Free speech, but.

I did not anticipate writing about censorship and free speech so soon after my previous post, but I am compelled to do so. I did not know who Wendy Doniger was before news about the banning of her book, "The Hindus: An alternative history" made the headlines. Predictably, the media has raised its voice in support of the author and against the "Talibanisation" of India due to right wing forces. I read the column in the Indian Express which defended her vehemently, only to find that they had awarded this book for Best Non-Fiction book 2009-10.
http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/ramnath-goenka-foundation/2009_winners.html
Also predictably, voices have been raised in the social media about why the book does not deserve the respect it is being accorded by the mainstream media. I will hopefully convince you why this award and the ill-informed outrage against the withdrawal is laughable.

Firstly, the book has not been banned by either the government or the courts. It has been withdrawn by the publishers themselves. There was a lawsuit, an out of court settlement and to me at least, it looks like no laws were broken by the party that filed the lawsuit. The publishers are the same Penguin who heroically fought for Salman Rushdie's book. Why should Penguin, which put so much at stake for The Satanic Verses behave so differently this time around? Is it because it fears Shiksha Bachao Andolan (a group which I had also not heard about earlier)? That Hindu groups will somehow resort to intimidating the author and publishers with death threats? Or is it because the editors finally woke up and realized that the book had no scholarly merit? I would like to think it is the latter since the book is simply not up to any scholarly standards, and its many factual errors have already been pointed out by many others including:
http://www.sify.com/news/why-wendy-doniger-s-the-hindus-raised-hackles-news-international-ocloREddedj.html

The reviews on Amazon (which I admit is not the most authoritative source) are mostly not generous to the author:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hindus-An-Alternative-History/dp/1594202052

In spite of this, and apprehensions that I would be angered by the book, I downloaded the book and perused through its contents. There is the usual "Brahminical, Patriarchal, Dalit-Torturing, Woman-Enslaving" Sanskrit literature bashing, which does not anger me that much these days. But there were a few passages that caught my eye, especially one titled "Proto-Tantric Goddesses". This talks about Chandika who appears in Devi Mahatmyam. Since I have the book and I know Devi Mahatmyam, I decided to give this a careful read. The passages refer to the killing of Shumbha and Nishumbha. In the Devi Mahatmyam, these episodes span Chapters 5 to 10.

The story in short is as follows: Shumbha and Nishumba, brothers and powerful asuras conquered the Devas and put them through a lot of trouble since no man or demon could vanquish them. The Devas then appealed to Himavat, and the Devi agreed to be incarnated as Chandika to slay the asuras. After she arrives, one of Shumbha's messengers sees her and tells Shumbha about her unparalleled beauty. Shumbha then sends a marriage proposal to Chandika. But she challenges Shumbha to battle and says that she would marry him only if he defeats her in battle. After many episodes, she meets Shumbha for the first time in battle and kills him.

One of the things that the petitioner called Doniger was "sex hungry" and I see why he did that. This is what the lady had to say about the killing of Shumbha:

" CHANDIKA SEDUCES AND KILLS SHUMBHA: Shumbha fell madly in love with Chandika and proposed marriage. She replied that she would only marry someone who vanquished her in battle. There was a battle, ... she killed Shumbha. Shumbha has an ally, Nishumbha, whom Chandika kills too; the names suggest that this myth is modeled on the earlier story of the seduction of the antigods Sunda and Upasunda by the nymph Tilottama, who leaves their killing to the gods. This myth is then a combination of the older theme of “dangerous upstart seduced by nymph” with the new theme of “d.u. killed by goddess.” Chandika gives Shumbha death in lieu of sex; he dies in the battle that she demands as a prelude to marriage, a marriage that never happens, and goes straight to heaven, since his love-war relationship with the goddess is regarded as a form of dvesha-bhakti , devotion through hatred (as well as love). Though dozens and dozens of antigods who lack Shumbha’s passion are vanquished by the gods on every page without seeing the light, his passion makes his death in combat a form of enlightenment, a popular Hindu theme that is foreshadowed by the heaven-guaranteeing heroic battle deaths in the Mahabharata."

Doniger calls Nishumbha an ally of Shumbha while he was much more. He was his brother. I can forgive that since she promises a juicy seduction strand in the story. I read and re-read with a dictionary in hand only to find that the Devi kills Shumbha in the most brutal fashion. There is nothing delicate or remotely suggestive in the shlokas that deal with their battle. Moreover, Shumbha first lays his eyes on Devi only at the battle field, by which time the Devi has taken a terrible form, already annihilating his commanders like Dhumralochana, Raktabija etc. The only, but very far fetched sexual innuendo could be the following shlokas (chapter 10, shlokas 23 onwards).

"...tatrapi sa niradhara yuyudhe thena chandika|

niyudham khe tada daityaha chandika cha parasparam||

chakrathu prathamam sidham muni vismaya karakam|

tatho niyudham suchiram kritva tena ambika saha||

uthpatya brahmaya masa chikshepa dharani thale|..."

This translates to (obviously no where close to Sanskrit in poetic beauty):

" There (refers to the sky since the Devi takes flight in the previous line), the Devi and the warrior were suspended

Chandika and the asura fought very closely in hand-to-hand combat

Looking at how close they were fighting for the first time, the rishis were very surprised

They fought at a very close distance for a long time

The devi then threw the asura to the ground"

If this is what Doniger thinks seduction is, then I think she needs serious help. One can flippantly say such things to friends after having a few beers or smoking some unknown plants. But to write it in a book and assume that someone will not spot it is not too smart, that too for a "renowned and eminent Indologist"<coughs and throws up>. It also makes me wonder if these are the inane arguments used by people who blame rape victims (I should leave this thought at that for I will digress too much). And this is only a couple of pages in the book. Her interpretation of Mahishasura vadha is a total trip-fest with the Devi seducing a buffalo. Another interpretation that I would perhaps appreciate if I had liberal amounts of psychoactive drugs in my blood stream, not while I am reading a book that is purportedly the work of a scholar. Well done Penguin, for pulping this book. Now it would be better if you gave the real reason why you withdrew the book, not your phony reason that you misplaced your spine.

PS: I am all for free speech but bullshit masquerading as great pieces of literature must be called out for what they are.

Homophones and the censor board

Censorship by judicial and government activism has been long been an impediment to free speech in India. The film certification board has also been party to this. I came across a case of censor board overreach from the precambrian by accident, when I was listening to a song of that time. I cannot claim full credit to the discovery because I remember someone else talking about this on All India Radio when I was very young (most likely sometime between ages 12-15). But I was overjoyed rediscover this--albeit minor--act of censorship. Unfortunately I am unable to cite the original radio show and I am confident that my parents, who were also listening to the program, would also be unable to do so.


The song, "Vandha naal mudhal", one of my favourite Kannadasan songs figures in the movie "Paava Mannippu". The movie boasts of a cast with legends such as MR Radha, Sivaji Ganesan, TS Balaiya, Savithri, and many others, and I recommend it to anybody who is interested in three hours of melodrama and MR Radha's sheer brilliance. The song itself is a lament about the imperfections of human morality and how man's caprice has been a challenge in creating a better society.

Anyway, the song has a line, "Edhanai kandan panam thanai padaithan". The poet says that man was inspired to invent planes after seeing birds take flight, he created radio taking inspiration from echoes (while the second inspiration may not be wholly true, the effect it has in Tamil poetry is remarkable). But the poet wonders why man created money (panam)? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiAD_5iGSOA

Except, this is not the actual question Kaviarasar wanted to ask. The verses in question start from 2:30 and the exact line of interest is around 2:45. One can clearly hear the change in TMS's voice when he pronounces "panam". A crude, ill disguised cut and paste job. The question he wanted to ask was "Edhanai kandan madham thanai padaithan". One can also see Sivaji lip syncing those words. The censor board seems to have concluded that using madham (religion) instead of panam was "sensitive" and could hurt "religious sentiments". Another very interesting observation is the use of another "madham" in the same song. This madham on the other hand means rage or madness. The poet says "Manidhan marivittan, madhathil eri vittan", suggesting that man has changed and has lost his sense of morality. Tamil has this tendency of throwing  some homophones that make you pause and wonder. Religion and a fit of rage that causes you to lose your sense of morality have the same pronunciation? Naughty Murugar, naughty Agathiyar. I noticed another very interesting pair of words recently that are both pronounced "irai", but spelled differently using two different "ra's"--whose utility and usage I never endeavored to understand. These two mean food and god. How apt! "Search for food before you search for god" is painted on a nondescript plaque hanging somewhere on the walls of the Madurai Meenakshi amman temple.

Now the whole thing begs the big question as to which is more harmful money or religion? I think my answer is quite clear from the preceding sentences. Money is far more useful in the present day than religion. Money was far more useful than religion back in 1961 (the year the movie was released). Imagine what you would do without money? Go back to barter system? Use precious metals? That would be most unpleasant. On the other hand, religion, although not totally deleterious, is much more dispensable than money. We could all do with some peace, quiet and reason. Kaviarasar was right the first time around!