Now that Narendra Modi is not hitting the Skype on March 23 to make that keynote address at the Wharton India Economic Forum, the debate about what the issue was all about could be addressed in a more civil, reasonable way.

Ania Loomba, one of the three Indian-American professors of the University of Pennsylvania who shot off the protest petition that led Wharton to revoke its invitation to Modi, has given argument as reasonable and logical as is possible under the circumstances. Note the emphasis on the word “circumstances”, for any hint of the word “Modi” does not come without passions flying high — on both sides of the circumstantial divide.

1. Giving her reason for getting Modi banned from addressing the conclave on ‘changing seas, steering for growth’, Loomba, a professor of English, has told IBNlive: “We were concerned that this conference would help contribute to his efforts to sanitise his government's record, specifically his government's actions and inactions during the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002, which devastated the state's Muslim population, and whose worst excesses have still not been redressed.”

How so? Modi had recently spoken at Delhi’s Sri Ram College of Commerce on a topic more or less the same — heck, when was the last time any institution felt the need to look beyond the clichéd ‘growth/steer/change/liberalisation/business opportunity’ angle since 1991, when PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh ‘unleashed’ the, oh damn cliché again, ‘tiger’? — and he did not speak a word on politics. And only a deeply political deliberation or critique can arguably “sanitise his government’s records”, for those “records” under the spotlight relate to deeply political issues at their core.

As an aside, why would Modi want to sanitise his records at a conference halfway across the world, in a country where he cannot even travel since 2005, and at a seminar where the other speakers are so politically mundane that not many of his core constituents, or ones he is eyeing, would be focussed on? His focus should much rather be on campuses in India’s metropolitan and B, C and D-metros. One can be reasonably certain that if British and EU representatives can go seeking him, after seeking to bar him for years, and UPenn could seek him out, there will be other avenues for Modi to address people abroad (arguably to “sanitise his government’s records”) as long as the other dynamics and dimensions are right.

2. “We are firmly opposed to any attempt to de-link 'development' from 'human rights': the kinds of atrocities minority communities suffered and continue to suffer in Gujarat are not neatly separable from 'economic development'.”

Great. But it wasn’t Modi who set the agenda for the “economic” forum. It was Wharton. And please note the fact that neither Loomba nor the other two India-origin teachers who began the protest — Suvir Kaul, a professor of English, like Loomba herself, and Toorjo Ghose, a teacher of social policy and practice — have anything to do with economics. In fact, they have nothing to do with Wharton itself. They are all associated with the University of Pennsylvania.

If Loomba is so gung-ho about linking development with human rights, she should look at what Wharton/UPenn is doing in China: “Established in 2007, the Guanghua-Wharton Strategic Partnership is designed to promote academic collaboration as well as faculty and student exchanges between Wharton and the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University.” And, “initiated in 2006, the CEIBS [China Europe International Business School]-Wharton Agreement of Cooperation spans a wide spectrum of collaborative activities, beginning with faculty research.”

Both are from the University of Pennsylvania’s website: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/3091.cfm

Both initiatives, among others, came within a year or two of the US banning Modi from travelling to that country. One is sure that Loomba is not advocating that the authorities in Beijing have done particularly well on the human rights front.

3. “...Providing Mr Modi with a plenary position to speak on 'economic development' is a deeply political act.”

Really? One thought he was to address the gathering on ‘changing seas, steering for growth’, as the agenda puts it. As Wharton India Economic Forum’s own website says, “Since its inception 16 years ago, WIEF is one of the largest and most prestigious India-focused business conferences and provides a platform for thought leaders to discuss the opportunities present to India and the challenges that need to be addressed” (see http://www.whartonindia.com/index.php).

Why would a business meet about Indian business not call the chief minister of a state with one of the best records in industrialisation in the last decade or so? Where is the purported political act in this? Unless Loomba is quoting Aristotle: “man is by nature a political animal”. Might be held slightly antediluvian for this century, however.

Aristotle also said: “they should rule who are able to rule best”. Gujarat showed that in December 2013, didn’t it?

And also: “the appropriate age for marriage is around 18 for girls and 37 for men”. Wonder how seriously we can take the old chap, a great Greek though.

In fact, the opposition to Modi’s speech — led by Loomba, Kaul and Ghosh — could be called a “deeply political act”, for it is based only on the presumption and suspicion that the Gujarat CM’s address would have been highly political; ergo, highly suspicious.

4. ”We did not speak from a position of any authority because student groups at Penn have the right to invite anyone they want. And of course anyone has the right to raise objections to that. Why did the organisers change their mind? Was it only because of us? According to the organisers, there were several 'stakeholders' whose opinions influenced their views, including members of the alumni.”

Loomba’s fellow petitioner Toorjo Ghosh has already said: "There was not one Wharton professor who signed onto this letter.” Over to the PTI report again: "Only one petition to our knowledge," Tanmay Mishra, on behalf of WIEF said. Asserting that it stands by its decision to invite Modi, the organising committee said it believes that this course of action (barring him) would be the most appropriate in light of the reactions of the multiple stakeholders involved.

According to a statement issued by WIFE, the student organising body was extremely impressed with Modi's credentials, governance ideologies, and leadership, which was the primary reason for his invitation.

If the opposition to Modi was so stringent why did everyone keep the mute button pressed on till the weekend? Why not before the invitation went out? Why did not a single Wharton professor sign the protest petition? And why is Ron Somers, president of the US-India Business Council and one of the keynote speakers at the same conclave, now remarking, “Unfortunate and disrespectful. Since when is an American university against free speech?”

5. “Let us be clear: we are not opposing his right to free speech. He has those rights, and avails of them on a daily basis: he has full and immediate access to the news media in Gujarat and India. What we are opposed to is the Forum, which is an element in a larger institution of which we are a part, granting him a position of honor to increase his personal legitimacy, and thus further a political agenda which we find reprehensible.”

Let us be clear first: is Loomba advancing a first world versus third world debate here? That, somehow, the “news media in Gujarat and India” is all right but “an element in a larger institution” should not be seen doing the same? What makes Loomba so certain?

A right to free speech means precisely: a right to free speech. Yes, even if you happen to find it “reprehensible”; and yes, even Loomba asking that right to be denied is her right. But what Loomba is advocating here can at best be called a conditional right to free speech. No one asked Loomba and company to offer it to Modi. But since they did voluntarily offer it first, and then withdrew it, little point in making political points about why it’s in the best interest of mankind.