Prof. Kamal Das's Response to Ramchandra Guha

While anybody is welcome to their definition and understanding of scholarship, the reality is that Peter Heehs is a school drop-out, with no formal training or qualification in any discipline whatsoever. While this should not disqualify or deter anyone from attempting to comment authoritatively on a spectrum of subjects ranging from literature to freudian analysis of the works and lives of extraordinary figures of our times, it is incumbent on the recipients of this unsolicited package of pseudo-history and speculation, to be circumspect and not fall prey to what is essentially a con-trick from a small-time crook. (extract)


Dear Mr Ramachandra Guha,

1. This has reference to your piece 'Ban the Ban' in The Telegraph on the 30th of July, 2011 and specifically to your comments/ views on the proscription of the book, The Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs.

2. It is surprising and unfortunate that a person of your standing and repute has made such facile, irresponsible and flippant remarks about 'hyperactive courts' and 'dogmatic devotees' without proper research and understanding of the matter.

3. We would like to believe that you have been misinformed, and in a genuine attempt at setting this wrong right, submit the following facts:

• The proscription of The Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs has little to do with freedom of expression and is all about academic fraudulence, intellectual property theft, copyright violation, impersonation and criminal factual distortion with malicious intent.

• The scope of the fraudulence in the book involves, inter alia, factual distortion, entirely concocted quotations, out-of-context quotes, presentation of perverse speculation as actual facts, deliberate suppression of evidence contrary to the author's thesis, etc. all of which is structured to harm Sri Aurobindo's image. Kindly visit www.TheLivesOfSriAurobindo.com for a detailed expose of factual distortions in the book compiled by senior scholars, historians and professors.

• Peter Heehs has never been in charge of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives as you wrongly claim, and has multiple cases pending against him in various courts for impersonating as the "founder of the Ashram Archives" when in fact he was only one of 40 proof-readers/ researchers there. Heehs has now conveniently accused Columbia University Press for wrongly having labelled him as the 'founder of the Archives' for the promotion of the book and the matter is sub-judice.

• Peter Heehs has stolen the research of his colleagues at the Archives for the publication of this book and the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust has initiated disciplinary action against him in this regard. Additionally, Heehs has used substantial content in the book without proper permission in gross violation of the Ashram's copyright. Heehs has apologized in writing for this but the matter remains sub-judice.

• With regard to the case filed in Chennai against extension of his visa, kindly be advised that the grounds for that case were the gross violation of the visa terms namely, non-reporting and non-payment of taxes due against income earned in India and gross mis-conduct as evidenced by criminal cases and arrest warrants pending against him. For the record, Mr. Peter Heehs is currently in India without appropriate legal permits.

• While anybody is welcome to their definition and understanding of scholarship, the reality is that Peter Heehs is a school drop-out, with no formal training or qualification in any discipline whatsoever. While this should not disqualify or deter anyone from attempting to comment authoritatively on a spectrum of subjects ranging from literature to freudian analysis of the works and lives of extraordinary figures of our times, it is incumbent on the recipients of this unsolicited package of pseudo-history and speculation, to be circumspect and not fall prey to what is essentially a con-trick from a small-time crook.

• Kindly note that in addition to the order of the Honourable High Court of Orissa, the Government of Orissa, acting on the request of the Home Ministry and in tandem with it, after due process of law, promulgated the Gazette Notification dated 09-04-2009, thereby making the proscription of the said book in the territory of India, de jure, effective from the date of notification. The gazette notification is attached herewith for your convenient perusal.

• The Gazette notification states, inter alia that the said book:

§ “Promotes communal disaffection affecting public peace and tranquillity”

§ “The book depicts wrong and distorted facts on the life and character of Sri Aurobindo, which is clearly blasphemous”

§ “The book contains absurd, irrelevant and self-made stories, which do not have any scriptural support and has caused widespread indignation among the devotees”

§ “The writings portrayed in the book have seriously hurt the sentiments of the apostles of Sri Aurobindo and the said book, with deliberate and malicious intention has insulted the religious beliefs of millions”

4. The devotees of Sri Aurobindo have no objection to Peter Heehs and his ilk plying their trade in any part of the world including India as long as they do so without fraudulent credentials, misleading associations, malicious speculation and voyeurism and calling it research, history and authoritative biography.

5. While, no icon, least of all an intellectual and spiritual giant like Sri Aurobindo, is likely to be affected by the shenanigans of petty roadside criminals, it must be understood and appreciated that reputation is a construct of the human mind and is consequently vulnerable to deliberate and unchallenged misinformation. Therefore the need to stand up and fight.

6. In view of the above, it would not be unreasonable to expect that you will take action to set the record straight with The Telegraph, and failure to do so would constrain us to reluctantly agree with Arundhati Roy's assessment of you, as a 'cricket historian who has missed the boat.'

Truly,

Prof Kamal Das
1 August 2011


Ramchandra Guha on Peter Heehs:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110730/jsp/opinion/story_14295812.jsp

In 2008, Columbia University Press in New York published Peter Heehs’s The Lives of Sri Aurobindo. The product of a lifetime of scholarship, its empirical depth and analytical sharpness is unlikely to be surpassed. For Heehs knows the documentary evidence on and around Aurobindo’s life better than anyone else. He has a deep knowledge of the political and spiritual worlds in which his subject moved and by which he was shaped.

Alas, this remarkable life of a remarkable Indian cannot be read in India. This is because of an injunction on its sale asked for by self-professed devotees of Aurobindo, and granted by a hyper-active high court in Orissa. Heehs’s book is respectful but not reverential. He salutes Aurobindo for his contributions to the freedom struggle. Before Aurobindo, writes Heehs, “no one dared to speak openly of independence; twenty years later, it became the movement’s accepted goal”. He praises Aurobindo’s contributions to literature and philosophy. However, Heehs is gently sceptical of the claim that Aurobindo possessed supernatural powers. “To accept Sri Aurobindo as an avatar is necessarily a matter of faith,” he writes, adding that “matters of faith quickly become matters of dogma”.

This understated, unexceptionable statement drove the dogmatic followers of Aurobindo bananas. Some devotees filed a case in the Orissa High Court, restraining the Indian publisher from circulating the book in India. Other devotees filed a case in a Tamil Nadu court, seeking the revocation of Peter Heehs’s visa and his extradition from this country. By these (and other) acts, the contemporary keepers of Aurobindo’s flame showed themselves to be far less courageous than the grandsons of Gandhi. Is their icon so fragile that he can be destroyed or even damaged by a single, scholarly, book?

(Extract from Ramchandra Guha's article on book banning)