Rushdie Row: Did India fail the idea of freedom?

Viewpoint: Rushdie has visited the country several times before, without facing any protests or outcry. Where was the Indian 'medieval' moral police, the Indian 'Taliban,' then? Why the uproar now?
Samarth Pathak Delhi

Owing to the diktats and threats of hardliners, Asia's largest literature festival ended on a solemn note, soon after the sudden cancellation of celebrated author Salman Rushdie's highly-anticipated video-link speech at the do.

In an address charged with emotion, anger and angst, the event's producers drew the curtains on the extravaganza, underscoring the deep 'hurt' that the literati had endured ever since the row over Rushdie snowballed into a socio-political potboiler.

The controversy over Rushdie's visit, and his now-cancelled video-link address has been widely debated in television studios, with democracy-proponents, the so-called 'liberals' and hardliners engaging in a mindless, inconsequential slug-fest over individual liberty.

Amid the chaos, one lingering question has gone sorely unanswered. Did India, and indeed, the idea of Indian democracy, fail the very principle of freedom in the brouhaha over Rushdie?

Rushdie has been at the centre of a fierce storm over his controversial book, the Satanic Verses, ever since it was published over two decades ago, in 1988. Islamic clerics and groups have been baying for his blood for producing what they call 'blasphemous' work that violates the very foundation of Islam.

Controversy and success being two faces of the same coin, the widespread row has catapulted Rushdie to international fame and honour, and he has received scores of awards for his creative virtuosity.

To put things in perspective, Rushdie is not a Tagore or a Kahlil Gibran. He is, as many of his critics point out, a 'movie-star' author, who has been in the 'news' more for playing with controversy, attending gala parties with the glitterati, and his penchant for women.

His debatable writing prowess notwithstanding, the row over Rushdie's visit was not only unjustified, unnecessary and unwarranted, it also exposed the weak and shaky foundations of human rights that any Indian claims to enjoy as a natural privilege.

Rushdie, as an Indian citizen, enjoys the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 of India's constitution. What is important to note, is that this freedom comes with its own limitations—the freedom to speech and expression cannot violate someone else's rights or interests.

Rightly so. But, does not the freedom of speech also grant an individual the right to dissent? The right to interpret, re-interpret, counter, inquire, present a new perspective on a view? The right to be wrong, not to instigate tension, but as an expression of creativity? The right to exercise one's art for one's own betterment, creative and intellectual?