Hudson Institute has sixty years of service behind it and has provided yeoman service to US public policy makers and global leaders in government and business through a vigorous program of publications, conferences, policy briefings, and recommendations.

According to its website, it was founded in 1961 by strategist Herman Kahn. The protagonists of Hudson Institute claim that this premier institution challenges conventional thinking and helps manage strategic transitions to the future through interdisciplinary studies in defense, international relations, economics, health care, technology, culture, and law.

Its mission statement is promoting American leadership and global engagement for a secure, free, and prosperous future, which is a noble undertaking.

For decades, Hudson Institute has been bringing issues to the fore, which necessitate debate and deliberation for which it deserves kudos. Like all subjects that have multidimensional viewpoints, the Hudson Institute, in its eagerness to highlight the topic, has either failed to present the obverse side of the matter or included participants, who because of their controversial past, have irked public opinion in concerned parts of the globe.

Case in point is the “Hidden Controversy behind India’s Historic Launch” — South Asia Program at Hudson Institute presented by Rohil Sabherwal on July 23, 2019. India was on its way to making history after it successfully launched the Chandrayaan-2 rocket. However, and although it was a source of national pride, India’s space program has become somewhat controversial in the eyes of the rest of the world, signaling to some the beginning of a modern space race. Tragically, Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)’s most touted moon mission, Chandrayaan-2 (Moon vehicle 2), lost contact with the control room shortly before touchdown at the lunar South Pole a little after midnight India local time on September 7 - a month after it was first shot into space and crashed. Indian television videos depicted a dejected Narendra Modi departing after witnessing the failure of the mission, and moments later hugging and consoling a sobbing ISRO Chief, K. Sivan.

Another debate, which shed negative light on Hudson Institute is the case of Researcher Adrian Zenz at a 2019 panel on China’s human rights abuses, organized by the Institute in Washington. Since the scholar presented unsubstantiated evidence or evidence with dubious origin, the state media reported that he is being sued by companies in the Xinjiang region. Washington Post, in its Op-Ed published on March 10, 2021, confirmed the story.

However, Hudson Institute must be commended for bringing another burning topic in to prominence, that of Islamophobia. Its presentation titled: “Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, Volume 28”, with the following experts as editors: Eric B. Brown, Hillel Fradkin, Husain Haqqani & James Barnett, is remarkable.
 
Eric Brown is a respected name, being a senior fellow at Hudson Institute where he studies Asian and Middle East affairs, international security and development, alternative geopolitical futures, and U.S. diplomacy and strategy. In recent years, his work has focused on the contest over order in West Asia, the geo-strategic ramifications of growing Trans-Asian connectivity, coping with state fragility, and U.S. security strategy. Hillel Fradkin, another renowned scholar, is a senior fellow and director of the Center on Islam, Democracy, and the Future of the Muslim World at Hudson Institute. Yet, if only the Hudson Institute had included a genuine Islamic Scholar in its panel of editors instead of Husain Haqqani, it would have balanced the equation. Former Pakistani Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, has brought shame to Pakistan and is wanted by the law as he is absconding in the case of the Memogate Scandal. He is by no means a specialist on Islam either.
 
While the Hudson Institute will continue to gain eminence for enlightening US lawmakers, as well as opinion builders by discussing burning issues, its prestige should not be marred by including controversial personalities in the debates.