Book Review: Joseph Anton

I finished Rushdie’s latest tome- Joseph Anton. Joseph Anton was the name Mr. Rushdie assumed during his days of hiding from the public caused by the fatwa issued by Iranian Mullahs.

 It was riveting for the most part. I thought it was an honest account by an accomplished writer. Rushdie’s was accused of being megalomaniac and self-aggrandizing but I view him as a strong character with some flaws.

I think what is important is the principle of artistic freedom. He produced a serious book in which he examined the early phases of Islam religion. I believe religion should not be above scrutiny of artists. There are important principles to be defended beyond Rushdie here. Should we as individuals have no right to read about religion from different perspectives? Why should be religious fundamentalists be molly cuddled? While Rushdie’s book may seem as the trigger for violent acts, my view is that there are bigger forces at play and Rushdie’s book happens to be a tool in a greater scheme of things in which such events are bound to happen.

I believe all religions go through phases of reformation and become progressively liberal. Christianity went through its own period of intolerance. Do long periods of prosperity calm down tempers of people and contribute to introspection and reformation? If so are there any signs of that happening in Saudi Arabia? Also I think a feeling of injustice, a feeling being put down upon by the west pervades Muslim societies and contributes to the anti-west thoughts and liberal ideas that these societies perceive as western ideas, though these liberal ideas may well be universal and existed in all societies in different points of time.  The introspection and reformation should begin within and that can begin only in an environment of tolerance. The recent Arab spring offered hope that it may happen in countries like Egypt but the recent elections proved that it will take longer and many steps forward and backward before this process can take root. Islamic people should feel respected, their grievances should be heard and real problems should be solved such as unemployment in Arabic countries and political problems such as state for Palestine.  Until these societies break free of their dictatorships, enjoy freedoms, enjoy long periods of stability and prosperity, the intolerance will continue and Rushdie and artists like him will face the brunt of that anger from time to time.

In this larger context, Rushdie’ life is but a small play within a play being played on the world stage. The book is made interesting with interesting anecdotes from the intriguing world of super star writers and the colorful life of Mr. Rushdie.  He has been honest, perhaps, the view is mostly from his point of view but yet it is a gripping story of a writer with desires and emotions like every one of us caught in the whirlwind caused by the fatwa.

I too have a bone to pick with Mr. Rushdie’s views. One is regarding his views on ‘bhashas” or Indian languages.  Mr. Rushdie offers the view that the most important writing in India happens in English.  English language writing is glamorous, funded by a vast pool of audience and receives universal recognition and adulation. At the same time, the vernacular writers capture the million mutinies happening in India every day and there are very good writers and writing happening across India.  As Indian states  grow prosperous, as the pool of audience for ‘bhashas’  grow, we will see greater number of writers and writings unearthed for international consumption. I know for sure that some of the writers I read in my own mother tongue Telugu are world class and deserve the same level of recognition, rewards as Mr. Rushdie and others.  It was churlish of Mr. Rushdie to hold this view without having read or researched on Indian languages.