[Prefatory Note: I am posting here an interview with the magazine OUTLOOK INDIA associated with an open letter that was signed by more than 100 Indian scholars and intellectuals, as well as those such as myself with a long research and human interest in India, expressing concern about the forthcoming visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Silicon Valley to promote his vision of ‘Digital India.’ I feel strongly about these issues, especially in light of the Snowden disclosures and the general use of digital capabilities to encroach upon personal freedom and a climate of liberty in post-9/11 America. The link to the original text is <http://www.outlookindia.com/article/the-future-of-india-as-a-democratic-country-is-at-risk/295251> The quoted remark at the beginning of several questions are taken from the text of the letter, which is referred to in the interview as ‘a petition.’ FYI, the full text of the letter and a partial list of signatories is appended after the interview.]
[Editorial Preface of OUTLOOK]: Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Silicon Valley later this month. But over 137 US-based academics and intellectuals have already filed a petition to the Silicon Valley Enterprises expressing concern about Modi and his ‘Digital India’ campaign. It is not surprising that Richard A. Falk is one of the petitioners. The professor emeritus of law at Princeton University, a highly respected academic, has always been an outspoken critic of governments and policies that violate human rights and civil liberties. At 84, he has authored and co-edited more than 40 books and is a well-known commentator on his own. As former UN rapporteur on Palestine, Falk is also one of the few Jews who was denied a visa by Israel for his outspoken views about Israeli atrocities and occupation of Palestinian territory. He tells Pranay Sharma why he’s a signatory to the petition against Modi.]
Q: What is the prime concern you have against Narendra Modi’s ‘Digital India’ campaign?
I and others on the list have questions about Narendra Modi’s record on religious tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Some of those who signed the letter have also been subject to a campaign of harassment from Hindu nationalist followers, which raises particular worries about academic freedom. “Digital India” as an initiative has enormous potential to affect positive social change, but it simultaneously poses dangers for abuse under the Modi administration that can make use of digitalization to target members of minority communities or those who are critical of its policies. It is my impression that the Modi government has been particularly sensitive to criticism and unfriendly to critics, making our concern more credible.
Q: Does this fear stem from the individual-Narendra Modi in this case -or the proposed campaign itself?
It’s not too clear at this stage exactly what “Digital India” will become programmatically, and this is precisely why we wrote to register our concerns-to influence the course the debate will take. Most of the media treatment that I and my colleagues have seen is so far more concerned with branding the campaign rather than focusing on its substance, The plan as outlined on the Government of India website, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Digital%20India.pdf is appropriately ambitious, and commendably has the “empowerment of citizens” at its core. But the potential for disempowerment is also present as the gap widens between those who have access to internet technology and those in India who still lack water and electricity. I believe that some of my colleagues have reasonable grounds to worry that the planned heavy investment in digital infrastructure will widen this gap, and along with it, socio-economic disparities.. There is no present indications that the Indian government is implementing policies designed to reduce, if not eliminate, the gap. And with respect to your underlying question it is impossible to disentangle the Modi Government or Modi as a political personality from the Digital India Campaign.
Q: Are there real reasons for such apprehensions given the fact that much of the proposed programme was actually undertaken by Modi’s predecessor, Manmohan Singh? “Digital India has great potential, but under the Modi government it poses dangers for abuse.”
Some of the same concerns would have surfaced in all likelihood under any Indian government.These concerns are magnified given Modi’s record on freedom of expression leading me and my colleagues to have apprehensions about a process of digital consolidation that can lead to further breaches not only of privacy but of individual security. A realization that the previous government in India has been working toward e-governance, and that these issues are ones faced by other governments in the world does not in any way make it irrelevant to raise issues associated with Modi’s specific record. As an American, with a deep commitment to the wellbeing and positive development of India, I have joined with Indian colleagues because I have seen what digital age abuses have occurred in my own country. The Snowden disclosures should serve as a reminder that citizens of all countries need to exert unprecedented vigilance in the defense of freedom and in support of societal equity given the contemporary interface between totalizing governmental security and technological capabilities.
Modi was a three-time elected chief minister of Gujarat and in 2014 successfully won an impressive mandate to become India’s Prime Minister. How do you see the obvious support he has among a sizeable section of Indians?
The fact that a policy or programme is popular or even that the majority of people at any moment in time is in favor does not make it right or suggest the inappropriateness of constructive criticism. We have witnessed this tension between what is popular and what is right numerous times in recent history, and speaking personally, perhaps most vividly with respect to the implementation of U.S. foreign policy on a global scale. We can recall with remorse a lone American Congress woman, Barbara Lee, who held out as the sole dissenting voice against authorizing the US president to go to war against Afghanistan-a policy that the entire US Congress and the rest of the country favored at the time, but produced disastrous consequences. Modi’s support appears to rest on several factors, but he and his administration have at times disturbingly invoked Hindu nationalist rhetoric to gain the enthusiastic backing of the Hindu majority in the country raising insecurities among minorities.
Q: Do you think democratic institutions in India have been weakened or seriously threatened since Modi became the Prime Minister?
My response to this question is shaped by the opinion of Indian colleagues and trusted friends, so I will not comment too much on internal dynamics. At the same time, we are living in a borderless world, not least because of the impact of the digital dimensions of modern life, and so as concerned citizens of the world we cannot shut our eyes to threatening developments even in distant countries, while at the same time being respectful of norms of non-intervention and of rights of self-determination. From this perspective, I have come to believe that democratic institutions have been weakened under Modi’s administration. It’s true that some of these anti-democratic tendencies were already evident in the behavior of prior Indian governments, but it is also the case that the last administration brought out the “Right to Information” package of reforms that has greatly increased government transparency and empowered people to hold the Indian government accountable. It’s not clear at this point whether “Digital India” in Modi’s hands will lead to increased transparency. The background of his record as the Chief Minister of Gujarat, and the experience of his first year as Prime Minister gives rise to a legitimate concern that the future of India as a democratic country is at sufficient risk to justify a petition raising questions that need to be discussed.
Q: The petition mentions Modi’s alleged role in the Gujarat riots. But given the fact that large number of world leaders including President, Barack Obama, now engage with him, do you think these charges are still relevant? “Modi’s background as CM and his first year as PM raises concern that India’s democracy is at risk.”
Yes, they are still relevant even legally: there is currently an undecided appeal in the Gujarat judicial system that raises serious questions about whether Modi took adequate steps to control the Gujurat violence in 2002, and whether he was actively implicated in its unfolding. Whether or not this unfinished legal process produces an adverse assessment of his conduct, Modi’s speeches at the time were themselves sufficient by themselves to validate continuing worries. They were inflammatory, and made no effort to restore calm and avoid violence. Such behavior signals the reasonableness of seeking clarifications and reassuring procedures. The fact that Obama and other world leaders engage Modi diplomatically is to be expected, especially when it is considered that he is the head of the world’s largest democracy and important actor in the world economy. We have seen many examples in history in which leaders lead people in a terrible direction, and yet are treated as normal and legitimate for purposes of international relations. The legacy of George W. Bush is a painful instance of a leader who did the US and the world a great deal of harm without undermining his legitimacy. Ariel Sharon when acting on behalf of Israel committed what many regarded as crimes against humanity, but when he was democratically elected in 2000 the world dealt with him without looking back. It is up to people of conscience to look back. When wrongs are done to people whether internationally or at home they do not fade from view with the passage of time. If there is to be democracy based on the rule of law then citizens and persons of conscience must treat equals equally, whether it be the poorest citizen or the most powerful politician. We are aware that there are many in India who are critical of Modi’s policies and whose right of dissent is being challenged, and their voices silenced or intimidated. Modi may be speaking on behalf of some kind of majority in India, but that does not invalidate opposition, even strenuous opposition. One crucial test of a true democracy is whether it protects the rights of minorities, especially when in tension with governing authorities. This is so whether the tension be with political minorities, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, or sexual minorities. A democracy only flourishes when divergent voices can be freely heard without fear of an official or populist backlash.
Q: You also mention the Silicon Valley Enterprises have a code of responsibility that they should be mindful of not being violated by Modi. Could you specify what this code of responsibility is?
I do not claim any special knowledge about this code of responsibility. Silicon Valley Enterprises have a great deal of influence and wealth, perhaps now in some respects greater than that possessed by any government. The New York Times Magazine did stories recently about Chinese factories making Apple products that were run as a sweat shops. Does Apple have the right or strength to insist on at least monitoring working conditions for those who make its products? The Saipan Sweat Shop case resulted in a settlement that required several clothing manufacturers to end the most egregious forms of labor abuse. Outsourcing labor is very convenient for many corporations, and not just for Silicon Valley Enterprises, but it is a prominent feature of Silicon Valley operations. So some of the questions we have about the “Digital India” initiative involve anticipated impacts on basic labor conditions in India that are presently poor and often abusive, but that do make labor costs of doing any kind of business in India more profitable. It is important that “Digital India” evolves in tandem with the protection and advancement of fundamental rights of all workers.
Q: How successful have these Silicon Valley Enterprises been so far in safeguarding their code of conduct while dealing with various governments?
So far, voluntary codes of conduct with respect to business practices, as has been promoted within the United Nations, have elicited pledges from corporations eager to uphold their reputations but the record of compliance ranges from mixed to poor.
Q: The US in general and the Obama administration in particular, have been accused of spying and abusing personal information of individuals by leaders and people of different countries. What has been your reaction to that?
The pursuit of reasonable levels of state security has become indistinguishable with the Orwellian state.
This is a confusing area of governmental operations, not only for the United States, but for all countries. On the one side, especially given the current agenda of security threats, all governments engage in spying and espionage. On the other side, all states criminalize these activities that target its state’s secrets. This creates a situation of ethical and political confusion, making it difficult to distinguish heroes from villains. The United States as the world’s first global state with interests and involvements throughout the planet has the most extensive, sophisticated, and intrusive system of surveillance and espionage in all of history. As mentioned, the Snowden and Wikileaks disclosures, while viewed as criminal acts in the United States, divulged such excessive abuses that the U.S. Congress took some steps to curtail some of these intelligence operations. One of the reasons to be concerned about “Digital India” or “Digital America” is that the borderline between the pursuit of reasonable levels of state security has become almost indistinguishable from the Orwellian nightmare state of permanent war and total control over people. It is up to citizens within their own country and those with concern for the future of their region and the world to insist on scrutiny of intelligence operations to avoid their encroachment on individual and group rights.My colleagues who co-signed this petition are extremely concerned about this, and some of the signatories to the letter have expertise in this area. In criticizing India, we are not saying, nor do we believe, that the US record must not be scrutinized, protested, and reformed. Modi’s visit to the US provides an occasion for some of these shared issues to be discussed in a more global forum. But a focus on the severe dangers of US practices in the collection and use of digital information should never be interpreted to mean that scrutiny should be lessened in relation to what is, or may happen under Modi’s governmental authority.
Q: Most governments in the world today are committed to fight the “menace of terrorism.” In such a scenario do you think individual privacy and their fundamental rights are bound to be curtailed?
I think the evidence to date the answer worldwide is a resounding ‘yes.’ Partly this is the nature of threats posed by non-state actors that have no territorial address making everyone everywhere a potential suspect, which seems to serve as a rationalization for the expanded intelligence activities undertaken in the name of fighting against terrorism. This challenge of identifying and removing the threat before it materializes, also creates pressure for racial and ethnic profiling that gets translated in practice into arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of minorities, especially if perceived as anti-regime minorities.
A second level of explanation is associated with technological innovations that make the collection of meta-date feasible and economical. These capabilities are also enhanced by the development of drones and various forms of robotic activity, with even greater capabilities and intrusiveness on the technological horizon.
Because this transformed security and technological atmosphere endows the state with dangerous totalizing powers, it is more important than ever that the peoples of the world uphold freedom for themselves and others. It is only through the challenges of a petition such as ours that some hope exists for establishing a dynamic balance between state and society in the digital age. It is in this spirit that I joined with my Indian and other colleagues and friends as a signatory.
***********************************************************************************************
Here is the full statement issued by the academicians, and a partial list of signatories:
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley highlights the role of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, and builds on this legacy in extending American business collaboration and partnerships with India. However Indian entrepreneurial success also brings with it key responsibilities and obligations with regard to the forms of e-governance envisioned by ‘Digital India’.
We are concerned that the project’s potential for increased transparency in bureaucratic dealings with people is threatened by its lack of safeguards about privacy of information, and thus its potential for abuse. As it stands, ‘Digital India’ seems to ignore key questions raised in India by critics concerned about the collection of personal information and the near certainty that such digital systems will be used to enhance surveillance and repress the constitutionally-protected rights of citizens. These issues are being discussed energetically in public in India and abroad. Those who live and work in Silicon Valley have a particular responsibility to demand that the government of India factor these critical concerns into its planning for digital futures.
We acknowledge that Narendra Modi, as Prime Minister of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, has the right to visit the United States, and to seek American business collaboration and partnerships with India. However, as educators who pay particular attention to history, we remind Mr. Modi’s audiences of the powerful reasons for him being denied the right to enter the US from 2005-2014, for there is still an active case in Indian courts that questions his role in the Gujarat violence of 2002 when 1,000 died. Modi’s first year in office as the Prime Minister of India includes well-publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary.
Under Mr Modi’s tenure as prime minister, academic freedom is also at risk: foreign scholars have been denied entry to India to attend international conferences, there has been interference with the governance of top Indian universities and academic institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Indian Institutes of Technology and Nalanda University; as well as underqualified or incompetent key appointments made to the Indian Council of Historical Research, the Film and Television Institute of India, and the National Book Trust. A proposed bill to bring the Indian Institutes of Management under direct control of government is also worrisome. These alarming trends require that we, as educators, remain vigilant not only about modes of e-governance in India but about the political future of the country.
We urge those who lead Silicon Valley technology enterprises to be mindful of not violating their own codes of corporate responsibility when conducting business with a government which has, on several occasions already, demonstrated its disregard for human rights and civil liberties, as well as the autonomy of educational and cultural institutions.
Signatories
Meena Alexander, Distinguished Professor of English, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York
Arjun Appadurai, Paulette Goddard Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, New York University
Anjali Arondekar, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, UC Santa Cruz
Fredrick Asher, Professor of Art History and South Asian Studies, University of Minnesota
Paola Bacchetta, Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies University of California, Berkeley
Sarada Balagopalan, Associate Professor of Childhood Studies, Rutgers University, Camden
Radhika Balakrishnan, Prof of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University
Shahzad Bashir, Professor of Religious Studies, Stanford University
Manu Bhagavan, Professor of History and Human Rights, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York
Mona Bhan Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology DePauw University
Srimati Basu, Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Kentucky
Prashant Bharadwaj, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego
Nilanjana Bhattacharjya, Faculty Fellow, Barrett Honors College, Arizona State University
Nandini Bhattacharya, Professor of English, Texas A &M University, College- Station
Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of South Asian History, Purdue University
Amit R Baishya, Assistant Professor of English, University of Oklahoma
Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy and Director, South Asian Institute, Columbia University
Purnima Bose, Associate Professor, English and International Studies, Indiana University-Bloomington
Christopher Candland, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College
Paula Chakravartty, Associate Professor, Gallatin School, & Department of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University
Shefali Chandra, Associate Professor of South Asian History Washington University, St. Louis
S Charusheela, Associate Professor, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell
Partha Chatterjee, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Columbia University
Indrani Chatterjee Professor of History and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Swati Chattopadhyay Professor History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa Barbara
Marty Chen, School of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and Affiliated Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Design
Rohit Chopra, Associate Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University
Elora Chowdhury Associate Professor & Chair, Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Massachusetts, Boston
E Valentine Daniel, Professor of Anthropology, Colombia University
Monisha Das Gupta, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Jigna Desai, Professor of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, University of Minnesota
Pawan Dhingra, Professor of Sociology, Tufts University
Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago
Richard Falk, Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University
Bishnupriya Ghosh, Professor of English University of California, Santa Barbara
Huma Ahmed-Ghosh, Professor and Chair of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University
Durba Ghosh, Associate Professor of History, Cornell University
Sumanth Gopinath, Associate Professor of Music Theory, School of Music, University of Minnesota
Nitin Govil, Associate Professor of Cinema & Media Studies, University of Southern California
Paul Greenough, Professor of History and Community and Behavioral Health and Director, South Asian Studies Program, University of Iowa
Inderpal Grewal, Professor of South Asian Studies, Yale University
Sumit Guha, Frances Higginbotham Nalle Centennial Professor of History, University of Texas, Austin
Thomas Blom Hansen, Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Center for South Asia, Stanford University
Syed Akbar Hyder, Associate Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Nalini Iyer, Professor of English, Seattle University
Priya Jaikumar, Associate Professor of Cinema and Media Studies, University of Southern California
Pranav Jani, Associate Professor of English, Ohio State University
Sheila Jasanoff, Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard University, John F Kennedy School of Government
Arun W Jones, Associate Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University
May Joseph, Professor of Social Science, Pratt Institute
Priya Joshi, Associate Professor of English and Associate Director, Center for the Humanities, Temple University
Sampath Kannan, Henry Salvatore Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania
Suvir Kaul, A M Rosenthal Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania Waqas Khwaja, Professor of English, Agnes Scott College
Naveeda Khan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University
Nyla Ali Khan, Visiting Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman
Satish Kolluri, Associate Professor of Communications, Pace University
Ruby Lal, Professor of Middle East and South Asian Studies, Emory University
Sarah Lamb, Professor of Anthropology and Head of the Division of Social Sciences, Brandeis University; Co-Chair of South Asian Studies
Karen Leonard, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of California, Irvine
David Lelyveld, Professor of History, Emeritus, William Paterson University
Jinee Lokaneeta, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Drew University
Ania Loomba, Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania
David Ludden, Professor of History, New York University
Ritty Lukose, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Gender and Sexuality Studies, and South Asian Studies, the Gallatin School, New York University
Sudhir Mahadevan Assistant Professor of Film Studies, Comparative Literature, Cinema and Media, University of Washington, Seattle
Tayyab Mahmud, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Global Justice Seattle University School of Law
Sunaina Maira, Professor of Asian American Studies, University of California, Davis
Bakirathi Mani, Associate Professor of English Literature, Swarthmore College
Rebecca J. Manring, Associate Professor of India Studies and Religious Studies Indiana University-Bloomington
Monika Mehta, Associate Professor, Department of English, Binghamton University
Jisha Menon, Assistant Professor of Theatre and Performance Studies, Stanford University
Kalyani Devaki Menon, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University
Sally Engle Merry, Silver Professor of Anthropology, New York University
Raza Mir, Professor of Management, Cotsakos College of Business, William Paterson University
Deepti Misri, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies University of Colorado, Boulder
Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Chair and Distinguished Professor of Women’s & Gender Studies, and Dean’s Professor of Humanities, Syracuse University
Satya P Mohanty, Professor of English, Cornell University
Megan Moodie, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Projit B Mukharji, Martin Meyerson Assistant Professor in Interdisciplinary Studies, History & Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania
Madhavi Murty, Assistant Professor of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz
Vijaya Nagarajan, Associate Professor of Theology & Religious Studies, Program in Environmental Studies, University of San Francisco
Gyanendra Pandey, Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of History, Emory University
Carla Petievich, Visiting Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Sheldon Pollock, Professor of South Asian Studies, Columbia University Kavita Philip, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Irvine
Vijay Prashad, George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History, Trinity College
Jasbir K Puar, Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University
Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Professor of Law and Development, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
R Radhakrishnan, Chancellor’s Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of California, Irvine
Gloria Raheja, Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota
Junaid Rana, Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Anupama Rao, Professor of Anthropology, Barnard College
Velcheru Narayana Rao, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, Emory University
Kasturi Ray, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies/Co-Director, South Asian Studies, San Francisco State University
M V Ramana, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Sumathi Ramaswamy, Professor of History, Duke University
Chandan Reddy, Associate Professor of English, University of Washington, Seattle
Gayatri Reddy, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Illinois, Chicago
Parama Roy, Professor of English, University of California, Davis
Sharmila Rudrappa, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
G S Sahota, Assistant Professor of Literature, University of California, Santa Cruz
Yasmin Saikia, Hardt-Nickachos Chair in Peace Studies & Professor of History, Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, Arizona State University
Arun Saldanha, Associate Professor of Geography, Environment and Society University of Minnesota
Juned Shaikh, Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Santa Cruz
Nitasha Tamar Sharma, Charles Deering McCormick Professor of Teaching Excellence and Associate Professor of African American Studies and Asian American Studies, Northwestern University
Elora Shehabuddin, Associate Professor of Humanities and Political Science, Rice University
Bhaskar Sarkar, Associate Professor of Film and Media Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
Priya Satia, Associate Professor of History, Stanford University
Aradhana Sharma, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Wesleyan University
Snehal Shinghavi, Associate Professor of English and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Ajay Skaria, Professor of History, University of Minnesota
Shalini Shankar, Chair and Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, Northwestern University
S Shankar, Professor of English, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Amritjit Singh, Langston Hughes Professor of English, Ohio University
Mytheli Sreenivas, Associate Professor of History and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Ohio State University
Rajini Srikanth, Professor, English, University of Massachusetts Boston Nidhi Srinivas, Associate Professor of Nonprofit Management, The New School
Ajantha Subramanian, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Harvard University
Banu Subramaniam, Professor, Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago
Raja Swamy, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Tennessee Tariq Thachil, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University
Ashwini Tambe, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Maryland, College-Park
Vamsi Vakulabharanam, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Jyotnsa Vaid, Professor of Psychology, Texas A&M University
Sylvia Vatuk, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of Illinois, Chicago
Kamala Visweswaran, Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego
Kalindi Vora, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego
Bonnie Zare, Professor of Gender & Women’s Studies, University of Wyoming
Tags: Digital India, Edward Snowden, Gujurat, India, Narednra Modi, Silicon Valley, The Orwellian State
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
OUTLOOK INDIA Interview on ‘Digital India’ & PM Narendra Modi
14 Sep[Prefatory Note: I am posting here an interview with the magazine OUTLOOK INDIA associated with an open letter that was signed by more than 100 Indian scholars and intellectuals, as well as those such as myself with a long research and human interest in India, expressing concern about the forthcoming visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Silicon Valley to promote his vision of ‘Digital India.’ I feel strongly about these issues, especially in light of the Snowden disclosures and the general use of digital capabilities to encroach upon personal freedom and a climate of liberty in post-9/11 America. The link to the original text is <http://www.outlookindia.com/article/the-future-of-india-as-a-democratic-country-is-at-risk/295251> The quoted remark at the beginning of several questions are taken from the text of the letter, which is referred to in the interview as ‘a petition.’ FYI, the full text of the letter and a partial list of signatories is appended after the interview.]
[Editorial Preface of OUTLOOK]: Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit Silicon Valley later this month. But over 137 US-based academics and intellectuals have already filed a petition to the Silicon Valley Enterprises expressing concern about Modi and his ‘Digital India’ campaign. It is not surprising that Richard A. Falk is one of the petitioners. The professor emeritus of law at Princeton University, a highly respected academic, has always been an outspoken critic of governments and policies that violate human rights and civil liberties. At 84, he has authored and co-edited more than 40 books and is a well-known commentator on his own. As former UN rapporteur on Palestine, Falk is also one of the few Jews who was denied a visa by Israel for his outspoken views about Israeli atrocities and occupation of Palestinian territory. He tells Pranay Sharma why he’s a signatory to the petition against Modi.]
Q: What is the prime concern you have against Narendra Modi’s ‘Digital India’ campaign?
I and others on the list have questions about Narendra Modi’s record on religious tolerance, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Some of those who signed the letter have also been subject to a campaign of harassment from Hindu nationalist followers, which raises particular worries about academic freedom. “Digital India” as an initiative has enormous potential to affect positive social change, but it simultaneously poses dangers for abuse under the Modi administration that can make use of digitalization to target members of minority communities or those who are critical of its policies. It is my impression that the Modi government has been particularly sensitive to criticism and unfriendly to critics, making our concern more credible.
Q: Does this fear stem from the individual-Narendra Modi in this case -or the proposed campaign itself?
It’s not too clear at this stage exactly what “Digital India” will become programmatically, and this is precisely why we wrote to register our concerns-to influence the course the debate will take. Most of the media treatment that I and my colleagues have seen is so far more concerned with branding the campaign rather than focusing on its substance, The plan as outlined on the Government of India website, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Digital%20India.pdf is appropriately ambitious, and commendably has the “empowerment of citizens” at its core. But the potential for disempowerment is also present as the gap widens between those who have access to internet technology and those in India who still lack water and electricity. I believe that some of my colleagues have reasonable grounds to worry that the planned heavy investment in digital infrastructure will widen this gap, and along with it, socio-economic disparities.. There is no present indications that the Indian government is implementing policies designed to reduce, if not eliminate, the gap. And with respect to your underlying question it is impossible to disentangle the Modi Government or Modi as a political personality from the Digital India Campaign.
Q: Are there real reasons for such apprehensions given the fact that much of the proposed programme was actually undertaken by Modi’s predecessor, Manmohan Singh? “Digital India has great potential, but under the Modi government it poses dangers for abuse.”
Some of the same concerns would have surfaced in all likelihood under any Indian government.These concerns are magnified given Modi’s record on freedom of expression leading me and my colleagues to have apprehensions about a process of digital consolidation that can lead to further breaches not only of privacy but of individual security. A realization that the previous government in India has been working toward e-governance, and that these issues are ones faced by other governments in the world does not in any way make it irrelevant to raise issues associated with Modi’s specific record. As an American, with a deep commitment to the wellbeing and positive development of India, I have joined with Indian colleagues because I have seen what digital age abuses have occurred in my own country. The Snowden disclosures should serve as a reminder that citizens of all countries need to exert unprecedented vigilance in the defense of freedom and in support of societal equity given the contemporary interface between totalizing governmental security and technological capabilities.
Modi was a three-time elected chief minister of Gujarat and in 2014 successfully won an impressive mandate to become India’s Prime Minister. How do you see the obvious support he has among a sizeable section of Indians?
The fact that a policy or programme is popular or even that the majority of people at any moment in time is in favor does not make it right or suggest the inappropriateness of constructive criticism. We have witnessed this tension between what is popular and what is right numerous times in recent history, and speaking personally, perhaps most vividly with respect to the implementation of U.S. foreign policy on a global scale. We can recall with remorse a lone American Congress woman, Barbara Lee, who held out as the sole dissenting voice against authorizing the US president to go to war against Afghanistan-a policy that the entire US Congress and the rest of the country favored at the time, but produced disastrous consequences. Modi’s support appears to rest on several factors, but he and his administration have at times disturbingly invoked Hindu nationalist rhetoric to gain the enthusiastic backing of the Hindu majority in the country raising insecurities among minorities.
Q: Do you think democratic institutions in India have been weakened or seriously threatened since Modi became the Prime Minister?
My response to this question is shaped by the opinion of Indian colleagues and trusted friends, so I will not comment too much on internal dynamics. At the same time, we are living in a borderless world, not least because of the impact of the digital dimensions of modern life, and so as concerned citizens of the world we cannot shut our eyes to threatening developments even in distant countries, while at the same time being respectful of norms of non-intervention and of rights of self-determination. From this perspective, I have come to believe that democratic institutions have been weakened under Modi’s administration. It’s true that some of these anti-democratic tendencies were already evident in the behavior of prior Indian governments, but it is also the case that the last administration brought out the “Right to Information” package of reforms that has greatly increased government transparency and empowered people to hold the Indian government accountable. It’s not clear at this point whether “Digital India” in Modi’s hands will lead to increased transparency. The background of his record as the Chief Minister of Gujarat, and the experience of his first year as Prime Minister gives rise to a legitimate concern that the future of India as a democratic country is at sufficient risk to justify a petition raising questions that need to be discussed.
Q: The petition mentions Modi’s alleged role in the Gujarat riots. But given the fact that large number of world leaders including President, Barack Obama, now engage with him, do you think these charges are still relevant? “Modi’s background as CM and his first year as PM raises concern that India’s democracy is at risk.”
Yes, they are still relevant even legally: there is currently an undecided appeal in the Gujarat judicial system that raises serious questions about whether Modi took adequate steps to control the Gujurat violence in 2002, and whether he was actively implicated in its unfolding. Whether or not this unfinished legal process produces an adverse assessment of his conduct, Modi’s speeches at the time were themselves sufficient by themselves to validate continuing worries. They were inflammatory, and made no effort to restore calm and avoid violence. Such behavior signals the reasonableness of seeking clarifications and reassuring procedures. The fact that Obama and other world leaders engage Modi diplomatically is to be expected, especially when it is considered that he is the head of the world’s largest democracy and important actor in the world economy. We have seen many examples in history in which leaders lead people in a terrible direction, and yet are treated as normal and legitimate for purposes of international relations. The legacy of George W. Bush is a painful instance of a leader who did the US and the world a great deal of harm without undermining his legitimacy. Ariel Sharon when acting on behalf of Israel committed what many regarded as crimes against humanity, but when he was democratically elected in 2000 the world dealt with him without looking back. It is up to people of conscience to look back. When wrongs are done to people whether internationally or at home they do not fade from view with the passage of time. If there is to be democracy based on the rule of law then citizens and persons of conscience must treat equals equally, whether it be the poorest citizen or the most powerful politician. We are aware that there are many in India who are critical of Modi’s policies and whose right of dissent is being challenged, and their voices silenced or intimidated. Modi may be speaking on behalf of some kind of majority in India, but that does not invalidate opposition, even strenuous opposition. One crucial test of a true democracy is whether it protects the rights of minorities, especially when in tension with governing authorities. This is so whether the tension be with political minorities, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, or sexual minorities. A democracy only flourishes when divergent voices can be freely heard without fear of an official or populist backlash.
Q: You also mention the Silicon Valley Enterprises have a code of responsibility that they should be mindful of not being violated by Modi. Could you specify what this code of responsibility is?
I do not claim any special knowledge about this code of responsibility. Silicon Valley Enterprises have a great deal of influence and wealth, perhaps now in some respects greater than that possessed by any government. The New York Times Magazine did stories recently about Chinese factories making Apple products that were run as a sweat shops. Does Apple have the right or strength to insist on at least monitoring working conditions for those who make its products? The Saipan Sweat Shop case resulted in a settlement that required several clothing manufacturers to end the most egregious forms of labor abuse. Outsourcing labor is very convenient for many corporations, and not just for Silicon Valley Enterprises, but it is a prominent feature of Silicon Valley operations. So some of the questions we have about the “Digital India” initiative involve anticipated impacts on basic labor conditions in India that are presently poor and often abusive, but that do make labor costs of doing any kind of business in India more profitable. It is important that “Digital India” evolves in tandem with the protection and advancement of fundamental rights of all workers.
Q: How successful have these Silicon Valley Enterprises been so far in safeguarding their code of conduct while dealing with various governments?
So far, voluntary codes of conduct with respect to business practices, as has been promoted within the United Nations, have elicited pledges from corporations eager to uphold their reputations but the record of compliance ranges from mixed to poor.
Q: The US in general and the Obama administration in particular, have been accused of spying and abusing personal information of individuals by leaders and people of different countries. What has been your reaction to that?
The pursuit of reasonable levels of state security has become indistinguishable with the Orwellian state.
This is a confusing area of governmental operations, not only for the United States, but for all countries. On the one side, especially given the current agenda of security threats, all governments engage in spying and espionage. On the other side, all states criminalize these activities that target its state’s secrets. This creates a situation of ethical and political confusion, making it difficult to distinguish heroes from villains. The United States as the world’s first global state with interests and involvements throughout the planet has the most extensive, sophisticated, and intrusive system of surveillance and espionage in all of history. As mentioned, the Snowden and Wikileaks disclosures, while viewed as criminal acts in the United States, divulged such excessive abuses that the U.S. Congress took some steps to curtail some of these intelligence operations. One of the reasons to be concerned about “Digital India” or “Digital America” is that the borderline between the pursuit of reasonable levels of state security has become almost indistinguishable from the Orwellian nightmare state of permanent war and total control over people. It is up to citizens within their own country and those with concern for the future of their region and the world to insist on scrutiny of intelligence operations to avoid their encroachment on individual and group rights.My colleagues who co-signed this petition are extremely concerned about this, and some of the signatories to the letter have expertise in this area. In criticizing India, we are not saying, nor do we believe, that the US record must not be scrutinized, protested, and reformed. Modi’s visit to the US provides an occasion for some of these shared issues to be discussed in a more global forum. But a focus on the severe dangers of US practices in the collection and use of digital information should never be interpreted to mean that scrutiny should be lessened in relation to what is, or may happen under Modi’s governmental authority.
Q: Most governments in the world today are committed to fight the “menace of terrorism.” In such a scenario do you think individual privacy and their fundamental rights are bound to be curtailed?
I think the evidence to date the answer worldwide is a resounding ‘yes.’ Partly this is the nature of threats posed by non-state actors that have no territorial address making everyone everywhere a potential suspect, which seems to serve as a rationalization for the expanded intelligence activities undertaken in the name of fighting against terrorism. This challenge of identifying and removing the threat before it materializes, also creates pressure for racial and ethnic profiling that gets translated in practice into arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of minorities, especially if perceived as anti-regime minorities.
A second level of explanation is associated with technological innovations that make the collection of meta-date feasible and economical. These capabilities are also enhanced by the development of drones and various forms of robotic activity, with even greater capabilities and intrusiveness on the technological horizon.
Because this transformed security and technological atmosphere endows the state with dangerous totalizing powers, it is more important than ever that the peoples of the world uphold freedom for themselves and others. It is only through the challenges of a petition such as ours that some hope exists for establishing a dynamic balance between state and society in the digital age. It is in this spirit that I joined with my Indian and other colleagues and friends as a signatory.
***********************************************************************************************
Here is the full statement issued by the academicians, and a partial list of signatories:
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley highlights the role of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, and builds on this legacy in extending American business collaboration and partnerships with India. However Indian entrepreneurial success also brings with it key responsibilities and obligations with regard to the forms of e-governance envisioned by ‘Digital India’.
We are concerned that the project’s potential for increased transparency in bureaucratic dealings with people is threatened by its lack of safeguards about privacy of information, and thus its potential for abuse. As it stands, ‘Digital India’ seems to ignore key questions raised in India by critics concerned about the collection of personal information and the near certainty that such digital systems will be used to enhance surveillance and repress the constitutionally-protected rights of citizens. These issues are being discussed energetically in public in India and abroad. Those who live and work in Silicon Valley have a particular responsibility to demand that the government of India factor these critical concerns into its planning for digital futures.
We acknowledge that Narendra Modi, as Prime Minister of a country that has contributed much to the growth and development of Silicon Valley industries, has the right to visit the United States, and to seek American business collaboration and partnerships with India. However, as educators who pay particular attention to history, we remind Mr. Modi’s audiences of the powerful reasons for him being denied the right to enter the US from 2005-2014, for there is still an active case in Indian courts that questions his role in the Gujarat violence of 2002 when 1,000 died. Modi’s first year in office as the Prime Minister of India includes well-publicized episodes of censorship and harassment of those critical of his policies, bans and restrictions on NGOs leading to a constriction of the space of civic engagement, ongoing violations of religious freedom, and a steady impingement on the independence of the judiciary.
Under Mr Modi’s tenure as prime minister, academic freedom is also at risk: foreign scholars have been denied entry to India to attend international conferences, there has been interference with the governance of top Indian universities and academic institutions such as the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Indian Institutes of Technology and Nalanda University; as well as underqualified or incompetent key appointments made to the Indian Council of Historical Research, the Film and Television Institute of India, and the National Book Trust. A proposed bill to bring the Indian Institutes of Management under direct control of government is also worrisome. These alarming trends require that we, as educators, remain vigilant not only about modes of e-governance in India but about the political future of the country.
We urge those who lead Silicon Valley technology enterprises to be mindful of not violating their own codes of corporate responsibility when conducting business with a government which has, on several occasions already, demonstrated its disregard for human rights and civil liberties, as well as the autonomy of educational and cultural institutions.
Signatories
Meena Alexander, Distinguished Professor of English, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York
Arjun Appadurai, Paulette Goddard Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication, New York University
Anjali Arondekar, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, UC Santa Cruz
Fredrick Asher, Professor of Art History and South Asian Studies, University of Minnesota
Paola Bacchetta, Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies University of California, Berkeley
Sarada Balagopalan, Associate Professor of Childhood Studies, Rutgers University, Camden
Radhika Balakrishnan, Prof of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University
Shahzad Bashir, Professor of Religious Studies, Stanford University
Manu Bhagavan, Professor of History and Human Rights, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York
Mona Bhan Associate Professor of Sociology and Anthropology DePauw University
Srimati Basu, Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Kentucky
Prashant Bharadwaj, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego
Nilanjana Bhattacharjya, Faculty Fellow, Barrett Honors College, Arizona State University
Nandini Bhattacharya, Professor of English, Texas A &M University, College- Station
Tithi Bhattacharya, Associate Professor of South Asian History, Purdue University
Amit R Baishya, Assistant Professor of English, University of Oklahoma
Akeel Bilgrami, Sidney Morgenbesser Professor of Philosophy and Director, South Asian Institute, Columbia University
Purnima Bose, Associate Professor, English and International Studies, Indiana University-Bloomington
Christopher Candland, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College
Paula Chakravartty, Associate Professor, Gallatin School, & Department of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University
Shefali Chandra, Associate Professor of South Asian History Washington University, St. Louis
S Charusheela, Associate Professor, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell
Partha Chatterjee, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Columbia University
Indrani Chatterjee Professor of History and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Swati Chattopadhyay Professor History of Art and Architecture, University of California, Santa Barbara
Marty Chen, School of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and Affiliated Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Design
Rohit Chopra, Associate Professor of Communication, Santa Clara University
Elora Chowdhury Associate Professor & Chair, Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Massachusetts, Boston
E Valentine Daniel, Professor of Anthropology, Colombia University
Monisha Das Gupta, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies, University of Hawaii, Manoa
Jigna Desai, Professor of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, University of Minnesota
Pawan Dhingra, Professor of Sociology, Tufts University
Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago
Richard Falk, Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University
Bishnupriya Ghosh, Professor of English University of California, Santa Barbara
Huma Ahmed-Ghosh, Professor and Chair of Women’s Studies, San Diego State University
Durba Ghosh, Associate Professor of History, Cornell University
Sumanth Gopinath, Associate Professor of Music Theory, School of Music, University of Minnesota
Nitin Govil, Associate Professor of Cinema & Media Studies, University of Southern California
Paul Greenough, Professor of History and Community and Behavioral Health and Director, South Asian Studies Program, University of Iowa
Inderpal Grewal, Professor of South Asian Studies, Yale University
Sumit Guha, Frances Higginbotham Nalle Centennial Professor of History, University of Texas, Austin
Thomas Blom Hansen, Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Center for South Asia, Stanford University
Syed Akbar Hyder, Associate Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Nalini Iyer, Professor of English, Seattle University
Priya Jaikumar, Associate Professor of Cinema and Media Studies, University of Southern California
Pranav Jani, Associate Professor of English, Ohio State University
Sheila Jasanoff, Professor of Science and Technology Studies, Harvard University, John F Kennedy School of Government
Arun W Jones, Associate Professor, Candler School of Theology, Emory University
May Joseph, Professor of Social Science, Pratt Institute
Priya Joshi, Associate Professor of English and Associate Director, Center for the Humanities, Temple University
Sampath Kannan, Henry Salvatore Professor of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania
Suvir Kaul, A M Rosenthal Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania Waqas Khwaja, Professor of English, Agnes Scott College
Naveeda Khan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University
Nyla Ali Khan, Visiting Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman
Satish Kolluri, Associate Professor of Communications, Pace University
Ruby Lal, Professor of Middle East and South Asian Studies, Emory University
Sarah Lamb, Professor of Anthropology and Head of the Division of Social Sciences, Brandeis University; Co-Chair of South Asian Studies
Karen Leonard, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of California, Irvine
David Lelyveld, Professor of History, Emeritus, William Paterson University
Jinee Lokaneeta, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Drew University
Ania Loomba, Catherine Bryson Professor of English, University of Pennsylvania
David Ludden, Professor of History, New York University
Ritty Lukose, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Gender and Sexuality Studies, and South Asian Studies, the Gallatin School, New York University
Sudhir Mahadevan Assistant Professor of Film Studies, Comparative Literature, Cinema and Media, University of Washington, Seattle
Tayyab Mahmud, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Global Justice Seattle University School of Law
Sunaina Maira, Professor of Asian American Studies, University of California, Davis
Bakirathi Mani, Associate Professor of English Literature, Swarthmore College
Rebecca J. Manring, Associate Professor of India Studies and Religious Studies Indiana University-Bloomington
Monika Mehta, Associate Professor, Department of English, Binghamton University
Jisha Menon, Assistant Professor of Theatre and Performance Studies, Stanford University
Kalyani Devaki Menon, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University
Sally Engle Merry, Silver Professor of Anthropology, New York University
Raza Mir, Professor of Management, Cotsakos College of Business, William Paterson University
Deepti Misri, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies University of Colorado, Boulder
Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Chair and Distinguished Professor of Women’s & Gender Studies, and Dean’s Professor of Humanities, Syracuse University
Satya P Mohanty, Professor of English, Cornell University
Megan Moodie, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz
Projit B Mukharji, Martin Meyerson Assistant Professor in Interdisciplinary Studies, History & Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania
Madhavi Murty, Assistant Professor of Feminist Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz
Vijaya Nagarajan, Associate Professor of Theology & Religious Studies, Program in Environmental Studies, University of San Francisco
Gyanendra Pandey, Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of History, Emory University
Carla Petievich, Visiting Professor of South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Sheldon Pollock, Professor of South Asian Studies, Columbia University Kavita Philip, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Irvine
Vijay Prashad, George and Martha Kellner Chair of South Asian History, Trinity College
Jasbir K Puar, Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University
Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Professor of Law and Development, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
R Radhakrishnan, Chancellor’s Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of California, Irvine
Gloria Raheja, Professor of Anthropology, University of Minnesota
Junaid Rana, Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Anupama Rao, Professor of Anthropology, Barnard College
Velcheru Narayana Rao, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies, Emory University
Kasturi Ray, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies/Co-Director, South Asian Studies, San Francisco State University
M V Ramana, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Sumathi Ramaswamy, Professor of History, Duke University
Chandan Reddy, Associate Professor of English, University of Washington, Seattle
Gayatri Reddy, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Illinois, Chicago
Parama Roy, Professor of English, University of California, Davis
Sharmila Rudrappa, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
G S Sahota, Assistant Professor of Literature, University of California, Santa Cruz
Yasmin Saikia, Hardt-Nickachos Chair in Peace Studies & Professor of History, Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, Arizona State University
Arun Saldanha, Associate Professor of Geography, Environment and Society University of Minnesota
Juned Shaikh, Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Santa Cruz
Nitasha Tamar Sharma, Charles Deering McCormick Professor of Teaching Excellence and Associate Professor of African American Studies and Asian American Studies, Northwestern University
Elora Shehabuddin, Associate Professor of Humanities and Political Science, Rice University
Bhaskar Sarkar, Associate Professor of Film and Media Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
Priya Satia, Associate Professor of History, Stanford University
Aradhana Sharma, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Wesleyan University
Snehal Shinghavi, Associate Professor of English and South Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin
Ajay Skaria, Professor of History, University of Minnesota
Shalini Shankar, Chair and Associate Professor of Asian American Studies, Northwestern University
S Shankar, Professor of English, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Amritjit Singh, Langston Hughes Professor of English, Ohio University
Mytheli Sreenivas, Associate Professor of History and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Ohio State University
Rajini Srikanth, Professor, English, University of Massachusetts Boston Nidhi Srinivas, Associate Professor of Nonprofit Management, The New School
Ajantha Subramanian, Professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies, Harvard University
Banu Subramaniam, Professor, Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago
Raja Swamy, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Tennessee Tariq Thachil, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University
Ashwini Tambe, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Maryland, College-Park
Vamsi Vakulabharanam, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Jyotnsa Vaid, Professor of Psychology, Texas A&M University
Sylvia Vatuk, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, University of Illinois, Chicago
Kamala Visweswaran, Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego
Kalindi Vora, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies, University of California, San Diego
Bonnie Zare, Professor of Gender & Women’s Studies, University of Wyoming
Tags: Digital India, Edward Snowden, Gujurat, India, Narednra Modi, Silicon Valley, The Orwellian State