HVK Archives: Arguing over gods
Arguing over gods - The Pioneer
Editorial
()
6 August 1997
Title: Arguing over gods
Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 6, 1997
What shall, in retrospect, prove far more significant than Worshipping
False Gods-the controversial book that Arun Shourie has written-is the
nature of public debate that it has provoked. It is because democracy
itself must seek constant redefinition through debate, that it becomes
necessary today to both examine and evaluate the terms of this debate.
Unfortunately, "debate" on Shourie's book has so far been a misnomer.
Arguments are a victim of frenzy, with strident calls to ban the book
coming from political parties and groups. Members of Parliament burn the
book inside the Parliament House complex and protest demonstrations are
staged, complete with effigies of the author being burnt. It is in this
backdrop that the decision of a group of Dalit intellectuals in Maharashtra
to "counter the intellectual assault intellectually" comes as a
particularly welcome surprise.
In a meeting, over 40 prominent Dalit thinkers of the State have chalked
out a strategy to combat what they believe to be "pure propaganda". They
have decided to compile articles written in Marathi on BR Ambedkar and
publish them in English. A Phule Ambedkar Academic Council has been set up
to undertake the task. These intellectuals have concluded that a ban on the
book would actually lend it far too much importance. They, consequently,
propose to articulate the truth that all previous attempts to ban books or
films should have brought home to us by now: Proscription merely spawns
illicit trade under the counter. Apart from being counterproductive, the
ban is also an anomaly in a democracy about to celebrate its 50th birthday.
In its attempt to use force to stifle dissent, it is a throwback instead
to the Middle Ages when the Roman church burned books and authors that
dared present an opposing point of view. There is another important reason
why a ban on Shourie's book would be anachronistic today. The Dalit
movement, as it attempts to restructure an inequitable socio-political
order, has come a long way from the time when BR Ambedkar nurtured it into
existence in a newly independent nation. An insecure response to dissent
would be a betrayal of the confidence that the Dalit intelligentsia has
come to acquire, the space that it has compelled the existing order to
yield. To meet attack with a defensive closing of ranks would be a
confession of weakness. The Dalit intelligentsia has rightly concluded that
the only way to combat charges that Shourie has levelled is to tackle them
upfront.
Shourie's arguments against Ambedkar, moreover, are not new. In his own
lifetime, the Dalit leader dealt with harsher critiques, and with greater
tolerance. He would, therefore, have been uncomfortable with attempts by
devotees to abstract him into a hallowed space that disallows questions. He
would undoubtedly have agreed that, in a mature democracy, it is Shourie's
fundamental question that is all wrong. More important than the question of
whether a God is true or false is-can He be argued with?
Back
Top
|
