Brief Comment on IDRF Press Release:
The recent press release of IDRF adds not an iota of new
information, nor is it even remotely attentive to the
arguments advanced by the authors of "The Foreign
Exchange of Hate". The supposition that the authors
of the report are spreading hate is astounding, and entirely
unimaginative, since the accusation of fomenting hate
is merely turned upon them.
The fact that IDRF's defenders would initiate a campaign
called "Stop hatred and Let India Develop"
suggests that they are entirely incapable of understanding
elementary arguments, much less nuanced thinking. The
authors of the report have nowhere suggested that they
do not wish to see India develop; nor are they counseling
hatred towards anyone. Yet their particular argument,
namely that IDRF has become a conduit for funneling
money to organizations affiliated to the RSS or to other
Hindutva organizations, is deliberately misrepresented
as an argument against the development of India. IDRF's
defenders deploy precisely ! the same strategies that
the Bush administration is using to denigrate civil
libertarians and other alarmed at the slow but sure
erosion of liberties in the US under the present political
regime - tarnishing dissenters as traitorous, anti-national,
and so on. What other purpose can be served by suggesting
that the activists of Sabrang are pro-Pakistani and
traitors to India? Let us not forget that the assassin
of Gandhi, and his friends, supporters and patrons similarly
represented the Mahatma as a friend of Muslims and of
Pakistan.
Much has been made by the IDRF's defenders in this and
previous documents about the 5000 signatures it has
purportedly gathered on the petition to "Let India
Develop". At least a third of these signatories
are in India; and further scrutiny suggests that something
is amiss. For example, signatories 5314-517 are all
evidently members of one family (Tripathi) from Vijaywada.
The same person appears to have signed the petition
more than once: thus 5239 and 5240 are both Asutosh
Pandey, from Delhi and Mumbai, respectively. Signatories
5244-47 are described as Dilip, Smita, Vishesh, and
Rajesh from Mumbai, but there must be thousands of such
persons in that city. If a cursory examination of a
few dozen signatures reveals such oddities, one shudders
to think who might be the other signatories of this
campaign. But that is scarcely all: these so-called
5000 signatures are set against the signatures of more
than 300 faculty presently working in American universities,
who together account for the bulk of the faculty working
in South Asian history in the US.
Many of these faculty have devoted years of study to
communalism and to the organizational structures of
Hindutva; they are also charged with educating students
in this country about the history, politics, and culture
of South Asia, and their views cannot be taken lightly.
Moreover, if we are to believe that justice and truth
lie on the side of those whose numbers are greater,
than surely the logical conclusion is that Narendra
Modi, having been vindicated by the electorate of Gujarat,
is a saint and paragon of truth. Perpetrators of genocide
have often been able to gain the support of millions.
IDRF's defenders represent not some ideal of truth or
knowledge, but, sadly, something more resembling the
herd instinct.
The evidence furnished by the authors of the Sabrang/SACW
report can be answered only by equally firm evidence
to the contrary, not by cheap innuendos, red-baiting,
and despicable attempts to silence dissenters. Patriotism
of the sort represented by the initiators of the "Let
India Develop" campaign is the last refuge of those
who lack the analytical ability, political awareness,
and ethical impulse to engage their opponents in serious
debate. No one who understands that the nation-state
is itself the most gross perpetrator of human rights
abuses and atrocities will want to wear the badge of
patriotism as lightly as do the defenders of IDRF.
Everyone who is familiar with the often complex ways
in which overseas funding of a large array of political
and non-political organizations takes place -- and not
only with respect to India - knows fully well that it
will not, to take one example, suffice to exonerate
an organization that is charged with promoting Hindutva
by suggesting that it is supported by the Church of
North India. Organizations promoting violence have everywhere
learned how to camouflage themselves; their networks
are vast, capillary, and polycentric. The recent pogrom
in Gujarat underscores the importance of the arguments
advanced by the authors of the Sabrang/SACW report,
and corporations and organization in the US should understand
that they will be morally just as culpable as the perpetrators
of violence if they allow their funds to be used to
promote in India a political regime that has shown itself
singularly incapable of ensuring the safety and lives
of its most vulnerable citizens and working within the
parameters established by the Constitution of India.
Vinay Lal
Associate Professor
Department of History
UCLA
|
