Now Rushdie! Why this kolaveri, Mr Katju?

What exactly is Mr Markandey Katju’s problem with the world? Why is he bent on being such a killjoy? Being God’s gift to the world is one thing and pestering the world to acknowledge it is quite another. Nobody’s questioning his extraordinary intellect but we are getting tired of being constantly reminded of it. If only he could stay silent! But he won’t. In his latest burst of wisdom, he has called Salman Rushdie a “poor, sub-standard”’ writer. “I have read some of Rushdie’s works and am of the opinion that he is a poor writer, and but for Satanic Verses he would have remained largely unknown. Even Midnight’s Children is hardly great literature,” he said. Reacting to the controversy over the writer during the Jaipur literary festival, he said,  “I am not in favour of religious obscurantism. But neither do I wish to elevate a sub-standard writer into a hero.” Harsh words. But that is the irrepressible Mr Katju. Rushdie must be wondering which was worse, the Darul Uloom Deoband protest against him or the tongue-lashing from the Press Council chairman. Katju did not spare the fans of the writer either. They suffer from a “colonial inferiority complex,” he said. [caption id=“attachment_194071” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Why this kolaveri Mr Katju? Image courtesy: PIB”]  [/caption] “Kabir and Tulsidas are no good because they lived on the ghats of Benaras, whereas Rushdie is great because he lives on the ghats of the Thames! This is the mental level of our intellectuals and literati,” he said, and rubbed this in for effect: “The whole problem with the so-called educated Indians of today is that they still suffer from the colonial inferiority complex. So whoever lives in London and New York must be a great writer, while writers living in India are inferior.” Why this kolaveri, Mr Katju? Whoever said Indian writers were inferior? At the literary festival, writers from everywhere congregate and appreciate the best in their ilk. It is mostly about contemporary literature. Given the short span of time available, why must they discuss the likes of Kabir, Premchand, Sarat Chandra, Ghalib, Faiz and Kazi Nazrul Islam? There’s no questioning their contribution to Indian literature and culture but there can be no end to the list if we go digging into the past. There might be questions: Why not discuss Kalidasa? Why not Vatsyayana? He had some nice words for Javed Akhtar and Gulzar, too. “Two personalities linked with films were projected as the finest poets in India, though to my mind their work is of a very inferior order.” God! Who asked for your opinion, Mr Katju? We would like to read your books if there are some, and your poems. Not long ago, he trashed the people in the media for their low intellectual level. We had to take that on the chin since criticism cannot be a one-way affair all the time. Now he says the media was offering opium to the masses in the shape of religious bigotry, films, cricket and falsehood. “The intent is clear. Keep the people drugged so they do not revolt against poverty and the terrible mess created for them.” Point taken. But Mr Katju, you are talking about a section of the media only. It has variety; it is spread out well enough to cater to all interests. There are periodicals and newspapers which talk poverty, development, etc. Moreover, the media cannot stand isolated from the tastes, needs and aspirations of the people it caters to. Admitted, the media, particularly the television media, must reform but it has to be a long process. Media runs on money not on the spirit of service. The right mix of both is ideal but it is difficult to achieve. Katju has been an exceptional judge in the Supreme Court — bold, innovative and fearless. But he seems out of touch with the world where he shares space with other lesser mortals. It is clear he does not agree with the ways of the latter but he must relax a little. The world was never a perfect place.