[INDOLOGY] Against the petition against Prof. Pollock

Thu Mar 3 17:54:59 UTC 2016

Dear Friends, The following article provides a useful contextualization of
current events in India:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/india-students-jnu-protest-narendra-modi-bjp/

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Tyler Williams <tylerwwilliams at gmail.com>
wrote:

> To spare everyone an extended polemic, I will simply say for the moment
> that the 'anti-sedition' law of the Indian constitution is adopted directly
> from colonial law.  It *does not* address 'hate speech', i.e. the
> incitement of individuals or groups to commit violence against the
> country's citizens.  (This would indeed be a good thing, and if there were
> such a law, then half of the BJP and RSS, including the current Prime
> Minister Narendra Modi, would be in jail!)
>
> However, the anti-sedition law is vaguely worded and targeted against
> 'anti-national' activities, i.e. inciting action against the 'nation',
> whatever that may be construed as.  (This was used against freedom fighters
> during the anti-colonial struggle.)  The judgement in Singhal vs. Union of
> India has only made the language more vague.  The current government is
> using the statute in a novel way, using it to ban a variety of speech and
> other freedoms (like assembly) that are typically protected under law.
> Interpreted openly, it could be (and is being used to) prohibit forms of
> 'symbolic' violence or 'destabilization', like publishing maps of Kashmir
> not okayed by the Indian government, to chant the names of those executed
> by the Indian state, etc.
>
> A law prohibiting hate speech would be most welcome-- then citizens could
> then address the inciting rhetoric of many politicians and 'activists'
> against women, Dalits, religious minorities, and the LGBT community (see
> Martha Nussbaum's upcoming book on just this subject).
>
> And, for what its worth, half of those alleged 'slogans' quoted in the
> judge's report have recently been found to have been invented, manipulated,
> or incited by members of the right-wing AVBP at the event, or by political
> and media persons after the event.  They reflect Malhotra's and other's
> misrepresentation of Pollock and non-Indian scholar's comments in an effort
> to whip up existential fears and identity politics for narrow political
> gains.
>
> Perhaps others can weigh in.  In any case, I am not comfortable with this
> one JNU student being asked to pay for the supposed intellectual 'disease'
> of the students of his university, just as I am not comfortable with the
> idea that a man like Afzal Guru, though "no evidence that [he] belonged to
> any terrorist group or organization", should be executed for the purpose of
> "satisfying the collective conscience." (The words are taken from the
> court's execution order itself.)
>
> Best,
> TWW
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear list
>>
>> Apropos Prof. Tyler Williams' first point, the judgement mentions on page
>> 6 that there were thirty slogans quoted in pages 3 to 5 of the status
>> report filed by the State. I do not have the status report, but Justice
>> Rani mentions on page 11 of her judgement seven of these slogans, which I
>> reproduce below along with my translations. The slogans eulogize Afzal Guru
>> (convicted by Indian courts for plotting a terrorist attack on the Indian
>> parliament), warn that India will be split into pieces, and call for
>> achieving freedom by the use of guns.
>>
>> 1. AFZAL GURU MAQBOOL BHATT JINDABAD.
>> English: Long live Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt.
>>
>> 2. BHARAT KI BARBADI TAK JUNG RAHEGI JUNG RAHEGI
>> English: The battle will go on and on till India is destroyed.
>>
>> 3. GO INDIA GO BACK
>> English: No translation needed.
>>
>> 4. INDIAN ARMY MURDABAD
>> English: Death to Indian Army.
>>
>> 5. BHARAT TERE TUKKDE HONGE– INSHAALLAHA INSHAALLAHA
>> English: India, you will be split in pieces, Allah willing, Allah willing.
>>
>> 6. AFZAL KI HATYA NAHI SAHENGE NAHI SAHENGE
>> English: We will not tolerate the murder of Afzal Guru.
>>
>> 7. BANDOOK KI DUM PE LENGE AAZADI.
>> English: We will achieve freedom by the [use of] guns.
>>
>> The court ruling does not specify what exactly is anti-national here, but
>> I think it is pretty obvious that glorification of the mastermind of the
>> attack on Indian Parliament, calls for waging a battle till India is
>> destroyed or achieving freedom by violence are anti-India.
>>
>> In India, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. As per clause
>> (2) of article 19 of the Indian Constitution (cited in Justice Rani's
>> judgement), existing laws can operate and new laws can be made to place
>> reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression “in the
>> interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
>> State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
>> morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to
>> an offence.”
>>
>> The slogans above need to be seen in this important context. Do they
>> qualify as sedition? I think so, but the Indian courts will rule. We will
>> need to see how they apply section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and the
>> Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar
>> (1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. 2 769) in this case. The 1962 ruling
>> (available here: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/) interpreted 124A
>> to be applicable to activities involving “incitement to violence or
>> intention/tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of law and
>> order/public peace.”
>>
>> I disagree with the observations made by Prof. Tyler Williams in his
>> points (2) to (4), and especially the term repressive and totalitarian
>> thought for a judgement by an Indian court.
>>
>> For point (2), I believe the point being made is that the Indian armed
>> forces ensure a safe environment. The word democracy is not used by the
>> Judge in the statement.
>>
>> For point (3), the previous paragraph is relevant: “The thoughts
>> reflected in the slogans raised by some of the students of JNU who
>> organized and participated in that programme cannot be claimed to be
>> protected as fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. I
>> consider this as a kind of infection from which such students are suffering
>> which needs to be controlled/cured before it becomes an epidemic.” The
>> judgement specifically refers to the thoughts reflected in some specific
>> slogans on JNU as an ‘infection’ and not to any expression speech
>> questioning the government. I do not think this is fascist language or
>> pogrom logic.  The Indian government is questioned every day in both the
>> Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha the ongoing session of the parliament, and
>> the court ruling certainly does not apply to this.
>>
>> For point (4), curbing of what the court calls anti-national activity is
>> not the same as policing all thought on campus. Criticism of the elected
>> government is not an anti-national activity, it happens all the time in
>> India and nobody gets charged with sedition for the same.
>>
>> Thanks, Nityanand
>> On Mar 3, 2016 11:30 AM, "Tyler Williams" <tylerwwilliams at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>
>>> I must apologize in advance-- I would like to keep the discussion on a
>>> positive note, and concisely explore ways that we can continue to work
>>> together to not only protect intellectual freedoms but also to make the
>>> public more aware of the good work being done by Indian and non-Indian
>>> Indologists (many of you are already doing this important work that helps
>>> to avoid the kind of under-informed positions that are gaining currency).
>>> I also greatly appreciate the insights shared by Dominik, Ananya, Matthew,
>>> Anandavardhanan, Andrew and numerous others.
>>>
>>> Yet I find the suggestion that "The full judgement of Pratibha Rani
>>> should likewise be read by all those who signed the solidarity statement on
>>> JNU" because "they can learn a lesson or two from it," a bit troubling.  I
>>> agree that we should all read the statement-- it is a clear marker of how
>>> imperiled free speech and intellectual freedom at Indian universities are
>>> at the present moment.  However, the suggestion that scholars like Sheldon
>>> Pollock, myself, and many of you who signed the petition in support of JNU
>>> should 'learn' from Justice Rani's statement is deeply troubling.  Among
>>> the many problematic things Justice Rani has written, the following stand
>>> out:
>>>
>>> 1. "The thoughts reflected in the slogans raised by some of the
>>> students of JNU who organized and participated in that programme cannot be
>>> claimed to be protected as fundamental right to freedom of speech and
>>> expression. I consider this as a kind of infection from which such students
>>> are suffering which needs to be controlled/cured before it becomes an
>>> epidemic."  Neither does the Justice Rani specify exactly or convincingly
>>> what is 'anti-national' in the students' thought and speech, nor does she
>>> explain why it is anti-national.
>>>
>>> 2. "Suffice it to note that such persons enjoy the freedom to raise such
>>> slogans in the comfort of University Campus but without realising that they
>>> are in this safe environment because our forces are there at the battle
>>> field situated at the highest altitude of the world where even the oxygen
>>> is so scarce that those who are shouting anti-national slogans holding
>>> posters of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt close to their chest honoring their
>>> martyrdom, may not be even able to withstand those conditions for an hour
>>> even." This bizarrely-worded argument referencing Siachen glacier suggests
>>> that the exercise of military power ensures democracy, *not the actual
>>> exercise of democratic rights like the right to free speech.*
>>>
>>> 3. "Whenever some infection is spread in a limb, effort is made to cure
>>> the same by giving antibiotics orally and if that does not work, by
>>> following second line of treatment. Sometimes it may require surgical
>>> intervention also. However, if the infection results in infecting the limb
>>> to the extent that it becomes gangrene, amputation is the only treatment."
>>> This reference to the aforementioned 'epidemic' is a clear and chilling
>>> threat made to those who dare to question the government, echoing the
>>> language of fascist regimes and pogrom logic.
>>>
>>> 4. Justice Rani states that she grants bail to the jailed president of
>>> the JNU Students Union on the condition that "as President of JNU Students
>>> Union, he will make all efforts within his power to control anti-national
>>> activities in the campus" and elsewhere suggests that JNU faculty and
>>> administrators should curb anti-national thought on campus.  This amounts
>>> to nothing less than an order to police thought on the university campus
>>> and a threat that failure to do so will result in the cancelation of bail.
>>>
>>> Since this email is already lengthy, I will simply invite colleagues to
>>> read the document, but do wish to register my serious concern that this
>>> appears to be a step backward, not forward, in securing intellectual and
>>> political freedoms in the academy.  Let's please keep the conversation
>>> positive and moving forward, but we should also not let it go unremarked
>>> when it is suggested that we who have the temerity to speak up for academic
>>> freedom should 'learn from' repressive and totalitarian thought.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>> Tyler Williams
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> University of Chicago
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmisra at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear list members
>>>>
>>>> Late last night, Mr. Rohan Murty stated to the Economic Times that
>>>> Prof. Sheldon Pollock will stay on the board of MCLI for “many years to
>>>> come”.[1] With this, the short-lived controversy is over and the chapter is
>>>> closed, and it is time for everybody to move on. While I do not personally
>>>> agree with one statement of Mr. Murty ("there aren't more scholars in India
>>>> capable of carrying out such translations from ancient literature"), I
>>>> respect his decision and am nobody to question it. Mr. Murty's comments
>>>> should be read by all petitioners, they can learn a lesson or two from
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Concidentally, yesterday evening Justice Pratibha Rani granted a
>>>> six-month interim bail to JNU student Kanhaiya Kumar with some conditions
>>>> (he will not participate actively or passively in ... and make all efforts
>>>> within his power to control ... anti-national activities).[2] The full
>>>> judgement of Pratibha Rani should likewise be read by all those who signed
>>>> the solidarity statement on JNU, they can learn a lesson or two from it.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Divya Shekhar and Indulekha Aravind (March 3 2016), Rohan Murty
>>>> says American Indologist Sheldon Pollock to stay, Economic Times, URL:
>>>> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51231553.cms
>>>>
>>>> [2] Justice Praibha Rani (March 2 2016), Kanhaiya Kumar versus the
>>>> State of NCT of Delhi, Delhi High Coury, URL:
>>>> http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PRA/judgement/02-03-2016/PRA02032016CRLW5582016.pdf
>>>> On Mar 1, 2016 2:04 PM, "Caren Dreyer" <mail at caren-dreyer.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all, isnt it time for an alphabetical blacklist to be regularly
>>>>> updated in order not to invite the wrong persons financed by public funds
>>>>> caren dreyer
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my phone.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01 Mar 2016, at 13:31, Walter Slaje <slaje at kabelmail.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>> Dear List,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it might be of some relevance to the community of Indologists that
>>>>>> among the prominent signatories of the Pollock removal petition Prof.
>>>>>> V. Kutumba Sastry ranks fifth on top of the list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.change.org/p/mr-n-r-narayana-murthy-and-mr-rohan-narayan-murty-removal-of-prof-sheldon-pollock-as-mentor-and-chief-editor-of-murty-classical-library
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That Prof. Kutumba Sastry signed this petition in his capacity of
>>>>>> the „President, International Association of Sanskrit Studies”
>>>>>> (IASS), has meanwhile attracted the attention of also the media, who
>>>>>> specifically single out his name and function:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/murty-library-editor-petition-wants-us-scholar-removed-cites-jnu-remarks/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/01/sheldon-pollock-murty-lib_n_9345928.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of Indological research, it is perhaps of no little
>>>>>> significance that the President of the IASS - a leading organization
>>>>>> carrying “International” as part of their name and arranging the "World
>>>>>> Sanskrit Conference" on a regular basis - publicly supports the text of the
>>>>>> debated petition in full and demands, among others, “Make in India” ethics
>>>>>> and “Swadeshi Indology” in contexts of research and academic publications
>>>>>> guidelines. Trying to be “international” and “swadeshi” at the same time
>>>>>> clearly equals a contradiction in terms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IASS ought to state their position in this matter by clarifying
>>>>>> if, in promoting nationalist ideas of Indological research, their president
>>>>>> is acting on their behalf:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.sanskritassociation.org/board-members.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WS
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>> Prof. Dr. Walter Slaje
>>>>> Hermann-Löns-Str. 1
>>>>> D-99425 Weimar
>>>>> Deutschland
>>>>>
>>>>> Ego ex animi mei sententia spondeo ac polliceor
>>>>> studia humanitatis impigro labore culturum et provecturum
>>>>> non sordidi lucri causa nec ad vanam captandam gloriam,
>>>>> sed quo magis veritas propagetur et lux eius, qua salus
>>>>> humani generis continetur, clarius effulgeat.
>>>>> Vindobonae, die XXI. mensis Novembris MCMLXXXIII. 
>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>>>>> committee)
>>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options
>>>>> or unsubscribe)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>>>> committee)
>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options
>>>> or unsubscribe)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>

-- 
Jesse Ross Knutson PhD
Assistant Professor of Sanskrit and Bengali, Department of Indo-Pacific
Languages and Literatures
University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
461 Spalding

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160303/ec758fc7/attachment.htm>