Should the ban on 'The Satanic Verses' be reconsidered? Should books be banned in the first place?
Booker Prize winner Salman Rushdie had to call off his visit to India for the Jaipur Literature Festival in view of threat to his life following protests by Islamic groups opposed to his visit. He reportedly received news from intelligence sources that underworld hitmen would try to eliminate him.
"The Satanic Verses', a controversial book by him has been banned since 1989 for allegedly having blasphemous content hurting the sentiments of Muslims. At the 2012 JLF, some other authors were stopped from reading excerpts from the book.
While I haven't read the book personally, I'm of the opinion that banning a book (or movie) because of the "fear" that its contents may be hurtful to a certain section of the society is a blatant disregard to freedom of speech and expression.
Freedom of speech and expression in India has taken various hits like this before, with the late M.F Husain and Rohinton Mistry being just two other notable examples.
Questions - answer/ idea
About the Author
I think Gandhiji put it best when he said "Be the change you want to see in the world."
Unless each of us does his/her part, we can't expect change to happen.
Other debates by the author
-
Test your awareness with 5 new questions every week worth 25 points!!
Questions most debated/ most recent
-
Makepeace_Sitlhou -
Makepeace_Sitlhou
-
nikhlesh -
nikhlesh
-
aksaklani
-
jeetalex -
Strider -
NewtonLewis
-
nikhlesh
-
NewtonLewis
basically ,it should be agreed upon that religious sentiments should not be hurt.after all,the issues involved are sensitive for the people concerned. we can not expect anything good to come out of making statements which are likely to be hurtful for millions.
Yes it should be. I don't agree with the banning at all.
If you don't like it, don't read it.
I agree that free speech is an indispensable element of a utopian world. But in reality,here are a few examples of contexts where in we would unanimously and whole heartedly agree to ensure to curb free speech: 1)provocative terrorism 2)instigative political speeches 3)verbal display of bigotry. I think blasphemy belongs to this club.
Nicely put, but I still don't think blasphemy merits a place under the 3 instances you mentioned. It's definitely not terrorism or a political speech. As for bigotry vs blasphemy, it's a pretty gray area as to what exactly falls where. Not all critique of a particular community is necessarily bigotry
But isn't it selling like hot cakes because of the ban and the recent revival of the issue of freedom in JLF? :)
I think that's besides the point. A ban automatically increases sales as people scramble to see what the reason for the ban is. My contention is that banning of a book on such shaky grounds is wrong in the first place. It's infringement of free speech.
I think "Rights imply duty". In a state that comprises of myriad individuals, one can claim freedom of speech,only so long as he fulfills certain commitments to the state that vests that right on him. Blasphemously hurting sentiments of a large group of people is most certainly a violation of duties. Besides, while formulating policies, the government needs to consider the greater good and ensure law and order at all costs.