Opinion Developments in Pakistan

This prompted a five-judge Bench dealing with the non-implementation of the Court’s order to observe that the Premier had shown loyalty to his political party rather than to the Constitution and that “prima facie Gilani is not an honest man and has violated his oath of office”. It is questionable whether the Bench could have made such remarks which have clear political overtones. Nonetheless,it is unquestionable that Gilani in keeping with propriety,cannot continue in office as Prime Minister after these scathing remarks by the highest Court in Pakistan.

Intolerance over Rushdie

The recent controversy about Sir Salman Rushdie’s visit and talk at the Jaipur Literary festival painfully illustrates how the virus of intolerance has infected our pluralistic society. Certain facts must be noted. Rushdie has a British passport and holds a PIO (Persons of Indian Origin) card which entitles him to visit India without a visa. Hence the demand for cancellation of his visa is misconceived. There is a further demand that Government of India (GoI) should ban his entry into India. The genesis of these demands is that Rushdie’s book,The Satanic Verses,published in 1988,is allegedly blasphemous and has deeply hurt the feelings of the majority of Muslims in this country. What is overlooked is that GoI was the first to ban the book and the ban has not been withdrawn.

Moreover,Rushdie’s visit is not sponsored by the GoI or any state government or any State instrumentality. He is invited by a private body viz. organisers of the Jaipur Literary Festival. Rushdie has visited India on three occasions in the past including the Jaipur Literary Festival in 2007. Moreover,in none of the sessions at the present Literary Festival is Rushdie slated to speak or discuss The Satanic Verses or the merits or demerits of the ban on the book. In one of the sessions organised by the festival,Rushdie will talk on “Inglish,Amlish,Hinglish: the Chutneyfication of English” along with other eminent Indian and English writers.

Demand for banning Rushdie’s entry into India is in effect requiring our government to issue a fatwa banning his entry. Tomorrow,there may well be a demand for Rushdie’s arrest and prosecution or forfeiture of his passport. Remember that Rushdie has not been declared a criminal by any court in India. Iranian type fatwas are repugnant to our secular ethos.

Consider the perturbing implications and consequences underlying such demands. Suppose an author with atheistic convictions has in his book denounced religion as the opium of the people and a tool for exploitation of the masses by vested interests. Again a writer may dub the miracles mentioned in the Bible as pure fiction. These writings would certainly hurt the feelings of the religious minded in our country and the Christians in the latter case. At the worst such books may be banned though personally I am doubtful about validity of such bans. But surely the entry of these writers into our country cannot be prohibited solely because of their books. Such demands display menacing intolerance. Besides acceptance of these demands would be clearly without the authority of law and unconstitutional and offend the principle of proportionality. It is fervently hoped our government will not succumb to these outrageous demands and least of all for electoral considerations because of the imminent elections in Uttar Pradesh. Principles are more important than the personalities involved.