And no one has contributed to making these things work, to smothering free inquiry and speech in this vital sphere as the liberals and secularists. We supported the ban on Rushdie's book at that time, writes a leading commentator, as we knew the reactions the book would provoke. Does that "prudence" not go to the fundamentalists to work up a fury each time they want to have their way? Is that not what they are doing now?

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "And no one has contributed to making these things work, to smothering free inquiry and speech in this vital sphere as the liberals and secularists. We supported the ban on Rushdie's book at that time, writes a leading commentator, as we knew the reactions the book would provoke. Does that "prudence" not go to the fundamentalists to work up a fury each time they want to have their way? Is that not what they are doing now?" in the context of "Arun Shourie: The Point we always Evade (18 March 1992 in The Observer of Business and Politics), quoted from Goel, Sita Ram (editor) (1998). Freedom of expression: Secular theocracy versus liberal democracy. https://web.archive.org/web/20171026023112/http://www.bharatvani.org:80/books/foe/index.htm" to mean that wisdom is timeless.