(Image Source: The Guardian)

BY HARUMENDHAH HELMY

ANCHOR NATHAN BYRNE

Salman Rushdie angered many Muslims worldwide when he published the critically acclaimed novel The Satanic Verses in the late 80s. Some say the book contains blasphemous material about the Prophet Muhammad. Now, more than 20 years later, that controversy continues to follow the author.

Rushdie plans to visit India for the Jaipur Literary Festival this month. But, as IBN Live reports -- some still don’t want him in the country.
 

“The latest salvo coming in from the Darul Uloom Deoband Seminary in India, saying the government should withdraw his visa.”

And Rushdie has been defiant in his response, posting on Twitter... “[Regarding]: my Indian visit, for the record, I don't need a visa.”

Reports say Salman Rushdie holds a Person of Indian Origin card, which allows him to enter the country without a visa. Rushdie attended the same festival back in 2007. So, some in the media are asking -- why make a fuss about his visit this year? The Times of India suspects it may have something to do with politics in India’s most populous province, Uttar Pradesh.

“...the country's top Islamic seminary … has chosen the eve of [Uttar Pradesh] elections to demand that the author not be allowed to enter India. … This puts the [Indian National Congress party], which is wooing UP's Muslims, in a serious bind. … Trashing the appeal may only derail efforts of the Congress to win over Muslims.  Moreover, the 135-year-old seminary's clout extends beyond [Uttar Pradesh] to across India.”

But India’s The Pioneer points out -- the country’s two major political parties’ response to the demand has been, quote, ‘muted.’

“Both the Congress and the BJP refused to react. However, the issue could snowball into a major controversy if the Deoband succeeded in giving it a political colour during the polls.”

Finally, an anchor for Times Now warns -- barring Rushdie from entering India may not bode well for similar situations in the future.

“Also, canceling a visa will set a bad precedent. Some people say it will leave room... Tomorrow some other group will not want some other individual and that may set a dangerous precedent.”