Attack on Salman Rushdie: Explaining BJP's silence

None of the BJP leaders cared to condemn the attack, perhaps because Rushdie was also a critic of Hindutva politics

In 1988, India, more specifically the Indian government of the day, shamed all of us who believe in freedom of expression. To placate religious bigots, it banned a literary novel. Thirty-three years later, the current Indian government shamed us again by maintaining a stunning silence on the brutal attack on the author of that novel.

So much has changed in these decades, and yet nothing has changed. In 1988, Rajiv Gandhi, hailed for his modern outlook, banned Satanic Verses even before a single Islamic country, including Pakistan, did so. It was the same primitive style of politics that the rulers of yore took recourse to: to please the fundamentalists and rule merrily, for any community can be managed if put under the fundamentalists' clutches.

Also Read: ‘Midnight’s Children caused earthquake within family’

A decade after October 5, 1988, the day Satanic Verses was banned, after two fundamentalist MPs, Syed Shahabuddin and Khurshid Alam Khan, demanded such action and a communist MP, Saifuddin Choudhury, opposed it vehemently—the Saffron Brigade was ruling India. It can be argued, and with conviction, that the BJP climbed high in the popularity matrix in reaction to the minority appeasement politics.

The scenario has changed in the present century, taking a definite right turn since 2014. But no one has ever demanded lifting the ban on Satanic Verses. It only reinforces the fact that fundamentalists of warring communities do benefit from each other's activities and victories.

After the brutal attack on Salman Rushdie, the most famous Indian-born author, only a few leaders of a few secular parties of India, including the Congress, managed to utter some condemnation. But none of the BJP leaders cared to do so, perhaps because Rushdie was also a critic of Hindutva politics.

While the stunning silence of the BJP was astonishing, what shamed us Indians was External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's reaction. "I also read about it," he said, adding, "This is something that the whole world has noticed, and the whole world has reacted to such an attack." The whole world! That is a perfect phrase for someone who lacks the courage to say India condemns the attack.

To gauge what should have been the proper reaction of leaders of the free world, we may first look at the Indian-origin British PM aspirant Rishi Sunak, who said, "The brutal stabbing of Salman Rushdie should be a wake-up call for the West, and Iran's reaction to the attack strengthens the case for proscribing the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps)." This is called courage of conviction.

Boris Johnson, the outgoing British prime minister, said, "Appalled that Sir Salman Rushdie has been stabbed while exercising a right we should never cease to defend." French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted, "For 33 years, Salman Rushdie has embodied freedom and the fight against obscurantism. He has just been the victim of a cowardly attack by the forces of hatred and barbarism."

Also Read: Fanatics and fatwas must not win

The question that we may ask now is whether our government and political set-up still consider India to be a part of the free world. If yes, why didn't the minister, the government and the BJP condemn the attack on a man who belongs to the community of 'the writers', whose freedom of expression is the essential dynamic for interpretation and reinterpretation of our civilisation?

There can be two, on the face of it, contradictory reasons for this. The first reason: Like Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani, especially Advani's latter-day avatar, now Narendra Modi is craving recognition as a secular leader and is not ready to say anything against Islamic fundamentalism. That was why Nupur Sharma was expelled from the party by those leaders, some of whose records are much more smudged than her. Also, it should be noted that the BJP is now eyeing backwards, or the Pasmanda Muslim vote.

Now the second reason: It may be an expression of an attitude that we are not bothered about what is happening among Muslims. This attitude can appease the communal segment of those who believe in Hindutva.

These two reasons may sound contradictory, but they are not, for both can be used simultaneously to serve the BJP. Even during Vajpayee's time, Advani and Vajpayee spoke in two voices, and the BJP reaped benefits from both. Here too, both can be used for different clientele. After all, politics is like a business, manufacturing and selling differentiated products for disparate consumers.

But the ultimate victim of the process is freedom of expression and democracy as a whole. If the trend does not change, India will become a country of meek leaders, and the people will be forced to be accustomed to hailing such cowardice. Freedom of expression will not be found then outside the sanctuary of a book titled the Constitution of India.

(Diptendra Raychaudhuri is a journalist and author based in Kolkata)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.