BANGALORE: Former vice-chancellor of Kannada University Dr M M Kalburgi’s remarks ‘there is nothing wrong in urinating on idols,’ has sparked criticism in the literary, political and academic circles.
The BJP workers staged a protest at Ananda Rao Circle condemning Kalburgi’s remarks that were interpreted by many as anti-God.
Researcher Dr M Chidananda Murthy termed Kalburgi’s statements ‘uncivilised and nonsensical’.
“His criticism of blind beliefs is not correct. Kalburgi said idols should not be worshiped and it is not wrong to urinate on them. This is pure nonsense,” Murthy said.
“It is Kalburgi’s nature. When he was the V-C, he did not have a problem with temple located within the campus and now he is asking people to abandon temples,” he said.
At a seminar on the controversial Anti-superstition Bill held here on Monday, Kalburgi had made a mention of Kannada writer U R Ananthamurthy urinating on a stone idol.
Ananthamurthy told Express that while superstitions do not exist, people faced constant struggles with God. Recalling his childhood experience, Ananthamurthy said he had once urinated on an idol to check if something happens.”I was surrounded by orthodox people and was disturbed about God’s existence. So I urinated on a statue. I was filled with love and terror for God,” he said.
Kalburgi’s statement was creating an impact because of Modi’s victory in the recent elections, he said.
Writer K Marulasiddappa said scientific temperament has to be developed among people and a law cannot do away with superstitions. “Political parties cannot be blamed for the popularity of a faith or superstitions,” he said.
Bangalore University’s former V-C M S Thimmappa said Kalburgi termed urination as an unholy act and that in itself is a blind belief.People get solace from having faith in Gods and their idols and images and unless a person has an alternative suggestion, it is reckless on the part of a mature professor to pass such comments, he said.
“He has done this to get a kick out of what Ananthamurthy did as a child and had no intellectual and academic points to bolster his argument,” he said.