Salman Rushdie’s Controversial Knighthood

Posted on June 23, 2007
Filed Under >Raza Rumi, Books, People, Society
Total Views: 28889

Raza Rumi

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.”

82 responses to “Salman Rushdie’s Controversial Knighthood”

  1. Adnan Siddiqi says:

    Akif, you re just being a strawman dude. Comparing an official govt title with a movie made by a person who is NOT govt official is a foolish thing. it’s not necessary that you have to reply each post here.

    Also, you need to read what I replied to HJ. The title of SIR is not restricted to authors only. I don’t care if some american “author” was awarded or not, the point was that Americans[or any other nation] could also be awarded for title of Sir. For instance Sirsyed and Sir shahnawaz bhutto are desi who earned the title.

  2. Mushtaq says:

    Contents – Part I

    Early attacks on Islam and the holy prophet(sa) 11

    Comparison of attacks 12
    The shadows behind Rushdie 13

    The crusades 15

    Crusades, colonialism and imperialism 17
    Islamic comparison 18

    Hatred for Islam 21

    Literary attacks on Islam 24

    Colonialism and Christianity 25
    Superior western culture ? 26
    Muslim liberal thought 27

    The appearance of the reformer of the age 30

    Disappointment and fear of the west 31
    Point of contention 32
    Comparison 32

    Plans to reconstruct Muslim thought 34

    The new liberal ‘scholar’ 35
    Islam’s self-sufficiency 35

    The western orientalists 38

    Maxime Rodinson 38
    Allegations against the prophet 38
    Attacks on the holy qur’an 41
    Dr Norman Daniel 42
    Image of Islam (1100-1350) 42
    Death of the prophet 44
    Self-indulgence 44
    Coercive effigy 45
    Similarity of the orientalists 46
    Professor William Montgomery Watt 47

    New breed of ‘scholars’ 49

    Dr Michael Nazir-Ali 49
    Similar attacks 49
    Contemporary attacks 50

    New world order 51

    Muhammad’s character maligned 52
    Satanic influences 52
    Background to westernised ‘elite’ 53

  3. Mushtaq says:

    Here is a book written by Qadianis in response to Rushdie’s book;

    RUSHDIE: Haunted by his unholy ghosts ed_by_his_unholy_ghosts.pdf

  4. Nazir says:

    [quote]It’s amazing how comfortable we are with the idea that someone who chooses not to believe in Islam anymore should be killed.[/quote]

    Who is losing out? Bush and Blair are using this as excuse to declare Islam and Muslims extremists and to deal with it. Problem solved.

  5. Nazir says:

    This is true…for instance Bill Gates and Abdus Salam both given honorary knighthoods. However British “Subjects”, whatever it means these days, are entitled to it. I am assuming NZ and Australian citizen’s are still considered subjects as Queen is still the head of state in these two countries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *