Posts Tagged ‘freedom of thought’

Vairamuthu’s research on Andal, the “quoted quote research methodology,” and the confession of “eminent historians”!

January 20, 2018

Vairamuthu’s research on Andal, the “quoted quote research methodology,” and the confession of “eminent historians”!

Andal, Vairamuthu controversy

The controversy started with Vairamuthu on Andal (07-1-2018): What Vairamuthu wrote about Andal as appeared in “Dinamani” in Tamil, and its translation is given as follows[1]: “As Andal was not born to Periyazhwar, there were no details available about her birth, though, she was brought up by a Brahmin, as the society that was controlled with caste stratification might not accept her into such caste hierarchy, Andal herself had already attained the freedom of word with force and there was a practice of offering women to temple accepted by the then society, some researchers have been compelled to arrive at stunning conclusions. The book ‘Indian Movement: some aspects of dissent, protest and reform’ edited by Subash Chandra Malik of Indiana University, USA contains such reference as follows: Andal was herself a devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam Temple. The devotees might not accept this, but, those who oppose patriarchy and socio-religious (code) might think about it.” This created the controversy that is still raging in Tamilnadu and some parts of Andhra and Karnataka. Ironically, now, Dinamani has removed the controversial or rather blasphemous article and their regrets are appearing there[2].

Vairamuthu, Vaidhyanathan, dinamani

Verification of the book referred to by Vairamuthu: Now, let us analyze the “quote” of the learned poet and writer of Vairamuthu. As he has given the reference, now, as a “researcher”, anyone can go to the source and verify.

India movements, S C Malik edited book

Thus, let us see the book under reference. M. G. S. Narayanan and Veluthat Kesavan published a paper, “The Bhakti Movement in South India” in “Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent Protest and Reform,” edited and introduced by S. C. Malik and published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla in 1978. In which, what they claimed was,

Cheraman Perumal Nayanar notes the reception given to Shiva by devadasis of all ages while he went out in procession around the streets in Kailas35, and Andal herself is a Devadasi who lived and died in the Sri Rangam Temple36.

Quotations of MGS

The two footnotes given for support for those two lines are as follows:

  1. Ceraman Perumal Nayanar, Adiyula, M. Raghava Aiyangar, ed. Caruventar Ceyyukovai, 1951, Trivandrum, Vol.II, pp.136-64.
  1. T. A. Gopinatha Rao, The History of Sri Vaishnavas, Madras, 1923, Madras, p. 5.

MGS, Kesavan , tthe book

So when we look at page no.5 of the said book, what, T. A. Gopinatha Rao recorded is this, “When she reached marriageable age, she refused to marry anyone except the God Ranganatha of the Srirangam temple. The God appeared to the Alvar in a dream to declare before him his acceptance of the girl in marriage and ordered her to be brought to his residence at Srirangam. Periyalvar took her there with great eclat and left her in her Lord’s house and returned to his quiet residence at Srivilliputtur.

Quotations of MGS- TAG Rao reference

Therefore, there is nothing like what the learned historians M. G. S. Narayanan and Veluthat Kesavan reportedly claimed, “Andal herself is a Devadasi who lived and died in the Sri Rangam Temple.” Why then, the leaned “historians” wrote in that way and what was their motive?

Quotations of MGS- TAGopinatha Rao reference,p.5

M. G. S. Narayanan clarified to Dinathanthi that there was no such reference to Devadasi[3]: When Asoka Vardhini contacted M. G. S. Narayanan through phone, he accepted that there was no specific reference to Andal as devadasi and he mentioned it based on inference only. He also accepted that Veluthat Kesavan was a student of him, doing M.A history (implying that he might not have been having research expertise at that time). There is no inscriptional evidence to that effect and it was written only based on “oral tradition.” When she asked specifically, he specifically confessed that there is no primary evidence and even secondary evidence to that effect, it was a controversial interpretation and a “matter of inference”. Then, naturally, it is intriguing and shocking to know as to know how they could have written conclusively, “Andal was herself a devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam Temple.” Now, he is considered as one of reputed and eminent historians of India, former chairman of ICHR and so on. Why them, they stooped to such “quoted quote” research methodology, amounting faking and forging such lies and falsehood in historiography?

Vairamuthu regrets for Andal comments

The implications of “quoted quote research,” bogey of “eminent historians” and other modern-day mythistories: Now let us analyze their quotations, reportedly lifted from two books mentioned above.

  1. The book in question was published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla in 1978 and not by Indiana University, USA as claimed by Vairamuthu.
  1. Vairamuthu should have verified the sources before quoting, that too, part of a sentence picking up from their paper. He must have consulted the original sources (as he knows Tamil very well) and also other secondary sources after 1978 to present his speech and “researched” article appeared.
  1. Ironically, he and the press, still carry such wrong and falsified blabbering[4]. “As part of my research for writing this article on Aandaal, I happened to read a collection of articles edited by Subhash Chandra Malik in the name of “Indian Movements: Some Aspects of Dissent, Protest and Reform”, the original from Indiana University and published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study in 1978. It is very much an Indian research study by Indian historians,”thus claimed Vairamuthu.[5]
  1. Vairamuthu added, “Professor M.G.S Narayanan & Professor Kesavan Veiuthat. Professor M. G. S Narayanan is considered as “one of India’s top authorities on ancient history” and has served as the chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research. Professor Kesavan Veluthat is the Professor of History in University of Delhi. The line mentioned in my article was from a reputed publication and by reputed historians.” But, M. G. S. Narayanan now refuted. Here, Vairamuthu mentioned, “G.S Narayanan is considered as “one of India’s top authorities on ancient history,” whereas, the subject dealt with has not been so ancient!
  1. Cheraman Perumal Nayanar notes the reception given to Shiva by devadasis of all ages while he went out in procession around the streets in Kailas35.” M. G. S. Narayanan himself accepted that the story of Cheraman Perumal was a myth floated after 13th century by the vested Mohammedan groups. Therefore, the question of devadasis of all sorts going out in procession is redundant, immaterial and incompetent.
  1. Andal herself is a Devadasi who lived and died in the Sri Rangam Temple36.” This is also fake, fraudulent and deceptive, as T.A. Gopinatha Rao never mentioned such sentence in his book, as pointed out above.
  1. It is unbecoming for these researchers, now, paraded as “historians” to quote that was not there in a book, secondary source.
  1. It exposes the dubious and dangerous nature of “quoted quote” research methodology, as most of the researchers, may not look into the quotes recorded by the “eminent historians.”
  1. Coming to ideology, it is evident that the involved personalities have been Marxists and atheists and thus, their speeches and writings have been tarnished with bias, prejudice and without objectivity.
  1. As the Marxist ideology is coupled with Dravidian ideology of atheism, that is directed against Hindu religion, evidently, Hindus have come to streets. How they have been oppressed, suppressed and attacked by them since 1960s have been too well-known to be repeated here.

© Vedaprakash

19-01-2018.

 

[1]ஆண்டாள் பெரியாழ்வார்க்குப் பிறந்த பெண் இல்லை ஆதலாலும், அவள் பிறப்பு குறித்த ஏதும் பெறப்படாததாலும்ஓர் அந்தணரே வளர்த்திருந்தாலும், குலமறியாத ஒருத்தியைக் குலமகளாய்க் கொள்ள சாதிக் கட்டுமானமுள்ள சமூகம் தயங்கியிருக்கலாம் என்பதனாலும், சமூகம் வழங்காத பாலியல் சொல் விடுதலையை ஆண்டாளே ஆவேசமாய் அடைந்துவிட்டதாலும், கோயிலுக்குப் பெண்ணைக் காணிக்கையாக்குவதை அரசும் சமூகமும் அங்கீகரித்ததாலும் கலாசார அதிர்ச்சி தரத்தக்க முடிவுக்குச் சில ஆய்வாளர்கள் ஆட்படுகிறார்கள்அமெரிக்காவின் இண்டியானா பல்கலைக்கழகம் சுபாஷ் சந்திர மாலிக்கை ஆசிரியராகக் கொண்டு வெளியிட்ட Indian Movement: some aspects of dissent, protest and reform என்ற நூலில் ஆண்டாள் குறித்து இப்படி ஒரு குறிப்பு எழுதப்பட்டிருக்கிறது Andal was herself a devadasi who lived and died in the Srirangam Temple. பக்தர்கள் இதை ஏற்றுக்கொள்ள மாடார்கள்ஆனால் ஆணாதிக்க எதிர்ப்பாளர்களும், சமய சமூக மறுப்பாளர்களும் இதை எண்ணிப் பார்ப்பார்கள்.

http://www.dinamani.com/editorial-articles/center-page-articles/2018/jan/08/%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B4%E0%AF%88-%E0%AE%86%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B3%E0%AF%8D-2840681.html

[2]  Those who talk about freedom expression, speech and rights thereof and such issues should note this that the persons involved have evidently understood the gravity of the issue of sentiments of crores of belivers.

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUAnINM_jw

[4] TheNewsMinute, Devadasi is female servant of god, not prostitute: Vairamuthu’’s clarification on article, Saturday, January 13, 2018 – 22:04

[5] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/devadasi-female-servant-god-not-prostitute-vairamuthus-clarification-article-74709

Advertisements

Hate speech, Indian media and secular parties!

March 31, 2014

Hate speech, Indian media and secular parties!

Vedaprakash

 

The applicability of expression “hate-speech” to India: Now “hate-speech” is discussed a lot in the media. The applicability of such expression to Indian context has to be considered in a careful way, as the Indians have got independence only just 66 years ago, in spite of the history going beyond 5000 years. In other words, the Indians were ruled by the Colonial forces and the Mohammedan powers that treated Indians subdued in many aspects. Both powers disparaged, denigrated and maligned them in many ways through their appreciation and depreciation. The conditions set out for “hate speech” in the present context were already found in their attitude, behavior and actions against them. Just like “gay rights” etc., when new issues are brought in, Indians have to deal them cautiously.

 

Indians derided by the rulers of the past 1300 years: Even after the freedom, as the legacy of the past rulers has been continued with the enforced factors, and after the LPG regime again the neocolonial forces dominate and control the thought processes of Indians with new parameters of modernization, westernization, industrialization and now Americanization. The slangs of different influential foreign masters exhibited in various spheres. Thus, the media has such characteristic mores. Above all, the Indians have been under the constant attack of both these forces and the ideologically opposed communists also. Though, the Communists of all sorts are opposed by many political parties, ideologically, they have been dominating in the Indian media, curriculum and polity.

 

“Hate-speech”, now invented and its understanding: “Hate speech is generally understood as, that speech is[1]  “ … usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation” and it is carried to be quoted by others[2] as authority[3]. The westernized or non-Indian way of expressing journalists have started using this expression without going into the details. Now, we find all Indian English media uses such expression, as if the Indian speakers, particularly, politicians have been violating all provisions of Acts and rules but scot-free.

 

From Indian English media to Indian polity: Incidentally, the same Indian English media has introduced many words and expressions of hate speech – lumpen elements[4], bandwagon, goons[5], thugs, fringe, medieval forces, secular, communal, fascist, middle class, fundamentalist, saffron terror[6], rightwing terror[7], and so on. They have been used as adjectives with one or each other with other or words taken from this list. Thus, we can see –

 

  • Fascist communal forces
  • middle class mentality
  • communal forces
  • communal goons
  • rightwing thugs
  • medieval bandwagon
  • lumpen fringe elements
  • saffron terror elements
  • rightwing terrorists

 

and such other combinations have been so popular in usage. Specifically, these expressions have been mostly used against BJP, RSS and other so-called Sangh Parivar organizations by the media experts and standardized such usage, as if they are applicable to them only. Even their counterparts say leftwing, Green terror, real medieval forces, fascist fringe bandwagons and others have never been branded.

 

Secular and communal “hate-speeches”: As the media and the non-BJP parties including the Muslim, Islamic and other categories always call the BJP and Sangh Parivar as communal. Emboldened by such persistent, relentless and pushy propaganda, they started using other attacking expressions. BJP is anti-minority, anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic etc, whereas all other non-BJP parties are pro-minority, pro-Muslim and Islam supporting categories. The government media, functions, iftar parties are also used to carry on such propaganda. Thus, this has created some sort of inferiority complex in the minds of Sangh Parivar, their leaders, members and sympathizers and Hindus as a whole of India.

 

Sonia started “hate-speech” in electioneering: The “hate-speech” campaign started with Sonia during 2007 elections, when she called Modi “Maut ka sauthagar”. Generally, she reads prepared speech by somebody, that means, she consciously accepted and used such expression to target Modi. Here the role of scrpt writer is also questioned[8]. On 28 January 2014 Aam Aadmi party leader Arvind Kejriwal tweeted scathing comment over Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi calling them moron and murderer. He tweeted, “Stuck between a moron and a murderer…what now India”. Sonia has called BJP communal many times, Modi “Maut ka sauthagar” (messager of Death) etc., followed by the rhetoric of Digvijaya and Kapil Sibal many times in their interviews.  Sonia before Gujarat assembly elections referred Narendra Modi to “Maut Ka Saudagar” (person who sells death) and on 1st Feb 2014 accusing BJP to spread hate among people she said, “I firmly believe you will not allow those who sow the seeds of poison (Zaher Ki Kheti) to succeed. They sport Muslim skull cap, move with maulanas, yet they claim themselves 100% hallmark of secular category. However, when Modi started speaking in Hindi in a colloquial way addressing the common man with sarcasm, his words are watched, recorded and interpreted as “hate speech”. Nahid Hasan the SP candidate from Uttar Pradesh’s Kairana constituency hinted at Mayawati’s proximity to Modi. “Thrice Mayawati has sat in Modi’s lap and after elections she will do so again. Both are unmarried,” he added[9]. For Musaffarnagar riots all parties have been blamed by the media[10], but the Supreme Court[11] the ruling party SP for not preventing and controlling the riots[12].

 

For convenience, the famous ones are listed as follows[13]:

 

  1. Zeher Ki Kheti– This comment made by Sonia Gandhi is the latest in the line (and perhaps one of most pinching ones). Speaking at a public rally in northern Kanataka, the UPA chairperson accused Narendra Modi of indulging in “Zeher Ki Kheti” (Sowing seeds of poison).

 

  1. Maut Ka Saudagar-Sonia‘s remark, wherein she referred to Modi as “Maut Ka Saudagar” (merchant of death) in the Gujarat assembly elections in 2007.

 

  1. Modi’s “Khooni Panja” and “Zaalim Hath” Attack-Modi has never been the kind of person who would meekly listen to outrageous comments from opposition and remain quite. He has perhaps been even more famous for his reference to the Congress party’s ‘palm’ symbol as “Khooni Panja” (Bloody Claws) and “Zaalim Hath” (Cruel Hand).

 

  1. Modi’s “Shazada” and “Madam” Barb– Modi is also known for referring to Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi as “Shazada” (prince) and “Madam” respectively.

 

  1.  Somnath Bharti’s “Want to Spit on Faces” Attack-he expressed his desire to “spit on the faces” of Arun jaitley and Harish Salve.

 

  1. Kejriwal Retweets “Stuck Between Moron and Murderer”- “Stuck between a moron and a murderer… what now, India!?”

 

  1. Manhonah Singh’s “Presiding over Massacre” Statement  – He referred to BJP’s PM Candidate Modi as someone who “presided over massacre of citizens” during the Gujurat riots of 2002.

 

  1. Rahul Gandhi’s “Comb to a Bald Man” Quip– Rahul has not been too far away in the rank of people making most controversial remarks as well. But this one was really quite funny.

 

Why against BJP or “Hindus”?: The expressions Communal BJP and secular Congress have been so popularized that even the BJPwalas are quite amused to be called so. And the non-BJP parties have always taken such privilege of calling BJP communal and thus they always pose as secular. Of course, the persistent media also always brand the parties and certified. Only few like Advani have understood the mischief and countered them by using expression “pseudo-secularism”. The provisions of IPC and Peoples Representation Act could penalize the “hate-sppech”, but many times the speakers have scot-free for example, Arunthathi Roy, Jilani in the north and the DK and atheist elements of the South, though dozens of cases filed have been pending against them. Incidentally, it has to be noted that these speakers have targeted “Hindus” only.

 

Vedaprakash

© 31-03-2014

[1] John T. Nockleby, “Hate Speech,” in Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.  Ed. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. p. 1277-1279.

[2] http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n02/brown-sica_m01.html#_edn2

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[4] http://www.asianage.com/interview-week/there-s-no-modi-wave-punjab-polls-are-fought-local-issues-262

[5] http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/in-mp-cops-watched-bjp-goons-attack-rebel-s-house/340247/

[6] http://ibnlive.in.com/news/right-wing-terror-main-agenda-at-fivehour-long-bjp-rss-meet/372519-37-64.html

[7] http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/home-minister-shinde-says-bjp-rss-promoting-hindu-terrorism-then-clarifies-319884

[8] Lyricist and script writer Javed Akhtar has won many laurels for his dialogue writing skills, but this is one instance, he says, where he can’t take the credit. The political grapevine attributes the maut ka saudagar reference Sonia Gandhi made during her Gujarat poll campaign to him. “I am truly embarrassed for being given credit for somebody else’s work,” says Akhtar. Ever since Sonia Gandhi used the term during one of her election speeches in Gujarat, there has been speculation in political circles about who actually coined the term. Several names have been doing the rounds, the most prominent being Akhtar.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-who-coined-maut-ka-saudagar-1140033

[9] http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/allaboutnarendramodi/case-against-sp-leader-for-hate-speech-against-modi/article1-1202244.aspx

[10] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/video/muzaffarnagar-news-muzaffarnagar-riots-muzaffarnagar-akhilesh-yadav-samajwadi-party-bjp-bsp/1/309391.html

[11] http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/41339.pdf

[12] http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sc-holds-akhilesh-govt-guilty-of-negligence-orders-arrest-of-all-muzaffarnagar-accused/

[13] http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/536884/20140202/indian-pololitics-infamous-attacks-language-sonia.htm