Prahlad Iyengar, a highly regarded PhD student at MIT, has found his promising academic career derailed after being suspended for an article he wrote in a student magazine, Written Revolution. Iyengar, a Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science student, faces a suspension that will last until January 2026, effectively terminating his five-year NSF fellowship. The article, titled “On Pacifism,” critiques the emphasis on nonviolent resistance in movements like the Palestinian struggle, asserting that violent tactics may be necessary in the fight against colonial oppression.
Prahlad Iyengar, in the article “On Pacifism”, critiques the over-reliance on nonviolence in resistance movements, particularly in the Palestinian struggle against genocide. He draws on historical examples, including Gandhi’s nonviolent movement and the self-immolation of Thích Quang Ðuc and Aaron Bushnell, to argue that while pacifism has value, it should not be the sole strategy in liberation struggles.
Iyengar contends that the Palestinian movement’s current tactics, such as protests and boycotts, are insufficient to end the genocide or dismantle the apartheid regime. He criticizes pacifist actions prioritising personal safety over meaningful sacrifice, arguing that many protests are carefully structured to avoid real consequences, thus failing to challenge oppressive systems. Referencing Ward Churchill’s analysis, he claims that such protests are symbolic and often co-opted by the state, reinforcing rather than dismantling the status quo. Iyengar calls for a diversified resistance approach, where pacifism is a tactical choice rather than a strategic goal. He advocates for building root-mycelial mutual aid networks and engaging in direct community-centered actions that challenge deeper structural issues like gentrification and systemic oppression.
While Iyengar does not explicitly call for widespread violence, he does argue that violent resistance should be a part of the broader strategy against oppression. He believes that the Palestinian struggle, in particular, requires more than pacifist tactics, and that acts of resistance, including property damage or even armed struggle, can be necessary to challenge colonial oppression. By acknowledging the role of sacrifice and the need for diverse forms of resistance, Iyengar suggests that strategic violence can complement nonviolence in efforts to dismantle oppressive systems.
This argument, combined with imagery from groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which the U.S. has labeled a terrorist organization, led MIT’s administration to accuse him of promoting violence.
MIT officials, citing concerns from some faculty and students, assert that the article could incite violent protests on campus.
In a letter sent to the magazine’s editors, Dean of Student Life David Warren Randall referred to the article’s content as potentially “violent or destructive,” particularly due to the inclusion of the PFLP logo. The decision has sparked significant backlash, with many, including the MIT Coalition Against Apartheid, accusing the university of stifling free speech and political expression.
Iyengar, however, maintained that the suspension is part of a broader attack on his right to express views on Palestinian liberation. In his statement, Iyengar defended his article as part of legitimate academic discourse on non-violence, citing historical movements and international law. He condemned MIT’s actions as an unprecedented attack on free speech, arguing that banning the zine sets a dangerous precedent for censorship.
Iyengar questioned whether this would lead to further restrictions on academic material and the expression of dissent, drawing parallels to other cases of suppression of anti-genocide protests in universities. The PhD scholar called MIT students, staff, and faculty to stand against censorship and allow him to return to campus to continue his research. He stressed that the issue concerns protecting democratic principles and the right to criticize oppressive regimes.
https://twitter.com/mit_caa/status/1855010680791081371
He said, “The article wrote was about adopting a pacifist stance and was critical of that stance. I, of course, relied on materials related to resistance against occupation, both passive resistance and non-passive resistance. But what happened is that Zionist students on the campus including some faculty members at the university claimed and alleged that I might be a terrorist and that I incite violence at the university. Based on these allegations, MIT decided to take action against me. I would connect what happens on a small scale at MIT with what happens on a larger scale in Palestine where the term ‘terrorism’ is used to harm people. A few weeks ago, the official IDF Twitter account published photos of 6 journalists in Gaza.”
The MIT Coalition Against Apartheid has rallied in support of Iyengar, calling his suspension a gross violation of free speech and academic freedom. The group has launched a campaign to reverse the decision, calling for MIT to cease criminalizing students for standing up for Palestinian rights. According to the coalition, Iyengar’s suspension amounts to an effective expulsion, as it would significantly disrupt his academic career, and his readmission will be subject to the same panel that suspended him.
Woke Propaganda Found Another Victim – Prahlad Iyengar
Ultimately, Prahlad Iyengar’s journey from a promising student to a controversial figure highlights the dangers of blindly subscribing to woke ideologies. While he may have believed he was fighting for the oppressed, in reality, he’s become an instrument of a larger, dangerous agenda. His suspension at MIT, fueled by his support for causes that align with extremist ideologies, serves as a stark reminder: woke movements, often cloaked in the language of justice, can easily lead to manipulation and co-optation by forces with no regard for true human rights or freedom.
Instead of using his academic prowess to challenge real societal issues, Iyengar has become a pawn in a divisive and radical narrative that could ultimately discard him when he no longer serves its purpose. His embrace of these ideologies has not only disrupted his academic career but may also have led him down a path where, ironically, the very forces he champions could one day turn on him. It’s a harsh truth: the woke agenda that promises solidarity often offers little but betrayal, leaving those who fall into its grip to face the consequences when their usefulness has passed.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
