Censorship in India (in support of Hari Kunzru et al)

This last week or two have been pretty eventful in the Indian literary world. The Jaipur Literature Festival, held for five days over the last weekend, made headlines in India and around the world for the “would he, wouldn’t he?” appearance of Salman Rushdie. Rushdie is a controversial figure in India, as he arguably is everywhere, where The Satanic Verses is banned. But, as a person of Indian origin he regularly travels to India without hindrance, and attended the Jaipur festival previously, in 2007. So, why was his attendance this year mired in so much controversy? Commentary would suggest that frenzied opinion (of the negative type) was whipped up by people with political interests because it so happens that Uttar Pradesh, India’s post populous (and some might say populist) state is holding elections very soon. The Muslim vote is very valuable here, and suggesting that Rushdie might be coming to India to insult Islam was obviously considered a way of being seen to be looking out for Muslim interests by some politicians.

So, Rushdie hesitated over whether to attend the festival. After receiving “intelligence” that paid assassins had been sent from the Bombay underworld to take him out, he cancelled.  As it turns out, this intelligence seems to have been faulty, exaggerated, or actually just completely fabricated, and Rushdie has now expressed regret that he took it seriously. But, given the risk that he might be attacked, putting himself and the entire festival at risk, it’s understandable that he acted as he did.

The saga gets more complicated. After pulling out, Rushdie was meant to appear at the festival via video-link, but even this was threatened with disruption, so was cancelled. In response and protest to this silencing/censorship, Hari Kunzru and Amitava Kumar on one panel, and Jeet Thayil and Ruchir Joshi on another, completely independently of each other, read passages from the banned The Satanic Verses and spoke in support of Rushdie. Though I don’t know exactly which passages were read, Hari Kunzru has written eloquently over the last few days about the event and he stresses that he did NOT read anything that could in any way have been deemed offensive by any religious community. His intention was not to offend anyone, but to make a point and stand up for Rushdie, who he feels has been unfairly demonised in India, so he deliberately chose passages that could not be misconstrued. Nevertheless, this act was deemed illegal, and upon hurried legal advice, all four men left the festival and the state of Rajasthan, and Kunzru left India for his home in the UK, out of fear of arrest. The organisers of the festival distanced themselves from the four speakers’ actions, stating that they had spoken independently and had not advised them of what they were going to do, a claim backed up by Kunzru.

OK, that’s the saga in a nutshell. What it leaves is a very timely and important debate around censorship in India. On the one hand, you could say that the festival organisers did what they had to do (regarding Rushdie and Kunzru et al) in order to keep the other speakers and the audience safe, and the festival free of unrest or violence (as could have easily happened). There had also been suggestions that if they had not distanced themselves from the Satanic Verse readings, the remaining days of the festival might have been cancelled, a situation that would not have been good for anyone. OK, fair enough. You can’t blame them, one could say.

BUT. When things like this happen in India, those who should be supporting the free-speech advocates or those that have broken some kind of taboo too often get scared off and do not give the support they should. Maybe the festival organisers were acting in the best interests of everyone, but if I were them, I would have been pretty pissed off at having my literature festival dictated to in such a manner, messed around until the last minute, receiving threats. All the more reason to do the right thing and, if the loss of Rushdie couldn’t be helped, at least backed the actions of Kunzru et al. Idealistic maybe, but I don’t see how things can change unless the literary and artistic world actually start backing each other when they should. If they don’t speak out for each other–like Kunzru admirably did–nobody else is going to. Formal, state-imposed censorship tends not to be too much of a problem in India–writers are generally pretty free to write what they want–but when these notable exceptions take place, they really are quite notable.

All this sounds like the plot of a good Rushdie novel, and I hope he uses this material somehow, so it doesn’t all seem so futile. I am ashamed to say that I have never actually read The Satanic Verses (not out of ideological objection, I just haven’t got around to it) but I am going to make a point of doing so now.

Advertisements

Published by

Elen

Travel writer at www.wildernessmetropolis.com. Editor, writer, traveller, reader, literary critic.

3 thoughts on “Censorship in India (in support of Hari Kunzru et al)”

  1. It was quite shameful what happened in Jaipur, but I guess they might benefit from the increased limelight in the next few years. The way I see it Muslims in India like to see themselves as victims, and there is no denying that some of them might just be victims of being minority in India. However, onus is really on them to get rid of this perpetual victim-hood mentality and demand social justice in a democratic way whilst standing up for those democratic values in the face of threats and opposition. However, I don’t generally see they protest for not getting proper or adequate schooling, health services and education for their children as they protest for their religious rights or some misplaced image of perpetual persecution. Even with all its problems India does provide safety and justice to all branches of Muslim sects, but it appears to me they do sometime like to threaten violence like a spoilt child, which is quite unfortunate as sometimes they are victims of violence and to threaten one, really destroys their case. There might be a constituency among Muslims against Islamist tendencies but they seems happy to use the cover to get their way rather than stand up to them in the same zeal that secular Hindus abhors Bal and Raj Thackeray and their cronies. It could also be that I am short sighted and cant see their inherent goodness, but for one who is victim of violence to threaten other of it, really is not a good strategy for the long term, and it makes a good case for people like Bal and Raj. I do hope the next JLF will be better and hope to be there too.

  2. I take issue with much of what you said. But all I will say here is that, having lived in several countries with oppressed racial minorities, it is all too easy for the majority people to say that it’s up to “them” to improve their situation, that they should stop complaining and appreciate their opportunities. It just isn’t that simple. Structural inequalities can be serious and invisible to those not suffering from them. But, I do think literature, and a forum like the JLF, can be a productive space for thrashing out some of these issues, and these should be allowed to be thrashed out rather than suppressed.

    1. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t know of many countries where the so called “Minority” is 170 million strong. And I don’t think I said their developmental responsibility is or should be entirely on them, what I said was that the onus is on them to “demand the same level of social justice in India, in a democratic manner” . I don’t think that is too far fetched to expect them to demand better governance, better healthcare, better education. I am in no way trying to shift blame to the Indian Muslims for their developmental needs, and I agree there is a need to provide for it by the so called majority. However, I don’t think India is a country of homogeneous majority. The idea that Hindus are a clear majority in India is just simplification of a very complex situation. A religion which in its past and to some extent in its present likes to exclude people based on social structures such as caste and sub-casts, I don’t think that really makes one a homogeneous and harmonious as a majority. But, instead of demanding education for their girl child I see them rioting in Mumbai for killings in Burma. BTW, I have also lived in various countries and I am yet to find a country where the so called “racial” minority threaten violence so openly and so brazenly on the so called majority that I have seen in India, but I do know a lot of them where the majority threatens or victimizes the minority, but maybe I am wrong and open to alternate evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s