This Thursday, CNN-IBN anchor and senior journalist Sagarika Ghose termed Lord Rama as “divine encroacher” in one of her tweets, which she later deleted as it caused considerable outrage among the twitterati, a section of whom she loves to refer as “Internet Hindus”.
Earlier, another journalist, Priya Ramani, in one of her articles had termed Lord Rama as “loser” for making Sita go through agni pariksha, and again it caused considerable outrage, though the article is still there (and I’m NOT asking it to be removed or deleted).
These are not only two instances, in fact these are very minor instances and perhaps didn’t warrant any outrage given that Lord Rama has gone through much more with people calling him male chauvinist, anti-dalit, anti-dravidian, an aggressor, and Ramayanas being burnt down south on so many occasions.
Even though I fancy myself as an atheist in terms of religious beliefs, there are some cultural “Hindu” elements within me (which I can’t escape), because of which, maybe, I don’t find these comments quite charitable.
But it’s not just the Hindu cultural elements, I find such comments equally uncharitable when made about gods or prophets of other religions, say, finding fault with the personality or “morality” of Prophet Muhammad.
And no, it’s NOT because it hurt sentiments. Yes, it does hurt sentiments of many for sure, but as was pointed out in my earlier post, I don’t believe any act should be stopped just because it hurts sentiments.
I believe that finding faults with the “morality” of historical figures is technically flawed. It’s flawed, maybe even illogical, to judge the morality of someone (whether an imaginary god or a real historical figure) based on the accepted moral standards of the modern society.
It’s similar to making a retrospective law or an ex post facto law, which seeks to punish someone for actions performed at a time when they were legal. Almost all modern democracies consider enactment of such a law as a violation of rights of freedom and human rights. In USA, a country that boasts of its freedom of speech and liberty, ex post facto laws are completely forbidden. It’s also forbidden in Iran.
Take a very simple example. Smoking in public places was prohibited in India around 2 years back and now it’s ‘criminal’ to smoke in a public transport bus. But can we paint all those people, who had smoked in public buses more than 2 years back, as ‘criminals’ and make them pay fines now?
Passive smoking was equally unpleasant even then, but there was no ‘accepted social law’ to ban it in public places, so those guys, who are ‘criminals’ by today’s standards, were well within their right to indulge in that act. It’s unfair to brand them ‘criminals’ today for an act committed 2 years back. And it’s just a 2 years old story.
How fair is it to pass judgments on actions that happened centuries, rather millenniums, ago and brand someone as a loser, encroacher, aggressor, male chauvinist, etc.?
No, there are no universal or constant moral standards, as a rationalist one should be able to appreciate that and make that difference. Just like evolution of species, there has been evolution of morality too. And yeah, no matter what the believers and the faithfuls say, today’s moral standards are “more evolved” than those of the times of Lord Rama or Prophet Muhammad.
Now I can understand if there are a set of Ram Bhakts today who insist on making their wives go through agni pariksha for having spent a night out. They clearly are “losers”, criminals in fact.
(at this point of time, I must add, before someone else points it out, that as per some versions of Ramayana, agni pariksha never happened with the ‘real’ Sita, and it was only her ‘shadow’ that went through it and the ‘real’ Sita came out as a result; similar justifications could exist in other religions too for their oft-criticized “immoral” acts, but I won’t go into such aspects in this article)
And we all know that such people exist, but they are not necessarily Ram Bhakts, in fact some claim to be modern, secular and progressive. But if someone justifies his male-chauvinism (a modern thought that came much later in the process of evolution of morality) based on the deeds of Lord Rama, then his Ramayana needs to be corrected.
But otherwise, no one has any business going on correcting Ramayana and other religious text and figures just because they look outlandish or immoral by the scientific and moral standards of today’s world.
I know it’s easier said than done, because many believers are now increasingly being encouraged by some elements to believe in the literal interpretation of the religious texts, which are in direct conflict with the findings of the modern science as well as the modern morality. Such situation will no doubt push the rationalists and the atheists to point out the presence of “unscience” and “immorality” in their religious texts and beliefs.
But without such a trigger, I guess such comments can surely be avoided, unless you just want to make news and attract attention.
are you the same guy who writes on FN!!!!
extremely well written.. reminds me a couplet
masjido-mandiro ki dunia mien;
mujh ko pehchaante kaha hain log…
Hey! You know what. I think you have lost it. As a fellow atheist and as a philo reader, i would say you have got it all wrong buddy. Your assumption is right. But the path you have undertaken to prove that… well that’s not quite right
Oh enlightened one, please show us the true path then!
@Pagal Patrakar: very well written, you should write more often!
well my point is that he is an argument which does not even figure in the thinking way of the theists. Its like using Kantian to counter a utilitarian
Great! So now we have a “definition” of what constiutes an atheist or a free-thinker. An atheist, according to you, must believe/aruge in a certain manner that must tally with yours. Great going for atheism as a philosophy that was proposed to do away the ills of “organised” religion.
dude!! all you are arguing is in a sense of trying to do is “defeat” in the debate rather than making an attempt to understand what i am saying. The assumption that he is making today’s moral standards are “more evolved”. Well i complete agree with him, but just like i said this is not the argument to contradict the statement because the original argument functions on a different hypothesis and hence a different way of thinking altogether.
who will decide if ‘more evolved’ is better as well? ok, fine, for sake of argument; the moral standards today are more evolved than prophet muhammad’s time (pbuh). but I say tht they have evolved to become worse. it’s been evolution towards degeneration not progress. now what?
alright now you are questioning if morality, righteousness are relative or absolute. That is good question. It might seem to you that they are relative after being exposed to so many entho-centric views in the modern internet age. But you have accept that ethics, morals are absolute at-least for a short period of time (say roughly 10 years). There is a gradual shift in the thinking but hey now don’t come up with an argument comparing how the amazing our ancestors were with respect to the “current corrupt societies”. No!. The thinking of the society does not necessarily reflect the total moral standards of the society. Earlier ethics consisted everything that is to there for man to lead a happy life(which is again relative in each culture and person). This included health, food habits, social habits and all. But the recent development of science, has obviated the requirement for ethics in many areas. Now ethics and morals are altogether of a different focus than they were before. Is drinking moral? That is no more a valid question. Is drinking good for health is what runs your day. Perhaps with man’s imagination exceeding his grasp may be we can some day come up with an organized branch of science which perhaps might eliminate the requirement of even these morals. And that day the standard would be different. I hope i answered your question.
Thanks Rohit though I think you missed the criticism by “thats sad” (interesting name), which I’m also trying to figure out.
First of all, I said, ‘I “fancy” myself as an atheist’, so I’m still learning!
Secondly, I guess “thats sad” means that theists don’t really believe in evolution (of morality). Morality (of their gods, prophets, etc.) is absolute for them across time and generations, and hence they’d never buy this argument.
I’m not sure. Because theism has also gone through changes in recent times and there is an increased willingness to reconcile their beliefs with modern standards of science, democracy, morality, etc.
But if they (theists) show intransigence, then surely some “uncharitable” comments are bound to come up.
yea thats what i meant, but again notice that the “increased willingness to reconcile their beliefs with modern standards of science” is not recent development. Once can observe that any faith be it Hindu, Christianity, Islam (I would not call Buddhism a faith anyways) have gradually adapted to the changes of the society which became ubiquitous for a century. This is infact more rampart in Hindu cultures if you have an idea on the social conditions of the early ancient India. So if i would be careful to bang on that.
Dear Pagal – the modern standards of democracy and morality which you speak of are direct products of European civilization. They were influenced by the special situations of European history, as well as the universalist egalitarian underdog-supporting hope-reaffirming pleasure-denying ethic of Christianity. Europe’s children think they are universally true, and because of the dominance of their culture in the world, even people like us (indians and chinese for instance) try to alter our beliefs to fit into the European ethical scheme. Check out some of Nietzsche’s writings – they may change your thinking that today’s modern moral standards are superior to the past. Particularly that dealing with “Master-Slave morality”.
But isn’t it implicit that branding Rama as “a loser, encroacher, aggressor, male chauvinist” is relative to the current moral standards? Wouldn’t it be obvious to rationalists that Sagarika wasn’t claiming nor relying on morality being absolute?
Interesting argument, but I guess the terms “loser, encroacher, aggressor, male chauvinist” are not really “relative” in general parlance or even on the moral standards. e.g. we don’t really say something like A is “more male chauvinist” than B. or A is “more loser” than B.
In general parlance of the modern times, these terms are taken almost as absolute.
Oh, I agree with you on that. My comment was a minor nitpick on your logical analysis of her argument where you hadn’t considered the principle of charity.
It would have been so much cleared and explicit if she had worded it like this: “The character of Rama as portrayed in Ramayana is/should not be considered a role model or an idol in the present times.”
Bingo!! Absoltively(not a spelling mistake
) right on the target. But dont you think that it is gonna hit at the very foundation of their belief… “Faith”??
She has to come up with justifications as why it “should not be” considered a “role model” in the modern times. Hinduism doesn’t shy away from debates. If there is logical explanation, she can win the debate!
I don’t know other “faiths” but beliefs in Hinduism were imposed through shaashtraaths i.e. logical debates.
Also, this write-up was not really in response to Sagarika Ghose or Priya Ramani, but more about retroactive judgment of morality, be it of gods, prophets or of any other common person.
I really don’t think that finding faults with historical figures is really that wrong , after all the moral benchmarks of our society draw inspiration from historical figures themselves.. So not judging them by their own standards, would be a tad bit hypocritical don’t you think???? (An utterly useless venture though…)
Being an atheist myself, i am never really too much bothered about the authenticity or relevance of stories of mahabharata or ramayana……but being a political Hindu (though not a religious one) i take strong offense in anything abusive being said on these issues. But i guess in a country where it is really difficult to get famous by doing anything good, people like S. ghosh & arundhati roy find a easier way to get famous by speaking nonsense…….
Think about it again, Both Rama and Krishna were Heroes from different times with varying attributes, and if we happen to get stuck to their Moral standards we are in for a Clash there. Morality evolves and is something that is very Organic and Gels in with the prevailing trends & times. Kindly note again that I am just saying that : SARIES, CHUDIDHARS, JEANS, SKIRTS & MINIS and all is well and is just right for its time. Don’t Confuse by bringing in and comparing things from different times. It is Pointless…
Thank for the subsequent clarification, Pagal Patrkar. Sagareeka Ghosh’s use of Divine Encroacher is neither about Morality nor its relativity.
Pagal Patrakar, Extremely well written…\m/
Pingback: Ayodhya verdict – a scientific perception. « Thought Conduit
i don’t think indians are following the way of life as outlined in any of the epics. being hindu doesn’t require regular temple attendance, vegetarianism, chastity. only requires “maturity” when minorities indulge in offensive communal acts.
I’ve only just discovered this site though I’ve read many tweets by @fakingnews. I really am sorry that I haven’t been following you. Must. make. amends. Good article and the discussion that follows..
>>>”I believe that finding faults with the “morality” of historical figures is technically flawed. It’s flawed, maybe even illogical, to judge the morality of someone (whether an imaginary god or a real historical figure) based on the accepted moral standards of the modern society.”
The ‘modern society’ comprising of yourself, your cat and your nanny, is it ?
parvin togadia or Baba Ramdev may find no place in your ‘modern society’, perhaps.
values, principles, are perennial.
regardless of whether you recognize them or not.
>>>”But otherwise, no one has any business going on correcting Ramayana and other religious text and figures just because they look outlandish or immoral by the scientific and moral standards of today’s world.”
“the scientific and moral standards of today’s world”
Spoken like a follower of monotheism.
your ‘moral standards’ are THE moral standards of today’s world, is it ?
BTW, is anybody correcting Ramayana ?
More to the point, does Ramayana need any ‘correcting’ ?
Somebody using a term ‘divine encroacher’ or ‘loser’ does not automatically mean such usage is justified.
For example, Kasab may say India is a very bad country. A rundithi says so already.
Doesn’t mean people of India should try to measure up to Kasab’s or A rundithi’s standards, whatever they may be.
>>>”Such situation will no doubt push the rationalists and the atheists to point out the presence of “unscience” and “immorality” in their religious texts and beliefs.”
labelling people is another feature of monotheists who created terms such as believer, heathen, pagan, kaffir…
likewise, modern day monotheists brand people as rationalists, atheists and the rest as irrational religious fellows and then appropriate for themselves the right to “point out the presence of “unscience” and “immorality” in their religious texts and beliefs”, like in the past monotheists used to ‘point out’ the ‘immorality’ of ‘idolators’ and endeavoured to bring them to the path of their one true gawd.
namaste
“In USA, a country that boasts of its freedom of speech and liberty, ex post facto laws are completely forbidden. It’s also forbidden in Iran.”
Only because moronic uneducated Indians believe this eyewash thinking Amrika is a ‘parfact’ country with no ‘recism’ and people who are victims of ‘recism’ only bring it on themselves.
I guess not learning American history that has to do with blacks, Native Americans helps.
I may hate Joel Stein but he was right when he said Indians got less and less brighter
Great write up. i followed up from your articles on FN and fair to say you are rational and just.
” believe that finding faults with the “morality” of historical figures is technically flawed. It’s flawed, maybe even illogical, to judge the morality of someone (whether an imaginary god or a real historical figure) based on the accepted moral standards of the modern society.”
Brilliant man!!