Legal proceedings have been filed against four authors that read aloud from Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic verses. Salil Tripathi explains how outdated Colonial-era legislation is being used to curtail free expression. 

The saga refuses to end.

The Jaipur story has now taken a new turn, on Monday (6 February) two courts in the city began legal proceedings after complaints were filed by among others, members of an organisation that campaigned against Salman Rushdie’s participation in the Jaipur Literature Festival. They allege that the festival organisers and four authors who read from Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims.

The four authors — Amitava Kumar, Hari Kunzru, Ruchir Joshi, and Jeet Thayil — read from the novel to express solidarity with the absent Rushdie, and as a mark of protest. Rushdie did not go to Jaipur after he received plausible information that security forces had evidence of death threats against him. Now the festival’s organisers are also being charged under provisions of India’s criminal laws, which date back to the colonial era.

The complainants main contention is that the authors and the festival organisers conspired “to promote enmity on grounds of religion.” One magistrate has recorded the complaint to decide if the case has any merit before it is sent to the police to register a First Information Report. That case will now be heard on 8 March. Another magistrate will record a complainant’s statement today. When such complaints are filed, the court can either ask the police to register a report and launch an investigation, or examine the complaint on its own, before deciding if the matter deserves to be sent to the police for further action. The courts have decided to examine the matter first, before sending it to the police.

The relevant sections under the Indian law are:

295-A (which deals with deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings)

298 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings),

153-A (promoting enmity between groups on religious grounds),

153-B (imputations prejudicial to national integration)

120-B (criminal conspiracy).

Preserving communal harmony is a serious matter in India. These laws empower the state to prosecute anyone whose intends to and acts in a way that outrages religious feelings or promotes “enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,” and the all-important, all-inclusive “etc.”

Now think again about what happened in Jaipur: the four authors read extracts from The Satanic Verses, whose import is banned in India. Note, its import is banned in India; lawyers have pointed out that the government did not ban its printing or publishing — rather, Penguin, which had the rights to publish it in India, chose not to do so after the import ban was imposed, and its consulting editor recommended that it would be unwise to publish the novel. Leading Indian lawyers say that bane does not extend to reading the novel, or reading from it. In fact, in the years after the ban, several lawyers and writers read from it in public, as a mark of protest. They weren’t charged at any time. At the Jaipur Festival, parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor, author and former diplomat, said he has read from, or cited the novel, without any problem.

And yet, now the four authors and the festival’s organisers — William Dalrymple, Namita Gokhale, and Sanjoy Roy — face the prospect of being charged under colonial-era laws. Such a prosecution mocks India’s fine judicial traditions and runs counter to its constitutional guarantees of free speech (which are, it must be said, limited). It means if you say anything that someone considers controversial or offensive, then either that individual or the state can begin proceedings that could lead to prosecution. This isn’t a theoretical proposition, nor is this the first such complaint. Many film-makers, authors, and artists have been scarred by threats of such prosecutions. Many have sued for peace by dropping contentious material before publication; some have been prosecuted. Higher courts have usually dismissed the charges, but not before a long process that’s costly and stressful. (There is also the other threat of vigilantes doling out justice in the form of ransacked galleries or theatres, or attacks on artists, with the police doing little to stop such violence). This is preposterous — but such is the state of affairs.

Neither the authors nor the festival organisers incited any community, nor did they intend to insult any religious group. The festival organisers have said they were not aware that the authors intended to protest. After the four read from the novel, the organisers even issued a statement saying the authors had acted on their own. But none of that seems to matter to the complainants.

The charge is even more confusing since there has been no violence. Nobody went on a rampage; there was no riot. The four had never intended to incite anybody, and nobody got incited. However, some Muslim fundamentalist groups had offered rewards to throw shoes at Rushdie, or spit on Rushdie. Others had said that even a video appearance by Rushdie could have repercussions, irrespective of what he might say. Many might regard these statements as threats, but as of now, no police officer has pressed charges against any of those individuals, who were at least implying that matters might get out of hand for which, of course, they would presumably claim no responsibility.

And so it is that the one who claims offence and threatens to take the law in his hands, or suggests others might do so, remains free; the ones who read from a book are being charged under laws meant to prevent violence.

The Indian Penal Code, from which these sections are derived, was drafted in 1860, and much of that law has stayed fossilised, even though India gained Independence in 1947. It is important to remember the circumstances under which that law was drafted. In 1857, many princely states in India rebelled against the rule of the East India Company, and what followed was what India calls the first war of independence, and what Britain remembers as the Sepoy Mutiny. Soldiers of the East India Company rebelled against the company, and united with various princely states in a vain attempt to overpower the colonial rule. The war ended in 1858, with the Indian states surrendering, and soon thereafter, company rule ended, and Queen Victoria became the Empress of India.

There were many reasons for the uprising, but the immediate spark was religious. Indian troops in the East India Company’s army were alarmed by rumours that the new British cartridges were greased with cow or pig fat. Hindu and Muslim soldiers alike were offended, unwilling to handle ammunition contaminated by animal fat which the respective faiths shunned.

Realising the combustible power of religion, the British decided to make maintenance of religious harmony their priority, and to do that, they took advantage of mutual suspicion among the communities. So anyone who disrupted harmony would be prosecuted, and people had the right to complain against anyone who disrupted such harmony, turning the “subjects” into informers. Colonial rulers had good reason to maintain such laws — to keep communities suspicious of one another and divided just short of fighting.

Free India is supposed to be democratic; its adult citizens vote their governments, and they argue with each other in a spirited manner. But these laws, relics of the raj, treat Indians as subjects, not citizens. They allow troublemakers to file spurious complaints under the provisions of these laws and restrict free expression, as had happened to the great painter, the late M.F. Husain, who was driven out of India, and died in exile in London last year. The same provisions are now being used against the novelists and organisers of a festival of literature.

This has gone on too long. Before it gets any worse, India needs adult supervision; it needs to repeal these laws, stop proceedings against the authors and festival organisers, and keep a stern eye on rabble-rousers who cry offence and threaten violence because they don’t like other people reading a book they haven’t read and which they are told they must dislike.

You can dislike a book; nothing is sacred. But if you don’t like a book, Rushdie had said in India in 2010, all you have to do is to shut it.

Instead, they want to shut conversations across the country through intimidation.

Salil Tripathi is a journalist and author and the chair of English PEN’s Writers in Prison Committee

The Tunisian Internet Agency was the Ben Ali regime’s instrument for censoring the web. Now, as it attempts to break ties with the past, Afef Abrougui talks to its CEO about the online challenges facing Tunisia

The regime of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was an enemy to internet freedom. Significant resources were spent on censorship of the web. The Tunisian Internet Agency (established in 1996, and known as the ATI by its French acronym), was the regime’s instrument to block access to online dissident voices and websites that criticised the regime. After the ousting of Ben Ali on 14 January 2011, Tunisian netizens have started to enjoy unprecedented, uncensored web access.

And as the ATI is trying to break all ties with its image as a web censor, questions are being raised about the role of the agency in post-revolution Tunisia, the destiny of censorship machinery, and the challenges to the internet in the country.

To answer these questions and more, Index on Censorship interviewed Moez Chakchouk, the ATI’s CEO.

There is a complaint lodged against ATI to filter pornographic content on the web. If ATI loses the case, how do you see the future of internet censorship in Tunisia? Will this case pave the way for other lawsuits asking the ATI to block other content?

Currently, there are other lawsuits against the ATI requiring it to filter other content.  There are lawsuits filed by investigating magistrates, similar to the complaint lodged by the military Tribunal in May. [In May, 2011, and following a verdict issued by the military tribunal, the ATI filtered five Facebook pages criticising the army]. We have received complaints to censor about 30 Facebook pages.

Who is lodging such complaints?

There are complaints lodged by one person against another one, for defamation, or for spreading false or unconfirmed information. In this case, an investigating magistrate has asked the agency to filter such content.

Under the former regime, ATI used to use censorship equipment. Questions are being raised about such equipment. Where is it now? What happened to it? Will it be ever used again?

The censorship equipment is still at the ATI headquarters. The machinery was bought by the government and installed at the ATI in 2006. In 2011, we did not buy anything new. The equipment requires an extension every year to face increase in Internet traffic. In 2011, we did not do anything; we could not buy more equipment because the government took back a subvention that was first allocated to the ATI.

What about the five Facebook pages that the Military tribunal asked you to filter in May?

We did filter those pages for some time but then we stopped for technical reasons.The global filters were not capable of covering all Internet traffic, which increased from 30 Gbits to 45 Gbits over last year. And for an increase of 15Gbits, we need two more filtering machines. When we tried to filter those pages with the available equipment, Internet service quality lowered. And we can’t allow this to happen because we have contracts with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) …We are somehow caught in between. Judicially, the agency is obliged to filter (…) but we could not do it. So we have decided not to filter until we could improve the equipment that we have.

Plus in August 2011 the agency faced another mechanical breakdown; the filtering machinery failed. And this is quite normal because over the past year no maintenance took place and we did not develop the equipment that we have.

Under the former regime, the ATI used to play the role of Internet censor. What is the role of the ATI in post-Ben Ali Tunisia? And how will it move from an agency that censors online dissident voices and content criticising the regime to an institution guaranteeing net freedom?

Right now there is no internet censorship. I’m against censorship. But in case there is a call for the comeback of censorship, it should be based on legal texts. And for the moment there are no such texts for the Internet in Tunisia.

The goal of the agency after the revolution is guaranteeing net neutrality. When we say net neutrality we should not care about the content.

Again we do not prefer Internet legislation because we are aware its risks.

If we want to develop the Internet in Tunisia we should not create obstacles. It is not urgent for Tunisia to draw red lines. This is my personal point of view independent of the agency, which has to remain neutral.

If there is to be Internet control in Tunisia, this control should be smart, transparent and for security reasons. The agency, used to carry out such control secretly. Today we are advocating absolute transparency. It would be better if a new public agency would be established and take charge of such a task. The ATI cannot guarantee internet neutrality and supervise the Internet at the same time. That is a conflict. This is my personal view as the legal representative of the ATI.

Do you know where the key technicians and officials who ran the old regime’s internet blocking and surveillance operation are? Are they still working?

The ATI is a technical agency where the censorship equipment was and is still installed. The agency has never been involved in deciding which websites should be censored. The employees of the agency know how to operate, and maintain the machinery; but they are not the ones who chose the websites to censor. They are only trained to maintain the equipment. Those who took such decisions were not ATI employees.

According to the information that I have; the Tunisian Agency for External Communication [known by its French acronym as the ATCE] was involved in taking such decisions (…) the ATCE had important transactions with the ATI. But these transactions were not documented as practices of censorship, but as website surveillance. But there is nothing documented that proves there were censorship related transactions between the two agencies.

The former ruling party, the Constitutional Democratic Party, (now dissolved, and known by its French acronym the as RCD) , the presidential palace and the security apparatus, might have been involved in such practices too. I don’t know exactly. There are no documents that reveal exact names and parties.

What about the foreign companies that the agency cooperated with under the former regime? Are you still cooperating with them?

We are no longer cooperating with the companies that the agency cooperated with in the past. Over the past year we put an end to the agency’s dealings with old markets, and we did not launch any new censorship-related projects.

Since the agency is filtering for public institutions, we have been trying to renew a maintenance contract with a filtering company. But we have faced enormous issues, and the contract has not been renewed yet. This company considered the Tunisian Internet agency a big partner … a technical partner that hosted equipment that does not belong to it, and that was used to undertake censorship and surveillance related tests. For these companies, Tunisia responded to their needs; a country close to Europe, and a place where everything was permitted, and no one dares to raise the question about the 404 error. But now, when a website hosted in Europe, or the USA does no longer exist, and 404 error appears on the computer screen, newspapers immediately report that “censorship is back” , and that “ATI is lying to us”. Truly, there is not a single functioning machine except the local filters, which are functioning for public institutions.

What is the name of this company?

Unfortunately, I can’t tell you the names of the companies. I read the contracts of these companies with the agency, and they contain confidentiality clauses.

What are the upcoming challenges for the ATI and for the internet in Tunisia?

When we check the ICT development index, we notice that the problem of Tunisia is the content. We have an advanced infrastructure but the content and apps are not developing for simple reasons. Before, to create a website there were obstacles — namely waiting for the ATCE approval, and censorship. People did not feel comfortable and safe to create content. It was impossible to create websites in Tunisia; it was a dream.

Obtaining a domain name for a website was impossible too. But, now any Tunisian citizen can go ask for the name of the domain that he or she chooses. There are no more political constraints. And there is no more censorship. People used to be afraid from authorities tracking them and their families down. This is why Tunisia was behind.

Obstacles that were established during a specific period should be abolished now. We should try to ensure an adequate development without constraints, and barriers. The internet is freedom, the internet is openness. Of course it can be badly used, but we will go through this over time.

Now, people are lodging complaints against each other for defamation. We are overreacting and I have fears that if we over react we will receive censorship orders.

Another challenge for the internet in Tunisia is regulation. The government should not be involved in internet regulation. Instead, an independent authority should take in charge such task. But we don’t have such authorities for the internet in Tunisia, so we have to raise this issue realistically.

If the state wants to draw red lines for net freedom, it should first establish an independent authority to regulate the internet. Internet legislation should not be drafted without a regulation authority that creates balance, between public and individual interests. The state has the right to protect and eliminate defamation, but citizens have the right to freely express themselves. So we need balance, and if the government cannot create such balance, a conflict of interests will occur.

As events unfolded in Tunisia and Egypt in January 2011 and mass protests spread to the Arabian Peninsula. Slowly people started finding their voice. Although in early February, anti-government protests had been ongoing for several days, there was a feeling of safety in numbers and solidarity amongst the attendees of mass demonstrations.

But in those early weeks, I watched a youth protester become embroiled in a furious debate on a public bus in Sana’a. The youth sparred with an elderly man who had lived through Yemen’s civil war of the 1960s and witnessed the fall of the Imamate, and many moved away from the young student as he raged over the heads of passengers about Yemen’s long standing leader. Others looked on nervously before the driver demanded the youth’s silence. He refused, deciding instead to disembark rather than submit. The brief but vociferous exchange left the remaining occupants in stunned silence. From these small beginnings and expression of years of frustration, Yemen’s revolution and a year of political unrest grew.

Compared to its regional neighbours, pre-2011 Yemenis enjoyed relative freedom. Multiple political opposition parties existed, a small but unwavering independent press operated in contrast to the state media and the multiple government aligned newspapers. Despite this apparent tolerance, when the protest movement took off after the fall of Egypt’s President Mubarak on February 11, Yemeni journalists covering demonstrations calling for the end of Saleh’s 33-year rule, were amongst the first victims of a campaign of intimidation and attacks. Six journalists were killed during last year’s violence, more than any other country caught up in the Arab Spring, according to International Press Institute figures. Between 1994 and 2008, nine Yemeni journalists were killed in mysterious car accidents or other questionable accidental deaths .

But since a new unity government — including new heads of the Ministry of Information and Ministry for Human Rights — formed last month, following Saleh’s signing of a Gulf and UN-brokered transfer of power deal in November, Yemen’s media has experienced a significant shift. The staunch support for Saleh and his General People’s Congress party across the state media has changed dramatically. For the first time pictures of anti-government demonstrations were run on the front page of government aligned newspapers, whilst the Ministry of defence weekly newspaper, 26 September, printed accusations of corruption against its own editor, marking a new phase in protests across the country.

In December, separate to, but emboldened by 12 months of anti-government demonstrations, civil servants and workers at government institutions began their own small but in several cases effective demonstrations , civil servants and workers at government institutions began their own small but in several cases effective demonstrations – anti-corruption rallies. Labelled Yemen’s “parallel revolution” from Sana’a police headquarters to the coast guard in Aden workers have gone out on strike demanding the removal of corrupt bosses. The latest ongoing walkout by members of Yemen’s air force began on January 22, disrupting flights at Sana’a airport, which also acts as Yemen’s main air force base, as protesting airmen demanded the removal of the air force chief, also President Saleh’s half-brother, Mohammed Saleh al-Ahmer. The mutiny has reportedly spread to three more airbases across the country. The Yemeni people have found their voice and the power of peaceful protest as a way of expressing not only their dissatisfaction against the outgoing president Saleh — who left the country on 22 January for medical treatment in the US — but are having a real impact in the removal of several officials.

The Gulf and UN-brokered deal, which is now being implemented, falls short of most people’s expectations, in particular the immunity law passed by parliament last weekend that gives protection from prosecution to Saleh for “politically motivated crimes” and all those acting for him “in their official capacity.” The bill was described by Human Rights Watch as unlawful and “an affront to victims and a blow to justice.” Next month’s election should be an historic moment in a country where nearly two generations have only known one leader. But the election of Vice-President Abdrabbu Mansour Hadi is a formality rather than a diplomatic process to finally remove Mr Saleh from office.  After a year of political unrest and with the military and air force still under the control of Saleh’s sons, nephews and extended family members , his influence has yet to end, and Yemen’s future remains uncertain.

Crucially the transition initiative excludes three isolated groups: the pre-existing Southern Movement and their demand for secession, the northern Houthi rebels, calling for autonomy, who have fought six wars against the government since 2004, in addition to the 2011 protest movement.

2011 in Yemen will not only be remembered as a year of blood shed and turmoil and the year a Yemeni activist , Tawakkol Karman, became the first female from the Arab world to win a Nobel Peace Prize, but also for a notable and seemingly irreversible shift: Yemenis are no longer willing to accept years of endemic corruption throughout the state system. As the country moves into a two year period of transition, ahead of parliamentary elections in 2014, it will be up Yemenis external to the political process to maintain pressure on the unity government and politicians in order for any real change to take place.

Iona Craig is a freelance journalist based in Sana’a

One year to the day pro-democracy activists held mass protests, and the mood in Tahrir yesterday was one of jubilation and fanfare. Two days earlier, Egypt’s first democratically elected parliament convened for the first time, pledging to work to fulfil the goals of the revolution — including securing justice for the  families of those killed and victims of violence during last year’s mass uprising; a key demand of the revolutionary movements. The Islamist-dominated People’s Assembly, the lower house of the parliament, also made it clear that the military council running Egypt in the transitional period would face close scrutiny from the newly elected lawmakers.

Meanwhile, in an effort to appease a disgruntled public ahead of protests marking the anniversary of the Revolution, the military council announced the release of 1,959 political detainees, most of them pro-democracy activists who had faced military trials . Prominent blogger Maikel Nabil, Egypt’s first prisoner of conscience in the post-revolutionary era, was among the convicts to be set free. The military authority also said it would lift the state of emergency in place since 1981. It added however that the law would continue to apply in cases of ‘thuggery’. Skeptics worry that the exception may be a pretext for continuing arbitrary arrests and detention of civilians without charge, especially as peaceful protesters have been previously described by military generals as “trouble-makers” and “paid agents carrying out foreign agendas.”

Uncertainty about the future failed to dampen the mood in Tahrir Square, as Islamists celebrated the achievements of the past year, relishing their newfound freedom and leadership role. The Muslim Brotherhood — a long time banned group in Egypt won 38 per cent of parliamentary seats for their Freedom and Justice Party in the recent election. The ultra-conservative Salafist Nour Party meanwhile secured 29 per cent of the list seats.

“We voted them in and now they will take care of our demands,” Manal Hassan , a veiled housewife and mother of three said confidently.

It wasn’t until early afternoon when thousands more protesters —  mostly secularists and liberals  — converged on Tahrir after marching through the streets from various focal points in the city — that the mood began to shift from celebratory to rebellious. Seeking a new revolt against military rule, the activists began to chant “Down with military rule!”

“We did not come to Tahrir earlier in the day so as to give the Islamists space to celebrate. But it is too early for us to celebrate. We must continue our struggle. Very few of our goals have been met,” said Amr Taher, a student of commerce. His friends nodded in agreement.

“We have walked all the way from Mostafa Mahmoud in Mohandeseen to make our demands clear. We want the military to handover power to a civilian government now,” said advertising agency employee Amina Mansour, 28.

Many liberals feel that little has changed since Mubarak was toppled and say the old regime is still intact. Listing rights violations including military trials for more than 12,000 civilians in the past year, torture in prisons, virginity checks performed on female protesters and intimidation of journalists. Reem Dawoud, activist and member of the “Kazeboon” campaign, launched “to expose the lies of the ruling military council” noted, “A year on, we are still waiting for a free press and an independent judiciary!”

“El Qassas! El Qassas! Justice for the martyrs and their families! ” shouted an elderly activist from the podium, his cries met with cheers and clapping from the crowd below. Before nightfall, an estimated 150,000 protesters had gathered in the Square, sending a strong message to the military authority that “the fear barrier has been broken” and “the rulers are now accountable to their people for the first time ,” as expressed by some Facebook-users in their posts later in the day.

As Egyptians start their second post-revolution year, they are optimistic about the future. “The power is now in the hands of the people for the first time,” author Alaa Aswani said in a televised interview. Confident in their ability to create change, they know it is a matter of time before the military is pushed back to the barracks and power is transferred to a civilian government. And they are hoping for a faster pace of reforms and successful transition to democracy.

“We went off-course for a while this past year because of lack of unity among liberal movements and their inability to reach consensus on the way forward. But now, we seem to have found our way again and are moving on the right track,” said 35 year-old activist Hazem Mahmoud , with a broad smile on his face.

Journalist and television anchor Shahira Amin resigned her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV on February 2011

Irina Khalip, Sannikov’s wife, visited him in jail yesterday. It was her first permitted visit since August last year. In an emotional meeting in the presence of KGB officers, Sannikov used a pre-arranged code to express his fear of never seeing his family again. He added that the physical and psychological torture was constant — not daily, but hourly. Khalip said that Sannikov was extremely frail, and even though the KGB stated there would be reprisals for reporting details of her visit, she went public at a press conference today, as she believes her husband will die in jail without international action. There are also fears that Sannikov’s family may be targeted.

At the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly this morning, delegates passed a strong draft opinion written by rapporteur Andres Herkel. All political groups backed the opinion that called for:

- the Belarusian authorities to release and rehabilitate all political prisoners, and;
- all member states of the Council of Europe to join the sanctions imposed by the European Union against Belarusian officials responsible for serious human rights violations.

Index on Censorship will be writing to Council of Europe member states to urge them to join the European Union sanctions, and remind Belarus of its international obligations, alongside member states such as Norway who have already done so.

Whilst there was almost unanimous support for this strong statement on Belarus, some former post-Soviet countries mindful of their own domestic human rights record attempted to water it down. An Armenian delegate described the debate as ‘hypocritical’ whilst their foe Azerbaijan remained within the Council of Europe. Later, Russian delegates stood up one by one to provoke the assembled parliamentarians with apologia for Lukashenko’s regime. Svetlana Goryacheva a Russian delegate from the Socialist Group spread Belarusian government propaganda about jailed human rights activist Ales Bialiatski, stating incorrectly he had received $300 million personally in donations from the West, adding that Western European countries and the United States were “war-mongerers”. Leonid Slutsky, another Russian delegate, said of the widespread concern for Bialiatski, “[They] are sending a signal that if you are a human rights defender you can evade taxes.” Slutsky failed to mention that Bialiatski was sentenced under Belarus’s penal code, which makes any form of donations to domestic NGOs a criminal offence.

The Russian’s but incensed delegates especially those from Baltic former Communist countries. Lithuanian EPP delegate Emanuelis Zingeris voiced his concerns over the behaviour of the Russians and Armenians and said the ‘anti-democratic statements’ of the Eurasian states were not appropriate for Strasbourg. Fellow Lithuanian delegate Egidijus Varekis said the word “President” should be removed from in front of Lukashenko’s name in the opinion and replaced with “dictator”. He added, to applause:

“We talk about how we can live with Lukashenko, but not how we can live without Lukashenko… If we cannot live without this dictatorship then this says a lot about our democracies.”

Andres Herkel’s report which formed the resolution included Index on Censorship’s successful campaign with Free Belarus Now against banks that sold Belarusian government bonds.

The resolution finally passed 111 votes with 10 against and 6 abstentions; and the recommendations of the committee were passed by 119 votes, 10 against and 3 abstentions. It is thought the majority of the 10 against were from the Russian delegation.

Michael Harris is Index on Censorship’s Head of Advocacy

24 January 2012 – Tunis/London

A mission report by six international organisation who travelled to Bahrain last November accuses the Bahraini authorities of failing to deliver on promises of reform, despite a highly-touted commission of inquiry. Bahrain has now experienced almost a year of turmoil, as the anniversary of unrest, 14 February, draws near. Despite promises of change, rights violations continue on a daily basis, and individuals jailed during the government crackdown in February and March remain in prison.

The report, Justice Denied in Bahrain: Freedom of Expression and Assembly Curtailed, outlines human rights violations linked to the authorities’ handling of protests and demonstrations in the country since February 2011. The report details meetings with human rights defenders, lawyers, writers, artists, journalists, government officials and foreign diplomats and provides insight into how the government continues to punish and prosecute individuals for expressing their opinions and protesting ongoing repression.

Bahrain’s government appears to be more concerned with maintaining the façade of a modern Arab nation, rather than listening to the demands of a popular uprising. Citizens have been prosecuted for expressing their views peacefully. Bahraini officials have crushed free speech.
Sara Yasin, editorial assistant at Index on Censorship

Expectations of change in Bahrain were raised by the publication of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report at the end of November (witnessed by the mission) and its recommendations for reform. However the reality on the ground remains unchanged. Human rights activists, doctors, teachers, union members, political figures, journalists, bloggers and others continue to face harassment, prosecution and imprisonment despite the use of torture and unfair trials against them. Protests continue on an almost daily basis, and the security forces response is virtually unchanged despite the recommendations made in the BICI report.

It seems that despite the BICI report’s extensive catalogue of abuses against Bahraini citizens including torture, and a clear condemnation of the culture of impunity, the government of Bahrain is intent on maintaining the status quo. We are not seeing the immediate release of prisoners. Instead there is an interminable succession of postponed trials.
Marian Botsford Fraser, chair of the Writers in Prison Committee, PEN International

The 11 recommendations made in the report, include calls to end the harassment, imprisonment and prosecution of Bahraini citizens for what essentially amount to persecution of free expression and legitimate human rights work. In line with the BICI report, which was accepted by the government of Bahrain, the international mission report also insists on accountability for those responsible for violating international human rights norms, in particular those responsible for torture and killing.

The mission team was composed of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), Front Line Defenders, the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), Index on Censorship, International Media Support (IMS) and the Writers in Prison Committee (WiPC) of PEN International, and was supported by the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX).

International mission to Bahrain report

The full international mission report is online here, it will be launched today (24 January) at 17:30-19:00, Free Word Centre, London

Please contact Sara Yasin, Index on Censorship for more information.
sarayindexoncensorshiporg, tel +44 (0) 207 324 2532, mobile +44 (0) 7805 062 485
Follow the mission on Twitter #BahrainMission

Liverpool had its Fab Four, but now Jaipur in India has its own Fab Five — writers Amitava Kumar, Hari Kunzru, Jeet Thayil, Ruchir Joshi and Anand.

When the Rajasthan police apparently concocted a fictitious assassination plot leading Salman Rushdie to stay away from the Jaipur Literature Festival, the mood in Jaipur was glum. Everyone took the plot to be real, until The Hindu reported the convoluted manipulation by the police.

Many in India wanted to hear Rushdie, who avoided India during the fatwa years and has been able to make only a few visits since 2000. Festival goers were hoping to hear him speak about the filming of Midnight’s Children and his forthcoming memoir. But protests from Muslim groups and the plausible threat made him change his mind.

Which is where the Fab Four came in. On Friday, Poughkeepsie, NY-based Kumar, who teaches at Vassar and who has irritated Hindu nationalists in the past with his magnificent, in-your-face memoir, Husband of a Fanatic started reading passages from The Satanic Verses. Hari Kunzru, a British-Indian novelist based in New York  also took a stand at the same panel discussion. Both novelists stopped reading after the alarmed festival organisers pleaded with them.

Kunzru, a former English PEN vice-president, takes freedom of expression seriously. When the European Writers’ Parliament met in Istanbul and Turkish authors protested against the presence of VS Naipaul, forcing Naipaul to cancel his appearance, Kunzru spoke out. Reading from Rushdie’s controversial novel was no different.

The mood in Jaipur had changed. By  Friday afternoon, unexpectedly, the poet and novelist Jeet Thayil picked another passage from The Satanic Verses, and read aloud. Finally, Ruchir Joshi, film-maker and novelist, whose magical The Last Jet-Engine Laugh is an uproarious account of a futuristic India, read from The Satanic Verses. Tensions rose.

Soon thereafter, the police arrived, making inquiries about illegal conduct at the festival. Importing The Satanic Verses into India is prohibited but the law is unclear if possessing the novel is a crime, or reading aloud an extract from it is a crime. A lawyer or the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, the only local civil society group to support Rushdie last week, said that as the four authors read extracts from downloads, and not a book, it may not be a crime. Shashi Tharoor, novelist, diplomat, and parliamentarian pointed out he has routinely quoted and cited from The Satanic Verses and never been troubled.

In any case, the police should not throw around terms terms such as “guilt” and “crime”, as they have been doing, when they haven’t filed charges, nor proved their case before a judge.

The government could claim that by reading from the novel the authors incited the public. But incited to do what? Demand overturning the ban, nothing more. In fact, eyewitnesses say that the four authors were listened to in respectful silence, and warmly applauded. In any case, if the government wishes to proceed against the authors and is really mean-spirited, it could do so under S. 295A which gives the state the power to use criminal law against individuals who may have intended to cause trouble. But was there criminal intent, or mens rea? Sure, this is defiance, and it challenges a governmental act but it is Gandhian in its peaceful nature.

Police are seeking recordings of the reading, which, at the time of writing, the festival organisers are refusing to hand over. It is clear that the Rajasthan Police’s actions are meant to intimidate the authors and their supporters.

The role of the festival organisers — while their position is delicate — also requires scrutiny. If an author read from Ma Jian’s Beijing Coma, or Liu Xiaobo’s poems, or displayed Ai Wei Wei’s art at a public event in China, one would expect that the police would swoop down, and the organisers would very likely be forced to hand over the author to the Chinese security.

But this is India; a nation that holds elections, calls itself a democracy, and has a constitution that offers some protection for free speech. The actions of the Indian government in recent days, the intimidation of the five writers and its pusillanimity over Rushdie’s visit fall considerably short of India’s aspirations and claims.

While the organisers haven’t yet handed over the tapes, they told the authors to leave Jaipur immediately, lest they be arrested. It is not known if they offered them any protection. Worse, a lawyerly statement was issued, which in effect blamed the authors for “disturbing the peace”, because they acted outside the confines of the law. The organisers dissociated themselves from the action — which they can make a case for,  but did not uphold the four’s right to speak freely, which is harder to justify. They should have said that even though they disagreed with the action, they’d defend the principle of free speech. But India isn’t there yet, it seems.

Future participants, apparently, will have to conform to rules not yet defined, so that they act within the confines of the law. Such rules defeat the rationale of a festival of literature, where ideas are expressed to be argued over and debated; such rules restrict fundamental freedoms.

On Sunday, the writer Anand —who publishes dalit literature under the imprint Navayana — joined the protests, reading an eloquent passage from The Satanic Verses, which underscores the spirit of the protests:

What kind of idea are you? Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive: or are you the cussed, bloody-minded, ramrod-backed type of damnfool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze? The kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of hundred, be smashed to bits: but, the hundredth time, will change the world.

On Monday, leading Indian writers began to circulate a petition to the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, calling for the ban on The Satanic Verses to be lifted. The battle to undo the damage of the past quarter century has begun.

There are no ifs and buts. As Rushdie wrote in The Satanic Verses:

A Poets work (is) to name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments, shape the world and stop it from going to sleep.

It is time for India to wake up.

Sign the petition for the ban on The Satanic Verses to be lifted

Salil Tripathi is a journalist and author and the chair of English PEN’s Writers in Prison Committee

Muslim leaders had been calling for Indian-born Rushdie to be banned from the festival. Rushdie’s 1988 novel, The Satanic Verses, which is inspired by the life of Muhammed, was perceived by Muslims to be blasphemous.  Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Rushdie, calling on all good Muslims to kill the author. The book was banned across the world, including in India, where it is still banned.

This morning Rushdie announced his withdrawal from the festival.

Salman issued the following statement:

“For the last several days I have made no public comment about my proposed trip to the Jaipur Literary Festival at the request of the local authorities in Rajasthan, hoping that they would put in place such precautions as might be necessary to allow me to come and address the Festival audience in circumstances that were comfortable and safe for all.

I have now been informed by intelligence sources in Maharashtra and Rajasthan that paid assassins from the Mumbai underworld may be on their way to Jaipur to “eliminate” me. While I have some doubts about the accuracy of this intelligence, it would be irresponsible of me to come to the Festival in such circumstances; irresponsible to my family, to the festival audience, and to my fellow writers. I will therefore not travel to Jaipur as planned.”

Following the announcement, writer Salil Tripathi, who wrote about the controversy surrounding Rushdie’s visit earlier this week, suggested all writers at the festival should read from The Satanic Verses:

All writers in jaipur shd read 2-3 pages in public from satanic verses (500+pages). A gandhian way to fight the ban and state’s cowardice.

— Salil Tripathi (@saliltripathi) January 20, 2012

Author Hari Kunzru agreed, and planned, alongside academic Amitava Kumar, to do just that.

About to defy bigots and shoe throwers, reading @SalmanRushdie Satanic Verses on stage with @amitavakumar at #jaipur#jlf

— Hari Kunzru (@harikunzru) January 20, 2012

Kumar tweeted:

Writers: assassins shouldn’t be allowed to stifle writers join us in reading from Satanic Verses. @harikunzru Jaipur Durbar Hall 5.15 PM

— Amitava Kumar (@amitavakumar) January 20, 2012

Organisers apparently ended the protest, warning those that individuals could face police action for reading a banned book.

Authors at #JLF who read @SalmanRushdie Satanic Verses + organizers now being investigated by police for reading fr a banned book

— Stephanie Nolen (@snolen) January 20, 2012