To be styled an "Open" forum, it would have been behoving had the organisers betrayed a modicum of sense in planning and announcing at the outset that a last half an hour would be reserved for an interactive session (after an hour or so of the presentation by the panelists). The audience grew a little restless only towards the fag end of the allotted duration of the program, when there did not seem to be even the slightest provision for the audience to raise issues. Even then, there was nothing that can be legitimately labeled as trolling (= "inflammatory or inappropriate messages") - only raising of concerns.
The least that the organisers of the conference must do is
- to publish
an uncensored video of the "Open" Forum, retract the uncivilised epithets they have showered on the patient
and scholarly
audience, and issue a public apology, and promise to behave responsibly henceforth.
Respected Scholars and Dr. Shivani,
I would like to start by expressing my whole-hearted endorsement of the very well-articulated, objective and scholarly mail of Dr. Shivani, regarding the proceedings of the eventful forum at WSC. I will not reiterate what transpired as Dr. Shivani has brilliantly conveyed the same but i would like to place before you a couple of details of the forum that might help you appreciate what the audience was made to go through that evening thereby throwing more light on why the interventions by the audience and some post-event exchanges were perceived as being 'threatening' or 'hooliganistic' by the esteemed panelists as well as to give you an idea of the extant of the scholarly deliberations that were being discriminated against!
As rightly pointed out by Dr. Shivani, the topic held the promise of a meaningful discussion as it was relevant to me both in the contexts of caste and gender since i have a deep love and regard for Sanskrit which has been respectfully nurtured and encouraged by many learned scholars from the very beginning even though i was a woman and did not belong to the caste that was being openly abused through the narratives of the esteemed panelists in the guise of sharing personal anecdotes. As was rightly pointed out, the audience was made to wait patiently for more than an hour and a half of listening to some very original attempts at a scholastic presentation by Dr. Kaushal Panwar on the injustice and absurdity of making a Man - the Purusha, perform the birth-giving role of the woman by being made the Creator in the Purusha-sukta.
This point was very emphatically acknowledged by Dr. Vajpeyi as being very pertinent. She also added about the thought-provoking possibility of representing the Purusha lying down in order to depict a less-hierarchical understanding of society! On being politely asked after the event whether she was aware of the fact that in Sanskrit the gender of words does not necessarily correspond to the sex of the person/ object in question, she rebutted rather ungraciously (being off-record) about my audacity in questioning her knowledge of Sanskrit instead of engaging critically on 'her own work of philology, history, theory, hermeneutics, translation or whatever other modalities of reading and interpretation with an equally sharp eye in the objects of her analysis' as she has herself stated in her mail.
Kindly note that that the audience was given roughly about 15mins to question and respond to these kinds of sophisticated intellectual revelations which were being made in the garb of 'self-reflection, reasonable-thinking and open conversation'.
When well-respected and learned senior scholars like Sri Chamu Krishna Sastri systematically put forth their counterpoints in an utmost gentlemanly manner to the esteemed panelists on the actual status of Sanskrit learning among women and the lower castes based on the decades of the tireless hardwork of volunteers from all backgrounds and walks of life, he was first politely cut short by Prof Adheesh with the excuse of lack of time then fiercely countered by Dr Panwar who initiated the whole discussion on Harijans in a loud and aggressive voice. This in turn compelled the President of the IASS, Prof Kutumba Sastry, who had sat through silently the entire proceedings in the back to respond - all of which is now being presented as 'Harassment and discrimination'. (Kindly note that the recording had been conveniently switched off - leaving the world to the conclude on the basis of whoever spoke out loudly first as was the privilege of Dr Vajpayi to capitalise on this opportunity to publically 'bad-mouth' the learned scholars gathered there in the successful act of playing the 'damsel in distress' oppressed by the tyrannical Sanskrit fraternity (as women apparently had no voice therein!)
Dr. Vajpayi made a few rather uncharitable comments off-stage about her position towards certain castes when affronted politely after the event, leaving me and my fellow Sanskrit friends and colleagues wondering about the actual intentions of this entire forum and her lead participation in it.
To conclude, the questions that we were all left grappling with at the end as an audience -
1) What were the organisers trying to highlight by including such an unscholastic forum with unprofessional and ungrounded narratives and views where there was no intention to listen to any other perspective besides those that insisted on tarnishing Sanskrit and Sanskritists?
2) If the panelists had foregone conclusions on the same, why bother torturing a learned audience with this ill-intended views expecting them to digest it all in silence?
3) Was the outcome of the forum the expected and desired food that the panelists namely Dr Vajpeyi looking for to broadcast to the world in the name of an honest 'soul-searching' exercise?
I leave these questions for the respected scholars to ponder upon as well .. but would like to end by stating that the trauma of the 3 panelists is absurdly seeming to outway that of the 100 odd learned audience who attended the forum that evening!
Pranams
Anuradha
UNQUOTE