Ram Puniyani
Banning or attacking
the books in current times has been aplenty. There have been many reasons given
for this intolerant attitude by different social-political groups. The cases of
Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja, book on Sonia Gandhi
Red Saree, A.K. Ramanujan’s Three Hundred Ramayans are some of the major
examples. There is a tight rope walk between freedom of expression and hurting
‘others’ sensibilities, which keeps fluctuating for same political groups.
Those from Hindu right will talk of freedom of expression for Salman Rushdie or
Taslima Nasreen, while the Muslim fundamentalists will talk of ‘Hurting
religious sensibilities at the same time. In case of ‘The Hindus an Alternative
History’ by Wendy Donigar or ‘Three Hundred Ramayanas’ the same Hindu right
will assert the religious sensibility argument to get the uncomfortable things
banished away. The overall victim of this intolerant attitude is freedom of
expression and it also shows the ascendance of ‘Taliban’ elements in the social
political sphere.
The ‘out of court
settlement’ reached by Penguin to pulp its stock of ‘The Hindus-an alternative
History’ is a very condemnable move from one of the most powerful publishers, who
could have taken the matters further to the highest legal battles and preserved
the right of a scholar to disseminate her views, and the right of readers to
have access to it. It is in the fitness of things that well known Penguin authors
Jyotirmaya Sharma and Siddharth Varadrajan have written to Penguin to pulp
their books and cancel their agreements. The case against The Hindus… was filed
by one Dinanath Batra of Shiksha Bachao Andolan Samiti (SBAS). In his petition
to the court, the book is described as “shallow, distorted...a
haphazard presentation riddled with heresies and factual inaccuracies”, and
…that Doniger herself is driven by a “Christian Missionary Zeal and hidden
agenda to denigrate Hindus and show their religion in poor light”. Interestingly
Doniger is no Christian, she is Jewish. In her preface she writes “Part of my agenda in writing an alternative history is to
show how much the groups that conventional wisdom says were oppressed and
silenced and played no part in the development of the tradition—women, Pariahs
(oppressed castes, sometimes called Untouchables)—did actually contribute to
Hinduism…to
tell a story of Hinduism that’s been suppressed and was increasingly hard to
find in the media and textbooks…It’s not about philosophy, it’s not about
meditation, it’s about stories, about animals and untouchables and women. It’s
the way that Hinduism has dealt with pluralism.”
The two central aspects of the book are, one a presentation
of the matters related to sex, which has become a taboo for the self proclaimed
custodians of Hinduism. One knows the great creations like Khajuraho and Konark
and the depiction of matters related to sex, that’s how it was looked at as and
that’s how it prevails in society, before the Victorian prudishness took over.
One recalls the classic of Kalidas; ‘Kumar Sambhav’, canto 8, which gives the erotic
episode of Shankar and Parvati. And same way Adi Shankaracharya’s, Saundarya
Lahiri, which gives graphic descriptions of the goddess, sholaka 78-79 being
two examples.
As far as attack on Doniger’s book is concerned it is part of
the long sequence of the agenda of SBAS and the other RSS affiliates like VHP,
Bajrang Dal etc, who became more assertive after the decade of 1980s. This is
also the period when the touchiness about religious sensibilities and
suppression of the freedom of expression became a phenomenon of regular
occurrence. It is interesting to note that the paintings of M.F. Husain drawn
in the decades of 1960s and 1970s came under attack much later, during the 1980s
with the rise of the aggressive presence of politics, which began around the
Ram Temple issue.
Wendy Donigar Courtesy: Wikipedia |
Doniger has been a Professor at School of Oriental and
African Studies in University of London. She has two doctorates in Sanskrit and
Indian studies and has written several works of scholarship on Hinduism. She
says that Sanskrit and vernacular sources are rich in knowledge of compassion
for deprived sections of society, women and pariahs as well. An example of this
is in order, she is critical of Manusmiriti as it denigrates the women, at the
same time she appreciates the sensitivity with which Vatsayanan’s Kam Sutra
deals with women.
The tirade of SBAS and other RSS progeny against differing
versions of Hinduism, and iconography is a part of its political agenda. It
harps on the Brahamanical version of Hinduism bypassing and undermining the
other Hindu traditions, Nath, Tantra, Bhakti, Shaiva, Siddha etc. The construction
of RSS brand of Hinduism is a part of its Hindutva project, which took place
during colonial period. Hindutva is the political ideology of this supra
political organization, RSS. Hindutva picks up its version of Hinduism from the
elaboration of European Orientalist interpretation of Hindu traditions. Orientalist
scholars were in tune with the monotheistic worldview and that was reflected in
their reading of Hinduism. In their rendering Hinduism got straight jacketed
into monotheistic, monistic one and this puritan monolithic notion of Hinduism
came to be presented as the Hinduism.
The Colonial powers’ monotheistic worldview could not fathom the diverse richness
of Hinduism’s philosophical, spiritual, religious and aesthetic expressions.
Their understanding of religion revolves around a single Prophet. Hinduism as a
religion as such is a conglomeration of multiple traditions which were
prevalent here. Brahmanism was just one of them. During the colonial period by
selectively projecting Brahmanical texts and values as Hinduism, the
Orientalist scholars and British rulers gave legitimacy to caste and gender
based Brahiminical tendency as ‘The Hinduism’.
Brahmanism started becoming projected as the
Hinduism. It is due to this that Ambedkar went on to say that ‘Hinduism is Brahmanic
theology’. He was criticizing the social inequality prevalent in the name of Hinduism.
Opposed to Brahmanical stream was the Shramnanic traditions of Hinduism, which by
that time were out of the horizon of scholarship of Westerners and the British
policy makers. In due course the declining sections of Hindu Landlords and
upper caste resorted to the politics of Hindutva, which in the name of glorious
Hindu traditions wanted to uphold the status quo of caste and gender, wanted to
retain its hegemony in social and economic sphere. The freedom movement and its
leader Gandhi’s Hinduism was away from this Brahmanical-Hindutva stream. It was
more in continuation with liberal Hindu belonging to Shramanic tradition. It is
the Hinduism with which the large sections of Hindus could identify.
Hindu Mahasabha and RSS brand of Hindutva was a marginal
phenomenon as it was elite Brahamnical and harped on the values which were at
deeper level undermining the status and dignity of women and dalits. That’s how
RSS and the elite supporting them kept aloof from the social changes of caste
and gender during this period, and stuck to their agenda of Hindu nation based
on their own sectarian interpretation of Hinduism. The RSS, in pursuance of its
agenda floated SBAS, which was the one which was instrumental in
communalization of the history text books during the NDA regime, led by BJP-Atal
Bihari Vajpayee. The same organization is the one which is at the back of the
multitude of educational endeavors and promotes the divisive-sectarian history
through many Sarswati Shishu Mandirs, Ekal Vidyalayas amongst others. So, for
them Doniger’s book is a red rag as it talks of rich diverse traditions of the
people and is not prude enough to suppress the narrations related to sex. Doniger
talks of liberal Hinduism while RSS wants sectarian Hindutva imposed on the
society. The struggle between liberal Hinduism and sectarian Hindutva is in
full flow around the debate on this book.
0 comments:
Post a Comment