I think after reading the India Today piece posted by Mr Srinivas above, I must admit, I have probably been too condescending towards Mr. Batra in my previous comment. I regret calling Batra a retard and take it back. My relationship with him is as tenuous as others’ with Wendy – a simple human relationship.
I hope the essay author Mr Suresh also corrects his references/insinuations to him as Hindu Fundamentalist. He definitely is not – by attitude as well as by definition of fundamentalism.
This being said, the way the petition was written as seen from the outlook seems pretty juvenile. If the India Today version of this man is true, then he can’t be this careless in the wording.
Has Outlook posted it as is or (as it is wont to do with regards to Hindu causes) added its own masala…
“The only question I ask the free speech fundamentalists or liberals to use a milder version”…
Vasu garu, I am surprised you need to say liberals as milder version. There is nothing wrong in being a fundamentalist. The word carries a loaded sense because of the wrong usage and loose vocabulary by many. This is why I am always careful about language precision (I do keep making mistakes as well). In fact, I admire the free speech fundamentalists and so should others.
The wikipedia definition of fundamentalism:
“is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines”
or to put in another way: Strict adherence to fundamentals.
To illustrate it better. Try answering this question:
Given to select one choice of the two: to live with a Muslim fundamentalist and a Jain fundamentalist – which one would you to choose to live with (although in the former case it could turn out to be an oxymoron).
In general fundamentalism is not a bad thing. It is only in the usage of loose vocabulary clubbing every fundamentalism with Islamic or Christianity (which are inherently prone to fundamentalism) the word has lost its essence. For eg, anyone who is questioning Wendy’s integrity tends to be branded as Hindu Fundamentalist…When that is not the case.
For that matter, even Batra cannot be called a Hindu Fundametalist. He is not sticking to orthodox Hindu practices. He can’t be a fundamentalist unless he says non-brahmins are not allowed to read any Vedic scriptures, not allowed to say Gayatri mantra, Brahmins can’t do business, one should follow strict rules of vanaprastha, etc…which are more or less fundamental to Hinduism (although there may be some exceptions). Hinduism in general evolved with times…So, this might seem a non-issue now.
Even if we think that by filing cases asking for books to be banned or withdrawn, he is still not a fundamentalist because in Hinduism free speech is also fundamental. At best he can be called retarded but not fundamentalist.
*సురేష్ కొలిచాలకి ఏం తెల్సు ఇలా రాయడానికి అని ఆయన్ని ఎటాక్ చేసేవాళ్ళే ఎక్కువగా కనబడుతున్నా.*
ఒకడు గారు,
సురేష్ గారు అమేరికాలో ఉన్నా,ఆంధ్రాలో ఉన్నా భేదం ఏమి లేదు. చర్చను దాడి అంటే ఎలా? సహేతుకమైన చర్చను, ప్రశ్నలను ఇప్పటికే యోగ గారు వేశారు. వ్యాస రచయిత గారు 14 పేజిల వ్యాసం రాసి,చివరికి చెప్పదలచుకొంది ఎమిటి? “భారతీయ సంస్కృతిని రక్షిస్తున్నాం అని రొమ్ములు విరుచుకుంటున్న వారిచేతిలోనే మన సంస్కృతికి బమియన్ బుద్ధుల విగ్రహాలకు పట్టిన గతి పట్టకుండా చూసుకోవాల్సిన తక్షణావసరం మనందరిదీ కూడా!” పాకిస్తాన్ గురించి తెలిసినవారు,,జియో పాలిటిక్స్ మీద అవగాహన ఉన్నవారు ఇలా రాయరు. సహేతుకంగా ప్రశ్నించే వారిని హిందుత్వవాదులని ,వారేదో ఫ్రీ స్పీచ్ కి వ్యతిరేకులు, ఛాందస వాదులు అనే విధంగా ముద్రవేయటం ఎంత మాత్రం సబబు కాదు.
————-
ఈ వ్యాసంలో,రచయిత నెరేషన్ ఎలా ఉందంటే చదివితే జిన్నా గారు ఉదారవాదిగా, బాత్రగారు సంకుచిత వాదిగా కళ్ల ముందు కదలాడుతారు. బాత్రా గారొక్కరే కాదు పాకిస్తాన్ లోని చిన్ననాటి ఊరు,బడి,దేవాలయము గుర్తు చేసుకుంటూ ఉండేది, అవతలి వైపు వారు కూడా గుర్తు చేసుకొంట్టుంటారు.
“నవాజ్ షరీఫ్ సోదరుడు, పాకిస్థాన్లోని పంజాబ్ ముఖ్యమంత్రి షహాబాజ్ షరీఫ్ ఇటీవల భారత్లోని తమ పూర్వీకుల గ్రామాన్ని సందర్శించారు. ముఖ్యమంత్రి ప్రకాశ్ సింగ్ బాదల్, ఉప ముఖ్యమంత్రి సుఖ్బీర్ సింగ్ బాదల్ వెంట రాగా ప్రత్యేక హెలికాఫ్టర్లో గ్రామంలో దిగిన షహాబాజ్ షరీఫ్ గ్రామ మట్టిని తాకి దాన్ని ముద్దాడినట్లుగా వార్తలొచ్చాయి. ప్రస్తుతం గురుద్వారగా ఉన్న తమ పూర్వీకుల ఇల్లు గోడలను తాకి ఉద్వేగానికి లోనైన పాకిస్థానీ ముఖ్యమంత్రి విధి వ్రాతను బట్టి తమ తండ్రి ఈ గ్రామం నుంచి వెళ్ళిపోవడంతో తాను పాకిస్థాన్లో జన్మించానని లేనిచో తాను కూడా ఈ ఊరి పుత్రుడినేనంటూ చెప్పారు. యువకుడిగా తన తండ్రి వెంట 1964లో గ్రామాన్ని సందర్శించినప్పటి జ్ఞాపకాలను ఆయన నెమరు వేసుకొన్నారు. ” http://www.andhrajyothy.com/node/44732
One very gratifying instance, he says, was removing the reference to Bhagat Singh as a terrorist in a textbook; the opposing counsel for NCERT was the lawyer Prashant Bhushan, a worthy opponent. But Batra is not one to shy away from a fight; he goes in fully prepared. Hours are spent on research and follow ups and as if to prove his point a well thumbed and flagged copy of Doniger’s book rests on the table.
Atanu Dey, one of the writers I admire (and I am proud to say one of my best friends too) had a few bunch of articles on free speech. Type in Free speech category and there are some good articles to read.
He also wrote about this issue during the time when the book was released. Interesting read for the interested readers.
As far as hate speech is concerned: I don’t think it is to be restricted. However, there should be relevant laws to deal with consequences of hate speech.
For eg, Koran may encourage its believers to kill non-believers. Koran itself need not be burned or banned but there should be effective laws to deal with it such that the consequences of the intended hate speech are costly enough. I sincerely hope eemaaTa doesn’t edit this!
Here it is important to recognize the idea of negative and positive rights. Note negative and positive are not used in any evaluative sense. Freedom of speech is a negative right. However, when hate speech is being used, it imposes restriction on other people’s freedom (say right to live or right to be left alone). Some cannot claim freedom of speech if they themselves are restricting it to others. That is where you draw the line for hate speech.
In Wendy’s case, she is not restricting anyone’s freedom of speech even if her book is “denigrating” to some. She is not restricting anyone from rebutting it. Therefore, it is ok.
A nice post in Atanu Dey’s blog on this is illustrated here:
Precisely that was my point. The law is flawed. It is not even Indian law — it was the British law, from another era. If we use Indian historical precedents, we should severely restrict this law.
That is why, I am finding fault with the law; and those that are also using the law. Slightly less for Penguin.
Satanic verses, I recall, was banned by the Govt, I think. I don’t have the list handy, but we can find fiction books banned by the courts, often from obscure parts of India as well.
Vasu: Is India ready for free speech? I think India had free speech, when rest of the world did not. That is, poets, philosophers, and religious leaders regularly indulged in debates, even slinging nasty words at each other. While sometimes this animosity spilled over into political intrigue, I don’t think it was considered “legal”. Consider Christianity up until recent times. And, Islam, in the modern age. Apostasy is considered a crime punishable by death. Indian versions of these religions absorbed the more open Hindu approach.
See some of the works of Veera Saivites against Vaishnavites to understand the venom that was acceptable to the public. Public, by and large, were very accommodating. No wonder, Sufism flourished here. And, in some villages, Christ also was considered one of the avatars (for instance, mine :-)).
Within this backdrop, the modern highly ossified classist country like the British have given us the current insecurities. And,the strict divide between Hindu and Muslim. And, sanitized versions of Hinduism (which was, ironically, Wendy’s point). And, as reactions created stricter versions of Islam (See Deobandh brand of Islam).
I think, looking at the current political situation, the best thing we can do is to take away legal coverage for some umbrage. We keep reading about AP politicians how their sensibilities are hurt — it is not government’s role to protect the sensibilities. As per correcting inaccuracies, let the debates bloom!
As per hate speech — I suppose it is difficult to codify it. The best way is to establish right precedence. Someday, I will write about laws to express my views on creating and evolving laws. Hint: it has not much to with democracy.
Curious question: Was Satanic Verses banned by courts in a court battle or by the Government. I think there is a distinction and India can have the dubious distinction of having both distinctions validated…:-).
BTW, Batra used the laws of the land. So, like I keep saying – it is the state policy in question and the fact that India is not really a free country. Time and again governments intervene. There have been numerous instances in the recent past where social media is being curbed…
1. Complaining does not mean complaining to court. That is, one can complain about the work, without using the state apparatus such as courts.
2. Even though I have been outside India long time, I visit frequently enough to realize that India is far from a Banana republic. We can worry that it might get there. But, I give India and Indians in general, lot more credit.
3. I actually welcome the challenging part. I think challenge is good. As I said in my first post, which Raghu sir said that nobody noticed :-), west went through lot of convolutions to arrive at acceptable forums of debate. We, in India, had acceptable forums of debate, from Sankara and Mandana Misra, and so many other instances.
4. Courts do use offense to large sections as a reason. We don’t know what the outcome could be, but if we look at history (see Satanic Verses, a fictional work, how it was banned), we see that there have been enough precedents.
5. I think this book, while not setting any precedents, because these things have happened several times before, reinforces the idea that peeved parties in India take to court, instead of using other forums.
I think it is true that the peeved parties may not have access to the right forums. For instance, clearly, Mr. Batra cannot write well in English, limiting his ability to rebut the arguments. He is also does not seem well-versed in other religions to know the distinction between Christianity and Judaism. However, unfortunately, the onus is on him to a) work through the standard channels, or b) create alternate channels of discourse. Legal channel ain’t it.
Or, other people who considered the work to be flawed, that do not suffer from such handicaps, perhaps use the same standard forums to dispute the book. Looks like Rajiv may be trying to do that. What Mr. Batra has done seems to be like a petulant child who complained and had the ball taken away under the threat of the principal, instead of playing the game according to the rules or even changing the rules and convincing the majority. I feel worse, because he is doing it in my name, as a born Hindu. My association with Wendy is far tenuous, just a fellow human being.
I followed it all and am fine with all view points. I am wondering if it’s possible to stick my neck out without reading the book by WD. The only question I ask the free speech fundamentalists or liberals to use a milder version, (including me) like the author of the essay, Suresh K and Rama Kanneganti et al is this : Do you really believe India is ready for free-for-all free speech? It is perfectly ok to equate free speech with right to vote. It’s democracy for all.
Let’s imagine that the relevant sections are revised to protect all free speech, all academic research publications and discourses on all religions, cultures and all scriptures and sacred texts. We need to address the fact that there are laws, for in their absence, none (not even hard core religious fundamentalists) would “take recourse to courts”. what are the predictable consequences of this? Hate speech is free speech. Those who file petitions to ‘revise laws” need to ensure that hate speech is curbed. How do you do that? No liberal encourages hate speech, although some are thick-skinned enough to tolerate it. This is what interests me.
Just to clarify: I did not claim that California case is similar to Wendy’s. I mentioned it in the context of going through a legal course. And also during that time it did not stifle free speech. Infact, it did otherwise. The deliberations went quite a while.
I do take your point that school books are mandated,etc. I did not think that way.
Coming to the other point:
In India, of course we suffer from lack of freedom in general. So, as long as there is a state policy, there is always a possibility to file a case using that policy to an advantage – regardless of one’s religious affiliation.
Yes, I agree that books should not be banned but one has the right to complain if he finds something offensive in whatever form – reviews, critique (and even in legal form in banana republics like India). You can’t do much about it.
The only question is when something that is out-rightly wrong is going unchallenged. One might argue that no one might read Wendy’s book,etc. But that is not the case. Wendy carries enough influence in her field and referenced as well. Besides, Hinduism studies in America being closed to insiders, there is no insider opinion of the contexts, etc.
As far as I understand, the petition (however juvenile way it is written and sounds stupid), did not call for banning of the book. Batra can’t speak for all Hindus for him to ask Wendy an apology for all the millions of Hindus. Batra asked the objectionable portions be removed.
It should be noted that the courts don’t take being offended as a real reason. In the two years, it is quite possible that there were enough deliberations as I am sure courts wouldn’t agree for “objectionable portions” be removed as well. The deliberations are important. If any, our fight should be with Penguin.
Batra may have a foot in the mouth disease to rejoice this and come to a settlement but I am hoping the deliberations of the actual case should be made open.
If the whole case revolved around this petition, then I am not sure why it took two years or more. Any reasonable person could dismiss it easily – unless Indian law itself is so pathetic. A long essay is not necessary to realize this. So, there must be (and I do believe based on Raghu garu’s analysis as well as Rajiv Malhotra’s assessment) inaccuracies which either Wendy or Penguin refused to address. Therefore, outcome of this case is not bad. It will set a precedent for any inaccuracies to not go unchallenged.
At some point I will probably read this book from the interest generated here (when of course I get it for free).
అనువాదం సరళంగా ఉంది. “ఊపిరి పీల్చుకోడానికి కూడా తీరిక ఉండదు, చెవి గోక్కోడానికి కూడా సమయం ఉండదంటే అతిశయోక్తి కాదు.” అన్న వాక్యం తమాషాగా ఉంది. మొదటి భాగం చాలు. రెండవది కూడా చెప్పాలంటే అది వాక్యంలోమొదట ఉండి ఉంటే బాగుంటుంది. బహుశః మూలకథలో కూడా వాక్యం ఇలాగే ఉందేమో.
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Yoga అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 4:23 pm
I think after reading the India Today piece posted by Mr Srinivas above, I must admit, I have probably been too condescending towards Mr. Batra in my previous comment. I regret calling Batra a retard and take it back. My relationship with him is as tenuous as others’ with Wendy – a simple human relationship.
I hope the essay author Mr Suresh also corrects his references/insinuations to him as Hindu Fundamentalist. He definitely is not – by attitude as well as by definition of fundamentalism.
This being said, the way the petition was written as seen from the outlook seems pretty juvenile. If the India Today version of this man is true, then he can’t be this careless in the wording.
Has Outlook posted it as is or (as it is wont to do with regards to Hindu causes) added its own masala…
Sincerely
Yoga
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Yoga అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 2:38 pm
As said by Vasu garu:
“The only question I ask the free speech fundamentalists or liberals to use a milder version”…
Vasu garu, I am surprised you need to say liberals as milder version. There is nothing wrong in being a fundamentalist. The word carries a loaded sense because of the wrong usage and loose vocabulary by many. This is why I am always careful about language precision (I do keep making mistakes as well). In fact, I admire the free speech fundamentalists and so should others.
The wikipedia definition of fundamentalism:
“is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines”
or to put in another way: Strict adherence to fundamentals.
To illustrate it better. Try answering this question:
Given to select one choice of the two: to live with a Muslim fundamentalist and a Jain fundamentalist – which one would you to choose to live with (although in the former case it could turn out to be an oxymoron).
In general fundamentalism is not a bad thing. It is only in the usage of loose vocabulary clubbing every fundamentalism with Islamic or Christianity (which are inherently prone to fundamentalism) the word has lost its essence. For eg, anyone who is questioning Wendy’s integrity tends to be branded as Hindu Fundamentalist…When that is not the case.
For that matter, even Batra cannot be called a Hindu Fundametalist. He is not sticking to orthodox Hindu practices. He can’t be a fundamentalist unless he says non-brahmins are not allowed to read any Vedic scriptures, not allowed to say Gayatri mantra, Brahmins can’t do business, one should follow strict rules of vanaprastha, etc…which are more or less fundamental to Hinduism (although there may be some exceptions). Hinduism in general evolved with times…So, this might seem a non-issue now.
Even if we think that by filing cases asking for books to be banned or withdrawn, he is still not a fundamentalist because in Hinduism free speech is also fundamental. At best he can be called retarded but not fundamentalist.
Loose vocabulary can be dangerous.
Sincerely
Yoga
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Srinivas అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 2:18 pm
*సురేష్ కొలిచాలకి ఏం తెల్సు ఇలా రాయడానికి అని ఆయన్ని ఎటాక్ చేసేవాళ్ళే ఎక్కువగా కనబడుతున్నా.*
ఒకడు గారు,
సురేష్ గారు అమేరికాలో ఉన్నా,ఆంధ్రాలో ఉన్నా భేదం ఏమి లేదు. చర్చను దాడి అంటే ఎలా? సహేతుకమైన చర్చను, ప్రశ్నలను ఇప్పటికే యోగ గారు వేశారు. వ్యాస రచయిత గారు 14 పేజిల వ్యాసం రాసి,చివరికి చెప్పదలచుకొంది ఎమిటి? “భారతీయ సంస్కృతిని రక్షిస్తున్నాం అని రొమ్ములు విరుచుకుంటున్న వారిచేతిలోనే మన సంస్కృతికి బమియన్ బుద్ధుల విగ్రహాలకు పట్టిన గతి పట్టకుండా చూసుకోవాల్సిన తక్షణావసరం మనందరిదీ కూడా!” పాకిస్తాన్ గురించి తెలిసినవారు,,జియో పాలిటిక్స్ మీద అవగాహన ఉన్నవారు ఇలా రాయరు. సహేతుకంగా ప్రశ్నించే వారిని హిందుత్వవాదులని ,వారేదో ఫ్రీ స్పీచ్ కి వ్యతిరేకులు, ఛాందస వాదులు అనే విధంగా ముద్రవేయటం ఎంత మాత్రం సబబు కాదు.
————-
ఈ వ్యాసంలో,రచయిత నెరేషన్ ఎలా ఉందంటే చదివితే జిన్నా గారు ఉదారవాదిగా, బాత్రగారు సంకుచిత వాదిగా కళ్ల ముందు కదలాడుతారు. బాత్రా గారొక్కరే కాదు పాకిస్తాన్ లోని చిన్ననాటి ఊరు,బడి,దేవాలయము గుర్తు చేసుకుంటూ ఉండేది, అవతలి వైపు వారు కూడా గుర్తు చేసుకొంట్టుంటారు.
“నవాజ్ షరీఫ్ సోదరుడు, పాకిస్థాన్లోని పంజాబ్ ముఖ్యమంత్రి షహాబాజ్ షరీఫ్ ఇటీవల భారత్లోని తమ పూర్వీకుల గ్రామాన్ని సందర్శించారు. ముఖ్యమంత్రి ప్రకాశ్ సింగ్ బాదల్, ఉప ముఖ్యమంత్రి సుఖ్బీర్ సింగ్ బాదల్ వెంట రాగా ప్రత్యేక హెలికాఫ్టర్లో గ్రామంలో దిగిన షహాబాజ్ షరీఫ్ గ్రామ మట్టిని తాకి దాన్ని ముద్దాడినట్లుగా వార్తలొచ్చాయి. ప్రస్తుతం గురుద్వారగా ఉన్న తమ పూర్వీకుల ఇల్లు గోడలను తాకి ఉద్వేగానికి లోనైన పాకిస్థానీ ముఖ్యమంత్రి విధి వ్రాతను బట్టి తమ తండ్రి ఈ గ్రామం నుంచి వెళ్ళిపోవడంతో తాను పాకిస్థాన్లో జన్మించానని లేనిచో తాను కూడా ఈ ఊరి పుత్రుడినేనంటూ చెప్పారు. యువకుడిగా తన తండ్రి వెంట 1964లో గ్రామాన్ని సందర్శించినప్పటి జ్ఞాపకాలను ఆయన నెమరు వేసుకొన్నారు. ”
http://www.andhrajyothy.com/node/44732
One very gratifying instance, he says, was removing the reference to Bhagat Singh as a terrorist in a textbook; the opposing counsel for NCERT was the lawyer Prashant Bhushan, a worthy opponent. But Batra is not one to shy away from a fight; he goes in fully prepared. Hours are spent on research and follow ups and as if to prove his point a well thumbed and flagged copy of Doniger’s book rests on the table.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/meeting-the-book-ban-man-advaita-kala-wendy-doniger/1/346242.html
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Yoga అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 1:39 pm
@Ramarao Garu and Vasu garu (and others):
Atanu Dey, one of the writers I admire (and I am proud to say one of my best friends too) had a few bunch of articles on free speech. Type in Free speech category and there are some good articles to read.
He also wrote about this issue during the time when the book was released. Interesting read for the interested readers.
As far as hate speech is concerned: I don’t think it is to be restricted. However, there should be relevant laws to deal with consequences of hate speech.
For eg, Koran may encourage its believers to kill non-believers. Koran itself need not be burned or banned but there should be effective laws to deal with it such that the consequences of the intended hate speech are costly enough. I sincerely hope eemaaTa doesn’t edit this!
Here it is important to recognize the idea of negative and positive rights. Note negative and positive are not used in any evaluative sense. Freedom of speech is a negative right. However, when hate speech is being used, it imposes restriction on other people’s freedom (say right to live or right to be left alone). Some cannot claim freedom of speech if they themselves are restricting it to others. That is where you draw the line for hate speech.
In Wendy’s case, she is not restricting anyone’s freedom of speech even if her book is “denigrating” to some. She is not restricting anyone from rebutting it. Therefore, it is ok.
A nice post in Atanu Dey’s blog on this is illustrated here:
It is a very insightful post. Do read it.
Sincerely
Yoga
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Rama kanneganti అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 12:45 pm
Yoga garu:
Precisely that was my point. The law is flawed. It is not even Indian law — it was the British law, from another era. If we use Indian historical precedents, we should severely restrict this law.
That is why, I am finding fault with the law; and those that are also using the law. Slightly less for Penguin.
Satanic verses, I recall, was banned by the Govt, I think. I don’t have the list handy, but we can find fiction books banned by the courts, often from obscure parts of India as well.
Vasu: Is India ready for free speech? I think India had free speech, when rest of the world did not. That is, poets, philosophers, and religious leaders regularly indulged in debates, even slinging nasty words at each other. While sometimes this animosity spilled over into political intrigue, I don’t think it was considered “legal”. Consider Christianity up until recent times. And, Islam, in the modern age. Apostasy is considered a crime punishable by death. Indian versions of these religions absorbed the more open Hindu approach.
See some of the works of Veera Saivites against Vaishnavites to understand the venom that was acceptable to the public. Public, by and large, were very accommodating. No wonder, Sufism flourished here. And, in some villages, Christ also was considered one of the avatars (for instance, mine :-)).
Within this backdrop, the modern highly ossified classist country like the British have given us the current insecurities. And,the strict divide between Hindu and Muslim. And, sanitized versions of Hinduism (which was, ironically, Wendy’s point). And, as reactions created stricter versions of Islam (See Deobandh brand of Islam).
I think, looking at the current political situation, the best thing we can do is to take away legal coverage for some umbrage. We keep reading about AP politicians how their sensibilities are hurt — it is not government’s role to protect the sensibilities. As per correcting inaccuracies, let the debates bloom!
As per hate speech — I suppose it is difficult to codify it. The best way is to establish right precedence. Someday, I will write about laws to express my views on creating and evolving laws. Hint: it has not much to with democracy.
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Yoga అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 12:19 pm
Rama Rao garu,
Curious question: Was Satanic Verses banned by courts in a court battle or by the Government. I think there is a distinction and India can have the dubious distinction of having both distinctions validated…:-).
BTW, Batra used the laws of the land. So, like I keep saying – it is the state policy in question and the fact that India is not really a free country. Time and again governments intervene. There have been numerous instances in the recent past where social media is being curbed…
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Rama kanneganti అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 12:04 pm
A few points responding to Yoga garu:
1. Complaining does not mean complaining to court. That is, one can complain about the work, without using the state apparatus such as courts.
2. Even though I have been outside India long time, I visit frequently enough to realize that India is far from a Banana republic. We can worry that it might get there. But, I give India and Indians in general, lot more credit.
3. I actually welcome the challenging part. I think challenge is good. As I said in my first post, which Raghu sir said that nobody noticed :-), west went through lot of convolutions to arrive at acceptable forums of debate. We, in India, had acceptable forums of debate, from Sankara and Mandana Misra, and so many other instances.
4. Courts do use offense to large sections as a reason. We don’t know what the outcome could be, but if we look at history (see Satanic Verses, a fictional work, how it was banned), we see that there have been enough precedents.
5. I think this book, while not setting any precedents, because these things have happened several times before, reinforces the idea that peeved parties in India take to court, instead of using other forums.
I think it is true that the peeved parties may not have access to the right forums. For instance, clearly, Mr. Batra cannot write well in English, limiting his ability to rebut the arguments. He is also does not seem well-versed in other religions to know the distinction between Christianity and Judaism. However, unfortunately, the onus is on him to a) work through the standard channels, or b) create alternate channels of discourse. Legal channel ain’t it.
Or, other people who considered the work to be flawed, that do not suffer from such handicaps, perhaps use the same standard forums to dispute the book. Looks like Rajiv may be trying to do that. What Mr. Batra has done seems to be like a petulant child who complained and had the ball taken away under the threat of the principal, instead of playing the game according to the rules or even changing the rules and convincing the majority. I feel worse, because he is doing it in my name, as a born Hindu. My association with Wendy is far tenuous, just a fellow human being.
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Vasu అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 11:33 am
I followed it all and am fine with all view points. I am wondering if it’s possible to stick my neck out without reading the book by WD. The only question I ask the free speech fundamentalists or liberals to use a milder version, (including me) like the author of the essay, Suresh K and Rama Kanneganti et al is this : Do you really believe India is ready for free-for-all free speech? It is perfectly ok to equate free speech with right to vote. It’s democracy for all.
Let’s imagine that the relevant sections are revised to protect all free speech, all academic research publications and discourses on all religions, cultures and all scriptures and sacred texts. We need to address the fact that there are laws, for in their absence, none (not even hard core religious fundamentalists) would “take recourse to courts”. what are the predictable consequences of this? Hate speech is free speech. Those who file petitions to ‘revise laws” need to ensure that hate speech is curbed. How do you do that? No liberal encourages hate speech, although some are thick-skinned enough to tolerate it. This is what interests me.
Vasu (Nyayaypathi Srinivasa Rao)
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Yoga అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 11:23 am
Rama rao garu,
Just to clarify: I did not claim that California case is similar to Wendy’s. I mentioned it in the context of going through a legal course. And also during that time it did not stifle free speech. Infact, it did otherwise. The deliberations went quite a while.
I do take your point that school books are mandated,etc. I did not think that way.
Coming to the other point:
In India, of course we suffer from lack of freedom in general. So, as long as there is a state policy, there is always a possibility to file a case using that policy to an advantage – regardless of one’s religious affiliation.
Yes, I agree that books should not be banned but one has the right to complain if he finds something offensive in whatever form – reviews, critique (and even in legal form in banana republics like India). You can’t do much about it.
The only question is when something that is out-rightly wrong is going unchallenged. One might argue that no one might read Wendy’s book,etc. But that is not the case. Wendy carries enough influence in her field and referenced as well. Besides, Hinduism studies in America being closed to insiders, there is no insider opinion of the contexts, etc.
As far as I understand, the petition (however juvenile way it is written and sounds stupid), did not call for banning of the book. Batra can’t speak for all Hindus for him to ask Wendy an apology for all the millions of Hindus. Batra asked the objectionable portions be removed.
It should be noted that the courts don’t take being offended as a real reason. In the two years, it is quite possible that there were enough deliberations as I am sure courts wouldn’t agree for “objectionable portions” be removed as well. The deliberations are important. If any, our fight should be with Penguin.
Batra may have a foot in the mouth disease to rejoice this and come to a settlement but I am hoping the deliberations of the actual case should be made open.
If the whole case revolved around this petition, then I am not sure why it took two years or more. Any reasonable person could dismiss it easily – unless Indian law itself is so pathetic. A long essay is not necessary to realize this. So, there must be (and I do believe based on Raghu garu’s analysis as well as Rajiv Malhotra’s assessment) inaccuracies which either Wendy or Penguin refused to address. Therefore, outcome of this case is not bad. It will set a precedent for any inaccuracies to not go unchallenged.
At some point I will probably read this book from the interest generated here (when of course I get it for free).
Sincerely
Yoga
నీలి తలపాగా గురించి తాడిగడప శ్యామలరావు అభిప్రాయం:
03/07/2014 10:49 am
అనువాదం సరళంగా ఉంది. “ఊపిరి పీల్చుకోడానికి కూడా తీరిక ఉండదు, చెవి గోక్కోడానికి కూడా సమయం ఉండదంటే అతిశయోక్తి కాదు.” అన్న వాక్యం తమాషాగా ఉంది. మొదటి భాగం చాలు. రెండవది కూడా చెప్పాలంటే అది వాక్యంలోమొదట ఉండి ఉంటే బాగుంటుంది. బహుశః మూలకథలో కూడా వాక్యం ఇలాగే ఉందేమో.