Though it is a collection of 25 essays, Doniger’s is not a casual work. It comes from decades of immersion in the subject. She is a scholar of high calibre focused on Hinduism. Even her students — Arshia Sattar (Kathasaritsagar and Ramayan) and to an extent Gurcharan Das (Mahabharat) — are known for their ability with Sanskrit texts.
Doniger’s introduction to the Penguin Black Classics translation of Manusmriti is itself a classic and worth reading for all Indians.
The disappearing of her current book, which was around for four years or so, follows the proscription of another fine work by the scholar James Laine on the Maratha hero Shivaji.
I had read the Laine work and so I was puzzled when it was attacked since I had not noticed anything inflammatory in it. When I read the details of the report, I was not surprised to see that it was one line, in which Laine reports a traditional Marathi joke, which was the problem.
When this was noticed, it sent members of the community berserk. They attacked the place which had hosted Laine for his scholarly work, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. This was stupid because it is a place that all Indians should be proud of, and particularly Marathis. The Institute produces the History of Dharmashastra, the magnificent work for which PV Kane won the Bharat Ratna. Oxford University Press withdrew the book, denying hundreds (I will not say thousands given the reading choices of Indians) of people the access to a superb work.
To return to Doniger, the publisher Penguin put out a statement in its defence after it was attacked for surrendering to bullies. Penguin said it “has the same obligation as any other organisation to respect the laws of the land in which it operates, however intolerant and restrictive those laws may be. We also have a moral responsibility to protect our employees against threats and harassment where we can.”
It is difficult to see why they are to be blamed in an environment where the propensity of groups to use violence in place of debate is widespread (the Marathis being particularly active, but by no means being the only ones). Penguin added that “We believe, however, that the Indian Penal Code, and in particular section 295A of that code, will make it increasingly difficult for any Indian publisher to uphold international standards of free expression without deliberately placing itself outside the law.”
The law referred to says: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
This law is, of course, needed in a country where Jats and Muslims will go at each other’s throats and begin to kill over a rumour. In more civilised nations, which are not prone to rioting, it isn’t needed and we must accept that Indians require more policing. We must not blame the law here. The problem is expecting that a benevolent and broadminded judiciary will thread the needle.
Unfortunately, Indian courts, even the higher judiciary, cannot be relied on to weigh in on the side of freedom of expression. I was reading a recent reprint of Smash and Grab — Annexation of Sikkim by Sunanda K Datta-Ray. The book was written 30 years ago but never put out because of a lawsuit against it. Datta-Ray writes: “In my case, the Delhi High Court issued an order on the first hearing, forbidding sale of the book until the case had been settled.”
The same was the case with Khushwant Singh’s autobiography, which Maneka Gandhi managed to block through courts for six years.
This sad trend will continue and my own solution and advice is to always buy a book when it’s out.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 16th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (32)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@WithdrawalSymptom:
In Case of this author Akram Patel , his Islamist master could not perfect the Azl ritual. The symptoms are but natural only. He can be considered am honest man standing for freedom of expression aby penning one single article about ritual pedohelia sanction in Islamic society.
@Rakib: Which publisher wants to wait till they start vandalising property? Poor Penguins must be right to get the fright of their lives!.
This argument does not hold water. Well they fought the case for four years without fear of being vandalized. Only when they were sure of losing the case in court they went in for a settlement. If they were so afraid of the Hindutva brigade they would have given up four years back. Why the sudden realisation for their safety now after four long years??
They went in for a legal settlement to close the case not a settlement with the hindutva brigade
"Patel’s piece makes the pragmatic case for suppressing free speech or, in the case of Rushdie, free movement, but combines it with censure Source:Telegraph So Mr Patel, Hypocrisy much??????"
That's the Aakar Patel I know - welcome back Mr. Patel - that's more like it.
@Sexton Blake:
Imagine geo-centric theory being taught in schools rather than helio-centric theory or encouraging holocaust denial purely on the basis of "freedom of speech". You see, facts trump falsehood. Satyameva jayate.
"Lajja" and "Satanic Verses" were works of fiction that were banned to assuage "hurt feelings". On the other hand, Wendy Doniger’s book was a work of non-fiction that based it's conclusions on falsified facts. The facts that it's own publisher found it to be indefensible in a court of law and hence withdrew the book. Mr. By Aakar Patel, one fails to see the equivalence or coherence in your argument, both from the stand-point of logic or ethics.
@Toticalling: LOL cant stop laughing.
@Rakib: Let us not bring Jinnah into this discussion. We are all aware that he defended a person who murdered a publisher who had published a book consodered blasphemous. You talk aout violence and intimidation as though it were a fact when in fact it is just your imagination, It is unclear how you lnked this with elections. It is not as tough Congress had published this book or BJP had gone to the court to get it stopped.
@Toticalling: That is a fair comment that perhaps i should not have brought Pakistan into this discussion.. It is also not my case that things in India are perfect. But i did point out several facts. Specifically that people prevailed upon the publisher to withdraw a flawed book considered offensive to many Hindus by using existing legal remedies and without any violence or intimidation. There was no ban no threat of violence. Under he circumstances, i feel this cannot be considered intolerant. The fact is that the same laws can and have been used by Indian Muslims also to lock Satanic Verses and Lajja.
While i prefer that a law such as 295-A be repealed from the statute to permit free speech, i do feel that peraps in a country where riots can still occur, such laws are merited but the judges need to use them carefully. Further in presence of such laws anyone who uses violence or threat to get their way has no excuse and should be dealt with strictly as per the law be they Hindus, Muslims, Christians or Sikhs.
A B-grade act to stop a C-grade book! I haven't read other other works by Doringer, but this one was not worth the price. Most essays sound like pop-psychoanalysis (e.g. think Ganesha's trunk and peni* envy). If this book is supposed to represent an academic "authority" on hinduism, then I was badly let down. It was much better to let poeple read the book and laugh about it!
Sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing..........obviously that has not happened. Now the publisher will print a few thousand more books because sales will go up. What is heartening to note is that the dispute is being dealt with in a civilised manner with the courts being involved.
For years none of the pundits & pontiffs in India bothered about Wendy & now suddenly some obscure organisation gets involved in this election year & Penguin panics! Jinnah was member of the Select Committee of 1927 whose Report was depended upon by the British to enact Section295A as an addendum to existing laws. It is not a blasphemy law. The most important phrase in the act is "deliberate and malicious intention". That "intention" needs to be established & Judge has to take a final call on it.Jinnah also said,"'the fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected'. If there are errors in the book Penguin/Wendy could have been asked to issue an errata or clarification. How exactly Penguin or lawyers that negotiated a settlement arrive at the conclusion that Wendy had any "malicious intention"? (She is not a proselytizer, neither a Christian nor a Muslim). Obviously Penguin got scared of violence & risk to its staff in the light of Laine experience & over reacted.
@Gp65: Dear Gp65, I totally disagree with you. Freedom of speech should be paramount, even it it upsets a few people. Unfortunately, curtailment of free speech is occurring on a world wide basis, and particularly in Western countries, so one cannot suggest that India is on its own. Legislated curtailment of free speech occurs in most European countries as well as Canada, Australia, and many others, with the result that an offender can go to prison. On the other hand the offended party can make any statement he/she wishes without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, once the legislation is in place it can be slowly added to without people noticing and one finishes up with tyranny. One only has to look back at the Dark Ages, and what resulted from curtailment of free speech to see what may happen in the future, and is actually happening in a more limited sense today if anyone cares to look.
@Gp65: It was not a factual Response, more a comparison with Pakistan. Surely you do not want that. India is not the most tolerant society on earth. Comparing with Pakistan proves my point. I respect your views in general, except this Obsession with pointing out the evil Pakistan. We Pakistani liberals do enough of that.
Hypocrisy at its best....judiciary delivers justice according to the laws laid down by the legislature.if the judiciary breaches its limits,people like author are at the forefront to call it judicial activism.courts have been accused for fingering into governance issues numerous times.if they impart justice strictly according to the rules like article 377 or the present case restricting freedom of expression,they are accused of having archaic mindset.Mr author should rather petition the central govt for changing the existing laws by bringing bills in Parliament so that judiciary can deliver the justice accordingly,but alas the recent peppery show by Congress MPs brings only tears in our eyes,leaving very less to look ahead.
As a follower of Buddhist philosophy, I pay my respect and homage to brilliant spiritual teachers of modern times India like Ramana Maharshi, Jiddu Krishnamurti or Osho to name a few. The essence of Indian culture is the spiritual philosophy in which the concept of God or no God have lived side by side, without strangling each other.
the author would have sounded trustworthy had he even made a fleeting mention of Taslima or Salman Rushdie being banned in India.issue starts pricking when it concerns to majority sentiments.Indian courts at least have proven evenhanded so far.
When the likes of Aakar Patel keep quiet when Salma Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen are stifled from free speech you indirectly encourage these elements.
@Gp65: ET you edited my first comment so that it makes no sense. I said that the people who call this law tyrannical and idiotic would never adocate its repeal because the biggest protesters would be tose that they seek to appease which is not the ordinary Muslim but the religious leaders of Indian Muslims.
Please pulish.
ET mods - please allow a factual response to @sabi whose coment probably is based on incomplete information provided by he author.
@sabi: Some facts: 1) A book was published which makes factually incorrect assertions about Hinduism and misquotes Valmikim who wrote Ramayan
2) Did Hindus erpt in violence? No. Did they threaten death to the author? No. Did they burn copies of the book? Did they attack the publisher of the book? No. (i know you greatly admire Jinnah. Please check his record in the mater of defending a man who killed the publisher of a book which was considered blasphemous).
3) They went to court and sued the company under Indian law - 295-A of the IPC which forbids offending religious sensitivities. Please note that unlike blasphemy law in Pakistan this law can be inoked by practcictioners of ALL religions and not just those of the majority religion. Further maximum punishment if found guilty is 3 years in jail not death penalty. Nor is there any record in India hat this law has been used to bully the minority community.
4) Penguin withdrew the book and reached an out of court settlement because there was prima facie evidence that the petioner's case did have merit.
Based on this additional information, would you still hold the same opinion?
Well, you can thank Mr. Nehru and his First Amendment to the Indian Constitution for that.
Datta-Ray further writes (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140215/jsp/opinion/story17937626.jsp#.UvhSoUV-IQ), "Truth to tell, Indians have never had much time for dissent. Everyone acquiesced in the freedom struggle, Congress domination, and overpowering gurus like Mahatma Gandhi. The importance of patronage further ensured conformity and it still does. The only source on Sikkim that Ramachandra Guha cites in his India after Gandhi is a propagandist book by Indira Gandhi’s hatchet man in Gangtok, a police officer suspected of RAW links. It’s only now with national prototypes splintering and greater financial independence that tolerance and liberalism are really being put to the test. And we find rising out of the ashes of the old consensus in which acquiescent chroniclers like Guha are confined, the stark spectre of an authoritarian future." So very true and insightful about India.
Very sad India!
This bit about about a marhati joke being the cause of dismay reminds me of a recent joke about ManMohan Singh PM. It goes like this: God decided it was time to end the world, so he called together those whom he considered the three most influential people in the world. President of USA Barrack Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh.
"The world will end," God told them. "You must go and tell the people."
Obama, made a live statement on TV. "I've good news and BAD news." he said. "The good news is that we have been right, there is a God. The bad news is that he is ending the world." The second person, Xi Jinping sent out a worldwide message. "I've bad news and WORSE news," he said. "The bad news is that we have been wrong all along - there is a God. The worse news is that he is ending the world."
Third person, Manmohan Singh immediately calls up Sonia Gandhi and says, "I've good news and BETTER news. The good news is that God thinks I'm one of the three most influential people in the world. The better news is that we do not have to worry about how to stop Modi from becoming PM." I call that positive thinking.
Probably first article by Mr. Patel for tribune without a four letter word starting with M.