Shoot-and-scoot literati

Celebrity writer Salman Rushdie’s absence from the Jaipur Literary Festival has left sections of progressive writers and intellectuals deeply aghast and indignant. But I have a different take on the controversy that raises questions about literary freedoms in our country.

Rushdie’s presence in Jaipur wouldn’t have caused a ripple had it not been election time in five states including the politically crucial Uttar Pradesh where Muslim voters are a major factor. To that extent, one cannot dismiss out of hand the charge that Congress governments at the Centre and in Rajasthan orchestrated reports of life threats to the author of Satanic Verses to keep him off the Indian shores.

But my fervent beliefs in individual freedoms that include free speech and the right to religion— with all its sensitivities– kind of incapacitates me. They prevent me from taking a clear-cut, unambiguous position in the conflict under debate. I can’t really say whether Rushdie’s freedom is more precious then that of those offended by his work.

The controversial book that made Rushdie so hated and so liked for his craft–depending on who we’re talking about — was banned in India in 1988, the very year in which it was published. The answer that I don’t have to the Jaipur impasse lies perhaps in former PM Chandrashekhar’s view of Simaranjit Singh Mann’s run-ins with the establishment over carrying a three-foot long kirpan inside Parliament. That happened a year after the Satanic Verses was taken off bookstores.

At a national integration council meeting chaired by then premier VP Singh, Chandrashekhar implored Mann to show respect for Parliament the way he showed respect for the Golden Temple. He said devotees entered the Swaran Mandir bare-footed and with their heads covered. “Parliament’s the golden temple of our democracy. It too has rules that you must follow as a devotee of parliamentary democracy,” he reasoned.

Freedoms measure equally on the scale of justice. Rushdie and the late MF Hussain, for both of whom I have great respect, had their rights to free expression but not without reasonable restrictions. They occupied moral high grounds largely because of threats of violence from people who felt offended. More so because their detractors (or shall we call them enemies) comprised rank reactionaries on the look out for issues to divide people on religious lines.

That’s not to suggest the Rushdie-Hussain duo covered themselves with absolute glory in the face of rampaging mobs. Rather than fighting for their freedoms, they chickened out, setting up homes abroad or being too cowardly to enter the battle arena. Operating through proxies, they sought martyrdom without the courage to die for their creative/artistic convictions.

With cheap theatrics like reading passages from Satanic Verses, the Kunzrus, Joshis and Thayils of the literary world came across as stuntmen rather than fighters for a cause. These armchair revolutionaries deserted the post at the first hint of a crisis.

Those unwilling to risk arrest cannot die for a cause. They aren’t worth anybody’s time or attention.