by Amar Shergill
In response to David Greenwald’s opinion piece published on October 4, 2016 entitled “Free Speech Lost Out on Sunday”, I provide context to appropriately account for the events of the day.
Before I address the protest and Mr. Greenwald’s thoughtful remarks, I must correct his misinformed statement in the comment section that ‘both sides are liberals’. In fact, the protestors included participants of all stripes, including conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Hindus, as, I believe, did the pro-statue contingent. This is an important distinction because those that protest on social justice issues cannot be conveniently boxed in as liberals. Nor should those that are silent on human rights matters be labeled conservatives.
Turning to the crux of Mr. Greenwald’s opinion piece, it was suggested that it would have been more effective if the protestors had remained silent during the unveiling ceremony and speeches. This statement neglects to acknowledge the persistent and respectful effort over many months by our coalition to oppose the statue and to attempt to avoid the acrimony that was evident on Sunday. The protest did not generate spontaneously nor without a track record of engagement that predated the unveiling of the statue. Perhaps Mr. Greenwald is unaware that we reached out to then-Mayor Wolk immediately after he posted on Facebook that Davis city council had voted as a consent item to accept a statue paid for by the Indian government, but the Mayor declined our quiet request to reverse course. We met with every council member, provided informational materials and engaged in constructive dialogue but they ultimately voted against reconsideration. We sat down with the statue proponents and explained in detail the community conflict that would follow if the statue was erected but, again, such quiet conversations did not prove fruitful. At the reconsideration hearing itself, we stood in line and used our precious minutes to put forward our case but our entreaties were in vain. We exhausted every option to engage with those responsible for the statue decision, maintaining a collaborative and courteous approach throughout.
For many months, we did our part engaging in civil discourse, education and advocacy on this issue. The unveiling ceremony was the appropriate time to engage in our constitutional right to (1) bring public attention to the implications of this statue, and (2) oppose the efforts of a foreign government to enlist the City of Davis in a propaganda campaign that obscures the ongoing brutalization of minorities in India and supports the false myth created around a bigoted pedophile. We cannot and should not be silent while elected officials and community leaders turn a blind-eye to oppression so that they can bask in the contrived legacy of a man that exhibited a life-long commitment to institutional bigotry. I do regret that children were present to observe the ceremony and protest, as I do not believe they were served well by being witness to either the statue unveiling or the protest.
In his opinion piece, Mr. Greenwald uses the term ‘sexual indiscretions’ when referring to Gandhi’s repugnant behavior of sleeping naked with young girls, including family members. We no longer describe the actions of Bill Cosby as anything but rape; we no longer call the sexual assault of a husband against his wife as anything but rape; we must now be similarly clear regarding Gandhi; he was a pedophile.
Finally, I note that it has often been mentioned that many of the protestors were not residents of Davis. However, this ignores the influence of the city, particularly given its unique character and status as home to a world renowned university. Although such geographic details are irrelevant in social justice causes, it may be helpful for your readers to know who these protestors were. They were the same people that appeared in Yolo County Court on behalf of Mikey Partida, a Davis hate crime victim from the LGBTQ community; the same people that stood at the Capitol after hate speech against the Jewish community; and the same people that came before the Sacramento City Council to support eradication of long forgotten laws enabling the crimes of Japanese internment. Later this month, these same people will attend a community meeting regarding the recent Sacramento deaths of African Americans at the hands of law enforcement. This is a community that understands that there is a time for respectful advocacy and to hear the thoughts of others. Sunday was not that time; it was not the time for silence.
Mr. Greenwald objects to the nature of the protest in isolation of the history of our advocacy, but what he has not done is address the reason for the protest. Davis residents should educate themselves regarding the complete documented history of the man their elected officials have chosen to honor. With just a little research, they will find that the gift sent by the Indian government is anything but. Please see the links below for more information:
- Opinion piece in a respected Indian newspaper by a Harvard scholar regarding Gandhi statues.
- US Government report on India’s brutalization of its minority communities.
- Petition against Gandhi statue in Ghana, with Gandhi’s racist quotes.
- BBC article regarding local opposition to Gandhi statue in Ghana
- Includes Gandhi’s own statements describing his sexual abuse of young girls.
- Heralded South Asian writer revealing Gandhi as a sexual predator.
- South African professor regarding the unambiguous bigotry and racism displayed by Gandhi during his time opposing equality for Africans.
- South Asian intellectual and author investigating Gandhi’s lifelong commitment to the caste practices which deny equality to the majority of men and women in India.
- Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. His quotes used in other publications are found here.
- Collection of Gandhi’s own racists statements.
Amar Shergill is a trial attorney with the Shergill Law Firm and a Sikh community activist.
So what he is saying is that when the democratic vote did not go in his favor, they decided to be as obnoxious as they could be, borrowing Westboro Church protest tactics?
This is not life or death. There are times when drastic measures need to be taken – where people need to “act up.” This was not one of them.
“This is not life or death. There are times when drastic measures need to be taken – where people need to “act up.” This was not one of them.”
Ryan: I don’t think you should be the judge of what is or is not life or death.
This article on Ami Berra from two years ago I think illustrates that in a way this is a proxy fight for something that is seen as life or death: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2610882.html
David, I don’t know what you are asking me to do here. Take up this cause? Tolerate the hateful disruption?
Neither. Just understand that to some people this is an important issue. That’s all.
Did the liberals in this town tolerate what many felt was a hateful disruption of Mrak Hall? Was that a life or death situation?
Shouldn’t you address the question to me not the liberals in town?
Well, I find it offensive to misspell a man’s name when one claims to be a reporter, cites an article about that person (where it is spelled correctly), who is running for public office… maybe you got confused with a former Yankee mgr, Yogi Berra…
David has transcended the bonds of spelling and definition.
In a very real way, this is a matter of ‘life and death.’ Provided at the end of the post is a link to the United States Commission in International Religious Freedom Report for 2016, it begins, “Minority communities, especially Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs, experienced numerous incidents of intimidation, harassment, and violence, largely at the hands of Hindu nationalist groups. Members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) tacitly supported these groups and used religiously-divisive language to further inflame tensions. These issues, combined with longstanding problems of police bias and judicial inadequacies, have created a pervasive climate of impunity, where religious minority communities feel increasingly insecure, with no recourse when religiously-motivated crimes occur.”
As we have consistently expressed, Gandhi’s statue is repugnant not only because of his personal moral failures but also because he is being used to create a false image of modern day India, allowing the government to brutalize minorities with impunity. The presence of the Indian consul general is specifically intended to build the relationships that are used to blunt any criticism from American elected officials.
For those sympathetic to the plight of the minority communities of India, it was a strategic and moral decision to directly challenge those voices that stand with the Indian government’s brutality.
shergill
Not being well versed in this area of history, I have some questions for you. The article David referenced stated that the Indian government had issued a formal apology for its role in the atrocities. Do you disagree with this point ? Do you feel that the apology, if indeed issued, was insufficient ? What other steps do you believe would be necessary for there to be a reconciliation from your point of view ?
The accusations of “child molester” and “pedophile” are repugnant. You need to show proof of this disgusting behavior before you accuse anyone. If evidence is presented, I agree that the statue is unnecessary and should be removed.
Provided at the end of the post are links with evidence regarding Gandhi’s pedophilia. This is not an issue in dispute within the academic or journalistic communities. Even the proponents of the statue generally accept that Gandhi took naked young girls, including relatives, into his bed, however, they argue that his pedophilia and racism should be set aside due to his positive contributions.
Gandhi’s contemporaries criticized and abandoned him for his actions and statements such as the following to his grandniece, “We both may be killed by the Muslims and must put our purity to the ultimate test, so that we know that we are offering the purest of sacrifices, and we should now both start sleeping naked.”
I do not fault those that are unaware of these matters as they have not been the topic of much discussion in the US. However, the proponents of the statue are well aware of these truths and I cannot condone their decision to erect such an objectionable statue immediately adjacent to a children’s park.
Perhaps you need to reconsider your vocabulary. The link describes people in their late teens and early twenties, not children, young adults. edited
Are the stories of his bisexuality what truly disturbs you? Where is your evidence that Ghandi ever molested a child? What was the legal age of consent in India?
[moderator] Comment edited. We really want to keep presidential politics out of the discussions on the Vanguard, unless the topic of the thread is specific to that, as it is likely to take the conversation off topic very rapidly. Thanks.
Moderator, thank you for keeping the conversation on topic.
BP get some kind of life & stop targeting my comments. It’s aprroaching creepy, the way you hound me.
That’s funny Delia because I usually just react to your provocations. You might want to look in a mirror.
This is a provincial, sectarian feud and should have no place in our secular society.
Do you not know people who are “religious” about the Democrat or Republican ‘dogmas’? Imagine no political parties… I do not want to imagine no “spirituality”, no “values”… and yes, would love to see all political parties go away. They tend to be “an opiate of the people”…
Therefore the statue ought to be removed?
” I don’t think you should be the judge of what is or is not life or death.”
David, do you think that the statue poses any sort of physical threat to anyone?
Are you in favor of allowing feuds of all kinds to be carried out in public places?
Do you know the definitions of racist and epithet?(Gratuitous question, since you haven’t the grace to apologise for your libel.)
“do you think that the statue poses any sort of physical threat to anyone?”
Only if it falls on them.
“Are you in favor of allowing feuds of all kinds to be carried out in public places?”
Did you intentionally change the noun from “protest” to “feud” in order to change my answer? I do not think feuds should be carried out in public or private places and believe we need conflict resolution as conflict arises. I do not see this however as a feud but rather a protest and I have a different answer.
“Do you know the definitions of racist and epithet?(Gratuitous question, since you haven’t the grace to apologise for your libel.)”
You were given a response and a means for redress, why have you not taken it?
David wrote:
> Did you intentionally change the noun from “protest”
> to “feud” in order to change my answer?
I’m wondering if David will let us know why he often changes the verbs “Riot” and “Loot” to “Protest” when posting about “incidents”…
The protestors disrespected this community and its democratically elected leaders in a most offensive manner. I am not interested in what this man has to say. Where I might have been open to listening to his grievances I no longer have any interest in doing so. I didn’t even bother reading the article past the second paragraph. He may have won the day but his cause, whatever it is, lost the hearts and minds of this observer and many others last Sunday.
“George Washington was an anal rapist.”
Now: unthink the above statement.
Repeating the same statement over and over, the BIG LIE, is a form of brainwashing.
Does anyone, for the first time in their lives, wonder, just a moment, if Ghandi raped children?
If so, the protestors have achieved their goal.
That tactic works for the anything that justifies the means crowd. Harry Reid lied in a Congressional speech about Romney’s taxes and later admitted he lied but simply stated “Romney didn’t win, did he?”
Maybe some day the No on A people will admit that they lied about the killer “toxic soup” of air that will kill people in the Nishi site and say “Prop A didn’t win”…
[moderator] Please try to stay on topic.
“Does anyone, for the first time in their lives, wonder, just a moment, if Ghandi raped children?”
This is precisely why I felt the need to write probably far more than anyone ever wanted to read about differing sexual mores and their societal significance.
Sikhs seem to want an independent homeland for followers of their religion. Is this right? This is not an American ideal, where there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State with political power and where you live is not supposed to be defined by religious belief. This may be important to Sikhs, but it is not something that Americans understand as a life or death issue.
Imagine no religion…
By your logic, there should be no State of Israel, no Vatican City. Is that your point?
What he wrote was,”This is not an American ideal, where there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State”
Sovereign states are free to structure their government on their own beliefs.
” This may be important to Sikhs,”
If it is more important than “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” they are perhaps in the wrong country. There is nothing in this kind of rehashing but more vengeance.
Vatican City is more like a large corporate office. Israel has its problems dealing with multi-cultural issues. This is also not in the U.S. and not a good, nor successful example either.
As an American, we can decry brutality, but we cannot be expected to choose a side over basically a land battle based on religious belief. There are examples of division in the U.S. – Native American tribal lands are one. That would be a better example. But Native Americans also identify as U.S. citizens first (or second, depending on their viewpoint.) Native Hawaiian sovereignty is another. Both are not based on the adoption of a religious belief.
Ryan wrote:
> Vatican City is more like a large corporate office.
It is not even really a “large” corporate campus since both the UCD Campus and the Mather Business park in Sacramento are FIFTY (50) times bigger. Even the UCSF campus (the smallest in the UC system) is twice the size of Vatican City.
P.S. Did anyone else laugh when the Pope (that lives behind the “walls” of the Vatican City) told Donald Trump that “building walls was not Christian”?
Bottom line: no more statues. Even The Jogger caused weeks of controversy.
Unless it it art. No one came out to protest the installation of a two story cat.
So if some group gets a donation of a free statue of someone they idolise we as a community are not to consider it even though we erected a Ghandi statue? I can hear the uproar now. This council set a precedent and the door is now open.
That is exactly what I am saying. No more statues.
You don’t controversy, yet you monitor the Vanguard comments section?
Yes, I agree with Don – no more statues.
But, was there every any quiet, peaceful and respectful substantive discussion about not having any statue about not accepting the Gandhi statue, and maybe having a different statue….maybe having a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr? Not only was he one of the greatest practitioners of non-violence, but in his 1967 Riverside Church speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” King moved from civil rights to a critique of war and capitalism, saying: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
He added: “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people…the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” He called for a “revolution of values,” a shift from a “thing-oriented society” to a “person-oriented” society.
Maybe a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been more relevant for Davis and the situation in the world today!?
You can just google the title of his speech and read it on-line. His call for a “revolution of values” could be the subject of community reflection and discussion.
Nancy wrote:
> Maybe a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. would
> have been more relevant for Davis
If anyone wants to see a MLK statue King Hall on the UCD campus is just a short walk from downtown Davis.
https://law.ucdavis.edu/blogs/deans/images/King%20statue%20for%20holiday%20message.JPG
Not sure how BP managed to stick Romney’s name into this discussion, unless his Mormon religion is a topic.
Since we have a male statue, how about a female? Margaret Sanger, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Michelle Obama, Eleanor Roosevelt, perhaps?
Haha, the same way you sneak the Beekman Boys into your conversations.
Thanks for pointing that out…had no idea MLK, Jr’s statue was there…as King Hall is not on my regular route.
Im glad that not everyone has forgotten about the true radicalism of MLK. Too often his legacy is whitewashed to leave out the criticisms of empire and capitalism because they are difficult discussions to have for some people.
Here is an interesting article:
The Real Mahatma Gandhi
Questioning the moral heroism of India’s most revered figure
by Christopher Hitchens in the July/August 2011 Atlantic magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-real-mahatma-gandhi/308550/
which I felt more balanced than the references provided earlier. My previous concept of Ghandi, based in my own ignorance, is rather 2-dimensional – this gives a different perspective.
It is reported today that the University of Ghana has decided to remove a Gandhi statue from its campus, which had been a recent ‘gift’ from the Indian government. There had been widespread dissatisfaction with the statue due to Gandhi’s racism against Africans, even leading to vandalism of the statue. Perhaps Davis can learn from our brothers and sisters in Ghana that ill-advised decisions should be reconsidered with the benefit of additional information.
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Government-to-relocate-Gandhi-statue-from-University-of-Ghana-475067
Shergill, stick to your guns. Our liberal community is all for any form of protest unless it’s against an issue or cause that they agree with. They’re disgust with the Gandhi protest reeks of hypocrisy.