The Indian high court’s recent ruling has ended the 36-year ban on Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel, "The Satanic Verses," due to the unavailability of the original ban order, highlighting complexities surrounding censorship and literary freedom in India.
India's Lifelong Ban on Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" Finally Lifted Due to Lost Order
India's Lifelong Ban on Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" Finally Lifted Due to Lost Order
After 36 years, India has lifted the ban on Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" as officials are unable to locate the original banning order.
After nearly four decades, India has officially lifted its ban on Salman Rushdie’s provocative novel, "The Satanic Verses," primarily due to the inability of customs officials to find the original banning order issued back in 1988. The novel, which faced severe backlash shortly after its release for allegedly containing blasphemous content, was subjected to import restrictions poised by the Indian government to appease concerns from orthodox Muslim segments within the community.
The decision to oppose the novel came just nine days post-publication in Britain, establishing India as the first nation to impose such stringent measures. The Ministry of Finance, through its Department of Revenue, was behind the directive, casting light on an unusual dynamic where a financial body holds sway over literary discourse. Rushdie himself expressed apprehension regarding this intersection of finance and censorship, illustrating the perhaps dubious rationale behind limiting reading choices for Indian citizens.
This week, in a ruling that reflects bureaucratic anomalies, the Delhi high court declared that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs could not produce the notification dated October 5, 1988. Without the bureaucratically mandated document, the court felt compelled to lift the ban, stating, “What emerges is that none of the respondents could produce the said notification... we presume that no such notification exists.”
This ruling not only marks a significant milestone for literary freedom in India but also places Rushdie’s work back into public discourse, underscoring the broader implications about state censorship and individual rights. Observers note that the lifting of the ban reflects changing attitudes in a country increasingly aware of the legacy of censorship, especially in an age where global voices strive for greater expression. The intricate layers of this historical narrative reveal an evolving landscape for literature and the challenges faced in achieving a balance between cultural sensitivities and artistic expression.
