By Shabir Hassan for TwoCircles.net
MIT and Harvard, the two hallmarks of excellence and legacy are often being flaunted as the best places to learn. Having paramount contribution in research outcomes, both institutions base their attractiveness on quality of education, diversity, and an unwavering commitment to fairness in judgement, transparency in decisions, and openness to ideas coming from every sphere of learning and research. Though all of those claims are correct to a certain level, as we become more familiar with these institutions, however, not all claims come out to be true completely. Nevertheless, the value and contribution these institutions have generated and continue to generate cannot be understated.
Earlier this year both the institutes held two parallel India centric events. These conferences are conducted by the Indian graduate community which is a part of these institutes. The main aim is to discuss topics of importance from the Indian perspective and share ideas, experiences, and vision that have brought a paradigm shift or are going to disrupt technology, customs, politics, etc. These conferences have been held on different themes such as economics, polity, democracy, health policies, media, governance, diplomacy, caste politics, film making, and religion and spirituality. While it was Harvard’s 17th such conference, MIT on the other hand had its 9th one this year. Many prominent Indian and International personalities have delivered talks and conducted workshops in these events.
The India Conference by the Harvard University ran for two days Feb 16-17, 2019 at the Harvard Kennedy School with the theme “India at Inflection Point”, and the MIT India Conference held on Feb 16 at the MIT Media Lab with the theme “India’s Competitive Advantage”, though apparently different, both events were targeted to bring together the Indian community living in the US, particularly the students with forces of growth and change in India. Both the events offered panels studded with stars, politicians, bureaucrats, ministers and other accomplished people in their respective fields and have them share stories of struggle, hard work, growth and the way forward and in person interactions with these drivers of change.
I had the opportunity to get a glimpse of both the events and attended few sessions in each, that was enough for an insight to compare the two events. On my way to the 6th floor where the MIT India conference was held, I was welcomed by posters denouncing the presence of Mr. Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard educated right-wing Indian politician who happened to be one of the speakers at the event. With a history of instigating hate, divisiveness, and communal violence, homophobia, and social intolerance, to a level that Harvard had to sever its ties with its alumnus to the level that it revoked the teaching engagements of Mr. Swamy for his blurts that were inherently homophobic and reflected religious intolerance toward a certain community. Mr. Swamy has been spearheading a campaign of intolerance, a vocal supporter of exclusion of minorities, spreading fake news on social media to promote agendas that are divisive, homophobic, and incite violence. Despite such a record of Mr. Swamy and posters denouncing the effort of the organizers of the MIT India Conference to bring him as a speaker, the management still put him in all their handouts and seemed to be least bothered about the values MIT tries to uphold in all other arenas. This disrespect to the values of MIT as an institution was appalling and insensitive from the event managers.
Harvard, on the other hand has been very careful in the quality of the speakers who are invited to the annual Harvard India conferences and is careful about any repercussions resulting from giving this prestigious platform to those who do not uphold or believe in the same values as the institution. While Harvard by its actions made it clear that it does not stand for hatred, violence and intolerance, the same was not evident from the MIT event. Even though a change.org petition was launched by an MIT Class of 2019 student against allowing Mr. Swamy to speak at the conference which was signed by over 2000 people, the management of the conference seemed callous to the voices of the concerned people and their sentiments, about bringing a person to speak at the event who has been spurting out hate filled vitriol against the minorities and has called for their extinction in his various write-ups and on social media. This indifference displayed by the management of the event in handling sentiments and representations of people who felt alienated and insulted in the wake of allowing this person to speak reflects very poorly on the values that MIT stands upon, needs to be introspected.
The event also played a video from the Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister in India, Prakash Javadekar, who has remained in complete denial about the recurrent attacks on Kashmiri students in mainland India after the recent spate of events in which almost 5000 Kashmiri students were attacked and forced to flee back to Kashmir by some right-wing groups in different states of India. The attacks on Kashmiri students were so grave that the Supreme Court of India issued a directive all across India to protect Kashmiri people in their states and designate special officers and helplines to facilitate help and rescue in cases of any violence and threat to their life and property at these divisive forces. Despite that directive, Mr. Javadekar and his party associates stood in complete denial of these events. Inviting and featuring people who hold such perspectives of human rights of minorities is a blatant violation to the values United States and MIT stand for.
Another invited speaker at the MIT event was a prominent Bollywood celebrity, Mr. Anupam Kher who has been unapologetically vocal about his association with right-wing extreme forces in India and has often shamelessly glorified people who have been convicted of communal violence. He has off and on spoken against freedom of speech, freedom for art and has been a constant in writing and spreading fake news, communally and religiously hate filled posts on his social media. His stand on people who have been named in lynching people in the name of beef and religion has been very disturbing. He has been actively fuelling right-wing hyper nationalism which disregards human rights of minorities and supports India’s right-wing elements with records of instigating and being part of communal violence and riots resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people in the country. Having him speak at the event is a deep-rooted disrespect to the ethos of MIT.
The MIT India conference also cited the presence of the ex-Chairman of the Reserve Bank of India, Dr.Raghuram Rajan on their posters which attracted more audience to the event. Dr. Raghuram Rajan has been known for his intellect and straightforwardness. Having his name among the panellists lent some degree of credibility to the event. However, to the utter dismay of the attendees, Dr. Rajan did not make any presence, physical or electronic. In fact, it is said that he did not confirm his presence for the event, although that did not stop the organizers to sport his name and face. Projecting Dr. Rajan as one of the speakers, the conference pushed social media adverts suggesting this was going to be their highest sold event till date and have only last few left. Involving in petty tactics like misinformation and banking on certain people’s credibility who have denied their availability to the event, left many attendees feeling duped and in awe given the name of MIT associated with the event.
Now coming back to the Harvard India Conference, its comparison with the one at MIT felt like comparing two disconnected entities given every both these events had India at its core with all its diversity and secular image. MIT India conference looked to be politically motivated and having an agenda other than India’s competitive edge that it projected as its theme. While Harvard chose to value sentiments of its community and disallow itself from giving stage to people who have a proven history of association with communal forces, MIT on the contrary chose to side with those people who have been one way or the other associated with the right-wing forces in India. Rather than allowing a balanced opinion in the event, this reflected to be with a political motive orchestrating a set of ideologies very disconnected from the ethos of MIT.
This trend sets a very vile precedent for the legacy MIT has made for itself and stands for till this day. It reflects a deep disrespect for the sentiments of the people who are part of the MIT community and have worked sincerely over many decades toward its growth. MIT should carefully scrutinize who it allows its platform to be used for and investigate thoroughly that the same is not hijacked for propagating values which do not represent MIT. If this trend continues, I fear the day when MIT will become another institution of propaganda, the likes of which we see in dictatorial states.
Dr. Shabir Hassan is a scientist at Harvard Medical School. He tweets @shaha_kash and can be mailed at [email protected]