-
You do have a one track approach - @SavitriEraParty: This tweet owes its existence as much to technology as to the legal rights won over centuries. The content, of course, is force of the wo...4 weeks ago
-
People operate with diverse systems of belief and we can live with this incoherence - Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty - Page 118 - Paul W. Kahn - 2011 - Preview - More editions In the postmodern world, the...2 months ago
Savitri Era of those who adore, Om Sri Aurobindo and The Mother.
In view of the fact that multiple anonymous comments in a thread make confusing reading and it becomes difficult to track who is telling what and to whom, only comments bearing some name/pseudonym/identity will appear in future. [TNM 011110 SEOF]
Tuesday 3 April 2012
If Heehs has defamed anyone; or violated any law, let the law takes its course
Tweets Prasanto
K Roy @prasanto
Ram Guha on the stellar contributions of foreigners in India . Would
the US
throw out an accomplished US-resident Indian who wrote something someone
disagreed with? It wouldn't be so stupid #PeterHeehs
Retweeted by Gautam Chikermane
Dilip R.V.
Kumar @rvdilip
- @MaliniP #Aurobindo's
life (& lives of many of Great Masters) are inspiring indeed. Problem is we
don't understand until outsiders tell us. Malini Parthasarathy @MaliniP - @rvdilip Its not the outsider's
fault! :)
Dilip R.V.
Kumar @rvdilip
- @MaliniP We lack self
confidence in us and in our abilities and in the abilities of our brothers and
sisters of this great nation. Sad.
Intolerance: A National Pastime? NDTV Sanjay Pinto wrote a
post:
After the Salman Rushdie saga in Jaipur, Peter Heehs
is the latest author to come under fire for a biography of Sri Surobindo.
Furious devotees at the Aurobindo Ashram in the otherwise quiet, sleepy union territory of Puducherry want the book banned and the
American historian, who has been reportedly working in the former French Colony
for over four decades to digitize the archives of the Indian nationalist and
spiritual leader, deported.
What they find offensive are portions
attributing a communal slant to Sri Aurobindo's leadership during the
freedom struggle, the suggestion that Sri Aurobindo's spiritualism stemmed
from inherited psychological problems and the hint of romantic
overtones in Sri Aurobindo's relationship with his spiritual collaborator Mira
Alfassa, revered by followers as 'The Mother. An unfazed Heehs concedes that
Sri Aurobindo was a genius and a spiritualist of great standing. What I find
odd is that instead of challenging the author on facts and even interpretation,
his opponents are merely harping on some rule that inmates of the ashram have
no right to write about the guru. Why are we so averse to a healthy debate? Why
are we impervious to criticism or mere academic posturing? Why are we intolerant of 'the other view'?
Orissa, which also has a sizeable chunk of followers
of Sri Aurobindo has banned the book. It is no one's contention that
freedom of expression is an absolute right. If Heehs has defamed anyone; or
violated any law, let the law takes its course. There is enough scope in the
Indian Penal Code from Section 500 to Section 292 and a slew of other
provisions to haul up a person. Let the courts decide if what is said or
written, falls under a 'reasonable restriction' or not. The rules of discourse
cannot be framed on the street.
Sreenivas
Subramaniam: I cannot comprehend as to why can't Indians ever get out of
this religious mindset. If we create more fundamentalist in our country, then
there are chances of our society giving birth to radical groups.
Chandrashekhar:
Sanjay, I disagree with you. If I provide wrong account of your life in public
with hidden agenda, will your family not protest ?
Many voices of
history The Hindu Romila Thapar PUSHPA
CHARI March 31, 2012
To argue that there was always a single language is
historically problematic. Religion too had multiple forms and contradictory
beliefs in many manifestations, sects, cults and the absence of a single
dominant monolithic religion… The point of course is that civilisations could
only rise out of interaction and exchange. They were essentially porous with
indefinable contours. Boundaries were not inviolate and absolute… When
corruption becomes so rampant, we must recognise that we are living in a
society which is founded on immorality and an absence of ethics. This is not
what makes for a civilisation…
I think that we — in our contemporary society and
culture — do not respect the academic profession, nor do government agencies… I
argued that I wanted my peer group to respect me (if they choose to) for what I
am, and the work that I am doing and not because I've been given a Padma
Bhushan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment