(published in Governancenow and can be visited via the link http://governancenow.com/views/columns/why-ramanujans-essay-un-indian )
At the outset I must admit that I have found the intent of the Ramanujan’s essay patently un-Indian not only because of the tone set by the Romilla Thapar’s undesirable comments quoted by Paul but also because it seems that there is a sinister design to place few exceptions and rare extremes in such a manner that they just appear to be as five simple examples and thoughts on the 300 Ramayana. After a fair reading of the essay anyone who has come across only a single Ramayana will extrapolate that if five of the examples are so diverse then reading other 300 will make no sense of any story. It would appear that anybody can be called anybody’s wife or anybody’s daughter in these Ramayanas as the author concludes with his effort in making the readers believe that there is nothing to read about in these texts since there is no distinction between reality and imagination.
At this point let me burst out some facts even if a few of them have a potential to make some of us uncomfortable since I will like to place here the reasons as to why I love my country and what I think about Indianness from the perspective of Hinduism that I am proud of. I must also admit here that I have inherited all these by understanding many discourses based on many religious Hindu-texts including Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagwat-Gita etc.
I love India not because Indians ‘tolerate’ or ‘accommodate’ other faiths, views and religions but because we genuinely ‘respect’ them all. I love India because I inherit an enviable attitude of bowing down to a place of any faith and also feel a great sense of proud and satisfaction in doing this. I love India because we Indians never hesitate in promoting changes and modifications in our thoughts if it is hurting the interest of this land. I love India because nobody can think of getting any support even from diehard 'Ram-bhakts' if one deserts his wife when she is pregnant for any reason citing that even Rama did this. I love India as I can never even imagine someone garnering any support from even staunch believers of Hinduism for keeping many wives by citing any number of examples from Ramayana and Mahabharata. I love India as we Indians, instead of reciting a religious-book to classify an act as right or wrong, follow our hearts and law of the land to know the difference between right and wrong. That is why when Mahatma Gandhi conceptualised ‘Ramrajya’ in India everybody knew that he did not intend to put other religions, Harijan and women out of the canvas. I love India and Indianness as we are always ready to apologise and also ready to appreciate all gestures of apologies extended by anybody for unintentionally hurting the sensibilities of other faiths/religions.
For me it was un-Indian to prefer leaving India and accept another citizenship instead of feeling sorry for hurting sensibilities of other faith (even if it was done unintentionally) and owning those hate-paintings. Here a ‘Narender Modi’ cannot think of getting any support by saying that yes he allowed the riots to happen and instead has the support of his state only because he has convinced them that he was unable to control it. I also believe that instead of offering not to slaughter caws for at least some days in a year to express that as a token of their concerns for others’ sensibilities, it is un-Indian that some of us feel unapologetic about this. To me hurting sensibilities of any faith is patently un-Indian. And therefore for me it is difficult to find Indianness in the name of diversity that is always directed to hurt Hindus only.
Advani could get support because he could convince us that some fringe element in our society was trying to provoke a certain section of our society by using the word ‘Masjid’ when a structure built by a king was targeted as it was he who was consciously avoiding this term in order to take everybody along. I hate those who were involved in demolishing a structure before making everybody feel that it was necessary and that is why I admire all those who genuinely feel that demolition of the structure can never be celebrated.
If you cannot accept to put Godse’s views on Gandhi and his last speech in the reading list just because it can hurt sensibilities, and will also like to avoid putting Taslima Nasrin’s views on Islam into it then you have no right to fight for inclusion of the Ramanujan’s essay in the compulsory reading list for undergraduate students. Don’t ban the essay (as it will be un-Indian) but don’t force those innocent students to read those views. I did not find the attitude of Romilla Thapar as Indian when the growing popularity of Ramayana serial was termed as 'dangerous' and also found Ramanujan’s essay un-Indian as the essay intends to hurt Hindu-believers. I can never call it Indian to put the terrorists’ definition of Jihad even in the name of an essay named as Many meanings of Jihad: few examples and thoughts and start an agitation to put it into the curriculum of the ‘mature’ Kashmiri students! Although we know that we can find more than many uncomfortable meanings of ‘Jihad’ and ‘Kafir’ in different ‘tellings’ ( Ramanujan has tried to distinguish between ‘tellings’ and ‘versions’ to put forward his view that nothing is original in Ramayana) those can be found in several avoidable contexts that we can never promote.
Before some of us start twisting my words I will like to place here that all the characteristics that I have pointed out as Indian are synonym not only to Hinduism but also to other religions but remarkably this shade is noticeable only in their Indian versions. Some of the religions that started in India itself out of some genuine grudges felt by a section of the Hindu-society have ultimately ended up in developing a mutual respect for each others’ faiths as Hinduism tried accommodating and respecting their concerns by going beyond their own religious texts/beliefs.
At this point let me burst out some facts even if a few of them have a potential to make some of us uncomfortable since I will like to place here the reasons as to why I love my country and what I think about Indianness from the perspective of Hinduism that I am proud of. I must also admit here that I have inherited all these by understanding many discourses based on many religious Hindu-texts including Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagwat-Gita etc.
I love India not because Indians ‘tolerate’ or ‘accommodate’ other faiths, views and religions but because we genuinely ‘respect’ them all. I love India because I inherit an enviable attitude of bowing down to a place of any faith and also feel a great sense of proud and satisfaction in doing this. I love India because we Indians never hesitate in promoting changes and modifications in our thoughts if it is hurting the interest of this land. I love India because nobody can think of getting any support even from diehard 'Ram-bhakts' if one deserts his wife when she is pregnant for any reason citing that even Rama did this. I love India as I can never even imagine someone garnering any support from even staunch believers of Hinduism for keeping many wives by citing any number of examples from Ramayana and Mahabharata. I love India as we Indians, instead of reciting a religious-book to classify an act as right or wrong, follow our hearts and law of the land to know the difference between right and wrong. That is why when Mahatma Gandhi conceptualised ‘Ramrajya’ in India everybody knew that he did not intend to put other religions, Harijan and women out of the canvas. I love India and Indianness as we are always ready to apologise and also ready to appreciate all gestures of apologies extended by anybody for unintentionally hurting the sensibilities of other faiths/religions.
For me it was un-Indian to prefer leaving India and accept another citizenship instead of feeling sorry for hurting sensibilities of other faith (even if it was done unintentionally) and owning those hate-paintings. Here a ‘Narender Modi’ cannot think of getting any support by saying that yes he allowed the riots to happen and instead has the support of his state only because he has convinced them that he was unable to control it. I also believe that instead of offering not to slaughter caws for at least some days in a year to express that as a token of their concerns for others’ sensibilities, it is un-Indian that some of us feel unapologetic about this. To me hurting sensibilities of any faith is patently un-Indian. And therefore for me it is difficult to find Indianness in the name of diversity that is always directed to hurt Hindus only.
Advani could get support because he could convince us that some fringe element in our society was trying to provoke a certain section of our society by using the word ‘Masjid’ when a structure built by a king was targeted as it was he who was consciously avoiding this term in order to take everybody along. I hate those who were involved in demolishing a structure before making everybody feel that it was necessary and that is why I admire all those who genuinely feel that demolition of the structure can never be celebrated.
If you cannot accept to put Godse’s views on Gandhi and his last speech in the reading list just because it can hurt sensibilities, and will also like to avoid putting Taslima Nasrin’s views on Islam into it then you have no right to fight for inclusion of the Ramanujan’s essay in the compulsory reading list for undergraduate students. Don’t ban the essay (as it will be un-Indian) but don’t force those innocent students to read those views. I did not find the attitude of Romilla Thapar as Indian when the growing popularity of Ramayana serial was termed as 'dangerous' and also found Ramanujan’s essay un-Indian as the essay intends to hurt Hindu-believers. I can never call it Indian to put the terrorists’ definition of Jihad even in the name of an essay named as Many meanings of Jihad: few examples and thoughts and start an agitation to put it into the curriculum of the ‘mature’ Kashmiri students! Although we know that we can find more than many uncomfortable meanings of ‘Jihad’ and ‘Kafir’ in different ‘tellings’ ( Ramanujan has tried to distinguish between ‘tellings’ and ‘versions’ to put forward his view that nothing is original in Ramayana) those can be found in several avoidable contexts that we can never promote.
Before some of us start twisting my words I will like to place here that all the characteristics that I have pointed out as Indian are synonym not only to Hinduism but also to other religions but remarkably this shade is noticeable only in their Indian versions. Some of the religions that started in India itself out of some genuine grudges felt by a section of the Hindu-society have ultimately ended up in developing a mutual respect for each others’ faiths as Hinduism tried accommodating and respecting their concerns by going beyond their own religious texts/beliefs.
4 comments:
Congratulations for such sensitivities in your writing and sense of national pride. Jainism teach us tolerance, truth, nonviolence, along with many more .. But Jainism and hinduism are as ancient as Shiva or Adinath (first Thirthankar) and there is no fight of superiority between the two sections. There were many instances when Husband is Hindu while wife is practicing jainism.
Perhaps you are missing out on the fact that for a student of history Ramayan or Ramcharitmanas are not merely religious texts they are also a text written in a particular time in history and therefore a source to explain/understand the way religion and religious believes were evolving. In what particular period what values were being accepted/rejected or formulated in given idioms - myth being one of them. The moment a student's religion interferes in this process history becomes the first casualty. It is not degrading the religion or mythological figures that is attempted. The idea is to put the text/s in a proper perspective. In any case being Indian can not be possible if we start disowning the traditions that has developed and survived in India/bharat/jambudwipa/hind...
Point wise (in accordance with the way you have raised it) response:
1) If you have problem with Romila Thapar than incidentally her text will be replaced with the Ramanujan essay.
2) You argued by your inheritance from Ramayana ..... Which version of Ramayana? Probably Ramcharitmanas which was written in 16th century in Avadhi. What is so sacred about it. Note many other regional versions of Ramayana were written much before Ramcharitmanas. What's the problem if someone feel that they inherit the prespective of Hinduism from those versions? Why should we impose Ramcharitmanas version on everyone ? Note there is a serious difference between Valmiki and Tulsidas version of Ramayana, for example take a look at Ahalya incident. The people who argue about vulgarity/pornography should read Ahalya incident in Valmiki Ramayana.
3) When you talk about hurting sensibilities of faith which faith you are talking about? If Ramayana than it is interpreted differently in different regions. Note Ramanujan essay in no way hurt the sensibilities as this is not his (Ramanujan's creation) he has given some striking examples of how some versions of Ramayana differ substantially on certain issues.
4) Cow slaughter. Let's face the reality the people who argues against them (in your words say for few days) how much do they bother about the state of affairs of cows. How many of them have actually gone to cow shelters and have taken care of them? I can personally tell you that I regularly visit one such shelter (Sanjay Gandhi hospital at Raja Garden) at least 4 times a year (on the birthday of every member of my family) and myself feed those cows (don't give them money) and many a times caretakes told me that there are huge number of people who talk against cow slaughter but simply do not bother to come to shelter and make any efforts to improve them. So isn't this is double standards of these people?
5)Let's face it Advani got support by raising the flare in name of Ram. How justified it is to use the name of God to get votes? BTW, same party which when came to power conveniently forgot the issue for 5 years.
I will again ask the same question, Have you actually read the Ramanujan essay. Please first try to read it at least once and analyze it you will see that these kind of texts actually broadens our views about such epics. If we try to narrow down our views than with time these great epics will die with time. Let's face the reality Ramanand Sagar serial Ramayana created a huge interest in Ramayana. Most of the people start viewing Ramayana as the one what was shown in the serial. Note it differed substantially from the original Valmiki. There is no denial that Ramanand Sagar serial did a huge favor in increasing the popularity of Ramayana in general public (I remember we use to have near holiday in markets at the time of the airing of it). Similarly other versions of Ramayana increases the reach of Ramayana and instead of narrowing such studies we need to encourage them !!
The current problem started when the essay was removed by by-passing the History dept. and the majority views of the experts appointed by DU on the suggestion of Supreme Court. So saying that people want the essay to be compulsory is wrong. What we want is that the view of History dept. and experts should have been respected. If History dept favors removal of the text, at least I do not have any problem with it.
Regarding your comment about cow slaughter, check out Wiki page of
Gadhimai festival (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadhimai_festival) which is a Hindu festival in Nepal. This festival has worlds largest slaughter of animals and the animals include cows.
Note till a few years back Nepal was the only official Hindu state but still allowed cow slaughter.
Post a Comment