Someone Grab The Big Mike

Controversial BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy’s run-in with Nobel Laureate economist Amartya Sen over the “mismanagement” of Nalanda University could have played a key role in the cancellation of the former’s scheduled lecture at Oxford University in early April, say sources. Swamy, along with US-based writer Rajiv Malhotra, had been invited by the Oxford India Society (OIS) to speak at the Exeter College on April 3. But “howls of protest”—and from different quarters, students and faculty—against the duo who are known for their anti-Muslim and anti-Dalit (Malhotra) views, led the organisers to call off the lecture.

The organisers say Swamy, a trained  former Harvard economist, was to speak on India’s economic growth and reforms while Malhotra was to speak about Ind­ian history. OIS president Anjul Khadria justified the cancellation saying that unl­ike the Oxford union (an autonomous body), his outfit is part of the university and, hence, has to take into account the views of “a wide range of students and staff of the university”. The BJP leader’s recent contention that a mosque is not a religious place but just a building that can be demolished seems to have been the final provocation for protesters.

Now the Oxford Students Union has a long history of both inviting and rejecting controversial leaders. Like in the 1960s, it had prevented British Conservative leader Enoch Powell from being invited to deliver a lecture at the University for his controversial “river of blood” speech. However, at around the same time, it invited Black activist Malcolm X to speak at their forum (though his speech was not rec­orded as “the recording device developed a technical fault”). Indeed, in February this year, the students invited French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen, notorious for her anti-immigrant views, to speak at the university. This was done despite strong protests and demonstrations outside the campus that even delayed the lecture by a few hours. The students had then argued that they were in favour of free speech.

However, a few weeks later Swamy was being declared persona non grata. Many find this intriguing and hold Amartya Sen’s supporters in Oxford responsible for the move. (Swamy and Sen are not on the best of terms; the former had earlier written to CBI director A.K. Sinha quoting CAG reports of misuse of Rs 3,000 crore of taxpayer’s money when Sen was Nalanda Univer­sity vice-chancellor.)

Now this theory too has its naysayers. A former Oxford alumnus says, “It is laughable to suggest that Prof Sen was behind the cancellation of Swamy’s lecture.” The essential point in this defence is that the Nobel Laureate left the university nearly three decades back. “He may still have admirers there but to see his hand behind the cancellation of Swamy’s lecture is stretching it a little too far,” he adds.

Interview

‘Amartya Has A Phobia About Me’

Dr Subramanian Swamy talks to Outlook about the Oxford talk controversy

What’s your take on the OIS decision?

It’s the left-wing loonies and the jehadi sections in academia who are behind this. Most universities in the West, having lost money in the stockmarket, are now heavily dependent on funding from West Asia to run their institutions. But I’m happy for the publicity.

Is it also disillusionment with the Modi reg­ime for the attacks against minorities?

Modi is considered more liberal than me in the West. My speech was on the economic gro­wth of India. I don’t know what they mean by a hate speech. What I said on the mosques is well-documented and a number of scholars in West Asia agree with me on that.

Your petition against Dr Amartya Sen for “mismanagement” of the Nalanda Univer­s­ity, could this be a factor?

It may well be. He’s had a phobia about me from the time I returned from Harvard. A British lady has also suggested something similar in her blog, as has been reported.

You once staged a dharna against the Hash­i­mpura killings. What’s your stand now?

I almost died sitting on a dharna for Has­hi­m­pura. The NGOs are trying to hijack the issue now. For me, the more important question was: who had ordered the killing? But no one seems to be interested in that.