On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 17:26, Deepa Mohan <[email protected]> wrote: [......] > couples. I'm still trying to figure out what cause the change from the > robust acceptance of sexuality that I find in our history of a millenium ago > (insert reference to KS here) , and our present Victorian prudery, which > actually seems to be getting stronger....and this seems to exist for what > Shaw called "middle-class morality". The very rich and the very poor don't > seem bound by it.
Does anyone who has read her book "The Hindus: An Alternative History" have any comments? A humanities professor Raman has reviewed her book[0] and yesterday the DNA carried an article/interview[1] and an extract titled "sita is chaste but also sexual like surpanakha" --the latter has been pulled from the archives with an apology on the first page today. The newspapers recanting articles is not surprising -- I had blogged and linked to her earlier article which was pulled by TOI, iirc because people had complained --it took folks some years to realise that a 2006 (or was it 2007) interview was offensive. [0] http://acharyavidyasagar.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/reflections-on-wendy-doniger-the-hindus-an-alternative-history-the-penguin-press-2009/ [1] http://www.dnaindia.com/lifestyle/report_why-did-hinduism-never-become-an-organised-religion-like-christianity-or-islam_1294838 -- .
