Why India is silent on Salman Rushdie

It is hard to invoke Rushdie to make points about Islamic fundamentalism as he has been critical of all fundamentalism

There has been some bewildered commentary about why the Indian government has failed to officially issue a strong condemnation against the attack on writer Salman Rushdie in New York on August 12, where he was stabbed multiple times. This happened 33 years after a fatwa was issued against him by Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini following the publication of the 'Satanic Verses', a book that India was the first country to ban in 1988, on the grounds that it was insulting to the Prophet of Islam.

Yet, we cannot forget that the 75-year-old writer was born in India in the year of our independence and his most celebrated work, 'Midnight's Children', published in 1981, uses magic realism and fantastic characters to tell the story of the birth of an independent nation. While most world democracies have strongly condemned what happened to Rushdie, the world's largest democracy and the land of his birth, has failed to do so. We did have the external affairs minister taking note of what has happened in a press conference, but that does not amount to the sort of condemnation that is called for against a violent attack on a public figure and in support of freedom of speech and expression.

Also read: Attack on Salman Rushdie: Explaining BJP's silence

I was recently asked that since Rushdie was attacked by an Islamic fundamentalist, why did the current Indian state not protest strongly, if only to highlight the point that Muslims are like that only? It's not so simple. First, Salman Rushdie himself was born into an Indian Muslim family from Kashmir and did his early schooling in Bombay before he went to the United Kingdom, and became a British citizen before eventually migrating to the US. It was, therefore, a fundamentalist/terrorist who attacked a liberal/atheist, but both were born into Muslim families.

It's also hard to dredge up Rushdie to make points about Islamic fundamentalism, as he has been critical of all fundamentalisms. And in particular, he has been a vocal critic of Narendra Modi and has passed comments about the current prime minister, such as calling him a hardliner's hardliner. He has also expressed concerns about freedom of speech under the BJP regime. And so we have been mute when one of the world's most famous born-in-India writers faced a murderous attack in the US.

It's also worth remembering that some of the most famous public intellectuals assassinated in India over the past decade were rationalists who challenged religious fundamentalism. This refers to Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M M Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh. True, they dealt with facts, while Rushdie is a novelist who creates imaginary worlds. But he is a symbolic figure against all fundamentalisms, and the real and living Rushdie has never hesitated to speak on this. It is also true that the publication of the 'Satanic Verses' in 1988, has led to riots, protests and the infamous Fatwa, that forced the writer into hiding for years.

Also read: Why we must de-link Rushdie attack from cancel culture

Beyond the Government of India choosing to skirt the Rushdie issue, there has been silence on the attack from the Congress and all the regional parties, with the exception of the CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury condemning it. When the Rajiv Gandhi regime had banned the book in 1988, Rushdie had written an open letter to the then prime minister accusing him of capitulating to a handful of politicians and clerics. He had then written: "The right to freedom of expression is at the foundation of any democratic society, and at present, all over the world, Indian democracy is becoming something of a laughing stock."

The Rajiv Gandhi era was about catering to vote-banks and veered between banning this book and reversing the Shah Bano judgement and trying to balance that with ordering the opening of the locks for prayers at the then disputed Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid site at Ayodhya (all issues that would fester and blow up later). The current age in India perpetuates and panders to real and imaginary offences on religious grounds as social and broadcast media power divisive narratives and witch hunts. Hindu society is also sought to be presented as a monolith just as Muslims always were, although their lives, language, cultural mores and even modes of worship in India have been eclectic and often derived from plural traditions of the sub-continent.

Salman Rushdie is, therefore, a symbol of the sort of freedom of thought and expression that we apparently could find blasphemous in contemporary times. It's a pity because our failure to condemn attempted murder reflects poorly on us and not on the seriously injured writer.

My favourite Salman Rushdie book is a little gem, 'Haroun and the Sea of Stories', that he would write after the 'Satanic Verses'. It's obviously an allegorical fable on the writer's own plight as he takes us to the world of Haroun, who seeks to restore the storytelling gift of his father, the Shah of Blah, who has lost his voice as the source of all stories is being slowly contaminated. The book takes us to the city of Gup (bright and radiant) and to the city of Chup (dark and depressing) and introduces us to the concept of P2C2E or Processes Too Complicated To Explain.

It's a P2C2E situation involving Salman Rushdie and the land of his birth. And, so in this instance, the land of Gup (chatter) chooses to be Chup (silent).

(Saba Naqvi is a journalist and author)

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