Praveen Swami’s article, “Growing irrelevance of the Indian ayatollah” (Feb 2, The Hindu), seems rather unjust as far as the other side of the debate is concerned. Suppose a person is arrested for a crime. He has a right to defend himself and we can initiate a discussion on whether or not the concerned person is culprit; is there sufficient ground for his detention or not, etc. But it is foolish to link this discussion to the ‘freedom of movement’ whose importance everyone acknowledges with the recognition that there are certain limitations to this freedom and arresting someone for a crime is one such exception.
Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses is banned for good. One can come up in defence of that literary-trash, arguing that the book is not filthy enough to be banned, but to link up this discussion with the freedom of speech and expression is nonsense. No one disputes the importance of freedom of speech and expression, but everyone recognises that there are legitimate limits to its exercise. After all I cannot and should not be allowed to ‘abuse’ Indian President, Prime Minister, Constitution or anyone for that matter. Though, I can ‘criticise’ anything academically. Serious intellectual debate is welcome but abuses aren’t. Satanic Verses by any far stretch of academic consideration is not an artistic or critical work but only an abusive enterprise. Sooner the writers and activists jumping in defence of Salman Rushdie, realise this, the better.
Khan Yasir
New Delhi