The New Indian Express (and many other newspapers too, Link to The Hindu item) reported on 26th January, 2012:
According to Markandey Katju, till recently a Supreme Court judge, Salman Rushdie is a "poor" and "substandard writer" who would have remained largely unknown but for his controversial book Satanic Verses.
Labeling a writer as poor and substandard is based on one's personal yardstick and quality measures. No problem there. What strikes me here is "remained largely unknown but for"!! Is it right to conclude that one displays ignorance when factually not-correct things are mixed with subjective opinions to create media-ripples? Mr. Katju is also the chairman, Press Council of India.
___________________________
___________________________
