[INDOLOGY] Public statement from Wendy Doniger

Wed Feb 12 10:40:55 UTC 2014

The English of the legal/demand
notice<http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?289468>is generally
poor.  But in particular, what's all this "you noticee"?  Is
that just an error for "your noticee," or is it legal jargon?  I've never
seen it before, and I find no other references to the phrase anywhere on
the internet (Google).   Is it meant to be a vocative, addressing the
recipients of the notice?

I think it would be worthwhile at some point to go through this
legal/demand notice and refute the points one by one.  They are mostly
rather easy to knock down, as far as I can see.

Best,
Dominik Wujastyk

--
Dr Dominik Wujastyk
Department of South Asia, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies<http://stb.univie.ac.at>
,
University of Vienna,
Spitalgasse 2-4, Courtyard 2, Entrance 2.1
1090 Vienna, Austria
and
Adjunct Professor,
Division of Health and Humanities,
St. John's Research Institute, <http://www.sjri.res.in/> Bangalore, India.
Project <http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caraka/> | home
page<http://www.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk>|
HSSA <http://hssa.sayahna.org> | PGP <http://wujastyk.net/pgp.html>

On 12 February 2014 11:30, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is very interesting, Tim.  Thank you!
>
> So the laws are aimed at punishing deliberately provocative offences that
> are explicitly designed to promote communal or religious disharmony.  The
> laws are not framed in a manner that depends on the assertion of a member
> of a community that their feelings have been hurt or they have been
> offended.
>
> I would have thought that it would be trivially easy to demonstrate under
> these laws that *The Hindus: An Alternative History* was not published as
> a deliberate act of communal provocation.  Why did Penguin India feel
> cornered?
>
> Best,
> Dominik Wujastyk
>
>
> --
> Dr Dominik Wujastyk
> Department of South Asia, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies<http://stb.univie.ac.at>
> ,
> University of Vienna,
> Spitalgasse 2-4, Courtyard 2, Entrance 2.1
> 1090 Vienna, Austria
> and
> Adjunct Professor,
> Division of Health and Humanities,
> St. John's Research Institute, <http://www.sjri.res.in/> Bangalore, India.
> Project <http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caraka/> | home page<http://www.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk>|
> HSSA <http://hssa.sayahna.org> | PGP <http://wujastyk.net/pgp.html>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 22:25, Lubin, Tim <LubinT at wlu.edu> wrote:
>
>>  Article 295A was inserted in 1927 through passage of the Criminal Law
>> Amendment Act (Act 25 of 1927), and the wording revised (the part bracketed
>> with note 7: "by signs" and "or otherwise" added) in 1961.
>>
>>  This circumstances of this legislation were described in 1934 by Sir H.
>> P. Dastur, Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay, in his ruling on a the
>> "Reason Case" (1933), a blasphemy case against a rationalist for his
>> articles in a periodical called "Reason" (the case was dismissed as not
>> falling under the terms of 295A because the author's intent was not
>> malicious -- the same may be said of Prof. Doniger!):
>>
>>  "Section 295-A....was introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 25
>> of 1927 in consequence of the decision..in what is known as the Rangila
>> Rasul case, in which it was held that section 153-A was not meant to stop
>> polemics against a deceased religious leader however scurrilous and in bad
>> taste such attacks may be.
>>
>>  "Any criticism, and particularly a vigorous criticism, of any religious
>> belief is bound to hurt or insult the religious feelings of the class of
>> people professing that faith...
>>
>>  "As however, that would stifle all honest attempts to introduce social
>> reforms, Legislature has not made a mere intent to insult the religious
>> feelings of any class of His Majesty's subjects, penal under this section.
>> It requires that that should be deliberate intention of the writer and ...
>> "malicious".... "
>> (The Rangila Rasul case had to do with scurrilous pamphlet about the
>> Prophet Muhammad and his wives…  see:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangila_Rasul )
>>
>>  Article 153A, cited here, is as follows:
>>
>>  153A. 1[ Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of
>> religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts
>> prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.--
>> (1) <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/811548/> Whoever-
>> (a) <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1102504/> by words, either spoken or
>> written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes
>> or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth,
>> residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,
>> disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill- will between different
>> religious, racials, language or regional groups or castes or communities,
>> or
>> (b) <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1361857/> commits any act which is
>> prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious,
>> racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which
>> disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, 2[ or]
>> (c) <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/775009/> 2[ organizes any exercise,
>> movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants
>> in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence
>> or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use
>> or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such
>> activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence
>> or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use
>> or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious,
>> racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity
>> for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a
>> feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language
>> or regional group or caste or community,] shall be punished with
>> imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
>>  (2) <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/308260/> Offence committed in place of
>> worship, etc.-- Whoever commits an offence specified in sub- section (1) in
>> any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of
>> religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with
>> imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to
>> fine.]
>>
>>  Tim
>>
>>  Timothy Lubin
>> Professor of Religion
>> Washington and Lee University
>> Lexington, Virginia 24450
>>
>>  http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint
>> http://wlu.academia.edu/TimothyLubin
>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=930949
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   From: Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:43 PM
>> To: George Thompson <gthomgt at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Indology <INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
>> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Public statement from Wendy Doniger
>>
>>    Dear George,
>>
>>  At first I was furious with Penguin India, but having read Wendy's
>> account of how they fought for her book, I have revised my opinion.  I
>> learned with astonishment about the Indian law that criminalizes the
>> publisher of a book that causes offence to any Hindu.  It is simply
>> incredible, as a piece of law.
>>
>>  So, I think Wendy is probably right, and the culprit is the Indian
>> Penal Code.
>>
>> http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1803184/ :
>>  Central Government Act
>> Section 295A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
>> 295A. 5[ Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious
>> feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.--
>> Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious
>> feelings of any class of 6[ citizens of India], 7[ by words, either spoken
>> or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise] insults
>> or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class,
>> shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
>> may extend to 8[ three years], or with fine, or with both.]
>>
>>  I am no historian of law.  But this looks to me as though it was framed
>> by the British administration, shortly after the Rebellion.
>>
>>  However inappropriate the application of this law to modern scholarly
>> publishing, I remain incredulous that the court decided that it could be
>> established that Wendy showed "deliberate and malicious intention of
>> outraging the religious feeling."
>>
>>  I am not sure what action would be appropriate in this case.  In the
>> USA, a petition against the book was signed by 10k people.  Again, I
>> suppose we could try a petition, but it would not make any difference, and
>> the number of indologists is smaller by several orders than the number of
>> Hindus.
>>
>>  I think the deeper issue here is the fact that an ignorant person (or
>> persons) who does not have sufficient specialist education to understand a
>> particular book is nevertheless able to bring a case that is taken
>> seriously by an Indian court and leads to the banning of that book.
>> Imagine an uneducated farmer taking exception to the work of a nuclear
>> physicist.  Would a court say that the physicist should not do his research
>> or publish his findings?
>>
>>  Best,
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Dr Dominik Wujastyk
>> Department of South Asia, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies<http://stb.univie.ac.at>
>> ,
>> University of Vienna,
>> Spitalgasse 2-4, Courtyard 2, Entrance 2.1
>> 1090 Vienna, Austria
>> and
>> Adjunct Professor,
>> Division of Health and Humanities,
>> St. John's Research Institute, <http://www.sjri.res.in/> Bangalore,
>> India.
>> Project <http://www.istb.univie.ac.at/caraka/> | home page<http://www.academia.edu/DominikWujastyk>|
>> HSSA <http://hssa.sayahna.org> | PGP <http://wujastyk.net/pgp.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 February 2014 20:55, George Thompson <gthomgt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Dominik et al.,
>>>
>>>  Given Wendy's defense of Penguin India, what other alternatives are
>>> available to those of us who are Penguin India authors?
>>>
>>>  George
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM, George Thompson <gthomgt at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Dear Dominik et al.,
>>>>
>>>>  Given Wendy's defense of Penguin India, what other alternatives are
>>>> available to those of us who are Penguin India auth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Dominik Wujastyk <wujastyk at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   I am pleased to circulate the following statement at Wendy
>>>>> Doniger's request:
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear friends, I have had literally hundreds of requests for
>>>>> interviews, in various
>>>>> media, and I can’t do them all. So here is a statement that you may
>>>>> use. I hope
>>>>> it’s enough; it’s the best I can do right now. I intend to write a
>>>>> longer article for
>>>>> publication in a couple of weeks. Yours with gratitude for your
>>>>> courage and
>>>>> compassion, wendy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thrilled and moved by the great number of messages of support
>>>>> that I
>>>>> received, not merely from friends and colleagues but from people in
>>>>> India that I
>>>>> have never met, who had read and loved The Hindus, and by news and
>>>>> media
>>>>> people, all of whom expressed their outrage and sadness and their wish
>>>>> to help
>>>>> me in any way they could. I was, of course, angry and disappointed to
>>>>> see this
>>>>> happen, and I am deeply troubled by what it foretells for free speech
>>>>> in India in
>>>>> the present, and steadily worsening, political climate. And as a
>>>>> publisher’s
>>>>> daughter, I particularly wince at the knowledge that the existing
>>>>> books (unless
>>>>> they are bought out quickly by people intrigued by all the brouhaha)
>>>>> will be
>>>>> pulped. But I do not blame Penguin Books, India. Other publishers have
>>>>> just
>>>>> quietly withdrawn other books without making the effort that Penguin
>>>>> made to
>>>>> save this book. Penguin, India, took this book on knowing that it
>>>>> would stir
>>>>> anger in the Hindutva ranks, and they defended it in the courts for
>>>>> four years,
>>>>> both as a civil and as a criminal suit.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were finally defeated by the true villain of this piece—the
>>>>> Indian law
>>>>> that makes it a criminal rather than civil offense to publish a book
>>>>> that offends
>>>>> any Hindu, a law that jeopardizes the physical safety of any
>>>>> publisher, no matter
>>>>> how ludicrous the accusation brought against a book. An example at
>>>>> random,
>>>>> from the lawsuit in question:
>>>>>
>>>>>   ‘That YOU NOTICEE has hurt the religious feelings of millions of
>>>>> Hindus by
>>>>>   declaring that Ramayana is a fiction. “Placing the Ramayan in its
>>>>> historical
>>>>>   contexts demonstrates that it is a work of fiction, created by human
>>>>> authors, who
>>>>>   lived at various times……….” (P.662) This breaches section 295A of
>>>>> the Indian
>>>>>   Penal Code (IPC). ‘
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I am glad that, in the age of the Internet, it is no longer
>>>>> possible to
>>>>> suppress a book. The Hindus is available on Kindle; and if legal means
>>>>> of
>>>>> publication fail, the Internet has other ways of keeping books in
>>>>> circulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> People in India will always be able to read books of all sorts,
>>>>> including some that
>>>>> may offend some Hindus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20140212/0d551198/attachment.htm>