“There are many rights for which we should fight, but the right of protection from offence (sic; being offended?) is not one of them,” claims Hari Kunzru [1].
But, reading through his piece one finds that he is bending over backwards to accommodate the you-have-offended-my-religious-sensibilities brigade. While claiming that being offended is part of living in a society, he is double quick in absolving himself of visiting any offence. It is not my argument that he should offend to validate his position – no right of protection from offence; rather, he cannot anchor his defense of reading from The Satanic Verses on a no-offense platform.
Where in his article has he done that, you ask? “I … had no interest in causing gratuitous [my emphasis] offence. I apologize unreservedly [my emphasis] to anyone who feels I have disrespected his or her faith.” My questions: does his unreserved apology pertain only to gratuitous offence, or for all offence, of all kinds, gratuitous or not? Is he apologizing only to certain sections of the faithful of a single religiosity, or of all, of any religious inclination? If the former, does he reserve his right to disrespect the faith of the people of other religious sensibilities later? If the latter, he is validating that religious sensibility is beyond his paradigm of “no protection from offence,” is he not? That was parsing just one subtext of his article.
Let me go further. “Our intention was not to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities, but to give voice to a writer who had been silenced by a death threat.” Bah, humbug! If Rushdie had been silenced, then I am Einstein! Read my short post [2] where I had preemptively banished this claim.
“We did not choose passages that have been construed as blasphemous by Muslim opponents of the book… We wanted to demystify the book.” Let the writer explain why he is at pains to show, or at least claim that he is not out to hurt anyone’s religious sensibilities. Is he saying that these supposedly blasphemous passages have been done to death? If the book has survived the dilution of its cause célèbre, is there any need to read from it anymore? Why demystify if the book is almost invisible through the mists of time, 23 years and counting.
“I would link here to the passages we read, which I maintain are absolutely inoffensive to the most delicate religious sensibility, but given my current legal circumstances, this does not seem wise.”
There he goes! Implicit admission that, “protection from offence” is a right! His legal circumstances go thus far and no farther in giving “voice to a writer who had been silenced by a death threat.”
Nice friends in high places Rushdie has, people who make claims of disclaimers!
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. ‘Why I quoted from The Satanic Verses’ – Hari Kunzru, Hindustan Times, January 24, 2012 (http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/Why-I-quoted-from-The-Satanic-Verses/Article1-801213.aspx)
2. http://www.nonexpert.blogspot.com/2012/01/let-rushdie-just-be.html
But, reading through his piece one finds that he is bending over backwards to accommodate the you-have-offended-my-religious-sensibilities brigade. While claiming that being offended is part of living in a society, he is double quick in absolving himself of visiting any offence. It is not my argument that he should offend to validate his position – no right of protection from offence; rather, he cannot anchor his defense of reading from The Satanic Verses on a no-offense platform.
Where in his article has he done that, you ask? “I … had no interest in causing gratuitous [my emphasis] offence. I apologize unreservedly [my emphasis] to anyone who feels I have disrespected his or her faith.” My questions: does his unreserved apology pertain only to gratuitous offence, or for all offence, of all kinds, gratuitous or not? Is he apologizing only to certain sections of the faithful of a single religiosity, or of all, of any religious inclination? If the former, does he reserve his right to disrespect the faith of the people of other religious sensibilities later? If the latter, he is validating that religious sensibility is beyond his paradigm of “no protection from offence,” is he not? That was parsing just one subtext of his article.
Let me go further. “Our intention was not to offend anyone’s religious sensibilities, but to give voice to a writer who had been silenced by a death threat.” Bah, humbug! If Rushdie had been silenced, then I am Einstein! Read my short post [2] where I had preemptively banished this claim.
“We did not choose passages that have been construed as blasphemous by Muslim opponents of the book… We wanted to demystify the book.” Let the writer explain why he is at pains to show, or at least claim that he is not out to hurt anyone’s religious sensibilities. Is he saying that these supposedly blasphemous passages have been done to death? If the book has survived the dilution of its cause célèbre, is there any need to read from it anymore? Why demystify if the book is almost invisible through the mists of time, 23 years and counting.
“I would link here to the passages we read, which I maintain are absolutely inoffensive to the most delicate religious sensibility, but given my current legal circumstances, this does not seem wise.”
There he goes! Implicit admission that, “protection from offence” is a right! His legal circumstances go thus far and no farther in giving “voice to a writer who had been silenced by a death threat.”
Nice friends in high places Rushdie has, people who make claims of disclaimers!
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. ‘Why I quoted from The Satanic Verses’ – Hari Kunzru, Hindustan Times, January 24, 2012 (http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/ColumnsOthers/Why-I-quoted-from-The-Satanic-Verses/Article1-801213.aspx)
2. http://www.nonexpert.blogspot.com/2012/01/let-rushdie-just-be.html
6 comments:
Raghuram, I read both your pieces on the Rushdie affair. As many people have already observed, the Jaipur Lit Fest has become more 'glitterary' than literary. It has been a show of the glitterati. All those reading sessions too are a part of a 'show' rather than a literary festival.
If Kunzru didn't have the guts, he shouldn't have raised the banner in favour of Rushdie and his book. His present disclaimer only helps to bring out the coward in him.
Thanks Matheikal ... what surprised me was this was a piece in The Guardian (picked up by HT), a paper of sobriety ... it seems even they got drunk on this issue. You must agree that what I said in the first, about the 'reader' looking out for his own interest, riding SR's coat tails ... and the coat tail too wagged when he tweeted that the pressure on the 'reader' was "disgusting".
RE
Have not read earlier blog(s) so far so this comment might seem not in perspective.This was spot on Raghu. Jaipur Fest is now a social club and it is not anymore about writers and their sharing. It is about networking and for being 'seen' in company of who's who.
I have a personal bias against Amitava Kumar ( he changed his religion in order to marry a Pakistani woman 'so that she is not disinherited from property in Pakistan under Pakistani laws' when both of them were green card holders otherwise in the USA..bah humbug!! ), who, along with Hari Kunzru chose to read from Satanic Verses but left Jaipur clandestinely overnight fearing arrest .Any person who claims to stand by his convictions should not display such feet of clay.
Thank you so much Aditi, for adding more about Kunru's 'accomplice'. I had no clue as to who this clown was. Each one is worse than the other.
RE
it is neither a literary event nor a celebration of any festivities
it makes a mockery of the indian elite..
But DS sir, the mockery has been brought upon themselves by the literary glitterati!
RE
Post a Comment