The Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, about whom I’ve written before, has become the center of controversy again following anti-Taslima riots in Calcutta over the past few days. Exactly why the riots focused on her is a bit of a mystery, since the incident is really inspired by a new violent incident at Nandigram (about which I’ve also written before). At any rate, some Muslim groups are also demanding that Nasreen’s Indian visa be canceled (she’s applied for Indian citizenship; her current visa expires in February 2008), and she seems to have yet again become a bit of a political football.
Since the riots, the Communist government of West Bengal apparently bundled her up in a Burqa (!) and got her out of the state, “for her own protection.” (She’s now in Delhi, after first being sent to Rajasthan, a state governed by the BJP.) The state government has also refused to issue a statement in defense of Taslima, fueling the claims of critics on both the left and right that the Left is pandering (yes, “pandering” again) to demands made by some members of the Muslim minority.
Mahashweta Devi’s statement sums up my own views quite well:
This is why at this critical juncture it is crucial to articulate a Left position that is simultaneously against forcible land acquisition in Nandigram and for the right of Taslima Nasreen to live, write and speak freely in India. (link)
Ritu Menon in the Indian Express gives a long list of outrages to freedom of artistic expression in India in recent years:
These days, one could be forgiven for thinking that the only people whose freedom of expression the state is willing to protect are those who resort to violence in the name of religion — Hindu, Muslim or Christian. (Let’s not forget what happened in progressive Kerala when Mary Roy tried to stage ‘Jesus Christ, Superstar’ at her school. Or when cinema halls screened The Da Vinci Code.) Indeed, not only does it protect their freedom of expression, it looks like it also protects their freedom to criminally assault and violate. Not a single perpetrator of such violence has been apprehended and punished in the last decade or more that has seen an alarming rise in such street or mob censorship. Not in the case of Deepa Mehta’s film; not in the attack on Ajeet Cour’s Academy of Fine Arts in Delhi; not in M.F. Husain’s case; not in the violation of the Bhandarkar Institute; not at MS University in Baroda; not in the assault on Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad this August. I could list many, many more. (link)
I was unaware of some of those, in fact.In Dawn, Jawed Naqvi quotes a book on Nasrin, which compares her to the great rebel poet Nazrul Islam:
The foreword to the book, “Taslima Nasrin and the issue of feminism”, by the two Chowdhurys was written by Prof Zillur Rahman Siddiqui, the former vice-chancellor of Dhaka’s Jahangirnagar University. “To my mind, more important than Nasrin’s stature as a writer is her role as a rebel which makes her appear as a latter day Nazrul Islam,” he says.
“The rage and the fury turned against her by her irate critics reminds one of a similar onslaught directed against the rebel poet in the twenties. More than half a century separates the two, but the society, despite some advance of the status of women, has not changed much. The forces opposed to change and progress, far from yielding the ground, have still kept their fort secure against progress; have in fact gained in striking power. While Nazrul never had to flee his country, Nasrin was forced to do so.” (link)
Barkha Dutt plays up the irony of Taslima’s being asked (forced?) to put on a Burqa as she was escorted out of the state:
As ironies go, it probably doesn’t get any better than this. A panic-stricken Marxist government bundling up a feminist Muslim writer in the swathes of a protective black burqa and parceling her off to a state ruled by the BJP — a party that the Left would otherwise have you believe is full of religious bigots.
The veil on her head must have caused Taslima Nasreen almost as much discomfort as the goons hunting her down. She once famously took on the ‘freedom of choice’ school of India’s Muslim intelligentsia by writing that “covering a woman’s head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn’t work”. She’s always argued that whether or not Islam sanctifies the purdah is not the point. A shroud designed to throttle a woman’s sexuality, she says, must be stripped off irrespective. In a signed piece in the Outlook called ‘Let’s Burn the Burqa’, Nasreen took on liberal activists like Shabana Azmi (who has enraged enough mad mullahs herself to know exactly what it feels like) for playing too safe on the veil.(link)
Saugata Roy, in the Times of India, gives an insider perspective on the “Fall & Fall of Buddha” — which refers to the growing willingness of both the Chief Minister (Buddhadeb Bhattacharya) and the Communist Party in general, to compromise on basic principles. Roy mentions that in the 1980s, the CPI(M) did condemn Rajiv Gandhi’s overturning of the Supreme Court’s decision on Shah Bano.
The role reversal didn’t come in a day. It began the day when the CM banned Nasreen’s novel Dwikhandita on grounds that some of its passages (pg 49-50) contained some “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any group by insulting its religion or religious belief.” What’s worse is Buddha banned its printing at the behest of some city ‘intellectuals’ close to him. This was the first assault on a writer’s freedom in the post-Emergency period. Later, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court lifted the ban.
But the court order was not enough to repair the damage. The government move dug up old issues and left tongues wagging. Soon thereafter, Hindu fundamentalists questioned M F Hussain’s paintings on Saraswati. Some moved the court against Sunil Gangyopadhyay’s autobiographical novel Ardhek Jiban, where he recounted how his first sexual arousal was after he saw an exquisite Saraswati idol. All this while, the Marxist intellectuals kept mum lest they hurt religious sentiments. And when fundamentalists took the Taslima to the streets, they were at a loss. Or else, why should Left Front chairman Biman Bose lose his senses and say that Taslima should leave the state for the sake of peace? Or, senior CPM leaders like West Bengal Assembly Speaker Hashim Abdul Halim say that Taslima was becoming a threat to peace? Even worse, former police commissioner Prasun Mukherjee – now in the dog house for his alleged role in the Rizwanur death – went to Taslima’s Kolkata residence and put pressure on her to leave the state. This was before last week’s violence in Kolkata. But still, the timing is important. Mukherjee went to Taslima’s place when the government went on the back foot after the Nandigram carnage.
But the Marxists themselves? Perhaps unknown to himself, Buddha has been steadily losing his admirers. There was a time — just a few months ago, really — when not just the peasantry and workers but the Bengali middle class swore by him. Today leftist intellectuals like Sumit Sarkar, liberal activists like Medha Patkar are deadly opposed to him and his government. The Bengali middle class, for whom Buddha represented a modernizing force, is today deeply disappointed with him. One thing after another has added to the popular disenchantment. First, there was the government’s high-handed handling of Nandigram, then came the Rizwanur case in which the state apparatus seems to have been used and abused to thwart two young lovers, and now the government’s capitulation in the Taslima affair before Muslim fundamentalists. (no link to TOI; sorry)
And finally, Taslima Nasreen herself speaks, asking that her situation not be made into a political issue:
Taslima Nasreen is happy her plight has been highlighted, but the author-in-hiding says she does not want to become a victim of politics. She has been told that she could become an issue for the BJP against the Congress and the CPM in the Gujarat elections.
“I do not want any more twists to my tale of woes. Please do not give political colour to my plight. I do not want to be a victim of politics. And I do not want anybody to do politics with me,†an anguished Taslima told HT on Monday over the telephone. (link)
It’s a fair request — unfortunately, it’s already too late. Politics, one might say, has “been done.”
Ahem…Narendra Modi has offered her asylum and full protection in Gujarat!!
M. Nam
I think the US is probably the best place for her now. To be used as a pawn by Modi is of course unacceptable, Kerala will give her the boot, and the Tamil parties are pretty much the same as the CPI(M) wrto offending religious minorities. Either that or we can get Soros to buy a big yatch for all these harassed artistes….they can throw anchor just oustide Indian waters
I think the US is probably the best place for her now.
She was in Europe for number of years, and could have lived there for ever.
However,
She moved to India. She wants to live in a Bengali culture (or close approximation) for her writing. She has been quite insistent about that, and even applied for citizenship.
Louiecypher, I had the same thought about her probably needing to leave India in the end — though keep in mind, it would take two years for the U.S. State Department to process her visa. (She has a Muslim name, and might be a terrorist!)
I think she really just wants to stay around Bengali speaking people. She writes in Bengali, and needs that culture around her…
We have no business giving room to a person who considers America as an imperialist country.
Let her go to Australia…
M. Nam
Of all the articles, Ritu Menon sums it up best, ‘Is this a Mobocracy?’ she writes. And as an Indian, it is with a anguished heart that I have to say it is. If you can gather a mob, for any reason whatsoever, you will be able to get what you want. This is the principle on which unions work in India, which I have seen close up and also ALL religious & caste & other groups mobs. No one involved in looting, indulging in wanton destruction of public/private property or attacking the police & any non-involved participant will be ever punished by the state. We have completely immoral & cowardly politicians who will accede to ANY demand by the mob, be it howsoever unconstitutional.
But there is another aspect to this nonsense in this particular case, why a so-called protest against Nandigram turns into a protest against Taslima who has NOT publicly spoken since the attack on her in Hyderabad, by 4 MLAs from Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen and Majlis Bachao Tehreek, a few months ago. Why this absurd conflation?
As to her leaving India, I hope to goodness the so-called secular parties will have the shame to brave the crazies & give her Indian citizenship as she has requested. She doesn’t want to live elsewhere and I think she has a much stronger case than the illegal immigrants that India is ‘taking’ in on a regular basis from Bangladesh.
she would never want to live in the u.s.; also she will not get much sympathy from the establishment here since her apostasy is not accompanied with sucking up to neo-cons or other u.s. establishment figures, hence politically inconvenient (unlike, for instance, hirsi ali).
I posted a news link earlier around noon today on SM News board regarding Modi offering Taslima to come and stay in Gujarat. Like I said, reminds me the story about “Sau Chue Maar Ke Billi Hajj Ko Chalee”……..
M Nam, There are many US citizens who think that the US is an imperialist country. Are you going to ask them all to go to Australia? Or does this apply only to writers from third worild countries who dare raise uncomfortable questions?
I was in India when Taslima took over from Nandigram in the newspaper and TV news. The change was so abrupt that it seemed the CPM engineered it to deflect the more serious news that Stalin is alive in West Bengal.
amaun
yup, as a long-time commie watcher, I agree with you. It looks clear that this is the price of fundamentalist muslim support for the CPI (M).
As you know, WB has one of the worst levels of education and employment for its muslim minorities (Sachar report). This comes as no surprise, as their assigned role is to act as a vote bank for the CPI(M). Indeed, throughout the 70s and 80s the CPI(M) has actively supported immigration from Bangladesh.
i hope this betrayal of their fundamental principles will lead some indian intellectuals to reexamine their, hitherto, unconditional support for the left.
I would actually ask them to go to hell…
Non-US citizens who criticise the US have no business emigrating here.
M. Nam
Has Taslima ever expressed interest in emigrating to the US?
I support her right to live in India indefinitely – and anywhere she wishes, especially Bengal, and under state protection if she needs it (and she seems to).
But this part of the comment is more a question – what specifically has she said or written that is causing so much umbrage? In terms of her views on hijaab, if that is the main thing – I try to build an analogy with something I can more easily relate to – turbans. I don’t wear a turban everyday, but do not want that right to be taken away for those who do – merely because it offends someone’s sense of what is ‘normative’.
I see the hijaab in the same way. Those who want to wear it, should have the right to do so even if someone else thinks it reflects an attempt to subjugate women. It is a matter of personal right to expression, which extends to things people choose to wear, however much it offends those who see it either as simply non-normative or downright oppressive.
Now the niqaab – the full covering of the body and face – I can see how the state has a legitimate interest in regulating its use in certain environments – driving a car, for example – or during identity checks, or security checks. But in many personal and public spaces, even a niqaab, much as it offends my own sensibility and sense of the normative, and while I clearly see the sexual double standard and its inherent oppressiveness, should be the right of those who themselves, freely choose to wear it. I can see how some people may consider it liberating even though I might consider it oppressive.
So just in general, I cannot rule out through my own logic the rights of others. On the other hand, people (like Taslima) should also have the right to strongly suggest and advocate that it should be gone, whether from political or literary pulpits, for whatever rationales they may choose to advance.
Has Taslima ever expressed interest in emigrating to the US?
Nope but propose the strawman and start the US bashing.
Ahem…Narendra Modi has offered her asylum and full protection in Gujarat!!
Hail to that great champion of liberalism – Narender Modi
Chachaji, here is Taslima Nasreen’s essay, “Let’s Burn the Burqa.” It’s actually a very well-thought out piece (who says Taslima Nasreen isn’t a good writer?).
I think there is a perception amongst some Muslims that she has advocated “revising the Quran.” I haven’t seen her say that — and I’m not sure she ever did — though I have seen her argue that Sharia needs to be revised and updated.
Unfortunately, once people think you said something, it’s very difficult to convince them that you didn’t say it. (Rushdie had a similar problem.)
Urmilap:
I know as soon as someone uses the word “pseudo-secular” some people have a pavlovian reflex to shout out “VHP fascist !”. But the secular parties of India are not secular at all so I am not sure why there is surprise over the CPI(M)’s actions. Where I part company with the saffron brigade is over the question “what do we do now ?”. We need to fix secularism, instead of making India a “Hindu” country, which will certainly require the abolishment of laws that prohibit “hurting religious sentiments”. It’s a sharp stick that no ruling party (e.g. Sena in Mumbai, CPI(M) in Bengal, Muslim parties in Hyderabad) can be trusted with
Even if she said so, is that wrong?.
Every once in a while, I read DK folks burning bhagavat geeta or call Hindu gods in worse names and recently Karunanidhi, Chief minister of Tamilnadu called Rama a drunkard and ridiculed if he went to any engineering college to build a bridge from India to Srilanka.
Who’re you calling liberal?!!
We all know he’s just using her as a political pawn – at least he has the guts to play that card.
M. Nam
do us all a favor and don’t call yourself a civil libertarian the next time
actually don’t call yourself libertarian at all (conflating criticism of the state with criticism of civil society is a cardinal crime in the libertarian book)
Sigh!, the US exercising control over its borders has what exactly to do with civil liberties ? I don’t see why political orientation can’t be a consideration when choosing who the US opens its doors to. MoorNam was clearly talking about non-US citizens/residents…
A follow-up to my earlier comment: Dipanjan, on the earlier Nasreen thread, had a helpful comment on what exactly Nasreen might have said that has (rightly or wrongly) offended the “Muslim Right”.
It’s a real shame that no Indian state government is willing to protect her, and ensure law and order. It’s even worse that Bangladesh refuses to renew her passport and allow her back into the country (even to be arrested!). They’re all pandering to the religious nutjobs, and their sympathizers.
(She should take up Narendra Modi’s offer for protection in Gujurat (she’d be the only Muslim protected from mob violence in Gujurat — it’s a start!)).
so private companies should ask for a loyalty oaths (to the u.s.) before recruiting foreigners (the state has no business dictating the political orientation of employers of private firms) ?
That cracked me up. As funny as politics can ever get.
I heart Taslima Nasreen. She wrote a book on the mistreatment of Hindus in BDesh and the crazy religious nuts (the same folks who want to kill Ahmadis) have since decided that Taslima Nasreen is the devil. The BDesh did a piss poor job of protecting the lives and properties of its Hindu minority after the Babri Masjid riots and Taslima Nasreen courageously spoke out against it. Tasleema Nasrin is a true reformer unlike charlatans like Hirsi Ali who are in it for self promotion.
i meant employees, above
Good question. I’ve heard this criticism a few times. Writer of lurid memoirs, controversy hog etc. etc. Any Bengali readers care to shed light? I have only read her (translated) essays and they were quite good.
louiecypher –
I completely agree with what you said in your comment in #19. I totally agree those laws (which I think are amendments to the original constitutional right of expression) must be abolished along with several others which are ‘riders’ to the rights guaranteed in the constitution. But that is the problem – no political party will espouse such a cause, there is no political mileage to be gained out of it, yet.
But even with the presence of these laws, simply on the basis of law & order these mobs can be stopped IF there is political will. Your sentiments MAY be hurt and you can petition the govt for the suppression of a work of art/literature or whatever BUT the law does NOT permit you to go on a rampage. And these are organised mobs with a clear agenda, to intimidate & harass. The mobs in Calcutta, threw acid on police, they came planned for this. They should have been locked up in jail.
Let me define what I mean by ‘so-called secular parties’. In my view secular must mean what is in the dictionary, i.e. not pertaining to or connected with religion i.e. they must not care about the religion of the citizens and apply & uphold the laws of land without reference to religion whatsoever. I believe there is NO political party in India which can claim the above. And this was true long before the BJP came to be a major force in the political scene.
I want a political party that does not refer to my religion or my caste or any other aspect of my private life but will talk of maintaining law & order (no mob rule/goonda raj); provide good governance (sadak, pani, bijli); create an atmosphere where entrepreneurship flourishes (minimum red-tape & corruption); and will attempt to ensure that the underprivileged i.e. poor not caste-wise can obtain basic necessities (food, education, healthcare). I hope I see such a party in my lifetime, I am not optimistic about the chances.
If those foreign employees require visas to come state side, then their political views about the US are relevant for the grant of a government issued visa. If I remember right, isn’t there also a question about whether the visa applicant is/was a Nazi ?
i was talking about libertarian principles, not reality; also nazi past refers to actions not just thoughts (last time i checked thought or opinion crimes were frowned upon)
drat, another typo, i meant, not frowned upon
This is what happens when secularism is defined as “include all religions in our government framework” when religion should play no role in government policy. I by no means think America is free from religion in the political sphere, but the laws in India where Taslima Nasreen can be brought up on charges for hurting religoius sentiments is extreme (as happened in Hyderabad). Faith and religion are fine, but when used to discriminate against fellow man, they turn dangerous.
Tasleema thinks Islam is way beyond reform and she considers herself as an atheist. She also thinks Qur’an is full of bullshit. That is her opinion and i absolutely support her right to express herself, however provocative they are to the believers. Poor woman, she has suffered quite a bit over the years from the islamic zealots. She would be better off in europe/usa, even if India offers asylum to her. The last i read was that she was whisked by Indian security agencies to an undisclosed location.
Visas are handed out at the State Department’s discretion. If the applicant doesn’t meet their standard, in whatever way they define that metric, then the SD is within their rights to deny it. A visa is after all, a privilege, not a right for a foreigner. Of course these days with the number of people sneaking across the borders, the visa thing is a joke anyway.
If you look at the US domestic context, it is not perhaps so surprising that we find the “Left” in bed with the “Muslim fundamentalists.” I think that religious fundamentalism isn’t fixed on a particular side of the left-right divide (taking the latter to be fundamentally about economic egalitarianism (left) v. “laissez-faire” (right))–fundamentalists can make opportunistic alliances with secular parties of right or left. Compare Muslim fundamentalists in US v. Christian fundamentalists–we find them on opposite sides of the left-right divide.
Amardeep, thanks for the additional links. Personally, I find nothing incendiary in what she writes, pardon the pun, and actually, unlike Dipanjan, I felt her clarification may be helpful, inasmuch as she is moving the issue away from the ‘religious’ ambit to a more ‘secular’ ambit. I think seeing the ‘hijaab’ merely as an Islamic injunction is inaccurate on many counts – women of all cultures throughout the Eurasian continent wear something clearly recognizable as a headscarf, and so do many African women. And as it happens, orthodox (and Orthodox) versions of both Christianity and Judaism have similar ‘requirements’ of their women, and many orthodox Sikh women also wear turbans which have the effect of covering their hair – though sartorially they diverge from the hijaab.
Also, with no intention to threadjack – the point Urmilap makes here:
naturally brings up the issue of why a freer travel and visa regime with respect to Bangladesh and India does not already exist. Anyone can see that Bangladesh is completely surrounded by India, much more so than Nepal, whose citizens do have certain rights to visit and work in India freely.
chachaji asked:
She started off by riling the Jamaat-e-Islaami types in Bangladesh when she wrote newspaper columns criticising the excesses of mullahs and taking a very robust line on the rights of women and those who used religion as a guise to oppress them. All hell broke loose when she wrote about the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh in campaigns organised by the Jamaat-e-Islaami people after the Ayodhya mosque demolition. She named names and specified incidences in her novel Lajja which is about this subject. She also pointed out the complicity of the ruling mainstream political parties in this, and their support for the Jamaat-e-Islaami party and other hardline far-right Islamist groups. This was too much for them to bear, and so some illiterate clerics and other Jamaatis told outright lies to throw petrol on her, saying she had insulted the prophet Muhammad and insulted the Koran, neither of which she did. But slander works.
She has since then developed her opposition in writing to all religions, in particular the interpetations of Islam that she views as oppressing women. This of course enrages the patriarchs even further. She writes from a broadly secular atheist stance, and wrote some works about female sexuality, in which she discusses her partners, and general feminist liberation and the need for women to have their individual rights respected, and advocating the freedom for women to choose their own husbands. Those who persecute her are liars. They just don’t like a woman from a Muslim background speaking out against gender oppression. She has never said the ‘blasphemous’ things they claim she has, but in these days, that’s the easiest way to rouse passions against a Muslim (or non Muslim) dissident.
The Indian govt should show some spine and give Nasreen immediate citizenship. And let her live in Kolkata with some protection. Honestly this has gone far enough. The muslim fundies can piss off.
So the same old sad story wrt to “freedom of expression” in media and literature – what and where are its boundaries ; what is offense ; how much of it is ok and how much is not.
And when is controversy in media and literature genuine and when is it just another deliberate advertising campiagn to “sell” ? How to intelligently discern the two especially when you are poor, marginalized, illiterate, bigotted, prejudiced etc. etc. ( pardon my condescending tone). And why do sometimes educated folks can’t make out the difference ?
You might find this interview and profile of Ayaan Hirsi Ali which was published today. I think it gets to the heart of a tension within her and her advocacy, the tension between, as the writer says, ‘revolutionary Ayaan’ and ‘reformist Ayaan’. It also speaks about her adoption by the neo-cons and right in America towards the end of the article, not uncritically. I urge you to read it, because whilst I understand that she riles many people, I really don’t think that she is doing it for self promotion or publicity.
One of the great things about Nasrin is that she hasn’t let her opposition to Islam get co-opted by bigots and nutsos. Unlike Hirsi, she isn’t joining the AEI and suggesting the minimum wage be abolished. Unlike Ibn Warraq, she isn’t soft-pedelling her opposition to Christianity) in order to get speaking gigs.
She even gets on the BJPs nerves, and has been attacked by them for defending Deepa Mehta’s meovie “water”.
Hirsi Ali in one of her genocidal moods:
Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam�
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.†There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
Reason: Militarily?
Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.
Reason: Are we really heading toward anything so ominous?
Hirsi Ali: I think that’s where we’re heading. We’re heading there because the West has been in denial for a long time. It did not respond to the signals that were smaller and easier to take care of. Now we have some choices to make. This is a dilemma: Western civilization is a celebration of life—everybody’s life, even your enemy’s life. So how can you be true to that morality and at the same time defend yourself against a very powerful enemy that seeks to destroy you?
“naturally brings up the issue of why a freer travel and visa regime with respect to Bangladesh and India does not already exist. “
Because most Bangladeshis have nationalistic feelings towards Bangladesh and despise India. And lets be honest the migration would be from Bangladesh to India not the other way around. India is wisely building a fence to keep Bangladeshis out. Just look at the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh already in India. They openly state they hate India and claim to live in land that truly belongs to Bangladesh. Why should India admit hordes of resentful, angry poor people armed only with an irredentist vision of Greater Bangladesh?
I agree. And following that, the Indian government must immediately provide MF Husain with protection so that he can return to India and live in peace without harassment and persecution. The hindu fundies can also piss off.
chachaji, that’s one factor – similarity of a dress across different groups. The other factors to be considered are a. their reasons for doing it (God or Chanel?), and b. whether it’s a choice (as much as buying the latest fashion accessory can be considered a choice in our society). Otherwise the analysis is a bit incomplete, no?
I mean not wearing (the latest fashionable) scarf in some societies may result in nothing more than not being invited to future parties, but can you say the same for other women for whom the repercussions would be very different?