Recently, one very interesting news made headlines in Indian electronic and print media, one of the world's best management schools, Wharton was in the news for withdrawing its invitation to Gujarat's chief minister Mr. Narendra Modi as a keynote speaker for its Wharton India Economic Forum (WIEF). The reason for this withdrawal was fierce opposition to Mr. Modi as a keynote speaker by sections of Wharton professors, students, and other stakeholders. They opposed him because of his communal political background, especially for his alleged involvement in the Godhra communal riots of 2002. I was totally surprised by this decision of WIEF. Opposition to Mr. Modi was not surprising because there is a section of secularists who love to bash only some political parties or leaders for their communal policies or views but conveniently ignore similar acts by other people.
I agree that religion and politics should not be mixed but in reality, this happens everywhere in the world. Religion and politics have so many similarities in them that it's really hard for politicians to resist the temptation not to mix them. Both these faculties get benefit from each other and survive with the help of each other. Some secular groups are trying to make "secularism" a separate religion that has its own rules and norms. They also treat some things as untouchables and are extremist in their views on some issues. Most of these people love to call themselves liberal, they got angry when Mr. Salman Rushdie was not allowed to speak at some literary festival in India, and they cried for freedom of speech at that time, but the same people kept mum when Mr. Modi was not allowed to speak as a keynote speaker at WIEF. There is nothing wrong with protesting against anyone's policies or opposing some political actions. People who are against Mr. Modi should protest or try to ask him questions wherever they face him but I think not allowing him to participate in any function is a bit too extreme, similar to what some groups did to Mr. Rushdie a few months back. One can have serious differences with Mr. Modi's political stance or Mr. Rushdie's books but to stop them from participating in any public function or bar them from sharing their views from any platform is not the way to fight with their ideologies.
I also don't understand what they achieved by stopping him from participating in this function. Many controversial political leaders are there in US politics. Many of them and others from all over the world visit the US and deliver seminars or speeches at so many places. I really admire this quality of American people and institutes. They are very tolerant of a broad spectrum of ideas and beliefs, and they encourage open debate about various sensitive issues. But this indecent is really unique and I think a huge mistake. They lost a chance to hear from one of the very successful chief ministers of one of the very successful Indian states (Gujarat), at least this is what Indian media projects. It's not a loss for Mr. Modi as he will find some other platform, but a loss for the students of Wharton. This group who opposed his visit must be very happy about their achievement. They must be thinking of this success as another feather in their cap to show their secular credentials, but in this process, they have shown that they are not at all different than other people who don't allow certain people to express their opinions just because it doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Like conservative extremists, we also have liberal extremists and both are the same with absolutely no difference in their attitude only they identify themselves with different name tags. I think we need to fight against both these groups to have a true liberal or free society, where every voice is heard and every topic is debated, where issues are more important than the person who is speaking.
I agree that religion and politics should not be mixed but in reality, this happens everywhere in the world. Religion and politics have so many similarities in them that it's really hard for politicians to resist the temptation not to mix them. Both these faculties get benefit from each other and survive with the help of each other. Some secular groups are trying to make "secularism" a separate religion that has its own rules and norms. They also treat some things as untouchables and are extremist in their views on some issues. Most of these people love to call themselves liberal, they got angry when Mr. Salman Rushdie was not allowed to speak at some literary festival in India, and they cried for freedom of speech at that time, but the same people kept mum when Mr. Modi was not allowed to speak as a keynote speaker at WIEF. There is nothing wrong with protesting against anyone's policies or opposing some political actions. People who are against Mr. Modi should protest or try to ask him questions wherever they face him but I think not allowing him to participate in any function is a bit too extreme, similar to what some groups did to Mr. Rushdie a few months back. One can have serious differences with Mr. Modi's political stance or Mr. Rushdie's books but to stop them from participating in any public function or bar them from sharing their views from any platform is not the way to fight with their ideologies.
I also don't understand what they achieved by stopping him from participating in this function. Many controversial political leaders are there in US politics. Many of them and others from all over the world visit the US and deliver seminars or speeches at so many places. I really admire this quality of American people and institutes. They are very tolerant of a broad spectrum of ideas and beliefs, and they encourage open debate about various sensitive issues. But this indecent is really unique and I think a huge mistake. They lost a chance to hear from one of the very successful chief ministers of one of the very successful Indian states (Gujarat), at least this is what Indian media projects. It's not a loss for Mr. Modi as he will find some other platform, but a loss for the students of Wharton. This group who opposed his visit must be very happy about their achievement. They must be thinking of this success as another feather in their cap to show their secular credentials, but in this process, they have shown that they are not at all different than other people who don't allow certain people to express their opinions just because it doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Like conservative extremists, we also have liberal extremists and both are the same with absolutely no difference in their attitude only they identify themselves with different name tags. I think we need to fight against both these groups to have a true liberal or free society, where every voice is heard and every topic is debated, where issues are more important than the person who is speaking.
Thank you for reading and please share your views on this topic.
References:
1. Full text of letter protesting Modi invitation to Wharton
2. Modi’s address at Wharton cancelled
3. Wharton backs Modi invite cancellation
No comments:
Post a Comment