THE BOOK CONTROVERSY: THE HINDUS AND BEYOND
The recent events which have arisen concerning Indologist Wendy Doniger's book "The Hindus: An Alternative History" have divided India and presumably the world into two clear halves. One group are the right-wing activists who have filed a suit in court against the author and the publishers in a bid to safeguard the Sanatan principles of the religion. The other group comprises academics, scholars and presumably the educated youth as well- all rallying against the recent decision by the publishers to withdraw the book from India and destroy all remaining copies.
Following these events on television and elsewhere and also listening to the debates arranged in this regard in popular media, I was appalled at the sheer disregard for the genuine problem that marked both sides in this controversy. This incident had all the makings of a genuine tragedy-both parties were right and both were wrong, and none were ready to agree to disagree. The right-wings were adamant that the authoress had hurt sentiments of crores of Hindus and questioned her right of writing a book on Hindus-a religious group to which she did not belong. The academics were quick to retort, not with the academic logic that one would expect of them, but with base expressions condemning Indian laws and polity. The authoress herself surpasses all others in the blaming spree by uncouthly mocking her opponent in her blog post.
The real problem that plagues us in this respect is the attitude we should have towards books and their writers in cases when they offend or seem to offend our sensibilities. People will remember the treatment meted out to Taslima Nasreen and to Salman Rushdie, the more famous of the many writers who have been victimised on account of what they had been writing. Some would also draw parallels between those incidents and the present controversy, and rightly so. Others might even go as far as to link these episodes with book-burning sessions in Nazi Germany. In short, the controversy will continue.
The point of view that must be exercised in this regard is not one that will fuel the controversy, but one that will be capable of putting an end to it for present, and hopefully, for all time. As ambitious as that may sound, the only solution to a genuine tragedy is the sacrifice of one's ego. In the present tragedy, both Wendy Donniger and the "activists" (if they are so happy with the name, who am I to grudge?) come out as extremely egotistical. If books are to survive,and free thought is to prevail, then ego must be sacrificed. Whether you are right or wrong, if you stand your ground and criticise and ridicule everyone for what they have (or might) say against you, then you have no chance of success with your book. On the other side, if you are not allowing others to read a book simply because it did not meet your needs or expectations, you are making the basic flaw of generalisation by assuming that every man and woman is different from others. You must recognise that everyone has a choice to be either good or bad (or grey for that matter) and everyone has a right to make that choice. To summarise, the opposing parties are actually two sides of the same coin and the trick is to separate the coin, not enforcement of law, but engagement of law.
Authors and authoresses have in the past, and they will continue in the future, to express disdain with regard to established standards. Some of these disdainful remarks may be made out of spite, others out of genuine feeling and a bid to alter and improve the present conditions. It is up to the readers, to the common educated mass and every man for himself and every woman for herself to decide whether such books are to be read or condemned, but never to be banned. The Emperor of Literature, Bankimchandra Chatterjee was hugely condemned in his own life time by people belonging to his own religion as well by Muslims and Christians. He had written several essays on Hindusim and had, just like Donniger, earnt the ire of his fellow Hindus; he had written several novels such as "Anandamath" and had earnt the ire of Muslims; he had called the Christian faith as professed by the missionaries "A demonic affair" and had received a fair share of their spite as well. Iswarchandra Vidyasagar was attacked by the right-wings of his days because he had written books propagating widow remarriage and condemning polygamy. But, if the books had been banned in those days, would India ever had been a democracy? The writings of the 19th century reformers and thinkers not only gave a foundation to logical argument in India but also formed in its native society the outlook that lookouts can change.
This isn't to make out that Donniger is a great like the 19th century stalwarts, but say what if she was? What if she was the first in a new line of social scientists or thinkers, ushering in a new era of renaissance? What was prevalent in the 14th century cannot be accepted now. Had Galilieo been burnt at the stake, we would still have been thinking that the world ends somewhere. Had Copernicus been silenced, we would still have been content with the knowledge that we are the centre of the universe. The main problem, as I said above, with new discoveries or new thoughts is that they break the social homeostasis; they challenge existing notions and open issues which were held as settled (albeit doubtfully) to debate. They question our assumptions and show us that we don't know quite as much as we thought we did. In short, they hurt our ego, they show us how small or insignificant we truly are to truth an knowledge. This embarrasses man and man does not take kindly to embarrasment. He seeks revenge, and the easiest way of revenge is to ban all that which challenge his ego.
That is all there is to it. Ego and pride are the progenetors of prejudice. That is the reason why this is bigger than a single book and a single controversy, this is about the things which will come long after this controversy dies down. It's about everything that is yet to be banned that hurts man's foolish ego.It's about everything that's beyond the "Hindus". We might continue blaming and continue protest marches against banning of this book and the next one in line, but as long as we don't kill our egos, everything we do will crumble like a house of cards.
The real problem that plagues us in this respect is the attitude we should have towards books and their writers in cases when they offend or seem to offend our sensibilities. People will remember the treatment meted out to Taslima Nasreen and to Salman Rushdie, the more famous of the many writers who have been victimised on account of what they had been writing. Some would also draw parallels between those incidents and the present controversy, and rightly so. Others might even go as far as to link these episodes with book-burning sessions in Nazi Germany. In short, the controversy will continue.
The point of view that must be exercised in this regard is not one that will fuel the controversy, but one that will be capable of putting an end to it for present, and hopefully, for all time. As ambitious as that may sound, the only solution to a genuine tragedy is the sacrifice of one's ego. In the present tragedy, both Wendy Donniger and the "activists" (if they are so happy with the name, who am I to grudge?) come out as extremely egotistical. If books are to survive,and free thought is to prevail, then ego must be sacrificed. Whether you are right or wrong, if you stand your ground and criticise and ridicule everyone for what they have (or might) say against you, then you have no chance of success with your book. On the other side, if you are not allowing others to read a book simply because it did not meet your needs or expectations, you are making the basic flaw of generalisation by assuming that every man and woman is different from others. You must recognise that everyone has a choice to be either good or bad (or grey for that matter) and everyone has a right to make that choice. To summarise, the opposing parties are actually two sides of the same coin and the trick is to separate the coin, not enforcement of law, but engagement of law.
Authors and authoresses have in the past, and they will continue in the future, to express disdain with regard to established standards. Some of these disdainful remarks may be made out of spite, others out of genuine feeling and a bid to alter and improve the present conditions. It is up to the readers, to the common educated mass and every man for himself and every woman for herself to decide whether such books are to be read or condemned, but never to be banned. The Emperor of Literature, Bankimchandra Chatterjee was hugely condemned in his own life time by people belonging to his own religion as well by Muslims and Christians. He had written several essays on Hindusim and had, just like Donniger, earnt the ire of his fellow Hindus; he had written several novels such as "Anandamath" and had earnt the ire of Muslims; he had called the Christian faith as professed by the missionaries "A demonic affair" and had received a fair share of their spite as well. Iswarchandra Vidyasagar was attacked by the right-wings of his days because he had written books propagating widow remarriage and condemning polygamy. But, if the books had been banned in those days, would India ever had been a democracy? The writings of the 19th century reformers and thinkers not only gave a foundation to logical argument in India but also formed in its native society the outlook that lookouts can change.
This isn't to make out that Donniger is a great like the 19th century stalwarts, but say what if she was? What if she was the first in a new line of social scientists or thinkers, ushering in a new era of renaissance? What was prevalent in the 14th century cannot be accepted now. Had Galilieo been burnt at the stake, we would still have been thinking that the world ends somewhere. Had Copernicus been silenced, we would still have been content with the knowledge that we are the centre of the universe. The main problem, as I said above, with new discoveries or new thoughts is that they break the social homeostasis; they challenge existing notions and open issues which were held as settled (albeit doubtfully) to debate. They question our assumptions and show us that we don't know quite as much as we thought we did. In short, they hurt our ego, they show us how small or insignificant we truly are to truth an knowledge. This embarrasses man and man does not take kindly to embarrasment. He seeks revenge, and the easiest way of revenge is to ban all that which challenge his ego.
That is all there is to it. Ego and pride are the progenetors of prejudice. That is the reason why this is bigger than a single book and a single controversy, this is about the things which will come long after this controversy dies down. It's about everything that is yet to be banned that hurts man's foolish ego.It's about everything that's beyond the "Hindus". We might continue blaming and continue protest marches against banning of this book and the next one in line, but as long as we don't kill our egos, everything we do will crumble like a house of cards.
