FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Banning Rushdie in Kolkata

by BINOY KAMPMARK

He might have written a very indulgent autobiography about his travails and joys as the world’s most conspicuous writer in persecution, but a few authorities are certainly not willing to let him forget his mischief making potential.

There is more than just a little part of Salman Rushdie that loves mischief.  Better that than the discrete, quiet life.  Rushdie preoccupies himself somewhere in the area between ego and doom.  In India, and most notably in the state of West Bengal, Rushdie became the subject of what was termed a pre-emptive ban.  Sandip Roy, writing in the First Post (Jan 30), found it “a pre-emptive strike most foul”.

Rushdie wasn’t even scheduled to speak at Kolkata’s Literary Meet, Asia’s largest book fair.  A “senior minister” had gotten on the blower to the organisers of the KLM, asking if Rushdie would be so much as appearing for the promotion of Deepa Mehta’s film Midnight’s Children, based on his Booker-Prize winning novel.  A written assurance was sought that he would not even be allowed at the event.  There were no protests in advance of the gathering, and not a sense that any trouble would arise – as if that might have even mattered.

It was, in fact, a bad day overall for the culture pundits and consumers in India.  J Jayalithaa’s Tamil Nadu government also banned the screening of Kamal Haasan’s movie Vishwaroopam, supposedly on the basis of complaints by various Islamic groups.

Such actions have certainly irritated a host of Indian literati and film makers.  If you were Bengali, it was even worse.  “The Rushdie ban is an insult to our cultured claims,” tweeted an indignant filmmaker Rituparno Ghosh.

As ever, writers are considered the firebrands and unspoken legislators of conscience. They write rules as they come, and dispose of others.  One’s holy task as a writer, claimed the Irish author Brendan Behan, is to let your country down.  If idols do arise, trash them with enthusiastic glee.  West Bengal has shown form in terms of its hostility to writers suggesting that it’s the writers who deserve both trashing and thrashing – Taslima Nasreen, according to Roy, was given her marching orders by the Left Front government. In 2007, Nasreen’s Dwikhandita was banned.  Progressives were silent. Her own response to act against Rushdie was furious.  “I condemn West Bengal’s ban on Rushdie in 2013.  I also condemn West Bengal’s ban on me since 2007.”

The suspicions of Mamata Banerjee’s West Bengal government, placed under a broader microscope, show that more is at stake.  It must be remembered that Rushdie’s circle of defenders has never been a broad one.  Even those who admire his writings tend to fall silent when another round of condemnation is directed his way.  He carries the suffocating baggage of history.  For heaven’s sake, write, they seem to say, as that is all we are concerned with, even if you are incinerated in the process by the culture bullies.

Other authors thought him foolish. The Rushdie affair revealed that the person with a pen is not necessarily your ally.  Often, they are the first ones to rush in betrayal and shoot off poisoned pen letters.

What Rushdie has become is a trope of anticipated violence both tribal and authoritarian.  While he has been, and no doubt in some circles remains, a genuine target of fundamentalist groups, the mystique of terror and sheer irritating nuisance goes beyond that.  He has become a pop symbol of what authorship can do, in terms of blood dripping envy and social instability.

What is stunning is that his writing, for the most part, does not deserve it, betraying a remarkably stunted maturity on the part of many of his critics, of both the lethal and more benign sort.  “The police had prior information that there might be law and order problems,” explained Idris Ali of the Trinamool Congress.  But India is permanently beset by challenges to law and order that do not necessarily require such actions.  Rushdie doesn’t even have to speak, or move to cause the murmurings of concern.  The assumption that he might be setting foot in an auditorium, or in a place of literary merit, is enough to require his erasure.

According to writer Amitav Ghosh, himself a guest at the KLM, the repressors have changed.  “We were worried about the State repressing us.  Today, the main threat to freedom of speech comes from non-State actors” (The Hindu, Jan 31). What Ghosh ignores is that complicity is required: an abject capitulation to non-state interests in the name of state security and culture bullying is a trend West Bengal might wish to redress.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail