So much for the neutral platform. The cross pollination of ideas will surely go very well.

The statement goes on to say, " ... we hope to present multiple opinions and ideas ... and constructively contribute to the intellectual milieu for which University of Pennsylvania and The Wharton School stand." Multiple opinions and ideas ... huh. And the way you thought you'll do that is by not listening to someone whose opinions you don't like. You left out a speaker whose actions/policy some at your university disagreed with. So the intellectual milieu certainly got constructively contributed to.

"Our goal as a team is only to stimulate valuable dialogue on India's growth story, and to act as a forum where students and audiences interact with influential leaders from across India." You certainly did a bang up job of accomplishing that goal by un-inviting CM Modi.

There's more. " ... potential polarizing reactions ... 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." Now this is a good one. Mr. Modi will be put in a compromising position? Over Skype? What is this - Playboy India Economic Forum? Uncompromising the compromising position that you think you would have gotten CM Modi into, would have been his headache, now wouldn't it? Oh ... you did in the spirit of your conference's purpose no less. The same spirit, and the purpose, that you talk about in the first paragraph of your website's 'About' page[1] I presume.

Okay. So there was a petition circulated demanding that CM Modi not be invited to talk at WIEF[4]. Many UPenn students, faculty and alumni signed. What exactly in that petition led you to your decision to un-invite CM Modi? Pray tell me. I'd analyze the damn petition myself, but my stomach is petitioning me to go have my dinner now. Moreover, having read the thing, I think you guys just got suckered, even bullied, into this.
                                                                    -----o-----

Essential Background

1. Per Wharton India Economic Forum's (WIEF's) website, it is "an annual India-centric conference hosted by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, bringing together business and political leaders, professional, academics and students from around the world to discuss India's evolution from an emerging nation to a prominent global economic power, and the key social, political and financial challenges which still stand in its way."
2. Narendra Modi is the current Chief Minister (CM) of the Indian state of Gujarat. He is a particularly polarizing figure when it comes to Indian politics. And not just because he belongs to the "right wing" party in India - the BJP - Bhartiya Janta Party. One of the most horrendous bouts of communal violence in Indian history took place in March of 2002. Modi had been the CM of Gujarat for a little over six months by then. His role as state's top administrator in the run up to the violence, during it and subsequently, has come under the scanner. Many going so far to accuse him of something that would amount to "willful negligence". However, off late his work as CM of Gujarat has been applauded, especially by big business houses from India as well as abroad. Many see him as a potential Prime Ministerial candidate.
Mr. Modi's role as CM, or lack thereof, before, during and after the violence that took place in Gujarat did not go down well with the US. Bush administration denied Narendra Modi the visa to visit the US. Obama administration has followed suit.
3. WIEF invited CM Modi to deliver a keynote lecture at this year's forum.
4. A "segment of UPenn community" believed CM Modi should not be invited to speak at WIEF owing to his involvement, or lack thereof, in the violence in Gujarat in 2002. A petition was circulated online and signed by many at UPenn and Wharton.
5. WIEF decided to rescind the invitation to CM Modi due to protestations and the online petition. The statement declaring that is here.