Rushdie Is Unacceptable. Deal With It!
24 Feb 2012
Syed Tausief Ausaf
While the Manmohan Singh government's recent electoral
gimmick of not allowing British writer Salman Rushdie
at the Jaipur Literary Festival may have won the UPA
votes of some gullible Muslims in the coming elections
in four states, the episode also brought in focus a
regrettable trend in the Indian electronic media of
completely ignoring religious sentiments of the
country's principal minority while endlessly promoting
and glorifying the author whose one-point agenda is
vilification of Islam. Self-censorship was thrown out
of the window in order to be seen as the champion of
the freedom of expression.
Media's role in a sensible society is to report
objectively without being bitten by the bug of bias.
The moment channels and newspapers, websites and radio
stations start taking sides completely disregarding
the other side of the story, they become liabilities
for right-minded people.
Last week it appeared top TV anchors were in a
competition to idolize Rushdie — a 'poor' and
'substandard writer' who would have remained largely
unknown but for his 'Satanic' book, in the words of
Markandey Katju, chairman of the Press Council of
India.
Rushdie's only notable contribution to the
civilization is his highly controversial novel that
has brutally attacked Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him), his family and companions. The book that is full
of filth has been the cause of several violent
protests all over the world. And the unrepentant
India-born author, after several successful affairs
and failed marriages, still lives under police cover
because of self-invited dangers to his life and limbs.
The NDTV's Group Editor Barkha Dutt and Times Now's
Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami — top apologists of
Rushdie in India — seemed more worried and anguished
over the Jaipur fiasco than the writer himself.
Neutrality was the last thing on Arnab's mind during
his live shows on Rushdie. He began programs with a
preconceived notion that protests against Rushdie were
wrong. The impression his shows left was that
Rushdie's right to insult is fine, but the aggrieved
party is not justified in voicing its displeasure in
an organized way. Arnab's refusal to listen to the
popular Muslim viewpoint makes one believe that
anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Times Now is the Indian
version of Fox.
Andn to Barkha, it seemed the darkest day in the
country's history. Perfectly playing the devil's
advocate, she took Rushdie live from London and
started: "I can't even imagine how angry and
disappointed you must be." She was almost in tears
over the government's inability to guarantee Rushdie's
security and repeatedly called it a "disgrace."
Emboldened by Barkha's continuous prodding, Rushdie
called preachers of Darul Uloom Deoband "dreadful
people." As if the affront was not enough, Barkha
headlined her hour-long show: "I will come back. Deal
with it" although the interviewee never exactly
uttered those words.
Rushdie, who admitted he is no big fan of organized
religions, asked India if it wanted to become a
totalitarian state like China or go in the "right
direction." Calling self-censorship the "death of
art," he termed the government's decision of not
allowing him "gangsterism," "black farce," and an
"invented threat." Lo and behold, Barkha asked the
rabble-rouser how he managed to look "remarkably calm"
after such a terrible tragedy before saying she "looks
forward to seeing him in India soon."
A Padma Shree awardee, Barkha, 40, is not a rookie. It
was highly unprofessional on her part to rub salt on
the wounds of the one fifth of mankind. The avoidable
drama was an outrage to Muslims on every continent.
For the uninitiated, in Islam the Prophet is
infallible. And any attempt to challenge the Prophet's
infallibility is seen as blasphemy. Any disrespect for
the Last Prophet would always make the Muslim blood
boil. And all Muslims are not capable of exercising
restraint
Rushdie and his likes -- Ayan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji,
Ali Sina, Taslima Nasrin to name a few -- thrive on
controversy or blasphemy. Level headed Hindus, Jews,
Christians, Buddhists and even atheists understand the
sensitivity of the issue and never try to cross the
red line. But unfortunately some over ambitious and
shallow journalists love to extend their brief. Only
they know what kind of India they want to project to
the outside world with their horrendously lopsided
coverage about such delicate matters.
Barkha, the self styled guardian of the freedom of
expression, is not even fair in granting everyone that
freedom. Sometime back, in her chat show with Muslims
from different walks of life, she ridiculed
televangelist Dr. Zakir Naik whose Peace TV is banned
in India. Barkha gave Dr. Zakir little time to make
his point and brazenly allowed other "enlightened
moderates" from the community to prove that vibrant
Islam is a problem. Her "Come oooon, Dr. Zakir"
suggesting that the scholar was uttering absolute
nonsense is still fresh in mind. Does anyone remember
Barkha ever campaigning to have the ban on Peace TV
lifted?
Today, Rushdie's advocates are pointing fingers at
Indian democracy. Where were they when Dr. Zakir was
banned from entering the UK in June 2010 and later by
the US. British home secretary of the time had said:
"Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right, and I am
not willing to allow those who might not be conducive
to the public good to enter the UK." Did Rushdie
register his protest with the secretary over that
outrageous attack on the freedom of expression of an
Islamic preacher from Mumbai?
And if Britain could do that without any remorse, what
is such brouhaha if India did something similar?
Barkha, if our memory serves us right, never took Dr
Zakir live on NDTV and shed a tear over the UK and US
ban on the preacher. Dr. Zakir is passionately hated
by a section of society, but that does not
automatically seize his right to express his views.
Moreover, the preacher has not written substandard
sacrilegious books. He has on his fingertips every
verse with its contextual meaning from the Bible, the
Quran, Gita and Vedas and he answers quoting from
different those books.
The NDTV is considered a balanced, secular and
unbiased channel that grew under the wings of Prannoy
Roy, a doyen of TV journalism. Lackadaisical handling
of sensitive issues by an anchor not only affects the
credibility of the NDTV, it also puts a question mark
over its secular credentials. How Barkha was allowed
to agonize 18 million Muslims in India and many more
millions abroad is beyond comprehension. The channel
certainly blew the issue out of proportion by turning
a questionable writer, whose works border on
pornography, into a celebrity.
Channels play a big role in forming public opinion.
Thanks to Barkha and her ilk, a large section of
society today thinks Islam is intolerant and Muslims
are by nature bloodthirsty. Readers' comments on
Indian media websites about the Rushdie episode are
full of hatred against Islam and Muslims. They have
expressed deep pain over the Jaipur debacle. The only
logical reason for this seems they take sadistic
pleasure in everything that hurts India's largest
minority. Ironically, these people, in their comments,
denounce the late M.F. Husain for portraying Hindu
goddesses, but would stampede to welcome Rushdie who
takes pride in ridiculing Islam's holiest figures.
Islam does not condone any act that hurts people of
other faiths.
One can take a Muslim out of India but can't take
India out of an Indian Muslim. Indian Muslims give
color to India's democracy. It is they who complete
India's secular character. They are an inseparable
part of India's pluralistic mosaic. Whipping up
passions against them would only create more
Akshardhams, Godhras and Gujarats. Peaceful
coexistence is only possible when the media act
responsibly by not playing up stories that are
communally sensitive. And Indian Muslims have always
been grateful to secular forces that never failed
minorities in the country.
Overzealous pseudo-rationalists masquerading as
journalists must understand that lapping up Rushdie
nonstop in India to become famous in the West only
shows their colonial inferiority complex.
As long as India is secular, there is no question of
allowing the Rushdies to be glorified.
Ends
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments