Much has been written about Salman Rushdie being the victim of hate-speech makers whose political compulsion or religious conventions take a toll on the liberal artistic tradition. I have always been impressed by Salman Rushdie. Not because, I have read him a lot, but because of this impression that something wrong is being done to the artist. But frankly speaking I, along with perhaps many of us, had never bothered to go into the nitty-gritty of controversial work. However, an orkut forum led me to wikipedia article on 'The Satanic Verses'. So, I waited through the wikipedia-blackout-day and finally got to some interesting facts.
Wikipedia quoted
"Rushdie has never been physically harmed for the book, but others associated with it have suffered violent attacks. Hitoshi Igarashi, its Japanese translator, was stabbed to death on 11 July 1991;Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month[12]; William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, barely survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993, and Aziz Nesin, the Turkish translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre on 2 July 1993 in Sivas, Turkey, which resulted in the deaths of 37 people.[13]Individual purchasers of the book have not been harmed. However, the only nation with a predominantly Muslim population where the novel remains legal is Turkey."
Now this raises several questions. Only a fool will blame Mr. Rushdie for these acts of violence. But something stings. Wise people are expected to behave more wisely. There may be nothing wrong if Arundhati Roy gives a statement about the freedom of Kashmir. But what is also important is that her opinion can ignite minds or it can burn people. Mr. Rushdie is wise enough to speculate that the conservatives will anyway mislead people and his coming to Jaipur can be used as a pretext to stimulate violence. I would have appreciated it more if he would have cancelled his plans citing reasons of public order rather than personal fears. Although he should not fear in saying the right things, but is there a right or wrong in the matters of faith. These days it has been a fashion to ridicule people who adhere to religion. People do it for different reasons. Some do it to look secular. Some do it to claim the victory for their rationality. Still others are motivated by their ideological leanings. Some do it just for the fun of it. The publicity often comes as a bonus even if not originally intended. And who does not like bonus( from a corporate employee to a father of the twins). The inclination to make mockery is so strong that often people shy away from accepting that they are religious. After all, Rahul Khanna of Kuch Kuch Hota hai used to go on a secret visit to temple, hiding it from his friends. So, if someone asks you and you reply that you don't eat beef or pork or even non-veg, the most probable next question will be 'oh is it because of Dharma'. Most probable answer will be,' No yaar, I just don't like it'. In any case, there is nothing wrong with not eating beef or pork or non-veg. But why are we constantly reminded that if we don't eat beef, we are being religious. And what is the harm in being religious, if it can give us that peace of reliance on something beyond natural for all yet-to-be-explained phenomena.
Coming to Mr. Rushdie, I wonder if he has visited all the places where people got killed due to conservative morons issuing fatwa against him. What harm innocent citizens have done. In fact, even if we accept that transition to rationality (and disappearance of religion) is an inevitable course of history, then the real martyrs who brought this transition are these unsung heroes who lost their lives because of reading a fiction book which was any way not related to there daily lives. The right course of action could have been taking back those pieces of words which caused these tragic deaths. Not because he fear any Fatwa, but at least in the memory of those who lost their lives in promoting a cause he undertook. Or, he could have donated a part of his royalty to the relatives of these persons. If, he has done it in private then he stands out among others who chose to hide or stay way rather than face the humane face of it. If he has not then let hope prevail over fear.