Farrukh Khan Pitafi's Official Website

The Theatre of the absurd has not been finished yet. Author Salman Rushdie who has championed the cause of the freedom of imagination and expression is now against a book which hardly poses any threat to anyone. The objection he has raised is interesting. The book “Her majesty’s service” by Ron Evans does definitely not throw aspersions on any established faith or question the integrity of its founder, yet it commits the minor blasphemy of portraying Mr Salman Rushdie as a mere mortal with some mortal lapses. Mr Ron Evans, a former Metropolitan Police officer was one of the team guarding Rushdie while he was under an Iranian-backed death threat for his 1988 novel “The Satanic Verses.”
The issue of the Fatwa against Rushdie was misconstrued as a religious matter even though it was not. Even Mr Rushdie at that time being too eager to cash in his image of a victim made no attempts to correct the impression. Those who have read the work will remember and those who have not should learn that the primary reason behind the edict was the fact Imam Khomeini was one of the characters of the novel and was not portrayed in any positive light. It is true that Rushdie’s book has two sections where he could be alleged of blasphemy, the first being an intellectual one whose rebuttal has been written by none other than Karen Armstrong in her book ‘Muhammad’. This section in a way suggests that the Prophet of Islam at a time was ready to concede to the demands of acknowledging Lat, Minat and Uzza as deities for the sake of political survival. In a nutshell the traditional issue of the Satanic Verses. The second one where poet Baal recommends something to the prostitutes of Jahiliyah. Indeed the behavior of poet Baal when the prostitutes are to be prosecuted is made a symbol of dissent and courage. Yet now when it has come to his own person Mr Rushdie cannot swallow only this much difference of opinion or dissent? What a shame?
Yet it must also be stated here that the above two sections were not part of any historic narrative but dreams of a man called Gibrael Farishta in the novel who finally kills others and himself at the end. In other words these things are presented more as an anomaly of a madman’s mind rather any formal historic claim.
Let me quote the BBCi story here for your consumption:
“The author told BBC News the claims were “a bunch of lies” and he was seriously considering legal action.
Sir Salman said the book was defamatory and is demanding that the offending chapters be removed. The Booker Prize-winning author received police protection after a fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran’s spiritual leader.
Mr Evans worked as a driver in the protection unit. He was also a bodyguard for John Major and other high-profile figures.
I was never locked in a cupboard nor was I suicidal - none of these things happened

Sir Salman Rushdie
In the book, he claims Sir Salman was nicknamed “Scruffy” and was once locked in a cupboard because he irritated his protection officers. They then all went to the pub.
He wrote: “When they were suitably refreshed they came back and let him out.”
He also claims the author charged officers around £40 a night to stay in his home and would also ask for money if they drank his wine.
In the memoirs, Mr Evans writes: “We were paying, or rather, the taxpayer was paying Rushdie to protect him!”

‘Extremely friendly’
Sir Salman replied: “He’s made up a whole bunch of lies.
“I became extremely friendly and fond of the police officers who protected me.
“They were extremely scrupulous and would never behave so cruelly to me, get drunk on duty or do anything else he has said.
“At the end of my nine years of protection, they even held a party for me.
“He has not checked his facts. I was never locked in a cupboard nor was I suicidal. None of these things happened.
“The first I heard about the book was three weeks ago when a senior police officer called to warn me it was coming out.”He said the force was humiliated, apologetic and embarrassed about it.”

Rent money
Sir Salman said he was paid rent for officers who stayed in his houses but that he never asked for the money.
He said it had been offered by the police, who would otherwise have had to pay for more expensive lodgings nearby.
He said: “I am not in the business of suppressing books. I just want the stuff taken out of which he knows to be untrue.
“Whenever I write something, I always want to make sure that what I write is defensible. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.”
Sir Salman said he remembered Mr Evans but the man had not made any overall impression on him.
He said: “This is not just my reputation at stake. Apart from making me look bad, he’s made the entire police force look bad.
“I am taking the action because I feel loyal towards those people who risked their lives for me. “They are being accused of all sorts of things and yet no-one seems to be defending them.”
Legal action
Sir Salman is considering legal action against Mr Evans, his co-writer Douglas Thompson and publisher John Blake Publishing Ltd.
In 2005, Mr Evans was convicted on nine counts of false accounting and ordered to pay £6,280.85 in fines and costs.
A statement from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) about the book said Mr Evans had not been asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. “It is not our intention to comment on Ron Evans’ recollection and interpretation of specific events. We regret that he chooses to publish this book,” the MPS said. “There were a number of passages within the draft which caused [us] concern. Following legal advice we negotiated with the publishers to make some alterations.” The publishing house has declined to comment. Ron Evans and Douglas Thompson were unavailable for comment. ”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7538875.stm)

I have highlighted Rushdie’s comment on police’s image above because I can see the double standards at work here as well. In the Satanic Verses when the transfiguration of Saladin Chamcha starts and he is apprehended by the British authorities considerable cruelty is shown on the behalf of the British authorities and the police too. Is it not interesting?
I am saddened because the man who has been fashioning himself as the crusader against censorship now wants a minor work to be censored. While I am not a British citizen and I have no right to object legally on Rushdie’s knighthood I most certainly can object to his demand on censoring the book. No sir, the book should be published as it is. The best course of action for Rushdie would be to write his own memoir on life under the Fatwa and clear all the allegations made. Any legal action should and would be condemned.