Invading the Sacred.

INVADING THE SACRED: A Collection of Essays.

The forward by Balagangadhara gives the reasons and the objectives of the Collection. (pp vii – ix)

He says: “The standard text book story which has schooled multiple generations, including mine goes as follows: caste system dominates India, strange and grotesque deities are worshipped in strange and grotesque ways, women are discriminated against, practice of widow burning exists and corruption is rampant.”

May be according to this writer; in India the caste system is an invention of the western indologists’ hallucinations and imaginations. Until these indologists discovered; we in India were one united and equal in status (Sarvam Vishnumayam Jagat) and there were no differences among castes like brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra or SC & ST.

We never worshipped strange deities except Bhadrakalies who demand blood (today animal) sacrifices. There are many more at least in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. In TN animal sacrifices in temples were banned by the then AIADMK govt. but withdrawn later. Last year there were reports from Maharashtra that so many pilgrims succumbed by slipping in the flowing blood of the sacrificed animals in a hill shrine. These are not strange and grotesque. They are sacred.

Worshipping in strange and grotesque ways is not in India. The TV show Kaal, Kapaal, Mahakaal was a phantasy enacted and not true happenings. I remember my childhood days when the pilgrims to Kodungallur Meena Bharani chant grotesque and obscene songs in the name of the female deity there. I think that those songs are refined today. Plenty of animals are sacrificed in the temple for the deity even today.

As for discrimination against women as gender; everyday news gives ample evidences how women were treated through violence and dishonour to toe their family line in education, marriage, living and faith. In this there is no discrimination of caste, creed, age or education. If there were no discrimination against women until the indologists described them then how is it widespread among both literate and illiterate in rural and urban areas? No tradition could be established by a hundred indologists shouting for it. No one could deny the fact of bride burning in the past. The Hindustan Times of 18^th November 2007 while reporting about widows of Vrindavan referred to records of widow burning in Bengal at the beginnings of twentieth century. They must be planted by indologists indeed. Again invading the sacred.

In my school days in the thirties and forties and again when my children were in school in sixties and seventies also when my grandchildren were studying in nineties and later never came across a text book exactly fitting to the description given by Balagangadhara. Such texts must be exclusive to his school and not found in Malayalam in my days. I don’t think that those books referred might be as negative as described. Yes, there were mention of negative traits in society but there were much more positive points. I learned about Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Narayana Guru and many more of our reformers from then textbooks. Even today after reading the full texts in Sanskrit of Ramayana and Mahabharata, I feel that what I learned from those school texts about Rama, Krishna and others remain true.

To follow Balagangadhara is to accept as fact that there were no critics of cast etc. before the indologists. Might be so. But to belittle the workings of Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Prardhana Samaj and many more in the then Madras Province as well as Travancore Cochin states who came out against caste and other discriminations then practiced in the society. If there were no castes and therefore no discriminations; they must be tilting at the windmills erected by mainly the English indologists. The trenchant critic of the ancient and as well as the present day Hinduism was Dr.B.R. Ambedkar.

Volume 3. Page 25. Philosophy of Hinduism.

1. Does Hinduism recognise equality?

Dr. Ambedkar examines this aspect with evidences taken from Manusmriti on pages 25 to 38 and he answers the question.

“Enough has been said to show how Hinduism is a denial of equality both social as well as religious and how it is also a degradation of human personality.” (Page 38)

2. Does Hinduism recognise liberty? (Pages 38 to 44 )

“Thus Hinduism far from encouraging spread of knowledge is a gospel of darkness. Taking these facts into consideration Hinduism is opposed to the condition in which liberty can thrive. It is therefore denial of liberty.” (Pages 43 & 44)

3. Does Hinduism recognise fraternity? ( Pages 44 to 66 )

Babasahib made a lengthy discussion on stories and events described in Vedic and puranic literature came to the conclusion on page 66 thus:

“This brief analysis of philosophy of Hinduism from the point of view of justice reveals in a glaring manner how Hinduism is inimical to equality, antagonistic to liberty and opposed to fraternity.” (Page 66)

“Inequality to the Hindu is divinely prescribed way of life, as a religious doctrine , it has become incarnate in Hindu society and is shaped and moulded by it, in its thoughts and in its doings. Indeed inequality is the soul of Hinduism.”

And in this 500 and odd pages collection of essays there is no mention of the name of Dr. Ambedkar or his voluminous writings on Hinduism.

If this is what we encounter at the entrance of this book how can anybody be sure about the promised acadamic rigour in these essays?

I am not qualified to comment on the writings of Wendy Doniger and others who are the targets of criticism in these essays since I have not read any one of them. It also should mean that I am least qualified to evaluate this book. However, some random thoughts come to mind. How could the concept of gods and or scriptures become sacred since all of them were conceived by the man himself? On the one hand the essayists make out case for their scriptural descriptions to be sacred to them and demand others to respect them even if in their own admission those concepts and scriptures are very contradictory to each other. For example talking about Ganesa the writers mention that many Puranas are sectarian (p.200) the Bhagawata is a kavya i.e. poetic and imaginative story and the Devibhagawata (on which basis most of the Devi concepts are evolved) is a sectarian composition. (p.211) The stories about Ganesa in the different puranas vary on the birth and development of the legends.

There are the legends of Shiva cutting off the head of Daksha Prajaaapati, The main as well as the upa puranas tell this story differently and too contradictory fashion. Some seem too absurd and convoluted. Still they are claimed to be sacred. The essayists sometime concede that certain stories have sexual connotations but they should not be explained in terms of psycho pathological methods. One legend that I have heard from my childhood is that of Durvasa gifting a garland of Parijata flower to Indra who was going round the heaven on his elephant Iravata. Indra keeps the garland on the head of the elephant it in turn bothered by the bees crowding the garland throws it down under its feet and crushes the garland. Durvasa angry at this turn curses the Indra and entire gods to be mortals. They were getting old and sick. The gods approach Brahma for resolution. Brahma calls for churning the milky ocean to reach or Amrita. It is said that both Parijata and Iravata did come out of the milky ocean while churning. The question is that if this legend is correct from where Durvasa got the garland of Parijata and which is the real Iravata? Which are sacred and which are not?

In one foot note the book recalls the outrage felt by a person in the audience hearing the lecture on Ramayana by Wendy Doniger at a London conference. He is enraged to hear that Rama is not a historical figure neither he is a god but a human with its all features. The note did not say that according to all historians including that of Hindutva variety Ramayana is not history but faith. At one interview L.K.Advani admitted that the Ramjanmabhoomi is faith even if there is no historical evidence for it. The latest Sethu Samudram row is another based on faith alone.

The critiques have concentrated their ire on the books on Ganesa and incidentally of Shiva, Vishnu, Parvati etc. The Devi Kali gets depicted as a benevolent goddess but did not take into consideration of the gruesome killing of animals at all occasions the more on festival days. The essayists wish to deny such sacrifices being in practice today. They also wish to deny any caste discrimination in present day India. They deny any psychopathological condition in Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Vivekananda as well.

It seemed that the writers are enraged and object to the depiction of their deities in the light of psychopathological terms with sexual connotations. But in other places they vehemently argue against any critique of their deities. These are in contradiction. If some of the puranas are sectarian and wanted to establish superiority of their own god/s by denigrating others, the academics should have freedom to expose them in terms of the psychology manifest in the stories. If there are hidden sexuality in them that also should get highlighted.

Some writers have taken a stand that nothing in the puranas should be questioned specifically by people outside the religion. This stand impinges on academic freedom as conceived by the university authorities. (p. 217) I entirely agree with their stand.

There are certain claims such as of Upanayanam being performed by all Hindus when the vast majority out side the twice born are not even aware of it. Similar is a claim for performing Ganapathy pooja by all Hindus. This is misleading. Only in ritual conducted mainly by the Brahmins do this pooja on all occasions. Others do not. There are several more ascribed to all Hindus but restricted to groups and areas. Only in the late decades of 20^th century many low castes adopted sankritisation of their ceremonies. In Kerala Nairs and Menons and other did conduct their marriages only in the evenings or nights but nowadays that were shifted to the mornings as for Brahmins. Even today much of the north Indian non-Brahmin marriages are performed at night. I have witnessed so many of them.

One more point that I would like to mention here is about Ganapathy mantra recited by people performing his pooja. It is a hymn from Rig Veda 2.23.1

“Gañanam tva ganñapatim havamahe”. The author says that this mantra has nothing to do with the god Ganesa but addressed to Brahaspati the priest of the gods. (From my childhood days when I was thought to chant this mantra I had doubts came to me about the deity being addressed? I was learning Sanskrit at those days. Only much later I understood the meaning but still I did not question the tradition invoking this mantra to Ganapathy. When I was reading Rig Veda and it translation in Malayalam I saw the translator’s note pointing the wrong use of this mantra to invoke Ganapathy.)

This book also notes that the mantra is not for Ganapathy but did not mention its misuse by Brahmins for hundreds of years establishing a fraud as tradition.

Balagangadhara says that Diwali festival is for Mahabali coming back from his abode once a year. I never heard this story. Mahabali story is connected with the Oñam celebration in Kerala. Mahabali was supposed to have been ruling Kerala.

Mahabali is portrayed as a humble devotee of Vishñu and his father Prahlada was saved from cruel father Hirañyakasipu by Vishñu himself in the incarnation of Narasimha. With such a background Vishñu in his new avatar as Vamana the dwarf tricks Mahabali to lose his kingdom in order to satisfy the Indra who feared for his seat to against occupation by Mahabali. The king stood with his promise even though cautioned by his teacher priest Shukra that the dwarf is really Vishñu in disguise.

Diwali in all sources cited in the media during every Diwali day is connected with Sri Rama coming back to Ayodhya after the war in Lanka. Another story popular in south is that of slaying of Narakasura by Satyabhama the second wife of Krishña and releasing the confined princesses amounting to 16,000 who in turn became so many wives of Krishna.

There are still more problematic questions that have no solution. Some and specifically Balgangadhara questions the principles of secularism in Indian context. He argues that secularism is Christian construct against the then catholic dogmas. Accordingly he wanted India to adopt the so called Hindu version of secularism. He is sour that after Independence the Indian state went for European version of secularism. The concept of sarva dharma samabhava is not truly followed by those who vow on this. They interpret it as equality between Indian faiths that naturally exclude Islam and Christianity.

The entire tome of essays is seems to be emphasising the difference between white European and other coloured. I felt after reading the entire tome that the essayists wanted to claim a separate and superior status to Indians nay Hindus. They are different in their mental and physical stature. Their origin, history, culture and mental functions are some thing unique not shared by any other people. While alleging racial bias to US academics in relation to Hinduism they themselves are mired in finding only differences for Hinduism. Would it not be correct to infer that the essayists are similar racists in comprehending the US academics?

One essayist Aditi Banerji goes deeper into the subject of the colonial mindset of the early immigrants to America their exploits in perpetuating horrible violence and extermination of the original inhabitants of the continent. But all her sources are white. To picture the US academics as racist is deeply offensive today. In the whole book it is shown that Indian Diaspora is a valued minority in US and is racially or otherwise not discriminated in their professions including teaching in universities. Then how come this racial bias? Who is racial?