The Book of Hatred and Salman Rushdie’s Visit

The Book of Hatred and Salman Rushdie’s Visit

The upcoming visit of British Indian novelist Salman Rushdie to India has rightly created a stir. Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, first published in 1988, is ‘famous’ for its attack on Islam. The novel contains blasphemous references with reference to especially Prophet Muhammad and, perhaps as intended by its author, brought him a lot of attention and created a controversy in general.

Talking of books and controversies, there are a few things to note. The book Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler has been banned in Germany. Russia banned the book in March 2010 in an attempt to combat the growing number of Nazi sympathizers in the country. It has been defined as ‘extremist’ and outlawed. The book has been condemned for its militaristic outlook and for justifying discrimination and destruction of non-Aryan races. 0.It is seen as reflecting ideas which, when implemented, started World War Two. It sets out a doctrine of German racial supremacy and ambitions to annex huge areas of the Soviet Union and deal with the ‘Jewish Question’. So enlightened countries have banned Mein Kampf and the West (read America and the UK) do not seem to mind the ban but when countries like  Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Pakistan, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Thailand ban the book, they are said to be backward. It is amusing that while some books are not seen as objectionable, others are though both may be offensive to religious and cultural sensibilities. Here, the communities involved seem to matter. For instance, take the book The King’s Torah. The highly controversial book, the King's Torah, written by rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, attempts to justify killing of non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances. The summary states that "you can kill those who are not supporting or encouraging murder in order to save the lives of Jews". It also suggests that babies can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat. But what is the reaction to this kind of a book? There were demonstrations to protest detention of two rabbis who endorsed the book! The US and the West in general have been silent about it. Mein Kampf is racial and it can be banned but the King’s Torah, which is an actual ‘call to terror’, is fine. Likewise, when Salman Rushdie brings out The Satanic Verses, the West condemns countries that ban it and goes on to support Rushdie’s effort as an expression of one’s freedom of expression. There are double standards here as anyone can make out.

Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar wrote books like Bunch of Thoughts and We, Our Nationhood Defined. In the latter, he has been in praise of Hitler even while supporting the Zionist movement. Golwalkar states,  "The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's rights. There is, at least, should be, no other course for them to adopt.” But Golwalkar is the ideal of the RSS and BJP who, however, are the first to protest where there is the slightest hint of any insult to Hindu religion and culture.

More recently, India in January 2012 asked BBC to apologize for the Jeremy Clarkson show in which the presenter, Clarkson, made controversial comments about India’s history and culture, including its food and clothing, trains and toilets.

Clearly the book by Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of all Muslims. The government has banned Rushdie’s book but it says it cannot cancel the visit of the author. It needs to be noted that even the NDA when in power did not lift the ban on the book even though it is composed of right wing parties who have attacked on Muslims sentiments on many occasions. The controversy surrounding the visit has, however, given us the opportunity to view afresh attempts especially by writers and artists to hurt the religious and cultural sentiments of the people and destabilize the peace of a society. Where Rushdie’s writings are concerned, they present ideas and views that hurt the foundational values of the society without contributing anything meaningful. The mockery of Islam and Muslims by Rushdie consistently is directed at mere amusement and cheap publicity. But it is not only Islam that is the target of his attack.  The Satanic Verses insults other religions and communities as well and political and royal personalities.

In the book, Rushdie charges his British benefactors as an incestuous people and calls the British filthy names. A book that is full with the choicest abusive terms, some phrases newly-concocted by him with his ‘brilliant’ imagination, he has insulted white women in general as those who are to be used sexually and thrown over. There are derogatory sexual references to specific women including Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (‘Maggie’) and the monarch of Britain: ‘the Queen’. It also contains references to hurt Hindu religious sentiments though few seem to be aware of this: he insults Hindu gods and goddesses. Words like lecherous, drunken and flighty are used with reference to Rama and Sita.

The author Raold Dahl rightly launched an attack on Salman Rushdie’s work, calling him a “dangerous opportunist”. As he said, this type of sensationalism did get the book to the top of the best-seller list "but to my mind it is a cheap way of doing it”. But this is probably the way books by Asian writers in particular have won media attention in the West. The Satanic Verses was honored with positive reviews. It was a 1988 Booker Prize Finalist and won the 1988 Whitbread Award for novel of the year.

So in no way have Rushdie’s writings ever provided anything healthy to the development of society or its literature. He has only hurt sentiments of the people and abused religions and cultures. But then, it is taken as being very liberal and democratic to welcome Rushdie and allow him to express himself. If one does not want to do that, the society or community is ‘fundamentalist’ and should be mocked and suppressed. Those who oppose Rushdie’s ‘ideas’ and views have no freedom of expression.

In the garb of freedom of expression, one cannot attack the foundations and core values of a community just to amuse a few or create publicity for oneself and preach hatred and violence. Freedom is freedom only when it recognizes its limits and responsibilities. Here man has to take a lesson or two from Nature. The ocean flows unfettered and free, even wild, and in its own zest. However, the moment it transgresses its boundaries there is bound to be a catastrophe for us, whether a cyclone or a tsunami. When its crosses its boundary, it is harmful for all life.

Freedom of expression or speech does not mean one can say or do anything; there is always a restriction in the expression and use of freedom. There is, for instance, freedom of movement but that does not mean anyone can walk into a military zone or any security installation that allows only restricted entry. When writers or artists attack communities or values, they reveal not only a lack of character and maturity on their part but also an intention to create unrest in society. Individual perversions cannot be let loose in the name of freedom of expression and allowed to create chaos in the social fabric of a nation or among communities. The vilest form of attack that any writer or artist or scholar can perpetrate is an abusive attack on other religions, cultures and languages and on women of other communities.