INVITATION TO THE FIRST AK RAMANUJAN LECTURE AND SEMINAR
The History Society Ramjas College, University of Delhi invites you to a National Seminar, ‘Speaking with Ramanujan’, to be held in the College Auditorium on March 21, 2012, 9.45 am onwards.
This seminar is being organized in light of the recent decision of the Academic Council of Delhi University to exile AK Ramanujan’s scholarly essay, ‘300 Ramayanas’ from the Undergraduate syllabus of the University, and in appreciation of the vast range and depth of AK Ramanujan’s intellectual contributions. The seminar will underline the significance of Ramanujan’s work for the Humanities and the Social Sciences and its importance for the understanding of India’s histories and cultures.
Shri Girish Karnad will deliver the First AK Ramanujan Lecture. This shall be preceded by the screening of a documentary film ‘Kanaka Purandara’, made by Shri Karnad in 1988. This film draws heavily on AK Ramanujan’s prefaces to Speaking of Siva and Hymns for the Drowning. The screening and lecture will be followed by a discussion initiated by Profs. Kumkum Roy and Udaya Kumar, and Dastangoi-‘Dastan Jai Ram Ji Ki’, by Mahmood Farooqui and Danish Husain. The day will end with Bindhumalini from Bangalore and Vedanth from Chennai singing songs written by India’s mystic poets.
This effort is generously supported by the ICHR, the IIAS, Shimla, The School of Liberal Studies and The School of Undergraduate Studies, Ambedkar University Delhi, the Department of Hindi Deshbandhu College, and the Departments of History Jamia Millia Islamia, Miranda House, Zakir Hussain College (evening) and Indraprastha College.
We look forward to seeing you at Ramjas on March 21.
Students and teachers from two universities in Delhi assembled on Wednesday to express their support in favour of retaining A. K. Ramanujan's essay, 300 Ramayanas. They also had a discussion on the various translations of the Ramayana.
While those gathered at Delhi University held a candlelight march, the scholars gathered at Ambedkar University were audience to a short documentary called Anek Ramayana.
The gathering at the DU campus saw about 50 people marching from the department of history to the faculty of arts, shouting slogans against the administration and the growing influence of communalism on academia.
"Basically, we're trying to mobilise opinion both within the university and outside. We are trying to use democratic ways to express our demand," said Pankaj Jha, a professor of history at Lady Shri Ram college. "The only thing that will really satisfy us in the end is for the essay to be reinstated in the syllabus."
The march was preceded by a panel of professors discussing the impact of the decision to drop the essay, written by renowned scholar A. K. Ramanujan. History professor and daughter of the Prime Minister, Dr Upinder Singh chaired the meet.
"In the face of all this intimidation... it seems like the space for academics to express themselves is under threat, and we need to do something about that," Singh told the crowd, "This is a question of safeguarding the university as a place It is a struggle to ensure that this kind of thing is not taken casually."
Ambedkar University was host to a short documentary film directed by Sikha Sen, which explored the various translations and historical depictions of the Ramayan. The documentary was followed by a panel discussion aimed at debating how autonomous may an educational body be in teaching its syllabus, and how immune may it be to political pressure. "The issue before us is to decide whether to succumb to political pressure. In my opinion we have to fight this political pressure that pressurises syllabus decisions not on merit but political basis," faculty member Salil Mishra said.
In the Ramanujan case, what should the publishing institution that took on his book (and thereby bought itself respect and made good money) say to his ghost, and to the serious reading public for which it was set up to publish such books in the first place? How would secular, progressive and sane sections of the reading public expect the publisher under attack to respond? Even if we forget the book’s commercial success — academic books sell in small numbers — isn’t there a publishing ethic that requires a publisher, specially a big publisher, to stand by a book and author he has taken on, and defend them, if not to the death, at least legally, vocally, and reasonably strongly? Such expectation would only be strengthened if the publisher happened to be a reputed university press claiming that the very purpose of its existence was to promote learning. How would it look if, instead of standing its ground and defending its authors, such a press were to cave in, whine out an apology to medievalists for having caused unintended hurt to their religious views and promise never again to reprint supposedly offensive books?
Cut from the domain of the imagination to the realm of the real. A.K. Ramanujan, a scholar so formidable that he was, for several years after his premature death in 1993, considered irreplaceable by his department at the University of Chicago (he was replaced many years later by D.R. Nagaraj), writes a pathbreaking essay on the Ramayan. In it he documents the popularity of the epic by showing how its influence on the Indian imagination is evident in the diversity of narratives and regional versions which it has generated. He publishes the essay, alongside many others which argue the same view — oddly, these other essays are not deemed offensive merely because Delhi University happens not to prescribe them — with the University of California Press, from which the Oxford University Press in India buys rights of republication for South Asia.
A history department prescribes it. A hurt Hindu, his sentiments backed up by the sort of antagonism to ideas in which only cretinous Indian vice-chancellors specialize, takes the publisher to court. And what does the publisher do? Instead of preparing for a siege and sticking his Oxford Blue banner into the battleground, the publisher grovels. He agrees that what he has published can cause religious offence, and that by publishing Ramanujan he has caused it. He promises in court that he will renounce Ramanujan and not reprint the offensive essay.
Are such reactions by a major publisher acceptable? Is this the way in which even a small-time press, lacking the resources to fight legal battles but intent on retaining its self-respect, would react — never mind one of the world’s phenomenally resource-rich publishing multinational organizations? Has OUP India not heard of Penguin’s successful defence of D.H. Lawrence against State censorship? Or an Italian publisher’s defence of Roberto Saviano for exposing the Sicilian mafia?
I ask this in part because I was, 20 years back, the editor who acquisitioned and published the Indian edition of Paula Richman’s Many Ramayanas. And because I am, like many thinking academics and readers, dismayed by the position taken by the book’s Indian publisher. I also ask this because, being now a small independent publisher of scholarly books, I recognize the enormous difficulties that mischievous litigation can cause; and therefore, in principle, I am in fact sympathetic to any press besieged by fanatics.
But it is one thing to be a little publisher in a garage beset by the mob; it is quite another to be a corporation with offices in every continent and equipped with a whole legal department experienced in dealing with hurlers of footwear. Its press is Oxford University’s single largest donor to the university coffers. If the OUP were on sale, even Rupert Murdoch would have to check with his bank if he had the money to buy it. If the OUP were a bank, it would be asked to rescue Greece and save the euro. Given its financial worth, how can such a publisher seem so oblivious of its own intellectual and cultural worth, specially in India, a country with universities round every corner but without even one functioning university press? Why doesn’t this, of all publishers, empty its massive coffers just by the little that’s required to employ a security agency, protect its employees, put steel on its windows — and a little into its spine?
The Ramanujan case is not, unluckily, the only instance which shows OUP India crawling when asked to bend. A brief foray into publishing history shows a consistency in their response pattern when assaulted by numbskull vice-chancellors and their ilk. A few months before I left the OUP, I had signed on an excellent legal monograph by the German legal sociology scholar, Hans Dembowski. In 2001, soon after publishing his book, Taking the State to Court, OUP India apologized to the Calcutta High Court and withdrew the book instead of defending either it or the author (a first-rate German scholar who later put the book online). Two years later came the James Laine controversy. Same brick-throwers, same response: book withdrawn, apology tendered, academics left feeling betrayed.
The case for mounting a defence of Dembowski and Laine earlier, and Ramanujan now, is not just very strong, it is absolutely required. It ought to be any self-respecting press’s first response to say it will defend what it has published. Unfortunately, the OUP’s actions in court, and vis-Ã -vis its own scholarly constituency, seem to suggest the philosophy of a myopic accountant who sees books as fodder for a cash till, not as ideological artefacts by great writers who can feel either supported or betrayed. In all these cases, the publisher’s instinctive reaction seems to have been to apologize and withdraw the book. In fact, both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court threw out Maharashtra state’s case against Laine —but much after OUP’s instant apology and withdrawal of the book. It would seem excusable, though far from commendable, if a small press were to try worming its way out of prolonged and crippling litigation; but if, in addition to being big, you’re the pre-eminent scholarly publisher in your world, your every move is a statement of your ideology and must be carefully thought through. If a publisher with enormous resources sidles apologetically out of court, it will be interpreted as having said: “Let fascism rule, we haven’t the stomach to fight it.”
