Some background: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116663/indian-publisher-withdraws-wendy-doningers-hindus-after-threats
Free speech advocates are lambasting Penguin for pulping copies of this book in India following complaints from conservative Hindus.
Doesnt this break the 20 year rule of this subreddit?
Here is an article the summarizes the main points in the book that the Hindu-fundies found objectionable:
The Hindus on the question of eating beef notes that Mahatam Gandhi, who is regarded as the Father of Nation agreed to people eating beef. (Page 625)
Similarly in another place, it notes that Swami Vivekanada, who is regarded as a great Hindu thinker, advised people to eat beef. (Page 639).
In the book, the author calls the Hindu Sun God Surya seducer or rapist. It is also stated that in the book that Sun God Surya forced himself upon Kunti despite her vehement protests and later restored her virginity. (Page 295).
The book seems to convey that Sita, the wife of God Rama may have had a lustful relationship with her brother-in-law Lakshman. In a chapter of the book, Sita is found accusing Lakshman of wanting her for himself. (Page 14). *The Book calls Ramayana a work of fiction. (Page 662)
The Hindus: An Alternative History contains a map of India from 600 CE to 1600 CE but does not mention Kashmir as an integral part of India.
I personally don't understand what is objectionable about most of these, but I have essentially no knowledge about Hinduism beyond the most perfunctory facts. Honestly, only the last two seem like they are worth making a fuss over -- the Ramayana one because all religions like to think that their own holy books represent "the truth", and the Kashmir bit because of the ongoing political issues there. Can someone clue me in to why the rest of these statements are objectionable?