Hindu view is not plural : The Anti-Hindu

The Hindu : Friday Review Bangalore / Miscellany : Masks of untruth

These tendencies indicate a gradual movement towards right wing conservatism shaped by a systematic convergence of certain political and economic forces that annihilate democratic consciousness.

Right wing is anti-democratic. This from a Left winger, who believes in Communism and not Democracy. Bloody hypocrites.

The full text of Ananthamurthy’s speech makes it clear that a thinker/creative writer was probing into the worldview of another writer, transcending personal prejudices.

Describing Bhyrappa as a “debator” and not a great “creative writer in any other world view would have been called a personal attack. But this critic on the radical leftist rag calls it "a creative vision of life which cannot endorse reductionist rightist views of history".

Without any slight on Bhyrappa’s integrity, a serious reader would see in his works a reductionist view of society/history, that, in cultural terms is a narrow “hindu” position. Such a “hindu” view is monolithic and not an open engagement with the plural and contesting Indian philosophical traditions. This view becomes aggressively militant/fascist when it intertwines with history, particularly when dealing with historical phases when the “hindu” position was dominated by an “alien” religious/political power.

What is wrong in presenting a "hindu" position? Why is not acceptable? Why is it a reductionist view? It is another viewpoint and an extremely important one because the majority are still Hindus. Does not Bhyrappa have the artistic freedom to present from a certain viewpoint? Why is CBCNN not upholding his artistic freedom?



Isn't it outrageous to say that the plural and contesting philosophical traditions is "Indian" and not "hindu" view? Besides, I thought the "hindu" view is anything but monolithic. The "hindu" view is nothing if not plural. The "hindu" view is to rationalize and question everything. It is exactly the opposite of the "semitic" view, where blind faith overrules. Not for the marxists, though. They hate anything "hindu".



Is the critic, Manu, objecting to "hindu" view of history? If he is afraid of aggressive militant response, then Manu should object to such response and not to Bhyrappa's work.

Moreover, there are other extremely profound books on Indian Philosophy/Islam which Bhyrappa is not even aware of.

What is the purpose of this statement? Bhyrappa will accept this statement, I am sure. But let me ask this critic the same question: Is he/she aware of all the extremely profound books on Indian Philosophy/Islam? Even the most erudite person would not answer this question with an emphatic "yes". Is this critic trying to pass a judgment on Bhyrappa that he is an ignorant person?

“Aavarana” unilaterally validates Bhyrappa’s reductionism. It is precisely this that Ananthamurthy categorises as a “debator’s view”. As he says, a great creative work goes beyond the writer’s consciously held worldview which Bhyrappa fails to achieve. The attack against Ananthamurthy is an open manifestation of the might of right wing conservative forces that turn to history to engender emotions of hatred and revenge – especially against Islam and Muslims.

This critic is trying to provide a political context to a literary debate. There is history and Bhyrappa is providing the truth. Why do we have to shy away from truth just because this radical marxist thinks it has some political context. Emotions of hatred and revenge - especially against Islam and Muslims: this is a literary debate, godamnit. Dont mix it with religion and politics.

The emergence of a work like “Aavarana” is not an isolated fact. Behind its arrival is a collective consciousness that, in the name of history, philosophy and religion, legitimises the oppression and tyranny of the consumerist middle class which believes in the economic order of capitalism. The popularity of Bhyrappa’s works can be related to the desires of the middle class with all its consumerist notions of spirituality and culture that every now and then, needs to rewrite history to posit an enemy.

Ah, finally the socialist objections to a literary novel. Capitalism is oppressive and tyrannical.

Those who value Justice and Equality must contextualise Ananthamurthy’s criticism of Bhyrappa and not interpret it as the personal comments of a writer about another. If Bhyrappa truly desires to seek truth, he needs to go beyond the bloody mire of history. Writers would do well to listen to voices of sanity of fellow writers rather than lend their ears to shouts of a crowd driven by thirst for revenge.

Manu is trying desperately to provide a context to Ananthamurthy's ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, there exists none. URA called Bhyrappa a "debater" instead of criticizing his works.

And this guy Manu is turning out to be a disaster. He is saying that we should not seek truth in history. Why this marxist whitewash of history? Why can't we face up to the Islamic oppression in India? The conditioned marxist mind is afraid. Of what?



I encourage you to look at the interview of Dr.Bhyrappa by churmuri.com