India no longer an open society: Salman Rushdie

[ajtr]

India no longer an open society: Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie, acclaimed author of books such as Midnight’s Children and The Satanic Verses, in a recent interview with CNN, said that India may not be an open society anymore.

Responding to a question on whether the Indian Government was getting “increasingly prickly” with regard to criticism and freedom of expression, Rushdie said, “Whether it’s movies, literature or scholarship, there is an increasing willingness to prevent things being said, with the state not usually defending the rights of the individuals concerned. So I think we are getting very close to the point where you could say India no longer has an open society.”

Rushdie is no stranger to controversy. His 1988 book The Satanic Verses caused widespread uproar and he had to deal with many death threats, most notably, a fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran.

When asked about his being unable to attend the Jaipur Literary Festival earlier in 2012 due to protests by certain groups, Rushdie said it was clear that the protests were manipulated. “There were elections coming up and somebody thought that they would get more Muslim votes if they came out against me. It’s very strange, because I’d been to the Jaipur festival four years earlier and there was no trouble, so it was a manufactured problem for electoral gain.”

He added, “It was rather gratifying that the Congress Party that had done this actually saw its share of the Muslim vote go down, so it showed that it was ineffective.”

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

lol open society. I don't know what he mean by open society. I don't think people will ever have any open society without any restriction on freedom of individuals. Few questions comes in mind

What is freedom? What is open society? What exactly are we free to do? Does freedom make us free to do anything? A freedom to act in any way we choose?

 

[graphican]

The matter of fact is Dog can bark and bark is a bark no matter in which direction it is. Rushide (maleon) doesn't deserve any comments on whatever he thinks and says. If India is an open society or not can be discussed by better people out there.

 

[Bhairava]

What is freedom? What is open society? What exactly are we free to do? Does freedom make us free to do anything? A freedom to act in any way we choose?

Freedom to act in any way within the limits of the constitution/laws of the country and not bending backwards to appease anyone for votes.

And an open society is one which makes sure such an environment is preserved.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Freedom to act in any way within the limits of the constitution/laws of the country and not bending backwards to appease anyone for votes.

And an open society is one which makes sure such an environment is preserved.

Please be a little careful about what you say. This is most uncomfortable to read.

 

[Bhairava]

Please be a little careful about what you say. This is most uncomfortable to read.

Within the laws of the country/constitution is the keyword I'm not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech.

 

[KRAIT]

Considering what used to happen back 2 decades ago, the liberalization on various social aspect is against what he has tried to convey.

The concept of Open Society depends on person to person and their POV.

The person who lives in US and UK will always look Indian or sub-continent's social structure as closed.

Lets take an example, Gay in India can live freely even when there are certain rights they don't enjoy. Now from any US citizen, that will be called closed society while Indian will call it way too openness.

Same goes for inter-religion, inter-caste marriages. I have seen many Inter-caste marriages than one can haven't imagined back 2 decades ago, I will say one decade ago.

The change in social structure, personal approach, family structure should be considered from previous one OF INDIA, not US.

From other country's POV, we will always be looked upon as closed society.

The evolution of social structure is always relative with common ground. That's how you understand the process.

Just because few people opposed him for Jaipur festival and CM wanted to avoid any violence, he can't generalize it for entire India.

 

[mautkimaut]

Please be a little careful about what you say. This is most uncomfortable to read.

Care to explain ?Why should we have special status for some people ?
Isnt that against the very idea of a republic ?

Within the laws of the country/constitution is the keyword I'm not an advocate of absolute freedom of speech.

There should be absolute freedom of speech. That is the basic tenet of democracy Or else with passage of time the system will break

 

[ajtr]

Considering what used to happen back 2 decades ago, the liberalization on various social aspect is against what he has tried to convey.

The concept of Open Society depends on person to person and their POV.

The person who lives in US and UK will always look Indian or sub-continent's social structure as closed.

Lets take an example, Gay in India can live freely even when there are certain rights they don't enjoy. Now from any US citizen, that will be called closed society while Indian will call it way too openness.

Same goes for inter-religion, inter-caste marriages. I have seen many Inter-caste marriages than one can haven't imagined back 2 decades ago, I will say one decade ago.

The change in social structure, personal approach, family structure should be considered from previous one OF INDIA, not US.

From other country's POV, we will always be looked upon as closed society.

The evolution of social structure is always relative with common ground. That's how you understand the process.

Just because few people opposed him for Jaipur festival and CM wanted to avoid any violence, he can't generalize it for entire India.

Jaipur incident was not some isolated incident. Jaipur literary festival incident was just a one of those many instances which proves Rushdie right.As recent as GoI trying to silence the opposing voices by curbing internet freedom etc. Right from dara singh killing aussies pastor to tasleema nasreen forced to flee kolkata to opposition of muslims against conducting the world ahmadiya conference in hyderabad to banning of midnight children just coz there was small reference of indira gandhi in it to ban on satanic verses and passion of Christ to opposition to M.F. Hussein and valentine's day opposition nautanki all these proves Salman Rushdie right.

 

[Bhairava]

There should be absolute freedom of speech. That is the basic tenet of democracy Or else with passage of time the system will break

Absolute of anything is not good, especially no for an immature society as ours.

Havent you heard of this - Alavukku meerinal amirthamum nanju ? - meaning, even the divine nectar when drunk above a limit becomes poison ?

Absolutes, can result only in anarchy. It is always best to follow what we have in our rule books and our rule books guarentee Freedom of Speech with reasonable restrictions. What "reasonable restrictions" mean -- that is best left to the honorable judges in the courts.

Care to explain ?Why should we have special status for some people ?
Isnt that against the very idea of a republic ?

You did not get the context. That was addressed personally to me.

 

[Neuro]

Freedom doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Freedom bounds with restriction and discipline ,such unilateral/homogenous system is called an open society.

 

[KRAIT]

Jaipur incident was not some isolated incident. Jaipur literary festival incident was just a one of those many instances which proves Rushdie right.As recent as GoI trying to silence the opposing voices by curbing internet freedom etc. Right from dara singh killing aussies pastor to tasleema nasreen forced to flee kolkata to opposition of muslims against conducting the world ahmadiya conference in hyderabad to banning of midnight children just coz there was small reference of indira gandhi in it to ban on satanic verses and passion of Christ to opposition to M.F. Hussein and valentine's day opposition nautanki all these proves Salman Rushdie right.

Tell me one country with this diversity in religion and ethnicity not having such problems.

Hussein was made to leave for a reason and so does Rushdie. If India tries to avoid any clashes through not allowing people who have their art.work mocking particular religion. These people think they are ahead of the curve, they should know what will rattle the society. These people create work each causes violence and hatred. Its not only the mobs' fault but these people are equally responsible. If a known person of mine gets killed in a riot because of these people showing "art", I will blame the mob along with the artist. When you are famous enough, you have to be responsible just like you want general populace to be.

As fr Ahmadiya conference, we should first focus on decreasing the extremism rather than enabling the anti-social elements. The Blacks in America got better treatment as the people got less violent with coming generations which didn't look Blacks as slaves and second grade human unlike their former generation. Blacks were lynched in Texas. Now African American is the word you used, N word is considered derogatory etc.

Even with so many decades, their is still racism present in so called "Open" society. France is also "Open" society which allows to mock a religion and give the argument of Free Speech.

First you create an environment for more reasonable voices to get attention and avoid any hatred being spread. You need multiple pronged strategy rather than targeting particular section of society while brushing off your own responsibility.

If I am a known person in a particular section, I will avoid presenting something that can cause problem as I can see that people won't accept it and will wait for more appropriate time. Just to get cheap publicity by offending religious sentiments and spotlight, I won't become accessory in Murder if a person is killed in riots emerged from opposition of my work.

 

[scorpionx]

There should be absolute freedom of speech. That is the basic tenet of democracy Or else with passage of time the system will break

Sounds good but not feasible. After achieving a better literacy rate and a really shining economy (not just in India but in entire subcontinent)you can write those line with ease.Not in my lifetime i fear.

 

[ajtr]

Tell me one country with this diversity in religion and ethnicity not having uch problems.

India is not as diverse as USA is.You can find every country's community there.every religion there.Comparing these two.Salman is right about india.

Hussein was made to leave for a reason and so does Rushdie. If India tries to avoid any clashes through not allowing people who have their art.work mocking particular religion. Of they are ahead of the curve, hey should know what will rattle the society. These people create work each causes violence and hatred. Its not only the mobs' fault but these people are equally responsible. If a known person of mine gets killed in a riot because of these people showing "art", I will blame the mob along with the artist. When you are famous enough, you have to be responsible just like you want general populace to be.

As fr Ahmadiya conference, we should first focus on decreasing the extremism rather than enabling the anti-social elements. The Blacks in America got better treatment as the people got less violent with coming generations which didn't look Blacks as slaves and second grade human unlike their former generation. Blacks were lynched in Texas. Now African American is the word you used, N word is considered derogatory etc.

Presence of extremisim in society again proves salman right that india is not open society.Why extremism exists in india coz indian even the educated ones are closed minded if its come to faith and religion.As for USA it took 200 yrs for it to reach what it is today and for india to reach usa of 21st century it will take forever.

Even with so many decades, their is still racism present in so called "Open" society. France is also "Open" society which allows to mock a religion and give the argument of Free Speech.

First you create an environment for more reasonable voices to get attention and avoid any hatred being spread. You need multiple pronged strategy rather than targeting particular section of society while brushing off your own responsibility.

Targeting section of society???Salman is targeting whole india and he is right about his convictions about india.No multi pronged strategy will work in india where opportunism prevails at every stage.For that you need single minded focus and the fear of danda to reform the society.

 

[KRAIT]

^ Depends on the definition of closed mind. Don't look at Indian society from Western point of view. From Indian point of view of majority people, Homosexuality should not be part of society. If open society means world's largest **** industry, then no thanks.

If open society means more diversity in nationality and race, having Russian, Mexican, Black, Columbian drug cartels and gangs etc. then no thanks.

BTW India is more diverse in different way. Don't compare apples and oranges.

What extremism are you talking about when you target Hindus and Muslims while consider Maoists/Naxalites freedom fighter and clap on every CRPF soldier killed. How many Muslims or any other religion's people Hindus daily kill compared to what these extremists kill ?

Sorry I won't accept or agree with your points on extremism. Arundhati Roy is alive, so is M.F Hussein and he wasn't killed by Hindus in India last time I checked just because he offended Hindus where as your favorite Maoists kill anyone that is against their "freedom" fight and views.

I think one should look at the rehabilitation process and curbing the extremism rather than advocating the Danda Fear. I hope you support Bullet fear for Maoists too. They should killed like dogs. Isn't it ?

This danda fear always ignites a hate fire which can engulf the society as opposition against such policies increases and patience of common man decreases.