Apropos Delhi Diary (April 9), Mr Mehta, though I am opposed to your ‘pseudo-secularist’ outlook, I must confess I like your ‘ol’ bastard’ style of self-deprecation.

Rathan Sharda, Mumbai

What is it about Salman Rushdie that turns you off, Mr Mehta? Has it got to do with his being a more popular writer? I quite agreed with what he had to say on Imran.

Narendra Kaushik, Gurgaon

Rushdie is the pampered child of the western media. They inflated his importance, and now he is making merry all over the world. Those who read Gogol or Kafka know what magic realism is.

Ramesh Raghuvanshi, Pune

Rushdie is ferocious with anyone who does not pay obeisance to him. In his hands, sarcasm is a formidable weapon and he uses it to regale those who do show up.

Anwaar, Dallas, US

A person may be forgiven for feeling jealous of Imran Khan. First saw Imran on a flight from Calcutta to Delhi a third of a century ago. Looked like a Greek god.

Ashok Lal, Mumbai

@The Contrarian,

                          May be you did not knock on doors in the wrong places at the wrong time in an attempt to purvey bulky encyclopaedias. I certainly would not call the British racist.But in the '60s if that happened a few times, I would not be surprised.The only time  I was called anything racist was a 'Paki'.I did not know if I should feel offended until I made a few Pakistani friends. 

 "Two Quid Life" is worth its weight in gold.I doubt if many understand it from experience.

 He says...:

 "Rushdie is ferocious with anyone who does not pay obeisance to him.''

Replace'' Rushdie ''  with Islam and  '' him''  with ''it.''

So, now that our VM, who swears by his "pesudo-secularism" and proudly declares he is a Lucknow boy (not quite like Sir Cliff Richard who hides the fact), has at last admitted the shere-bengal Pranab Da into the list of "cowards" that would have committed a "career harakiri" shaking hands with Sir Salman, would he care to explain reasons for this "cowardice" understandably as it would unretrievably annoy their Muslim vote banks. Perhaps the "freedom of speech Ayatollahs" can not stand up to their real counterparts in India who hold their "subjects" in perpetual moral and intellectual servitude ... 

And while one would agree on the ordeal of a non-white person selling Encyclopaedia door-to-door in Britain of 60's one would not stoop to the levels labelling British as "racist" ... where I arrived as a student may be a bit later than VM in late 60's, but no body ever called me a "black bastard". The worst experience of this kind I had was not in Britain but in Canada where on one icy evening in Toronto I was knocking the doors in a high rise apartment building in Toronto doing the same job as VM and was called a "Paki" albeit it was not mid-60's but mid-70's ...  

 VM >> The only interesting person I met last week was the beautiful actress Kajol at Bhaichand..

Why are you even looking at Kajol, when you have a even much more charming Arundathi Roy right under you , writing for your news magazine on a monthly/quarterly basis. Urge you caution, Roy may get upset !

 Nasar Ahmed >> Under freedom of speech can I write expletives about your mother whom I do not know at all or can you on my mother?

Yes. Just recollect some or many of your own old posts, where you have said many unfair, untruthful things and generalizations about certain communities/castes based on mere prejudice.

You must first play the rules before asking others to do.

 Anwaar >> Rushdie is ferocious with anyone who does not pay obeisance to him.

True... No different from you, you are also so ferocious with anyone who disagrees with your worldview..

Looks like you can go to greater heights one day. Salman is getting old.Not sure of your age though. Best of Luck.

 Dear Shri Vinod Mehta,

I wonder why you are so harsh on Sir Salman and so soft on Arundathi Roy. Is it because you are jealous of Salman or is it because you are impressed with something in Arundathi roy? Wondering...

Unclear how VM concludes Rushdie is 'jealous' of Imran because of women. But then, VM has all the powers of the media to spread whatever propaganda he wants to. And much os this propaganda, we should be aware by now, is anti-male stereotyping.

As for Rushdie being an intellectual, there is nothing to suggest anything of that sort. The lessons from Rushdie ( given his anti-Islam views to which he is entitled ) are : If Arundhati can be rewarded for her shrill writing, immaterial of what her readers thought, Rushdie too can be idolised by bigotted award-givers too - no questions asked by the readers. 

Dear Mr Mehta, you would never understand Rushdie because you want to keep your audience alive.

"dyed-in-the-world" in the previous post should read "dyed-in-the wool". Typo is regretted.

"I suggest a small, very small, cheer for Imran for simultaneously seeming to take on the mullahs and the military"

What makes you think, Mr Mehta, that Imran is taking on the mullahs AND the military? Maybe he is two-timing both; after all, he has had plenty of experience in two/three/multi-timing in his previous avatar as a Casanova.

His urbane, westernised, liberal image is only a mask which hides his real face, that of a dyed-in-the-world religious extremist. He is neither taking on the military nor the mullahs; he is just a rank opportunist aiming for the highest political office.

"However, I suggest a small, very small, cheer for Imran for simultaneously seeming to take on the mullahs and the military"

Sir, you can suggest a loud cheer for Imran Khan who has been supporting and sending his representative to Difa-e-Pakistan Council rallies to share the stage with some of very 'moderate' Muslims.

These Muslims includes Ashiq-e-Rasool type Sunni warriors(who have massacred hundreds of Shia), Gwaza-e-Hindi Mujahid Hafeez Saeed(Mualana saheb is in deep 'love' with India), big time India-will-have-to-break dreamer Hamid Gul and many Deobandi Ulemas who have great 'vision' for humanity.

It would be more pertinent if Muslims criticise and deprecate the fanatic mullahs

Absolutely. No two opinions asbout that as there can't be two opinins or no less pertinent for Hindus to criticise & deprecate the hindutya fanatics who go around wrecking mosques or burning alive innocent unarmed Muslims .

 Post 23

No non-believer needs to bad-mouth Islam in name of free speech or whatever. That "contract" is taken for a lifetime by Jehadis!

It would be more pertinent if Muslims criticise and deprecate the fanatic mullahs (as does Anwar bhai sometimes) and jehadis UNEQUIVOCALLY...(Do not get on the heels of saffronites while responding!)

It is typical of Salman Rusdie to go after the ignorant mullahs who did not break any temple. It is cowardice of him not go after the wreckers of mosques who did not have it them to build a temple . He was counting the moola.

But then Imran Khan Is no ignorant mullah. He gave it back coin by coin by the next day in the same channel. Hopefully Vinod Mehta heard that too. Shall we wait for his take in the next diary ?

what is it that turns you off Salman Rushdie Mr Mehta? has it got to do with his being a more popular writer than you? I heard his speech too and enjoyed and quite agreed with what he had to say on Imran. Bigotry needs to be repulsed no matter where it comes from. any way I quite like your self-depreciating tone and tenor.

Under freedom of speech can I write expletives about your mother whom I do not know at all or can you on my mother? Writing profanity in the name of freedom of speech to garner publicity is an evil act.Unfortunately this has become common.If someone writes bad  on Islam the media ensures he gets a billion followers in no time! People like Naipal have been given Nobel price for this wonderful effort! Longlive freedom of speech.

By the way Kajol looks mediacore in person anc cnnot be considered beautiful.Do not lose sleep oveer this oldman.You are still good for better ones!

"The only interesting person I met last week was the beautiful actress Kajol at Bhaichand Patel’s book launch. Unfortunately, she ignored me completely."

Well, well. She ignored you completely. Yet the entry in your dairy says 'I met Kajol'. I think you should come clean on your 'names-dropping' meetings with celebrities.

 Dear Mr. Mehta, though I opposed to your 'pseudo-secularist' framework, I must confess I like your typical old bastard style of self deprecation. I specially liked your comment about Kajol ignoring you. Like the spirit.

Vinod Mehta tries to kill two birds with a stone. targetting Imran (with looks and no brains) and Salman (with brains and no looks) and ends up as himself (No looks and well...er...no..)

Appropos Sir Salman .. I wonder why you are changing for the worse Mehta Ji. I admired your unconditional liberalism since the day you edited (yes!) Debonair. Sunday Observer was excellent too. The policy of publishing all letters, no matter how hostile, was pioneered by you.

Why do you do caveats all the time w.r.t Rushdie and then snipe at him in the end? Has he not gone through much after the threat to his life? Has he not been underground for about 10 years after that? Has he not paid an unfair price for writing brilliantly and miltantly about liberal values?  Are you jealous of him? Since you also have written books, do you now compete with him, the way you competed with India Today during the early days of Outlook?

Where is Imran Khan w.r.t unconditional liberal values compared to you and Rushdie? He is just a politician now, trying to bed the pakistan army. He would'nt be allowed to be so popular in Pak otherwise. 

You need to introspect.

Rushdie said, ifever a film is planned on Gaddaffi, Imran should be the best fit, a Gaddaffi 'more handsome'.

That is the quality of this litterateur. This is the kind of slime & hate this man sells. An itsy bitsy smut vendor.

Rushdie said, ifever a film is planned on Gaddaffi, Imran should be the best fit, a Gaddaffi 'more handsome'.  He could have the makings of a fascist.See where his better appeal to the girls has  led him, according to Vinodji!

If salmaan has critsized  mr imran why mr. mehta is feeling anxity about it, after all he had critisized salmaan too and  in return mr. rushdie can choose his target becoz he is a bigger victim than imran.

>> others have the right to avoid him if they consider it to be in their best interest

And others have a right to mock them if their best interests show them to be cowards or dynasty boot lickers, or pretenders to be guardians of the cause they claim to hold dear.

>> I do not endorse what they did but I can understand why they did it.

Interesting.

Would you have been equally understanding if it were some BJP leaders opposing Hussain's paintings of Hindu godesses, or skipping some function where he or someone of his ilk was the primary attraction?

I have my opinions based on your past writings, and I think you can guess what they are. You are free to confirm or dispel them. If you bother to respond to these comments at all (very very unlikely of course), it shall be nice if you can present some evidence.

 Mr Mehta wrote ". Between career harakiri and being perceived by the free speech ayatollahs to have surrendered to the ‘bigots’, they chose the latter".

Did anyone notice that Mehta marked "bigots" in apostrophes? Which means he doesn't think the Indian Mullas and Islamists who are out for Rushdie's head (literally) are bigots!! That is a clear give away Mr Mehta. We always knew your "left liberal" self only gets enraged against the "fascist" Hindu right but not against the Islamo-fascists (how else could you tolerate an islamist writer like Saba Naqvi?).

 Typical of you, Mr.Mehta.

You start your gripe by drawing attention to the (well designed and sensible) decision not to invite you to the India Today forum.

The rest of what you say is mush...as usual.

"it has to be conceded that Imran has a better strike rate with the ladies than the world-famous author."

As any cricketer worth his salt would tell you, it's not how many but who you got out, that counts. Imran's on field exploits were certainly more remarkable than his off field conquests. Blame me for my bias, but I find it hard to believe that anyone from Imran's bevy of beauties could better Padma Lakshmi. Jemima? Nah, not even by a long shot.

Rushddie is pamper child of western media.They increased his importance's.so he is merrymaking all over the world.He started is life as a copywriter in advertising agency so he know how to play with words.All his novels are playing with words.Those who read Gogol or Kafka they  know what is magic realism,is Rushddie is pygmy before them.His importance's increased by Fatwa of Khomeini.Western media want these kind of sensational story from that day he hero in western countries They always enjoy down fall of Islam.

Two quid wouldn't buy Editor a week's supply of Parmesan.

A person may be forgiven for feeling jealous of Imran Khan. First saw Imran, on an India tour, sprawled out, dozing on the four inner seats of a late night A 300 flight from Calcutta to Delhi, jeans, white shirt and sandals, resting after his conquests on the field and off it, a third of a century ago. Looked like a Greek god.

When old men meet old ladies , they find them 'interesting'. O.K one has to make a beginning with come whatever came, isn't it ? As to beauty , isn't it at the eye of the beholder?

Cliff Richards should have in Wild East. He ended up in Wild Wests. Kansas gained what shoulod have been Lucknow's. Akhilesh poorer by a Big Gun Murugan.

All  eventually is broken by a system which worships money. It is money which eventually breaks the system.

Mr. Mehta should have known that he would not sell even one set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica . No point blaming the racist Enghlish. While at it , best you could have done is to read some of the entries. By the look of it you didn't do  that either. What a pity!

'Could it be that Mr Rushdie is a trifle jealous of Mr Khan?'  He is. Look at the tall handsome Pathan smashing four posters in top of the line hotel rooms in one offs, nights after nights. A prometheuse unbound hurling fire & splattering brimstones making the Aussies look up in awe. And Jemimia the ultimate aristrocrat to top it up all.

And here we have this sly bald five footer caressing the flat deck  where the head should have been &  where a blade of soft green grass would not grow,  the venomous  grey stuff resting far furher down the anatomy.  All that he could manage is a Sambar eating shopsoiled gold digger. And even she would leave her for richer greener pasteures leaving a kick in his pants. All this man could do is hurl insults at soft targets like mediaval mullahs who are helpless victims & ill-equiped to give it back in the same coin.

Imran in his own way fighting a brave battle now in a field where language is iron-fists , guns , tanks . And this man would engage in skirmishes with helpless ignorant illiterate scul-capped Imams from the protection of coat-tails of British police. But then as far as Western powers are concerened Salman Rushdie's shelf live long since over. At best he is at best a nuisance. So he keep coming here &  demands right to piss in the main street under protection of Indian police . It was always opportuinistic vile. Now his insecurity is pathetic.

Knowingly or unknowinghly , Mr. Vinod Mehta has hit the point of it all when he writes ''He was mild on Pranab Mukherjee, Akhilesh Yadav and Omar Abdullah for refusing to share a platform on which he was the marquee speaker". Well that is his USP - knowing who can potentially butter his bread better. It bis prudent to fight a wind-mills & cololect his few pieces of gold.

Is that all you can summarize with your intellect that both are womanizer and Imran has better strike rate! It this your sense of humour and all intellectuals supposed to laugh at this dum witted one sided (we all know which side you are bending your back) !

Rushdie is ferocious with anyone who does not pay obeisance to him. Sarcasm is his formidable weapon and he uses it to regale those who do show up.

While he has the right to visit and move around in the country of his birth, others have the right to avoid him if they consider it to be in their best interest.

Rushdie is ferocious with anyone who does not pay obeisance to him. Sarcasm is his formidable weapon and he uses it to regale those who do show up.

While he has the right to visit and move around in the country of his birth, others have the right to avoid him if they consider it to be in their best interest.

Is that all you can summarize with your intellect that both are womanizer and Imran has better strike rate! It this your sense of humour and all intellectuals supposed to laugh at this dum witted one sided (we all know which side you are bending your back) !

'Could it be that Mr Rushdie is a trifle jealous of Mr Khan?'  He is. Look at the tall handsome Pathan smashing four posters in top of the line hotel rooms in one offs, nights after nights. A prometheuse unbound hurling fire & splattering brimstones making the Aussies look up in awe. And Jemimia the ultimate aristrocrat to top it up all.

And here we have this sly bald five footer caressing the flat deck  where the head should have been &  where a blade of soft green grass would not grow,  the venomous  grey stuff resting far furher down the anatomy.  All that he could manage is a Sambar eating shopsoiled gold digger. And even she would leave her for richer greener pasteures leaving a kick in his pants. All this man could do is hurl insults at soft targets like mediaval mullahs who are helpless victims & ill-equiped to give it back in the same coin.

Imran in his own way fighting a brave battle now in a field where language is iron-fists , guns , tanks . And this man would engage in skirmishes with helpless ignorant illiterate scul-capped Imams from the protection of coat-tails of British police. But then as far as Western powers are concerened Salman Rushdie's shelf live long since over. At best he is at best a nuisance. So he keep coming here &  demands right to piss in the main street under protection of Indian police . It was always opportuinistic vile. Now his insecurity is pathetic.

Knowingly or unknowinghly , Mr. Vinod Mehta has hit the point of it all when he writes ''He was mild on Pranab Mukherjee, Akhilesh Yadav and Omar Abdullah for refusing to share a platform on which he was the marquee speaker". Well that is his USP - knowing who can potentially butter his bread better. It bis prudent to fight a wind-mills & cololect his few pieces of gold.

Mr. Mehta should have known that he would not sell even one set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica . No point blaming the racist Enghlish. While at it , best you could have done is to read some of the entries. By the look of it you didn't do  that either. What a pity!

All  eventually is broken by a system which worships money. It is money which eventually breaks the system.

Cliff Richards should have in Wild East. He ended up in Wild Wests. Kansas gained what shoulod have been Lucknow's. Akhilesh poorer by a Big Gun Murugan.

When old men meet old ladies , they find them 'interesting'. O.K one has to make a beginning with come whatever came, isn't it ? As to beauty , isn't it at the eye of the beholder?

A person may be forgiven for feeling jealous of Imran Khan. First saw Imran, on an India tour, sprawled out, dozing on the four inner seats of a late night A 300 flight from Calcutta to Delhi, jeans, white shirt and sandals, resting after his conquests on the field and off it, a third of a century ago. Looked like a Greek god.

Two quid wouldn't buy Editor a week's supply of Parmesan.

Rushddie is pamper child of western media.They increased his importance's.so he is merrymaking all over the world.He started is life as a copywriter in advertising agency so he know how to play with words.All his novels are playing with words.Those who read Gogol or Kafka they  know what is magic realism,is Rushddie is pygmy before them.His importance's increased by Fatwa of Khomeini.Western media want these kind of sensational story from that day he hero in western countries They always enjoy down fall of Islam.

"it has to be conceded that Imran has a better strike rate with the ladies than the world-famous author."

As any cricketer worth his salt would tell you, it's not how many but who you got out, that counts. Imran's on field exploits were certainly more remarkable than his off field conquests. Blame me for my bias, but I find it hard to believe that anyone from Imran's bevy of beauties could better Padma Lakshmi. Jemima? Nah, not even by a long shot.

 Typical of you, Mr.Mehta.

You start your gripe by drawing attention to the (well designed and sensible) decision not to invite you to the India Today forum.

The rest of what you say is mush...as usual.

 Mr Mehta wrote ". Between career harakiri and being perceived by the free speech ayatollahs to have surrendered to the ‘bigots’, they chose the latter".

Did anyone notice that Mehta marked "bigots" in apostrophes? Which means he doesn't think the Indian Mullas and Islamists who are out for Rushdie's head (literally) are bigots!! That is a clear give away Mr Mehta. We always knew your "left liberal" self only gets enraged against the "fascist" Hindu right but not against the Islamo-fascists (how else could you tolerate an islamist writer like Saba Naqvi?).

>> I do not endorse what they did but I can understand why they did it.

Interesting.

Would you have been equally understanding if it were some BJP leaders opposing Hussain's paintings of Hindu godesses, or skipping some function where he or someone of his ilk was the primary attraction?

I have my opinions based on your past writings, and I think you can guess what they are. You are free to confirm or dispel them. If you bother to respond to these comments at all (very very unlikely of course), it shall be nice if you can present some evidence.

>> others have the right to avoid him if they consider it to be in their best interest

And others have a right to mock them if their best interests show them to be cowards or dynasty boot lickers, or pretenders to be guardians of the cause they claim to hold dear.

If salmaan has critsized  mr imran why mr. mehta is feeling anxity about it, after all he had critisized salmaan too and  in return mr. rushdie can choose his target becoz he is a bigger victim than imran.

Rushdie said, ifever a film is planned on Gaddaffi, Imran should be the best fit, a Gaddaffi 'more handsome'.  He could have the makings of a fascist.See where his better appeal to the girls has  led him, according to Vinodji!

Rushdie said, ifever a film is planned on Gaddaffi, Imran should be the best fit, a Gaddaffi 'more handsome'.

That is the quality of this litterateur. This is the kind of slime & hate this man sells. An itsy bitsy smut vendor.

Appropos Sir Salman .. I wonder why you are changing for the worse Mehta Ji. I admired your unconditional liberalism since the day you edited (yes!) Debonair. Sunday Observer was excellent too. The policy of publishing all letters, no matter how hostile, was pioneered by you.

Why do you do caveats all the time w.r.t Rushdie and then snipe at him in the end? Has he not gone through much after the threat to his life? Has he not been underground for about 10 years after that? Has he not paid an unfair price for writing brilliantly and miltantly about liberal values?  Are you jealous of him? Since you also have written books, do you now compete with him, the way you competed with India Today during the early days of Outlook?

Where is Imran Khan w.r.t unconditional liberal values compared to you and Rushdie? He is just a politician now, trying to bed the pakistan army. He would'nt be allowed to be so popular in Pak otherwise. 

You need to introspect.

Vinod Mehta tries to kill two birds with a stone. targetting Imran (with looks and no brains) and Salman (with brains and no looks) and ends up as himself (No looks and well...er...no..)

 Dear Mr. Mehta, though I opposed to your 'pseudo-secularist' framework, I must confess I like your typical old bastard style of self deprecation. I specially liked your comment about Kajol ignoring you. Like the spirit.

"The only interesting person I met last week was the beautiful actress Kajol at Bhaichand Patel’s book launch. Unfortunately, she ignored me completely."

Well, well. She ignored you completely. Yet the entry in your dairy says 'I met Kajol'. I think you should come clean on your 'names-dropping' meetings with celebrities.

Under freedom of speech can I write expletives about your mother whom I do not know at all or can you on my mother? Writing profanity in the name of freedom of speech to garner publicity is an evil act.Unfortunately this has become common.If someone writes bad  on Islam the media ensures he gets a billion followers in no time! People like Naipal have been given Nobel price for this wonderful effort! Longlive freedom of speech.

By the way Kajol looks mediacore in person anc cnnot be considered beautiful.Do not lose sleep oveer this oldman.You are still good for better ones!

what is it that turns you off Salman Rushdie Mr Mehta? has it got to do with his being a more popular writer than you? I heard his speech too and enjoyed and quite agreed with what he had to say on Imran. Bigotry needs to be repulsed no matter where it comes from. any way I quite like your self-depreciating tone and tenor.

It is typical of Salman Rusdie to go after the ignorant mullahs who did not break any temple. It is cowardice of him not go after the wreckers of mosques who did not have it them to build a temple . He was counting the moola.

But then Imran Khan Is no ignorant mullah. He gave it back coin by coin by the next day in the same channel. Hopefully Vinod Mehta heard that too. Shall we wait for his take in the next diary ?

 Post 23

No non-believer needs to bad-mouth Islam in name of free speech or whatever. That "contract" is taken for a lifetime by Jehadis!

It would be more pertinent if Muslims criticise and deprecate the fanatic mullahs (as does Anwar bhai sometimes) and jehadis UNEQUIVOCALLY...(Do not get on the heels of saffronites while responding!)

It would be more pertinent if Muslims criticise and deprecate the fanatic mullahs

Absolutely. No two opinions asbout that as there can't be two opinins or no less pertinent for Hindus to criticise & deprecate the hindutya fanatics who go around wrecking mosques or burning alive innocent unarmed Muslims .

"However, I suggest a small, very small, cheer for Imran for simultaneously seeming to take on the mullahs and the military"

Sir, you can suggest a loud cheer for Imran Khan who has been supporting and sending his representative to Difa-e-Pakistan Council rallies to share the stage with some of very 'moderate' Muslims.

These Muslims includes Ashiq-e-Rasool type Sunni warriors(who have massacred hundreds of Shia), Gwaza-e-Hindi Mujahid Hafeez Saeed(Mualana saheb is in deep 'love' with India), big time India-will-have-to-break dreamer Hamid Gul and many Deobandi Ulemas who have great 'vision' for humanity.

"I suggest a small, very small, cheer for Imran for simultaneously seeming to take on the mullahs and the military"

What makes you think, Mr Mehta, that Imran is taking on the mullahs AND the military? Maybe he is two-timing both; after all, he has had plenty of experience in two/three/multi-timing in his previous avatar as a Casanova.

His urbane, westernised, liberal image is only a mask which hides his real face, that of a dyed-in-the-world religious extremist. He is neither taking on the military nor the mullahs; he is just a rank opportunist aiming for the highest political office.

"dyed-in-the-world" in the previous post should read "dyed-in-the wool". Typo is regretted.

Dear Mr Mehta, you would never understand Rushdie because you want to keep your audience alive.

Unclear how VM concludes Rushdie is 'jealous' of Imran because of women. But then, VM has all the powers of the media to spread whatever propaganda he wants to. And much os this propaganda, we should be aware by now, is anti-male stereotyping.

As for Rushdie being an intellectual, there is nothing to suggest anything of that sort. The lessons from Rushdie ( given his anti-Islam views to which he is entitled ) are : If Arundhati can be rewarded for her shrill writing, immaterial of what her readers thought, Rushdie too can be idolised by bigotted award-givers too - no questions asked by the readers. 

 Dear Shri Vinod Mehta,

I wonder why you are so harsh on Sir Salman and so soft on Arundathi Roy. Is it because you are jealous of Salman or is it because you are impressed with something in Arundathi roy? Wondering...

 Anwaar >> Rushdie is ferocious with anyone who does not pay obeisance to him.

True... No different from you, you are also so ferocious with anyone who disagrees with your worldview..

Looks like you can go to greater heights one day. Salman is getting old.Not sure of your age though. Best of Luck.

 Nasar Ahmed >> Under freedom of speech can I write expletives about your mother whom I do not know at all or can you on my mother?

Yes. Just recollect some or many of your own old posts, where you have said many unfair, untruthful things and generalizations about certain communities/castes based on mere prejudice.

You must first play the rules before asking others to do.

 VM >> The only interesting person I met last week was the beautiful actress Kajol at Bhaichand..

Why are you even looking at Kajol, when you have a even much more charming Arundathi Roy right under you , writing for your news magazine on a monthly/quarterly basis. Urge you caution, Roy may get upset !

So, now that our VM, who swears by his "pesudo-secularism" and proudly declares he is a Lucknow boy (not quite like Sir Cliff Richard who hides the fact), has at last admitted the shere-bengal Pranab Da into the list of "cowards" that would have committed a "career harakiri" shaking hands with Sir Salman, would he care to explain reasons for this "cowardice" understandably as it would unretrievably annoy their Muslim vote banks. Perhaps the "freedom of speech Ayatollahs" can not stand up to their real counterparts in India who hold their "subjects" in perpetual moral and intellectual servitude ... 

And while one would agree on the ordeal of a non-white person selling Encyclopaedia door-to-door in Britain of 60's one would not stoop to the levels labelling British as "racist" ... where I arrived as a student may be a bit later than VM in late 60's, but no body ever called me a "black bastard". The worst experience of this kind I had was not in Britain but in Canada where on one icy evening in Toronto I was knocking the doors in a high rise apartment building in Toronto doing the same job as VM and was called a "Paki" albeit it was not mid-60's but mid-70's ...  

 He says...:

 "Rushdie is ferocious with anyone who does not pay obeisance to him.''

Replace'' Rushdie ''  with Islam and  '' him''  with ''it.''

 "Two Quid Life" is worth its weight in gold.I doubt if many understand it from experience.

@The Contrarian,

                          May be you did not knock on doors in the wrong places at the wrong time in an attempt to purvey bulky encyclopaedias. I certainly would not call the British racist.But in the '60s if that happened a few times, I would not be surprised.The only time  I was called anything racist was a 'Paki'.I did not know if I should feel offended until I made a few Pakistani friends.