Never before the annual
fare, Jaipur Literature Festival since its beginning in 2006, hogged so-much
limelight in the English media – both print and electronic – as in this year.
All because of the controversy surrounding writer Salman Rushdie and his work ‘The
Satanic Verses’. This edition of the Jaipur Literature Festival had only one
guest: Salman Rushdie. And he didn’t even turn up. No matter, no one was more
present. Many would insist that the decline of Rushdie as a writer of fiction
began in the middle of his fourth novel, ‘The Satanic Verses’, or definitely
after his fifth work of fiction, ‘Haroun and the Sea of Stories’, and has
continued since. But all this has only
to do with the tiny number of people in this country who read serious fiction
and non-fiction written in English. Clearly, embedded in Rushdie's public
persona is a certain unremovable mark ‘TSV' that people who have nothing to do
with books or literature like to knock. That mark still sets off some kind of ruptures
in certain segments outside the book-reading world.
The controversy over his
non-appearance at the Festival and the debates it has triggered have tended to
focus on why the government caved in to the seemingly unreasonable demand by a
section of the Muslim community to prevent Rushdie’s visit because his ‘Satanic
Verses’ had once offended their sensibility. That was in another century but,
apparently, the wound hasn’t healed. Their argument is that Rushdie might say something
to offend their faith again, which, of course, you can’t put past him. The man
is nothing if can’t offend. Contemporary writers tend to betray both theories
of art – ‘art for art’s sake’ and ‘art for social purpose’. They have their own
theory – ‘art for attention’s sake’, for which they create controversies -
Crass commercialisation!
Since the banning (of
imports) of Satanic Verses decades ago, Rushdie has visited India several times. He has
appeared in print, given interviews, attended parties, spoken on TVs. He has
also attended Jaipur festivals in the past. How is it that suddenly a section
of Muslim community finds his presence radio active? Because of politics – what
else?
Of course, because of
politics – what else? Clearly, they are playing up in the context of UP
Assembly elections. The Congress party, leading the Rajasthan government, would
like the sizeable Muslim minority in UP to have an understanding with it. That
is the reading of the literati that annually makes the pilgrimage to Jaipur and
of course, the non-playing captains of carnival, the Media. So much so the
unusual coverage given to this year’s annual literature festival, which again
is the same – politics of the media. suddenly, everyone is talking about
freedom of speech and the right to offend as part of it, and if you listen
carefully, even the BJP is making overlapping noices. They have staked their
all in defence of Rushdie and they have levelled substantive charges of
craveness on the part of ruling Congress-led government.
How is this class of
freedom fighters – the literati and the media – seem to wake about freedom of
art and speech, which generally involve the right to offend, only when
intellectual pin-up boy like Rushdie is in the crosshairs?
There are any number of instances
that have gone begging for strident interventions in the recent past; why?
almost during the Jaipur festival. Symbiosis
University in Pune decided to disallow
screening of a documentary film on Kashmir,
after a right-wing student group objected to it. Bowing further, the university
even dumped proposed seminar. Dileep Padgaonkar may be good enough for the
Government of India which appointed him its interlocutor for J&K, but the
noted journalist was not allowed to speak about his experiences at the university’s
seminar on Kashmir. After several right-wing
organisations like Hindu Janjagruti Samiti and Panun Kashmir supported by the
Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (APVP) of the BJP opposed the event, the
university decided to ‘postpone’ (alibi for cancellation) three day-seminar
‘Voices of Kashmir’, earlier scheduled for Feb.3, 4 and 5. The literati and the
media (except ‘The Hindu’) made no noices.
But this does raise
questions about relative understandings, in different contexts, of things like
freedom of expression and bans. So, how do we look at those critical issues?
One way would be to approach this by using two examples: of course, Rushdie,
and also a documentary film on Kashmir. And
doing so by locating them in the contexts of power: both internally, as in what
power structure, or lack thereof, any narrative (be it a book or a film)
emanates from and how that exists in relationship to a larger matrix of power.
Satanic Verses exists in a
matrix of what the west and east ‘mean’ to each other. Or rather the imbalance
of power that exists between them, which Rushdie clearly was aware of. Which is
to say, both the history of antagonisms (real or invented) between the west
and, in this case, Islam and the relative position of power between the two in
today’s world.
Now, it is the right, even
duty, of artists and writers et al to challenge, even provoke. The question of
evaluating what is produced thus is asking whom does it provoke, and why, and
how all that is located in the context of power. Does what is produced attack
power, speak against it, unravel it, or does it align itself with it either
intentionally or by default?
A cursory reading of
Satanic Verses makes clear that Rushdie was aware of what he was doing. The
book unambiguously caricatures the Prophet of Islam and other contemporaneous
figures. Now, keep in mind both the authoritarianism and repression extant in
most of what is called the ‘Muslim world’ as well as the rank demonisation of
Arabs-Muslims in the west, and it is no wonder Rushdie’s book was seen as yet
another attack, another humiliation emanating from within the west. The mass
reaction, in turn, added to stereotypes of ‘exotic fundamentalism’.
The point about Salman
Rushdie’s freedom to write what he wants is given. The issue about whether
books et al should be banned is a nonstarter, they should not. The point,
rather, as with the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet, is whether you
are seeking to target, vilify or mock someone above you in the power equation
or lower — a comprehension of that power equation is critical to contextualise
the attendant reactions.
The point also, arguably,
could be whether there is intent of progressive reform, at a betterment of
society and the world in a radical, startling piece of work (all questions of
artistic or literary merit apart) which seeks to shock. Or whether there is an
attempt to shock for its own sake, and perhaps make a commercial success of the
work in the bargain.
Although somewhat different
in scale, the decision of an educational institute in Pune to disallow the
screening of a documentary film on Kashmir,
after a right-wing student group said it promoted ‘separatism’, is an
other-side-of-the-coin sort of example. If a film or any other narrative is
seeking to present a picture on the political situation in that state which is
not only at variance with state narratives — with all the power that is
implicit within them — but undercuts them, unravels them, then, obviously, it
is ‘speaking to power’. It is, then, speaking against the dominant
state-and-media discourse on Kashmir. If a
film speaks about the powerlessness of a people, disallowing its screening,
therefore, is a decision that aligns itself with the dominant powers — whether
articulated by the state, media or assorted right-wing groups.
Since this comes right on
the heels of the Rushdie-in-Jaipur fracas, it becomes a pointer to the
selective nature of what is hailed and defended as freedom of speech and what
is quietly largely left to fend for itself — if not excoriated by the same
quarters. The manner in which how power inflects issues of freedom of
expression and how they are played out in the public domain becomes, thus, a
wee bit clearer.
Some of the instances that
went begging for student strident protest in the recent past were:
A couple of years ago, when
Bal Thackeray’s Shiv Sena forced Bombay University to remove a Rohinton Mistry
text that called into question the leader’s parentage, the civil society’s
voices were muted. A couple of mass petitions did the rounds on the net. That
was about it. Bombay
is a crowded city; but if the champions wanted, they could have found a toehold
at Marine Drive
or Azad Maidan and read out passages from the banned text. Or distributed
photocopies of the passage in question. When the artist M F Husain exiled
himself from India because the state was not ready to guarantee him protection
from the threats of the Hindu right wing, the champions of democracy did not
believe freedom of speech was all that endangered; a little, may be, but not
enough to make a show of it and pressurise the government to say that art is
more important than votes or blood on the streets.
When James Laine (Hindu
King in Islamic India) cast aspersions on Shivaji’s parentage, and the Hindu
right wing banned the book, no one was bothered enough to move court as is now
happening in Rushdie’s case. Nor was there a sustained media debate on the
issue.
Or the recent controversy
over A K Ramanujan’s essay (Three Hundred Ramayanas: Fives Examples and Three
Thoughts on Translation) where he mentions the possibility of Sita being Ravana’s
daughter. Did we see any pitched battle being waged by literature lovers when
some Delhi University professors succeeded in
removing the essay from the BA syllabus?
Again, recall the Ram Sethu
controversy in the recent past. The BJP and other Hindu right wing parties said
at the time that the reef under the shallows of the Palk Straits connecting
Rameswaram to Sri Lanka
was built by the Vanara Sena in the mythical ages of Ramayana and not by
nature; and that that shouldn’t be scientifically ascertained because the truth
might hurt the Hindu sentiment. The truth they were afraid of is that both
Vanara Sena and Rama are more mythological than historical. How easily the
intelligentsia let that too go.
These cases of neglect do
not justify either the ban on Satanic Verses or Rushdie’s visit. But we do
ourselves a disservice when we identify Rushdie as a martyr and let other
saints march by into the dark.
No comments:
Post a Comment