Rushdie's powerful words

I decided to write because I am not convinced that the article "The lighter side of Rushdie" (April 29) does full justice to Salman Rushdie's captivating talk. There were some very strong remarks in the discussion that seem to have gone unnoticed or at least unmentioned.

The quote in the article - "People who haven't read much of my work figure it's dark, theological, obscure, and incomprehensible," Rushdie said. "It's not" - is not complete. I believe that what he was saying was that those who had not read his work thought that it was dark, obscure, theological and incomprehensible just like the things/forces that came after him. There is a subtle but obvious difference between the two interpretations.

Rushdie mentioned that when people were trying to shut him up, he decided to not shut up. His advice to the younger generation was to "go to the edge and push" because it is better to fail in the attempt that not to have tried at all. His remarks, even if they were expressed in a lighthearted tone, were strong - one example is the comment about the current bewildering terror alerts. Rushdie had asked what people are supposed to do when it jumps from yellow to vermillion? He stated that fear is an absolutist and we should not, must not live in it. Well, does his opinion count? Read on.

Rushdie's remark on the authenticity of the experience of someone who is considered marginal was an issue that really struck a chord with me. It was one that should be avidly discussed on a college campus. He talked about the time in India when right-wing Hindu nationalist group(s) claimed that he and other non-Hindus did not constitute "an authentic Indian experience" because they were not Hindus! They still have not given up saying that, by the way. Given that someone "more authentic" does not consider you a part of the experience, does your voice still count? Rushdie stated that it is never completely clear whom it is who should be able to write about a given issue. Is it the people who are living the experience or the ones who are watching it?

I must admit that before yesterday, I had never considered Rushdie an "Indian author" because I always thought of him as an international figure. Now I know that I was somewhat mistaken and was pleasantly surprised at the strong bond that he showed with his motherland. Some of his jokes were very "Indian" like the comment about deities who were above the titles of superstars. It was a sarcastic joke on people in some Indian states who worship the local actors as if they are gods and some have even gone to the extent of building temples for these actors! I concurred with his observation on Indian storytelling where you do not always start at the beginning, the end is somewhere in the middle, throw in some anecdotes for good measure. Not only did I have a childhood flashback, I learned something about my own personality at that very instant.

Despite his travels and experiences, he was impacted by his childhood and the life that his parents had lived in India at a very difficult time. Nevertheless, his bond with India made me wonder for how long an emigrant could retain memories from their birthplace. Does it all start to blur with time if you do not revisit the city/cities where you grew up? Does it all start to sound superficial after a while?

Salman Rushdie has had an impact nationally and internationally and he is going to make people think every time he speaks. I felt fortunate to be able to listen to him. It reminded me that no matter what others say about a person, what a person has to say about himself/herself is also very important.