As this is written, the media are reporting that the Iranian Parliament has voted to break relations with Britain in retaliation for the latter's withdrawal of its diplomatic personnel from Teheran and its instigation of the leading members of the European Economic Community to do likewise.
Considering the very long and brutal history of British colonialism the world over and in subjugating many millions of Moslem people, it is difficult to believe that the British government did not know when it withdrew its delegation that retaliation would follow.
Was it really so difficult for the Foreign Office, particularly after its long dealings in India, to refresh its memory as to the bloody struggles it instigated between the Moslems and Hindus? Could they not have known that the withdrawal of diplomatic personnel would only give Khomeini and his collaborators another opportunity to raise a false issue--at a time when he needs it so badly?
Surely the British could easily have found other ways than diplomatic pressure to raise the issue of Khomeini's threat to the life of author Salman Rushdie.
The clamor in Britain, all throughout Europe and most particularly in the U.S. was loud enough. Nobody in Teheran could mistake it. What need was there to apply diplomatic pressure? The least the British government could have done was refrain from orchestrating a diplomatic, European-wide response.
It was only natural, therefore, for the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament to respond thus: "The ground has been laid for a vast battle between Islam on the one hand and paganism and arrogance on the other." It only remained for the imperialist monopolies in the U.S. to subtly and slyly raise the slogan of free speech and freedom of thought.
It should be said in favor of the literary community in the U.S. that it was at first hesitant to move in so boldly and without prior consideration of the deeper issues. But nonetheless the campaign against the Khomeini regime is in full swing. Thus the battle has been joined, so to speak. One side presents it as freedom of thought, free speech against tyranny; the other as Islam against paganism.
Material interest behind the abstractions
All of Marxism teaches, however, that these glittering generalities, these fine abstractions, are merely a cover for deeper issues. Marxism teaches the working class and the oppressed to go beyond the slogans and make every effort to uncover the materialist basis for every serious struggle.
It is the struggle of classes, the struggle between oppressor and oppressed over the material means of life, which is the springboard of social development. Politics is merely the concentrated expression of the underlying economic issues.
We can get nowhere by regurgitating the stale rhetoric bequeathed to the working class and the oppressed by the old ruling classes and by outdated, pernicious and false leadership.
Are we to forget what the Iranian Revolution was all about? And the consequences that flow from it? Are we to forget that the struggle in this last quarter of a century has been a most brutal and cruel one between oppressors and oppressed, of the super-rich imperialist countries (true, only a handful of them) against a vast ocean of oppressed?
Are we to forget that the old colonial empires, after becoming disintegrated and dissolved, have refortified and strengthened themselves on the basis of economic penetration and scientific and technological restructuring of their military and industrial prowess?
Iranian Revolution still unfulfilled
It is ten years since the Iranian Revolution. So much has happened, so much blood has been spilled. The imperialists have been ousted from a strategic area in the Middle East. But it hasn't impoverished them a bit. Indeed, they have grown fatter by supplying weapons of destruction and continuing to extract more oil, the economic life-blood of the oppressed people.
None of this could of course excuse the rash, thoroughly adventurist and indeed opportunist maneuver by the Ayatollah to once again seize the initiative, to galvanize the masses, now tired from the destructive, fruitless and fratricidal war against Iraq, and urge them on to a new campaign which can provide at best only short-lived ideological resuscitation as a substitute for the economic rehabilitation of the war-torn country.
It remained for none other than former president Jimmy Carter to try to come to the rescue of the European imperialist fraternity, counseling caution in the light of a possibly more dangerous development for the "democracies."
In a short op-ed piece in the March 5 New York Times, Carter first applauded freedom of speech and then abjured the death threat from Khomeini. But then he went on to say, "We have tended to promote him and his book with little acknowledgment that this is a direct insult to those millions of Moslems whose sacred beliefs have been violated. ... Western leaders should make it clear that in protecting Rushdie's life and civil rights there is no endorsement of an insult to the sacred beliefs of our Moslem friends. ...
"Iranian and other fundamentalists are not the only Moslems involved. There are millions of others who are waiting for a thoughtful and constructive response to their concerns. Tactful public statements and private discussions," he suggests, "could still defuse this explosive situation."
And who writes all this? The former friend and champion of no less than the shah! Should all this be forgotten? Carter never worried about the sensitivities of the Moslems who were being butchered by the shah. But now he, along with others, are suddenly concerned about the millions of Moslems whose views may be hurt by the book.
Two faces of U.S. imperialism
Carter speaks in this instance for the Bush administration, who prefer to rally bourgeois public opinion and direct it into anti-Khomeini channels, but also wish to appear as friends of the Moslem fundamentalists in the interest of a deal which would serve imperialism. All their concerns for freedom of speech would quickly be thrown overboard if they could establish a modus vivendi with rightwing ecclesiastical reaction, a deal that would fortify imperialism's position in the Middle East.
The Rushdie book, notwithstanding all the clamor for free speech, is small change that can cynically be traded in for a larger prize: a peaceful settlement in the Middle East which could guarantee imperialist oil booty to U.S., British, French, German and Japanese imperialism. Such a cause would be oh-so worthy, especially if it undid the extremist elements in Iran and got the so-called pragmatists solidly under the thumb of the good old imperialist oil monopolies.
The problem with the shah in his years of struggle against the revolutionary movement, and particularly the working class vanguard element, was that he overlooked the political value of the mullahs and the ecclesiastical authorities in general. The latter wanted no more than to share, if only in some small measure, the oil booty that the imperialists allotted to the crown. If only the shah had realized that small financial and economic concessions to them would have guaranteed their support! But this afterthought occurred to him when he was virtually breathing his last.
Who is Salman Rushdie?
Salman Rushdie is a Bombay-born author from a Moslem family. His parents are prosperous, which enabled them to send him to Britain for his education. He attended Rugby and King's College, Cambridge. Within a brief time he had attained considerable fame as an author. Among his novels are Grimus, Shame and Midnight's Children. The latter won considerable praise and got the Booker McConnell prize for fiction in 1981. Written in fantasy form, it deals with the partition of the Indian subcontinent into India and Pakistan.
Salman Rushdie is a literary intellectual of the moderate left. He has vigorously supported the struggle of Black and Asian immigrants in Britain and severely castigated the British government for its discriminatory and repressive position.
In a television appearance some time ago in Britain (recently replayed in New York over the CUNY cable station) he attacked the government most vigorously, charging that while the British empire may have been dissolved abroad, it nevertheless has been reconstituted within Britain itself. He pointed out that if one examines the plight of Asians, Africans and other immigrants, one can see a clear pattern of colonialism, a replica in Britain of what colonialism was abroad.
Rushdie also wrote a briefer piece attacking U.S. aggression in Central America and defending the Nicaraguan revolution. It is very plain that, as far as anyone can make out on this side of the Atlantic, he is a literary intellectual clearly in the camp of the progressive movement.
The furor over his latest novel, The Satanic Verses, has to be put in proper perspective in order to understand what lies beneath the struggle. Why has it caused such an extraordinary reaction in some of the Moslem nations? And what is the attitude of the imperialist governments to these events?
Opposition to the book first developed in India, then in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It was belatedly picked up in Teheran, where it was raised to an altogether explosive level. There have been demonstrations in several Nigerian cities and, as of this writing, one of the leaders of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, Ahmed Jabril, has joined Khomeini in calling for the killing of Rushdie.
The issue of free speech
In the U.S., the literary community was slow in reacting to Khomeini's call. But after some hesitation it has gotten into full swing. On March 6, a full-page ad in the New York Times signed by many members of the Writers Guild of America roundly condemned the Iranian government for inciting the murder of Rushdie. This group drapes itself in the flag of "the U.S. Constitution, the values of our history, the American spirit," and condemns the whims and oppression of a dictator.
Although from a subjective point of view they have acted in defense of free thought and free speech, in reality they are carrying the torch for the imperialist monopolies, and most particularly the oil monopolies, which are deep in the background. Needless to say, all the imperialist governments in Europe have condemned the Iranian regime, taking the opportunity to profess freedom of speech.
Likewise, it's not surprising that the Rushdie book should have become an issue with the Moslem fundamentalists. It has become a handy way for them to conduct a struggle against progressive and truly democratic forces which are just emerging in some of the Moslem countries.
Clerical reaction not anti-imperialist
It should be remembered that these rightwing fundamentalists were always pro-imperialist and a prop for imperialist domination. The Iranian religious right was not "revolutionary" in the early 1950s. It was distinctly absent from the fateful struggle of the Mossadegh government against imperialism. The religious right never raised its head anywhere in the anti-imperialist opposition.
At the other end of the Moslem world, in Indonesia, where certainly one of the greatest bloodbaths of modern times led to the destruction of the revolutionary movement at the hands of the CIA and its military culprits, there were no declamations of revolutionary struggle from the conservative fundamentalist Moslem clergy. They were too busy dipping their hands in the blood of the workers and peasants. Where the Moslem fundamentalists were heard and seen was in the mass butchery of communists and progressives. That is where their "revolution" was most manifest, as it has been everywhere else.
It is only with the Iranian Revolution, which was usurped by the Khomeini forces, that they have suddenly come to the fore, not by accident but by design. They along with the bourgeoisie are reaping the fruits of the revolution while dealing death and destruction to the masses.
Imperialists looking for a deal
The imperialist governments are not concerned at all with defending free speech or the struggle for secularism in the oppressed countries if the religious right can be of greater use to them in garnering super profits. Making a deal with the extremists, if they can, is far more suitable and in line with their historical position than to push forward so-called democratic or pragmatic forces and use them as the vehicle for the secularization of political life in the Moslem countries.
What need was there for a Rushdie when they had a Zia? And even if Benazir Bhutto now nominally holds the reins of authority in Pakistan, it is much safer to rely on the reactionary clergy, the landed aristocracy and the military which comes from them.
Defending Rushdie against the religious right is an accidental matter. It does not fit the historical role of imperialism. But it is a necessary and momentary sojourn and does not negate its alliance with clerical obscurantism fortified by brutal military suppression. Only when these weapons become exhausted does imperialism try to put its left leg forward, as it is doing a bit in the Philippines and as it may do tomorrow in Korea and other oppressed countries when the situation ripens.
It doesn't appear to be in the proper interests of imperialist domination in the epoch of its decay and disintegration to firmly ally itself with progressive forces against right-wing reaction because that would merely open the door to the progressive and revolutionary elements once the struggle takes on a momentous character.
One should not take too seriously the projection of a wide, deep split between the forces of Islamic reaction and the so-called liberalizing democratic values of Western imperialism. These are two false fronts. The duty of revolutionary Marxists is to go beyond the surface manifestation, beyond the open political programs of the imperialist countries with their deceptive slogans and false posturing, and come down to the real issues.
All in defense of super-profits
The imperialists are concerned with naked exploitation, with super-profits. The rest is mere cover for this and an attempt to blind the eyes of the masses of people both in the exploited and exploiting countries. The militancy of Western democracy, with its free speech approach, should not be taken for good coin. It is the passing fancy of the imperialist bourgeoisie. They will put many able artists, writers, scientists, etc., in the forefront, people who are well-meaning and concerned with freedom of speech and indeed willing to sacrifice much. But they are nevertheless on the chariot of the imperialist colossus and have been turned into water boys and girls for the Pentagon.
As for the militancy of the religious right, it is a fraud. They have never carried out an independent struggle against imperialism and have never raised their voice for the workers and peasants. They are not opposed to the multinational exploitation of the resources, they only want a share, provided proper respect is shown for them.
The British imperialists long ago learned to talk the language of the native bourgeoisie. The antagonism between them is of a secondary and tertiary character. They are the intermediaries between the exploiters and the masses of people. The problem is to understand all the intricate relations between the imperialists and the post-colonial elements--the landlords, bankers--and their merciless exploitation and oppression of the masses.
The great need of the day is to understand that this takes place in the period of a global struggle between the imperialists and all of the oppressed masses, the world proletariat as a whole and its allies in the socialist countries.
Rushdie and religion
Where does the Rushdie book fit into this world struggle? The Satanic Verses is a novel which, by all accounts of those who both praise the novel and those who are violently opposed to it, deals with the religion of the Moslem people in an insensitive or derogatory manner.
It is for the literary people to debate this. We for our part may agree that it is possibly insensitive or offensive. But it is also the right of the author to promote an anti-religious theme. But here, as in everything else, Marxists must understand the nature of the epoch in which such literature appears and what effect it may have on the course of the worldwide progressive struggle.
Looking at the book from the viewpoint of the struggle against imperialism and the task of the masses in the oppressed countries, which classes or groups of classes can such a book serve under the present circumstances?
By this time virtually all political tendencies have had their say and their interpretation, including the Vatican and the chief rabbi of Jerusalem. Only one has come to our attention that attempts to raise the issue in terms of the historical situation of the Moslem people. An op-ed piece in the New York Times of Feb. 23 by S. Nomanul Haq, described as a tutor in the history of science at Harvard University, gently takes Rushdie to task for his novel and for the insensitive way in which he deals with the religious question.
"The Muslim nations," said Professor Haq, "have not gone through the turmoils of the Enlightenment [European Enlightenment--SM] and they have seen no scientific revolution; their sensibilities are different."
Professor Haq has opened the door to what is really the great issue, the issue of the historic significance of the European Enlightenment period and the meaning of the scientific revolution as it has affected world social and political development.
The Enlightenment in Europe
The Enlightenment period in European history was led by such great figures in literature as Voltaire, Molière and Racine in France, Cervantes in Spain, and Boccaccio in Italy. They broke down the ideological armor of the feudal lords and the ecclesiastical aristocracy. They cleared away the stalactites and stalagmites which were the legacy of Catholicism in the service of feudal exploitation of the peasants and of the early burghers.
The Enlightenment paved the way for capitalist development by making bourgeois democracy possible. It gave the green light to secularism and to so-called free thought. It led finally to the great French Revolution which cut down feudalism root and branch.
These men of the Enlightenment had no reverence for religion at all. Of course, the free thought they championed turned out to be freedom for the bourgeoisie to exploit the working class, just as the feudal lords tried to rob and restrict the bourgeoisie. It was not, however, just a change of one oppressor for another. It was also a step in the direction of the ultimate emancipation of the proletariat from the domination of the bourgeoisie.
True, it hasn't all been accomplished. There have been many great revolutionary and brilliant battles fought by the proletariat to gain its own independence, and it has been forced into many retreats. Nevertheless, the struggle still goes on and the days of the bourgeoisie are numbered.
What relevance then has the European Enlightenment period to the contemporary situation of the Moslem world? Notwithstanding the very rich scientific developments and achievements in northern Africa, to which Europe is still indebted, this region has not yet had the benefits of an Enlightenment period of the historical dimensions of Europe. And that is because capitalist development there had tardy beginnings and later was stunted by the brutal intervention of European capitalist imperialism.
Rushdie's novel has significance as an attempt to do in respect to Moslem fundamentalism on the edge of the 21st century what Rabelais, Molière, Voltaire or Boccaccio were doing in the European period--to mercilessly expose and ridicule the feudal institutions that stood in the way of democratic development. But alas, to use the ideology and methods of the European Enlighteners of several centuries ago is totally inappropriate in this period.
To ridicule the priesthood on the basis of a bourgeois rationalist approach was appropriate and progressive in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Enlightenment did it with wit, humor and brilliance, helping to brush aside the cobwebs of superstition in order to liberate science and pave the way for the more democratic order of the bourgeoisie, which permitted ideological conflict in order to raise itself to the stature of the ruling class.
Masses need clear language
But Rushdie lives in an altogether different historical context. He lives in a period when the hold of the ecclesiastical institutions of the old world can be loosened only by modern, proletarian and thoroughly anti-imperialist methodology and language. Resorting to literary sleight-of-hand can hurt the sensibilities of the masses without in the least helping to free them from political, let alone economic, bondage to the new landlords and industrialists.
Moreover, the surrealist approach of Rushdie becomes a tool in the hands of reaction. His use of a dreamlike world and fantasy is subject to so many different interpretations that it cannot possibly be a tool in the hands of the oppressed masses. They need a clear and unambiguous message.
The European Enlightenment figures were not addressing themselves to the peasant masses but to the newly educated and rising bourgeoisie who could understand them, relish their thinking and be titillated by their scorn and ridicule aimed at the ancient feudal institutions.
There is also, of course, a rich heritage for the working class in the struggles of peasant leaders like John Ball in Britain (see The Dream of John Ball by William Morris) and Thomas Munzer and Jan Hus in the peasant wars in Germany, as well as the rise of virtually communist religious sects in eastern Europe throughout that early period.
In the struggle against imperialism, nothing is more necessary than a clear direction that specifically and categorically clarifies not only one's position to imperialism but also the relationship of the classes and the political programs at home. Because Rushdie's novel is so vague and susceptible to different interpretations, what is offensive from the point of view of religion becomes the predominant factor. The attack against the Moslem right is scarcely audible, visible or even understandable. Thus it cannot serve as an instrument to free the masses from either clerical obscurantism or imperialist bondage.
Whereas his earlier novel, Midnight's Children, had a clear message insofar as it portrayed the hand of British imperialism in the division of Pakistan and India, here the message is blurred. It thus becomes an easy tool in the hands of reaction rather than a means of struggle in the hands of the masses.
It is necessary at all costs to avoid becoming unwitting allies of imperialist ambitions on the basis of innocuous, abstract slogans. The more abstract the slogan, the more easily it lends itself to ruling class interests. At the same time, it is crucial to show the greatest amount of internationalist solidarity with the oppressed people and to strengthen links with the most progressive and the most devoted to the struggle for independence from imperialism and from domestic political reaction.
The great task at hand today is to increase and widen the literature for the masses that speaks of imperialist exploitation and of the double dealing and collusion between the landlords and bourgeoisie with the imperialists. This is not what the novel does. At most, it is of esoteric value to a small group in the democratic movement.
What would be far more appropriate and in the interest of the masses is to have novels of the type written by Maxim Gorky, who according to Lenin was not as consistent as he should have been but who wrote about the peasants in Mother and in many other works which awakened the revolutionary movement and inspired the young generation to struggle. This is what is needed, and it will surely develop.