The sudden hype about the ‘un’-ban of Salman Rushdie’s controversial magical realist The Satanic Verses, through a quirk of a legal loophole, takes me back to my college days in the mid-80s. As a naive and idealistic youngster, I learned what bad politics can do to a country.
At the start of the decade, Rajiv Gandhi’s Prime Ministerial popularity was at its peak and hit its lowest nadir by the end of it. Egged on by a bunch of imbecilic advisors, the Gandhi scion made some rash and ill-considered decisions that eventually cost him the kursi as it went to VP Singh. His political image, once fresh and modern, had begun to erode due to corruption scandals, public dissatisfaction, and the rise of opposition forces. That’s when The Satanic Verses controversy erupted like a storm in a teacup, offering Rajiv Gandhi the perfect opportunity to revive his flagging political career.
Freedom of speech and the banning brigade
The Nehru dynasty was famous for scuttling Freedom of Expression—be it in the literary sense, historical sense or economic sense. It is common knowledge how free speech and democracy was murdered by Rajiv Gandhi’s mother and former PM, Indira Gandhi in 1976 during the Emergency. Before that, Jawaharlal Nehru had been instrumental in denying Indian readers access to American author Stanley Wolpert’s Nine Hours to Rama, a fictionalised account of MK Gandhi’s assassination. This book hinted that conspiracy theories and security lapses may have contributed to Gandhi’s death. Indira-led Congress government also ensured that the Indian people only saw a sanitised version of the founding Prime Minister, banning Michael Edwards’ Nehru: A Political Biography in 1975.
Another book that was on the banned list, Witness for Prosecution: Sedition Unmasked, was written by my late father-in-law, PN Lekhi. It explored the Emergency where Indira Gandhi unleashed a reign of terror through theft of government properties, forced sterilisations or nasbandis and displacement of all opposition.
Therefore, it came as no surprise that Rajiv Gandhi, staying true to the hallowed traditions of his predecessors, and imposed a ban on The Satanic Verses. Ostensibly, this was to address concerns about potential communal tensions and threats to public order.The book’s content, particularly its fictionalised portrayal of Islamic history and references to the “Satanic Verses”, was perceived as blasphemous by many Muslims. Yet, no one in India, Muslim or otherwise, got the chance to read, as India was the first country to ban it. It probably incited the incendiary fire that subsequently engulfed the Muslim world, and led to fatwa against Rushdie.
Also read: For the fundamentalist, secular is dirtiest of dirty words: Rushdie on The Satanic Verses fatwa
Anti-defamation law and its repeal
The year of The Satanic Verses, 1988, saw another attempt to murder democracy and kill the freedom to speak during the Congress regime. On 30 August of that year, Rajiv Gandhi’s government swiftly passed the Defamation Bill in the Lok Sabha. The bill sought to broaden the legal definition of defamation, imposing stricter penalties and shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. Critics argued that the legislation aimed to suppress press freedom and shield government officials from public scrutiny.
The bill was perceived as an attempt to suppress press freedom, especially in the wake of scandals like the Bofors affair. Nationwide protests ensued, including a proposed newspaper strike, alongside legal challenges to its constitutionality. Recognising the growing dissent and potential political fallout, the government reconsidered its stance.
On 3 September 1988, reports indicated that the government was re-evaluating the bill amid the storm of protests. Ultimately, the government withdrew the Bill, acknowledging the imperative of preserving press freedom in a democratic society. This episode underscored the critical role of public opinion and a free press in upholding democratic values in India and likely contributed to the Congress’ defeat in the 1989 Lok Sabha elections.
The Shah Bano case 1985
How do you justify silencing the voice of 50 per cent of the population and still sleep at night? Do you call yourself secular when the constitutional promise that all Indians are equal in the eyes of the law is taken away on the basis of religious appeasement?
In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the 72-year-old Shah Bano, who, estranged from her husband, sought justice to increase the paltry maintenance granted to her under Muslim Personal Law. She begged for the same rights to maintenance as her non-Muslim sisters. The Supreme Court interpreted it under secular provisions, as applicable to all women, irrespective of religion and held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance from her former husband if she is unable to support herself, even beyond the iddat period.
The verdict led to protests from conservative Muslim groups, who argued that it interfered with Islamic personal law. They contended that the ruling violated their right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution. In response to the protests, the Rajiv Gandhi government enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 to nullify the Shah Bano judgment, whose key provisions were that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance only during the iddat period from her former husband and after that her relatives or the Waqf Board are responsible.
The Act was criticised as a political compromise, undermining gender justice and secular principles, and was seen as prioritising community appeasement over the constitutional rights of women. I remember my father-in-law often discussing with Danial Latifi, grandson of late Justice Badruddin Tyabji, President of Indian National Congress in 1887, the travesty of justice in the Shah Bano case and loss of opportunity to bring in Uniform Civil Code to lead the cause of social justice and national integrity. This landmark case fired up many like me, moulding a whole generation to fight against injustices and seek freedom.
The Satanic words of triple talaq
Despite the debate over gender justice and reforms in personal laws, Rajiv Gandhi’s government did not address triple talaq. The issue remained unchallenged likely due to concerns about further appeasement policies for conservative Muslim leaders after the Shah Bano controversy. This set a bad precedent for the subsequent Indian governments, which avoided reforming personal laws, particularly for minority communities, due to fears of political backlash. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was a farce and offered no protection for Muslim women and their divorce rights. Political appeasement and silencing of the lambs continued through subsequent Congress governments led by the Gandhi daughter-in-law, and heir apparent Rahul Gandhi. The inaction on triple talaq left the issue unresolved until much later, when it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2017 in the Shayara Bano case, and subsequently criminalised by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
(Mis) appropriation of Ambedkar’s legacy
Another one whose ‘satanic’ voice was silenced by the hypocritic acts of the Congress, is the Father of the Constitution, BR Ambedkar. He served as the Law Minister in Nehru’s cabinet and was instrumental in drafting the Indian Constitution. However, due to ideological rifts over issues like the Hindu Code Bill, Ambedkar felt Nehru did not fully support him, leading to his resignation in 1951.
Ambedkar criticised Nehru’s approach to various national issues, including the handling of Kashmir and foreign policy. He believed Nehru sidelined him on critical matters, undermining efforts to address the concerns of marginalised communities. During the 1952 Lok Sabha elections, the Congress party actively campaigned against Ambedkar in the North Bombay constituency.
They fielded Narayan Sadoba Kajrolkar, a relatively unknown candidate, who defeated Ambedkar by a narrow margin. This defeat was seen as a deliberate attempt by the Congress to sideline Ambedkar’s influence in Indian politics. The Congress continued its opposition by working to defeat Ambedkar in the Bhandara by-election, further straining relations between Ambedkar and the Nehru-led Congress. After Ambedkar’s resignation from Nehru’s cabinet in 1951 over differences regarding the Hindu Code Bill, he was reportedly denied the customary opportunity to address Parliament, a courtesy typically extended to departing ministers. This act was perceived as a sign of disrespect toward Ambedkar.
Today, Rahul Gandhi seeks to appropriate the so-called ‘Dalit’ legacy of Ambedkar, his short-lived memory has completely forgotten his act of disrespect on Valamiki Jayanti 2024, when he had dumped Ambedkar’s photo on the floor. His own mentor, Sam Pitroda has tried to minimise Ambedkar’s contribution to the Constitution of India. Not only was the Father of the Constitution denied the Bharat Ratna for decades by the Congress, but it was some members of a refugee minority community, the Parsis, who were instrumental in his ostracism in Baroda guest house. It was left to our honourable PM, Shri Narendra Modi and HM Shah to raise Ambedkar’s legacy like a phoenix and give the narrative of victory and honour that it deserves.
Voices of Silence
Let us not try to silence any more verses, as the Bhagavad Gita advices.
यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत। अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम्॥
The so-called ‘lifting on the ban’ on The Satanic Verses, 36 years after Rajiv Gandhi banned it and triggered a chain of events that led to International fatwas and deaths, must serve as a lesson to the Congress. The people in the Republic of India can see through imbecilic attempts to allow the clamour for divisive discord rather than a constructive argument.
The Satanic Verses is a metaphor for the Congress losing its own plot on the politics of appeasement. Time, as Kaal, is the most powerful force that determines destiny.
Meenakshi Lekhi is a BJP leader, lawyer and social activist. Her X handle is @M_Lekhi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)