<p>The Jaipur literary fiasco has opened up new debates in India: how far should individual freedom be counterpoised to intellectual freedom; secondly, who represents the authentic voice? Can we free political apparatus from the succumbing politics; and finally how to contain the shrinkage of liberal space?<br /><br /></p>.<p>Modern society as well human beings are identified with individualism and individual freedom. This does not mean that individuals are possessed with absolute freedom. There are constraints, as exercise of absolute freedom demands a desire for the freedom of, and freedom for all men. <br /><br />In the case of Salman Rushdie, no one disagrees with the fact that he has unrestricted individual freedom and that his intellectual propensity is above board. However, it is a paradox that his individual freedom is not backed by a desire for freedom for all, including those who have been trapped in the western paradigms and discourses. In fact we are in a situation of intellectual trap: we have not been able to decolonise from the intellectual traps. Secondly his intellectual propensity, including freedom expressed through his controversial novel The Satanic Verses, more than creating a community with absolute freedom, has created a “seiged community”, a “ghettoized community”.<br /><br />Important questions<br /><br />This calls for two important questions: who represent the community in such a situation? And what constitute the “authentic voice” of the community. Vandalists believe that they represent both the community and “authentic voice”. Incidentally, political apparatus has become silent or has been besieged by those who have been hijacking our secular as well as liberal space. This is not the first time that they have done it - this began with Shah Bano alimony case long back in the 1980s and went on to M F Hussain case. They have become interpreters and reinterpreters of our popular discourses. It is strange that critical liberals have been silenced or sidelined whenever such issues of representing community emerged. In fact the problem one confronts at this juncture is identifying the “authentic voice of the community”. <br /><br />Can few people represent the voice of the majority? Or can we allow vandals to hijack the community in the name of larger identity issues and religion. In fact, right from the beginning when fatwa was issued against Rushdie, the major underlying argument was how to create a larger “ummah” (homogenous community) in the midst of severe crisis that the community was undergoing both from within and without. Salman Rushdie issue further strengthened the argument of “community is under threat or danger”, its identity needs to be protected at any cost”. <br /><br />Such arguments received legitimacy through the intervention of the state. Incidentally, in the absence of a strong critical liberal voice within the community, the agenda of addressing the identity issue was appropriated by neo-communitarians, including clergy. This is even reflected in the Jaipur fiasco. The state too treated critics as the “authentic voice” rather than critical liberals. However the urgent need is to retrieve the space for the latter.<br /><br />Employable strategies<br /><br />In this context, couple of strategies could have been employed to address the issues of Salman Rushdie: strategy of discreet silence, strategy of ignoring and strategy of amnesia. This requires what is called “sabr” or tolerance. Criticism against Islam is not a new thing. It has been there right from the day Islam was born as a religion. Depiction of Islam in bad light, including the Prophet, has a long history. It has not left great poet like Dante, voyager Columbus, philosopher Voltaire, civil rights activist Martin Luther King and historian like Daniel Pipe from criticising or castigating Islam. <br /><br />There are internal critiques too. These include Ayan Hirshi Ali. However, there are others who made unbiased critique of Islam and Prophet Mohammed: they include Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Kolle and others. Their impartial critique of Islam and also criticism nowhere created any fervour nor any debate in the world. It has helped the community to introspect as well as to grow. <br /><br />Bhyrappa episode<br /><br />However, what is important is that each time criticism was levelled against the religion or the community, it emerged stronger. This has happened whenever the community resorted to the strategy of “sabr” or tolerance. Best example is home grown writer S L Bhyrappa. When he wrote the novel “Avarana”, which literally had offending narratives, nobody took it seriously. It was largely ignored. <br /><br />It has even been forgotten. Couple of days back when a dargah was razed to the ground in Mysore, the same strategy of “sabr” was resorted to.This is the best politics that the community can adopt in the case of Rushdie. In fact, when Ayatollah Khomeini issued fatwa against The Satanic Verses long back, sitting in Iran, he had no knowledge about the content of the book. He had not read the book. <br /><br />Reactive communalism<br /><br />One of the consequences of the Jaipur literary fiasco would be the growth of competitive and reactive communalism. This communalism has the danger of further eroding our secular and liberal space. We need to guard against such shrinkages. Otherwise, this would further affect our individual as well as intellectual freedom. In that event freedom for all would remain an utopian vision. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is a professor of political science at the University of Mysore.)<br /><br />Related stories: <br /><br /></em></p>.<h1><a href="../content/222790/silencing-got-too-loud.html">Silencing that got too loud</a></h1>.<h1><a href="../content/222785/censorship-its-insidious-faces.html">Censorship and its insidious faces</a></h1>
<p>The Jaipur literary fiasco has opened up new debates in India: how far should individual freedom be counterpoised to intellectual freedom; secondly, who represents the authentic voice? Can we free political apparatus from the succumbing politics; and finally how to contain the shrinkage of liberal space?<br /><br /></p>.<p>Modern society as well human beings are identified with individualism and individual freedom. This does not mean that individuals are possessed with absolute freedom. There are constraints, as exercise of absolute freedom demands a desire for the freedom of, and freedom for all men. <br /><br />In the case of Salman Rushdie, no one disagrees with the fact that he has unrestricted individual freedom and that his intellectual propensity is above board. However, it is a paradox that his individual freedom is not backed by a desire for freedom for all, including those who have been trapped in the western paradigms and discourses. In fact we are in a situation of intellectual trap: we have not been able to decolonise from the intellectual traps. Secondly his intellectual propensity, including freedom expressed through his controversial novel The Satanic Verses, more than creating a community with absolute freedom, has created a “seiged community”, a “ghettoized community”.<br /><br />Important questions<br /><br />This calls for two important questions: who represent the community in such a situation? And what constitute the “authentic voice” of the community. Vandalists believe that they represent both the community and “authentic voice”. Incidentally, political apparatus has become silent or has been besieged by those who have been hijacking our secular as well as liberal space. This is not the first time that they have done it - this began with Shah Bano alimony case long back in the 1980s and went on to M F Hussain case. They have become interpreters and reinterpreters of our popular discourses. It is strange that critical liberals have been silenced or sidelined whenever such issues of representing community emerged. In fact the problem one confronts at this juncture is identifying the “authentic voice of the community”. <br /><br />Can few people represent the voice of the majority? Or can we allow vandals to hijack the community in the name of larger identity issues and religion. In fact, right from the beginning when fatwa was issued against Rushdie, the major underlying argument was how to create a larger “ummah” (homogenous community) in the midst of severe crisis that the community was undergoing both from within and without. Salman Rushdie issue further strengthened the argument of “community is under threat or danger”, its identity needs to be protected at any cost”. <br /><br />Such arguments received legitimacy through the intervention of the state. Incidentally, in the absence of a strong critical liberal voice within the community, the agenda of addressing the identity issue was appropriated by neo-communitarians, including clergy. This is even reflected in the Jaipur fiasco. The state too treated critics as the “authentic voice” rather than critical liberals. However the urgent need is to retrieve the space for the latter.<br /><br />Employable strategies<br /><br />In this context, couple of strategies could have been employed to address the issues of Salman Rushdie: strategy of discreet silence, strategy of ignoring and strategy of amnesia. This requires what is called “sabr” or tolerance. Criticism against Islam is not a new thing. It has been there right from the day Islam was born as a religion. Depiction of Islam in bad light, including the Prophet, has a long history. It has not left great poet like Dante, voyager Columbus, philosopher Voltaire, civil rights activist Martin Luther King and historian like Daniel Pipe from criticising or castigating Islam. <br /><br />There are internal critiques too. These include Ayan Hirshi Ali. However, there are others who made unbiased critique of Islam and Prophet Mohammed: they include Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Kolle and others. Their impartial critique of Islam and also criticism nowhere created any fervour nor any debate in the world. It has helped the community to introspect as well as to grow. <br /><br />Bhyrappa episode<br /><br />However, what is important is that each time criticism was levelled against the religion or the community, it emerged stronger. This has happened whenever the community resorted to the strategy of “sabr” or tolerance. Best example is home grown writer S L Bhyrappa. When he wrote the novel “Avarana”, which literally had offending narratives, nobody took it seriously. It was largely ignored. <br /><br />It has even been forgotten. Couple of days back when a dargah was razed to the ground in Mysore, the same strategy of “sabr” was resorted to.This is the best politics that the community can adopt in the case of Rushdie. In fact, when Ayatollah Khomeini issued fatwa against The Satanic Verses long back, sitting in Iran, he had no knowledge about the content of the book. He had not read the book. <br /><br />Reactive communalism<br /><br />One of the consequences of the Jaipur literary fiasco would be the growth of competitive and reactive communalism. This communalism has the danger of further eroding our secular and liberal space. We need to guard against such shrinkages. Otherwise, this would further affect our individual as well as intellectual freedom. In that event freedom for all would remain an utopian vision. <br /><br /><em>(The writer is a professor of political science at the University of Mysore.)<br /><br />Related stories: <br /><br /></em></p>.<h1><a href="../content/222790/silencing-got-too-loud.html">Silencing that got too loud</a></h1>.<h1><a href="../content/222785/censorship-its-insidious-faces.html">Censorship and its insidious faces</a></h1>
