top of page

By:

Kiran D. Tare

21 August 2024 at 11:23:13 am

A Scientist beyond Mockery

While Indian politics has never been particularly gentle towards intellectuals, it was unusual even by Parliament’s standards for the Director of one of India’s foremost technological institutions to be dismissed with a sneer. Opposition leader and Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra shameful reference to Professor Veezhinathan Kamakoti, Director of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, as a “gaumutra expert,” reduced a lifetime of scien tific accomplishment to a sarcastic political...

A Scientist beyond Mockery

While Indian politics has never been particularly gentle towards intellectuals, it was unusual even by Parliament’s standards for the Director of one of India’s foremost technological institutions to be dismissed with a sneer. Opposition leader and Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra shameful reference to Professor Veezhinathan Kamakoti, Director of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras, as a “gaumutra expert,” reduced a lifetime of scien tific accomplishment to a sarcastic political label besides exposing dynastic arrogance. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and charged with recommending robust, transparent, and leakproof measures to overhaul India’s public examination systems following widespread paper leak controversies. But rather than engage with solutions to problems that have resulted in the controversies, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra chose the path of cheap theatricality. Snickering from her parliamentary perch, she dismissed Prof. Kamakoti as a “gaumutra expert”. The remark immediately drew a scathing open letter from over 200 university vice-chancellors and eminent academics, who rallied to Kamakoti’s support and condemned her for diminishing scholarship itself. More fundamentally, Vadra’s sneer exposed the deep-seated pathology of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty: a reflex of aristocratic condescension toward self-made intellect, combined with an ingrained disdain for India’s indigenous traditions. Unlike Priyanka Gandhi, Professor Kamakoti is not a beneficiary of ancestral political inheritance but an intellectual titan forged entirely by merit. Holding an M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from IIT Madras, Kamakoti has spent decades on the front lines of information security and VLSI design. His crowning achievement was in leading the team that engineered Shakti, India’s first industry-grade, open-source RISC-V microprocessor that fundamentally reshaped the nation’s technological trajectory. Shakti provided India with a blueprint for true silicon sovereignty. Kamakoti’s work extends to aerospace-grade chips designed alongside ISRO, over 150 peer-reviewed international papers, and pivotal roles on the National Security Advisory Board. Under his directorship since 2022, IIT Madras has consistently held the No. 1 position in engineering in the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). Yet Kamakoti’s genius also lies in tangible wealth creation. The IIT Madras Incubation Cell (IITMIC), nurtured under his leadership, has spawned a portfolio of over 540 startups valued at approximately Rs. 74,000 crore ($8 billion), generating more than 11,000 direct high-tech jobs. Kamakoti’s record speaks of a scholar who stayed in India to forge its critical infrastructure and empower a generation of young innovators. The point is why Priyanka Gandhi Vadra felt entitled to mock him? The controversy stems from remarks Kamakoti made regarding ethnoveterinary traditions, where he cited scientific literature discussing the antibacterial, antifungal, and anti-inflammatory properties of bovine bio-fluids - a field actively published in peer-reviewed global journals, including Nature. It seems that for the Gandhi family, any intellectual inquiry that touches upon ancient Indian heritage or traditional knowledge systems is an immediate target for ridicule. For decades, the Congress hierarchy has operated under an unearned superiority complex that views Hindu traditions as some backward superstition to be mocked from the high towers of westernized privilege. The contrast between the scholar and the dynast could not be starker. Professor Kamakoti is a world-class computer scientist who earned his platform through decades of gruelling research, building microprocessors and billion-dollar startup ecosystems. Priyanka Gandhi is a political heir whose primary qualification for public office remains her surname, possessing a portfolio of inherited political capital and a distant diploma in Buddhist Studies. When the academics signed an open letter in support of Kamakoti, while warning that such dismissive labelling risks undermining the constitutional duty to develop a scientific temper, they pinpointed the heart of the issue. True scientific temper means testing hypotheses with rigor, regardless of their cultural origins. True ignorance is mocking what one lacks the intellect to understand. The sharp public backlash against Vadra’s comments also reflects a profound shift in the Indian electorate. The era in which hereditary elites could belittle self-made scholars without accountability has come to a close. In a modern India driven by chip designers, space missions, and digital enterprise, the nation’s true heroes are men like Kamakoti, builders who create value through pure intellect, and not platinum-spooned dynasts whose sole claim to power is ancestral pedigree. In attempting to humiliate an eminent scientist, Priyanka Gandhi did not diminish Professor Kamakoti; she merely laid bare the intellectual vacuum of her own political lineage. When forced to choose between a self-made technocrat advancing national sovereignty and a political heir armed only with arrogance, a rising India has already made its choice.

A Tyranny of a Different Kind

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Bangladesh

Revolutions often promise liberation but sometimes deliver a different kind of oppression. This truth has become painfully evident in Bangladesh, where the streets of Dhaka, once bustling with the fervour of revolution, now echo with a different kind of uncertainty. Over 100 days have passed since the Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus was installed as the head of an interim government in Bangladesh. Hopes of a democratic renaissance have given way to fear and disillusionment. What began as a popular uprising to depose Sheikh Hasina’s administration on August 5 this year has become a cautionary tale of unintended consequences.


Few anticipated the chaos that would follow. The Yunus-led government, far from steering Bangladesh towards stability, has presided over an alarming erosion of civil liberties. Media freedom has been one of the first casualties. No fewer than 25 editors face murder charges, and arrest warrants have been issued against 100 journalists. Even Shakib Al Hasan, a cricketing icon and former parliamentarian under Hasina’s rule, has been implicated in a murder case alongside 147 others, including the former prime minister herself. Sheikh Hasina now faces a staggering 253 cases, ranging from murder to corruption. This crackdown on political opponents and dissenting voices bears an eerie resemblance to the authoritarianism the revolution sought to overthrow.


The targeting of religious minorities has added another layer of despair. Hindus, who comprise about 9 percent of Bangladesh’s population, find themselves particularly vulnerable. “My father is 77 years old and runs a small shop,” says Zubair, a resident of Noakhali. “He’s facing a severe charge of rioting and murder simply because he allows Hindus to have tea at his shop.” Such accounts are common. In Noakhali, where Hindus once made up 20 percent of the population, fear has driven them indoors.


A documentary filmmaker who captured evidence of brutality against minorities during the power transition - 200 incidents in just four days - was forced to flee Bangladesh. His footage paints a grim picture of the anarchy that erupted after Hasina’s ouster. Transparency International Bangladesh estimates that over 600 people were killed and 10,000 injured in the first two weeks of Yunus’s tenure. Lynching, communal violence, and vigilante justice have become disturbingly routine.


Bangladesh’s internal turmoil has significant regional implications. Yunus’s government has cultivated ties with Pakistan, re-establishing maritime links, direct flights, and defence agreements while resolving long-standing issues from the 1971 War of Independence. Simultaneously, relations with India, Bangladesh’s largest neighbour and historical ally, have deteriorated. Anti-India rhetoric dominates public discourse, and incidents of disrespect toward Indian symbols have become alarmingly frequent. Even the British Parliament has expressed concern over the rising anti-Hindu sentiment.


Washington is watching closely. Former U.S. Commissioner for International Religious Freedom, Johnnie Moore, warned that President-elect Donald Trump is “deeply concerned” about the situation. Trump’s rapport with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi adds a layer of complexity. During his campaign, Trump condemned the “barbaric violence” in Bangladesh, signalling a tougher stance ahead. His administration, set to take office in January, could press Yunus to rein in the radicals and restore order. Whether Yunus has the capacity, or the will to do so is another matter.


Despite its international posturing, Yunus’s administration seems increasingly unable to govern. Key decisions appear to be influenced by Islamist groups such as Jamaat-e-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam. These groups have pushed through troubling changes, including the removal of Rabindranath Tagore and D.L. Roy from school curricula and proposals to alter the national anthem. Meanwhile, radical elements like Hizb-ut-Tahrir - an arm of the terrorist outfit ISIS - are reportedly active on college campuses.


The police, once a key instrument of state authority, have largely withdrawn. Branded as accomplices to Hasina’s alleged crimes, they are wary of taking decisive action. This paralysis has left ordinary citizens at the mercy of vigilantes and extremists.


Yunus’s initial dismissal of attacks on minorities as “vendetta politics” has only worsened the situation. His government’s admission of 88 communal violence cases targeting minorities is widely seen as an understatement. Transparency International’s findings suggest the true scale of the violence is much larger. Conflicting data from various government departments, with death tolls ranging from 872 to nearly 1,000, has further eroded public trust.


Bangladesh’s interim period was meant to be a bridge to stability, not a descent into chaos. The international community, particularly India and the United States, will play a pivotal role in shaping what comes next. Trump’s impending inauguration could mark a turning point, with potential diplomatic and economic pressure on Yunus to curb extremism and restore order. But as Bangladesh drifts further from its secular roots, questions remain about whether the interim government has the vision or capability to lead.


The promise of a freer, fairer Bangladesh has given way to a grim reality. If the first 100 days are any indication, the country faces an uphill battle to restore order, rebuild trust and protect its democratic values. The embers of freedom flicker weakly in Bangladesh today, overshadowed by the tyranny of a different kind. For now, the dream of a ‘new Bangladesh’ lies buried under the weight of its own contradictions.


(The author is a senior journalist based in Kolkata. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page