This post was started right after the Jaipur Literary Festival (JLF) and the comments by former Justice Katju - hence the headline. Over the last few days, I thought the issue was past its ‘sell-by’ date and would have to be junked. But after today’s fracas at the Kolkata w.r.t. releasing Taslima Nasreen’s latest book - it needs to be posted, with the questions.
I am not going into the deliberations of whether what Rushdie or Naseen wrote (earlier) is acceptable or not. It would need a blog (not a post) of its own.
Butwhat I am going to raise questions is about Justice Katju’s statement earlier, and what has been repeated on Times Now by one Mr. Pavan Verma, a *declared* ‘author-diplomat’, today (the worthy said the same thing during JLF).
Let me take the ‘author-diplomat’s’ assertion that something, whatever written, (by Rushdie) or others is *blasphemous*. Now that is what I’ve a point to pick with. AFAIK, there is nothing called *blasphemy* in Indian Civil or Penal Code. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
Blasphemy is something anathema and something new to Indian terminology and philosophy, not now, but - for last 2500 years or more. If the ‘author-diplomat’ is endeavouring to introduce *blasphemy* into Indian philosophy, law and rules - it is Talibanistic.
Justice Katju’s statement on the Rushdie-JLF incident, was wholly ‘woolly-headed’ to say the least. The Justice angst was whether Rushdie’s works are meritorious - he called them mediocre - and why such importance is not given to other, long dead, Sanskrit, Hindi and Urdu authors. Something beyond this post,and beyond the JLF itself, and not pertinent to the matter that was in question - whether Rushdie should be allowed to take part in the JLF?
To cut everything short - my dinner is getting cold - I raise thefollowing questions, to everyone (remember, I am not going into specifics of Rushdie, Nasreen or Hussain or any other individual subjects, but general questions on the point of law, attitude, approach, thinking and philosophy):
Now, to the point where some writings, speeches, portrayals and artistic works should (or should not) be banned:
My take is that if such a presentation, in any form, is expressly made in viciousness, to incite religious feelings, then it is an apt case for ‘restrictions’, using provisions of 'hate-speech'. But that restriction should be only to ‘that’ product and not to other works. Merely taking note of umbrage of a single person or a small group of people to restrict freedom of expression or artistic or literary freedom of an individual, forever after, is not the hallmark of a liberal-democratic-enlightened society.
If anyone reading this is still in doubt about what I am talking about, let me give the example of this post, by itself.
This post in all permissive societies would be hailed as thoughtful, sensible and intellectual (Okay! I know it is self-aggrandisement, but please keep up with me).
But in some restrictive societies, for example, in Talibanized Afghanistan (or even in some other countries for all I know and don’t want to speculate), equating other religions considered ‘pagan’ (like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism) with Islam would be considered as ‘blasphemy'.
What you don’t believe me? Just two years back, there was an attempted ban on tranlated Bible for using local word for ‘God’ in a nearby country - Malaysia.
I rest my case!
With a plea that the Kats (like Justice Markandey Katju) think before they meow, else for all of us to demand that it is the Kats that should be muzzled first, before the supposed offenders!
(image courtesy Bluecross, UK)
update: post edited on 02 Feb 2012 for clarity.
I am not going into the deliberations of whether what Rushdie or Naseen wrote (earlier) is acceptable or not. It would need a blog (not a post) of its own.
But
Let me take the ‘author-diplomat’s’ assertion that something, whatever written, (by Rushdie) or others is *blasphemous*. Now that is what I’ve a point to pick with. AFAIK, there is nothing called *blasphemy* in Indian Civil or Penal Code. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
Blasphemy is something anathema and something new to Indian terminology and philosophy, not now, but - for last 2500 years or more. If the ‘author-diplomat’ is endeavouring to introduce *blasphemy* into Indian philosophy, law and rules - it is Talibanistic.
Justice Katju’s statement on the Rushdie-JLF incident, was wholly ‘woolly-headed’ to say the least. The Justice angst was whether Rushdie’s works are meritorious - he called them mediocre - and why such importance is not given to other, long dead, Sanskrit, Hindi and Urdu authors. Something beyond this post,
To cut everything short - my dinner is getting cold - I raise thefollowing questions, to everyone (remember, I am not going into specifics of Rushdie, Nasreen or Hussain or any other individual subjects, but general questions on the point of law, attitude, approach, thinking and philosophy):
- Whatever Rushdie, Nasreen (or Hussain, only hypothetically, since he is dead) have written or portrayed in one single instance,
- does it make them ‘outcast’ from ever producing another work and having it published?
- to turn it around, if they *do* apologise for their earlier offending work, wholeheartedly, would that ‘pardon’ them to carry on with their life and work?
- Which brings me to the basic point of ‘blasphemy’: (And I am not going to venture out into whether one philosophy is better than other - AFAIK ‘to-each-her-own-poison’)
- >:->
- >if 'blasphemy’ was accepted and practiced in India some 3000 years before, Buddhism and Jainism would have been ‘blasphemy’ against the then established Hinduism.
- Again, we (the then Indians) should have exiled, imprisoned, boycotted or stoned to death Adi Shankara, who is credited with re-establishing the Advaita Philosophy of Hinduism, overwhelming Buddhism and Jainism which had taken over India by then!.
- Not to be forgotten is the later Vishisht-Advaita by Ramanujacharya and Dvaita Philosophy advocated by Madhvacharya - who should also be treated similarly.
- Wouldn’t India have been poorer without the Philosophy of Guru Nanak and Sikhism?.
- Wasn’t Jesus accused of ‘blasphemy’ by Romans for being called as ‘Son-of-God’ (if not by the Jews)?
- By the same token, if we go by the criteria we wish to impose today, what should we (or people then) have done when Prophet Muhammad enlightened the world with Islam?
- What about the Protestants (who themselves have Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, Pentecostal, etc.) who differed with Catholicism?
- What about the Islamic Sunni, Shia and Ahmadiyyas divide?
Now, to the point where some writings, speeches, portrayals and artistic works should (or should not) be banned:
My take is that if such a presentation, in any form, is expressly made in viciousness, to incite religious feelings, then it is an apt case for ‘restrictions’, using provisions of 'hate-speech'. But that restriction should be only to ‘that’ product and not to other works. Merely taking note of umbrage of a single person or a small group of people to restrict freedom of expression or artistic or literary freedom of an individual, forever after, is not the hallmark of a liberal-democratic-enlightened society.
If anyone reading this is still in doubt about what I am talking about, let me give the example of this post, by itself.
This post in all permissive societies would be hailed as thoughtful, sensible and intellectual (Okay! I know it is self-aggrandisement, but please keep up with me).
But in some restrictive societies, for example, in Talibanized Afghanistan (or even in some other countries for all I know and don’t want to speculate), equating other religions considered ‘pagan’ (like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism) with Islam would be considered as ‘blasphemy'.
What you don’t believe me? Just two years back, there was an attempted ban on tranlated Bible for using local word for ‘God’ in a nearby country - Malaysia.
I rest my case!
With a plea that the Kats (like Justice Markandey Katju) think before they meow, else for all of us to demand that it is the Kats that should be muzzled first, before the supposed offenders!
(image courtesy Bluecross, UK)
update: post edited on 02 Feb 2012 for clarity.
My feeling about Rushdie's presence or rather the absence in this case, is a welcome one in JLF. Not going into the importance of JLF, Rushdie is a pomp, conceited and a good for nothing but whining person.
ReplyDeleteIf he had any of his so called heroic (As per media) attributes in standing up (which he did not, but hide) to challenges, he would have visited the venue.
As usual, the local retards launched a protest and increased his self-importance. Now he can whine more. At least it saved the exchequer several lacs of rupees in security expenses.
As for the JLF itself, what I read was not something worthy of the self proclaimed literary creatures of India. Apparently, it was more of a tamasha of kings, the filmy crowd, 3rd page crowd and rest of the poor poets getting sun burnt tonsils at the extravaganza.I do not think anyone knows what good came out of it so far.
8-0
DeleteRushdie might be any of those, but still he has a right to go anywhere he wants to - as a holder of PIO card. And the GoI and RJ Govt. had to ensure his right.
As I've clarified before, I only write about issues, not personalities (except in rare cases where people have involved personality in the issue - for e.g., Kalmadi calling anyone who questioned expenses of CWG as a traitor).
Again holding a Literary Festival can be for commercial reasons - is there a rule that literary festival has to be a non-profit and promote Literature. By some accounts the recent edition of (annual) Book Fair in Chennai had become another commercial venture and not exactly a place for book lovers.