[Reader-list] Your views on the book "Satya Darshini" by christian missionaries

[anupam chakravartty]

Dear Murali

Moral responsibility also includes not saying things which are unqualified,
unproven. moral responsibility is not to feed half truths to people. you say
unless "one understands the bad": which means what? what is this
understanding that you are referring to and how will it help in assimilating
good as a consequence? it is sad, that to prove your saffron propaganda u
can go to any lenght. i am also a hindu (that's what my parents told me) and
i dont buy hatred crap that is been fed to everyone in this forum especially
by certain group of persons. i have to right to critically evaluate any kind
of text in my pursuit, for instance, was sita really raped by ravana? was
ram justified in asking Sita to leave after she war of Lanka? if i start
believing in your kind of morality i am done. instead, i will have to
critically assess my belief systems... find out truths or sub-texts of what
has been told. every person should do that, else everyone will be misled.
there has to be a conflict of ideas but it cannot be extended to a physical
realm because we are human beings, which is why such forums are helpful.

on one hand, certain people cry foul over the imposition of hijab. there are
several people of varied hues, from turkey to iran, to sufi poets to
Pakistani writers to most recently the saffronised lot who have questioned
the role of the hijab. it is not the case (leaving aside the sectarian
concerns) that they have something against Islam, they are asking a question
which is critical...why a hijab for a woman? THAT calls for discussion.
however our friends from saffron bogey, on many occasions, i have noticed
that in a discreet manner the issue of hijab has been turned and twisted to
place a blame on the whole community. rashneek kher, someone who otherwise
posts messages on Panun Kashmir suddenly decides to highlight North Kashmir
College because she doesnt like the imposition of hijab. instead of
discussing at lenght about women's emanicipation and parallel issues
"attached" to the hijab, she invokes the security-terrorist-fear-freedom
rhetoric for something which is not even associated with imposition of hijab
(this is from the very report she posted in the list). this doesnt do
justice to the cause, not even to Kashmiri Pandits or the hijab and its
imposition.

I am ready to discuss what you call a blasphemy not because I have a hidden
agenda. I am speaking of a country which has been scarred by the sons of her
own soil, if you know what i mean.  I dont need to be adventurous to
question a book or a work of literature or anything of that sort. i dont
have to be cowed down by your threats ("All the best in your future
adventure in this space" -- as if i am jumping on the fire lit up by you).

a blasphemy is a not personal attack per se, not on you or me. it doesnt
pick out one person and say: look what you reading according to me is shit.
infact, it challenges the premises on which a particular argument (for
example, the argument about the existence of god or even for that matter,
the athiest's argument) or plot ( in case of  Ramayana) or a "villian" such
as Ravana is depicted. the author is not flawless. if an argument is
logically valid, it may not conform to rules of the existing moral
standards. but how do we proceed: should we just shut up and not talk about
it? is there a gag on our thoughts? i remember, sometime back when the issue
of Savita Bhabhi was discussed. I was slightly worried (and very critical
also) to even talk about it because the value that one places to a
relationship is profound than the other givens. infact i went to the lenght
of accusing the creators to be a part of some sinister American porn
industry. however, in course of time, reading more about it, i realise that
this project is a reflection of what's happening behind the curtains (also
the veil). there are women in wearing ghoonghats and purchasing porn from
their neighbourhood CD shop. yes fat Hindu middle class women enjoying every
bit of the movie, while a calendar of Shiva and Parvati with their half
closed (or who knows stoned) eyes blessing them with their palms in the
background. there is nothing immoral or blasphemous about it.

this "ideal" picture can only manifest itself as some kind of doubt. it is
not pop-spirituality that i am referring to sir (by the virtue of which you
keep saying "hinduism is a way of life", being a Banarsi Thug is also a way
of life quite close to the heart of hinduism, following every word of the
scripture). no wonder the purists (i consider them as the biggest thugs)
keep pushing the adjective "sacred" to Ramayana or other such texts, or even
"holy" to the Bible. did valmiki, a reformed bandit ever tell you in your
sleep that he is writing a *sacred* book call Ramayana? at the most, he
could have said that he is writing about this ideal king ( who also falls
from grace in the hands of his two sons) but he hasnt written anywhere, a
preface...that this book is sacrosanct or you are not allowed to copy the
words or something like it is copyrighted. it was open for interpretations,
translations and even a parody also ( as done by a legendary theatre group
in assam, Bhaya Mama).

it is only the brahminical tradition of knowledge gathering that considers
written testimony to be a valid and a pure source of knowledge. can you
guess why Murali? because that established a brahmin's authorship over the
knowledge systems marginalising others. with a brahmin surname that i have,
i feel like con. so my forefathers (that is if i am being asked to trace a
lineage), were conning the rest of the folk, telling them that look this is
god, this is ram and you ought to follow the order because it is written. on
second thoughts, how many puranas have you read Murali? I can bet, you
havent even seen a purana in your lifetime or even if u have seen it, never
bothered to read it because you are already following this commandment --
the written word is the truth (what a way to get away with one's writing).

 - anupam

On 8/30/09, Murali V <murali.chalam at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Rakesh JI,
>
> I am sure I need not mention that unless one understands the bad, one
> cannot assimilate the good. To highlight the bad is also ones moral
> responsibility.
>
> Regards,
> V Murali
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Rakesh Iyer<rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Murali ji
> >
> > There are many things I wonder about the religions which we follow, and
> > these are great indeed. What is important to note is to look at positive
> > sides of these and not on the negative side. What is required is to learn
> > good out of things, not bad.
> >
> > Gandhi did many bad things as well. So must have Muhammad.. Even Ram and
> > Krishna can't be spared. And Christ may also have done some as well. What
> we
> > must do is to learn good from them, good being good for the people
> entirely,
> > not just for us alone. Not bad things like marrying a girl of my
> daughter's
> > age without her understanding what marriage is all about, or having 1,000
> > wives, or attributing an earthquake to the practice of untouchability.
> (all
> > of which may have contexts, but to be just replicated from that life as
> it
> > is into today's times would be wrong. And even the particular act in that
> > own context may be wrong)
> >
> > So therefore, I may believe in some Ram, but only with the intention of
> > taking good from Ram's life, not certainly bad. And all that good has to
> be
> > based upon reason and social good and freedom as well.
> >
> > So Al-Qaeda or RSS, both are the same to me. Al Qaeda believes in Islamic
> > nationalism, RSS  believes in Hindu nationalism (which they equate with
> > Indian nationalism). But they can't and shouldn't be given the right to
> > enforce their lifestyles or values they believe in, on others. Their
> culture
> > seems to be a copy of what the British Raj was all about: 'civilizing
> those
> > being ruled by us'.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rakesh
> >
> >
> >
>