Of Course, it was not inappropriate to lodge a diplomatic protest against the British decision to confer knighthood on an apostate, who committed blasphemy against Islam and the Holy Prophet (PBUH) with impunity two decades ago. Obviously, the protest was not made in the expectation that the Queen would reverse her birthday award list in this case.
It was simply aimed at underlining that their choice of the individual betrayed insensitivity to the Muslim sentiments and that it was hopefully not pre-meditated to cause deliberate hurt to Muslims, despite professions of promoting inter-faith harmony and bridging the gap between West and the Muslim World.
In any case, the British decision caused severe dissonance in the general atmosphere of interfaith harmony which is being perceived as an act in a series of provocations coming from the West to rattle the Muslim belief system. That is why Britain was told to have acted against the spirit of UN resolution 1624, which calls on all member states to "enhance dialogue and broaden understanding" as a means to preventing "the indiscriminate targeting of religions and cultures".
The initial response from the UK to the formal diplomatic protest by Pakistan sounded evasive. The explanation offered by the British High Commissioner was aimed at upholding the decision in the name of literary creativity which any sensible diplomat could have advanced in support of a controversial decision covered under the garb of his national ethos.
However, the stance taken by the British Home Secretary John Reid was downright strident and betrayed the very core of British thinking on the issue.
John Reid not only announced that the British government stood by the award but added, "I think we have a set of values that accrues people honours for their contribution to literature even when they don't agree with our point of view. That's our way and that's what we stand by". He, however, acknowledged, "we have to be sensitive, but I think that we take the approach that in the long run the protection of the right to express opinion in literature, argument and politics is of overriding value to our society".
By stating that the protection of the right to express opinion happens to be of overriding value to the British society, the Home Secretary went beyond the issue of award of knighthood to the apostate by offering protection even to his views as well. That would perhaps tend to evoke the suspicion of premeditation behind the decision to confer the award.
The British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett was reported to be "sorry", if people were upset over the award. She, however, insisted it was given for his literary merit. The British Foreign Office officials were said to privately describe the fallout from the Rushdie affair as regrettable. Earlier, a British Foreign Office spokesman had reportedly said he was not aware of any request by the Honours Committee to gauge likely Muslim reaction to the knighthood before the decision was taken.
It is known that the award was proposed by the UK Arts and Media Committee, chaired by Lord Rothschild, comprising Jenny Abramsky, Ben Okri, Andreas Whittam Smith, John Gross and two permanent secretaries, one from the Department for Culture, Media and Sports and the other from the Scottish executive. Of these only Ben Okri and John Gross enjoy claim to fame as creative writers and literary critics. Others represent cultivated taste for British ethos.
Former editor of the Independent, Andreas Whittam Smith reportedly stated it would be for the main committee to assess any other aspects of the honour. The British Foreign Office is represented on the main committee by the permanent secretary, whose job would be to raise questions about any potential ramifications of the award. This would imply that the main Honours Committee either slipped or did not deem it worthwhile to assess the likely Muslim reaction to the award of knighthood to a known apostate. Both possibilities point to the suspicion of premeditation, in terms of thoroughness or otherwise, before making a recommendation that proceeds as more or less final in the event of a pass by the Prime Minister.
The composition of the proposing committee suggests that the honour was recommended on considerations other than pure literary merit. As indeed does the tacit acceptance of the recommendation by the main Honours Committee. The initial response given by High Commissioner Brinkley and upheld by Foreign Secretary Beckett can therefore be construed as half-truth only in the light of the statement made by the Home Secretary.
Pakistan's diplomatic protest showed timely anticipation of the public outrage. Stiff resolutions were passed in the National Assembly, Senate and Provincial Assemblies mirroring sentiments of the people of Pakistan in an apt democratic manner. Similar pronouncements were made from the pulpits of thousands of mosques all over the country. The street protests were also seen but the turnout seemed to suggest that an overwhelming majority of moderates refrained from wasting their breath on the provocation aimed at crystallising 'creative chaos'. Accordingly, the Foreign Office wisely decided to formally approach the Organisation of Islamic Countries "to take a position" on the issue concerning the hurt sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims.
Diplomatic sanity would not construe the issue as a purely UK - Pakistan bilateral matter. Indeed, several Muslims organisations in the UK have also expressed themselves publicly and condemned the award of knighthood to an apostate as conscious efforts not only to offend Muslim sensibilities but also to sow seeds of discord among them.
The final message to the UK seems to be that while Muslims believe in promoting inter-faith harmony as an article of faith, London continues to posture around exploiting the resources of Mother Earth with utter disregard for human values of empathy, compassion and harmony.
(The writer is a former Ambassador.)
Comments
Comments are closed.