(published earlier in: Mail Today, 26 October 2010)
by Jyotirmaya Sharma
ONE thing is certain, and it is that the Thackerays and Ashok Chavan share something in common.
In fact, there could be striking family resemblances between the Shiv Sena and the Congress as well. The people who inhabit these parties are no readers of books. In the case of Bal Thackeray, his hit list, invariably, is longer than his reading list. In the case of Chavan, one wonders whether he reads anything beyond newspapers and bank statements.
In goading Bombay University to remove Rohinton Mistry’s novel from its literature courses, both parties have once again proved that we are condemned to be ruled by uneducated literates.
On the other hand, the liberal space, if there is any left, is hijacked by cranially challenged writers of potboilers, who are telegenic and have an opinion on everything under the sun. Not too long ago, the Sambhaji Brigade, an offshoot of the NCP, had vandalised the Bhandarkar Institute for allowing James Laine to use their library. Laine’s crime was that he was supposed to have written a book that was uncharitable to Shivaji.
Politicians
Despite the Supreme Court judgement on lifting the ban on the book, the Maharashtra government has been hesitant in lifting the ban on the book. Of course, no one has really read the book.
Laine’s argument is the same as that of the people who are baying for his blood: that the Brahmins of Maharashtra conspired to float derogatory stories about Shivaji’s legitimacy because he was not from the upper castes. Politicians who matter also choose to remain quiet on issues of cultural policing and the shameful spectacle of banning books, films and pieces of art.
In another world, Obama shows courage in going against the conservative opinion and expressing support for building an Islamic cultural centre near the 9/ 11 site. But to expect support from Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Kapil Sibal on the Rohinton Mistry controversy is to expect stature from people who have none other than the ephemerality of power.
Let us consider for a moment a book and its eleventh chapter. The author calls Jainism and Buddhism ‘ a most dreadful religion’, where he does not make any distinction even between the two, thinking of them to be the same.
He goes on to name two sects of the ‘ Jain or Buddha religion called the Charavaks and Abhanaka’. The chapter declares that the Adi Shankara’s belief in the identity of God with the soul and the unreality of the external world was ‘ altogether wrong’. The author conflates the vama marg tantriks and the Shaivites and calls them ‘ unblushing wretches’ for worshipping male and female reproductive organs.
Bile
He further elaborates the origins of the Vaishnava sect, which he says was founded by Shathakopa, ‘ the son of a professional prostitute’, who was followed by Munivahana, ‘ the son of a scavenger’, followed by Yavanacharya, ‘ who was born in a Muhammadan family’. Commenting on the Devi Bhagawat, he discusses the story of creation of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadeva, and says that the three, the moment they were born of the goddess Shri, demanded that they be married to her, but ‘ the fellows did not marry their mother but married their own sisters!!!’ The idols of Vaishnava gods, he further comments, had goddesses by their side, ‘ who were dressed out in fine style and excited lascivious thoughts by their lewd charms and licentious looks’. He goes on to wonder why these formidable gods of the Vaishnava and Shaivite sects, who killed fearsome demons if the puranas are to be believed, ‘ could not annihilate the Mohammedan invaders’. On the story that the city of Ayodhya had been to heaven three times, he says: ‘ It is impossible to believe that the town of Ayodhya along with all that was to be found in it — dogs, donkeys, street sweepers, workers in skin privies, etc. — has been to heaven three times. It never went to heaven, on the other hand, it is where it was…’ According to this author, the writer of the Bhagvata Purana was ‘ senseless’ and ‘ idiotic’ who did not feel ‘ a bit of shame or hesitation in writing such falsehoods’; here the reference is to the story of creation in the Bhagvata Purana . He says: ‘ Why did not the writers of Bhagvat and other Puranas die in their mother’s wombs or as soon as they were born?’ He has a recipe for those who hear the Bhagvat recited or those who read it: ‘ Let a man who recites Bhagvat or hears it read be thrown down a hill; if this story [ of Prahalad] be true, he should reach the bottom unhurt. But we know what will actually happen. No Narayana will come to his help, the poor man will simply be hacked to pieces’. For him, Kabir was a poet who composed hymns in incorrect and unidiomatic language, Nanak ‘ did not possess any learning’ and was ‘ a little vain’. The excerpts from the book cited above is not written by a Muslim or a Christian, not even by a secularist. It is freely available in inexpensive editions and is considered by many part of the neo- Hindu canon. It is abusive and carries its invective to a completely different level of extremism. One has not even mentioned here what it says about Prophet Muhammed and Jesus Christ, since the level of abuse and slander in these two cases reaches an unprecedented mixture of bile and spleen.
Consistency
The book justifies the fourfold varna system in its totality and also endorses many regressive elements of the Manusmriti . If Bal Thackeray and Ashok Chavan find Such a long Journey abusive and its language objectionable, then, surely they must also consider the language of this book and recommend a ban on it. This writer is not for banning books at all, but since Thackeray and Chavan are happy book- banners, it would be a challenge to their ‘ honesty’ and ‘ integrity’ if they were to show a degree of fairness and consistency and recommend a ban on this book.
Clearly, they will do no such thing.
They have little to do with knowledge, learning and books, but everything to do with political expediency and cynicism. They are petty street bullies, who can only threaten vulnerable targets like Rohinton Mistry, Salman Rushdie, James Laine and M. F. Hussain.
Will Thackeray show his true courage and Chavan be man enough to challenge the author of the text mentioned above? The name of the author whose invective this article cites is Dayananda Saraswati, and the book is Satyarthaprakash.
The writer teaches politics at the University of Hyderabad
|
