The Perumal Murugan row: Why are we so easily offended?

Most of Madras was in shock when we heard about author Perumal Murugan’s promise to never write again as the result of his “compromise” with the RSS. For those not in the know, the RSS took umbrage to his book of 2011, Mathorubhagan (One Part Woman in the English translation).

The reason for this compromise is that the RSS and certain politicians had, since early in December last year, taken it upon themselves to—once again—take up moral policing as their cause. They believe that the 'selfless service', which they purport to perform, is better served by taking umbrage to the world knowing certain truths about Indian culture than feeding the poor, defending the defenceless, etc.

Let’s start with what they found offensive. In the book, a couple married for over a decade (though unclear, the time seems to be around the early 20th century) without ever conceiving, decides (or not, the author never makes that clear) to participate in a traditionally held “swinging festival” at the Vaisakam Car Festival in Thiuchengode. Children born of this socially sanctioned ritual are referred to as swamykuduthapillai (god-given children), and classical Hindu traditions refer to this practice as niyoga or niyoga dharma. Just as an aside, the word dharma signifies its cultural and religious sanction.

Now as a writer myself, I found many things objectionable about the book. To start with the positive, I thought Murugan possesses a superb sense of history. But I found it objectionable that after an enthralling read for the first three-fourths of the book, the last quarter petered away into an unsatisfactory ending. Like sitting in a restaurant for an hour, waiting for a meal that I never got to eat. I felt that the author touched upon many, extremely relevant social themes that he did not completely address; that he had strived too hard to be politically correct about values that should have been blasted; I found the book to be a tad disjointed and at the end, boring. But none of that is reason to ban a book. 

No, the RSS found it objectionable that the writer wrote about the practice of niyoga. Mahalingam, Chief Troglodyte of the RSS branch of Thiruchengode, felt that Hinduism was somehow offended by the book, and so they started first by burning thousands of pages of his books, followed by threatening his life and the lives of his family. When he went to the police seeking protection, the police advised him to leave Namakkal, where he lives.

Firstly, as a group claiming to be Hindus, I would have thought that burning a book would be the first thing the RSS would avoid doing, but not so. I must be thinking of another Hinduism. Secondly, if their faith is so fragile that they find it offended by a book, one would wonder why they bother fighting so hard for such a faith. But most importantly, I’d like someone to tell me how these acts of the Thiruchengode RSS are any different from the Islamic terrorists that shot at the Charlie Hebdo offices. Is it just, then, a question of degrees? Threatening to violently kill someone’s family is not the same as murder, so what these people did was ok?

As part of the compromise, Perumal Murugan has agreed to withdraw all his publications, recompense everyone who spent any money on it, and never write again…AND NEVER WRITE AGAIN! 

The refrain taken up even by the intelligentsia is, “in a multi-cultural society, one should be careful to not hurt any caste or community.” This is a direct quote from a well-known cultural writer, who first points out Kunti and Madri themselves resorted to niyoga dharma because their husband (Pandu, “father” of the Pandavas) was impotent. So if they’re willing to accept that this actually is a cultural practice, why then, are they siding with the censorship of a person’s art? Everything offends someone. As an ardent activist for animal rights, I find advertisements for KFC to be the most offensive thing I can imagine. Why is nothing done about that?

Why is somebody taking offence, any reason at all to suppress something? The state’s duty is to ensure that all its citizens enjoy the basic amenities of food, clothing, shelter, and education. They are failing miserably at this. Crime is on the increase, with police stations being overloaded with cases and not enough officers to handle them all, and we can do nothing about it. These are the kind of situations where the RSS could be of use. They could help feed the (literally) millions of starving children and families, start saving cattle from the horrors of India’s meat and leather trade, and a thousand other things that are consistent with their Hindu ideology, but instead, they choose the most un-Hindu endeavour imaginable: the burning of books. Does anyone else remember Hitler and Pol Pot?

Religion today enables terrible things, as can its secular equivalent: ideology. The terrible aspect stems from the reaction that comes when an unshakeable belief is challenged by different unshakeable realities. It is nothing less than cognitive dissonance, and humanity, with its strange compulsion to actively control everything, is not able to separate the truth from the fantasy anymore.

There is absolutely no difference between Hindu fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism (or, not to leave anyone out, any other religion’s fundamentalism) except in degrees. Christian kings during the Middle Ages, felt justified in travelling to Jerusalem and butchering the local Muslims because they believed their religion required it of them. They are no better or worse than the simpletons that the Al Qaeda brainwashes to blow up civilians in the name of Jihad, who are no worse than the RSS members who felt justified in making death threats to a writer and his family because he wrote about something they didn’t like, who burn movie theatres for showing a movie they don’t like, or who beat up and kill couples for public displays of affection or being out together on Valentine’s Day. 

The biggest problem humankind faces right now is thinking these degrees of differences make things better. They do not. Bigotry and chauvinism are just as bad, whether you have a mild case of it or a major one. The facility of free speech exists to enable others to reveal to us things that we would not always like to know—the truths. If we don’t like it, we are free to ignore it, criticise it, even to advise others to boycott it. Whether it is only the artist’s truth or a universal truth is for each one of us to gauge within ourselves. That’s the only way intelligence could ever burgeon. However, to muzzle it is to mount a slippery slope, and I’m pretty sure humanity has slipped enough.

Also Read: I am not Perumal Murugan, but I very well could be...