Salman Rushdie 'Pleased' That Man Who Attempted To Kill Him Got Maximum 25-Year Sentence
Last Updated:
The assailant, Hadi Matar, was sentenced in a New York court for the attempted murder of Rushdie. The attack left the British-Indian author blind in one eye
Booker Prize-winning author Sir Salman Rushdie has said he is 'pleased" that the man who brutally attacked him on stage in 2022 has been handed the maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.
The assailant, Hadi Matar, was sentenced in a New York court for the attempted murder of Rushdie. The attack left the British-Indian author blind in one eye. Rushdie later documented the event in his 2024 memoir, Knife.
Judge David Foley delivered the verdict in Mayville, near where the stabbing occurred.
Following the ruling, Chautauqua County District Attorney Jason Schmidt expressed satisfaction. However, Matar's lawyer, Nathaniel Barone, confirmed that an appeal will be made.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4 on Monday, Rushdie said, 'I was pleased that he got the maximum available, and I hope he uses it to reflect upon his deeds."
In 1989, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie's death over alleged blasphemy in his novel The Satanic Verses.
Following this, Rushdie went into hiding under British protection and later settled in New York, in the United States. The book was banned in 20 countries. Numerous killings and bombings have been carried out by extremists who cite the book as motivation, sparking a debate about censorship and religiously motivated violence.
On August 12, 2022, while about to start a lecture at the Chautauqua Institution in Chautauqua, New York, Rushdie was attacked by Matar, who rushed onto the stage and stabbed him repeatedly, including in the face, neck, and abdomen. Matar was pulled away before being taken into custody by a state trooper; Rushdie was airlifted to UPMC Hamot, a tertiary trauma centre in Erie, Pennsylvania, where he underwent surgery before being put on a ventilator.
On October 23, 2022, his agent reported that Rushdie had lost sight in one eye and the use of one hand but survived the murder attempt.
Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
First Published:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
32 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
State to seek DP workaround for redevelopment of Arthur Road Jail
MUMBAI: The plan to redevelop Arthur Road jail, Mumbai's main prison, has inched forward, with the state deciding to urge the civic administration to ease a provision that would force it to surrender a sizable portion of its property. Minister of state for home Yogesh Kadam told officials of his department and the jails department of the city police on Thursday to prepare a plan for a new ground-plus-four storey prison that would accommodate 5,000 prisoners. The present British-era jail has a capacity for 800 inmates although it houses as many as 3,500. The challenge to building a new structure comes from a provision in the city's Development Plan (DP), which mandates that the jail give up a significant portion of its property when it redevelops the prison. The land thus surrendered would add 15 metres to the width of the road outside, converting it into a 35-metre-wide stretch. The portion in question currently houses the jail's staff quarters. 'The government is working on plans to redevelop Arthur Road Jail as well as Byculla Jail, which is for women. For the Arthur Road Jail redevelopment, I have directed officials to submit a fresh proposal with a request for concessions from the provisions in the DP, to construct a ground-plus-four storey structure. We will request the BMC commissioner for the concession,' said Kadam. He has directed officials from the home department and prisons department to visit the Singapore jail before preparing the plan. He has also asked officials to work on plot reservations on 22 acres of land in Mankhurd for the construction of a new jail. A home department official said the new Arthur Road Jail would be built in phases and four temporary barracks would be constructed inside the premises, to accommodate the inmates. Kadam also said the new jail would have three courtrooms. This would save time and money as inmates would not have to be transported for court hearings outside. It would also ease the pressure to provide security to the inmates while transporting them. 'During the trial of Ajmal Kasab, who had led the attack on Mumbai in 2008, a court was set up inside the Arthur Road Jail. Adding two more courtrooms would ease the pressure on the police to provide security and other arrangements to inmates for travel to court,' said Kadam. .
The Wire
34 minutes ago
- The Wire
After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Security After Pahalgam and Sindoor: Questions India Must Ask Itself Sanjiv Krishan Sood 4 minutes ago While India's armed response to the Pahalgam massacre was swift and strategically effective, the deeper questions about intelligence failures, foreign policy and the sustainability of retaliatory doctrine remain unresolved. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now If Operation Sindoor began as a limited attack on nine locations linked to Pakistan-based terrorist groups, the Pakistani response prompted the Indian defence forces to undertake a number of actions aimed at Pakistan's military establishment. Through precision strikes on militant infrastructure, followed by carefully calibrated aggression, the Indian Air Force and Army degraded key assets while preventing any substantial damage to our own military or civilian infrastructure. The response to the massacre at Pahalgam carried out by terrorists linked to Pakistan was measured but resolute. It was aimed as prompting Islamabad to reassess its state policy of harbouring and sponsoring terror. India's declaration that all acts of terrorism will now be treated as acts of war marks a significant shift in doctrine. That said, six weeks after the Pahalgam tragedy and nearly a month since the cessation of hostilities, several critical questions remain unanswered by both our security and political leadership. The first is whether Operation Sindoor achieved its stated objectives. The Prime Minister, in a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting, gave the armed forces a free hand to destroy the terror infrastructure in Pakistan. On the nights of May 6th and 7th, nine terrorist camps were reportedly neutralized, and numerous militants killed. But can we truly say the infrastructure has been dismantled? Is the deterrent strong enough to prevent future attacks? The evidence doesn't inspire confidence. Since the 2016 Uri surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot air strikes following Pulwama, Pakistan-based terrorists have continued to strike at Indian targets. Pathankot, Kathua, Udhampur, and other places have seen terror attacks even after high-profile retaliatory actions. Supporting terrorism in India appears to be entrenched in Pakistan's state doctrine. The reported decision of the Pakistani government to offer financial aid to the families of slain terrorists and rebuild destroyed camps signals no intent to step back. More troubling is the international silence. Aside from muted support from Russia, India has struggled to garner vocal backing from major global powers. In contrast, Pakistan received overt support from China and Turkey—both of whom extended diplomatic cover and material support, including drones and modern aircraft used during the brief conflict. Despite a two-week window before striking the terrorist camps, India failed to shape global opinion or present a compelling narrative. This diplomatic vacuum echoes the aftermath of Balakot, when Pakistan successfully projected its version of events internationally. The all-party delegations India dispatched to various countries gained limited traction, mostly among nations with marginal influence on global affairs. This stands in sharp contrast to India's success in 1971 and during the Kargil conflict in 1999, when it managed to effectively justify its actions and rally international opinion. Why the shift? The present government's handling of foreign policy and communication strategy deserves closer scrutiny. That brings us to the ceasefire itself. By May 10th, Indian forces reportedly had the upper hand. Yet it was the US president who first announced the ceasefire, followed by India's own foreign secretary. President Trump's repeated claims of having mediated the ceasefire raise uncomfortable questions. Has India, which long resisted international mediation and stood firmly for bilateralism, allowed itself to be hyphenated with Pakistan once again? While the decision to end hostilities may have been strategically sound, it was an anti-climax for a public whipped into a frenzy by media speculation and political rhetoric. Talk of reclaiming Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and total victory created unrealistic expectations. The actual motivations for the ceasefire remain speculative. It may have been American pressure, given the escalatory risks between two nuclear powers. Or it could have been India's own calculation—that sufficient punishment had been meted out, and further escalation would only risk unnecessary civilian casualties, particularly in areas like Poonch and Rajouri. The safety of civilians in border areas is another glaring concern. While cities were issued alerts, conducted blackouts, and prepared for contingencies, residents living within range of Pakistani small arms and artillery fire were left dangerously exposed. Civilian deaths and property destruction in border towns were substantial. The state must ensure compensation and future protection for these vulnerable populations. The economic implications of conflict also merit discussion. India, now a $4 trillion economy, has far more to lose than Pakistan in a prolonged war. With vast developmental needs and social infrastructure demands, even short conflicts strain national resources. A quick resolution to conflict is, in this sense, in India's own interest. But that only makes the need for a coherent and sustainable response doctrine even more urgent. Our new policy of equating terror attacks with acts of war raises critical strategic questions. What is the threshold for retaliation? Would attacks outside Kashmir trigger the same response as those within? Does the number of casualties factor into the decision? Can every incident justify cross-border action without risking long-term regional stability and international isolation? Notably, India's responses have escalated over time—from Uri to Balakot to Sindoor. Where does this trajectory end, especially with a politically unstable and militarily erratic neighbour? The potential for future Chinese involvement further complicates matters. India's strategic community must urgently engage with these questions. Yet, above all, the most urgent question remains: how was the Pahalgam massacre allowed to happen in the first place? Why did our intelligence agencies fail to detect preparatory activity? How did they miss the apparent increase in satellite imagery demand for Pahalgam in February? Such lapses are inexcusable—they cost 26 innocent lives at Pahalgam, and many more in the conflict that followed. These intelligence failures are not isolated. They follow a disturbing pattern seen in Pulwama, Pathankot, Udhampur, Kathua, Mumbai, and other attacks. Yet accountability remains elusive. Why was there no security detail at such a high-profile tourist site? Who in the chain of command failed—the SP, DIG, IG, or DG? Are our forces overly fixated on protecting politicians and VIPs at the cost of ordinary citizens? Some may argue that providing security everywhere is impractical. But complete absence of police presence at a known tourist destination is indefensible. Did complacency set in after the abrogation of Article 370 and the successful state elections, leading officials to believe that the threat had passed? And finally, why do these tragedies keep recurring? Has any impartial inquiry been conducted into past lapses? Have recommendations been implemented? The public has a right to know whether lessons are being learned, or merely filed away. These questions may sound rhetorical. But unless they are asked, addressed, and acted upon, we risk reliving the same tragedy. The lives lost at Pahalgam demand more than patriotic fervour and retaliatory strikes. They demand introspection, accountability, and a strategy that looks beyond the immediate headlines. Sanjiv Krishan Sood was additional director general of the BSF. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Modi's Search for Global Solidarity Rings Hollow Amid Rising Domestic Intolerance in India Eight Days, Nine Rallies, Six States: Tracking PM Modi and Operation Sindoor as Campaign Ammunition Gandhi's and Modi's Reflections on 'Sindoor' Are Poles Apart Modi Says 'Not Blood, Hot Sindoor' Flows In His Veins In First Public Address Since Op Sindoor Why a Special Session of the Parliament is Critical to Discuss the Disclosure Made by CDS Chauhan 'Trade Offer Averted India-Pakistan War': Trump Administration Tells US Court From Flowers to Sarees, A Story of PM Modi's Communication Imagery Post-Operation Sindoor By Calling For the Boycott of Foreign Goods, Modi Contradicts Himself Facing Pushback, Derision and Anger, BJP Says News of Sindoor Distribution Plans 'Fake' View in Desktop Mode About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
For a $5 trillion economy, India must embrace cutting-edge tech
The Indian economy is on the threshold of crossing another milestone and becoming the fourth-largest in the world. It is a commendable achievement for a country that began its journey as an independent nation in 1947 with a meagre $33-billion economy. Decades of British exploitation left it significantly weakened and poor. The Jawaharlal Nehru government's Soviet-style central planning, while promoting heavy industries and the public sector, led to low economic growth of 3-4 per cent, pejoratively described as the 'Hindu rate of growth'. In 40 years, it could only reach the $266 billion mark. The first major leap came in 1991 when the Narasimha Rao government introduced economic liberalisation and unleashed the potential of Indian entrepreneurs. The opportunity offered by the digital revolution with the introduction of the internet was quickly seized by some of India's brightest tech entrepreneurs. The Indian economy grew manifold in the next two decades on the strength of its services economy, which contributed 60 per cent of the nation's GDP. The economy crossed $2 trillion by the time the Narendra Modi government came to power. The last 10 years have seen the Modi government giving greater emphasis to faster economic growth through programmes like Stand-Up India, Start-Up India and Make in India. The results are there to see. IMF data from May has projected that the Indian economy will overtake Japan this year, reaching the $4.19 trillion mark. Japan was once a $5.8 trillion economy but has shrunk to $ 4.18 trillion due to stagnation and slow growth rates since the 1990s. As India demonstrated promising growth, naysayers rushed forward to raise the hollow bogey of per capita income. Per capita income is determined by factors like the size of the population. India is the world's most populous country. As a result, whatever may be the size of GDP, its per capita figures are bound to remain low. No country's growth can be measured on the criterion of per capita income alone. Although the US is the world's largest economy with a $28 trillion GDP, it ranks seventh in per capita. China, the second-largest economy with $18 trillion, ranks 69. The per capita argument is worthless because even if India becomes the world's largest economy with $30 trillion, it will still be ranked 55th in terms of per capita. The only merit of this argument is that the country should be able to provide better living standards to all its citizens. In democracies, the fruits of economic growth percolate to all sections of society. This is reflected in the consumption patterns. Surveys indicate that the monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) has increased in India by more than 2.5 times in the last 10 years. Interestingly, most of this expenditure was on travel, health and education, indicating healthy growth parameters. Tourism has seen remarkable growth in the last 10 years. China still occupies the first rank in the number of domestic and international travellers. India lagged in this sector for decades due to a lack of disposable income and tourism infrastructure. But today, with the incomes of the middle class growing substantially, Indians have started travelling more. Data indicates about 2.5 billion domestic tourist visits last year. Figures for 2024 indicate that almost 29 million Indians travelled abroad marking a 30 per cent growth. All this indicates healthy economic growth, which has led to the near eradication of baseline poverty and the creation of a strong middle class with disposable income. The Modi government aspires to take the economy to further heights with targets ranging from $ 5 trillion in 2027 to $10 trillion in 2035. The current impressive growth is a result of corrective measures taken by the government. It removed parallel economy, allowed proper distribution of wealth and encouraged greater consumption. But the path from here needs to be calibrated carefully. Economies grow on the strength not just of consumption but also trade and technology. Quality, quantity and speed are the main determining factors. India and China were leading economies until the middle of the 18th century. But when the industrial revolution occurred first in England and later in America, those two countries surged ahead and became leading economic powers by the dawn of the 20th century. When automation and digitisation progressed in the last decades of the last century, China moved ahead of the curve, emerging as the second-largest economy by 2008. We are now in the post-manufacturing and post-digital era. Growth in frontier technologies will determine a country's economic future. A country of India's size and capability cannot just think perpetually in terms of catching up with the developed West and the rest. It has to, instead, think in terms of moving ahead of the curve. We missed the first two industrial revolutions as we were a slave nation at that time. We benefitted partially from the third, digital revolution of the 1980s and '90s and became a leader in sectors like IT services. But the Fourth Industrial Revolution, led by Artificial Intelligence (AI), quantum technologies, robotics, space, defence, crypto and bio-engineering calls for new thinking and new priorities. The impressive growth of the Indian economy in the last decade was largely due to the unleashing of its basic potential. The trajectory from here should be more strategic, with greater emphasis on deep-tech R&D, an area in which we lag. It is important to create a climate of hassle-free access to investments in these areas. Only then can India aspire to achieve its goal of becoming a $10 trillion economy in the next 10 years. The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP
