‘No. I am not apologising for the books’
Gayatri Jayaraman
Saturday, January 14, 2006 21:35 IST
The books 'Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India' and 'The Epic of Shivaji' have been banned by the Mahrasthra government after descendants of Shivaji protested. The scholarship of the author James W Laine has been trashed and there are now demands that he be extradited. Laine, a professor of religious studies in the US candidly fields Gayatri Jayaraman’s questions on freedom of speech and historical perspectives.
Your first book Hindu King was banned in 2004 and the second, actually a precursor, was banned recently. Was the first work available all this while with no controversy? How do you react to the bans?
Yes, it has been available in India since 2001. The precursor is primarily an English translation of a Sanskrit epic poem Shivaji himself commissioned (the Shivabharata). Since it is the work of a court poet and its sole purpose was to glorify Shivaji, it’s hard to see why it would be controversial. Given the second controversy, one can see how people might interpret the first book in the same light. I understand that the cause for offense was the use of the word “oedipal”. I used the word to highlight the father-son conflict theme rather evident in the text, but it was taken as an explicit comparison to mythical Greek hero Oedipus.
You had apologised for inadvertent controversy, but are you apologising for writing the books or for theories and facts in them?
No, I am not apologising for the books. Both are honest works of scholarship not intended to be offensive to anyone. If it were my intention to defame Shivaji, why would I translate a 340 page text the sole purpose of which was to glorify Shivaji?
Marathi scholar Bhalchandrarao Patwardhan challenges some of your facts and refutes your theories. How do you respond?
These critiques assume that my primary purpose was to re-write the history of Shivaji, whereas the purpose was to understand the forces that shape the way the stories are told. I am interested in how historical, and some not-so-historical ‘facts’ are shaped into a morality tale. I don’t believe Patwardhan ever took seriously its real purpose. One notes his lengthy refutation of the idea that Shahji was not Shivaji’s biological father. I never made such a claim which a careful reading of the book would make clear.
The reason I wrote “unthinkable thoughts” was because I believed the impulse to read the story as a patriotic tale or a religious morality tale is so strong, it becomes impossible to get into a different frame of mind. So I am not surprised some critics still reject the work so vehemently. Please note that no critic writing for a peer-reviewed academic publication has attacked the book.
Who did you meet in the course of research—other scholars, descendants who protested? Were they aware of your earlier book and the research? Why did the protest not erupt in the research phase?
Since some people who helped me with Marathi or Sanskrit had to later take police protection, I cannot mention names. During the research phase, I was more concerned with gathering data than with analysis. It is my analysis that has caused controversy. Except for a few scholars who understood the nature of my inquiry, most people in India assumed my work was an act of devotion rather than an exercise in critical scholarship.
You mentioned you hoped for debate and criticism, not condemnation. Since the first controversy has your work ever been academically challenged? Have facts contradicting yours emerged? Do you accept or refute them?
There is one area where I believe my work is flawed. Although I discuss the writing of Mahatma Phule, in light of recent conflicts, I see I underestimated the continuing influence of his critique of brahmin bias in writing about Shivaji. I am of course accused of colluding in that bias, a fact I vehemently deny. Otherwise, I think it has held up pretty well.
Has your reading of the history suffered for a lack of understanding of the cultural environment as alleged? Were you an outsider looking in?
I do not believe in framing things as insiders and outsiders. Clearly the big fight is between brahmins and Marathas. Both are “insiders.” I got caught up in this fight and became a convenient target. I wrote the book for other scholars, Indian and non-Indian. Within that community, the book has been well-received. Criticisms have come from a different audience who never accepted the scholarly premises.
Does history change according to perspective? Or is cultural context crucial to its interpretation?
Of course. History is always a story. The big issue is not simply the recording of facts, but the way they are used in a narrative. My real interest is in reflecting on the nature of that narrative and its motivations. Is it to inspire devotion? Serve the nation state? Criticise a particular religion or group? These are in a sense second-order questions, but perhaps the all-important ones, nonetheless.
What expectations did you have for your work in Indian scholarly circles? Surely, you must have foreseen it would make waves?
I hoped it would receive a respectful response and it did. Traditional scholarship was an act of following one’s guru, and transmitting ancient knowledge faithfully. Modern scholarship is about creative new responses, “making waves.” One hopes to “make waves.” One does not, however, hope to be banned, indicted or cause acts of violence.
How have the bans impacted your perception of India/Maratha culture and history? Do you continue your research in this field?
Yes. I no longer concentrate on Maharashtra as I do not foresee a time when I can research there. My Marathi gets rustier by the day. But I will always been interested in India.
Do you think controversy has actually helped stir interest in this field of study?
Unfortunately, there has been more heat than light. Of course, now scholars realise it is unwise to research any subject related to Shivaji.
There have been calls for your extradition and arrest. Do you fear for your safety and your research?
I have received threats and thus would not visit India, but otherwise I do not fear harm. I have re-oriented my research to broader themes that do not require fieldwork in India.
Your view on the practice of banning in democratic societies?
Scholarship depends on the free exchange of ideas and book banning would be intolerable in the USA.
What’s your next book on?
I am working on the relationship of religion and politics in the context of empires. It begins with reflections on Mauryan Emperor Ashoka.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Good words.
Post a Comment