Why Bahubali raised the hackles of our liberals?

As far as general impressions are concerned, only those who are against liberal values like ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘the expressive right of art’ are the ones protesting against books and movies. But each attacker needs to have a corresponding defender, so we see that liberal support for all those books and movies, which hurt sentiments of all but the minorities, is in direct proportion to the protests they generate, i.e., higher the protests, louder the support decibel. 

Yet, the protest against books and movies are not limited to the crass, uneducated Hindutva bigot. Our liberals do not hesitate to do so, if it is their sensibilities which get hurt. Last year, we had some dissatisfied souls ranting against Priyanka Chopra’s depiction of Mary Kom in a biopic of the same name, ostensibly because this act reeked of discrimination against the North-Eastern people. Given that there is a concerted campaign (which the Government has succumbed to) to equate stereotyping with criminal racism, objections against Priyanka Chopra can be considered to be one element of the all-round campaign. Yet, given the visible absurdity of the charge, not many of our ‘mainstream’ liberals picked up the thread strongly.

While there certainly could have been others, the first time I registered a strong ‘liberal’ backlash against a movie was on the then much-anticipated, Filhaal, by Meghna Gulzaar. Starring Tabu, Sushmita Sen, Sanjay Suri and Palash Sen, it was the story of how a friend offers to be a surrogate for her buddy who miscarried and could not conceive again. It was a bad movie but still, there was a strong feminist reaction, with the movie being called regressive, misogynistic and being generally condemned for pushing the idea that motherhood was a legitimate obsession for a woman. My bigoted conservative self could not understand what the hullabaloo was all about. Very clearly, both the female characters were exercising their respective choices. If motherhood was a choice for one, did it really become a lesser choice because it did not fit in the world-view of some feminists? At the same time, the other character, even when unwed and even without taking her boyfriend/fiancée into confidence, had offered and became a surrogate for her friend. I would have imagined that in any normal universe, such acts would have been hailed by feminists as an ultimate expression of a female’s individuality and her right over her own body.

But clearly, the film failed some liberal tests and was outrightly condemned for condemning women to treat motherhood as a gift. Thankfully, the film flopped badly (well-deserved, I would say) and since there was no point flogging a movie which people were not interested in, the outrage taps soon ran dry!

The next movie which was strongly in the bad books of our liberals was the banal ‘Vivah’. This Shahid Kapoor-Amrita Rao starrer was condemned for making the couple, particularly the would-be bride, waiting expectantly for marriage, as if it was the most important thing in a girl’s life! Could she not have focussed on her career instead, our liberals screeched? It became more of their duty to save our young generations from the baneful influence of the film since it succeeded in becoming a hit, rather unexpectedly.

Other than that, there has been an outpouring of outrage against 'Sunny Deol movies' for being jingoistic and portraying Pakistan in a 'bad' light. Funny when those outraging otherwise claim that actors are distinct from the roles they enact. In any case, the outrage against 'Sunny Deol movies' are more of an afterthought, i.e., it has become fashionable to diss them now, rather than at the time when they were becoming huge box-office hits.

It is not very often that our liberals must watch Indian cinema. If they have to, it must either be a film already ‘approved’ by some western expert, or, should have something to offend sensibilities, preferably of the supposed majority. It is hence, not uncommon to hear general condemnation of our movies from our self-appointed conscience keepers, on grounds of their stupidity, misogyny, some or the other 'ism', yada yada.

Even when accounting for the disdain our elites have for popular cinema, the backlash against Bahubali has been unexpected. Some of the criticism is so contrived that it would put CGI used in the movie to shame. One claimed that Avantika was raped in the movie. Another hack claimed that the movie depicted tribals in a bad light. Others simply claimed that it was racist and sexist.

But was it really so? All the 4 female characters in Bahubali (Avantika, Shivgami, Bahubali’s foster mother and Devsena) had ample screen time and strong on-screen persona. The Kalkeyas were never declared or depicted as tribals. On the other hand, Devasena's people seemed did seem tribal and even Bahubali’s foster community was very clearly living in harmony with nature. Were they really depicted as savages? More importantly, just how is a barbaric attacker supposed to be depicted? A bunch of upper collared gents petitioning the attacked to handover their lives peacefully and without protest.

So, why is Bahubali getting the goat of our liberals? Is it because, ahem, this movie on early medieval India reeks of Hindu imagery, be it the presence of shaven headed, tuft carrying Brahmins (not ridiculed for a change), chanting of hymns, opulent worship of idols and a storyline which carries imprints from numerous Indian tales, right from Krishna-lila?

In fact, it is not about Bahubali alone. Though the television has spawned such abominations as ‘The Sword of Tipu Sultan’, ‘Jodha Akbar’ and even ‘Razia Sultan’, the bulk of historicals (if they can be called that, given the liberties they take with history) are based on stories of Indian heroes and heroines. Almost without fail, each of these depict an era and culture (rituals, festivals, dress, language etc.) which is without doubt, Hindu. It is then not without reason that Ashok Banker’s stands against ‘Hindutva-isation’ of television. Anything which depicts India’s past, untainted by the liberal version of secularism cannot be held kosher.

The unabashed use of Indian imagery in Bahubali is simply the reason why our liberals are so protective of their version of Indian history. Indian culture (and not some contrived idea of India) is a way of life defined by Indic religions. Howsoever much would the liberal like us to believe, Islam in India remained an import, aloof from the subjugated population, moulding itself on primarily Persian, and secondarily on Arabic and Turkic cultures. In fact, ridicule and rejection of the 'Hindu' way of life and lusty embrace of the 'superior' foreign cultures was a feature common to both Islamic and Christian invaders. Just how can then the Indian way of life be reflective of a style which is anything but India?

When the liberals still claim that telecast of Ramayana, a tale which sprung from our soil, which deeply influenced not only ours, but all ancient cultures which came in touch with us, was a communal act of promoting Hindutva, Bahubali which has been served with dollops of subliminal Hinduism is certain to raise their hackles. Perhaps we should remake Ramayana. Only, this time Ram better be wearing a skull cap and Hanuman a cross. Sita though, will definitely need to be a Hindu. Only then will they fit in 'the idea of India'.

It is not about Rajiv Malhotra

Let me begin with a disclaimer. I have immense respect for Rajiv Malhotra’s for his invaluable contribution to Indic studies.

Most of us who try to keep themselves updated on current affairs would be aware of a storm which has broken out over Rajiv Malhotra’s alleged plagiarism of work authored by others, most notably in his book ‘Indra’s Net’.

For the uninitiated, Rajiv Malhotra is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and a champion of the need for Hindus to define and interpret Hinduism. He has authored powerful articles and books, arguing that Indic studies are managed by a cabal of western academicians who insist on studying Hinduism from western cultural lenses and worse, insist on providing an interpretation, which is completely divorced from the reality a practitioner experiences.

For those at the receiving end of Mr Malhotra’s ire, he is but a gadfly, a wannabe scholar who wishes to gate-crash into that exclusive Brahminical club of scholars who have an impressive list of academic qualifications behind them.

Yet, unlike many others who had made similar attempts in the past to reclaim Hinduism, but had failed to gain much traction, Rajiv Malhotra could not be ignored by his detractors. Not encumbered by lack of finances, Mr Malhotra tasted blood (and won a legion of followers) with his seminal essay on Hinduism studies by western scholars – RISA Lila Parts 1 and 2. In due course of time, Mr Malhotra authored books, some with eminent names in the field of Indology, others with upcoming scholars. In all, he ensured that he was a hated but still a presence, which could not be ignored when Hinduism studies were being discussed.

Given the ‘esteem’ which Mr Malhotra commands in Indology circles, it was hardly surprising that allegations of his plagiarising works of others’ made his detractors delirious with joy. Wasting little time, the internet was awash with articles on how this charlatan’s frauds had been unearthed. Petitions were floated, asking Harper Collins to withdraw the book and little known journalists had a field day attempting to discredit Rajiv Malhotra and the entire genre of Hinduism studies associated with him.

After initial shock, when even right-leaning commentators condemned Rajiv Malhotra for his alleged acts of plagiarism, his supporters rallied around him. Mr Malhotra hit back through a series of articles and tweets, Madhu Kishwar floated a petition which soon raced to over 10,000 endorsements, while fellow travellers like Sankrant Sanu and Rajeev Balakrishnan extended their support.

Interestingly, the viciousness of attacks on Rajiv Malhotra only serve to corroborate his arguments that Hinduism studies are inherently biased and that an incestuous cabal of academicians, rooted in western ways, probably serving an insidious agenda, tend to guard their turf a little too zealously. It is they who decide, whether the ‘other’ is worthy enough to merit their attention and whether, what the ‘other’ professes, even if backed by decades of self-realisation, is good enough to pass their tests of ‘academic rigour’ 

In the given case, plagiarism was alleged by Richard Fox Young, who wrote to Harper Collins, the publisher to pulp the book, apologise and refund money to all those who had purchased the book in the first place. Soon, the usual suspects like Ananya Vajpayi rallied around Mr Young and floated a petition, which on last count had some less than 250 supporters.

An analysis of the purported plagiarism revealed them to be instances of sloppy referencing, i.e., while it was acknowledged that Prof Andrew Nicholson’s book ‘Unifying Hinduism’ had been referred to, endnotes provided, and many citations properly referenced, some were missed out and for some, while endnotes had been provided, the quotation was not indicated as a ‘quote’.

Normally, such cases are treated as what they are, i.e., sloppy referencing. A simple way to deal with it would have been to highlight it, ridicule Malhotra for the gaps and ask the misses to be corrected.

But no, these were treated as ‘proofs’ of Rajiv Malhotra’s intellectual dishonesty and the shallowness of his books and arguments. For such ‘crimes’, there was only one possible punishment, absolute banishment of the individual and his thoughts from any scholarly realm.

This is where many, who otherwise felt that Mr Malhotra should have accepted the gaps gracefully and re-issued a revised version, decided to stand in solidarity with him. The attack on Mr Malhotra was not an attack on the individual. It was a concerted attack on the very idea that Hindus needed to have a voice on how Hinduism is presented in the academia, that foreign scholars do not ‘own’ the scholarship of Hinduism, that practice and study can be an equal if not a stronger substitute for academic degrees (that too, of the ‘right’ kind).

One of the many ways in which sundry columnists mocked Mr Malhotra was their questioning of his academic credentials. Interestingly, the very same people who claimed that Mr Malhotra was no scholar, had no qualms in recognising Richard Fox Young as a respected scholar, when he is a theologian from a Christian seminary in the town of Princeton. So, a person who writes on Hinduism after having lived his life as a Hindu, and after years of study and analysis is not respectable enough but a person dealing with theology of an alien religion is respectable enough to question Mr Malhotra?

This is hardly surprising given that the left has consciously claimed that the right does not have intellectuals. How can the right have any intellectuals, when the left declares anyone on the right to be a non-intellectual? When works of even a Jadunath Sarkar or BB Lal get dismissed as trash, what hope does a Sita Ram Goel, a Dharampal or a Rajiv Malhotra can have to be accepted by the left? Like the case of Richard Fox Young shows, the left will declare any Tom, Dick or Harry an intellectual as long as they parrot the official line. It is not without reason that a cricket historian like Ramchandra Guha gets recognised as a modern historian and a travel writer with limited academic qualification in Indian history, like William Dalrymple, gets recognised as an authority on India. It will only be the left which will consider an economist like Amartya Sen to be the most eminent person suited to re-establish an ancient University of learning. If, tomorrow, Rajiv Malhotra has a change of heart and becomes a protégé of Sheldon Pollock school of Indology, his very same detractors are likely to hail him as the next best thing in Indology.

For argument’s sake, let us agree for a moment that Rajiv Malhotra did indeed lift passages from Andrew Nicholson and others with intent to plagiarise. Would that, in itself, rob Mr Malhotra’s works of all merit? If not, then why is there so much of clamour to dismiss all of his work, and worse, all his theories? It is only the security which an incestuous cocoon provides, which can prompt Prof Wendy Doniger (the one who can make kinky sex interpretations of even a cow grazing peacefully) to joyously claim that ‘Mr Malhotra does not know anything of the subjects he writes on’. Quite rich coming from someone whose each book is a minefield of errors, faulty assumptions, wrong interpretations, and simply put, nonsensical conclusions! 

Certainly, Mr Malhotra’s conduct in the entire state of affairs could have been better. While the allegations around plagirasim of Andrew Nicholson can be treated as sloppy referencing and the one claim on lifting of a line from Swami Krishananda can be dismissed outright, there still are some issues around non-referencing of works of Shrinivas Tilak in Indra’s Net. Whatever Mr Malhotra may claim now, he has not been very kind to even those on this side of the fence, who he believed, had plagiarised from him. 

Second, his act of first calling Andrew Nicholson an ally, then to claim that he was a mediocre scholar and that Unifying Hinduism was a sub-standard work and that he would be removing all citations from the revised version of the book, seems to be a case of childish pique. Maybe he had no option left, driven the wall, the way he way by Nicholson. Yet, one cannot call a book ‘brilliant’ while referencing and then claim it to be ’sub-standard’.

The world of Indological studies is weird. In any scientific discipline, discoveries or inventions by amateurs are not dismissed by scientists simply because of a lack of ‘adequate’ and ‘kosher’ academic qualification of the amateur. Astronomy in particular, has been made quite rich by amateurs and the scientific community has recognised those contributions by naming galactic bodies in their honour. Even those disciplines, which fall in between humanities and sciences, like archaeology, have respected contribution of amateurs. Then what is so different about Indology that the existing power structure allows entry of only a certain ‘type’ of people? Under the current structure, a book by a Shankaracharya, (who would have spent all his years studying scriptures) on a Dharmashastra, would not be considered ‘scholarly’ but some interpretation of a translated work by a non-Hindu in some university, when guided by one of Wendy’s children, would be considered authoritative. This power anomaly ensures that the interpretations of Sanskrit, made by, say Pandits of Maths, who have spent long years in study of scriptures in their original language, carry zero weight but the words of a Wendy Doniger, who doesn’t know the difference between even ‘Asakti’ and ‘Anasakti’ get treated as gospel.

Many like to claim that Indian right-wing, unlike that in the west, does not have intellectuals. The reason why the west has recognised right-wing intellectuals is that the right-wing created its own ecosystem. Aware that the left would never accord respect due to them, they bypassed it and created a movement powerful enough to be taken note of and formally recognised. Unfortunately for India, such a situation is nowhere near possible. Such ecosystems require political support and even the allegedly Hindu governments in India have little time for Hindu scholars.

It is a rare occasion that a publisher makes unsubstantiated allegations against an author unconnected to them. But when Permanent Black did precisely that, you know that you cannot let down someone who has been on the forefront of the struggle to reclaim Hinduism studies.

Two events, fracas over Wendy Doniger’s horrible book and Rajiv Malhotra’s alleged plagiarism, have only served to highlight the need for Hindus to reclaim scholarship on Hinduism.