The Passage On Page 337

Considering that several Supreme Courts the world over including the British, the French, the US and our own havent reached a consensus on what constitutes literary obscenity, its presumptuous of me to weigh in. But, the case of The God of Small Things, is sorely tempting.

Sabu Thomas of Pathanamthitta objects specifically to the passage on page 337, which describes the lovemaking of Ammu, a Syrian Christian, and Velutha, an untouchable. It has been suggested that Mr Thomas does not object to the commission of the act in cold print so much as to the fact that the participants come from different castes but that will not become clear until the case actually comes to trial.

 

If its a question of caste, there is a historical precedent in the banning of D H Lawrences Lady Chatterleys Lover. In its judgment in the 1920s, the court that decided the fate of the book observed that if a well-born lady decided to have an affair with her gamekeeper, that was her business: but it was not a fact that any well-born gentleman should wish to publicise, even within the pages of fiction. (Lawrences response was that since he wasnt well-born, he imagined he was excused from following the courts suggestions.)

If Mr Thomas objections are based on the wider grounds of obscenity, then Arundhati Roy could find herself in excellent company. Forget Henry Miller, Anais Nin, William Burroughs, Oscar Wilde. Instead, think Alice in Wonderland, The Grapes of Wrath, and the Bible.

There was an attempt in the 1970s to ban Alice in Wonderland, not on the grounds that the book was obscene, but on the grounds that its author was. Lewis Carrolls somewhat suspicious liking for little girls was cited by the plaintiff, a librarian in Wales, as sufficient reason for banning the book. The British legal system made mock turtle soup out of that one.

John Steinbecks The Grapes of Wrath was banned in the US for a few years. The problem didnt lie in his description of Connie and Rosasharns marital life, or in the preachers confession that delivering sermons had an unintended effect on his libido. It lay in the explosive ending, with Rosasharn breastfeeding a starving man after the birth of her stillborn child. The debate has been kept alive by the rabid Christian right-wing who see it (correctly) as a blasphemous parody of the Pieta.

But of them all, the Bible probably has the longest history of censorship, both official and unofficial. Most 16th and 17th century English households only allowed access to the New Testament. The Old Testament, with Sodom, Gomorrah, Onan, Jezebel, the Whore of Babylon and the rest of that crew, was a closed book. You skimmed over Creation, hastily skipping the riper bits concerning Adam and Eve, and landed with a sigh of premature relief on Moses. In this century, angry people of various sects have sought to have the Bible banned for obscenity no less than 113 times in the US alone!

So there you are, Arundhati Roy. You have a lot of catching up to do.