[INDOLOGY] Narratives of WSC forum from different perspectives

Tue Aug 21 09:09:46 UTC 2018

Dear all,
Regarding what has been brought to our notice in indology list by Dr.
Vajpeyi and others, there is a discussion of the same incidence happening
in another forum i.e. Bharatiyavidvatparishat. The issue involved is indeed
very important for any scholarly fraternity.

As I am a member in Indology list and also in Bharatiyavidvatparishat, I
feel it necessary to draw attention of the members of this list, WSC local
organizing committee, IASS towards two alternative versions of eye
witnesses of the same event which differ from the version mentioned on this
list. They are from (1) Prof. Shivani V, and (2) Mr. Jayaraman.

I cannot say anything on the authenticity or otherwise of any of these
versions or that of Dr. Vajpeyi, as I have not attended the event.

1. The authorities may like to respond to these two alternative
perspectives.

2. May I request the organizers to make the video footage of the event
available to the scholarly community so that everyone who did not attend
the event can analyse and draw their own conclusions about the event.
Pratyaksha is treated as the best proof by most philosophies and sciences.

NARRATIVE 1
QUOTE Shivani V.

Respected Scholars,

The conversations in e-lists regarding the WSC - 2018 public forum “Our
Sanskrit -“The Gender and Caste in Sanskrit Studies” which as described was
to depict the current position of Sanskrit studies and the journey of
panelists through the Sanskrit texts and pedagogy, prompted me to respond
to the mails by WSC chair, IASS Secretary and Dr Ananya Vajpayee, one of
the panalists.

I expected a scholastic discourse while attending the public forum. The
forum opened with Dr Adheesh Sathaye's remarks that it was arranged to hear
the unheard voices and unshared experiences of three women scholars of
Samskrit. Being a lady faculty of a University in southern India and
working in Sanskrit Fraternity for last two decades, I was curious to
listen to the panelists.

The first speaker, Prof Mandakranta Bose started the debate placing some
questions to other two panelists by quoting the Ramayana and the
Manusmriti. Dr. Kaushal Panwar who was the first to respond, said nothing
which answered the questions raised nor made any new observation. Instead
of addressing the questions, she started reading some passages from the
pages that she had brought. Her quotes from Smritis and the Vedas were not
read/pronounced properly, which reflected her level of understanding of
Sanskrit. Her uninteresting and non-scholastic presentation tested the
patience of the audience and yet audience were silent. Her speech was
purely political with baseless arguments against some caste and gender.
Further, Dr Ananya Vajpayee, with her sophisticated style, presented  her
own understanding of Indian history.  It is to be noted that neither of the
said panelists really share their personal experiences of learning Sanskrit
- which was the supposed aim of the public forum (note public forum
description). The forum had started late and it was not made clear to the
audience what duration was allotted for any interaction.

When the forum was about to close without the Q&A opportunity to the
audience and Dr. Panwar raged on about one particular community, some
students asked to be allowed some time for interaction. The organiser
allowed 15 minutes for clearing questions from the audience. Then a few
internationally reputed scholars like Prof. Aravind Sharma, Shri Chamu
Krishna Shastry, Prof Manoj Kumar Mishra, Dr Madhu etc. politely raised
questions related to the arguments the panelists had made. It is to be
noted that, they were not at all taken up for answering. When 3-4 points
were made by the scholars in the audience, barely one was even answered by
the panelists. Again, point to be noted here that the video recording,
which had been proceeding through the panel discussion, was switched off as
soon as questions were raised by the audience.

I requested to be allowed to share my experience. I shared my experience of
Sanskrit Studies being in Sanskrit Fraternity in Kerala, in Andhrapradesh
and in Karnataka where currently I am working as a faculty member in a
Samskrit University. Most of my teachers, my friends even my students and
my colleagues belonged to upper caste.  I also shared about my background
where none in my family had any introduction to Sanskrit and neither had I,
before I chose to enter this field. While the panelists  badmouthed a
particular caste, I pointed out that my good experience of learning
Sanskrit is as real as their claimed bad experience and they cannot negate
what I had to add to the exchange. Also, Dr. Anuradha Choudhury added,
(very politely and non-aggressively, I might add) that a non-scholarly
panel discussion of this sort where subjective experiences are being shared
would be better off having a more representative participation across the
spectrum of opinions. I observe that none of these valid and just arguments
that were placed in the forum find any mention in Dr. Vajpeyi's article.
All the talk of sympathy for women in the field by the said panelists is
mere lip-service if they do not even acknowledge the other voices in the
alleged "Open" forum.

Dr Kaushal Panwar objected with loud voice the use of the term “harijan”
which was mentioned by one of the audience. Though he clarified the term
harijan was used in the sense of Gandhi’s usage, the same issue was
discussed to deviate the debate. The scholars in the audience were forced
to ask questions loudly as mike was not provided to most of them. Before
closing the session, Dr Kaushal and Dr Mandakranta shouted at the scholars
and escaped from the stage as they could not face the scholastic questions.

Coming to the post forum explanations by Dr Atheesh Sathay and Prof.
Jayendra Soni ji, IASS Secretary, I do not agree with their words which
describe the audience of the forum were uncivilised, hooligans,
disrespectful, and non-academic. While reading Prof Jayendra Sony’s
statement “Both in this Public Forum and at some academic panels at this
recent WSC in Vancouver, a number of disrespectful and inappropriate
exchanges and statements were made. Invited guests and presenters were
interrupted, shouted at, demeaned, and intimidated ……” Among the audience,
the president of IASS, Prof Kutumba Shastry was also present and shared his
views. Renowned scholars such as Prof Ashok Aklujkar, Prof Aravind Sharma
and many others were present and many of them shared their views. Whether
the statement of Prof Sony applies to these scholars? if not he has to
specify who has interrupted, shouted, demeaned and intimidated the
presenters and invited guests. I request the IASS board to make the video
of the forum pubic (which may reveal the truth).

In the whole program, there was not one 'personal' experience that was
narrated, not one solution offered to any problems they saw in our
tradition, not one positive word uttered about 'their' Samskrit that has
given them the life that they are leading. Sanskrit was reduced to a
straw-man that has purushasukta and Manu "smarati" and was beaten to a pulp
even as the mike-less audience was forced to look-on.

My additions in response to what Ananya has written

If the three scholars present there did not speak in an autobiographic
vein, what were they there to do? The so-called open forum was supposed to
share their subjective experiences - which cannot be, by any stretch of
imagination, an academic exercise. If they were supposed to share their
readings of the texts, why was it not open for debate like the other papers
were? Any questions regarding this is being labelled as trolling.

"The ill-fated forum at the WSC was just an instance of a disciplinary
malaise that has, alas, gone metastatic."
Ill-fated, malaise, metastasis - the three words I also would use to
describe that particular forum: Ill-fated, because the other
representatives, who were forced to listen to unabashed abuse of the
tradition, were not even given a proper chance to voice their opinions in
what was ironically called an "Open Forum". Malaise, because there is not
an ounce of positive thought that emerged from the "discussion" made by the
"scholars" on the stage and the positive experiences that were attempted to
be shared by the non-brahmin women in the audience fell on completely deaf
ears. Metastasis because of the situation wrought by continual repetition
of the cooked-up "Drain Inspector's Report" of the world of Sanskrit.

I wholeheartedly repeat Dr. Vajpeyi's words "It's time to stand up to the
trolls, bigots, misogynists and other rogue elements in our midst; time to
stand up for our colleagues who have borne the brunt of harassment,
intimidation, bullying and motivated misrepresentation." - with a small
modification, though - the first part refers to those who were on the stage
and the second to the muted audience.

While I do not deny any bad experiences that Dr. Panwar might have had in
her life, I also ask her to remember the members of the very same community
she is abusing, who might have led her up to the position she is in now. I
also emphatically demand that my (and the experiences of several others
like me) not be negated by continuing to badmouth a particular community.
Many Ananyas are living using the past, many Kaushals are becoming victims.
How long have we to in the past! We have to draw whatever is positive from
the past and live in the present. I request Dr Vajpeyi  and such modern
writers, to remove the Kailasa mountains from their minds and enjoy the
beauty of the world and let the Kaushals also enjoy it.

पुराणमित्येव न साधु सर्वं न चापि काव्यं नवमित्यवद्यम़्।
सन्त: परीक्ष्यान्यतरद्भजन्ते मूढ: परप्रत्ययनेयबुद्धि:॥

“Everything is not good because it is just ancient. And the poems need not
be bad because it is new. Wise examine both and decide which is good or
bad. Only a fool will be blindly led by what others say.”

With best regards

UNQUOTE

NARRATIVE 2

QUOTE Mr. Jayaraman

नमः सर्वेभ्यः

विश्वसंस्कृतसम्मेलने अस्मत्संस्कृतमिति गोष्ठ्यां संस्कृतज्ञैः
सभासद्भिः *hooliganistic
behaviour* प्रकटितम् इति सम्मेलनस्य समायोजकेन अधीशमहोदयेन लिखितं दृष्ट्वा
तद्विषये मम प्रतिस्पन्दं प्रकटयितुम् इच्छामि। (
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/hooliganism%7Csort:date/bvparishat/QH0IpCzVFbU/HurcH6fSDgAJ)
- Words of Mr.Adheesh Sathey - "*I found the hooliganistic behaviour of
some members of the audience to have been shocking, inexcusable, and deeply
disturbing.*"

तस्यां सभायां वेदिकायाम् उपरि स्थितानां विचाराः प्रकटिताः Hooliganistic
Behaviour इत्यादिपदप्रयोगैः। अधुना सभायां अधः निविष्टानां पक्षतः
अस्मत्संस्कृतगोष्ठीविषये *मम संस्कृतभषया *अहं लिखामि। *सभायाम् अहमपि
उपविष्टः आसम्। अतः तत्र यत्प्रवृत्तं तन्मम प्रत्यक्षम्। तत् भवतां समक्षं
यथास्मृति प्रस्तौमि।  *

"अस्मत्-संस्कृतम्" इति गोष्ठ्याः शीर्षकम्। तत्र संस्कृतं न कस्यापि आसीत्।

न कापि व्यक्तिः वेदिकाम् अलङ्कुर्वाणा संस्कृतेन अभाषत! कीदृशं विडम्बनमिदम्!

*आयोजकानां दोषः*

तत्रादौ - अधीशमहोदयः प्रष्टव्यः- तस्य कार्यक्रमस्य चलच्चित्रमुद्रणं कृतम्।  तत्
किमर्थं न प्रकाश्यते भवता?

तदा स्वयमेव जनाः किं संवृत्तमिति ज्ञातुमर्हन्ति। तद्यदि कार्यक्रमायोजकैः न
मुद्रितं तर्हि केन कृतमिति अवश्यमेव आयोजकाः जानीयुरेव। अतः प्रमाणप्रस्तुतिः
आयोजकानां दायित्वम्।

यावदहं स्मरामि - अधीशमहोदयः प्रारम्भे कार्यक्रमस्वरूपं न निरूपितवान्। केवलं
वेदिकायां विद्यमानानां परिचयः कारितः तेन। आयोजकैः कृता इयमव्यवस्था
बुद्धिपूर्विका वा अनवधानप्रयुक्ता वा? अन्यत्र सर्वत्र प्रशंसनीयतया
कृतकार्यः अधीशमहोदयः अत्र नितरां विफलः इति यदि कथ्यते तत् अत्यन्तमेव
मृदुवचनम्।

अयमेव दोषः सर्वेषां क्लेशानां निदानम्।

*सभासदां प्रतिक्रिया*

कार्यक्रमस्य समापनकालः यावन्ननिकटामागतः तावत्पर्यन्तमपि वेदिकास्थैः
कथितानां विचारणां विषये प्रतिस्पन्दप्रकटनाय सभासदः नानुमताः । अधीशमहोदयः
इदं सर्वं पश्यन् अवाक् एव आसीत्। (तदानीं तस्य  "spirit of equanimity" कुत्र
गता इति सः प्रष्टव्यः अधुना।)  तदा सभासदां पक्षतः साग्रहम् अभिप्रायः
प्रकटितः यत् प्रश्नोत्तराणां कृते अवकाशो भवेदिति। अगतिकगत्या आयोजकैः *सभासदां
बहूनां न्याय्यः सभ्यश्च* *प्रतिस्पन्दः श्रोतव्यः आपतितः।* न केनापि
क्रन्दितम्, न केनापि असभ्यः व्यवहारः कृतः। वेदिकास्थाः भगिनीः उद्दिश्य यदा
प्रश्नाः पृष्टाः, अभिप्रायाः प्रकटिताः सभ्यतासत्कारभावौ नितान्तं परिरक्षितौ
सभाजनैः। उपशतं जनाः सभायाम् आसन्। तत्र सम्भूय उच्चैः घोषणा न कृता,
तत्रत्यसम्पदः हानिः न कृता। न कस्यापि वाचा शरीरेण वा हिंसनं कृतम्।
(सत्यकथनं यदि कस्यचित् मानसिकं क्लेशमजनयत्, तर्हि सः क्लेश एव न।)

एवञ्च सति Hooliganistic behaviour इति यत् पदम् अधीशमहोदयेन सभासदां विषये
प्रयुक्तं तत् *नितराम् निन्द्यम्। *सभायां बहवः आचार्याः गुरुवर्याः च
आसन् । विचारं
प्रकटितवतां तेषां सर्वेषामपि अपमाननं कृतं भवति Hooliganistic behaviour इति
पदप्रयोगेण। *एतदर्थम् अधीशमहोदयः क्षमायाचनां कुर्यात् इति साग्रहं
वदाम्यहम्।* सभ्यतया विचारप्रकटनं यदि  Hooliganistic behaviour तर्हि तेषां
विषये असभ्यतया Hooliganistic behaviour इति ईदृशः पदप्रयोगः केन पदेन
व्यवहारमर्हति?

प्रायः वैदेशिकाः द्वित्राः ये उपविष्टाः आसन् ते चकिताः जाताः स्युः यत् –
अयथावात्, युक्त्यसहं, सत्यादपेतं विचारजातं वेदिकास्थाभिः निरूपितं चेदपि
कथमिमे विद्वांसः संस्कृतज्ञाः कल्याणीमेव वाचम् उच्चारयन्तीति। अतः
मिथ्यैव स्वकपोलकल्पितः
Hooliganism इत्यादिपदप्रयोगः, पत्रिकासु लेखश्च ।

सभासदः ये स्वमतं सभ्यतया तत्रैव सभायां प्रतिस्पन्दरूपेण प्राचीकटन् तेषां
विचारः अत्र यथास्मृति यथामति च प्रस्तूयते (तेषामनुमतिं विना तेषां नामानि
मया लेखितुं न शक्यन्ते।) -

*उत्तरभारतीयः** देहलीनगरस्य केन्द्रसर्वकारीयविश्वविद्यालयस्य प्राध्यापकः
एकः अवदत् *–यत्  श्रीमत्या कौशलपन्वार महाभागया एकम् ऋग्वेदवचनम् उद्धृतं तत्
उर्वशी-पुरूरवसोः संवादे विद्यते - तत्र च कथितं यत् महिलानां हृदयं
सालावृकसदृशमिति। तदाधारेण वेदसहित्यं महिलानां विषये अनादरं प्रकटयति इत्यपि
कथितं तया। तन्न युक्तम्।  तच्च वचनं न पुरूरवसः। तच्च उर्वश्याः एव। "यस्य
वाक्यं स ऋषिः" इति मतेन उर्वश्या कथितस्य वाक्यस्य ऋषिः उर्वशी एव। अतः
महिलानां विषये पुरुषाः निन्दावचनं वेदेषु प्रकटितवन्तः इति यत्कथनं तन्न
युक्तम्” इति।

*अग्रे च विश्वव्यापिनः संस्कृतसम्भाषणसङ्घटनस्य एकस्य प्रमुखः  उत्थाय अवदत्
यत् - *कर्णाटकस्य मङ्गलूरुनगरनिकटे आ त्रिंशतः वर्षेभ्यः *मैत्रेयी गुरुकुलम्
*इति बालिकानां गुरुकुलं सञ्चाल्यते यत्र वेदानां संस्कृतस्य च  पाठनं
प्रवर्तते । शतशः बालिकाः एतावतैव वेदशिक्षणसम्पन्नाः। किञ्च ,
उपपञ्चविंशतिवर्षेभ्यः
बेङ्गल्रूरुनिकटस्थे *वेदविज्ञानगुरुकुले *जातिभेदेन विना सर्वेभ्यः बालेभ्यः
वेदशिक्षणं प्रदीयते। तस्य गुरुकुलस्य प्राचार्यः अत्रैव वर्तते इति तस्यापि
परिचयः कारितः सभायामेव।

तदानीं प्रायः ईदृशं साक्षाद् अपरोक्षम् उदाहरणं , प्रमाणं वा अनिरीक्षमाणा
चकिता तत्-तिरस्करणाक्षमा श्रीमती अनन्या वाजपेयी अवदत् यत् - अवश्यं तादृशं
स्थानं द्रष्टुमिच्छामि इति। गुरुकुलीयैः च सा अमन्त्रिता। (इदं किमर्थं तया
हिन्दुपत्रिकायां  निजलेखने  न प्राकाशि? यत् पूर्वतनं दुर्भाग्यपूर्णं मुखं
तदेव प्राचरणीयमिति किं कृतसङ्कल्पाः इमे बुद्धिजीविनः? समाजे जायमानानि
शोभनानि मैत्रेयीगुरुकुलसदृशानि ईदृशानि परिवर्तनानि दृश्यन्ते खलु। आशाहीनतां
द्वेषभावनां परिरक्षितुमिष्यामाणानामेषां किं समाजविघटनमुद्देश्यम्? )

*किञ्च**, दक्षिणभारतीया काचित् संस्कृतविदुषी या *च कस्मिंचित्
विश्वविद्यालये संस्कृतविभागध्यक्षा सा अवदत् यत् - अहं काचित् महिला
ब्राह्मणेतरजातीया । अहम् अध्यापिता, पोषिता च अस्मि ब्राह्मणैः। अहं च अधुना
विश्वविद्यालये विभागप्रमुखपदेऽस्मि। किमिदं न  निरूपयति  महिलानां पुरस्कारः
संस्कृतक्षेत्रे वर्तते इति।

*किञ्च**, अपरा, भारतस्य पूर्वदिग्विभागात् आगता संस्कृतस्य उपप्राध्यापिका *अवदत्
यत् - ईदृशी काचित् गोष्ठी यदा आयोज्यते तत्र सर्वासां दृष्टीनाम् अवसरः देयः।
अत्र तु केवलं एकस्य पक्षस्य एव मतं प्रकटितम्। विश्ववेदिकायां यदा कश्चित्
विचारः विमृश्यते तत्र सर्वपक्षीयाः अपि समादर्तव्याः। न च एकस्यैव पक्षस्य
पोषणं कर्तव्यमिति।

किञ्च कश्चन प्रश्नमप्राक्षीत् श्रीमतीम् अनन्या(वाजपेयी)-महाभागाम् - वेदे
महिलानामितरजातीयानां वा अधिकारः न दीयते इत्यादि भवत्या भाष्यते। किं भवती
वेदेषु श्रद्धावती ? इति । तदा सा कथितवती, मम श्रद्धा तु भारतीयसंविधाने इति।

 तदुत्तरम् अत्यन्तमेव वरिष्ठः कश्चित् विद्वान् यश्च विश्वसंस्कृतसम्मेलने
उद्घाटनादुत्तरं सामूहिके सत्रेऽपि भाषणमकरोत् तेन कथितं यत्
मनुस्मृतिसाहित्ये  किञ्चन वचनमस्ति तद्विषये कः भवत्याः विचारः? इति । तच्च
वचनं -  "अस्वर्ग्यं *लोकविद्विष्टं *धर्ममप्याचरेन्न तु" मनुस्मृतिपरिशिष्टम्
१२३। सुबहुकालात् पूर्वमेव मनुस्मृतौ प्रयुक्तं *लोकविद्विष्टमिति *पदं
संविधानस्य हृदयमेव, पारम्यमेव सूचयति इति भावेन प्रायः तेन मूर्धन्येन विदुषा
तद्वचनम् उद्धृतमिति भावयामि।  (प्रायः अस्य प्रश्नस्य साक्षादुत्तरं
दातुमसमर्था सा महाभागा इति मम स्मृतिः)।

ममापि वक्तुं मनसि विचाराः स्फुरिताः आसन्। किन्तु अवसरः न लब्धः। मम विचाराः
अत्र संक्षेपेण निवेद्यन्ते - यद् यद् भाषितं वेदिकास्थाभिः वक्त्रीभिः तत्
सर्वमपि अत्युन्नताट्टालिकागतानां वचनम् इति प्रत्यभात्। किञ्च तद्वचनं केवलं
ग्रन्थाधारितं, न तु वस्तुस्थित्याधारितम् इत्यभात्।

भारते आधुनिके काले महिलाः वेदाध्ययनरताः। योगिवर्यश्रीकृष्णमाचार्यसदृशाः
वेदाध्ययने महिलानां प्रवृत्त्युत्पादने अग्रसराः, यस्य च उत्तमः प्रभावः
अधुना समाजे दृश्यते। योगविद्यायामपि विशिष्य महिलानां प्रवृत्तिः
श्रीकृष्णमाचार्यादीनां प्रयत्नेन सिद्धा।

संन्यासेऽपि अधिकारः विद्यते महिलानाम्। रामकृष्णमठः, चिन्मयमिशन्
इत्येतादृशीषु संस्थासु अनेकाः वन्दनीयाः संन्यासिन्यः मातरः विद्यन्ते इति
सर्वविदितमेव।

एवञ्च योगविद्यायां, वेदविद्यायां, ब्रह्मविद्यायामपि पुरुषाः महिलाश्च समानाः
जायमानाः जाताः आधुनिके हिन्दुसमाजे । इदं वास्तविकं दृश्यम्।

*उपसंहारः*

वेदधर्मस्य अधुनातनस्थितेः विषये मिथ्याप्रलापप्रवादं पूर्वपक्षीकृत्य
संस्कृतक्षेत्रस्य नाविधनसंस्थासु कार्यं कुर्वाणानां, भारतस्य नानादिग्भ्यः
समागतानां, पुरुषाणां महिलानां, यूनां वृद्धानां च  युक्तिपूर्णं सत्यनिष्ठं
वास्तविकं सभ्यं वचनजातं  श्रावं श्रावम् आत्मानमहं धन्यममन्वि । अधुनापि तत्
स्मारं स्मारं रोमाञ्चमनुभवामि।  तच्च वचोजातं यथामति यथास्मृति च यथावत्
संविभक्तवानिति आत्मानं कृतार्थं मन्ये।

ईदृशं वचोजातमेव Hooliganism इति बिरुदप्रदानेन सम्मानितमस्ति। किञ्च, यदि
सर्वेऽपि कोलाहलरताः कथमेतावन्तः विचाराः स्पष्टं स्मर्तुं शक्याः अभविष्यन् |
यदि मम वचनानि स्वकपोलकल्पितानि इति कथ्यन्ते तर्हि विचारन्तारवतमपि समानो
दोषः लगति  इत्यलमतिविस्तरेण।

प्रणम्य विरमति
UNQUOTE

-- 
Dr. Dhaval Patel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20180821/8c1d476b/attachment.htm>