The Limits of
Freedom of Speech and the Rushdie Episode
By Justice
Markandey Katju,
Chairman, Press
Council of India ,
(Former Judge,
Supreme Court of India)
The recent Rushdie episode has raised some vital
points regarding freedom of speech and expression, which need to be seriously
addressed. I am submitting five points for consideration on the topic.
1. No freedom can be absolute: In a democracy freedom of
speech is a valuable individual right. For progress there must be freedom to
speak, freedom to write, freedom to criticize, and freedom to dissent. Unless
there is freedom ideas cannot grow, and in the transition period India and other
underdeveloped countries are going through modern ideas are extremely
important.
But since man is a social being, he cannot be
permitted to exercise this freedom in a manner which may damage society (see
Rousseau: The Social Contract). It is for this reason that Article 19 (1) (a)
of the Indian Constitution, which grants freedom of speech and expression
(which has been interpreted by our Supreme Court to include freedom of the
press) to all citizens, has been made subject to Article 19 (2) which says that
the right granted by Article 19 (a) (a) is subject to reasonable restrictions
in the interest of the security of the State, public order, decency, morality
etc.
The individual’s freedom of speech has therefore to be
harmonized with the public interest. In other words, a balance has to be struck
between the two. Where to strike the balance is therefore a question of crucial
importance. This then takes us to my second point.
2. Freedom is
relative: In considering where
to strike a balance one cannot consider the matter in the abstract but in the
specific historical context.
For example, portraying Jesus Christ as a gay person may
be acceptable in the West today, but to depict religious figures of Hinduism or
Islam as gay would be totally unacceptable in India and may probably lead to
religious riots and violence. This is because people in India are much more religious than
in the West.
Therefore when we consider the Salman Rushdie issue we
must keep this point in mind. In ‘Satanic Verses’ Rushdie has certainly
attacked, even though by insinuation, Islam and the Prophet. Such
sensationalism may have earned Rushdie millions of dollars, but it has deeply
hurt Muslim sensitivities.
Some people describe Rushdie as a great writer because he
has won the Booker Prize. In this connection, I wish to say that Literature
Prizes are often a mystery. To give an example, out of the approximately 100
Nobel Prizes given for Literature till today, nobody even remembers the names
of 80 or more winners, whereas many great writers were not given the prize. So
winning the Booker Prize to my mind proves little. ‘Midnight’s Children’, for
which Rushdie got the Booker Prize, is almost unreadable. It is difficult to
understand what Rushdie is driving at. So the new criterion for good literature
is that it should be unreadable!
3. The Jaipur Literature Festival: This
was dominated by the Rushdie issue. There was hardly any good discussion on
other writers of India
or foreign countries in the 5 day Festival. Rushdie was made into a hero.
One had expected a serious discussion on Indian writers
like Kabir, Premchand, Sharat Chandra, Manto, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Ghalib, Faiz,
etc. or foreign writers like Dickens, Bernard Shaw, Upton Sinclair, Walt
Whitman, Victor Hugo, Flaubert, Balzac, Goethe, Schiller, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky,
Gorki etc. But instead the total focus was on Rushdie. Discussion on good writers
was marginalized.
A big hue and cry was raised that freedom of speech was
imperiled by banning Rushdie.
The Indian Prime Minister recently declared that it is a
shame that 42% of our children are malnourished. The real figures in India are higher, perhaps 47%, which is 12%
higher than the poorest sub-Saharan countries like Ethiopia
or Somalia .
47 farmers have been committing suicide in India everyday on an average for
the last 15 years -- 250,000 farmers’
suicides, making it a world record of suicides in history. Unemployment in India
is massive, there is poverty everywhere, even in the capital city. There are
massive problems of price rise, healthcare, education, housing, etc. We stand
66th among the 88 hungry nations of the world. On the other hand, there
are 49 dollar billionaires, in India ,
and the gulf between rich and poor has greatly increased.
Should literature address these problems, or should we
only care for Mr. Rushdie’s freedom? To
my mind freedom for the Indian masses is freedom from hunger, ignorance,
unemployment, disease and all kinds of deprivation, not freedom to read Mr.
Rushdie’s substandard books.
Had Rushdie’s work been beneficial to the Indian people
one could have supported it even if it temporarily created some social disorder.
Great works sometimes create disorder e.g. the works of Voltaire, Rousseau,
Thomas Paine, the French Encyclopaedists, etc. But how does ‘Midnight’s
Children’ or ‘Satanic Verses’ help the Indian people in their struggle for a
better life? What is their social relevance?
As
I pointed out in a previous article, many Indians suffer from an inferiority
complex that whatever is written by someone living in London or New York must
be great literature, whereas whatever is written by a writer living in India (particularly
in a vernacular language) must be inferior.
I was recently reading (or rather re-reading) John Steinbeck’s
‘The Grapes of Wrath’ which is about the migration of farmers of Oklahama in U.S.A. who had lost their livelihood due to the
Great Depression and fled to California searching for jobs which were not
there. This is a really great novel, and reminds one of the recent migrations
of hundreds of thousands of farmers in India who lost their livelihood and
fled to cities looking for jobs which were not there. It is such kind of
literature which India
requires highlighting great social problems, not works of Rushdie which have no
social relevance.
4. There is tremendous diversity in India :
India is broadly a country of immigrants, like North America . 92 to 93 of its present population
consists of descendants of people who came from abroad, mainly from the North West . For this
reason there is tremendous diversity in India – so many religions castes,
languages, ethnic groups, etc. Therefore the only policy which can work in India and keep
it together is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities – the
policy laid down in our Constitution.
For
this reason it is very important for preserving India ’s integrity to respect all
religions, even if one does not subscribe to them.
Religion is a matter of faith, not logic. Hindu’s regard
Lord Rama and Lord Krishna as Gods. Muslims respect Prophet Mohammed. Since the
overwhelming number of Indians are deeply religious, unlike in the West where the
hold of religion has considerably weakened, care must be taken in India
not to insult any religious figure directly or indirectly.
Rushdie has deeply hurt Muslim feelings by ‘Satanic
Verses’. Why then was the focus on him at Jaipur? Was there a subtle, deliberate
design to divide Hindus and Muslims? One wonders.
5. India is presently passing through a
transitional period in its history,
from feudalism to a modern industrial society. This is a very painful and
agonizing period in history, as a study of European history from the 17th
to 19th centuries discloses ---
full of turbulence and turmoil. With great difficulty, and after tremendous
sacrifices India
has partially emerged from the dark, feudal age. Should it be hurled back into
that age by permitting freedom to insult religious sensitivities, which only
makes people more obscurantists, and may lead to public disorder? To my mind
freedom of speech should be used in India to spread rational and
scientific ideas while avoiding insult to any religion. This will help in getting
over the transitional period faster and with less pain.