The current controversy on Rushdie’s knighthood has several dimensions. Amid the knee-jerk reactions alluding to the grand-conspiracy-against-Islam, it brings out various layers and levels of literature’s role and position in societies and now in the globalized world.
I was once a fan of Rushdie and avidly devoured his books with great admiration. From Grimus to The Moor’s Last Sigh, I marveled at his playfulness with the English language and its idiom which undoubtedly he has enriched. The collection of essays titled Imaginary Homelands was a combination of disparate but original writings. Somewhere during this process came the ridiculous Satanic Verses which other than its blasphemous content and brazen disrespect for a vast majority of Muslims was a bad piece of writing!
The decline of Rushdie as a writer, finally, was confirmed by the trashy Ground Beneath Her Feet. Thereafter, one read strange, ignorant pieces of his non-fiction in the Western mainstream media that needed his stature to find a rationale for the imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Shalimar the Clown, his recent novel was even worse as it proved to be bereft of subtlety and re-invoked all the crappy, soul-destroying images and cliches of our times. In a non-serious piece, published in the Friday Times (Pakistan) in December 2005, I wrote:
Salman Rushdie’s new novel, Shalimar the Clown, is enough to add to ones misery. I finished browsing it; what else can you do with such stuff posing as quality fiction? As if the name of the central character “Shalimar” was not enough to offend a native reader such as I, the heroine “India Ophuls” changing her name to “Kashmira” was the ultimate illustration of cheap exoticism and a hackneyed dive into passe magical realism. Alas, Rushdie has started believing in his own mantra and the twisting of historical narrative. It simply does not work now. He is more of a bard for the ascendancy of the global tide against Islamism and perhaps he should stick to that. Better if he were to provide some intellectual depth to Fox News, or even better, if he started writing scripts for his young wife’s tele-plays. Shalimar successfully completes the trilogy of Rushdie’s worst novels, the other two being The Ground Beneath Her Feet and Fury . Aijaz Ahmad, a US-based academic, argued a long time ago that Rushdie and Naipul were avatars of oriental consciousness. Small wonder that they are reviewed, exalted and globally hyped.
Much to my delight, a friend – an aspiring critic – sent me the review by Theo Tait of the London Review of Books: Noting what Rushdie’s style produces in the novel, Tait writes that it
… is a cross between a piece of magic realism which displays all the worst vices of the style, and the contemporary international thriller. It is passionate, well-informed and sometimes interesting; but also hackneyed, simplistic and often very, very silly…
Today, I read this brilliant article published in the Guardian written by a noted academic, Priyamvada Gopal that essentially is a lament of all that Rushdie and his new writings stand for:
Sir Salman, on the other hand, is partly the creation of the fatwa that played its role in strengthening the self-fulfilling “clash of civilisations” that both Bush and the other side find so handy. Driven underground and into despair by zealotry, Rushdie finally emerged blinking into New York sunshine shortly before the towers came tumbling down. Those formidable literary powers would now be deployed not against, but in the service of, an American regime that had declared its own fundamentalist monopoly on the meanings of “freedom” and “liberation.” The Sir Salman recognised for his services to literature is certainly no neocon but is iconic of a more pernicious trend: liberal literati who have assented to the notion that humane values, tolerance and freedom are fundamentally western ideas that have to be defended as such.
Vociferously supporting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on “humane” grounds, condemning criticism of the war on terror as “petulant anti-Americanism” and above all, aligning tyranny and violence solely with Islam, Rushdie has abdicated his own understanding of the novelist’s task as “giving the lie to official facts.” Now he recalls his own creation Baal, the talented poet who becomes a giggling hack coralled into attacking his ruler’s enemies. Denuded of texture and complexity, it is no accident that this fiction since the early 90s has disappeared into a critical wasteland. The mutation of this relevant and stentorian writer into a pallid chorister is a tragic allegory of our benighted times, of the kind he once narrated so vividly.
In its editorial the daily DAWN rightly comments that “Like the Danish cartoons, Rushdie’s knighthood will widen the chasm [between Muslims and the West].” At the same time the newspaper condemns the talk of suicide bombing by responsbile quarters in Pakistan stating that such irresponsible talk overshadows the real issue that requires reflection and a well argued reaction to this provocative title.
This dubious honour is yet another endeavour to reward the constructed clash of civilizations. The fact that Rushdie has accepted it, further confirms his degeneration as another script writer of this “theory”. Meanwhile, the protests in Iran and Pakistan only reinforce this vicious cycle of neo-orientalism .
However, the sanest comment on Rushdie saga is from AD, a politically charged friend:
“Clearly, lack of self-awareness and an inability to be self-critical is a global phenomenon. Rushdie was just another Booker-prize winning author hailed by the British literary establishment and unknown otherwise. He is a western icon today, because he is the poster-boy for the Western construct of a Muslim-bashing “civilized Muslim.” That is why he has been knighted and why he is so hated. Just because he is the poster-boy of Western Islamophobia, Rushdie should not be awarded the status of hate-figure in the Muslim world. By elevating him so, it is in fact Muslim extremists who place him in a position of centrality instead of the insignificant and irrelevant place he deserves.”
Adnan, I don’t want to engage in these pointless discussions with you which invariably lead nowhere. The issue here is that our right not to be offended is at odds with someone’s else’s right to say something offensive in a society where such a right is celebrated, no matter on which forum. The queen, the pope, Christ, Moses and Ganesh are subjected to offensive jokes and irreverant references every single day in these societies and such offenses are protested but tolerated by sections of the same society who don’t agree with these practices. I haven’t come across any beheadings lately.
When screams come across from the other side of the globe asking for a person to be killed and books to be banned and awards to be taken away because someone’s feelings were hurt, people are just dumbfounded as to how to respond to such a mindset. Ultimately all that does is the “aayaa aayaa sher aayaa” effect: after a few false alarms, even the legitimate ones tend to get ignored.
Now maybe there was a certain context in which those verses were of relevance but what is a 12-year old to make of it t? I remember it confused the heck out of me.
bhai aap tu mujhe abhi bhe confused he nazar atay ho though you are not 12 anymore :-). Just kidding.
Akif, I have also studied in Pakistan and I remember there was no such thing in our Islamiat book which had given us impression that we should kill non-muslims. You should rather comeup with references like which board published such material? Till 8th islamiat book focused on namaz etc and then in 9th/10th I learnt that there are different kind of jihad. Even if I am forgetting and there was some instances of definition of Jihad and it’s importance then what the heck is wrong? Do you want to say that kids who attend sunday school every week in US don’t read Bible which is full with verses to kill/fight/murder non-Bible followers,prophets and what not? or do you want to say that jewish kids don’t read Telmud and OT? Go and grab the KJV from market, I am sure its hell easy to buy Bible in Secular US.
Akif, what I said that freedom of speech is relative. Those who actually preach about freedom of expression are actually its biggest offender.
ah, thanks for bringing up saudi text case.what mentioned by NPR was published in article by Nena Shea an year back and I had made a post about it in my old blog so I will not comment on that here again. Such allegations are not new and fact of the matter is that it was NOT saudi book which was being criticized, it was ISLAM which they tried to criticized by quoting things out of the context like one you mentioned yourself “Fight anywhere you want”
Akif, I just wonder whether you have ever read Quran with translation or tried to find out whether allegations are genuine or some propaganda? The portion which you mentioned is 5th aya of Surah Tauba and if you bother yourself to read the first five verses of surah tauba then you would realize that what was actually mentioned. If I am not mistaken than first quarter porttion of surah tauba talks about Hudebiya Treaty between muslims and pagans/jews of Mecca. This is a ghisi pitti allegation by non-muslims and majority of non-muslims use this statment out of context to prove Islam a violent religion. It’s not an issue what they said, the thing is how come you guys believe in their statments blindly?
The problem is that at we have more faith in west than Quran itself. At one side Mullahs are cursed for being narrow minded and people who don’t use brain to comprehend something while on other hand liberals are more blind followers and ignorant towards anything including religion that they prefer to rely on west rather try to seek truth. I am not surprised though as i always say that liberals/secularist’s Islamic teaching are imported from Western world and they believe in them. Akhir kaar Gori Chamri is more reliable than anyone else including God?. I just thank God that liberals are not in majority otherwise these people could be a direct hurdle in spreading of Islam. Somebody here had said right that we shouldn’t worry about Rushdie or any other non-muslims while there are black sheeps among us in form of psuedo intellectual lefts and right wing hardliners.
Ibrahim, obviously it will be much harder to find such instances in Pakistani textbooks because there are no standard Pakistani textbooks. I do remember from my own Islamiat textbooks (back in the early to mid 80s) that there were ayaats and hadiths included in the syllabus which exhorted muslims to fight non-muslims. Now maybe there was a certain context in which those verses were of relevance but what is a 12-year old to make of it? I remember it confused the heck out of me.
The point is that we are utter hypocrites when it comes to religious matters. Muslim demanding others for religious sensitivity is a laughable concept.
@ Moeen Bhatti!
I got your point but sir y they did it? Is he so worthy of being knighted? its just to stir muslim world,and the reaction was quiet normal! Look at Ahmedinnajad the iranian president,he denies holocaust ever happened,thats his personal view, and he has a right to say so,but there freedom of speech has no value,ur termed anti-semetic(which is diff from anti-zionism) if we give him some title for being any thing i tell u sir ull be labelled something that all ur life u wont be able to wash it!speak against anything abt israel,u cant! but any can speak about any thing in islam! Its this that leads to frustration!!!just like Boxer Amir khan is called a briton when he wins a olympic gold but when someone bombs on 7/7 hes labelled pakistan-origin brits!
I guess the way muslims acted and condemned it was absoulute correct! thats my view!! u can differ!