A visit to Khajuraho Temple Complex

My recent visit to the Khajuraho temple complex left me completely perplexed. At the first sight itself, it is impossible not to get completely stumped at the architecture of the temple complex and the beauty of the sculptures built on those temples. Temples and the carvings on them are so artistic that each corner of the complex will just leave you awestruck. And these artistic marvels just induce a sense to do something to preserve these divine works. But what bothered me was that face of not even a single sculpture could be found complete. They all, without exception, show clear evidences to have been faced hammer of destruction on their faces. None of the faces carved in the stone has been left with complete features. I have absolutely no doubt therefore, that the left-liberal historians have been working on a mission just to establish an impossible proposition as truth. They have taken up a herculean task to de-demonize the Mughal period cruelties that were carried out in the name of religion. And even if I leave aside the issue of destruction of these artistically precious structures, it is also difficult to imagine the kind of culture that could have accepted such temples in those times.

Our historians have shoved down so much hatred for our past into our mind that they have almost convinced us that we never had a past to be proud of. Just imagine, even the ‘modern’ British who discovered these temples had a horrifying time conjecturing for a possible justification of such sculptures that are openly and artistically carved on the walls of temples. The more I tried to analyze the more I am convinced that we are completely disconnected with the society that prevailed those days. Do we exactly belong to that society? Isn’t there a clear discontinuity in our evolution process? Have the invaders eliminated an entire generation, an entire culture and a developed society. Are we only the ‘left-overs’ whom they did not found worth-eliminating. It is difficult to reject that the invasion eliminated a society that was so open, so peace-loving, so divine and so religious that they failed to devise ways to face the Mughal Rakshasas.

Only a developed society can have flourishing arts and culture. Only a peace loving community that was never prepared for such a catastrophe could be so rich in arts and culture. Imagine the society which had accomplished artists in abandon. I am afraid, the manner in which our history books have presented our past, they leave us with more questions than the answers in the end. And that gives others a scope to provide us another equally (un)convincing theories and conjectures. Genuine and open minded research has not been done in ‘History’ till now. It is high time that our history books are written in a manner so that we can get answers to our genuine queries instead of misusing ‘history’ with a purpose to control our future. 

Ramanujan’s essay on 300 Ramayanas: My take

(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.