Read between the lines
Sir — The antitrust trial in the United States of America to block the merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster has riveted the industry and raised larger questions about the business of books. If the acquisition goes through, the new company will dwarf its nearest rivals. It will then become more difficult for other publishers to lure away authors and talent from the behemoth that would result from the merger. This cannot bode well for creativity. Pushed into a corner, few publishers will want to take risks and publish content that might not be received well by the public. This means that decisions on what people should read will essentially be made by one company and those who are in charge of running it. This can be dangerous.
Tathagata Sanyal, Birmingham, UK
Under attack
Sir — The stabbing of Salman Rushdie must be condemned in the strongest terms. The author was delivering a lecture on the United States of America being a refuge for writers in exile when the 24-year-old Hadi Matar stepped onto the stage and stabbed Rushdie multiple times. Matar is allegedly a sympathiser of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Shia extremism. It is a relief that Rushdie is on the path to recovery.
Right-minded people cannot justify or condone violence in the name of defending faith. A writer cannot be forced to rein in his/ her imagination to conform to sacred texts and their literal interpretations. A work of fiction and a religious text are two distinct entities, each occupying its own space. It is incumbent on us to guard the freedom of speech and expression with all the strength we can summon.
G. David Milton, Maruthancode, Tamil Nadu
Sir — The attack on Salman Rushdie is a threat to freedom of speech and expression. While condemning the attack and wishing the writer a speedy recovery, PEN International said that “no one should be targeted, let alone attacked, for peacefully expressing their views.” In this context, it is important to note that in India, draconian laws are deployed regularly to limit the freedom of expression. Journalists and writers are frequently targeted for their views. In the 76th year of Indian Independence, the attack on Rushdie is a reminder that more needs to be done to ensure that we keep cherishing the fruits of our freedom.
Khokan Das, Calcutta
Sir — In his article, “Bloodied pen” (Aug 14), Mukul Kesavan pointed out that the attack on Salman Rushdie reflects the universality of the predicament faced by writers and artists. He is absolutely right. The need to unite against such mindless acts of violence has never been greater. However, nations like India and Pakistan have been uncomfortably silent when it comes to condemning Rushdie’s stabbing. The reason for the State’s silence is not difficult to discern — in both these countries, governments are known to have hushed dissenting voices. But it is surprising that the Indian intelligentsia at large, too, is quiet.
Aadrit Banerjee, Delhi
Sir — When The Satanic Verses was published in 1988, the battle lines over free speech were not as neatly drawn as they are now. The novel, which fictionalised elements of Prophet Muhammad’s life with depictions that offended many Muslims and were labelled blasphemous by some, inspired violent protests around the world, including in India, where at least a dozen people were killed in 1989 after the police fired at Muslim demonstrators in Mumbai.
Even in the West, the defence of Rushdie was not universally robust. The British writer, Roald Dahl, called Rushdie “a dangerous opportunist”, while the author, John Berger, suggested Rushdie withdraw the novel, lest it unleash “a unique 20th-century holy war” that would endanger bystanders who were “innocent of either writing or reading the book”. This attack has renewed the debate on what is free speech and what are its limits.
Tusshar Shah, Calcutta
Still unfree
Sir — At a time when the government was exhorting the country to celebrate ‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav’, a nine-year-old Dalit boy was beaten to death by a teacher in his school in Jalore district of Rajasthan for allegedly touching a pot of drinking water reserved for the upper castes (“Mindset behind murder of child”, Aug 15). That such an incident took place at an educational institution and at the hands of a teacher is doubly shameful because knowledge is meant to root out social evils. We might be free from colonial rule, but is all of India really free?
The government must do more than codify laws against such discrimination. Spreading awareness at the grass-root level is the only way to eradicate casteism from society.
Srija Maji, Calcutta
Different past
Sir — The decision by Shakespeare’s Globe to portray the French national heroine and Catholic icon, Joan of Arc, whom the English burnt at the stake in 1431, as non-binary in the play, I, Joan, has drawn flak from the media, the Church, historians as well as feminists. The role is being performed by Isobel Thom, a non-binary actor, and the concept art features chest binders. However, the play is not trying to rewrite history as it has been accused of doing. Artists have the creative licence to reimagine an alternative version of history without altering past facts.
The vitriol regarding ‘cancellation of women’ boils down to the fundamental question of who is a woman. Gender nonconformity is not tantamount to an erasure of womanhood; rather it adds other subtle shades of gender identity to the same. Shakespeare himself is known to have questioned rigid binaries and explored the liminal zone between them. What is worse, the backlash against the play comes even before it has been staged. Facts about the historical Joan of Arc will not change just because I, Joan dares to reimagine her life.
Suchismita Karmakar, Calcutta
