When I initially heard of the controversy on an essay on Ramayan, I was immediately a little apprehensive of its content. I found myself prejudiced here but quickly questioned myself. So first, I sat through all the tv debates that happened on the topic. The debates detailed out parts from the essay. Sadly, I was even more sure that the essay seems to be maligning the religious text. The reason is simply because of the way the debates were conducted. They made the debate look like a left/right wing fight or constantly called all dissenting voices intollerant. The words used along with limitation of space and time on the show doesn't give you the right picture of the contents. However like most Indians now I have learnt not to form opinion from the media reports. I try an question it's analysis and intellect at every point. So then I read the Ramayana essay by Ramanujan.
The first story narrated sets the tone of the essay and almost eradicated most of my issues. The essay isn't an interpretation or analysis. It's an explanation of differences in the many versions of ramayan. There is no story that has been added on. Thus the short essay tries to pick differences between ramayans and explains along with verses and context. After reading it completely, I am of the opinion that it seems perfectly fine for an educated mature mind to be exposed to the article.
Some possible apprehensions.
I am not completely aware of the apprehensions that have been put forward except whatever little I have read and heard on the controversy. However, I am putting forward some from my own point of view. In so many Ramayans that are known there must have been a thousand differences in each. The essay obviously picks a few for sheer requirement of space and readability. Now the excerpts chosen to be highlighted could be a point of question for some. One can see a repeated occurrence of controversial relationships and character analysis being mentioned. One wonders if the stress on such issues could have been less. Ramayan is so much more than a story of some characters. It aims to explain philosophy and values. Could we have gained more by getting perspectives on them instead?
One also wonders if the words and phrases that have been written to translate and explain the difference could have been different.. Maybe, maybe not. We may want to think that a scholar of his stature would have weighed most of the words and then chosen the ones which came closest to the explanation of the verses. An essay, a publication has its own value. However when it's part of an academic syllabus specially for undergraduates, it will need to be reviewed differently. One can surely debate the importance of the essay as a syllabus versus a reference text or even the possibility of exposing it to more mature minds of postgraduates. For that I guess the scholars in the subject would know best. We have to consider the long term implication on the evolution of the religious text by making it a compulsory read. That is one of the main causes of dissent.I am for the time being ignoring the fact that sentiments of common people are in question. As that can never be proved unless a survey is done. However I don't think many are willing to take that into consideration anyways.
Main stream media debate.
The controversy has caught the fascination mainly because of it's relevance to the current debate of tolerance in society. So, are the protests to the essay a form of intolerance. Or are we in turn showing intolerance to views and feelings of the masses and their representatives. Let the debate not take in consideration only those who seemed to have picked it. Let's review it in isolation. It's not only about supporting/opposing a party.
There were people who could not take Mr.Subramanian Swamy's article in spirit or appreciate it as freedom of speech. They made a huge cry about it showing it as an insult..targeted the newspaper that published it and its editor. Fair enough! They are completely in their right to do so. However they have now conveniently positioned them selves as 'liberals' and are advocating hard for the ramayan essay.
Please realize both need their due space! That is being liberal.
Both essays have immense capacity to hurt people's emotions. To term people who feel hurt and are protesting as radicals/intolerant is a bit too much. One has to realize that this too is a form of intolerance. Respect for all point of views need to be given their due. Religion and its texts are related to beliefs, faith and emotions of a larger mass and cannot be scrutinized keeping merely the history,science and logic in perspective. Prof. Mukherjee on ndtv in conversation with anchor sonia, showed a perfect example of an intellectual who spoke well in defense of the essay but immediately concluded that protest to this stems from an ideology 'that beats up Prashant Bhushan for his views'. Certainly she did not beat up anyone but did no less either. Intellectuals questioning the validity of the essay demand the same respect as anyone else.
The debate was also termed as 'Talibanisation of Delhi university' . It's become a popular way of speaking for intolerance. Fair? Even if not, I am assuming that they team didn't realize that the decision of removing the article was arrived by voting. It was a democratic solution and not because of pressure from external groups. The 9 members out of 150 who dissented have criticized the AC of not being an academician. One needs to remember that the essay is still valid as a reference document and not banned. Only its inclusion as a syllabus is being disputed. However I guess the issue is now in court and we shall wait for the decision. Till then I would request all dissenting voices to read the essay before you form an opinion through debates and reports.
Link for the original essay : http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3j49n8h7&chunk.id=d0e1254
