On 14 January 2016,
the Editor of the FIRSTPOST has referred in passing to the petitioners of the
Scheme Suit in a most disparaging manner in an article titled “SC has shown great foresight in striking against proxy PILs as instruments of intimidation”. As
an admirer of this website, which has dared to take on the likes of Wendy Doniger, it is strange that it has now decided to support one of “Wendy’s
children” – Peter Heehs (read this post). But I hope I can attribute this error
to factual ignorance and unfamiliarity with the recent problems in Sri
Aurobindo Ashram. If that be the case, I would like to point out a few outright
errors in the write-up for the clarification of the larger readership connected
with the FIRSTPOST, which hopefully would set the record right or at
least give us a chance to give our version of events on its website. I quote
from the article:
While the case of the book is currently in the Orissa
High Court, the excerpt based on which the dissolution is being sought, is to
any mind, anything but sacrilegious; on the contrary, it is deeply reverential,
as the following paragraph reads.
"Early
in the afternoon the Mother rejoined him, and they walked together to the small
outer room where they sat together on a sofa, the Mother on Sri Aurobindo's
right. Here they remained for the next few hours as ashramites and visitors –
more than three thousand by the end of the 1940s – passed before them one by
one, "There is no suggestion of a vulgar jostle anywhere in the moving
procession,” a visitor noted. "The mystic sits bare-bodied except for a
part of his dhoti thrown around his shoulders, a kindly light plays in his
eyes,” Sri Aurobindo looked directly at each person for a moment "the
moving visitor is conscious of a particular contact with these [eyes] as he
bends down to do his obeisance. They leave upon him a mysterious 'feel' that
baffles description. The contact, almost physical, instils a faint sense of a
fragrance into his heart and he has a perception of a glow akin to that
spreading in every fibre of his being.” Most visitors had similarly positive
experiences. But some, particularly those from the West, were distracted by the theatricality of the setting and the
religiosity of the pageantry.” [Emphasis
added] (Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs,
pp 399-400)
I wonder if the
Editor of the FIRSTPOST has himself read the passage that he quotes to prove
that the Lives of Sri Aurobindo by
Peter Heehs is “deeply reverential”! Has he read the last sentence at all?
Peter Heehs writes that Westerners witnessing the Darshan of Sri Aurobindo and
the Mother in Pondicherry “were distracted by the theatricality of the setting
and the religiosity of the pageantry “! If the Editor of the FIRSTPOST
could not catch the sarcasm behind this sentence, it only means he has been
fooled (like so many others) by the rest of the passage which is positive in
content. This is a familiar literary device called the ”Oxford Sandwich” which Peter
Heehs uses throughout his derogatory biography of Sri Aurobindo. I quote from
an excellent article by Govind Rajesh published on our site:
In fact, this is a well-known literary device called an
"Oxford Sandwich", which W.W. Robson in his book "The Definition
of Literature and Other Essays" describes as follows "you begin by
praise, then say something quite lethal, and round it off by praise again"
(page 133). This literary device could be a perfect allegory for the book [Lives of Sri Aurobindo] as a whole, and
is precisely what makes it so contentious. While seeming to present a façade of
objectivity and even positivity on the surface, the book, in fact, bristles
with insidious suggestions designed to worm their way into the minds and hearts
of readers and fill them with perverse distortions of Sri Aurobindo’s life and
works.
I quote further from the same passage in the Lives:
Vincent Sheean,
a well-know American journalist…as he stood in line to have darshan, with
incense swirling around him and people throwing themselves at the guru’s feet…
was hit by “a shock of sledge-hammer quality, to see human beings worshipped in
this way.” Failing to make sense of it, he at least was glad to see that
“whatever others may think or say”, Sri Aurobindo did not seem to “to be deceived
or befuddled by these extravagant manifestations.” (Lives, pp 399-400)
The American journalist is obviously shocked by
disciples falling at the feet of their reverend Master, because he does not
have an iota of spirituality in him. Any Indian with some grounding in Hindu
tradition would not at all be shocked at the bhakti and adoration expressed by
the devotees, unless he has been totally “secularised” like those praising
Wendy Doniger’s sexual interpretations of the goddess Kali. Moreover, the fact that the Orissa Gazette
Notification quoted the first portion of the passage in its notification does
not at all mean that it banned the book on the basis of this passage only. The
Gazette Notification was passed after a thorough study of the book and after receiving
thousands of letters from aggrieved devotees and after lakhs of them signed
petitions against it. Even the majority of the members of Sri Aurobindo Ashram
signed a petition urging the Ashram Trust to publicly condemn the book, which
it never did, in spite of finding it highly reprehensible. For that matter, Sri
Aurobindo Society, which has around 400 centres and 16000 members if not more,
unilaterally condemned it in no uncertain terms and questioned the authenticity
of the documentation. It is worthwhile quoting its statement in the May 2012 issue
of the All India Magazine.
Important note for all the Members, Branches &
Centres of the Society on the book “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo” by Peter Heehs
Our Branches & Centres have made queries regarding
the controversy that has been created by the book “The Lives of Sri Aurobindo”
by Peter Heehs, an ashramite. Head Office has been repeatedly asked as to
what is the stand of Sri Aurobindo Society in this connection.
This matter was discussed in detail by the Executive Committee
of Sri Aurobindo Society and the following decision was taken:
“After having read the book ‘The Lives of Sri
Aurobindo’, by Peter Heehs, the Executive Committee of Sri Aurobindo
Society has come to the conclusion that the book, at many places, presents
facts and information based on unreliable sources and contains
misrepresentations and distortions of the life, work and yoga of Sri Aurobindo
and the Mother. The book also puts down other biographies written by
scholars and devotees, which are certainly not hagiographies and have inspired
a large number of devotees, seekers and scholars. All
these biographies are available with SABDA, the official sellers of Sri
Aurobindo and the Mother’s books and other related books. ‘The Lives of Sri Aurobindo’
has not been allowed by Sri Aurobindo Ashram to be sold at SABDA.
Sri Aurobindo Society strongly disapproves of the
book.”
Here are a few more
snide remarks of Peter Heehs on Sri Aurobindo to convince those readers who are
not familiar with this highly objectionable book:
“Weak and inept on
the playing field, he [Sri Aurobindo as a
child] was also... a coward and a liar.” (Lives, p 17)
“Called to the
office to explain, Aurobindo told a series of lies.” (p. 30)
[With regard to Sri Aurobindo losing his
temper, Hemendraprasad noted,] “Well, if you take the clothes away there
remains little to distinguish one human radish from another” (p 112)
“I suspect a tinge
of lunacy is not absent in him.” (p 112)
“Aurobindo, go eat
Tilak’s shit!”(p 140)
“Still, partition
and the bloodletting that accompanied it were the movement’s principal
failings, and Aurobindo and his colleagues have to take their share of the
blame.” (p 212)
[That his yoga
led him to the experience of] “spontaneous erotic delight” (p 245)
[On the Life Divine:] “Most members of
the philosophical profession – those who have read him at all – would be loath
to admit him to their club.” (p 277)
The Defence of Indian Culture is a polemic from the start to finish. (p 296)
“Aurobindo’s own
poetry, rooted deeply in the soil of the nineteenth century, was out of date
before it saw print.” (p 306)
The book is chockfull
of such insulting remarks on Sri Aurobindo, which are usually speculative and
not at all based on authentic documents. His standard method is to fire over
the shoulders of other critical writers and pretend innocence, or write a
paragraph or two in a positive manner followed by a most damaging comment. All
these objectionable portions have been analysed threadbare on our site for the
sake of those who are not familiar with the spiritual philosophy and facts of
Sri Aurobindo’s life. If the first time reader does not have enough time to fully
explore our site, I would advise him to click on the link below to get at least
introduced to some of these objectionable extracts:
Finally, with
regard to the general observation of the Supreme Court on avoidable litigation
in the Scheme Suit Order, I quote a passage from it which has been deliberately
left out in the reports of the secretaries of the Ashram Trust:
It is time for all of us, litigants, lawyers and judges
to introspect and decide whether a litigation being pursued is really worth the
while and alternatively whether an amicable dispute resolution mechanism could
be availed of to settle the dispute to the satisfaction of the litigants. Most problems have a positive solution and a
concerted effort must be
made by all concerned to find
that solution of least resistance
to the problem. This is not only in the interest of
the parties involved but also in the larger
interest of the justice delivery system.
(Paragraph 4, Page 2 of the Supreme Court Order)
It is clear that
the Supreme Court is urging both parties in the Scheme Suit – the disciples as
well as the Ashram Trustees – to settle matters amicably and find the “solution
of least resistance to the problem”. For those who do not know what transpired
prior to the filing of the Scheme Suit, let it be noted in indelible letters that the
Ashram Trust did not even listen to the protesting disciples in
most cases, and even if they gave a hearing, did very little to soothe
their feelings with regard to the vilification of Sri Aurobindo. It is
primarily this intransigent attitude of the Trust that aggravated matters to a
flashpoint and left the disciples no other option but to seek justice in the
Court of Law. In the beginning of the crisis, when Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya
(personal attendant of the Mother and head of the Ashram Physical Education
Department) supported the view of the disciples, the Trust resorted to a cat
and mouse game with him because of his huge popularity among the followers of
Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, both within the Ashram and centres outside. A
petition signed by him and the majority of the Ashramites, demanding (1) the immediate
removal of Peter Heehs from the Ashram Archives and (2) issuing a public
condemnation of his book, was handed over to the Ashram Trust in October 2008 –
only to be contemptuously ignored.
After Pranab Kumar
Bhattacharya died in January 2010, there was no strong personality for the
Ashramites to rally around and to oppose the Trust’s wilful inaction with
regard to Peter Heehs. In May-July 2010, three senior disciples of the Ashram,
Kittu Reddy, Ranganath Raghavan & Sumita Khandpal (an ex-Collector) exchanged
letters with the Trust after a couple of fruitless meetings with the ever evasive
Manoj Das Gupta, the Managing Trustee. The correspondence abruptly ended with the
Trust threatening them with stern legal action in its letter of 2nd
July, 2010. (Should this be called
intimidation of the Trust by the disciples or the reverse? The truth is that
the present Ashram Trust has constantly intimidated the inmates by the threat
of the withdrawal of food, shelter and other basic necessities of life, because
of which most of the inmates have been forced into silent and shameful submission.)
At this point, after all that had happened, Manoj Das Gupta said he was
constrained to bring back Peter Heehs to the Archives – this was the last straw
on the camel’s back. It was after he voiced this preposterous intention to
reinstate Peter Heehs as the chief Editor of the Ashram Archives in spite of
writing such an obnoxious biography of Sri Aurobindo, that the Scheme Suit was
filed by five Ashramites on the 23rd of August 2010.
The fact that the
Scheme Suit was admitted four times, twice in the Pondicherry Court and twice
in the Madras High Court, shows that it was certainly not a frivolous suit
meant only to harass the Trustees of the Ashram. It should also be mentioned
that the Supreme Court did not deem it frivolous either. It dismissed it for
the very technical reason that the Orissa High Court had not arrived at a final
judgment on the book, without which the Scheme Suit could not be admitted,
because the latter was closely linked to the former. The Scheme Suit was filed
to dismiss the Trustees for not taking action on Peter Heehs, who was an inmate
and had written a book that went against the very grain of the Ashram. But as
long as the final judgment on the book itself was pending, there was not
sufficient ground to dismiss the Trustees, despite the Gazette Notification of
the Orissa Govt. banning the book in April 2009.
All said and done,
the Ashram Trust has managed to win the case through clever court tactics,
deceitful public stands and tacit support to Peter Heehs. In the Court it has
praised to the skies his so-called scholarship! Outside the Court, it has expressed
its strong displeasure with regard to his book, and removed him from the
Archives. (It has yet to be seen whether Peter Heehs will be reinstated with
full honour as the Chief Editor of the Archives!) Finally, it has defended him tooth
and nail on the basis of free speech, while at the same time taking severe
action on all those who dared to criticise him and the Trustees. This is the
sordid tale of the Ashram Trust’s duplicity and double game behind the serene
atmosphere of Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Incidentally, this serene and peaceful
atmosphere, which every sensitive visitor to the Ashram spontaneously feels, is
due to the occult presence of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother which persists not because,
but despite the arrogant and inept administration of the present Ashram Trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment