Keep writing, Rushdie!

What is wrong with people? As I paraphrase Rushdie from a recent event in India where he was allotted ample time to speak since Imran Khan, the Pakistani politician and ex-cricketer, failed to show up because he wouldn't want to be a part of an occasion which honors "somebody who has caused immeasurable hurt to Muslims all around the world (that is Salman Rushdie)", (and now what Rushhie said, Phew!) "if the offendedness [he meant offensiveness] is a line where you block your ideas, then freedom is just talks [or something like that]". I have to agree with Salman Rushdie.

Freedom of speech came into being for two fundamental reasons (well, it was resurrected since freedom of speech was always in the fabric of all early humans and was suppressed only when the politics corrupted the world): first, freedom of speech instigates brains, especially the youth's. And the more a person is allowed to talk freely about any subject with any perception, the less opinionated minds are born. Yes, the verbal language must pass under censor board because freedom of speech is a celebration of life, humans and their thinking and not of utter obscenities and profanities but an idea should not be chained by religious boundaries, political dogmas, diplomatic thinking and definitely not by any governing laws. In fact, it is a government's foremost duty to make sure that a work of excellent literary value, whether it be supportive or contradictory, is being published and is in reach of any citizen interested in it. It should neither be glorified nor condemned. This is freedom of speech which is in turn a freedom of actions and decisions.

Secondly, how can you ban a writer? The most a narrow-minded government can do is ban the work. After some research, I concluded that my vote is to ban Satanic Verses not because I was offended by it but as Khushwant Singh puts it "it's just bad taste." From the excerpts I have read and heard, I don't understand the point of his so-called blasphemous writing. Maybe I have to read the whole thing and if I find a coherent point in it, which I am sure I won't, I'll come and write about that as well! But for now, I am in support to ban the work. But not the writer! In doing so, the government has made Salman Rushdie probably more popular and heroic than he really is! He's simply a writer who has a passion to express his thoughts, how creative, controversial, glorifying or filthy they might be, via paper. What's the big deal? Why would the whole Islamic world cherish the fatwa for Rushdie's death or ban HIM from several nations (including India which is unfortunate)? This is beyond me. Moreover, the problem with any suppression is that is actually ends up glorifying the subject being oppressed because it is simply humane (or perhaps common to the whole animal kingdom) to be curious about the secretive matter. I think banning something doesn't really stay loyal to its true reason which is to hinder the access and all it does is open up a flood of smuggling, corruption and other perversions in our minds. Ban alcohol and it'll be smuggled from outside not only because people are fond of it but because it has to be experience since it's banned and evil and "not for light heart".

Before I end, I just want to add the last of the ideas in this moment within the realm. There is a thin line between criticizing and disrespecting. The former is the process of dissecting a certain ideology to prove it to be harmful or distasteful to the society with strong evidence to support your position while keeping in mind that you might be oblivious to a perception that discards your opinions, whereas the latter is simply throwing stones at it for which you don't have to be a genius.