
Midnight's warrior: Salman Rushdie's literary battles on and off the page
Over the years, the 78-year-old winner of the Booker of Bookers (1993) and the Best of the Booker (2008) has been involved in several feuds, be it with political regimes: Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini (1989) and former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, or fellow writers and literary critics: John Updike, Marathi Jnanpith laureate Bhalchandra Nemade or John Carrie.
Here are some of the feuds drawn from his own pen, his Twitter account, and public record:
While Indira Gandhi and Salman Rushdie never met, their cold war was relegated to literary history after the latter immortalised the former Prime Minister as 'the Widow' in Midnight's Children. She was painted as a menacing, witchlike figure with whose 'hair has a centre-parting it is green on the left and on the right black,' who imprisons and castrates the titular Children of Midnight. Gandhi was far from amused and brought a libel suit in 1984 over a line that accused her of neglecting her late husband, Feroze Gandhi, to the point of hastening his death. Rushdie defended his choices: 'Literature can and must give the lie to official facts.'
In an interview, he laughed off Gandhi's outrage: 'You are having a quarrel with a fictional character, with a boy who has a nightmare about a widow when he's a child, and then feels that she comes to life … don't ask me, ask him.'
He was satisfied that the label 'Widow' had entered popular usage: 'It's always very nice to give an insult to the English language.'
While Gandhi's legal team demanded redress, Rushdie said, 'I felt that I should have sent her a thank-you telegram for having completed my novel for me,' he quipped, referring to Gandhi's decision to end the Emergency and call elections, which allowed him to conclude the novel as he wished.
In 2006, John Updike opened his New Yorker review of Shalimar the Clown with a groan. 'Why, oh why, did Salman Rushdie, in his new novel, call one of his major characters Maximilian Ophuls?' The name, Updike was suggesting, made it difficult to disentangle the character from the historic German film director, Max Ophüls, and by using the name he had turned both the man and the character into a caricature.
'Why not? Somewhere in Las Vegas there's probably a male prostitute called John Updike,' responded Rushdie, in an interview with The Guardian. He went on to criticise Updike's novel Terrorist as 'beyond awful' and suggested the critic return to 'his parochial neighborhood and write about wife-swapping, because it's what he can do.'
Perhaps his most enduring feud was the one with the British author John le Carré, best known for his espionage novels. It all started in 1997, when le Carré, writing to The Guardian, complained about accusations of anti-Semitism in his novel The Tailor of Panama (1996). Rushdie responded by saying that le Carré had shown little solidarity when Rushdie faced the fatwa following the publication of The Satanic Verses. From there, the exchange spiralled. Rushdie called le Carré 'a pompous ass,' and Le Carré retaliated by accusing Rushdie of 'self-canonisation.'
Their very public war of words continued for weeks, through the pages of The Guardian. Two decades later, Rushdie extended an olive branch at a literature festival, saying: 'I wish we hadn't done it. I think of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as one of the great novels of postwar Britain.'
Le Carré responded in kind, saying: 'If I met Salman tomorrow, I would warmly shake the hand of a brilliant fellow writer.' Thus the two British authors put the feud to bed.
Grumpy old bastard. Just take your prize and say thank you nicely. I doubt you've even read the work you attack. http://t.co/TavuYkxe2u
— Salman Rushdie (@SalmanRushdie) February 6, 2015
In 2015, after Marathi novelist Bhalchandra Nemade won the Jnanpith Award, he said Salman Rushdie and VS Naipaul were 'pandering to the West' and declared that Rushdie had 'written nothing worthwhile since Midnight's Children.'
Nemade was also in favour of eliminating English from Indian school curricula and dismissed the idea of Indian-English literature as inferior to vernacular writing. Rushdie took to Twitter to respond. Calling him a 'grumpy old' man, he wrote: 'Grumpy old … Just take your prize and say thank you nicely. I doubt you've even read the work you attack.'
The same year, six writers—Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Rachel Kushner, Teju Cole, Francine Prose, and Taiye Selasi—boycotted a PEN American Center gala honouring Charlie Hebdo, following the deadly terrorist attack on the magazine's staff.
.@JohnTheLeftist @NickCohen4 The award will be given. PEN is holding firm. Just 6 pussies. Six Authors in Search of a bit of Character.
— Salman Rushdie (@SalmanRushdie) April 27, 2015
Carey said the award 'went way beyond PEN's role of protecting writers against government oppression,' accusing the organisation of 'cultural arrogance.' Rushdie, a longtime champion of PEN and defender of free speech, responded with a misogynistic slur: 'Just 6 …… Six Authors in Search of a bit of Character,' he tweeted.
He later said: 'These six writers have made themselves the fellow travellers of [fanatical Islam]. Very, very bad move.'
Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics.
She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks.
She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year.
She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home.
Write to her at aishwaryakhosla.ak@gmail.com or aishwarya.khosla@indianexpress.com. You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mint
30 minutes ago
- Mint
Markets with Bertie: The merits of international investing
Last week, Bertie brushed his navy-blue suit that was hanging limp in his wardrobe and collecting dust. After the bout of sneezing had subsided, he wore it and instantly felt uncomfortable. This was followed by a strong urge to peel it off, but after a few deep breaths, he decided to soldier on. The occasion demanded it as Bertie had been invited by a friend who works for his favourite newspaper to address a gathering of individual investors. The topic was the merits of international investing; again, something that Bertie feels strongly about. Of late, it has dawned on our man that he has become a kind of go-to expert on the subject. When his introduction, proclaiming as much, was read out at the event, it reminded him of the old saying, 'In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.' Bertie did not expect a large turnout because whenever Bertie had broached the subject of international diversification with Indian investors, he had been given a polite ear, but their demeanour showed him that when it came to investing their money, India was the only place they really cared about. Therefore, Bertie was pleasantly surprised to see a full house at the event, attended by knowledgeable investors whose depth of understanding was reflected in their questions. When he mentioned that over the past year, 19 out of the top 25 global markets had performed better than India, nobody in the audience bristled with patriotic outrage. There was an acceptance that markets outside the US offered a good risk-reward profile for incremental investment. Bertie realized that the pain points for international investing were high transaction costs, taxes collected at source whenever money is remitted overseas, and a lack of access to markets other than the US. Apart from the logical reason of diversification, many investors were looking to secure US dollar returns on their investments as their kids would likely head overseas for their higher education. While the official discourse was supposed to be about international investing, the discussion invariably veered to the home market. For any market, Bertie began, there are three sources of investment returns for a dollar investor. The underlying earnings growth, expansion in earnings multiple and the currency effect, i.e. how the local currency behaves against the dollar. Bertie is of the view that in India, the pace of the first two is slowing. Overall earnings growth would be slower than the past five years, and there isn't much scope for the valuation multiples to expand at the headline index level. However, Bertie feels that the days of 2-3% annual depreciation of the rupee against the dollar may be behind us. This is so because the US fiscal position and high public debt will act as a heavy counterweight to the dollar's traditional status as a reserve currency. In general, investment returns in dollars could converge towards local currency returns in many markets, including India. Generally, by the time the discussion gets to currency dynamics, the audience's attention span is exhausted and gets redirected towards the dinner buffet. This audience surprised Bertie some more when they unanimously agreed to let the session spill over the appointed hour. It might sound like wishful thinking, but is this the new dawn of international investing out of India? Bertie is a Mumbai-based fund manager whose compliance department wishes him to cough twice before speaking and then decide not to say it after all.


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
LatAm pivot
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. India must shed its protectionist mindset and trade more with resource-rich South America That Modi's ongoing five-nation tour includes Argentina and Brazil isn't a trivia. These two key South American nations can be important fulcrums of a potential Indian pivot to the continent. While India-South America trade has been steadily growing, it's far below potential. This has much to do with our unambitious approach to the region. True, India has a preferential trade agreement (PTA) with MERCOSUR bloc that includes Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia. The idea was that the PTA would be gradually expanded and upgraded to a free trade agreement (FTA). However, progress has been really slow and India's exports to Latin America in FY2025 stood at just $15.17bn – less than 2% of the region's total imports. But trade is back on the agenda during Modi's visits, and rightly so. While one still hopes that an India-US trade deal can be clinched, New Delhi must be prepared for all eventualities. And with Trump keen on using tariffs as a strategic weapon to achieve geopolitical goals – take the Lindsey Graham-proposed bill to hit countries buying Russian oil with 500% tariff – India must diversify its trade relations. South America is a natural resources powerhouse. With vast deposits of oil, gas, copper, lithium, rare earths etc it can power India's industrial growth, advance critical sectors like EV batteries, and bolster food security. The key for GOI would be to expand its diplomatic bandwidth and take a courageous approach to trade. We must cast away the protectionist mindset and be ready to compete. That's the only way beneficial FTAs can be worked out. Vietnam, which recently worked out a trade deal with US, has been following precisely this strategy, having inked 20 FTAs, with 16 already implemented. China already has a huge presence in Latin America. So, the latter is looking for balance. This is the perfect time for India to step up. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.


Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Is world order in the middle of a tectonic shift?
People in the US, startled by the rise of Zohran Mamdani as a Democrat candidate for New York's mayorship, are now witness to an even bigger and spicier political potboiler: Elon Musk's announcement last weekend of the formation of 'America Party", a new political outfit. Till the other day Musk was considered a staunch ally of US president Donald Trump. He was made the head of the now infamous Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). He ruthlessly chucked out many from their jobs citing the need to pare government expenses. His axe also fell on a host of schemes and departments that were considered foundations of the US democracy. Musk wanted the government to be run like a corporate entity. But then, he had run-ins with vice president J. D. Vance and other influential people, which ended in his unceremonious removal from DOGE. Since then, Trump and Musk have been publicly threatening each other. Musk alleged Trump was named in the Epstein sex case files in a post on X, the short-messaging platform he owns. Later, he deleted the post, but not before an enraged Trump got back at his former ally by threatening to deport him. Also read | A new 'terror pot' that may be kept boiling for now Being a beneficiary of government subsidies and doles, Musk knows his ambitions can be fulfilled only by being on the right side of the government. This is why he has launched his political party. Musk feels US citizens are tired of the system and yearn for a new dawn. But the question is, will he succeed? Especially at a time when 'Democrat Socialist" Mamdani is gaining ground in New York. Mamdani has garnered political support at a pace akin to which Musk amassed wealth. He has won the primaries for the New York mayoral elections and will create history if he wins in November. He would be the first Muslim mayor of New York. Mamdani, son of celebrated Indian film-maker Mira Nair, became a US citizen in 2018 and married a Syrian Muslim. His father is a Gujarati left-wing intellectual based in Uganda. Mamdani's views and principles set him apart from his peers. At times, he becomes so aggressive that even his colleagues fear his approach may be extreme. But Mamdani isn't bothered. Also read | Testimony to the enduring spirit of Indian democracy During his campaign, Mamdani connected with New York's large immigrant population. He promised free bus rides, and told people he would freeze metro fares the moment he won elections. He promised construction of low-cost housing blocks, fixing rents for residential properties, and the creation of free childcare centres throughout the city. He wants to rein in the state-sponsored grocery shop owners' cartel. According to estimates, the average New Yorker's expenditure on groceries and essential items has risen by 50% over the past decade to now stand at 10–12% of their total income. Mamdani also proposes to levy higher taxes on the rich. India has seen this brand of politics for decades, but, we are also the ones who have exemplified limitations to such politics. In contrast to India, communist countries such as China and Vietnam have created economic models which give equal opportunity to work with state-sponsored enterprises or pursue private entrepreneurship. Is it due to their success that 70% of the people polled last year in the US showed them gravitating towards the communist model? Also read | Firm and focused leadership keeps India on course It is in such a situation that a triangular tussle between Musk, Mamdani and the established political order promises to create history. People who understand the US system know that the country became great as people from varied backgrounds and ideologies had the same opportunity to live and thrive in harmony. With the rise of the right wing, it seemed that this space was shrinking. But Mamdani's rise and civil society's rear-guard actions have once again brought the US to a point where it's still considered a democratic ideal despite being an imperial power. Today, China and the Global South are challenging US domination. The world order set by the US and the western European nations at the end of World War II has started withering. This is the reason scholars are talking of a tectonic shift in the systems laid down by the West-backed capitalism and US imperialism. Increasing geopolitical constraints are heightening such apprehensions. Have we unwittingly reached a crossroads that's leading to a systemic change? Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. Views are personal.