టీన్ ఏజ్ అంటేనే తెలిసీ తెలియని వయసు అని ఊరికే అనలేదు. నమ్మిన విషయన్ని తొందరగా మార్చుకోలేరు. ఈ విషయం మీ కధలో చాల చక్కగా వివరించారు. మీ కధ ఎక్కడా ఆగకుండా చదివించింది రాధ మండువ గారు. మీ కలం నుంచి ఇలాంటి మరిన్ని కధలు జాలువారాలని ఆశిస్తూ — వడ్లమాని బాలసుందరి.
1964 లో సెక్షన్ 292 క్రింద నిషేధించబడ్డ వివాదాస్పదమైన పుస్తకం Lady Chatterley’s Lover ( D.H.Lawrence) 1960 దాకా బ్రిటన్ లోనే అచ్చు పడలేదు. Aసక్తి కలిగించే విషయం ఈ నవల కూDA పెంగ్విన్ ప్రచురణే, పోతే అక్కడ వ్యవహారం కోర్టుదాకా వచ్చి నిషేధం తొలిగింది. అమెరికాలో కూడా పరిస్థితి ఏమంత భిన్నంగా లేదు. నిషేధానికి కారణం అశ్లీలమన్న ఆరోపణే. మతం పట్టు సడలి, వ్యక్తివాదం బలపడి, ఎన్నో రకాలుగా ముందంజ వేసిన పాశ్చాత్య సమాజాలే కొన్ని పుస్తకాల విషయమై క్రిందా మీదా అయినాయి అంటే మత పరంగా జనాభా పరంగా ఎంతో సంకీర్ణమైన భారత దేశంలో ఇటువంటి సంఘటనలు జరగడం ఒక పరిణామ క్రమంలో భాగంగా తీసుకోవాలి; పెంగ్విన్ కోర్టు బయట రాజీపడటం నాకు ఆశ్చర్యం కలిగించింది, వాద ప్రతివాదాలు తెలుసుకొనే అవకాశం లేకుండా పోయింది భావి తరాలకు ; లారెన్స్ నవల విషయంలో మనకు వాద ప్రతి వాదాలు తెలుసు, అది ఇప్పుడు పుస్తక ప్రచురణ చరిత్రలో భాగం. కొద్దో గొప్పో ఉదార భావ జాలం వంట బట్టించుకున్న మన సామాజిక రాజకీయ వ్యవస్థకు పరమత అసహనంలో వేళ్ళూనికి పోయి నామ మాత్ర అస్తిత్వం గల పాకిస్తాన్ రాజకీయ సామాజిక వ్యవస్థకు ఏ మాత్రం సంబంధం లేదు.
ఇక పోతే, ఐదేళ్ళ క్రిందట టైమ్స్ లిటరరి సప్లిమెంట్ లో ఈ పుస్తకమ్మీద ఒక సమీక్ష వచ్చింది. పుస్తకం బాగోగులు, రచయిత్రి లోటుపాట్లు క్లుప్తంగా తెలుసుకోగోరే వారికి ఉపకరిస్తుంది. ఇంకా విశదంగా కావాలి అంటే షుల్మన్ రాసిన సమీక్ష.
0. I still couldn’t read it completely but with a quick scan I say the following:
1. The essay is too long with lot of needless details
2. Does eemaaTa have a word limit for essays?
3. Was this peer reviewed and followed the same process like it does for other entries? I am appalled that a mediocre essay like this being accepted by eemaaTa. Just because someone throws lot of information and references or the author self-proclaims that it is a “Detailed analysis” doesn’t make it a good essay.
4. It is not clear what the author is trying to convey. There is absolutely no clarity in thought of the author nor any insights coming out of this essay. It seems like too much of information ending with a very bizarre conclusion.
5. The author should clarify what is the problem first. Is it Indian penal code or is it Hindutva. He seems to think latter but in this Wendy Doniger case, it has nothing to do with Hindutva. Besides, for all his “research” if one types in wikipedia the list of books banned in India (takes five seconds), it will perhaps clear the ignorance of the author.
I don’t know what is Hundutva nor what the author means is Hindutva but somehow the author comes to this bizarre conclusion that Hindutva is more dangerous to Hinduism and Hindus? Was Hindutva reason for all this list of banned/unimportable books?
6. It has to be understood that India is not a free country. We live just under an illusion. There was never free speech (British and later and current times). India is also not a secular country. There is a clear state policy supporting specific religions. The wiki list will educate the author and others that book banning and courts intervention are routine regardless of the religious affiliations. With his selective treatment of the problem and the bizarre conclusion that he draws, it seems to me that the author is at best ignorant or at worst intellectually dishonest.
7. Teaching and pontificating Hindus about debate is another unnecessary attempt. And how Hinduism is open adnauseum doesn’t add any value to the (confused) problem the author is trying to tackle. The author however should clarify in what context ancient Hindus debated, and educate us on the Purvapaksha tradition. Then, he should clarify if Wendy and her ilk, and the all non-Hindu religions and if Christianity and Islam also agree to the rules of this tradition. This will add value to the essay.
8. The author also conveniently seems to ignore the glaring errors pointed out by readers like Raghottama Rao garu (ref: His FB timeline).
9. The context of the problem needs to be defined after removing all the needless details. The problem is simple. Wendy Doniger published a book. Some Hindus found it offensive and they are well within their rights to file a law suit based on the laws of the land. They did that. The court case ran for two years or so and Penguin withdrew the books themselves voluntarily. The reasons are known only to them. So, where is Hindutva (whatever that means), or un-openness of Hindus coming from?
10. The question to address is whether there are errors in the text as agreed by experts (and I do think there are as pointed out not only by Raghu garu but also from Rajiv Malhotra’s assessment). If so, why can’t Wendy agree to correct those? Can the author clarify if the open debate rules of Hindus apply to her also? Of course if there are not errors and why she thinks so should be clarified. I guess this is what happened in the two year court case. However, if Penguin thought strategically it makes sense for them to withdraw, it is their problem. Why is it Hindus’ problem? Just so that the author and educate themselves on this matter: Penguin withdrawing books is not happening the first time: It happened before:
11. More later… once I manage to complete this extremely long essay… eemaaTa should spare its readers from ordeals of this kind…
12. I hope the author addresses these and either modify his essay or write a rejoinder considering there has been enough discussion on the subject matter also.
There is a sister to section 295 called section 292 that deals with books containing erotic and sexual content. It is under this section that rAdhikAsAMtvanamu, together with a few other books, was banned. Since the then British government found that the Raja of Venkatagiri was involved in the publication of the said books, the ban was sustained only in the case of muddupaLani’s book. One of the first acts of Premier Prakasam after independence was to lift this ban (a few of these were discussed in the essays on nAgaratnamma). Wendy’s book is not the only book that came under Section 295a. DhuNDhi (on vinAyaka from a daLit perspective), a kannaDa book was banned by the govt of Karanataka. The Tamil Nadu govt banned meeNDezhum pANDiyar varalAru (Resurgence of the Pandyan history that described that one of the daLits ruled the Pandyan kingdom). The Gujarat govt banned Jaswant Singh’s book on Jinnah. Remember Wendy’s book was not “banned” in India, it was withdrawn. The books are still there in libraries. One can have discussion on the book like here in eemATa and conduct seminars on it. Reading passages from it in public is another matter, though (remember the Satanic Verses incident).
The real problem in the application of Section 295 and such other sections is the difficulty in defining what is “hurt” (like hurting religious sentiments) which is the keyword when such books are banned. How is the “public order” disturbed is another matter. Since there are no definitions, they become quite subjective in interpretations.
Societies balance contradictory interests in interesting ways. On one hand, they have self-interest in perpetuating themselves. On the other hand, they need to rejuvenate themselves periodically. The self-interest part lays down the rules not to disturb the existing status-quo. After all, it was working to create a stable society, right? Often, they trample the human rights, the individual rights. But, in return they promise a stable society. Most religious rules fall under this category.
For instance, Christianity prohibits doubt; so does Islam, even more virulently. Hinduism, being a synchretic religion, does not allow itself to be so easily defined.
Now, coming to the part about rejuvenation. The western world, from Galileo to Holocaust revisionists, eventually come around treating dissidents well enough. Of course, historical baggage makes people wary of certain kinds of dissidence — for example, in Germany, Holocaust Revisionism is illegal.
The west, in particular, the US, has setup good enough legal structures to balance out these two perspectives. Pendulum keeps swinging occasionally — the post 9/11 world has seen erosion of such individual rights. England is considered notoriously bad in this aspect. That is, it doesn’t have a useful way of dealing with dissidence. On one hand, they have strong libel laws, that prevents even scientific research (valid, well-regarded, and almost uniform acceptance) from being published. On the other hand, they have strong commitment to free speech — enough to let even preaching against the free speech.
Now, India seems to have inherited this schizophrenia. It has some archaic laws that caters to sentiments of people, that place uneven burdens. Be it so — it is the prerogative of people how they govern themselves.
But, is it? In lot of ways, constitution guarantees the rights of individuals, to differ, to practice that which offends others. However, in practice, continual pandering by the powers led to a state where people worry about hurting the sentiments — minorities and majorities as well. That may lead to de-facto self-censoring.
In this background, Wendy Doniger’s writings represent a proxy fight. Suppose she is wrong. That doesn’t mean that there is legal obligation for her to correct it, unless there is *very* broad interpretation of libel laws or variants of it. Without taking a stand for or against the validity of her writing, I would like to make the statement that the law is too broad to make permit such a law suit. Now, we can think that Penguin is especially chicken — but looking at other legal precedents (ex: the book about Sahara guy etc), they may be justified in pulling back the book lest they should lose.
We can argue that the legal rules are fine as is — that is, they should prevent books being published if they are wrong, if they are bad propaganda, if they hurt the sentiments, and if they incite unrest. While this is a sliding scale, those that have very little regard or interest in people’s intelligence choose to continue to coddle them by this legal route.
Consider this: India has a long history of dissidence. It has a long history of alternative literature. Heck even alternative non-fiction (anybody read P.N. Oak?). And, considering the large population of India, even 1% agree with it, it will be larger than all the Swedes in the world :-). Many people postulated that it is something to do with the synchretic nature of Hinduism, which gave its strength against different religious movements.
It is interesting that the same Hindus are supporting these kind of laws that go against historical nature of discourse in India. Of course, we can say that Mr. Batra is actually, a Pakistani, and perhaps we might be true :-).
భగవద్గీత పై చర్చ ముగిసినట్టే కదండి? మీరుదహరించిన శ్లోకాలకు మీరు వ్రాసిన అనువాదాలు తప్పని ఒప్పుకున్నట్టే గదా! అవునైతే చెప్పండి. మీరుదహరించిన, వ్యాఖ్యానించిన రామాయణ శ్లోకాలపై చర్చిద్దాం.
గౌతమి గురించి V Balasundari అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 11:50 pm
టీన్ ఏజ్ అంటేనే తెలిసీ తెలియని వయసు అని ఊరికే అనలేదు. నమ్మిన విషయన్ని తొందరగా మార్చుకోలేరు. ఈ విషయం మీ కధలో చాల చక్కగా వివరించారు. మీ కధ ఎక్కడా ఆగకుండా చదివించింది రాధ మండువ గారు. మీ కలం నుంచి ఇలాంటి మరిన్ని కధలు జాలువారాలని ఆశిస్తూ — వడ్లమాని బాలసుందరి.
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి తమ్మినేని యదుకుల భూషణ్ అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 9:22 pm
1964 లో సెక్షన్ 292 క్రింద నిషేధించబడ్డ వివాదాస్పదమైన పుస్తకం Lady Chatterley’s Lover ( D.H.Lawrence) 1960 దాకా బ్రిటన్ లోనే అచ్చు పడలేదు. Aసక్తి కలిగించే విషయం ఈ నవల కూDA పెంగ్విన్ ప్రచురణే, పోతే అక్కడ వ్యవహారం కోర్టుదాకా వచ్చి నిషేధం తొలిగింది. అమెరికాలో కూడా పరిస్థితి ఏమంత భిన్నంగా లేదు. నిషేధానికి కారణం అశ్లీలమన్న ఆరోపణే. మతం పట్టు సడలి, వ్యక్తివాదం బలపడి, ఎన్నో రకాలుగా ముందంజ వేసిన పాశ్చాత్య సమాజాలే కొన్ని పుస్తకాల విషయమై క్రిందా మీదా అయినాయి అంటే మత పరంగా జనాభా పరంగా ఎంతో సంకీర్ణమైన భారత దేశంలో ఇటువంటి సంఘటనలు జరగడం ఒక పరిణామ క్రమంలో భాగంగా తీసుకోవాలి; పెంగ్విన్ కోర్టు బయట రాజీపడటం నాకు ఆశ్చర్యం కలిగించింది, వాద ప్రతివాదాలు తెలుసుకొనే అవకాశం లేకుండా పోయింది భావి తరాలకు ; లారెన్స్ నవల విషయంలో మనకు వాద ప్రతి వాదాలు తెలుసు, అది ఇప్పుడు పుస్తక ప్రచురణ చరిత్రలో భాగం. కొద్దో గొప్పో ఉదార భావ జాలం వంట బట్టించుకున్న మన సామాజిక రాజకీయ వ్యవస్థకు పరమత అసహనంలో వేళ్ళూనికి పోయి నామ మాత్ర అస్తిత్వం గల పాకిస్తాన్ రాజకీయ సామాజిక వ్యవస్థకు ఏ మాత్రం సంబంధం లేదు.
ఇక పోతే, ఐదేళ్ళ క్రిందట టైమ్స్ లిటరరి సప్లిమెంట్ లో ఈ పుస్తకమ్మీద ఒక సమీక్ష వచ్చింది. పుస్తకం బాగోగులు, రచయిత్రి లోటుపాట్లు క్లుప్తంగా తెలుసుకోగోరే వారికి ఉపకరిస్తుంది. ఇంకా విశదంగా కావాలి అంటే షుల్మన్ రాసిన సమీక్ష.
దేవకన్య గురించి కార్తీక్ అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 9:03 pm
మానస గారు… నిజంగా అద్భుతమైన దేవకన్యలా ఉంది కవిత.
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Yoga అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 6:48 pm
With all due respects to Suresh garu:
0. I still couldn’t read it completely but with a quick scan I say the following:
1. The essay is too long with lot of needless details
2. Does eemaaTa have a word limit for essays?
3. Was this peer reviewed and followed the same process like it does for other entries? I am appalled that a mediocre essay like this being accepted by eemaaTa. Just because someone throws lot of information and references or the author self-proclaims that it is a “Detailed analysis” doesn’t make it a good essay.
4. It is not clear what the author is trying to convey. There is absolutely no clarity in thought of the author nor any insights coming out of this essay. It seems like too much of information ending with a very bizarre conclusion.
5. The author should clarify what is the problem first. Is it Indian penal code or is it Hindutva. He seems to think latter but in this Wendy Doniger case, it has nothing to do with Hindutva. Besides, for all his “research” if one types in wikipedia the list of books banned in India (takes five seconds), it will perhaps clear the ignorance of the author.
I don’t know what is Hundutva nor what the author means is Hindutva but somehow the author comes to this bizarre conclusion that Hindutva is more dangerous to Hinduism and Hindus? Was Hindutva reason for all this list of banned/unimportable books?
6. It has to be understood that India is not a free country. We live just under an illusion. There was never free speech (British and later and current times). India is also not a secular country. There is a clear state policy supporting specific religions. The wiki list will educate the author and others that book banning and courts intervention are routine regardless of the religious affiliations. With his selective treatment of the problem and the bizarre conclusion that he draws, it seems to me that the author is at best ignorant or at worst intellectually dishonest.
7. Teaching and pontificating Hindus about debate is another unnecessary attempt. And how Hinduism is open adnauseum doesn’t add any value to the (confused) problem the author is trying to tackle. The author however should clarify in what context ancient Hindus debated, and educate us on the Purvapaksha tradition. Then, he should clarify if Wendy and her ilk, and the all non-Hindu religions and if Christianity and Islam also agree to the rules of this tradition. This will add value to the essay.
8. The author also conveniently seems to ignore the glaring errors pointed out by readers like Raghottama Rao garu (ref: His FB timeline).
9. The context of the problem needs to be defined after removing all the needless details. The problem is simple. Wendy Doniger published a book. Some Hindus found it offensive and they are well within their rights to file a law suit based on the laws of the land. They did that. The court case ran for two years or so and Penguin withdrew the books themselves voluntarily. The reasons are known only to them. So, where is Hindutva (whatever that means), or un-openness of Hindus coming from?
10. The question to address is whether there are errors in the text as agreed by experts (and I do think there are as pointed out not only by Raghu garu but also from Rajiv Malhotra’s assessment). If so, why can’t Wendy agree to correct those? Can the author clarify if the open debate rules of Hindus apply to her also? Of course if there are not errors and why she thinks so should be clarified. I guess this is what happened in the two year court case. However, if Penguin thought strategically it makes sense for them to withdraw, it is their problem. Why is it Hindus’ problem? Just so that the author and educate themselves on this matter: Penguin withdrawing books is not happening the first time: It happened before:
11. More later… once I manage to complete this extremely long essay… eemaaTa should spare its readers from ordeals of this kind…
12. I hope the author addresses these and either modify his essay or write a rejoinder considering there has been enough discussion on the subject matter also.
Sincerely
Yoga
గౌతమి గురించి srivasthava అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 3:42 pm
very nice….
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి J K Mohana Rao అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 1:31 pm
There is a sister to section 295 called section 292 that deals with books containing erotic and sexual content. It is under this section that rAdhikAsAMtvanamu, together with a few other books, was banned. Since the then British government found that the Raja of Venkatagiri was involved in the publication of the said books, the ban was sustained only in the case of muddupaLani’s book. One of the first acts of Premier Prakasam after independence was to lift this ban (a few of these were discussed in the essays on nAgaratnamma). Wendy’s book is not the only book that came under Section 295a. DhuNDhi (on vinAyaka from a daLit perspective), a kannaDa book was banned by the govt of Karanataka. The Tamil Nadu govt banned meeNDezhum pANDiyar varalAru (Resurgence of the Pandyan history that described that one of the daLits ruled the Pandyan kingdom). The Gujarat govt banned Jaswant Singh’s book on Jinnah. Remember Wendy’s book was not “banned” in India, it was withdrawn. The books are still there in libraries. One can have discussion on the book like here in eemATa and conduct seminars on it. Reading passages from it in public is another matter, though (remember the Satanic Verses incident).
The real problem in the application of Section 295 and such other sections is the difficulty in defining what is “hurt” (like hurting religious sentiments) which is the keyword when such books are banned. How is the “public order” disturbed is another matter. Since there are no definitions, they become quite subjective in interpretations.
yours truly, mOhana
గౌతమి గురించి ఆర్.దమయంతి. అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 1:00 pm
కథ బావుందండి. రచనా శైలి ఆకట్టుకుంది. కొన్ని తెలుగు పదాలు భలే ముచ్చట్లు పోయాయంటే నమ్మండి.:-)
అభినందనలు రాధ గారు.
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి Rama kanneganti అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 10:57 am
Societies balance contradictory interests in interesting ways. On one hand, they have self-interest in perpetuating themselves. On the other hand, they need to rejuvenate themselves periodically. The self-interest part lays down the rules not to disturb the existing status-quo. After all, it was working to create a stable society, right? Often, they trample the human rights, the individual rights. But, in return they promise a stable society. Most religious rules fall under this category.
For instance, Christianity prohibits doubt; so does Islam, even more virulently. Hinduism, being a synchretic religion, does not allow itself to be so easily defined.
Now, coming to the part about rejuvenation. The western world, from Galileo to Holocaust revisionists, eventually come around treating dissidents well enough. Of course, historical baggage makes people wary of certain kinds of dissidence — for example, in Germany, Holocaust Revisionism is illegal.
The west, in particular, the US, has setup good enough legal structures to balance out these two perspectives. Pendulum keeps swinging occasionally — the post 9/11 world has seen erosion of such individual rights. England is considered notoriously bad in this aspect. That is, it doesn’t have a useful way of dealing with dissidence. On one hand, they have strong libel laws, that prevents even scientific research (valid, well-regarded, and almost uniform acceptance) from being published. On the other hand, they have strong commitment to free speech — enough to let even preaching against the free speech.
Now, India seems to have inherited this schizophrenia. It has some archaic laws that caters to sentiments of people, that place uneven burdens. Be it so — it is the prerogative of people how they govern themselves.
But, is it? In lot of ways, constitution guarantees the rights of individuals, to differ, to practice that which offends others. However, in practice, continual pandering by the powers led to a state where people worry about hurting the sentiments — minorities and majorities as well. That may lead to de-facto self-censoring.
In this background, Wendy Doniger’s writings represent a proxy fight. Suppose she is wrong. That doesn’t mean that there is legal obligation for her to correct it, unless there is *very* broad interpretation of libel laws or variants of it. Without taking a stand for or against the validity of her writing, I would like to make the statement that the law is too broad to make permit such a law suit. Now, we can think that Penguin is especially chicken — but looking at other legal precedents (ex: the book about Sahara guy etc), they may be justified in pulling back the book lest they should lose.
We can argue that the legal rules are fine as is — that is, they should prevent books being published if they are wrong, if they are bad propaganda, if they hurt the sentiments, and if they incite unrest. While this is a sliding scale, those that have very little regard or interest in people’s intelligence choose to continue to coddle them by this legal route.
Consider this: India has a long history of dissidence. It has a long history of alternative literature. Heck even alternative non-fiction (anybody read P.N. Oak?). And, considering the large population of India, even 1% agree with it, it will be larger than all the Swedes in the world :-). Many people postulated that it is something to do with the synchretic nature of Hinduism, which gave its strength against different religious movements.
It is interesting that the same Hindus are supporting these kind of laws that go against historical nature of discourse in India. Of course, we can say that Mr. Batra is actually, a Pakistani, and perhaps we might be true :-).
హిందూమత చరిత్రలో ప్రత్యామ్నాయ కథనాలకు ఆస్కారం లేదా? గురించి రఘోత్తమరావు అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 10:34 am
సురేశ్ గారు,
భగవద్గీత పై చర్చ ముగిసినట్టే కదండి? మీరుదహరించిన శ్లోకాలకు మీరు వ్రాసిన అనువాదాలు తప్పని ఒప్పుకున్నట్టే గదా! అవునైతే చెప్పండి. మీరుదహరించిన, వ్యాఖ్యానించిన రామాయణ శ్లోకాలపై చర్చిద్దాం.
కోనసీమ కథలు: శిరోముండనం గురించి పంతుల గోపాల కృష్ణ అభిప్రాయం:
03/04/2014 10:12 am
చాలా మంచి కథ. సాయి గారికి అభినందనలు.