On the 24th of February 1989, barely 10 days after the infamous and shameful fatwa of apostasy
delivered against Salman Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini, 12 people were killed in police firing in Bombay. The
police was apparently forced to open fire when a crowd of around 10,000 Muslims protesting outside the British
Consulate began to turn violent.
Almost fifteen years later, when Rushdie returned to his home city, it had been renamed Mumbai, and by January 2004, the very forces that had contributed to the city's
name-change had succeeded in circumscribing the power of the theocrats who had organized the February 1989
demonstration. Instead of exhorting the faithful to die for the cause, Islamic groups now offered to pay a
mere lakh of rupees to anyone who succeeded in blackening Rushdie's face. It appeared that after the riots
of 1993, the patent on death threats in Mumbai had been transferred to the Shiv Sena.
What might the political landscape of India look like, had Rajiv Gandhi's government chosen not to
proscribe the book in 1988 - the first such ban on the book anywhere in the world - that no one who was a
party to the decision had read? For one, Ayatollah Khomeini would probably never have seen a televised protest
which prompted him to issue that infamous fatwa proscribing a
book he had himself never read.
Two, it is interesting to note that so quick was the government to proscribe that the protests, the
possibility of which had been cited as a reason for the ban, happened after the ban. So, certainly, those 12 unfortunate Indians who fell in the police firing would
not have died.
would the six or more Pakistanis who had died in earlier riots and the 37 who were gunned down in anti-Rushdie
riots in Sivas, Turkey in 1993, four years after the fatwa. The Belgian Muslim leaders Abdullah Al Ahdal and
Salim Bahri, who were shot for opposing the ban and Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of the book,
would be alive today. The Norwegian publisher William Nygaard and the Italian translator of the book, Ettore
Capriolo, would not have been seriously wounded.
Apart from these tragic and totally avoidable deaths and destruction, more importantly,
in India, an entire community would not have to constantly
renegotiate the secular space by having to reiterate their positions on the Rushdie affair. Progressive
Muslims like Ali Sardar Jafri, Mushirul Hasan and Abid Raza Bedar could not have been hounded by semi-literate
bullies from their own community who had neither read the book nor Islamic scriptures.
The word fatwa would
not have entered the mainstream dictionaries, and would not have the cache it developed, with opportunist
religious leaders declaring anyone who asked inconvenient questions apostate. Life would have been easier for
Javed Akhtar and MF Husain and a variety of other unsung Muslim activists, especially the women who worked so
hard to change patriarchal community practices relating to marriage, divorce and inheritance that had been
given the veneer of religious edicts. Book banning would not have acquired the status of the flavour-of-the-month,
and we would not have to defend execrable literature like Taslima Nasreen's Lajja in the name of
freedom of expression.
Also, one could argue that without the ban, there would have been no fatwa,
without that "extreme form of literary criticism"
as VS Naipaul referred to it, the book would not have sold a million copies, and might have been shown up for
what it was, a bloated bore. Midnight's Children might not have won the "Booker of Bookers" in
1993.Rushdie may not have had to live an "unnatural life," though one does not doubt he would have found
another group to aim cheap shots at, given his penchant for the borderline slanderous attention-seeking
He would most certainly have made outrageous remarks such as his claim that Indian literature in any
language other than English was inferior, but the west would have paid less attention. Most certainly, his
views on pornography would not have assumed the pornographically disproportionate coverage as they did recently.
as an ex-fan, I
wonder if he may not have still retained some credibility as an interlocutor of the west and the east, so
evident in his collection of essays Imaginary Homelands. Who knows, he may not have accepted that
unpaid job as defender of US imperialism that he now occupies through his op-ed pieces defending US
aggressions on foreign soil.
In the movie Deewar, Amitabh Bachchan justifies his criminal ways to Shashi Kapoor by suggesting
that before asking him any questions, he should interrogate those people who had tattooed his father's shame
on his arm. One can see the same defiance in the Hindutvavadis whenever they are demanding a ban on the movie Fire,
M F Husain's paintings, SAHMAT's re-appropriation of the Ramayana, or whatever else seems to bother
their notions of a Hindu culture: "Jao pahle us Satanic Verses se ban hatwaa ke lao, phir
hum se sawaal karna …." Only after the markers of appeasement have been removed should one demand
any tolerance from the majority. The ban on Rushdie's book has served the Hindu right well as a striking
exemplar of minority appeasement, of the utter hollowness of the secularist claims.
One must regretfully concede the point, however defensively.
The 1988 shameful capitulation by the Indian
government and the subsequent fatwa and the resulting obscenity of violence and trauma remains a ghostly
reminder of what then was perhaps just seen as a "smart political move", which in effect
closed the circle of the anti-secularist logic that had begun to dominate the Indian polity since 1984, when
Rajiv Gandhi played the dangerous game of double-appeasement with Shah Bano and Babri Masjid.
Farishta, the protagonist of Satanic Verses, the Muslim community only experiences its freedom as it
hurtles to the ground after a crash in mid-air. Can a crash-landing be avoided? Could it have been? Allah jaane.
Mir Ali Raza helps edit Samar, the South Asian Magazine for Action and Reflection.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT