From: memon@acsu.buffalo.edu (Naveed Siraj Memon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: SALMAN RUSHDIE
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:11:56 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Sep9.203603.10289@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> banerjee@spot.Colorado.EDU (akb) writes:
>Boulder is a sleepy little town at the foot of the Rockies (though
>the natives tend to have a somewhat more grandiose opinion) and it
>is not everyday that one gets to see SWAT teams on the roof of the
>EVENTS Center. Yesterday was such a day.
>
>"Why should the world care about something written by an Indian 
>immigrant, who is currently a British Citizen?" Indeed, why should
>there be SWAT teams in Boulder when this same writer speaks
>at the University of Colorado?
>
>"Most of the people who condemn the book have not read it. For that 
>matter most of those who defend it have not read it either, though
>for obvious reasons that is a lesser concern"
>
>SALMAN RUSHDIE and the SATANIC VERSES were in town.
>
>"The world saw ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE as a good though 
>perhaps surrealist novel, in Latin America however, it was seen
>as history." This quote could easily be paraphrased to the
>current context, is the SATANIC VERSES merely another
>novel (albeit a very good one) or is it (as the Islamic world
>sees it) BLASPHEMY.
>
>"IF god exists he will not be hurt by the Satanic Verses. Conversely
>if god does not exist, he will still not be hurt by the Satanic Verses.
>In either case it is between me and god, not between me and these
>Mullahs that claim to represent God."
>
>
>Rushdie was eloquent in his own defense and hardly needs my 
>endorsement, it was interesting to hear him refer to his
>secular Indian heritage. I wonder what our Pakistani friends
>would have to say about that. No doubt they would claim
>him as one of their own -- right after they have killed him.
>
>By the way that applies to fundamentalists everywhere
>- Muslim, Christian, Jewish or HINDU.


1] Muslim: Salman Rushdie, what drives him, what motivates him,
Hanif Qureshi et al. Their confusion about their desi self from
their British identity. They think British but write about symbols
that are sacred to Muslims. The Muslims have not read the book,
and still are offended. Again Muslims are offended because the
prophet's wives (who are also referred to as mothers' to all 
Muslims) are refered to as whores. Ok it is fiction. Sometimes
the characters' hallucinatory state is obvious,
but  a character screaming his
psychobabble in the streets of Bombay will have to face the crowd
of protestors if it called their mothers' as whores. 
 
2] HINDU: A very good example of people ignoring common decency
or social sensibility is saying that well the Vedas are a piece of
shit. SCI has seen this debate over the last week. People, who hold the
Vedas sacred, are clearly offended.

3] Christians: William Dafoe has a sexual fantasy on the crucifix(sp)?
[the last temptation of christ]
Did it surprise you that people were offended?


I am not a believer. The only thing I wish to say is that 
people hold somethings very dear,icons of their faith. They are raised that
way! You put the cross in a bottle of urine, and put it in an art
exhibition, and you call it freedom of expression. Tough call!


Naveed 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian