Scholar stands by his lecture at O.P. Jindal University, regrets its ‘misinterpretation’
After the Haryanabased O.P. Jindal Global University asked critically acclaimed writer and former Delhi University Professor Achin Vanaik to “express regret” over his remarks in a closed lecture titled “The history and politics of the Palestinian present’, he told The Hindu that he had informed the university that he stood by what he had said in the lecture, and regretted its misinterpretation and the confusion that had arisen as a result.
After Professor Vanaik’s lecture on November 1, the Israeli Ambassador to India, Naor Gilon, in a letter addressed to the founding ViceChancellor of O.P. Jindal University, C. Raj Kumar, was critical of the lecture. “I cannot understand why an event delegitimising the state of Israel was hosted at the University,” Mr. Gilon’s letter stated.
Professor Vanaik said that Israel had been characterised as a settlercolonial apartheid state by many groups and individuals.
‘Objectionable remarks’
On November 13, Dabiru Sridhar Patnaik, registrar, O.P. Jindal University, wrote in a letter to Professor Vanaik that the latter’s remarks that “Hindutva is antiMuslim” were unnecessary and objectionable.
“This is not something that I say but many people say because Hindutva is exclusivist. It is open to interpretation that it is discriminatory. When you prioritise one particular community, this is in contrast with another conception of nationalism, which in India is that of composite nationalism,” Prof. Vanaik said.
Mr. Patnaik, in his letter, also said: “Your remarks about motivation of suicide bombers and terrorists intended to explain that they are more determined to die for their cause than to kill came across as an expression of sympathy towards them instead of unalloyed condemnation of the violence and death caused by them.”
Prof. Vanaik said there had been a large turnout at the lecture; many had recorded and posted parts of it online. “The idea that I am proterrorism is absolute nonsense. My words were absolutely taken out of context,” he said.
“I would want to clarify here that I do consider Hamas’s action as a terrorist action and criticise it. But terrorism is something that individuals, groups, and apparatus of states also carry out and one must be universal and impartial in condemning terrorism no matter who the agents are. It should be understood as a reference to a means or a method,” he added.