Martha Nussbaum and Wendy Doniger -- and their psecularatti chamchas (figure out the purport of the metaphors in the Indian context) -- will do well to review their legal competence or penchant for social welfare or even porno psycho, by reading this article by Jyoti Punwani.
Jyoti says, don't blame the law; she also adds that the law should be applied more frequently against influential offenders. I assume that this category should also include habitual offenders.
For a brief cataloging of the habitual offences committed against Public Order and Public Decency under cover of academic freedom, see here. (annexed for ready reference).
In the context of the habitual offending patterns noticed in the US academe, a reasoned argument has been presented for the Capitol Hill and White House to consider and appoint a Commission of Inquiry into Hindu Studies in the US Academe. This has been followed by a Whitehouse petition which has crossed the first threshold.
I would suggest the the outraged UChicago horse-riders should await the Commission of Inquiry which may lay down the law explain further the impact of Chapter 43 of US Penal Code on civility, civil responsibiities of even the academe sitting on their higfalutin chairs.
Remember, Wendy's and Martha's of the world are hoist with their own petards.
When Hindus attained independence from the British colonial regime only in 1947 (while USA gained her independence much earlier in 1776), one message was delivered loud and clear: just leave the heathen in their blindness alone, don't pontificate.
When that American savant studied philosophies of the world and story of civilizations, he noted: "India was the motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all".
This is as good a time as any, to recall these wise words of Will Durant, and use the American idiom, 'Get a pie in the face,' or dharmam cara'practice dharma' (as an ancient Hindu convocation address said). Go figure out what dharma means. Start with civil responsibilities and ethical conduct for a just social order.
Kalyanaraman
For Doniger row, don’t blame the law
The Hindus: An Alternative History, was sought to be banned, describe a law which applies to all faiths as one that applies only to Hindus?
SUMMARY
In fact, we should demand more frequent application of Sections 295A and 153A against influential offenders.
So you have our idiotic law too!’’ a relative from Islamabad crowed after the Wendy Doniger affair hit the headlines. He was referring to Doniger’s statement that described Section 295A of the IPC as “the Indian law that makes it a criminal rather than civil offence to publish a book that offends any Hindu.” Why did Doniger, who must be familiar with the section under which her book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, was sought to be banned, describe a law which applies to all faiths as one that applies only to Hindus? Indeed, it was the offended feelings of Muslims that gave rise to this law. The story of how Section 295A came to be enacted shows its continuing relevance.
In 1927, the Punjab High Court ruled that while the book Rangila Rasool on Prophet Mohammed was offensive to Muslims, its Hindu publisher could not be prosecuted under Section 153A of the IPC, which related only to promoting disharmony between two communities. Sensing the mounting anger among Muslims, it was thought necessary to enact a law specifically targeted at wounded religious feelings. However, given its potential for misuse, it was carefully fine-tuned with stringent provisions.
Even trial courts have taken liberal views on cases filed under this law. In 1953, the trial court of Tiruchirappalli held that iconoclast Periyar’s act of breaking a Ganesh idol did not amount to an offence under this section, a view set aside only by the Supreme Court. However, because five years had by then elapsed, it decided not to punish him. In 2005, another landmark judgment on Section 295A was given by the Calcutta High Court, striking down the West Bengal government’s ban on Taslima Nasreen’s Dwikhandito.
Given the way courts have ruled, neither Doniger nor Penguin had any reason to blame the law. Whatever their reasons for hiding behind this smokescreen, it is alarming that well-known intellectuals have called for a reform of the two laws dealing with acts that hurt religious feelings and promote disharmony: Sections 295A and 153A. They must be amended, they say, to protect “Intellectual and artistic freedom and the right to self-expression… works of serious academic and artistic merit.”
That’s a dangerous demand. Consider the editorials of the late Bal Thackeray in Saamna at the height of the December 1992-January 1993 Mumbai riots. The counsel for the Shiv Sena, before the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry into the riots, described them as literary masterpieces. Indeed, some have the power to make the average Hindu reader weep in anguish or send a rush of anger through her. That this anger is directed towards a government described as one that cynically allows “fanatic anti-national Muslims to kill young patriotic Hindus”, and that the anguish is at the loss of young lives (rioters) by police bullets, does not take away from their literary merit.
MIM MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi’s seditious and anti-Hindu speech at Nirmal in December 2012 could well be described as an articulation of his right to self-expression. How else would one describe Raj Thackeray’s essay, “My stand, my fight”, published in Maharashtra Times when his men were assaulting north Indians in 2008? Was Subramanian Swamy’s revolting but meticulously argued essay in DNA in 2011, “How to wipe out Islamic terror?”, devoid of academic merit? On the other hand, didn’t we all lament when big guns like Bal Thackeray and Varun Gandhi were acquitted of charges under Section 153A?
Throughout the Srikrishna hearings, policemen were asked why they hadn’t filed cases under Sections 295A and 153A against Shiv Sainiks. A few of the slogans on their placards could be described as examples of “self-expression’’. Yet, these placards (and speeches) were relied upon to convict former Sena MP Madhukar Sarpotdar and two aides in 2008. This was the first and only time a Sena leader was convicted under Section 153A. It was also the only 1992-93 riots conviction upheld by a higher court. Can we celebrate this conviction without celebrating the provision under which it was made?
Sections 295A and 153A have been misused, but so have the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Hate speech is as much a part of our society as are atrocities against Dalits and violence against women. The difference is this: the most powerful purveyors of hate speech are seldom prosecuted because prosecution needs government sanction. The prosecution of artists and dissenters gets noticed. What doesn’t is the non-prosecution of political leaders. We should demand more frequent application of Sections 295 A and 153 A against these influential offenders.
The writer is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/for-doniger-row-dont-blame-the-law/
Protestant Pedagogues Peeved at Protest Against Porn-Peddling
By: Narayanan Komerath
(Indic Journalists’ Association International)
June 01, 2004
Here’s a test. If the following sample from Emory University Professor Paul Courtright’s book: Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings” offends your sensibilities, you are “illiterate or worse”according to his friend, University of Chicago Professor Wendy Doniger.
“Although there seem to be no myths or folktales in which Ganesa explicitly performs oral sex, his insatiable appetite for sweets may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy a hunger that seems inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic disposition, a hunger having clear erotic overtones. “
Unlike Doniger’s colleagues in the “Religion in South Asia” (RISA) internet group, you cannot see why that constitutes “brilliant scholarship”. You wonder whether publishing conclusions sans data constitutes legitimate research. You point to the definitions of child pornography and pedophilia. The professors consider all that to be utterly “uncivil” of you – and claim to the media that you are a terrorist.
This encapsulates the controversy which pits alarmed citizens against entrenched academia. Hindus worldwide (except so far in India) are shocked at how Protestant-dominated pedagogues in academia caricature Hinduism as part of proselytizing, and then stifle discussion. Citizens cite the effects of such abuse in increasing bigotry and hate attacks – a Baltimore museum adorns a Ganesha exhibit with “explanations” from Courtright’s phallus fantasies, for example. The academics – far from being civil themselves - bemoan how “uncivil discourse” is “silencing” “scholars” (i.e., themselves). They claim “academic freedom” to write abusive fantasies about religions other than their own.
Petitions, Threats, Boycotts and Mobs
Last September, citizens requested Emory University to stop using such texts. They were sent a condescending letter declaring that Courtright’s “psychoanalysis” methodology was appropriate, and taunting them to argue the matter through journals. The Head of Religion Studies petulantly warned that Emory might stop teaching Hinduism.
A group of Louisiana students burst the academic balloon by posting an Internet Petition giving verbatim quotes - asking the publisher to withdraw the book. Emory’s Public Relations department, citing “threats”, tried to suppress the Petition – but not before the publisher withdrew the book,apologizing in shock and dismay. RISA called for a boycott of the publisher.
RISA members went to the “DANAM” (Dharma Association of North America) conference in Atlanta in November, excited that they would “communicate only with the most reasonable and civil of the Hindu lay Leadership” and have a “debate on the fundamentals of Religious Studies---that of hermeneutics and methodology”, for, “only then can we have a genuine yet civil debate on "method" rather than an uncivil one on "motive." Apparently, the debate did not go happily for them. RISA returned to the security of habit - personal abuse against those who tried to post contrary views.
In January, another American “history” professor, James Laine of Macalester College, gained name recognition with the claim that Maratha hero Chattrapati Shivaji was not his father’s son. Challenged, Laine admitted that his claim was without basis- a “joke”. The Sambhaji Brigade of Shivaji supporters – no friends of any “Hindu Nationalists” – ransacked the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) in Pune. The Maharashtra Government won Mumbai High Court approval to investigate Laine and Oxford Books for criminal conspiracy to incite violence.
RISA’s boycott fervour seems to have been dampened by Oxford’s withdrawal of the Laine book. ButCourtright, and Washington Post writer S. Vedantam, have blamed the BORI mob attack on “Hindus”. Courtright’s article in the “Academic Exchange” e-zine, run by Emory’s Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, claims victimhood as a “scholar” facing terrorism - by association with Laine. He claimed that India is an increasingly dangerous place for scholars to visit. This occurred even as the National Congress government of Maharashtra – associated with the Sambhaji Brigade – was feting the visiting Emory University tourist team that included Courtright’s Department Head, Laurie Patton. Patton, in India all winter, gave a running commentary on RISA about events in Pune. Critics ask about Emory’s links to the BORI violence – and point to Courtright’s own usage of communal riot scenes to teach “Hinduism through films” at Emory.
Out of Context – or Outlandish?
Readers retort that the criticism is about specific abusive writings and point to excellent scholarship on Hinduism at European universities. They cite the context of the offensive quotes, and the intent of the nude picture on Courtright’s cover, used to emphasize child-pornographic content. The premise of Courtright’s book is a 15th century Portuguese invader’s revulsion towards Indian icons. Critics compare this to using Heinrich Himmler as starting point for an analysis of Judaism, or analyzing Native American history from General Custer’s views. As for “objective research”, they point to unsupported hypotheses, incompetent methodology and outright bigotry being acclaimed as “brilliant scholarship”. For instance, Courtright builds his “psychoanalysis” on the idea that an elephant’s trunk is “limp” – an absurdity aggravated by his confusion about elephant anatomy. Doniger claims that Ganesa dictated the Mahabharata to Vyasa. Courtright, in the space of a few pages, calls Ganesa an oral sex fiend, a homosexual, a mother-fornicator – and a eunuch – the “dregs of society”, - a scatter-brained diatribe of bigotry and abuse. Critics question the quality of peer reviews which ignore such glaring illogic. Others cite Courtright’s ignoring the deep meanings of the Ganesha icon in favor of obscene interpretations, as evidence of sloppy, if not less than honest, work.
Classroom Reward Scheme? Another egregious example is cited below, from page 124 of Courtright’s 2001 edition:
Critics ask why he chose that, when he knew the mainstream legend, which he clearly knew [page 126]:
““She said to them .. ‘Your father will decide who I will give it to.’’ When Skanda heard this, he quickly went on a pilgrimage through the triple world, mounted on a peacock, but the wise pot-bellied one circumambulated his two parents. Then he stood there happily in front of his two parents, saying: ‘Give it to me..!” .. Parvati smiled and said: “All the pilgrimages and sacrifices are not worth a sixteenth part of the worship of one’s parents. Therefore this son (I.e., Ganesa) is worth more than a hundred sons having a hundred virtues”.
Readers point to this twisting of a beautiful legend, obviously used to instill respect for parents, and ask sarcastically whether his obscene “interpretation” is based on what Courtright’s Protestant teachers and colleagues at the Yale School of Divinity, Princeton and Emory do in classrooms.
Death Threats or Red Herrings?
Doniger apparently enraged a London audience with a pornographic interpretations of Shri Ram and Sita of the Ramayana Epic - ideals of family values to hundreds of millions of Hindus. An egg apparently missed her, but the meeting organizers are reported to have manhandled a woman psychologist who asked if Doniger had herself ever been psycho-analyzed.
Religion Studies or Hate Propaganda?
Critics point out that Medthodist Emory University, and Baptist-origin University of Chicago use their Religion Studies programs or interdisciplinary centers – which are affiliated with the Law or other schools - to demonize other religions such as Hinduism. Meanwhile they keep their real studies about Christianity – and Judaism in the U.Chicago case - safe from malicious “interpretation” in Schools of Divinity or Theology. Thus, the scholars on Christianity in the Theology/ Divinity Schools are practising believers; the “scholars” in the Religion Studies Departments are, as Courtright describes himself, “visitors” interpreting these religions. Equal respect for all religions is unlikely to result from this arrangement.
Comparative Sensitivity
Though he professed himself educated on why people are outraged, and offered deep regrets on behalf of himself and the university, he insisted that the university held academic freedom to be sacred. Citizens pointed to the double standards at Emory, where a chance remark by a Professor of Anthropology in September 2003 offended African-American listeners, and triggered extreme administrative concern. Meanwhile, their own concerns about blatant hate-porn peddling were dismissed. They also point to the Bellesiles case, where a conclusion based on data which the author could not reproduce, was seen as sufficient evidence of academic fraud to have a prize withdrawn and the professor induced to leave. Courtright’s attempts to associate the protests against his book with “terrorism” in his recent speeches and articles, with the claimed “support” of the Emory administration, has served to vitiate the atmosphere further. Citizens see this as a show of poor faith while efforts were underway to conduct reasoned dialog with Emory.
Matters were not improved by the appearance of a one-sided Washington Post article – nor by Courtright’s article in Emory’s “Academic Exchange”. The Academic Exchange failed to even acknowledge receipt of a rebuttal to Courtright’s article – just as Vedantam has failed to acknowledge requests to correct factual errors in his articles.
Age of Terror – or Abu Ghraib of Religion Studies?
They cite the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, where 21-year-old military jailers are faulted for claiming ignorance of the need to be sensitive about human beings of another culture – and ask whether university professors should not be held to at least that standard.
Visitors and Civility
No resolution is in sight. The Protestant faculty are peeved at the rise of informed opinion, which hinders their “freedom” to write lewd fantasies about anything they choose to demean as “visitors” and tourists. Hinduism is a soft target. Writing such interpretations about Judaism or Islam is likely to bring extreme consequences – while there are enough Indian establishments which will continue to welcome “scholar” dollars, unaware of the nature of the scholarship conducted. After 19 years of such writings, the pedagogues do not appear to have anything to cite but a few hate e-mails or internet postings, and one missed egg, as signs of danger.
Sankrant Sanu frames the questions for Religion academia thus:
• “Is the academic study of Hinduism in America, as it currently exists, a valid discipline in that it has some ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and between scholarship and fiction?”
• “What does it tell us about the state of academia in Hinduism studies when a host of academic writing that is highly deviant from “emic” understanding passes off as mainstream scholarship, without any significant internal academic challenge?”
• “What does it tell us about the state of academia in Hinduism studies when a host of academic writing that is highly deviant from “emic” understanding passes off as mainstream scholarship, without any significant internal academic challenge?”
• “Are the standards of sensitivity in dealing with religious symbols of Hindus in the academy lower than that for other religious traditions such as Islam, Judaism or Christianity? What part does this play in dismissing any Hindu protest as ‘fanaticism’?”
The Academy, while bemoaning the decline of civility in intellectual discourse, is in no hurry to examine the causes and sources of incivility – which might point straight at themselves. For example, Professor Antonio de Nicolas refuted the RISA claim of blanket “academic freedom”, pointing out that "the first responsibility of a scholar in describing, writing, speaking, and teaching other cultures is to present those cultures or the elements of those cultures in the same manner those cultures are viewed by themselves and by the people of those cultures. "the first responsibility of a scholar in describing, writing, speaking, and teaching other cultures is to present those cultures or the elements of those cultures in the same manner those cultures are viewed by themselves and by the people of those cultures. If not, then the scholar is using those cultures in name only and his goal is their destruction, if not in intention at least in fact. A scholar who does not know how to present other cultures by their own criteria should not be allowed to teach those cultures. His freedom of speech is not guaranteed by his ignorance. His degree is a privilege of knowledge, not ignorance. Freedom stops here. Opinions are not the food of the classroom at the hands of professors. They guarantee knowledge".
The moderator of the RISA forum apparently sent a threatening e-mail asking de Nicholas to “shut up”.
Courtright describes his own, his university’s and the RISA’s attitudes quite well when he says in a grand Freudian slip, dispensing wisdom to Emory’s admiring student newspaper: “People who talk to themselves about themselves leave no room for discourse.”