“Three Hundred Ramayanas” & “The Jewel of Medina”
Last week, responding to a petition to ban a history textbook, the Supreme Court asked Delhi University’s expert panel to consider the views of petitioners before submitting a final report to the Vice-Chancellor.
As some of you would know, the textbook - prescribed as part of the BA (Hons) second year syllabus at Delhi University - is said to include offensive references to Shri Hanuman and Sita Mataa such as “Lord Hanuman was a henchman of Lord Rama” and “the little monkey was a womaniser” etc…The book was the cause of a protest led by ABVP earlier this year during which Dr Jafri, the Head of History Deptt at DU was manhandled…
Curious to know more about the textbook, I spent some time researching on the internet this morning…Here is a link to Ramanujan’s essay that is included in the textbook…
After reading it, I felt that the ABVP over-reacted on this one… The “offensive” passages are not penned by Ramanujan but are part of folklore and stories around Ramayana in different cultures and regions. Furthermore, I found them more “entertaining” rather than “offensive”…As an example,
One day when Rama was sitting on his throne, his ring fell off. When it touched the earth, it made a hole in the ground and disappeared into it. It was gone. His trusty henchman, Hanuman, was at his feet. Rama said to Hanuman, “Look, my ring is lost. Find it for me.”
Note that the word “henchman” is not Ramanujan’s translation and possibly part of the original folk-story…What is the problem in that? In another version of Ramayana mentioned by Ramanujan, Sita is Ravana’s daughter…
I hope most of you would agree that there is space for divergent views in Hinduism…and a big attraction of this faith for me is that it allows - and respects - alternative interpretations, viewpoints and thoughts….Let us not dilute this core feature of Sanatan Dharma.
***
On Sunday in far-away London, the home of the publisher of a similarly controversial book (although this was not a textbook but a fictional novel) was fire-bombed, just “hours after police had warned the man that he could be a target for fanatics”. The book, “The Jewel of Medina” is written by Sherry Jones and had already caused controversy in the US. Martin Rynja (the publisher) had bought the UK publishing rights earlier this month.
From The Guardian:
The book was originally due to have been published in August by US giant Random House. But amid controversy the company halted publication, a move denounced by Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, as ‘censorship by fear’.
…One sex scene has been described as ’softcore pornography’ by an American academic, Denise Spellberg, an influential professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas. Spellberg made the comments after Random House sent her the book hoping for a favourable comment to publish on its jacket. Instead, in an email that was leaked to the US press, Spellberg described the novel as a ‘very ugly, stupid piece of work’.
‘I don’t have a problem with historical fiction,’ Spellberg wrote. ‘I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into softcore pornography.’
It appears Spellberg was instrumental in drawing attention to the book among segments of the Muslim community. In April, Shahed Amanullah, an editor of a popular Muslim website, claimed Spellberg had told him the book ‘made fun of Muslims and their history’.
The resulting furore prompted Random House to pull the book, a move that dismayed its author, who received a $100,000 advance…
My question to all of you is:
What do you make of Spellberg’s argument viz: “‘I don’t have a problem with historical fiction (but)…I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history…”
- Is “Ramayana” part of our sacred history?
- Can the folk-variants of Ramayana be considered ”deliberate mis-interpretation” of history?
Anyways, I will be watching the reaction of Indian government to this book whenever (if) it is released in India.
Suggested Reading: Academic Terrorists and The right to offend
Related Posts:
UPDATED: Is Taslima being treated differently from MF Husain?
Will Arundhati Roy pl. stand up for Francois Gautier?
P.S. Curiously, it appears that DU had not taken permission from OUP before reproducing Ramanujan’s essay in their textbook.
Boss
Henchman is a translation…of Ramajunan himself
Further, quite a lot of authorities on Hindu mythology have contended that many of these 300 versions don’t exist at all
Comment by Anonymous | October 2, 2008
Anon: You are right….I was not thinking…The original could not have been in English!
I should go back and check the source.
Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Comment by B Shantanu | October 2, 2008
Dear Shantanu,
Sanatana Dharma is what we are talking about. Rama was Dharma incarnate. 300 Ramayanas! Duplicity of history for a motive???
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | October 2, 2008
All this really looks some hidden agenda. Some more examples are : changing kendriya vidyalaya logo, putting favorites (anti H!ndus) in NCERT, etc…
Comment by Hemant | October 3, 2008
It is obviously a translation by Ramanujam, as you also said ‘possibly part of the original folk-story’.
One meaning of henchman is ‘true trusted subordinate’. So Ramanujan is principally correct in using this term, but unfortunately this term is used only for criminals which makes it improper to use this term for Lord Hanuman. Unfornately Ramanujam probably didn’t think in this angle.
Hinduism has always allowed different interpretations, but only by great saints and bhaktas. It does not allow interpretations by athiests (including people from other religions), people without spiritual knowledge, people not bonafide by spiritual gurus, people who are not saints themselves.
My opinion is Henchman is not the write translation and; NO, Hinduism does not encourage stupid interpretations by unqualified people whose intent is not to enjoy the literature and glory of god. Interpretations are allowed only to enjoy the God in a different way.
Comment by Nanda | October 3, 2008
And, Sita being daughter of Ravan is not an interpretation, it has the backing of literatures which cannot be interpretted differently. Valmiki does not cover this part of the history, so you cannot term this as an interpretation. Similarly, many pieces of the story are not covered by him but covered in other puranas.
Comment by Nanda | October 3, 2008
vck, Hemant and Nanda: Thanks for your comment…
***
@ Nanda: You wrote, “Sita being daughter of Ravan is not an interpretation, it has the backing of literatures”.
That is interesting…I was not aware of that…Can you share more details of this story?
Thanks.
Comment by B Shantanu | October 4, 2008
All these things really look confusing. There is one site which refers to “Buddha Ramayana”…
http://www.raceandhistory.com/worldhotspots/riddlerama.htm
The Riddle Of Rama And Sita
Quoted from: Appendix No.1 of Part 3 of the book
Riddles of Hinduism 1995
By Dr. Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar
At one point it is even mentioned:
“According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha.”
Also, “They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Ram as a ‘Prince among women’s men’. This was not a day’s affair. It was a regular course of his life.”
Really looks ’strange’ to say the least…and even more if it indeed came from Babasaheb Ambedkar!
Comment by Hemant | October 4, 2008
Dear Sir,
Lord Rama was a Kshatriya prince and not a “Brahmin”. Lord Buddha was also a Kshatriya prince. I do not talk of a Brahmin story of Buddha!
Let us leave this alone. It will only lead to unneccessary arguments and throwing mud at each other.
Please understand that Shri. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism after he rejected the “Hindu” as they did not accept him. I think the reliance on such versions of the Ramayana will be misplaced.
When the shit hits the ceiling fan, all of us need a bath.
Let us not bring in a new controversy when something like this does not exist.
Let us live our lives. You like it enjoy it. Please do not throw the shit around. It will hurt everybody.
Regards,
vck
Comment by v.c.krishnan | October 4, 2008
well said vck .i dont think so people should be discussing something so seriously that took place thousands of years ago.in india this is our biggest problem in every section of our society. ask anyone today the history of his great great grandfather and he will know nothing about it.yet they all want the world to believe their version of gods and goddesses.
Comment by tarique | October 19, 2008
I don’t think we “want world to believe ‘our’ version”. All we are interested in finding the truth and preventing/identifying distorted history…
Comment by Hemant | October 19, 2008
Excerpts from Appraising ‘The Jewel of Medina’
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081015_appraising_jewel_medina
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart
***
“The Jewel of Medina,” a controversial work of historical fiction by American author Sherry Jones, was supposed to have gone on sale Oct. 15 in the United Kingdom. A series of events, however, have delayed its British release indefinitely. The book, which went on sale in the United States on Oct. 6, describes the life of Aisha, the young girl who became the Prophet Mohammed’s third — and according to many sources, favorite — wife.
…While the author and publisher have argued that the book respectfully portrays Mohammed and his relationship with Aisha — in stark contrast to the Danish cartoons that have sparked so much protest and violence — the tone of the book is not the real issue. To many Muslims, not only is it offensive to ridicule Mohammed but it is forbidden and considered a dire insult to portray the prophet in any way outside the context of Islamic writings. This insult is magnified when Mohammed is depicted having intimate relations with his wife, a revered figure in Islam who is referred to in many Islamic writings as “Um ul Mumineen” (Arabic for “Mother of the Believers”). Because of this, in all probability many Muslims — not just a few radicals — will find the book offensive.
…To better gauge the scope of potential threats and incidents that could result from distribution of “The Jewel of Medina,” it is useful to examine earlier incidents where large segments of Muslim society were angered by the publication of images or other portrayals of the Prophet Mohammed — and when that outrage caused radical Muslims to respond with violence.
As mentioned above, the publication of satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed galvanized Muslims in many countries, and the cartoons sparked protests in a variety of locations. Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard drew the cartoons, and Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published them in September 2005. The cartoons’ initial release produced very little fallout. In fact, the majority of protest activity surrounding their publication did not begin until early 2006, when information about the cartoons was intentionally spread through Muslim communities worldwide by Muslim activists seeking to create an uproar over the cartoons and instigate violence. They even stacked the deck by adding some extremely inflammatory cartoons of the prophet not published in Jyllands-Posten.
…Another recent example of Muslim wrath spurred by what many Westerners consider an exercise of free speech and artistic license was the November 2004 slaying by a militant Muslim of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh had directed a short documentary called “Submission” that discussed the issue of violence committed against Muslim women. The movie was considered especially inflammatory because it contained depictions of Koranic verses interposed on nude female bodies.
Van Gogh received several threats following the August 2004 release of “Submission,” but he seemed to disregard them and refused to accept protection. Van Gogh was attacked while riding his bicycle to work. His assassin, Mohammed Boyeri, shot van Gogh eight times and then attempted to behead him with a knife before leaving a threatening note pinned to van Gogh’s body with a second knife.
The 1988 publication of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” also offers valuable insights about the potential reception of “The Jewel of Medina.” Many Muslims condemned Rushdie’s novel for depicting a false prophet named “Mahound” (a derogatory moniker for the Prophet Mohammed), creating characters that questioned the validity of Islam, and suggesting that Mahound might have received words in the Koran from the devil. Despite critical acclaim, the book was banned in more than 10 countries prior to publication. Another 11 countries banned the book after outbreaks of violence in the United Kingdom and the United States.
…Though Khomeini’s fatwa has not led to Rushdie’s death, a number of other individuals associated with the book’s publication were attacked, and some were murdered. Ettore Capriolo, who translated the book into Italian, was beaten and stabbed in July 1991. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator, was stabbed to death in an attack the same month. Turkish translator Aziz Nesin was attacked in October 1993 but survived critical injuries.
A Long-Term Problem
As seen in the examples noted above, “The Jewel of Medina” has the potential to cause problems for many years. Though this issue might fade quickly from public consciousness in the West, the subject matter of the book has the potential to inflame Muslim activists again in the future. In the case of the Prophet Mohammed cartoons, Pakistani religious leaders admitted that they intentionally stirred up emotions connected with the publication of Mohammed’s images after the initial furor died down. It is thus quite possible that “The Jewel of Medina” will be used in the same way. This time frame could span decades. In the case of “The Satanic Verses,” large-scale protests condemning the book and Rushdie occurred as recently as fall 2007, 19 years after the novel’s publication.
…We are not necessarily predicting an immediate open season on Sherry Jones or the publishers of the book, but precautions should obviously be taken to prevent them from becoming the next Theo van Goghs. And as the ancillary attacks in the Rushdie case (among others) have shown, other people also can become victims, and violence can be channeled in unexpected ways and appear in unexpected places. When it comes to perceptions of blasphemy and other affronts that some see as warranting death, fatwas often are carried out with extreme brutality — and those targeted have not always been directly associated with the initial offense. Considering past examples and the probable emotions “The Jewel of Medina” will raise in the Islamic world, revenge for offended religious sensibilities might be brutal, and it might be a long time coming.
Comment by B Shantanu | October 29, 2008