This House Supports India’s Ban on the Satanic Verses
The case: The Jaipur Literature Festival
Salman Rushdie, the Booker prize-winning author of Midnight’s Children as well and The Satanic Verses, which is banned in many countries including India, was slated to attend the Jaipur literature festival from 20 to 24 January 2012. At noon on the 20 January, Rushdie announced he was not going to attend because he had “been informed by intelligence sources that paid assassins from the Mumbai underworld were on their way to eliminate him”. However, in an interview four days later, Rushdie said the original assassination threat had in fact been fabricated by someone within the intelligence agencies to coerce him into cancelling his trip.
Rushdie’s visit was also publicly opposed by several right-wing Islamic groups such as the Darul Uloom Deoband, as well as members of mainstream political parties including the Congress, which is in power in the state of Rajasthan (where Jaipur is located). After Rushdie cancelled his trip, the organisers promised he would join through a video link. Just hours before the video link was scheduled to commence, however, that too was cancelled due to security concerns.
Manav Bhushan's opinion
The way that the Rushdie issue has been handled by the Indian government is shameful, and is representative of how all political parties in India pander to right-wing religious agendas just before any election (in this case, the UP state elections starting in mid-February). However, I feel that if a battle has to be fought for the right to freedom of expression, then the soldiers fighting that battle need to display some more courage than Rushdie and the organisers of the festival managed to muster. It was clear from the very outset that there was no credible threat to Rushdie’s life, and that the security needed for his personal safety could have easily been arranged. Even though there was a real risk of the festival being disrupted by protesters, this was a risk which the organisers and Rushdie should have taken in order to defend the sanctity of the right to freedom of speech. By cancelling not just the visit, but also the video link, the organisers and Rushdie have further emboldened the fanatical elements in India and sent them the message that these kind of scare tactics are indeed an effective way of pressurising people into silence.
This issue is said to have ‘divided Muslims from Westerners along the fault line of culture’ and pits the Western Value of freedom of expression against the view of many Muslims that nobody should be permitted to insult or malign the Muslim faith.[1]
Points For
People have a right to choose their cultural values
Society has a right to choose and structure its values as it sees fit and there is no reason why the Western construction of values is right or should take priority over any other.
In Muslim countries faith may be a more important aspect of life that it might be in Western countries and it is entirely legitimate that those societies might choose to value protecting the dignity of their faith over absolute freedom of speech.
COUNTERPOINT‘Freedom of speech’ is not so much a ‘cultural value’ so much as it is a vehicle for communicating and exploring different cultural values.
India has a specific need to main social cohesion
India’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory. There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this basis, along with frosty relations with a nuclear-capable Pakistan.
In this context, India’s leaders have a special reason to pay attention to the sensibilities of their minority populations. If allowing the publication of The Satanic Verses would result in social unrest then on the balance of harms it is a rational choice to make a limited restriction on freedom of speech rather than see potential millions having their property and lives threatened.
COUNTERPOINTThe problem with this approach is twofold; firstly it means that because of an implicit threat of force the majority have had their rights subordinated to the preferences of a minority. Regardless of the context of how this happens, this kind of precedent is always the first step on the road to tyranny. Secondly it is a recipe for social stagnation; if the state acts to prevent anyone from encountering views that they disagree with or might find disturbing then their view will never change and the state will find itself forever trapped in a paradigm of conflict and stagnation.
Points Against
People have a right to choose their cultural values
Society has a right to choose and structure its values as it sees fit and there is no reason why the Western construction of values is right or should take priority over any other.
In Muslim countries faith may be a more important aspect of life that it might be in Western countries and it is entirely legitimate that those societies might choose to value protecting the dignity of their faith over absolute freedom of speech.
COUNTERPOINT‘Freedom of speech’ is not so much a ‘cultural value’ so much as it is a vehicle for communicating and exploring different cultural values.
India has a specific need to main social cohesion
India’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory. There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this basis, along with frosty relations with a nuclear-capable Pakistan.
In this context, India’s leaders have a special reason to pay attention to the sensibilities of their minority populations. If allowing the publication of The Satanic Verses would result in social unrest then on the balance of harms it is a rational choice to make a limited restriction on freedom of speech rather than see potential millions having their property and lives threatened.
COUNTERPOINTThe problem with this approach is twofold; firstly it means that because of an implicit threat of force the majority have had their rights subordinated to the preferences of a minority. Regardless of the context of how this happens, this kind of precedent is always the first step on the road to tyranny. Secondly it is a recipe for social stagnation; if the state acts to prevent anyone from encountering views that they disagree with or might find disturbing then their view will never change and the state will find itself forever trapped in a paradigm of conflict and stagnation.
Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right
Freedom of speech and expression exists in any modern list of human rights. It is a fundamental right that is necessary for any society to function properly and for individuals to achieve happiness and fulfilment in their lives.
‘Hurt and outrage’ are false harms – nobody suffers any damage from being exposed to an opposing view other than what they choose to suffer based on how close-minded they are. On the contrary, everybody has a chance to benefit when they are exposed to a foreign view or opinion, whether it be by changing their own view or being able to re-affirm their existing view in a new way.
COUNTERPOINTFreedom of Speech is but one right amongst many, including freedom of religion, and they are not intrinsically ranked against each other. The right of people to have and hold religious views without having those views demonised or insulted is a right that might easily be considered just as important.
Moreover the West is often hypocritical with how it defines the right to free speech – Western countries often restrict incitement to violence or speech which is insulting to individuals, or even just when that speech is against the national interest (such as with official secrets).
If it is legitimate to use state institutions such as the courts to protect individuals from insults, why is it illegitimate to use state institutions to protect religions from insults?
Bibliography
Bhushan, Manav, 'The Jaipur Literature Festival', Free Speech Debate, 13 March 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/salman-rushdie-the-jaipur-literature-festival/
Have a good for or against point on this topic? Share it with us!
