The book on Sri Aurobindo was written for an academic audience, says author
“I am looking forward to being forgotten,” remarked American historian Peter Heehs, as he spoke about the media attention that followed the extension of his visa on Friday by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) in New Delhi.
Mr. Heehs, biographer of Sri Aurobindo, expressed gratitude to the Indian government for granting him the extension and said the fact that many scholars and eminent people had taken his side showed that the people of India respected the right to freedom of expression.
“Routine matter”
Speaking to The Hindu, Mr. Heehs said that on the surface of things, it was a “routine matter” that all foreigners went through but in his case it went all the way up to the Union Home Minister before it could be approved.
Mr. Heehs got his visa stamped at 11a.m. on Friday at the Regional Registration Office in Puducherry. The FRRO has granted him an extension of visa until April 15, 2013. He is also eligible to apply for a further extension next year, he said.
The FRRO had earlier decided not to extend his visa beyond April 15, following complaints from devotees and followers of Sri Aurobindo about the contents of his book, The Many Lives of Sri Aurobindo, published by the Columbia University Press in 2008.
The decision was revised after an appeal by several scholars. Home Minister P. Chidambaram had earlier announced that he would review the case suo motu.
If there was any problem, it was because people who had no stake in the matter had taken an interest in the issue of his visa extension. The only people who should have been involved were himself, the trustees of Sri Aurobindo Ashram — as they are his sponsors — and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr. Heehs said.
Speaking about the book and the controversy over certain passages in it, he said he was sorry for offending the devotees of the ashram but the book was written for an academic audience and initially only meant for consumption in the U.S. He had not intended the book to have an ashram audience and said he would have changed things around if he was writing for them, he said.
The scholarly audience he was catering to had welcomed the different approach to looking at Sri Aurobindo, instead of reading an “ashram souvenir” and appreciated the arguments he had offered. In fact, he had even been criticised for being an “obvious acolyte” for his extremely positive views of Sri Aurobindo, he said.
“Decontextualised”
The main problem was that many of the protesters had not even read the book since it was not available in the country. Their opinion on it was largely based on “decontextualised” extracts, he said.
As for his future plans, he said that since he had received a multiple entry visa, he would leave the country as scheduled on April 15 and visit Lithuania and other parts of Europe on a lecture tour before heading to the United States. He hoped to be back in India by July, he said.
One of the trustees of the ashram speaking to The Hindu said they had done what they thought was right and the government had taken the decision it had to. The ashram had only done for Mr. Heehs what they did for all foreigners and nothing more, the member said.
According to Jayant Bhattacharya, one of those protesting against the book and opposing Mr. Heehs' visa extension, the case for not extending his visa was strong. If in spite of that the government had decided to grant an extension, there had to be a good reason. The protesters were still examining the case before they decided their next course of action, he said.
Keywords: Peter Heehs, Sri Aurobindo, The Many Lives of Sri Aurobindo
The book was banned 3 years ago, not recently as it is being made to believe.
Peter Heehs and his supporters have been successful in creating a smokescreen
around his Visa and Copyright violations that the media is not talking about.
The Home Minister by granting extension to an alleged offender of Visa rules has
ridiculed the concept of free democracy.
The Lives of Sri Aurobindo by Peter Heehs has been published by an academic institution, Columbia University Press, and the author keeps on stressing all the while that it is meant for an academic audience. That is fair enough. But then there are on web-pages hundreds of academic scholarly posts and comments criticizing academic shortcomings of the biography. Not even one is challenged by its great supporters. That itself shows its close-mindedness, or the real lack of its quality to pass as a worthwhile scholastic work. This is a serious matter and must be carefully examined before passing any judgement on this “scholarly work of a lifetime”.
Like most of Heehs' critics, Asok is missing the point as he is more
preoccupied with defending his bias, finding faults with and
misinterpreting Heehs' book. Because, how does it make Heehs the
Devil's Advocate if he likes a particular photo more than another one?
Secondly, as stated in Heehs' well researched biography, it is another
disciple of Sri Aurobindo, A.B. Purani, who while speaking to Sri
Aurobindo asked him if he would marry Mirra "The Mother" and Sri
Aurobindo responded affirmatively. This little anecdote only goes to
demonstrate how open-minded Sri Aurobindo was and has nothing
blasphemous about it. Lastly, Asok is only reaffirming the point that
Religious Fundamentalism as is regrettably practiced by a few in the
Sri Aurobindo Ashram - in spite of it being contrary to Sri
Aurobindo's teachings - does not tolerate scholarly work, even the
kind as Heehs' biography which has got wide acclaim nationally and
internationally.
The core issue is not the content of the book or the fact that Peter Heehs was working illegally (his visa didn't allow it) in India without paying taxes.
After the death of Nirodbaran, the last spiritual authority in the Ashram, the trustees found themselves in trouble: the Mother never authorized them to accept or to expel any inmates of the Ashram. The trustees were never given an authority in spiritual or even cultural matters.
Politicians and bureaucrats, including the Ashram ones, try to do as little as possible and to say as little as possible in order to minimize the confrontation. That's how a weak person clings to power.
Your article says: "The main problem was that many of the protesters had not even read the book since it was not available in the country. Their opinion on it was largely based on “decontextualised” extracts, he said."
Recently there was an article in the Hindustan Times by Mr. Bhanu Pratap Mehta. Mr. Mehta is a supporter of Heehs and his book, claims to have read the book and not just decontextualized extracts, and has claimed professional interest in Sri Aurobindo.
Mr. Mehta stated in his article that Sri Aurobindo could not unravel the secret of the Veda, and that his book the Life Divine was a commentary on the Isha Upanishad.
Most rational readers (I am not speaking of followers or devotees)of Sri Aurobindo's works would consider these to be fatuous opinions.
So we are left with two possibilities: either the book by Mr. Heehs has misled a serious reader such as Mr. Mehta, or Mr. Mehta was already misinformed about Sri Aurobindo and the book has not managed to disabuse him.
India should respect and recognize that freedom of speech is universal.
Recently, the authorities deported a Jewish lady because of her
writings. Why not foreigners with valid reasons to stay here be given
freedom to express as long as they don't support terrorism or anti-India
activities.
I have read the book. He starts with two photgraphs of Sri Aurobindo, one touched up and another untouched and he keeps on carping on this theme. Any follower of Sri Aurobindo will be incensed after reading it. In the book he basically functions as Devil's advocate against Sri Aurobindo's achievements. For example he says Sri Aurobindo was ready to marry Mira, the mother. It is OK if some outside critic wrote the book, but we do not expect this from some one inside the Ashram. The Ashram seems to be powerless againt him. Otherwise why should it help him extend his visa?
Freedom of expression, an important and fundamental principle, is being sadly misused and relentlessly drummed into the public mind by the supporters of Heehs as a convenient mantle under which anything seems to go, from misrepresentation and distortion of historical facts to vulgar innuendos and fabrications, from pervasive racist remarks to multiple copyright theft, to mention just some elements of this book which, touted as a scholastic work, falls short of the most elementary standards of academia.
To elevate the notion of freedom of speech to an absolute is a recipe for calamity, and any civil society (including America!) guards against its abuse by protecting its citizens against fraud and defamation. Should Sri Aurobindo, the spiritual giant whose immense contribution to India and the world we yet have to fully appreciate, be exempt from such basic civil rights, and instead be publicly maligned by the impersonated 'co-founder of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Archives'?
Peter Heehs has repeatedly refused to engage in an open debate/discussion with his fellow-Ashramites and book critics by falsely claiming that any public statements about the book would incriminate him. After four years of this dissimulation Heehs is going around claiming that his book does not denigrate Sri Aurobindo and giving certificates to Indians regarding "freedom of speech". If he is such a big fan of freedom of speech why does he run away from an open debate on his book? Why does he make up patently misleading excuses about his reasons for not doing so? If he has the courage of his conviction and thinks that he speaks the truth why is he not ready to engage with those who have pointed out falsehood after falsehood and distortion after distortion in his book? He has gone to the extent of laying blame for the partition of India on Sri Aurobindo. Have Indians lost any shred of self-respect that they accept certificates of good behavior from make-believe "scholars"?
Please Email the Editor