Thursday, January 30, 2025
HomeNews ReportsAs Muslim groups oppose the sale of The Satanic Verses, here’s what Salman Rushdie...

As Muslim groups oppose the sale of The Satanic Verses, here’s what Salman Rushdie wrote in open letter condemning Rajiv Gandhi for banning his book, and how Islamists wreaked havoc in Mumbai

In the open letter, Salman Rushdie emphasised the irony of the Finance Ministry dictating what Indian readers could and could not read

“Any book worth banning is a book worth reading” once said American author Isaac Asimov. In India, however, censoring uncomfortable truths and banning books for political motives has been quite a norm in the past. In the year 1988, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress government banned “The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie shortly after its publication because the perennially offended Muslims found the book’s portrayal of supposed Islamic themes ‘blasphemous’.

It was only after 36 long years, that the book witnessed a renewed sale in India after the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition challenging the ban on the Rushdie-authored book’s import as the notification in this regard went dramatically untraceable. As soon as copies of The Satanic Verses began arriving at bookstores, several Muslim organisations came up with their appeal to the Central government to reinstate the ban. It has been reported that a limited stock of the book is available at the Bahrisons Booksellers in Delhi-NCR.

When Rajiv Gandhi’s ‘secular’ government banned The Satanic Verses to pander to the fragile sensibilities of Islamists

“The Satanic Verses” was the fourth novel by Salman Rushdie and it was released in September 1988. Rajiv Gandhi, the late prime minister, led the Indian government at the time. It’s interesting to note that India never explicitly banned the book, rather, they used the Finance Ministry to enforce a Customs Act constraint on book imports. Salman Rushdie was even prohibited from entering India by the Congress government. Eleven years later, in 1999, the Vajpayee government finally abolished the ban.

Within ten days of its first publication in Britain on 26th September 1988, the Indian government outlawed the import of The Satanic Verses. Congress MPs Syed Shahabuddin and Khurshid Alam Khan (father of former external affairs minister Salman Khurshid) spearheaded the call for the book to be banned. Shahabuddin petitioned for the same, arguing that it posed a threat to public order. Living up to his ‘secular’ [read Muslim-appeasing] credentials, Rajiv Gandhi decided to ban the book.

What was even more absurd was that the ban on the import of The Satanic Verses was imposed by the Finance Ministry, under Section 11 of the Indian Customs Act. Such was the state of affairs that the finance ministry decided which books Indians could read and which books they should simply not be allowed to read. Revolutionary, isn’t it?

Beyond the absurdity, it was a great disgrace that India, a ‘secular’ and democratic country was the first in the world to ban Rushdie’s book. Following the footsteps of India, South Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Sudan also banned The Satanic Verses. Massive protests and outrage were witnessed in the state-sponsor of Islamic terrorism, Pakistan and even in a secular India.

Many years have passed, however, not much has changed in the politics of Muslim-appeasing political parties. This time, the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference has extended support to Muslim organisations demanding a ban on sales of The Satanic Verses.

When Islamists ran riots in Mumbai after Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei issued a fatwa against Rushdie

While the Congress-led government in India showed more dexterity in banning The Satanic Verses than even Islamic nations, in February 1989, Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, called upon all Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie. Following Khomeini’s call for the killing of Rushdie on 14th February 1989, Islamists in India called for a ‘bandh‘ on 24th February 1989, in the city of Mumbai.

A massive crowd gathered to march towards the British diplomatic mission, however, they were stopped by the police. It must be noted that back then, the Margaret Thatcher government in Britain had refused to outlaw the book, despite widespread demonstrations and book burnings in the country. The Indian Islamists were protesting against the British government’s decision to grant protection to Rushdie.

The mob of 2000 rioters burnt cars, buses, and motorcycles in South Mumbai and also torched a police station. They also opened fire at the police. It was then that the cops resorted to retaliatory firing and neutralised 12 Islamists in this process. Similar processions were banned for the rest of the day. A total of 500 Islamists were detained and 800 others were arrested.

Despite a ban on The Satanic Verses, the controversy around it refused to die down because how can Islamists rest when a prominent leader of the Muslim Ummah, Khamenei had issued a fatwa or ‘death sentence’ and declared a $6 million bounty on Rushdie’s head.

In 1992, the student union of the Jamia Milia Islamia created a ruckus on the university premises after a history Professor named Mushirul Hasan demanded the lifting of the ban on ‘The Satanic Verses.’ The Islamist ‘students’ declared Hasan an ‘enemy of Islam’ and burnt his effigy. The professor eventually was compelled to express regret over seeking to un-ban Rushdie’s book.

Salman Rushdie’s open letter to Rajiv Gandhi

Expressing his dismay over the unfair ban on his book, Salman Rushdie had written an open letter to Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on 19th October 1988, just days after the ban. The letter was published by The New York Times under the title “India Bans a Book For Its Own Good”.

source: NYT

In the open letter, Salman Rushdie emphasised the irony of the Finance Ministry dictating what Indian readers could and could not read. He mentioned that, according to a Press Trust of India article, the ministry stated that the ban did not detract from the book’s literary and artistic worth, to which Rushdie sarcastically responded, “Thanks for the good review.”

He further condemned the prohibition as a violation of free society principles, contending that it was tantamount to imprisoning an innocent person for their own security against potential attackers. Rushdie had called this move as “profoundly disturbing” and questioned the kind of India Rajiv Gandhi desired to govern—an open or repressive society.

“The ministry – I am quoting from The Press Trust of India’s report -” added that the ban did not detract from the literary and artistic merit of Rushdie’s work.” To which I can only reply: Thanks for the good review. The book was banned after representations by two or three Muslim politicians, including Syed Shahabuddin and Khurshid Alam Khan, both members of Parliament. These persons, whom I do not hesitate to call extremists, even fundamentalists, have attacked me and my novel while stating that they had no need actually to read it. That the Government should have given in to such figures is profoundly disturbing,” Rushdie wrote.

Rushdie had also voiced discontent with his book being used as a “political football,” implying that the government was succumbing to Islamist fanatics for political gain, especially in light of coming elections.

In the open letter, Rushdie noted that the decision to ban his book reduced Indian democracy to a “laughing stock” around the world, leading to many Indian newspapers and publications, as well as foreign writers and organisations such as International PEN, criticising the ban.

Notably, the most ‘contentious’ part of the The Satanic Verses is claimed to be the dream sequences involving the protagonist Gibreel Farishta, wherein he dreams of being the Prophet Mahound, and introduces the concept of the “Satanic Verses,”. Islamists argue that the book allegorically depicts Muhammad as Mahound, indulging in humanly doubts and political manoeuvring, which they deemed blasphemous. However, Rushdie in his letter to Rajiv Gandhi refuted the allegations of supposed insult to Islamic prophet and tradition.

Excerpt from Salman Rushdie’s letter to Rajiv Gandhi (Source: New York Times)

“Clearly, your Government is feeling a little ashamed of itself and, sir, it has much to be ashamed about. It is not for nothing that just about every leading Indian newspaper and magazine has deplored the ban as, for example, ”a Philistine decision” (The Hindu) or ”thought control” (Indian Express). It is not for nothing that such eminent writers as Kingsley Amis, Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard have joined International PEN and India’s association of publishers and booksellers in condemning the decision. The right to freedom of expression is at the foundation of any democratic society, and at present, all over the world, Indian democracy is becoming something of a laughing-stock,” Rushdie wrote and outlined the context of the book’s fictional events and how it was not a direct attack on Islam,” Rushdie wrote.

Excerpt from Rushdie’s open letter to Rajiv Gandhi (Source: NYT)

In his memoir “Joseph Anton” released in 2012, Rushdie said that although he was arrogant in his open letter to Rajiv Gandhi, Rushdie was “defending a thing he revered above most things, the art of literature, against a piece of blatant political opportunism.” He concluded the letter with a rhetorical appeal to posterity, saying, “You own the present, Mr. Prime Minister; but the centuries belong to art.”

Attack on Salman Rushdie years after Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa

In August 2022, Salman Rushdie was brutally attacked by a 24-year-old Shia Jihadi named Hadi Matar, as he prepared to give a lecture in western New York. It was reported that the attacker was influenced by the ideology of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Fortunately, Rushdie survived the attack, however, he lost one eye and suffered serious injuries.

Stabbings, gunshots, and arson: When the translators and publishers of The Satanic Verses faced deadly attacks by Islamists

Since The Satanic Verses was first published, Salman Rushdie has constantly been receiving death threats from Islamists in some or the other corners of the world. Not only, Rushdie but even those who published or translated The Satanic Verses were attacked and some even killed. In July 1991, Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was brutally murdered at a university northeast of Tokyo. Ettore Capriolo translated ‘The Satanic Verses’ into Italian.

In June 1991, he was attacked by a person who pretended to be looking for a translation of an Islamic pamphlet. Two months after the Iranian fatwa, the Norwegian translation of The Satanic Verses was published. The Norwegian publisher William Nygaard got direct threats almost instantly and was granted armed security for a while. He was shot three times on October 11, 1993, in front of his residence in Dagaliveien, Oslo. In 1993, an Islamist mob coming out of mosques set a hotel on fire in the city of Sivas after learning that Turkish translator of The Satanic Verses, Aziz Nesin was there. While Nesin could be saved, 35 innocent people lost their lives and several others were injured. A detailed OpIndia report on these attacks can be read here.

Just as Rushdie said, the art of literature needs to be defended against political opportunism and censorship. While Rajiv Gandhi could at least prevent Islamists from turning hostile to his government and party, the banning of The Satanic Verses was a blot on Indian democracy and ideals of freedom of expression.

Fast forward to 2024, a lot has changed in the country’s socio-political landscape, however, neither the Islamist fixation with silencing those voices or any piece of literature or art they deem critical of their religion nor a set of political parties ever-ready to genuflect before the violent tendencies of Islamists has not changed. It would, however, be intriguing to see what position the Modi government takes on the opposition to the renewed sale of The Satanic Verses, whether it caves into the Islamist pressure or defend rthe ight to read, debate and even criticise literature with utmost liberty as George Orwell puts it, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

Join OpIndia's official WhatsApp channel

  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

Related Articles

Trending now

- Advertisement -