Monday, June 25, 2007
Ms. Barkha Datt in her article dated 24.6.2007 has written, "Much as we play up Sunita Williams’ Indian ancestry, we haven’t quite figured out how to respond as a country to her fellow American resident, Salman Rushdie. This is despite the fact that his ‘Indianness’ is actually much more direct and indisputable. Not just was he born here, his greatest works of writing have borrowed from the smells, sounds and stories of India. On his last visit here for a literary festival in Rajasthan, he told me that coming to India was “like drinking at the well, ever so often you have to come to drink at the well”. His parents may have migrated to Pakistan in the 1960s, but Rushdie has always been outspoken about where his sense of identity lies, despite his “complicated notion of home”. “I know which side I am on in cricket,” he joked last year, “it’s always India, not Pakistan, no problem for me.”
So, why has the Indian response to the author’s knighthood been so muted?
The politically correct among us may want to argue that an award from the Queen of England is not just an anachronism — it’s feudal, colonial and in poor taste. Others contend that the honours are farcical and lightweight. (This year, the winners included a global lingerie tycoon, Joseph Corre, who turned down his prize saying he could not accept anything from the “morally corrupt” Tony Blair.)
But let’s own up to the truth. Had an Indian-born steel magnate or business tycoon or even an academician been bestowed with a snotty little prefix from the British monarchy, enough awe-struck Indians would have been jumping through hoops.
The reason we are so understated about Sir Salman is not because we disapprove of royalty; it’s because we are hypocrites and mixed up about whether we want to claim the author as our own or not.
Parts of India treat Rushdie like he’s a rock star; we especially like boasting about him to our Western friends and acquaintances. It’s nice to act like one of the world’s most successful authors is as homespun as our handloom saris.
And yet, other parts of India (most noticeably the political establishment) continue to treat him like we would handle an embarrassing relative. We know he’s ours, but don’t force us to officially admit it.
Our television channels self-righteously debate whether Pakistan’s government had any business getting involved in the controversy. We are passionate about not mixing art with politics. And we feel appalled at the lunacy of politicians across the border who have warned the world that the award may spur on suicide bombers. For us, it’s just one more example of how Pakistan is hurtling down the path of self-destructive fundamentalism.
But how many of us have demanded an explanation from our own governments? Do we ask our politicians to clarify where they stand on the ban on Satanic Verses? Can we ever escape the blemish of being the first country in the world to ban the book? And for those of us who got so worked up over the attack by right-wing goons on the arts faculty in Baroda, will we speak up as vociferously for Rushdie’s right to express his creativity without censorship?
This isn’t about whether you like his books or him; it’s about double standards.
If we defended (as I did, for the record) the right of a young student of art in Gujarat to paint Christ and Vishnu in images that were sexually explicit and possibly offensive, we must also give Rushdie the same space to say his piece.
The freedom of expression cannot be defined selectively.
It’s time we owned up to the fact that Salman Rushdie, even more than Sunita Williams, was at least partially made in India."
I had responded to Ms. Barkha Datt in the following manner:
"Respected Madam,
Please refer to the article "Made in India" by you(Hindustan Times;24.6.2007)
You are absolutely right about Salman Rushdie. We have let down one of our greatest sons because ofour hypocritical nature based on an equallyhypocritical religious philosophy. To put it bluntly,we have not countered Pakistani Propaganda nor have wepraised the British Government for conferringknighthood on Rushdie because we are first classcowards afraid of our Muslim population.
In fact, I do not know why people are giving so muchimportanceto religion as if it were a matter of life and death? It is indeed strange that religion is supposed topreach tolerance but its followers are all intolerant. It is true that Rushdie has written something whichis against the religion of Islam but he too has aright of freedom of expression and he had not indulgedin any violent act. If you ask me all these religious leaders were andstill are merely humbugs. They pretended to knoweverything but nobody; not even Christ or Mohammadknew that how many elements are there on earth. Theyprofessed to know everything but did not know all thelanguages of the world. They even did not know howmany stars were there in the universe nor did thesereligious persons know as to how many galaxy systemswere there in the universe. They were at the bestsocial reformers and some kind of psychotherapists andnothing more. Same applies to Sai Baba, etc. whoclaim to be God. Through your esteemed TV Channel, Ichallenge Satya Sai Baba that if he is really a God,he should kill me within 5 minutes. Let us seewhether he accepts this challenge."
I want the readers' comments on Ms. Barkha's article and my response.
4:37:15 PM
Posted By Satbir Bedi Comments (1) Uncategorized
Comments
K.Venugopal Monday, June 25, 2007 8:41:43 PM
Dear Satbir Bedi, By and large, the ‘secular’ press has not “quite figured out how to respond” because Rushdie is not a ‘proper’ Muslim' (that is, one who approves of the Mullah's agenda). I am all for freedom of expression, as much of Rushdie as of Chandramohan. Your letter to Barkha Dutt is just fine. However, about Sai Baba etc claiming to God would be understood only if we go beyond the duality which all of civilization appears to have become stuck with - except the Hindu portion of it. They see that in the depth of it all, everything is one. Challenging a person who has seen this truth to kill you within 5 minutes is to be thinking in terms of power-play. The truth is all about awakening and bliss. Not an interplay of power - that play is extant only in the minds of us mortals.
No comments:
Post a Comment