Columns: The Usual Suspects

Columns

India Today, February 15, 1999
Feb 15, 1999

THE USUAL SUSPECTS
Welcoming Rushdie

This time the government must not be moved.

By Swapan Dasgupta

For India's "nattering nabobs of negativism" -- Spiro Agnew's evocative description of the liberal underclass -- the past week has been truly bewildering. The Government they love to despise has moved in unexpected ways. First, Atal Bihari Vajpayee effected a diplomatic coup by offering to hop on to the bus to Lahore and talk directly to Nawaz Sharif. Secondly, and this is far more crucial, the Government issued a visa to Salman Rushdie to visit the land of his birth.

If Vajpayee's proposed bus ride is calculated to please the Lahore Club and the votaries of Track-II diplomacy, the Rushdie visa is certain to evoke a mixed response. There are the likes of Khushwant Singh and Syed Shahabuddin who believe that India cannot afford the author of Satanic Verses. Their tolerance being circumscribed by the parameters set by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, they are certain to invoke the law and order bogey. It's an argument that moved Rajiv Gandhi into taking the international lead in banning Satanic Verses. But it's also the argument the Government doggedly contested when it pressed for the Pakistan cricket tour despite the Shiv Sena's threats. If Bal Thackeray's blackmail was resisted -- before the Sena chief climbed down -- there's no reason why the same treatment should not be meted out to the supporters of a murderous fatwa. Tolerance demands accommodation but accommodation cannot be one-sided. Expediency is calculated to equate secularism with appeasement.

For India, a safe passage to Rushdie constitutes a test case. There are many who believe that the writer went too far in Satanic Verses and offended religious sensibilities. The argument that India is not cosmopolitan London is not baseless. Yet, it is tragic that few are willing to stick out their necks and argue that India should emulate the freedom and liberalism of the West. Before the fatwa, Rushdie was one of the bitter critics of British society. He loathed Thatcherism, despised the British establishment and loved to project himself as the conscience of Bangladeshis in Camden. Given his "nattering negativism", Whitehall too could have left him to the mercy of the Islamic assassins. Instead, it offered him protection. It was the only decent thing to do.

In a sense, the argument is about decency and civilised norms. We may despise the sensationalism of Deepa Mehta's Fire, but we would be horrified if the Government caved in to the Shiv Sena and banned it. We may find the idea of gung-ho evangelism aesthetically repugnant but we are left devastated when an Australian missionary and his two children are roasted to death. That's really the Indian paradox. As a nation we hold sharply conflicting perceptions of right and wrong. We are still coming to terms with what it means to be an Indian. Each one of us nurtures delusions of monopoly over correctness. At the same time, there is an innate decency that prevents dogmatism from degenerating into intolerance. Perhaps it's a nagging realisation that truth itself is negotiable and that sharply divergent truths can coexist harmoniously.

That's why the argument of safeguarding democracy from itself is so utterly spurious. In ensuring Rushdie a safe visit, we will be informing ourselves and the rest of the world that the soul of India is intact. The Rushdie visit is not about politics. It's about values and principles. Succumb to blackmail and we may as well let the lynch mob in.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions | Syndication