Oppose Prejudice and Fear-mongering in the “Faculty Statement on Narendra Modi’s Visit”


Oppose Prejudice and Fear-mongering in the “Faculty Statement on Narendra Modi’s Visit”
The Issue
Note: This is a counter petition against the anti-Modi statement given by some faculty of South Asian studies recently. When you sign it, please indicate in the optional comment box which university or universities you are an alum of or you presently work in.
OPPOSE PREJUDICE AND FEAR-MONGERING IN THE 'FACULTY STATEMENT ON NARENDRA MODI'S VISIT'
We, the undersigned, are professors, researchers, scientists, scholars, students, and professionals with undergraduate, graduate or doctoral degrees from universities across North America. We are members, partners, or products of a world-class higher education system and many of us are successful leaders of today’s global knowledge economy. We are well aware of the principles of scholarly research, scientific method, and objectivity, and we are also aware of the need to respect a wide range of opinions in academia, especially in fields like the humanities and liberal arts.
However, there are occasions when academic opinion strays so far from the scope of sane discourse, and worse, creates the risk of devastating human consequences in political and economic terms, that any one who has seen the insides of a university classroom and respects its worth, must step up and speak up to protect its integrity. The recent statement against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley by some faculty members who claim expertise on South Asia, is such an occasion. This statement lacks the slightest respect for facts and for academic integrity, and presumes to claim unilateral expertise over India by brandishing credentials in lieu of persuasive arguments.
We reject its claims for the following reasons, and we call strongly for introspection and change in the ossified and fantastic little mental world of South Asia studies as it exists today.
1) The allegation that Narendra Modi ought to be viewed with suspicion, if not disdain, by business leaders in Silicon Valley because of surveillance implications in the Digital India initiative seems a desperate ploy rather than any genuine concern for India. They offer no evidence for their claim, and neglect to mention that the Indian government has been pursuing several digital initiatives long before Narendra Modi assumed office, a fact that never bothered them when the UPA government, with which several U.S. based South Asian academics have had close ties of patronage and privilege, was in power.
2) Their attempt to invoke an admitted mistake on the part of the U.S government in denying Modi a visa as a “powerful signal” is a stark case of false reasoning (would the incident of a false complaint being made in a police station still be mentioned as evidence of culpability when due process had found there was no cause for even an arrest, let alone a trial and conviction?) and a deplorable attempt to exhume ugly lies about Modi’s attitude towards Muslims. Modi was cleared by several investigating agencies of any complicity in the riots that broke out in Gujarat in 2002 following the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims by a Muslim mob. He ran an inclusive campaign for Prime Minister and was vindicated by one of the largest mandates received by an elected official on the face of the earth. He has shown no sign at all that he disfavors someone because they happen to call God by a different name than he does. His recent visit to U.A.E. where he was received warmly by senior members of the government (who happen to be devout and proud Muslims) should be a reminder to academicians who somehow think they are protecting Islam better than Muslims themselves, many of whom have voted for Modi enthusiastically. The powerful endorsement Modi has received from two of the major institutions that govern civilized modern societies, law and democracy, should be proof enough of the inappropriateness of the allegations that have been relentlessly leveled against him by a section of academia and the press.
3) Their allegations that somehow academic freedom is under threat in India because of administrative changes at a couple of institutions are completely belied by the reality of what Indian citizens see in their news media every day. TV anchors, writers, journalists, columnists, and bloggers not only criticize Modi and his government, but often go so far as to promote baseless and sensational charges only to retract them quietly later. There is growing evidence of a systematic process of defamation against India and Narendra Modi in the international press and in a large part of the elite English-language Indian media. No government that seeks to restrict freedom of speech would permit the amount of calumny that passes off as news in India.
4) On the contrary, for all their talk about assaults on academic freedom, the signatories of the anti-Modi letter have never reflected on the possibility that the subject of the greatest censorship and distortion in South Asian academics in recent years might well have been Narendra Modi. Just a few years ago, Modi was effectively prevented from addressing by videoconference students and faculty at UPenn because of a campaign similar to the present one. The only effective (if invisible) restrictions on free speech and academic freedom that exist today are the ones that silence those scholars, writers and concerned citizens who have dared to question the South Asianist academy’s institutionalized Hinduphobia and disdain for facts.
We therefore reject the faculty statement against Modi in its entirety. We do so not necessarily in the name of any one person or political party, but in the name of the high standards of academic excellence we have worked towards building, in and outside of academia. We call on the authors of this petition to introspect, change, and for once seek to earn the trust and respect of the community in whose name they have been making a living all these years.
Signed by: (as of Friday September 4, 2015)
Faculty:
Vamsee Juluri, University of San Francisco
Ramesh Rao, Columbus State University
Shalendra Sharma, University of San Francisco
Vishal Mishra, Columbia University
Aseem Shukla, University of Pennsylvania
Jeffery Long, Elizabethtown College
TRN Rao (Loflin Chair Professor Emeritus) University of Louisiana
M.L. Goel, (Professor Emeritus) University of West Florida
Apurba Bhattacharjee, Georgetown
Prashant Banerjee, University of Illinois
Madhu Jhaveri, (Emeritus) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Ganti S. Murthy, Oregon State University
Prakash Ishwar, Boston University
ALUMS
Uma Challa Ohio State University
Anil Challa OSU, UCSD
Mary Hicks CSU
Pavitra Krishnamoorthy UC Irvine
Vidya Jonnalagadda UPenn, MIT
Krishna Mohan Gaddam Aakron
Amit Gokhale University of Wisconsin
Badrinath Setlur MSU, WMU
Vandana Jain UMD College Park
Charudatta Galande Rice University
Prashant Jha CMU
Anupam Gupta MIT, VT
Prashant Jha CMU
Abul Meghani FSU
Murthy Vemuganti JHU, Babson College
Venkata Santhanaraman University of Houston-Victoria
Ashok D LSU
Abhinav Gupta University of Kansas
Manjunath Raju SDSU
Chandra Sivaguharaman Nova Southeastern University, FL
Narsing a SIU
ritesh seal UPitt, MIT Sloan
Nirmal Dutta University of Houston
Santi Dash University of Miami
Kalyan Mankala UDelaware
Pradeep Prabhu USC
Sushama Maddipati MIT, VT
Rajasekhar Gudla Illinois Institute of Chicago
Mathangi Venkatesan UIllinois Chicago
VENKATARAMAN GANESAN San Jose State U
Jyotish Parekh U Connecticut
Varma Dantuluri Iowa State University, Ames
Indrajeet Chauhan Queens College, CUNY
Sanku Saha UT Dallas
sneha shukla Queens College, CUNY
Anil Agrawal Queens College, CUNY
RITU SHARMA UT Arlington
Kiranam Chatti University of Mississippi
-And over 1,000 others

The Issue
Note: This is a counter petition against the anti-Modi statement given by some faculty of South Asian studies recently. When you sign it, please indicate in the optional comment box which university or universities you are an alum of or you presently work in.
OPPOSE PREJUDICE AND FEAR-MONGERING IN THE 'FACULTY STATEMENT ON NARENDRA MODI'S VISIT'
We, the undersigned, are professors, researchers, scientists, scholars, students, and professionals with undergraduate, graduate or doctoral degrees from universities across North America. We are members, partners, or products of a world-class higher education system and many of us are successful leaders of today’s global knowledge economy. We are well aware of the principles of scholarly research, scientific method, and objectivity, and we are also aware of the need to respect a wide range of opinions in academia, especially in fields like the humanities and liberal arts.
However, there are occasions when academic opinion strays so far from the scope of sane discourse, and worse, creates the risk of devastating human consequences in political and economic terms, that any one who has seen the insides of a university classroom and respects its worth, must step up and speak up to protect its integrity. The recent statement against Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley by some faculty members who claim expertise on South Asia, is such an occasion. This statement lacks the slightest respect for facts and for academic integrity, and presumes to claim unilateral expertise over India by brandishing credentials in lieu of persuasive arguments.
We reject its claims for the following reasons, and we call strongly for introspection and change in the ossified and fantastic little mental world of South Asia studies as it exists today.
1) The allegation that Narendra Modi ought to be viewed with suspicion, if not disdain, by business leaders in Silicon Valley because of surveillance implications in the Digital India initiative seems a desperate ploy rather than any genuine concern for India. They offer no evidence for their claim, and neglect to mention that the Indian government has been pursuing several digital initiatives long before Narendra Modi assumed office, a fact that never bothered them when the UPA government, with which several U.S. based South Asian academics have had close ties of patronage and privilege, was in power.
2) Their attempt to invoke an admitted mistake on the part of the U.S government in denying Modi a visa as a “powerful signal” is a stark case of false reasoning (would the incident of a false complaint being made in a police station still be mentioned as evidence of culpability when due process had found there was no cause for even an arrest, let alone a trial and conviction?) and a deplorable attempt to exhume ugly lies about Modi’s attitude towards Muslims. Modi was cleared by several investigating agencies of any complicity in the riots that broke out in Gujarat in 2002 following the burning of a train carrying Hindu pilgrims by a Muslim mob. He ran an inclusive campaign for Prime Minister and was vindicated by one of the largest mandates received by an elected official on the face of the earth. He has shown no sign at all that he disfavors someone because they happen to call God by a different name than he does. His recent visit to U.A.E. where he was received warmly by senior members of the government (who happen to be devout and proud Muslims) should be a reminder to academicians who somehow think they are protecting Islam better than Muslims themselves, many of whom have voted for Modi enthusiastically. The powerful endorsement Modi has received from two of the major institutions that govern civilized modern societies, law and democracy, should be proof enough of the inappropriateness of the allegations that have been relentlessly leveled against him by a section of academia and the press.
3) Their allegations that somehow academic freedom is under threat in India because of administrative changes at a couple of institutions are completely belied by the reality of what Indian citizens see in their news media every day. TV anchors, writers, journalists, columnists, and bloggers not only criticize Modi and his government, but often go so far as to promote baseless and sensational charges only to retract them quietly later. There is growing evidence of a systematic process of defamation against India and Narendra Modi in the international press and in a large part of the elite English-language Indian media. No government that seeks to restrict freedom of speech would permit the amount of calumny that passes off as news in India.
4) On the contrary, for all their talk about assaults on academic freedom, the signatories of the anti-Modi letter have never reflected on the possibility that the subject of the greatest censorship and distortion in South Asian academics in recent years might well have been Narendra Modi. Just a few years ago, Modi was effectively prevented from addressing by videoconference students and faculty at UPenn because of a campaign similar to the present one. The only effective (if invisible) restrictions on free speech and academic freedom that exist today are the ones that silence those scholars, writers and concerned citizens who have dared to question the South Asianist academy’s institutionalized Hinduphobia and disdain for facts.
We therefore reject the faculty statement against Modi in its entirety. We do so not necessarily in the name of any one person or political party, but in the name of the high standards of academic excellence we have worked towards building, in and outside of academia. We call on the authors of this petition to introspect, change, and for once seek to earn the trust and respect of the community in whose name they have been making a living all these years.
Signed by: (as of Friday September 4, 2015)
Faculty:
Vamsee Juluri, University of San Francisco
Ramesh Rao, Columbus State University
Shalendra Sharma, University of San Francisco
Vishal Mishra, Columbia University
Aseem Shukla, University of Pennsylvania
Jeffery Long, Elizabethtown College
TRN Rao (Loflin Chair Professor Emeritus) University of Louisiana
M.L. Goel, (Professor Emeritus) University of West Florida
Apurba Bhattacharjee, Georgetown
Prashant Banerjee, University of Illinois
Madhu Jhaveri, (Emeritus) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Ganti S. Murthy, Oregon State University
Prakash Ishwar, Boston University
ALUMS
Uma Challa Ohio State University
Anil Challa OSU, UCSD
Mary Hicks CSU
Pavitra Krishnamoorthy UC Irvine
Vidya Jonnalagadda UPenn, MIT
Krishna Mohan Gaddam Aakron
Amit Gokhale University of Wisconsin
Badrinath Setlur MSU, WMU
Vandana Jain UMD College Park
Charudatta Galande Rice University
Prashant Jha CMU
Anupam Gupta MIT, VT
Prashant Jha CMU
Abul Meghani FSU
Murthy Vemuganti JHU, Babson College
Venkata Santhanaraman University of Houston-Victoria
Ashok D LSU
Abhinav Gupta University of Kansas
Manjunath Raju SDSU
Chandra Sivaguharaman Nova Southeastern University, FL
Narsing a SIU
ritesh seal UPitt, MIT Sloan
Nirmal Dutta University of Houston
Santi Dash University of Miami
Kalyan Mankala UDelaware
Pradeep Prabhu USC
Sushama Maddipati MIT, VT
Rajasekhar Gudla Illinois Institute of Chicago
Mathangi Venkatesan UIllinois Chicago
VENKATARAMAN GANESAN San Jose State U
Jyotish Parekh U Connecticut
Varma Dantuluri Iowa State University, Ames
Indrajeet Chauhan Queens College, CUNY
Sanku Saha UT Dallas
sneha shukla Queens College, CUNY
Anil Agrawal Queens College, CUNY
RITU SHARMA UT Arlington
Kiranam Chatti University of Mississippi
-And over 1,000 others

Petition Closed
Share this petition
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 1 September 2015