Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes in the Indian Express
There was something incongruous about the moment when I read the news on April 8 that the district court in Varanasi had directed the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a study of the Gyanvapi Mosque. This day also happened to be Kumar Gandharva’s birth anniversary. It was hard to resist playing his composition in Raga Shankara Sir Pe Dhari Ganga. There is a moment where he adds an extra “gang” before “Ganga”. The resulting “ganga/gagana”, is one of the most incandescent moments in all of Indian music — that extra Ganga literally drenching you in the full freshness and redemptive flow of the Ganga.
If this is so, why get worked up about some Court order? Surely hearing a nirguni bhajan should purge your mind of mundane prejudices and knee jerk reactions of a virtue signaling type? You should be able to take a broader view of things and be more at peace with yourself.
It is always tempting to follow this exuberant rendition of Shankara, with another more meditative one — Pandit Jasraj’s Shankara. He sings “Vibhushitanaga Riputammanga”, the penultimate shloka of Panditraja Jagannatha’s Gangalahari.
Hopefully, Mehta will go drown himself in any convenient body of water perhaps accompanied by a Muslim inamorata- or just Ram Guha if no one else is willing.
Reading the news of the Gyanvapi order, while these played in the background, almost felt like a defilement, a reminder that the spontaneous and erumpent spirituality of Hinduism was about to be again derailed by sordid politics.
Spirituality can't be derailed by anything. Mehta's mind, however, is made of shit. It can get pretty damn sordid pretty damn quickly.
Why does Mehta not understand that music of a spiritual sort should be helping you rise above your bigoted opinions and paranoid ideas?
The Gyanvapi order combined with the Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain a plea challenging the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions), 1991 is going to open another communal front.
So what? Plenty of these keep opening every other day. The whole point about Spirituality is that it enables one to rise about such petty concerns.
In the case of the Gyanvapi Mosque, there is no real dispute. It is widely accepted that parts of the Vishwanath temple were destroyed and its walls may have been raised on the plinth of the temple. One also does not have to deny that many Hindus experienced and have a consciousness of Aurungzeb’s reign as being characterised by religious bigotry. Historians can debate the context and the motives of Aurangzeb’s actions, and the complexity of his rule. But minimising the significance of his actions has always been a little historically incredible and politically disingenuous. If we rest the case for secularism in contemporary India on establishing Aurangzeb’s liberal credentials, then secularism will indeed be on rickety foundations. It will also legitimise Hindutva resting its case on Aurangzeb’s credentials. Secularism will be deepened if it lets history be history, not make history the foundations of a secular ethic.
Similarly Spirituality will be deepened if you leave the thing alone rather than drag it into a virtue signaling article for the Express.
But there is no incongruity between accepting that a temple could have been demolished in the 16th century, and believing that the status quo on the shrines must be maintained.
Nor is there any incongruity to leaving this matter for the Bench to decide on.
It’s hubris for me to think that Lord Shiva needs my protection.
No it isn't. Brahma Sutra says
The Sruti prescribes reciprocal meditation in Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6 because the texts distinguish (two meditations); as in other cases. Vyatiharah: exchange; reciprocity (of meditation); Visimshanti: (the scriptures) explain clearly, distinguish; Hi: because, for; Itaravat: as in other cases. The Aitareya Aranyaka says with reference to the person in the sun, “What I am, that He is; what He is, that am I” (Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6). A doubt arises here whether the meditation is to be of a reciprocal nature, a double one by means of exchange The Purvapakshin maintains that the meditation is to be practised in the former manner only and not in the reverse way also. He argues that the soul would be exalted by the former meditation and the Lord be lowered by the latter one!
Mehta adopts the view of the Purvapakshin. Why? Because he is ignorant and stupid. A little thought would show that even for a Jain- for whom there is no Salvation by Grace- intentionality with respect to Arhats involves reciprocity. One takes and gives refuge to that which is spiritually beneficial.
Spirituality is dynamic even if you subscribe to an Occassionalist metaphysics. Mehta, clearly, is ignorant of Indian philosophy. He can listen to nirguni bhajans but can't grasp their meaning. What about Western Paideia- has he grasped that, at least?
Let us see-
Yes, one can acknowledge a history of conflict, and believe at the same time that a new social contract has been written.
Only if a new social contract- i.e. a new Constitution- has in fact been enacted. This is not the case. The Bench alone gets to say what is or is not Constitutional. It may affirm a particular law, it may not. We must wait and see.
In some ways, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 is a good expression of that thought. It freezes the status quo of all disputed religious properties as they were in 1947.
But it may not be constitutional.
In the past, the destruction of religious shrines may have been the function of state power. But modern India cannot repeat the same logic.
Yes it can. It is perfectly proper for a State to knock down religious shrines for any lawful purpose.
We cannot say that because political power has changed hands, so must the power to define the religious landscape.
Yes we can. Why? Because it is true.
The demand that Kashi or Mathura be returned is exactly that. It is a raw assertion of majoritarian power.
Like the enactment of the Constitution or the declaration of the Republic. Mehta may not like 'majoritarian power' but such power is legitimized by the Constitution. He is not a Supreme Court judge. He has no power to give effect to his own prejudices in this matter.
Now that power has passed to the majority, it must claim back or avenge wrongs committed five centuries ago. There is also a deeper logic. The purpose of reclaiming these shrines is not religiosity.
How does Mehta know? It looks as though this suit was set in motion on behalf of the deity of the shrine by a devotee of that deity.
Bhakti for Kashi Vishwanath has not been impinged or diminished by the existence of the Gyanvapi Mosque.
How does Mehta know? It may have been diminished. It may not. But that is beside the point. Indian Law grants certain rights to temple deities. That is a matter for the Courts.
The purpose of claiming it back is to claim that Hindus have power qua Hindus and they can now show Muslims their place.
This may be the case. But, equally, it may not. What is certain, is that the motive is irrelevant. The Courts will decide whether the rights of a particular deity have been infringed and what remedy can be applied if this is established.
The purpose is not to craft a connection with Shiva or Krishna, the purpose is to permanently indict minorities.
How does Mehta know? We may think his purpose in writing this shite is to attack established Hindu orthodoxy by asserting the Purvapakshin's doctrine that there can be no reciprocity in spiritual practice. One must never take any step beneficial to the worshipped as that would be hubris. Indeed, one would be belittling God if one were to address the deity as 'Lord' or if one visited a place of worship because this would suggest that God is not present everywhere.
It is to use a sacred place of worship as a weaponised tool against another community.
Mehta is weaponizing his articles in the Express against the orthodoxy of the Hindu majority of India. Is this what his own religion counsels? Or is this the result of his own hubris?
The new spate of lawsuits will stoke communal fires.
But communal fires exist in plenty anyway.
Most political parties will be caught like deer in headlights, not knowing which way to turn. The fact that they are not defending the Places of Worship Act will further send a signal that the Indian state cannot make a credible promise to minorities.
So what? The minorities are disaffected anyway. In any case, the Executive can't make 'credible promises' which are unconstitutional in the view of the Supreme Court. However, the Legislature can then change the Constitution if there is enough support for the measure.
It is also an indication that Hindutva in its present form can never be satiated; it is an escalation of power that constantly demands more.
This article is an indication that Mehta's hatred of Hinduism can never be satiated. He is furious that Hindus say 'Jai Shri Ram' and visit Temples. He will keep resigning from every job he gets in the belief that this 'escalates his power'. Soon he will demand that all Hindus change their name to Jesus Mohammad Confucius so as to clearly indicate their secularism.
Yesterday was Ayodhya, tomorrow Kashi, the day after Mathura.
So what? We are only speaking of property disputes. Such things happen all the time.
It has been emboldened by the lack of resistance amongst Hindus
very true! Why are more Hindus not demanding that all Hindus be forced to change their name to Jesus Mohammad Confucius?
and the increasing isolation of minorities. In the guise of settling a score with Aurangzeb, Hindutva wants to commit hara-kiri on the Indian Constitution, individual freedom and minorities.
In the guise of settling a score with the BJP, Mehta wants us to all change our name to Jesus Mohammad Confucius.
Alas, we will let this pass too, with a judicial seal of approval to boot.
Judges decide property disputes every day. Why should we get worked up about it? Mehta says that if the Hindu religion is involved then 'God is belittled'. But Mehta is a cretin.
Panditraja Jagannatha, author of Gangalahari, is a fascinating figure. He was from Andhra. He spent time with Dara Shikoh before reaching Benares. He was a phenomenal poet, aesthetician, and polemically engaged with Appaya Dikshita. The details of his biography are obscure. Legend has it that he fell in love with a Muslim princess. P K Gode’s monumental two-volume Studies in Indian Literary History, one of the most meticulous sources on Indian literary figures, argued for the plausibility of the story, based on 18th century sources. This legend was the basis of a Tamil film Lavangi (“His lover’s name”) and a Marathi play by Vidyadhar Gokhale. There are different variations of the legend.
So what? How is he relevant?
It is said that the Gangalahari is connected to this love story. For marrying a Muslim, Jagannatha was declared an outcaste when he went to Benares. Even the Ganga receded and did not receive him. He composed the Gangalahari to appease Ganga. With each shloka, the water rose one step on the ghat to receive him. I have read dozens of Hindi introductions to the Gangalahari. It is interesting how the story changes. In some versions, Jagannatha wants to be received by the Ganga so that he can be cleansed of his sins of marrying a Muslim.
This is silly. The purification ritual for sex of this type is easy to perform. One leading Brahmin family of Hyderabad always had one Muslim wife so as to ease social intercourse with purdah-nashin Begums. Just by having a bath and chanting a mantra, the husband was purified to beget Brahmin children on his Brahmin wife.
This is the more recent and more communal version. But there is an older version that held sway for a long time.
In this version, the Brahmins have declared him an outcaste. But after he recites the Gangalahari, Ganga rises and receives both him and his lover in its embrace, putting a seal of approval on their union.
They are drowned. Go thou, Mehta & Guha, and do likewise.
The sin was not his love, it was making him an outcaste.
But the guys who excommunicated him lived long and prosperous lives. The poet drowned.
What speaks to the majesty of “pinaki mahagyani”, as Kumar Gandharva called Lord Shiva, or the purifying power of Ganga more?
This is very silly. A guy who goes off and meditates for a hundred years in some Himalayan cave may be said to testify to the majesty of Lord Shiva- if he has gained all sorts of marvellous super-natural powers. Furthermore, if people find they can give up addiction and egotism etc. after 'Ganga Snan' then that is a testimony to the Goddess. A good song, sung by a good singer, may also be appreciated. But then songs about all sorts of things may be equally good.
Moving on to build an inclusive, prosperous India?
Which entails telling Mehta & Co to fuck off to America
Or being intoxicated by a majoritarian fantasy of revenge?
Mehta is intoxicated by a fantasy of revenge against the Hindu majority which is so evil that it says 'Jai Shri Ram' and goes to Temples. Why can't those stupid fools just all change their name to Jesus Mohammad Confucius so as to prove their secular credentials? To do less is nothing but naked majoritarianism!
Looks like we are opting for the latter, and no Ganga will rise to redeem us of this sin.
I hope Mehta reaches America quickly and the Hudson river rises up to greet him and drowns the cunt speedily.
No comments:
Post a Comment