On August 12, Salman Rushdie was stabbed at a function in New York. He suffered grievous injuries. According to his literary agent, Andrew Wylie, the renowned author will likely lose an eye, the nerves of his arm were severed, and his liver was stabbed and damaged. Fortunately, he is said to be recovering. His attacker, 24-year-old Hadi Matar, of Lebanese descent from New Jersey, is in custody. He reportedly expressed surprise that Rushdie had survived.
The world was shocked at this attempt to assassinate Rushdie 34 years after his controversial book, The Satanic Verses, was published in 1988. In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa offering a reward to anyone who killed Rushdie. Rushdie went into hiding for years. In 1991, the Norwegian and Japanese translators of his book were murdered. Following the fatwa, and the decision to ban the book by several nations (India was inexplicably the first to do so in 1988), there has been a robust and widespread debate on the democratic right to freedom of expression, and the legitimate - or otherwise restrictions in matters of religious faith.
Ostensibly, the debate seems simplistic. The votaries of freedom of expression are emphatic that this right cannot be curtailed and is the essence of democracy, while there are others who believe that no right can be unfettered. Article 19 of the Constitution gives all citizens the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression. But sub-clause (a) of the same article also says the state shall have the right to impose "reasonable restrictions... in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".
Obviously, the key word here is 'reasonable'. There is no doubt that, on many occasions in the past, the restrictions imposed have been arbitrary, without application of mind, and anti-democratic. For instance, to cite just one example, VS Naipaul's book, An Area of Darkness, was banned simply because the government then thought it was too critical of the State. This is directly violative of the right to freedom of expression because mere criticism cannot be construed as a 'reasonable' reason to ban a book. After all, we are not a banana republic, where criticism, however trenchant, can be interpreted as a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Rushdie has said: "What is freedom of expression? Without the right to offend it ceases to exist." But the right to offend where religion is concerned is a far more complex issue. Religious belief is very sensitive, visceral and emotional, and can incite passions which are based on faith - often blind faith. Of course, there cannot be restrictions on the right to question, interrogate, even challenge religious practice. That is how religions evolve, and usher in reforms. But some religions, especially the Abrahamic faiths, are guided by the letter and injunctions of their holy book, and are violently hostile to any comment that they interpret to be derogatory.
Fanatics in Islam are particularly intolerant. Any assumed slur on the sanctity of the Prophet is considered blasphemy, and must be punished by the death of the offender, verbalized in the slogan sar tan se juda. This proclivity to violence is completely unacceptable. But it is interesting that many of those who support Rushdie in the name of freedom of expression, are far less progressive where their own religions are concerned. Martin Scorcese's film, The Last Temptation of Christ, was irreverent but not abusive or mocking. But, as Lord Bhiku Parekh points out in an insightful essay, the film "provoked a public outcry unprecedented in the history of religious films. Militant Christians launched a media campaign condemning Universal Pictures, and so intimidated cinema owners that several movie chains refused to show the film". Similarly, evangelical Christians "took to the barricades when Jesus was portrayed as a charlatan in The Passover Plot. The film was picketed out of existence after only a few weeks and never heard of again". In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen cartoons caricaturing Prophet Muhammad; one of the caricatures showed the Prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban. When Muslims protested, the Danish newspaper defended its decision on grounds of freedom of expression. But significantly, it was reported that its editor had earlier turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive.
Even non-Abrahamic religions, like Sikhism, can be deeply hostile to any insult to their Gurus or their religion. Hinduism does not have a word for blasphemy. No Hindu has ever been killed or burnt on a stake for heresy. It is a religion which is eclectic and welcoming to diversity, even criticism. But extremist Hindus today show a militant aggressiveness to any perceived slight to Hindu gods and goddesses. Almost anything can "hurt their religious sentiments", and their threats to violence often seem to have the support of sympathetic governments, at the centre and in the states. It is for this reason that when stand-up comedian, Munawar Faruqui, cracks jokes about Ram and Sita, militant Hindus are up in arms and ensure that most of his performances are cancelled.
This being said, the degree of atavistic violence that Muslim fanatics believe their religion sanctions has to be confronted. It is a distortion of Islam itself, and an unacceptable infringement of law and order. No democratic society can accept the violence and bigotry that is the norm in some Islamic countries. When in January 2015, two gunmen in Paris shouting 'Allahu Akbar' killed 12 people and injured another 11 in the office of the satirical French publication, Charlie Hebdo, all right-thinking people were outraged. Even those who believe that ridiculing another's religion is wrong, were aghast at the brutality of the avenging action. In India, while nobody can condone Nupur Sharma's remarks, we need to condemn the threat of death given to her, and the murders of those who supported her.
The short point is this: gratuitously insulting somebody's religious beliefs is not particularly civilized. Equally, if not more, violence in the name of religion, highlighted again in the attack on Rushdie, is positively uncivilized. All right-thinking people, including Muslims, need to take a public stand against this kind of mindless violence.
Pavan K. Varma is author, diplomat and former member of parliament (Rajya Sabha).
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.