Author: Anshuman Rawat

Malaysia’s struggle to give up the giddy powers of the Internal Security Act illustrates Asian governments’ difficulties in changing their emergency mindset

(9 Dcember 2011) — Two months after Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak declared the repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA), which — among other emergency-related ordinances — allowed detention without trial, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said a replacement law would carry similar provisions.

Detention without trial would continue under two new laws to deal with terrorism and maintain public order, Hishammuddin said, justifying the decision with examples of the US Patriot Act and Britain’s Terrorism Act.

Even more controversially, the Peaceful Assembly Bill was bulldozed into law on November 29. The law forbids street protests and imposes a slew of stipulations for other assemblies, though it allows gatherings at designated areas away from public or government facilities.

This comes after tens of thousands of people took to the streets earlier this year for the Bersih 2.0 rally on July 9, organised by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections.

In November, the government detained 13 people suspected to be members of Al Qaeda-linked Indonesian militant group Jemaah Islamiyah, in Tawau, Sabah, for alleged terrorist activities. The arrests, carried out under the ISA, sparked criticism of a volte-face by Prime Minister Najib.

Home Minister Hishammuddin said the arrests, which included six Indonesians, were in line with the new anti-terrorism law replacing the ISA. The Indonesians would be deported upon completion of investigations, “but the Malaysians will be charged if there is sufficient evidence”, he said.

Critics point out that the existing penal code was amended a few years ago to deal specifically with terrorism.

The original ISA dates back to the Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948, which was enacted by the British to combat insurgency and communism. Malaysia, then Malaya, kept the law after gaining independence in 1957, passing the ISA in 1960 as the country continued its fight against communism.

The threat of communism faded in the 1980s but the ISA remained on the books.

On October 27, 1987, the government carried out Operasi Lalang, weeding out political opposition with ISA arrests of more than 100 opposition leaders and social activists.

Over the years, the government has increasingly used the act to ensure its political stranglehold. Unsurprisingly, many Malaysians were sceptical when Najib announced the repeal of the draconian law on September 15, a day before Malaysia Day. Consequently, few in Malaysia were surprised by the detention provisions in the new act, which experts described as old wine in new skin.

But Malaysia is not the only country grappling with the ISA. In neighbouring island state of Singapore, 2,460 ISA arrests were made from 1959 to 1990, the government said in November.

The reasons for arrest included involvement in communism-related activities to overthrow the government, racial and religious extremism, Konfrontasi — Indonesia’s violent opposition to the creation of Malaysia in the 1960s, foreign subversion and espionage, and terrorism, said Singapore Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean.

India has also witnessed battles between security forces and civil society groups in the debate to repeal an ISA-prototype, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants the military special powers to detain suspected extremists without trial.

The country had a 20-month experiment with emergency powers between 1975 and 1977, when then prime minister Indira Gandhi, in her own words, brought “democracy to a grinding halt” on the pretext of securing the nation from “internal disturbances”. The period not only hurt the evolution of democratic mechanisms in the country, but also severely impacted the socio-economic growth of the nation.

140,000 people were arrested without trial during the period, according to Amnesty International. Along with the abuse and torture of detainees and political prisoners, actions like destruction of slums and low-income housing on the pretext of removing poverty and forced sterilization of men and women under a family planning initiative by Indira’s son, Sanjay Gandhi drew widespread condemnation.

Along with the AFSPA, which is enforced primarily in select pockets of the nation, like Jammu & Kashmir and the North-Eastern states that are grappling with secessionist forces, India had also experimented with laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) on a national level.

From Pakistan’s emergency declaration in 2007 to suppress lawyers’ protests of the sacking of the chief justice, to Thailand’s use of emergency powers in 2005 to combat insurgents in three predominantly Muslim provinces, Asia is replete with examples of the use of emergency powers.

Back in Malaysia, the opposition parties and civil society movements see the ISA as a mere tool for political repression. Increasingly politically astute Malaysians are growing restless over prime minister Najib’s so-called reforms, which they believe are high on rhetoric but light on substance.

Still, it would be foolhardy to expect the government to completely disregard the need for ISA in an era of global terrorist threat. Electoral politics may suggest that the government looks to appease voters but ultimately, giving up the giddy powers of the ISA will not be easy.

Asia’s next arms race may play out underwater as militaries ramp up spending on submarine fleets

(17 February 2012) — Asia’s waterways are becoming more dangerous as a new kind of predator stakes out its territory. Almost every Asian country with a coastline is turning to submarines as a first line of defence.

The race to get deep and deadly in Asian waters entered a new phase on January 23, when India joined an exclusive club of five nations with nuclear-powered submarines, taking delivery of a Russian Akula-2 class attack submarine on a ten-year lease.

The US, UK, Russia, France and China are the only other nations to have nuclear submarines.

China, in particular, is massively upgrading its giant fleet, spurring anxiety among its neighbours, which are increasingly responding by ramping up their own submarine capacities. Australia is preparing a fleet upgrade costing more than US$36 billion. Japan is adding eight subs to its existing fleet of 16. South Korea has been buying German Type 214 subs in recent years, purchasing another batch shortly after a North Korean sub attacked one of its warships in 2010, killing 46 seamen.

Smaller nations in Southeast Asia are also embracing submersibles.

Citing unclassified reports, Ashfaqur Rahman, chairman of the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies in Bangladesh, told Asia360 News of startling new procurement plans in the region. Vietnam will receive the first of six Russian Kilo-class submarines from next year, while Thailand is buying the same number of German U-206 submarines, he said. Indonesia will soon acquire five submarines and the Philippines is said to be in discussions with the US to buy submersibles. Add to that Singapore’s four Challenger-class submarines and Malaysia’s two French Scorpene-class models, and Asia has become a major market for Western submarine technology.

Beijing’s demand for oil and gas is driving this trend, said Rahman, formerly Bangladesh’s ambassador to China.

Securing sea lanes for energy imports to fuel its economy is another of China’s highest policy priorities, providing Beijing with a compelling rationale for a strong sub fleet. The new US strategic focus on Asia will only reinforce this rationale, said Owen Cote, associate director of the security studies programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

A February 10 report released by Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies said that China, owing to its growing dependence on imported energy resources, is strengthening its military power to ensure its ability to stand up to the US for regional resource development.

Experts believe that this trend is shaping up as a high-tech arms race, made all the more disconcerting by China’s rise and a host of simmering territorial disputes. Asia-Pacific is scattered with disputed islands. Japan has rival claims with China, South Korea and Russia, while more than half a dozen countries claim rights to the remote Spratly Islands, nearly 160 kilometres from the Philippines.

“The Chinese have an interest in using submarines in preventing the US surface ships from intervening on behalf of the one of the nations in the region in such a conflict,” MIT’s Cote added.

“Chinese military modernisation along with the non-transparency of its programmes and objectives has heightened insecurities in Asia,” Dr Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, senior fellow in security studies at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, told Asia360 News.

“This is the first time in several centuries that we see the rise of three or four major powers — China, Japan, India and Russia — simultaneously,” said Rajagopalan. “This has produced major insecurities. The region is plagued by several major boundary and territorial disputes, the baggage of shared history, and a trust deficit.”

Security analysts believe that in previous decades, smaller Asian states were able to compete with China in the deep seas because of the deficient state of Chinese vessels and the sub-standard training of the Chinese navy. But China has since begun to pour unprecedented sums into upgrading its surface and under-surface fleet.

China’s military spending will double to US$238.2 billion by 2015 from last year’s budget of US$119.8 billion, global research consultancy IHS estimates.

The 2015 figure exceeds the combined total of the next 12 biggest defence budgets in the region, including Japan and India, where spending is forecast to hit US$232.5 billion.

Less prosperous Asian countries with long and exposed coastlines can boost deterrence by adding submarines, which means they do not have to spend money building a full-scale navy. “Submarines are like a starter kit for nations when they first feel the need to move beyond the day-to-day maritime missions that coast guards perform and prepare for possible conflict with a more powerful neighbour,” said MIT’s Cote.

“Submarines are valuable because anti-submarine warfare is so difficult that it is out of reach of almost all navies,” he added. “Submarines give a navy certain capabilities that can be obtained relatively cheaply and without regard to the size or capability of the opponent.”

All of which begs the obvious question, will conflict erupt beneath Asia’s high seas?

The increasing popularity of submarines convinces some analysts that a minor spat could escalate into a multilateral dispute, given the interconnectedness of the region’s main actors.

For now, the consensus is that any actual underwater skirmishes are not expected in the near future. It would be naïve, however, to expect this to remain the case indefinitely, given the strategic importance of the region’s waterways for surrounding countries and other powers.

“It’s not certain there will be underwater skirmishes in the Asia Pacific, but it would be naïve for countries not to be prepared,” said Rajagopalan of the Observer Research Foundation.

Another reason to remain wary is the inability of regional security pacts to defuse undersea tensions, given China’s dislike of multilateral negotiations.

“We are not aware of any international mechanism that can help to avoid conflicts under the sea,” said Rahman of the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies. “Only diplomacy and bilateral negotiations can ward off future submarine engagements.

Corruption in Asian countries like India is an entrenched feature of popular culture, plaguing every level of society

It was dubbed India’s second freedom struggle. Anna Hazare, a frail but fiery social activist, led a nation-wide anti-corruption campaign that riveted the Indian political class and sent shockwaves through the highest corridors of power. He mobilised the middle class, especially the youth, as thousands poured onto the streets in support of the septuagenarian, who demanded a sweeping anti-corruption legislation to combat political graft. His revolution, which drew worldwide attention, was broader and more intense than any other crusade seen in post-independence India.

But that was more than six months ago. The movement was a symbol of a society in great ferment, but it has since lost much of its momentum; the proposed legislation is far from being passed, and the campaign’s supporters have turned away to focus on other more pressing issues like inflation plaguing the economy.

India’s short-lived revolution has also curiously highlighted how the corruption problem goes far beyond the political class. It is a deeply ingrained cultural neurosis that exists on almost every level of society.

A February 6 survey by the Hindustan Times, a national daily, found that the same youth who chanted mera neta chor hai — “my political leader is a thief” — in support of Hazare’s campaign, later said that corruption is a “necessary evil” in India.

In the survey, which covered over 7,000 people aged 18-25 years across more than a dozen Indian cities, 47% admitted they had willfully paid a bribe. Almost 40% said they would not feel ashamed if they had to pay a bribe.

Further, 46% of those surveyed said that illegal downloading of music or movies from the Internet was ‘normal’ and nearly an equal number said they had purchased pirated software at least once.

In a country blessed with a demographic dividend – more than half of India’s 1.2 billion people are below 25 — the survey, observers say, is a troubling sign of the society’s warped moral mirror.

Software mogul NR Narayana Murthy, one of India’s most celebrated business leaders, recently lamented on a television talk show that Indian youth are seeing “the dishonest become wealthy and powerful, and are thinking this is the way to success”.

But it would be unfair to only blame the youth. Corruption is so deeply entrenched in popular culture that Indians even end up paying bribes for things that are rightfully theirs.

Manvendra Singh, who runs a computer supply firm and participated in one of Hazare’s anti-corruption rallies in New Delhi, says that most government employees receive their pay cheques irrespective of their efficiency or performance, and if you are at their mercy to get any work done “you have to pay” a bribe.

It’s a common perception that it is impossible to be corruption-resistant and do business simultaneously in India.

Observers say the problem is rooted in India’s regulatory apparatus that has not kept pace with the speed of economic liberalisation. Navigating the stagnant bureaucracy and opaque power structures is so frustrating that bribing your way through can often seem like an easier option.

“The system is deliberately made inefficient by those who are in power, so that people who can afford to pay can get their work done quickly but the rest continue to suffer. And with time, the administration becomes run down since rather than devising ways to work efficiently, it is busy thinking of ways to make money by setting up roadblocks to efficient functioning,” Arun Kumar of the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi wrote in his August 2011 op-ed in the Indian news daily The Hindu.

But India is not the only nation in the region fighting the menace.

Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index reveals an alarming level of corruption in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in the public sector.

The index, which covers 183 states and scores countries on a scale from 0, or highly corrupt, to 10, or very clean, declares that the majority of countries in the region score lower than five.

More than a dozen countries in the region score below three – including Vietnam (2.9), Bangladesh (2.7), the Philippines (2.6), Pakistan (2.5) and Papua New Guinea (2.2).

Afghanistan (1.5), Myanmar (1.5) and North Korea (1) rank at the bottom globally.

China and India, the regions two rising giants, are placed 75^th and 95^th in the world rankings. Both countries could stand to considerably improve their efforts against corruption.

The only bright spots in the region are New Zealand, Singapore and Australia, which all feature in the top ten of the index.

Dev Kar, the lead economist at the Washington-based Global Financial Integrity, a research and advocacy organisation working to curtail illicit financial flows from developing countries, says endemic corruption in the region is hard to stamp out.

A recent study found that “on a conservative basis, total illicit financial flows from Asia increased from US$200 billion in 2000 to US$495 billion in 2008, at a rate of 12.9% per annum,” he told <italics> Asia360 News </italics>.

“Illicit flows from the top five Asian exporters of illicit capital — China, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, and India — averaged [nearly] 45% of such flows out of all developing countries during the period 2000 to 2008,” he added.

But Kar offered a glimmer of hope.

“Asia’s share of global illicit flows has been declining in the last decade,” he said. “The top five most corrupt countries transferred just 36.9% of illicit flows in 2008, down from 53.3% in 2000.”

Observers say that transparency in governance is the key to prevent embezzlement of public funds and other forms of corruption.

Finland, Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand – which rank high in the corruption index — perform well on that front.

There also seems be a direct correlation between the corruption index and the United Nation’s Human Development Index. All the above countries that rank high in the former also have a high literacy rate, low inequality ratio, and an enviable human right record.

But for most countries in Asia, it is still a long road ahead to a corruption-free future.

(20 January 2012) — Despite American pressure tactics, Asia’s four largest economies appear set to continue business with Iran’s energy sector, prioritising national interests above diplomacy. The US last week announced embargoes against three Asian companies that have dealings with Tehran, which is overtly belligerent towards the West and Israel.

In recent years, the Islamic republic has alarmed observers by producing near-weapons-grade uranium that it claims is solely for its domestic energy industry. However, many suspect it is developing a covert nuclear weapons programme. Amidst these tensions, Tehran is now threatening to impose a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation against Western attempts to isolate it through economic sanctions. The strait is a vital artery through which a fifth of the world’s oil and gas exports are shipped.

Washington’s latest sanctions against the three Asian firms — from China, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates — have ruffled feathers and placed some of its allies on the spot.

China, which already bickers regularly with the US over a range of economic issues, reacted angrily to the American action against its firm, Zhuhai Zhenrong, which the US said is the largest supplier of refined petroleum products to Iran.

“Imposing sanctions on a Chinese company based on a domestic [US] law is totally unreasonable and does not conform to the spirit or content of the UN Security Council resolutions about the Iran nuclear issue,” foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said on January 15.

Earlier in the month, China had refused to reduce its imports from Iran, despite a visit by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at the beginning of the year to discuss the issue.

In the same week, reports from India suggested that the South Asian giant would also continue doing business with Iran’s energy sector.

Japan, meanwhile, has distanced itself from reports last week saying that its finance minister Jun Azumi told Geithner during his visit to Tokyo that Asia’s second-largest economy would immediately seek to cut oil imports from Iran.

Speaking to reporters a day after the reports emerged, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that the comments made by Azumi were a personal opinion and did not reflect his government’s official policy.

Meanwhile, South Korea, which is Asia’s fourth-largest economy and an ally of Washington, sought a waiver from US sanctions on Iran, saying that while its “basic stance is to cooperate with the US”, its economy would be affected if it stopped buying oil from Iran.

The economic restrictions in the region are a result of a New Year’s Eve decision by US President Barack Obama to sign into law tough new sanctions against Iran’s central bank and financial sector, in an effort to force Tehran to abandon its nuclear program.

The sanctions require foreign companies to decide between dealing with Tehran’s oil and financial sectors or the US economy.

No easy alternatives

The responses of Asia’s four largest economies have illustrated how their political decisions are intertwined with their economic realities.

Oil industry analysts Argus Media reported that about 11% of China’s oil imports in 2011 came from Iran, or about 560,000 barrels per day, with the daily average for November increasing to 617,000 barrels — a quantum of supply that China would find difficult to replace in the short term.

Giving an idea of the massive surge in China’s demand for oil, global financial firm Goldman Sachs has forecast that the country will become the world’s largest importer of oil within the next one-and-a-half years.

Japan, the world’s second biggest importer of Iranian crude after China, purchased about 6.85 million barrels in November — or 6.4% of the country’s total imports for the month, according to Japan’s trade ministry.

Japan is also burdened by an increased demand for oil after the earthquake and tsunami last year. The twin disasters caused a number of nuclear power plants to shut down, forcing utility providers to turn to thermal power stations which require oil to operate.

India and South Korea too, are heavily dependent on Iran’s oil and receive 12% and 10% respectively of their overall requirements from the Islamic republic.

The extent of India’s dependence on Iran’s oil is reflected by its intention to send a delegation — including officials from the central bank and finance ministry — to Tehran this week to explore alternative methods of payment that could circumvent US sanctions.

The magnitude of Iran’s importance to the regional energy market is highlighted by the fact that it is the world’s fourth-largest producer of oil with 65% of its exports going to refiners in Asia.

(April 6, 2012) – Not content with the Western-dominated global financial system, five emerging economic powers are paving the way to a new and more egalitarian world order.

At the fourth BRICS Summit in India on March 29, the leader of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) agreed to explore the establishment of a new development agency to challenge the World Bank. The so-called BRICS Development Bank, would generate resources to fund infrastructure and core sector projects in emerging economies.

“This issue [of a BRICS Development Bank] has been brewing for quite some time. This summit brought it to the next practical level,” said Martin Khor, executive director of Geneva-based South Centre, an intergovernmental organisation of developing countries.

“Not only was it the subject of a special statement of the BRICS, finance and economic ministers from these countries met to deepen discussions, giving rise to the expectations that such a bank will be established in the coming year,” Khor told Asia360 News. “The impact will be significant.”

Underlining the seriousness of their dispute with the West’s approach to financial issues, BRICS leaders threatened to hold back additional financing requested by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to fight the European debt crisis unless they gain greater IMF voting power.

In the Delhi Declaration issued at the summit’s conclusion, BRICS leaders said there was an urgent need to “better reflect economic weights” and “enhance the voice and representation of emerging market and developing countries” at the IMF.

“BRICS countries are sending a clear message out to the world that the manner in which the World Bank and the IMF operate — especially in the area of governance — is not acceptable.

“These countries are being pressured to contribute funds, especially to the IMF, to help Europe. But now, they are asking why they should do that if they do not have the corresponding influence [within the IMF],” Khor added.

The need for such an institution highlights “the dangers of existing multilateral organisations failing to mobilise sufficient resources to support large developing countries”, outgoing World Bank president Robert Zoellick told the Financial Times in New Delhi on March 30. Pushing middle-income countries, like China, India and Brazil, out of the World Bank system and forcing them to look for resources elsewhere would also be a “mistake of historic proportions” for the Western bloc, he added.

Interestingly, just a few days prior to the BRICS gathering, Zoellick told the media that the BRICS Bank “is a complicated venture which will have a hard time getting off the ground and [to] match the expertise of the World Bank”.

According to the Delhi Declaration, BRICS finance ministers will come together in a joint working group to study the feasibility of the BRICS Bank. The working group would submit its report at the next meeting in South Africa in 2013.

Many experts agree with Zoellick’s earlier scepticism.

“BRICS Bank would find it difficult to raise money on the markets, as the sovereign ratings of some of the members are barely investment grade. The amount that can be raised, its cost, and thus the unviable cost of lending [would make it an unwieldy exercise],” said Rohit Bansal, CEO and Co-Founder of India Strategy Group, in an opinion editorial in India’s The Daily Pioneer newspaper on March 30.

Sudhir Vyas, a senior Indian foreign ministry official, told reporters on April 2 that the BRICS nations are aware of the issues.

“Such an ambitious project would take time. We don’t set up a bank every ordinary day,” he said.

Pragmatic issues need to be resolved moving forward. How much money should be deposited? What’s the governance structure like? What are the various approved uses of the funds? And will the criteria and conditions for the loans be significantly different from those of the current IFIs [international financial institutions]?

Nonetheless, the BRICS bank is expected to be to be different and better. “The lending terms would be more realistic and attuned to the realities of the developing countries that require the funds,” Khor noted optimistically.

The five countries also agreed to use their own currencies when trading among themselves, effetively reducing their dependence on the US dollar as the main currency of trade.

Many businesses in the five countries are already doing that, “but now their heads of states have made it clear that they are open to receiving payments in their own currencies. By putting their stamp of approval, the BRICS leaders made the point that they are not happy with the global reserve system,” Khor pointed out.

Commenting at the outcome of the summit, French daily Le Figaro said on March 30 that “little by little, the BRICS are asserting themselves”.

Khor agreed: “Technical meetings between the ministries of these countries are held throughout the year, and not just confined to a once-a-year symbolic meeting. Add to that the practical steps taken at the highly visible recent summit and one can say that BRICS is here to stay.”

A multi-polar world is finally upon us.

(03 February 2012) — Even as the gods of the literary world descended upon the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012 (JLF12) last week, it was The Satanic Verses that continued to bedevil organizers 24 years after its publication and cast a pall over the prestigious event.

Salman Rushdie, the author of the controversial novel which many Muslims deem offensive to Islam, had initially been invited but was forced to stay away after extremist groups threatened violence even at the mere mention of his name. Four writers who defiantly read passages from the banned book on stage were disengaged by the organisers. And a video address from London by Rushdie planned for the last day of the festival was eventually cancelled after local police warned that the city could descend into violence if it proceeded.

The decision by the organisers, who described the five-day festival as the ‘mahakumbh of the word‘ — a metaphor for the confluence of ideas and expression — was derided by many as a capitulation to bigots.

It also left those participating in the festival questioning the very idea of banning something.

“You can ban a book if it is not appropriate for the society, but how can you ban the author of the book?” questioned Javed Akhtar, one of India’s most popular lyricists.

But beyond the controversy, the festival meant to “celebrate excellence in Indian and international writing” was by far the largest since the annual event began on a tentative note in 2006. This year’s eclectic crowd of over 122,000 were introduced to literary giants and celebrated intellectuals like Tom Stoppard, Ben Okri, Michael Ondaatje, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker — a far cry from its inaugural edition five years ago in a hall with a handful of attendees and 16 authors. The following year saw an improved turnout including Rushdie, which in light of this year’s scandal, seems ironic.

But the festival’s major turnaround came in 2008, when organisers, the Jaipur Virasat Foundation, appointed a professional event management firm to oversee it. The results were dramatic and immediate. That year brought in substantial sponsorship money and the participation of close to 80 authors. Author Miranda Seymour even anointed it “the grandest literary festival of them all” in The Mail.

It never looked back after that.

The sheer logistics of the present edition, which took 18 months of planning and had to undergo last minute changes for security reasons, were revelatory. In addition to the massive audience, 250 authors and around 2,500 delegates from across the world formed a special invitees list.

“Apart from dealing with issues related to authors, administration, visitors, 600 accredited media personnel from across the globe and 300 freelancers, there were times when meetings with the police and intelligence officials went on till 3 am, with the single objective of ensuring everyone’s security,” said Sanjoy K Roy, producer of the festival.

All that hard work showed, as the festival dubbed as “the greatest literary show on earth” by Newsweek editor Tina Brown provided glowing moments when poetry intersected with polemics, science sparred with spirituality, rationalists shared space with mystics and freedom of speech challenged the self-serving ideas of politics and bigotry.

Encouragingly for the literary world, the sessions were supported by as many as 24 corporate giants, including Google, Bank of America and India’s Tata Steel.

Giving a great boost to the festival and indeed to authors, the two bookstores at Diggi Palace, the mainstay venue of the festival, sold US$120,000 worth of books over the five days.
All of that ensured that the most important guests of the festival — the authors — were left impressed by the experience.

“I feel so happy here. The Indians are so open to the beauty of words,” Argentinian writer Pola Oxoriac said at the festival.

Kamin Mohammadi, London-based Iranian writer and journalist, echoed the Argentine’s words. “It’s an absolutely unique, spectacular show. It’s amazing how literature can connect with people,” he said.

On the flipside, with the festival’s burgeoning growth, some veterans of the (still very new) festival complained that it was losing its original spirit and intimate charm, where chance encounters and conversations with giants of the literary world were the order of the day. They believed that was getting drowned in the sea of attendees at the festival.

And with authors like Umberto Eco, Ariel Dorfman, Michael Palin, Elizabeth Gilbert, Noam Chomsky, Philip Pullman, Bill Bryson, Monica Ali and Jhumpa Lahiri slated to attend the festival next year, the festival promises to only grow bigger.

While this year’s Rushdie controversy may have brought embarrassment to the organisers and blemished international perceptions of Indian literary attitudes, the fracas may well serve to strengthen the festival’s brand before its next chapter is written a year from now.

Hell Knows No Fury…

On January 24 2012, the last day of the festival, a large number of Muslim activists appeared at the venue and proceeded to the back of the lawns where a huge crowd had gathered to hear the video address by Salman Rushdie, the author of the controversial novel, The Satanic Verses, which many Muslims deem offensive to their religion. According to some reports, the cleric in charge told his followers that if anyone was killed that day they would die a martyr.

English newspaper The Times of India reported one activist saying that “rivers of blood will flow here if they show Rushdie”, while the Muslim Manch representative Abdul Salim Sankhla was quoted as saying: “We will not allow Rushdie to speak here in any form. There will be violent protests if he speaks.”

At the same time, some of the other activists were asking school children to get out of their seats and intimidating festival guests with threats of violence if they showed support for Rushdie’s video address.

Five minutes before the start of Rushdie’s video talk from London, the organisers of the festival were called to the security control room by the Jaipur commissioner of police. The organisers were told that “there would be violence in the venue and worse outside” if they didn’t call off the video address. The commissioner did not rule out the probability of police having to resort to shooting violent agitators.

The video address was later cancelled. Rushdie reacted via Twitter, saying, “Threat of violence by Muslim groups stifled free speech today. In a true democracy all get to speak, not just the ones making threats.”

Other Notable Authors in Attendance

Michael Ondaatje | Booker Prize-winning writer of ‘The English Patient’
Ben Okri | Nigerian novelist whose ‘The Famished Road’ won the Booker prize
Richard Dawkins | Oxford geneticist and anti-religion polemicist
Amy Chua | Yale law professor and the world’s leading ‘Tiger Mom’
Steven Pinker | Harvard psychologist and prominent intellectual
Tom Stoppard | British playwright, humourist and advocate of dissidence
Jamaica Kincaid | Caribbean whose works are noted for their semi-autobiographical style
Joseph Lelyveld | Ex-journalist famous for a controversial book on Gandhi and his love life