In the wake of Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ conjuring violent public outburst ,accusing him of blasphemy, one is forced to contemplate whether or not writer’s should be censured . The book which was banned in many countries sparked violence around the world. The government’s decision to ask Rushdie to refrain from attending the Jaipur Literary festival raised many eyebrows as to how can one rip a writer off his freedom-of-thought.Writing reflects the intellect of not only an individual but a society.It is rightly said writers are not important their writing is. A reader when reads a book relates to the book and not to the writer, similarly the writers don’t confront their audience directly the way musicians and singers do. Books by their very nature often offend and create outrage. Writings of a writer can influence the mind of society and if that is accepted, a change is wrought.
Even William Gaddis believed that books should have lives of their own and that writers could only diminish the autonomy and integrity of their work by inserting themselves between the reader and the writer.
If i were to decide i would never ban a book or even a writer for that matter, the youth of today is mature enough to bid stigmas of anti-anything a good bye
Yup! Very rightly said. Full Agreement Sonakshi!
ReplyDeleteBanning this ignited a desire in me to read it! :P
same here!
ReplyDeleteactually TRUTH IS BITTER, that's why people after knowing the facts from some one that may be RUSHDIE OR ANYONE, make noise and create outburst.
ReplyDeleteMaybe 'freedom of thought' is a too heavy phrase for Mr Rushdie. His apparently 'blasphemous' arguments were not something new; he was reiterating old and outdated questions on the authenticity of Prophet Muhammad. The Muslim intelligentsia has a long undisputed legacy of taking criticism constructively and responding accordingly.
ReplyDeleteBut criticism and abuse are two radically different things.
Although Islam itself teaches to respond to evil with good to diffuse the powder keg, but one must also not be surprised by such a frustrated reaction from the Muslims when all limits of decency are transgressed to insult the person they hold higher than themselves.
You abuse and insult Prophet Muhammad you get police protection, you abuse and insult anyone else you go straight to jail. Abusing Prophet Muhammad is a mark of freedom of expression; just speak against the Jews or even remotely suggest your dislike its antisemitism. The Champions of freedom of speech have outlawed any intellectual discourse on the validity of the Holocaust theory, questioning it is a punishable offence in many European countries.
The latest example of such conspicuous hypocrisy when the movie 'Innocence of Muslims' released. While the American officials condemned the movie they still decided not to ban the movie because it was against their value of 'Freedom of Expression/Speech'. A couple of days later Britain banned an ice cream ad showing a pregnant nun because it was 'repugnant to Catholic Beliefs' ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1312149/Pregnant-nun-ice-cream-ad-banned-Catholic-outcry-eve-Popes-visit.html ) No wonder Obama and Hilary have a tough time explaining their version of freedom of expression to the Muslims. And to add insult to the injury, they explain the frustrated reactions from the Muslim community by telling their children, "Oh that's because they hate our freedom."
There are things all of us hold sacrosanct; as individuals/societies/nations. Absolute freedom of speech/expression is gibberish. If you don't believe me, try questioning the integrity of whatever country you live in, get it published in a newspaper and then tell me how things worked out (if you somehow remain to tell the story).
We should not form our opinions by just reading the OpEd articles of the mainstream newspapers. A little common sense and nonpartisan thinking is closer to integrity.