22 May 2013

Apropos of Savitri and Prof. Manoj Das – by R.Y. Deshpande

Private dispute should always be avoided; but shrink not from public battle; yet even there appreciate the strength of thy adversary. ~ Sri Aurobindo

Prof Manoj Das writes: “I was for a while representing the Ashram in the courts where several cases were filed against the Trust because it brought out a revised version of the Master’s epic, Savitri. It was ‘revised’ in the sense that errors (typographical, punctuation, omission, words not properly deciphered in corrected proofs, etc) were removed through years of study and scrutiny.I was convinced that the Revised Edition of the epic is the most authentic one.” [Refer to Bireshwar Choudhury's reply to Manoj Das.]

In response to this we have the following on the website: “The Savitri revision controversy has rocked the Ashram for a decade or two. RY Deshpande was part of the team that finalised the Savitri revisions and he says that even Nirodbaran expressed his unhappiness over some of the revisions. The late Jugal Kishore Mukherjiwrote a fifty page letter to Amal on these revisions. … I will throw a challenge which Deshpande has long been insisting upon: Make all the Savitri manuscripts public. Put them up on the Net for all to see and judge for themselves the legitimacy of the revisions of the Archives editors.”

Prof Manoj Das says, “I was convinced that the Revised Edition of the epic is the most authentic one.” He also writes to the same effect to Dr Karan Singh.

Here my concern is to ask one or two immediate questions to Prof Manoj Das. If I get direct and non-evasive answers I would like to continue the dialogue further. The technical dialogue will be on this website. It is up to him to say yes or no.
  ...full text...

18 May 2013

Reply to Manoj Das – by Bireshwar Choudhury (2)

[This is the second and final part of Bireshwar Choudhury’s reply to Prof. Manoj Das’s response to Sricharan Singh’s “Manoj Das has Sold his Soul to the Devil”. See the previous posting to read the first part of Bireshwar Choudhury’s reply. The text of Manoj Das's response is indented and in italics while Bireshwar's reply is without indentation and in Roman.]

“Sricharan Singh” has repeated that old old lie about the Ashram lawyer saying at the Krishnanagore court that the Mother did not understand Savitri! The lawyer said nothing of that kind. He has also given a statement challenging this allegation against him. Still the drum-beaters of that lie do not stop. Years ago when two small groups of people distributed leaflets against me on this issue, I was surprised that while these people believed somebody from far who transmitted that blatant lie as a gift for them, they did not have the patience or a bit of respect for truth to ask me about it though I was amidst them, an inmate of the Ashram like them. They even sent a lawyer’s notice to the Trust to expel me from the Ashram on this account. 

By and by it became clear to me that all they wanted was to create an atmosphere of hatred against me. But what for? It remains inexplicable to him. I was for a while representing the Ashram in the courts where several cases were filed against the Trust because it brought out a revised version of the Master’s epic, Savitri. It was ‘revised’ in the sense that errors (typographical, punctuation, omission, words not properly deciphered in corrected proofs, etc) were removed through years of study and scrutiny. When, as a purely academic exercise a booklet was published by the Ashram Archives listing the changes, it suddenly struck a gentleman to drag the Trust to the court alleging that it had tampered with Sri Aurobindo’s writing. (What may sound incredible to many, he even discovered an unknown nephew of Sri Aurobindo and made him go to court and suggest by insinuation that he was the copyright-owner of all the works of Sri Aurobindo, not the Ashram. By implication, all the earnings from the works of the Master over the past years were his!) 

 I was convinced that the Revised Edition of the epic is the most authentic one. Once again it is a matter of common sense that the Ashram had no reason to alter a single word of Sri Aurobindo. On the other hand it had a responsibility to see that error-free versions of His works were available before the copyright period expired. That is what Ashram did despite the illogical and superfluous commotion made by some people. (Manoj Das)

Things always seem inexplicable to Manoj Das whenever he courts a controversy, as if the people who are against him are inexplicably bad and he himself is inexplicably good! The Savitri revision controversy has rocked the Ashram for a decade or two, and even now there are senior scholars of the Ashram who are not satisfied at all with the way it has been handled by the Trustees. R.Y. Deshpande was part of the team that finalised the Savitri revisions and he says that even Nirodbaran (on whom the final decisions depended) expressed his unhappiness over some of the revisions. Deshpande himself was extremely unhappy over some of the revisions suggested by the Archives editors. The late Jugal Kishore Mukherji, former head of the Higher Course of the Ashram School, wrote a fifty page letter to Amal Kiran on these revisions and some of his suggestions were accepted by Amal Kiran! Why was Jugal Kishore Mukherji disgusted with the whole affair? If after all this discontentment, Manoj Das still finds things inexplicable, then I will simply call him a hypocrite! Even here, I will throw him a challenge which R.Y. Deshpande has long been insisting upon: Make all the Savitri manuscripts public. Put them up on the Net for all to see and judge for themselves the legitimacy of the revisions of the Archives editors. Moreover, after the Peter Heehs controversy, who is going to trust the Archives editors?
  ...full text...

12 May 2013

Reply to Manoj Das – by Bireshwar Choudhury (1)

Manoj Das has replied at great length to the article, “Manoj Das has Sold his Soul to the Devil” by Sricharan Singh. The fact that his reply is interminably long and touches upon all the major controversies he was involved in, shows that the arrow shot by Sricharan Singh has found its target. This is exactly what Sricharan wanted to do, having no other method to counter the proud professor. Right now, Manoj Das and the Trustees backed by wealth and power are all-powerful and have the administrative power of the Ashram in their hands, so what else can poor Sricharan Singh do except condemn Manoj Das for his outright betrayal of Sri Aurobindo!

Manoj Das has requested the editors of this site to publish his long exercise in verbosity. We have consented to his request only after giving our own point of view on the issues raised by him. He has also suggested that Sricharan Singh should do some introspection. I can only say that it is time that Manoj Das himself introspects a little instead of repeating the same old arguments like a parrot in his self-defence. I quote below passages from his letter (in italics and with indentation); these are followed by my comments (in Roman and without indentation).
  ...full text...

A Suggestion For Introspection – by Manoj Das

[The following is Prof. Manoj Das’s long response to Sricharan Singh’s article “Manoj Das has Sold his Soul to the Devil” published on this site on April 15, 2013. This is followed by Bireshwar Choudhury’s reply to Manoj Das in the very next posting on this site.]
Dear Editors, 

Trusting your legend that your forum is   committed to objective, academic, respectful and honest discussions, I send this submission to you, hopeful that you will publish this to justify the announcement. I would have ignored the provocation referred to below had the provocateurs not started distrusting it as independent leaflets.

Please refer to the provocation bearing the title “Professor Manoj Das has sold his soul to the Devil”. Only those who are Devil’s confidants or are members of Devil’s inner circle, could know about this secret transaction. Since the author(s) of the article, “Sricharan Singh” and/or those scholars who constitute this identity belong to that privileged class, they also know that their lord had awarded the highest imaginable punishment to me. Hence they should spare themselves the exercise of inventing and heaping on this unfortunate soul more and more lies, distortions and exaggerations as punishment. They do not presume to improve upon the Devil’s action against me!
  ...full text...

5 May 2013

An Analysis of the Preface of Peter Heehs's "Sri Aurobindo: A Brief Biography", OUP, 1989


MURDERS IN THE LAND OF THE NAÏVE — 1

Peter Heehs wrote two biographies: Sri Aurobindo: A Brief Biography, OUP, 1989 (Bio-1), and The Lives of Sri Aurobindo, CUP, 2008, (Bio-2). He also planted a life-sketch of Sri Aurobindo in an anthology of Indian saints, maybe to test the tactic used in Bio-1 and imply Sri Aurobindo’s rank among them. This part of my article scrutinises Bio-1’s Preface, the second will scrutinise that of Bio-2. The third part will compare a few of the facts and interpretations in both vis-à-vis relevant facts from what Peter calls variant accounts.

* * *

Preface of Sri Aurobindo: A Brief Biography, 1989, (Bio-1)

This is a masterpiece of well-sculpted elusiveness. Peter’s full positions on specific points are cut up, altered, implanted in unrelated arguments or explanations. To unravel a full position and weave the pieces in an unbroken paragraph, I had to repeat and remerge them with their soul-mates in several passages. In the section “Peter’s attitude and approach”, his text is in Italics and mine in Roman, hoping to make the overall reading smooth and comprehensible.
  ...full text...