In Response to a Misfortunate Understanding
What you’re about to read is not an article. Instead it is a subjective explanation for what I’d written on the article “A Book, an author and a controversy” published on 18th Feb, 2014. Before we start there is something I would like to spare a few words on Team Creofire and the Objective of this site. We are a group of four likeminded youngsters, willing to share something good with everyone. We believe in Universal brotherhood. Our aim is not to entertain the readers with our writings but to keep them informed about things happening around us in an infotaining way. We have never moved a bit from this in the past eight months of Creofire’s existence, and our articles vouch for it.
We never write something to spark controversy and exploit that opportunity to get noticed in the digital universe. We are neither celebrities nor attention seeking writers craving for limelight to perform such stunts. Besides writing, all Creofireans are engaged in our respective professions. Our activities in Creofire are always dream driven, the dream of building a platform where free thoughts from all quarters spring, coupled with passion. All the topics we touch in our articles would speak of our vision and mission.
As I had penned the article that has invited some misunderstanding, I switch to ‘I’ from ‘we’ henceforth. I never write an article without working on the background information. My intention is to provide a clearer picture of what is being discussed in the topic concerned. I along with fellow Creofireans have not stood by any biased ideologies in any of our writings. I am not a pro-western supporter, in fact the opposite. I do not support capitalistic western supremacy and have continually reflected it in all my writings. I keep myself away from biased views and prejudices- based on race, religion, nationality, whatever – of any kind. Team Croefire is a strong supporter of ‘Free thinking’ and welcome and respect Alternative thinking. We dream, and believe beyond doubt that Creofire, one day, will become a platform for healthy dialogue harboring and nurturing Universal integration.
Here is the response to dear reader numberounity’s feedback. Pal, If ‘Hindu bashing’ has become a fashion, sorry we neither buy nor follow the trend. We dream in leaving trails and not following them. Reading the article (http://creofire.com/book-author-controversy/) would have made anyone aware of one thing. The core intention of the article is to give the reader a brief yet clear picture of two side of the controversy. That is the reason why you find the link that takes the reader to Mr. Dinanath Batra’s interview to TIME, along with another provided link that takes one to the press release note by Wendy Doniger, the author of the book that sparked controversy. Besides, the reader is also given the glimpse of the notice of withdrawal, released by the publishers. No where I find to have taken a pro-western stand or an anti-Hindu stand.
In case someone, certainly ‘numberounity’, find the usage of the term ‘Hindu Fanatics’ offensive, it becomes necessary to explain the context behind the usage. In his interview to TIME Mr.Batra has listed six reasons why ‘Shiksha Bacho Andolan’ targets Ms. Windy for her book has said, ‘She equates the shivlingam, worshipped all over India by millions, with sex and calls it an erect penis’. The Sanskrit term ‘Lingam’ has versatile meanings ranging from mark, sign or characteristic of gender. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam#Definition_and_meaning) Often the lingam is represented alongside ‘yoni’ a symbol of ‘Shakti’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoni#In_Indian_religions). These representations should not simply be deciphered as erotic symbolisms instead to be taken as symbolizing the creative force. [Here one should essentially remember that Wendy is not only an author but also a Sanskrit Scholar and her doctoral thesis itself was on ‘The Origins of Heresy in Hindu Mythology,’ supervised by R.C.Zaehner, back in 1973]
Hinduism besides being one of the oldest religions, to my knowledge, is the only religion in the world that has evolved over time. This is because the foundation of the Hindu belief system is deep rooted in nature, and the Vedas and epics only supplement it. Hence the term ‘fanatics’ used in my article contextually mean ‘hardliners’. The usage intended to stress only on this.
Next quoting her (the author’s) comment on Gandhi, I do agree that it is trivial to bother about with whom Gandhi slept. But at the same time, why is this comment questioned on an opposition raised against a book on religious grounds. Every historian and common people alike will certainly identify him only on the historical context. Won’t his identity as Hindu or anything else for that matter comes only after this?
The last part of that article doesn’t refer to Hinduism alone but all the religious systems of the world. There is a good difference between inculcating a rationalized belief system for oneself, and I favor that. All have equal rights to follow the faith his/her heart leads to. For every road leads to the same destination and every path preaches love and reiterate universal harmony.