Salman Rushdie Had To Pay For Hurting Muslim Feelings

By: Pavan K. Varma

No individual can claim in the name of freedom of speech the absolute right to insult without reason legitimate articles of faith of anyone.

The alchemy of globalisation is such that western nations and societies manage to project an image of superior ethics and freedom even while they dissemble and display double standards themselves. It is as if they can lay down the rules for 'civilised' and 'progressive' behaviour, but need not follow these themselves.

Without doubt the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) has assumed a proportion that its organisers could never have imagined when it began some six years ago.

I had attended the first edition in 2006 and there were a hundred people or so in the Durbar Hall, which was the only venue. Today, peak crowds are estimated at over 50,000; there are multiple events going on simultaneously; a dozen food outlets find it difficult to cope with the rush; book signing sessions have queues that stretch endlessly; college and school students attend in huge numbers. It is in every sense an unprecedented carnival.

The organisers - Namita Gokhale, Sanjoy Roy and William Dalrymple - deserve to be congratulated for this feat. There is no other cultural festival in the country that attracts such an attendance from all parts of the country and the world. Our international film festival in Goa is mostly a damp squib and the art triennale is equally lacklustre. The JLF is the only event that on its own strength can pull in the most famous international talent.

But the Diggy Palace, where the event is held, is showing definitive signs of creaking under the pressure of the crowd. This year, my session with Gulzar Saheb was moved from the smaller but more intimate Durbar Hall to the Mughal Tent, which has a capacity of 800. But 1,500 people turned up; it took some time for the aisles to be cleared before we could reach the podium to speak.

Unfortunately, for all the transparent enthusiasm of the audience, this year's festival was overshadowed by the Salman Rushdie controversy. I am afraid I do not subscribe to the somewhat hysterical view that his failure to participate signifies the end of democracy, freedom, free expression and values in India. It is beyond a tiny fig of doubt that Rushdie wrote a gratuitously blasphemous text in The Satanic Verses and has since flamboyantly defended his right to do so.

We all value freedom of speech but no society anywhere in the world believes in absolute freedom of speech. If you put something deliberately and provocatively in the public realm that hurts the sentiments of people on something as sacrosanct as faith, you must face the consequences of your action.

The West may lionise Rushdie and uphold his freedom of speech, but what has been its own track record? When the film The Last Temptation of Christ was made, it provoked in Europe a public outcry unprecedented in the history of religious films. Similarly, when The Passover Plot portrayed Christ as a charlatan, it was picketed out of existence in only a few weeks and never heard of again. In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen cartoons caricaturing Prophet Mohammad. In spite of protestsby Muslims, and other liberal-minded people, the paper defended its decision on grounds of freedom of speech. But it was reported that the same editor had earlier turned down caricatures of Jesus as too offensive.

The alchemy of globalisation is such that western nations and societies manage to project an image of superior ethics and freedom even while they dissemble and display double standards themselves. It is as if they can lay down the rules for 'civilised' and 'progressive' behaviour, but need not follow these themselves.

Unfortunately, the English-speaking intelligentsia in our country often unthinkingly internalises these biases without independent and judicious application of mind. That is why I refuse to be straitjacketed into this ridiculous simplification that if you are critical of Rushdie you are anti-freedom of speech.

We must endeavour steadfastly to build a liberal society that values freedom of expression. No fringe fundamentalist or extremist group should hold a society to ransom. No individual, however, can claim in the name of freedom of speech the absolute right to insult without reason legitimate articles of faith of anyone.

Rushdie is a PIO and can come to India anytime, and has done so in the past. If he believes what he wrote was right, he can brave the reactions he has unleashed and fight for his cause here, rather than from a luxury brownstone abroad guarded by dozens of gunmen. Similarly, the authors who read out at the festival from the banned book, and who mostly live abroad, could have stayed on and fought for their convictions rather than parachuting in and out of India.

In any case, I believe that the JLF this year was a huge success even if Rushdie did not attend. It is, to say the least, going a bit overboard to judge it by a uni-dimensional issue of whether Rushdie came or not.

Source: www.indiatoday.in

Read More »»

Five Reasons Why India Inc. Can't Censor The Internet

Kapil Sibal knows all this, right? So why is this bright star from Harvard Law School and St. Stephen's college now sounding so anachronistic in the Internet age? Is it the old "thou shalt display higher loyalty to the royal family than the prince himself" mantra?

In just 24 hours, in the Facebook alumni group of St Stephen's College, Communications Minister Kapil Sibal's ratings crashed faster than that of US President Barack

Obama or what former telecom minister A. Raja, now in judicial custody over second generation (2G) spectrum case, ever had.

In a survey to pick star alumni for a big debating clash with counterparts from the rival college across the road, Sibal was on the top five a week ago -- among other

stellar Stephanians like Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, former federal minister Mani Shankar Aiyar or former UN diplomat Shashi Tharoor.

No longer!

As the #Idiot hash-tag topped Twitter trends, some withdrew their votes for Sibal, and there were posts like "Chuck him across the road" -- a scathing insult, equivalent to the Parsis' excommunication.

Just a preview of the global firestorm over the next two days!

The fire wasn't from anonymous teens. Seasoned analysts blasted Sibal. Investor Mahesh Murthy posted: "Censor this! :) ! Five of the top 10 Twitter trends in India

right now are: #IdiotKapilsibal, #KapilSibal, #Censorship, #FreeSpeech and #FreedomOfSpeech."

All this, for just one statement from a politician not unknown for his foot-in-mouth disease? Not quite. For, he has the power to misuse and try to make it happen.

During the Anna Hazare movement, Sibal summoned representatives of the social networks. In a king-and-subjects interaction, he kept them waiting, then kept them standing in his room; gave them a pre-emptive dressing down; and snapped: "I don't want any anti-government stuff on your networks. Fix it." There was no room for discussion.

So here's a five-point Internet 101 for the illustrious Mr. Sibal.

1. The Internet cannot be edited: Duh! In an early Dilbert strip, the pointy-haired boss demanded that Dilbert "download" the Internet and fax it to him. A decade down, it's not so funny any more.

The Internet is not traditional media. India's 1975 emergency and the media clampdown was possible because of the linear, broadcast nature of the old media. New media is distributed. No copy desk or censor board can "fix" it. There is no editor to arrest. And, most content is hosted outside India's jurisdiction.

2. User-generated content cannot be filtered: That would slow down the global Internet to a crawl, with posts appearing after days -- even assuming so many "editors" could be hired by, say, a Facebook or a Twitter.

Are phone operators responsible for "content" carried on their networks -- or their CEOs arrested if someone made a terror threat over a phone call? No, the telco is simply asked to help with the investigation -- into who made the call.

Yes, Internet content has the permanence and public-impact potential that a phone call does not, but equally, it lends itself brilliantly to self-regulation.

3. Peer review works: Wikipedia is the best example. Who could have imagined that a user-created encyclopedia could be so objective, and comprehensive? Yes, anyone can go in and edit anything (barring entries like "Kapil Sibal", which have been locked due to vandalism!).

If you make an inappropriate change, someone will come in and correct it. And so it is on Facebook or Twitter. Abusive posts will be reported, blocked, and the individuals knocked out of the site.

4. Draconian controls are not necessary: In this age of global cooperation on terror, companies cooperate. A rational request from India to Google or Facebook to bring down offensive content will be heard -- regardless of jurisdiction.

5. Yes, there are precedents for Internet control, but...: Such censorship is in countries India doesn't want to be -- China, Pakistan, Myanmar or Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan became a laughing stock when it issued a list of banned words for SMS messages. (That list is now standard reading for anyone wanting a quick lesson in present and future abuses that aren't in any dictionary.)

The big daddy of "regulation" is China, where everything is filtered, and if you break those filters, you are charged with treason. What a role model.

But wait.

Kapil Sibal knows all this, right? So why is this bright star from Harvard Law School and St. Stephen's college now sounding so anachronistic in the Internet age? Is it the old "thou shalt display higher loyalty to the royal family than the prince himself" mantra?

If Kapil Sibal is to defend himself against the charge of sycophancy, he is on a weak footing. There were many prior potential triggers for tackling social media, including fanatic religious posts, derogatory comments by Pakistan sympathisers, Anna Hazare, and more. That he finally picked a post that targeted Sonia Gandhi suggests that this was not out of serious, objective concern about India's stability, security or secular fabric.

Read More »»

Mayans Never Predicted World To End in 2012

If you are worried the world will end next year 2012 based on the Mayan calendar, relax: the end of time is still far off.

So say Mayan experts who want to dispel any belief that the ancient Mayans predicted a world apocalypse next year.

The Mayan calendar marks the end of a 5,126 year old cycle around December 12, 2012 which should bring the return of Bolon Yokte, a Mayan god associated with war and creation.

Author Jose Arguelles called the date "the ending of time as we know it" in a 1987 book that spawned an army of Mayan theorists, whose speculations on a cataclysmic end abound online. But specialists meeting at this ancient Mayan city in southern Mexico say it merely marks the termination of one period of creation and the beginning of another.

"We have to be clear about this. There is no prophecy for 2012," said Erik Velasquez, an etchings specialist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. "It's a marketing fallacy."

The National Institute of Anthropological History in Mexico has been trying to quell the barrage of forecasters predicting the apocalypse. "The West's messianic thinking has distorted the world view of ancient civilizations like the Mayans," the institute said in a statement.

In the Mayan calendar, the long calendar count begins in 3,114 BC and is divided into roughly 394-year periods called Baktuns. Mayans held the number 13 sacred and the 13th Baktun ends next year.

Sven Gronemeyer, a researcher of Mayan codes from La Trobe University in Australia, who has been trying to decode the calendar, said the so-called end day reflects a transition from one era to the next in which Bolon Yokte returns.

"Because Bolon Yokte was already present at the day of creation ... it just seemed natural for the Mayan that Bolon Yokte will again be present," he said.

Of the approximately 15,000 registered glyphic texts found in different parts of what was then the Mayan empire, only two mention 2012, the Institute said.

"The Maya did not think about humanity, global warming or predict the poles would fuse together," said Alfonso Ladena, a professor from the Complutense University of Madrid. "We project our worries on them."

Source: Reuters

Read More »»

Towards An Asian Century

By Raghu Dayal*

China's amazingly rapid and increasingly assertive rise with its vigorous 'smile diplomacy' towards countries in Asia and Africa has been in contrast with India's slothful energies generally generating wariness, even indignation, among several of its South Asian neighbours. Nevertheless some of the most recent initiatives such as the accords with Myanmar, Vietnam and Bangladesh augur well for India to win and influence friends in the region around.

Myanmar, the size of France and Britain combined, strangely outside the eight-nation Saarc fold, commands a strategic location with the potential to change the geography in the sub-region. Recognising Myanmar as a natural bridge between the Asean and India, the Indian side reiterated during the recent state visit of President U Thein Sein its intention of building upon the commonalities and synergies between the two countries. This could advance its Look East policy, which itself signifies hope for the idea of an Asian Century.

Let India shed its hallmark lethargy and stupor, and infuse the requisite vitality and pace in its programmes; for example, build Myanmar's infrastructure and develop human capital.

For most of the past 2,000 years, it was India, not China, that enjoyed the closest connections with Southeast Asia. Burma, now Myanmar, was for over 50 years a part of the Bri-tish Indian empire, although it never formed an integral part of India. In the early 20th century, Myanmar enjoyed a higher standard of living than India. As its economy grew, there was a need for labour as well as entrepreneurial and professional skills, all of which came from India. By the 1920s, the influx from India turned Rangoon, now Yangon, into an 'Indian city'.

But much water has flown down the Irrawaddy since then. Tens of thousands of ethnic Indians had left at Myanmar's independence, while about 400,000 others were compelled to leave in 1964 following the ultra-nationalist army regime coming to power in 1962. The Indian population in Myanmar is now only a fraction of what it once was.

On the contrary, Myanmar is being drawn into the Chinese economic orbit. Mandalay is like a Chinese city now; of its population of about a million, at least a third are Chinese. China's forays into Myanmar have often been exploitative: the forests of its north andeast chopped down, the jade mines of the Kachin Hills denuded, many endangered species hunted and shipped.

Unrestrained China is ubi-quitous in infrastructure projects such as a deep sea port for oil tankers to take gas from the offshore Shwe field through 1,000-mile-long oil and gas pipelines. Like the huge hydroelectric projects on the Irrawaddy and Salween, this also has a strategic dimension, a part of resolving what President Hu Jintao in 2003 called 'The Malacca Dilemma', referring to China's dependence on the Straits of Malacca as its primary energy transit route. Despite this flurry of diverse activities, few jobs have been created for local people; a more unequal society has been established.

There is no historical precedent for the epic moves that are now unfolding. In the context of global economic power inexorably shifting to the east, and the changing geography of Asia, the triangular dynamic involving Beijing, New Delhi and Naypyidaw bristles with immense possibilities. China's string of pearls policy has, to many, meant a covert encirclement of India. Its tightening hold over Myanmar alarms India andother states in the region.

Even so, destined to be perhaps the two most important countries, home to more than one-third of the world's population, China and India are billed for stellar roles on the world stage of tomorrow - and have this great responsibility to be a part of, as much as a trigger for, a stable and peaceful world. In the 16 {+t} {+h} century, China and India together formed half the world's economy. Within a generation, this could well be the case again.

There is a history of Burma becoming a bridge between India and China. It appears that the time has come once again for the virtually defunct road to be reopened. The long sea route for vessels between several countries in the region via the Straits of Malacca could be replaced by a considerably shorter land route. The effect would be a mini version of what the Suez Canal did for the old Cape of Good Hope route.

With welcome winds of change now blowing through Myanmar, the time seems conducive to initiate these measures. To answer the obvious objections of geopolitical stra-tegists that road and rail links to China will raise the spectre of a militant China virtually invited to invade India, it can only be said that Chinese military superiority in any case makes that possible, with or without linkages.

What happened in India's last armed conflict with China happened without any such bridges. In any case, the Chinese rail link from Tibet to Kathmandu is a near reality; once that is through, they are at our doorstep.

Hope, not fear, is the creative impulse in life. Wisdom demands both sides realise there can be no war that either can really win - and there can be no peace that they can lose.

* The writer is a current affairs analyst and former CEO of a public sector company.

Read More »»