Fwd: What Ban means to us

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sukla Sen <sukla.sen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: What Ban means to us



Dear Feroze,

Your reference to "that somebody, who is busy forwarding my emails" smacks of hypocrisy. What stops you from coming out upfront?

Of course I'm forwarding the mails not because I love or hate you but because it's a public issue. There is absolutely no hide and seek about it. As far as I'm concerned.

You yourself have publicly announced a public programme. Mailed it to so many.

Once you're in a public debate you can't really complain why the mails are being forwarded to others. That's too funny.

Your charge of mine being a "hater" (of hate politics) brings to my mind LK Advani decrying "untouchability" (in politics).

In any case, on this issue, you are on the same boat with the rightwing fascist SS and MNS.

Your justifying the demand for deletion of "only a few lines" on the ground that you've not "read the book" is just silly.

Either you know what you're demanding or you don't know - doing it just for the heck of it, for some cheap publicity and worse.

Kavita has already demanded that you withdraw your programme. Others, like Daniel, Anand, Jyoti, Kunda have also come out as strongly. I've not as yet come across here anyone supporting.

Please do at least specify which lines you want to be deleted. (To my understanding the author has not alluded to any historical fact as regards the controversial paternity issue. He has actually talked of popular rumours. I don't have to read the book to oppose banning. Those who demand banning, it is for them to tell why they demand.)

Kunda has brilliantly explicated the broader implications of such a demand.

Unfortunately, it didn't have any positive impact on you.

Sukla

On 12 July 2010 00:25, Feroze Mithiborwala <feroze.moses777@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Kunda,

And that somebody, who is busy forwarding my emails & he seems to be doing a splendid job. I seem to have a secret admirer - err  . . . rather should I say - a hater.

1) As I've said, yes I've not read the book. I've really not been able to locate it. But from what I know of the book, the opposition from our side is only to the lines that refer to Dadaji Kondev as Shivaji Maharaj's father. This was whispered by certain Brahmins at the Bhandarkar Institute, Pune to an unsuspecting James Laine. 

So this is about a few lines, matter of hearsay & not the book.

 A majority of my Dalit, OBC & Maratha Friends are involved in the opposition to this & also includes Marathi Muslims.

2) Yes & I am also aware of the writings of Mahatma Phule as well as that of Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar . Those who wish to oppose their writings are welcome to go to the Court or take to the streets. They too have emotions, right or wrong.

And the question of caste struggle was the major reason from my resigning from the liberal Brahmanic Gandhian movement.

In any case it is the Parliament that is supreme & not the judiciary. So this battle has a long way to go.

3) And no Freedom is absolute, is it?? Freedom of expression, like all other 'Freedoms' also operates under certain constraints & there are different markers for the same in every society & nation.

4) And did not Dr. Ambedkar burn the Manusmriti & on Dec 27, 1927 - as you have referred & demand that the book should not be printed further as it was a source of humiliation & oppression. 

Haven't Dalits called for a ban on the Manusmriti?? 

If you give us your permission, should we will burn the book ?? Anyways I've never burnt a book & never will.

5) And lastly isn't there a difference between the politics of Dr Ambedkar & Mahatma Phule on the one hand & those of Savarkar or the ones who wish to maintain Brahmanical hegemony??

Who is to judge as to who stands for oppression & who stands for the values of liberation?? 

I think the People. I have immense faith in the Indian People.

I think you are aware of the caste politics behind the present uproar - thus it is the larger caste struggle that is propelling this current debate.

Many a movie has to face the scissor & censorship is part of our legal & constitutional framework.

I stand by my position on the deletion of the few lines under question. The rest of the book is good I believe.

I think its important to respect the valid emotions of the people. They are not really asking for much. 

But then who is to judge what is valid & what is not. Again the People.

regards

Feroze

On 11 July 2010 21:33, Kunda P. N. <kukrunil@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Feroze I came to know about your stand supporting Sambhaji Brigade through a forwarded email. It is very sad to hear it from you. Are you aware  of the repercussions of this stand? When you ask to remove some part of James Lane's book without reading it means - 1) Inviting ban on Jotiba Phule's book who extensively criticized Hindu Gods like Ganapati and Krishna? Krantiba Jotiba Phule criticized Hindu God Ganapati in words  "Dhambu Dherya, Wakad Sondya... etc etc." and Krishna as "cheater and womanizer"? I was part of that movement during 1989 when Puneri Brahmins (RSS) said "Phule Nave hi tar Durgandhi" and Loksatta editor Madhav Gadkari defended this stand by openly supporting ban on Krantiba Phule's book. All the Hindutwawadies demanded that time  was very similar to present demand for removal of some part of writings or ban entire collection of Phule published by Maharashtra Government.   2) Asking for removal of some part of writing from James Lane's book or asking ban on entire book means inviting all the reactionary Hindu sections (BJP & RSS) to revise or re-stage their demand to remove 'Riddles in Hinduism' and several other section from volume no. 4, 5, and 7 of collected writings of Dr Ambedkar.  I was part of that movement mobilizing Dalit women who demonstrated at Kala Ghoda to lift the ban on those volumes of Dr Ambedkar's collected work. 3) Asking for removal of some part from James Lane's book or asking ban on entire book means inviting ban on all the books of Marxist historian Dr. D.D. Kosambi who demystified all the glorification and false stories around all the Hindu Gods and Goddesses.  4) It is undemocratic to ban or censor any content without keeping it open for the scrutiny of the readers. Let people read it and then rationally refute the writer's argument. If we support this kind of  emotional reactions, we promote irrational culture which Phule Ambedkar always disapproved.     Being Phule Ambedkarite and activist of Non-Brahmin movement, I have witnessed all these protests in past and worked for it; that is why I strongly defend "No Ban" point of view. Even when somebody asks ban on Vidrohi's "Satyashodhak Patrika", or even Sambhaji Brigade's website, I will definitely stand by it. Feroze think about it, and help us to collectively build 'Democratic-Secular Public Rationale'. Jaibhim! Dr. Kunda Pramila Nilakantha

--
Feroze Mithiborwala

--
Peace Is Doable

--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/