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.”
As a former Muslim, why should he feel a need to even articulate a critique of Christianity when it is aspects of Islam that he seeks to dissent from?
Amit, in the context of India, in which women of all religious backgrounds wear a dupatta or chunni, talk of banning the hijaab is preposterous. In fact talk of banning anything is illiberal. It’s the fundamentalists who talk about banning things.
all extremists should be shot 😉
To vote for the Left of course. Just like pro-illegal immigration labor unions in the US
Bobby, extrapolate much?? 🙂 If reading my comment leads you to assume that I am advocating for a ban on hijab/dupatta, then that’s your assumption and prejudices or whatever at work, not mine. The woe of ideological wings and boxing. sigh
India’s confusion on how to be married to the term ‘secular’ is the reason for all its woes. By ignoring violence perpetuated by minorities it is in fact encouraging such acts as the minorities see it as an effective tool and the majority community is further incensed.
To avoid the international backlash caused by the massacare of muslims in Gujarat, India now seeks to rectify its mistakes by giving them leeway during such occasions and this encourages other religions to use such strong arm tactics to make a point. India always seems to have the habit of grossly misjudging the human factor in such things by trying to make amends. Democratic India’s moral compass is strong as its founding fathers used ‘morality’ as a basis to end colonial occupation but its corresponding actions fail to produce results.
But the world we live in is vastly different, India must remember the PRESENT economic situation of its country. And not use its heart to make decisions. To give an example
During the riots sparked by the Babri Masjid demolition, many Indian muslims in the Gulf Emirate of Qatar staged a protest in front of the Indian embassy and prominent Indian Muslim Businessmen were the leaders, Many smaller businesses were shut down as a mark of protest. In a wahhabi nation, this show of solidarity would only receive encouragement by the local community and its leaders.
Instead a quick call by the Indian Ambassador to the Ruling Al-Thani Emir resulted in the protests being broken, the leaders losing their entire fortune to their Qatari counterparts and deported, the other members forced to open their shops. Qatar was facing a heavy backlash from other Arab nations on its bids to normalise relations with Israel and promoting peace in the region. It could have used this non violent protest as a foil to escalate its reputation in the Islamic world but it didn’t. It knew that such protests would be a precursor to other forms of dissent and that was not in its goals with regards to development.
Now Qatar is a monarchy, India on the other hand should not tolerate violence by any of its parties. Whether its a hindu mob on its way to kill innocent muslim women or a Muslim mob threatening a writer. Both should be put down by force if necessary and made an example of. Force is a legitimate ‘tool’ of governance. One that should be used only if the lives of others are at stake, However when India errs on either side(excessive force vs no force) she tends to make amends by reverting to the other extreme without thought to the long term consequences.
If India wasn’t so insecure in its secularism as opposed to the post partition era and education was widespread she would actually be thinking. For a nation that boasts so many intellectuals, its a shame that so many leaders use a misguided moral sense and their not so reliable gut instincts to make such decisions.
I don’t have any ideology or wings Amit. Do you?
So what led you to make the assumption you stated in #52 after reading my comment #50? I don’t think there is any logic that connects them, except in your own mind.
UrmilaP, ever thought of starting one or joining politics?
Bobby said “Amit, in the context of India, in which women of all religious backgrounds wear a dupatta or chunni, talk of banning the hijaab is preposterous. In fact talk of banning anything is illiberal. It’s the fundamentalists who talk about banning things.”
Ummm … say what? Neither has Taslima said that the burqa should be banned nor did comment #50. All Taslima has said is that the burqa is anti-women and it is. Even Islamic scholars agree it originated from Most women who wear it in India wear it because : (a) It prevents men from ogling at them and shouting lewd comments etc i.e. eve-teasing (b) Their father/brother/husband insist they wear it (c) they are religious and feel like wearing it.
I went to an all girls school and knew a lot of Muslim girls, who didn’t wear the burqa in school but were compelled to wear it elsewhere. To them coming to school was an escape. When I was in college, the Muslim girls would congregate in the women’s common room because that was the only place they could take off the burqa. When asked why they didn’t take it off in the rest of the campus (since the men in the family presumably didn’t hang around in the campus) the general answer was that if a boy from their neighbourhood saw them, he could either report them to their parents or use it as an excuse to ‘get fresh’ with them. While it is certainly possible that religious reasons are important to a significant number of the uneducated rural masses the main reason it is ubiquitous on the streets of Bombay/Delhi/Madras/Calcutta/Bangalore is (a) & (b). In a society where they will not be ogled at for just being women in the public sphere & in the absence of family pressure, the burqa would be something you only see in the villages/mofussil towns.
chachaji said “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”
I am not sure what you mean by a ‘freer travel & visa regime’. If you are suggesting that Bangladeshi citizen not require visas to enter India, I completely disagree with that. Already the ISI has been using Bangladesh as an infiltration point since the western borders are much better guarded. I want the fence between India & Bangladesh to be built. In fact I believe India should build a similar fence on the Nepal border so that the Maoists, who are the primary arms suppliers to the Naxalite movements plaguing vast swathes of India, be stopped from entering India. Get a visa and then come to India, I don’t care if your grandfather used to be Indian or you are of the same racial stock or whatever.
Folks, this has been a nice thread so far. Can we hold off the personal attacks on one another, please?
ACfD,
re: hirsi ali…i think she’s pulling a Nietzche:
doing to Islam what was done to christianity, in order to bring it into the modern world. though that was not nietzsche’s purpose, that was the effect. it’s like the art of war: when your enemy is annoyed, irritate him. she may be throwing some soundbites out there, but hey, her life’s been threatened, so cut her some slack.
she may be throwing some soundbites out there, but hey, her life’s been threatened, so cut her some slack.
I agree. I dont have a problem with Hirsi. I dont support her ‘war’ ‘fight of civilizations’ stuff though. I think I share her views about Islam though I dont share her views about Muslims. I have a bigger problem with people who believe that she is some sort of a ‘meaningful reformer’ and pretend that she has any credibility with Muslims period.
Gujarat has nothing to do with this. As far as I can remember, India has always allowed Islam and other religions to use “strong arm tactics”.
I suggest you read Lajja.As others have noted Taslima had to leave the country for talking about the persecution of Hindus. It is perfectly natural for a “Hindu nationalist� leader to support her.
If thats true, thanks for the correction.
DizzyDesi wrote:
It is perfectly natural for a “Hindu nationalist” leader to support her.
Really. Then why did the BJP condemn her:
The West Bengal unit of the BJP has demanded the immediate arrest of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, accusing her of “insulting the whole country.”
The reason for the BJP’s wrath is Ms Nasreen’s vehement attack on the Sangh Parivar for disrupting the shooting of Deepa Mehta’s Water. A local Bengali daily on Tuesday published a strongly-worded article by Ms Nasreen condemning religious fundamentalism of all kinds. “What is the state of freedom of expression in the largest democracy of the world at the beginning of 21st century? A film is not being allowed to be made,” the article begins. Defending both Deepa Mehta and Shabana Azmi, Nasreen says everybody knows that the pathetic life of widows in Kashi, which Ms Mehta wants to depict in her movie, is not a false description.
At the time, the Hindu nationalist (Rahul Sinha) were saying:
She is abusing our hospitality. Staying in our country, she has the audacity to insult the whole country.” He called her article not only an insult but also “obscene and crude.” [Sinha] said: “She has not been content with insulting the people of this country but has also made distasteful and obscene comments.”
the only reason Modi supports her in this case is because she is under the attack from the muslims. She is on the left side of the political spectrum (and has been critical of bjp as well) and when a right-winger like Modi supports her, it is clear what is driving Modi.
Yes except when it is a white immigrant.
In the words of a great Australian Leader “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come”. Clearly that does not include MNam.
Bloody oath.
I believe she would be safe in Oz under a Labor government. New Zealand would be safer. But not many Bengalis.
Forcing their views on other people, that’s the mark of extremists everywhere, Islamic, Hindu, whatever. From brutally stopping young people from celebrating Valentine’s to burning Deepa Mehta’s sets to stuff Ikram’s quoted, Hindu extremists are a grave danger to freedom in India. Unfortunately, too many Hindus still back them.
I agree that so-called secular parties aren’t really secular either (though they’re better than Hindu right parties any day), but what’s stopping people from coming up with a really secular party, a third alternative? Lack of votes?
Bobby, yes, I do.
“the only reason Modi supports her in this case is because she is under the attack from the muslims. She is on the left side of the political spectrum (and has been critical of bjp as well) and when a right-winger like Modi supports her, it is clear what is driving Modi.”
Don’t forget the 2007 elections in Gujarat are coming up. The Congress Party in Gujarat is made of a fragile coalition: Muslims, intellectuals, moderates and this year is being supported by disaffected BJP officials protesting Modi’s dominance in the party (but nevertheless still subscribing to BJP ideaology). By inviting Nasreen, Modi has made her a campaign wedge issue.
Now Congress is put in a tough space. If Congress supports protecting Nasreen it alienates its Muslim base and without Muslims turning out to vote en masse Congress’ chancing of winning are 0. Or Congress can pander to it base, thereby giving up all pretenses to being noncommunal, enlightened and secular thereby alienating non-Muslim voters. Pandering so blatantly to its Muslim base will also cause the disaffected BJP candidates that have allied with Congress to loss credibility.
This is a win/win issue for Modi.
i hope this betrayal of their fundamental principles will lead some indian intellectuals to reexamine their, hitherto, unconditional support for the left.
What betrayal of fundamental principles would that be? Last time I checked leftist parties/coalitions/cpim still holds on to power by sheer muscle power and infiltration of every level of the state administration. Has been for the last two decades. That hasn’t changed materially.
Amit, if as Bobby says, you did say that Islam needs to be banned, at least have the courage to own up to it – you may or may not consider it an extremist statement – instead of fobbing it off with ridiculous dissembling.
Oops, I misread the comments. Amit, Bobby: carry on :).
Al-Chutiya wrote: I dont have a problem with Hirsi
I do. She joins AEI. She spreads the Islam-o-panic about the Muslim demographic takeover of europe. She (from the Hari article) opposes the minimum wage. She supports a US invasion of Iran. She generaly agreew with John Bolton and David Frum.
Just becuase one set of right-wing crazies hate you, no reason to join up with another set of right wing crazies. Nasrin gets this. Hirsi doesn’t agree.
(To be fair, Hirsi said only the AEI offerred her a decent job. Brookings, John Hopkins didn’t. And even the AEI had qualms, apparantly:friends of mine at AEI told me not long before Ali arrived that they had strong qualms about taking on an exile case precisely because she’s neither an academic/policy analyst/scholar nor a conservative)
“Ritu Menon in the Indian Express gives a long list of outrages to freedom of artistic expression in India in recent years:”
this ties into something written at the acorn site: the competitive intolerance seen in recent years amongst followers of several religions in india does seem to have escalated (not that people weren’t religiously sensitive before) in the years following the salman rushdie affair and india’s (mis)handling of it. although she didn’t specifically mention rushdie in her column, that does seem to have opened up a pandora’s box that no government — state or national, congress, bjp, communist etc. — seems either able to close or has the backbone to close.
i don’t know much about nasreen, but she at least appears to be very true to herself and herself only, which is a good thing. are her novels worth a read, from the purely literary viewpoint?
While I disagree with Nasreen’s views on the US as the great international bogeyman (pls no comments, we all know where we stand by now), I have to respect her critique of the Sangh Parivar. It must be tempting to cozy up to a bully when rootless and under threat of death from another bully. Regarding Ali, I am sympathetic to some of her views but her advocacy of war against Islam & stopping conversion of Westerners (how would this even be permissible under any EU nation’s constitution ?) is insane. But I do find it telling that progressives will search far and wide for reasons to explain the bad behavior of their favored underdogs but are unable to put her brand of extremism in the context of someone who was sexually mutilated as a child.
On Ms. Nasreen’s writing abilities… (parts from memory)
I read “Nirbachita Kolum” (Selected Columns) which is a selection of her journalistic writings. I really liked that. However “Lajja” (Shame) was boring. However, Lajja was the book that got a wide audience in West Bengal because a> it was immediately banned by the (state?) government and b> ABP group brought out a (as far as I remember, censored, but I could be wrong, ABP is still a very powerfuil organization with connections to the ruling party at very high levels, so they might have got a special waiver) version. Anyway “Banned in Boston” ensured that illegal copies were printed (ABP was slow in publishing, that I do remember) and people read them widely.
Lajja was pretty boring. Too preachy, and iteration of the same allegations again and again. You probably needed a Gore to do this and still win an award.
I guess that’s one reason you will hear this repeated.
The other, I surmise, is one of convenient convergence of interests. The leading intelligentsia of Bengal is completely dependent on the ruling party for pretty much everything. (Even if you are a commited leftist from Delhi, if you don’t have contacts in the local cpim, you don’t get jobs, period) Nasreen was an embarrassment to the cpim, and its minority appeasement; also she later wrote lurid tell-alls about her affairs with the leading intellectual lights of Bengal. So it was probably (unconsciuously) easy to dismiss her.
I guess it did not strike you that I found the fact that Modi is talking of protecting someone funny. I assume the use of quotes for ‘Hindu Nationalism’ is to highlight the absurdity of using such terms for people like Modi, since they are a disgrace to both Hinduism and Nationalism.
“But I do find it telling that progressives will search far and wide for reasons to explain the bad behavior of their favored underdogs but are unable to put her brand of extremism in the context of someone who was sexually mutilated as a child.”
The idea that Hirsi Ali has put off Muslims by her radical rhetoric doesn’t ring true. f you look at the discourse in the Islamic world, it is often radical, vulgar, hateful and violent. Children’s programming regularly demonize non-Muslims and promote violence (Lookup Farfur on youtube). Scholars working at mainstream madrassahs (Al-Azhar, Qom, Mecca) discuss why non-Muslims are animals and justify why women should have fewer rights and stick to traditional gender roles. Newspapers regularly print anti-semetic cartoons. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden have grassroots support.
Is Hirsi Ali’s rhetoric really shocking if you put in context of the real nature of the discourse going on the Islamic world? I don’t think so, it is rather mild. The idea that Islamic world is put off by the Hirsi Ali’s tone is rather unbelievable.
I think the real goal is to avoid confronting her arguments by complaining about her “extremism” or what group she works for. Its hard to refute her well-argued essays so instead people attack her for being mean, working for the AEI, not criticizing all religions equally. etc.
someone, no worries mate. 🙂 On the internet, it’s easy for us to box people in and attribute words they didn’t write, based on images we build up. I’ve been guilty of it in the past too.
She’s been under attack from (indian) muslims for years. As JGandhi suggested, it is probably because of Gujju elections
Ikram:
Thanks. I stand corrected
Taslima is a valuable voice, and props to her for her critiques of islamic fundamentalism, amongst other things. But her burqah article is highly reductive and narrow minded. Yes, one of the purposes of the hijab/burqah/niqab etc is as a cover of female sexuality, but there’s a lot more to it than that, and as a(n albeit former) hijab-wearer I find this clichéd argument, of the hijab as anti-women, as a symbol of oppression, so tedious. For those that put it on with a free will, it can be a liberating mechanism, establishing and affirming a sense of personal space, identity and personal confidence, and I know plenty of women who wear a hijab and live and work in various fields, from media, to teaching to medicine, for whom it’s a valued and integral part of who they are. A statement like ‘covering a woman’s head means covering her brain and ensuring that it doesn’t work’ is such drivel it’s not even funny. However, I live in the uk, and I can’t comment on the state of the hijab in India/Bangladesh, where it is more of a cultural imposition than personal choice. This is also true for many muslim communities in the uk or elsewhere, where it is stripped of any personal or spiritual value and significance. But it’s unfair to blanket the burqah, and people have the right to express their spiritual identity however they choose, whether it is through a cross, hijab, or kara.
Not so obviously, if you’re (1) a consequentialist and (2) there are indeed bad consequences (as the French seem to think) from such expressions in cert. contexts.
corporate serf, thanks for the feedback on taslima nasreen’s writing. why does it seem that the books that cause the most ruckus seem to be the ones that are boring? i remember finding satanic verses boring as well and never finished it. but i was much younger. i’ve often thought about going back to it to see if my reaction would be different, but have never got around to it.
“You probably needed a Gore to do this and still win an award.”
haha. i think i’ll use that line on my father who can’t vote in any american election but likes gore a lot.
Where can we read this stuff. Lucky buggers. Yes, she turns me on 😉
a neighbour ??
To clarify what I said about her clarification being not helpful, what I meant was it did not help in pacifying those who wanted to kill her or shut her up. To others, yes, it can be helpful.
I read most of her early Bengali writings, but it has been a while. Based on fading memories and for what it’s worth, I think there is some merit in some of the criticism. In her fiction and autobiographies, she can be frustratingly inconsistent in both literary style and character development. Central female characters tend to switch states between helpless victimhood and proud emancipation quite abruptly, and with the turn of a few pages, male characters are transformed from naive simpletons to cunning and cruel oppressors. Not that these states are mutually exclusive, but somehow the changes used to come across as unsettling. Also undertones of crude male-bashing and a tendency to settle old scores detracted from her writings. Overall I prefer her essays to her novels and autobiographies.
melbourne desi, only about 17K Kms away – in Boston. 🙂 No, I just like the term ‘mate’ – it’s friendly.
Dipanjan, thanks for clarifying your remark about her clarification not being helpful:) I agree that, while it did seem (to me) to clarify her position, it did not help her get greater acceptance among those who wished her harm, and so in that sense was not helpful.
Bobby, thanks for your response.
Amit, I don’t know how to make distinctions between someone who exercises free choice – on behalf of God or on behalf of Chanel (or Hermes). Free choice, like absolute sovereignty, is an abstract thing; choice in the real world is always exercised in the context of some cultural (or commercial) conditioning. If someone says they really want to do something, and nobody is physically forcing them, or subtly coercing them under threat of some kind of harm – then they are exercising free choice – or as free a choice as anyone in the real world will ever exercise.
JGandhi and Urmilap: thanks for your responses. I agree that the Maoists in Nepal and the ISI operating through Bangladesh can be real threats. Still, the overwhelming majority of people coming from either country do so for economic reasons. The long term solution to that is to promote economic growth in both countries. But even in the interim, given the geography of the two countries, to fence off either country from India sounds quite extreme. It is unlikely to work well enough to be useful, and may even be counterproductive – in addition to causing bad blood and misunderstanding. India can hardly expect Bangladesh to be responsive to its economic investment proposals or its gas exploration plans or its desire for transit rights to the Northeast, while it is busy fencing Bangladesh off from itself. The same with Nepal. And the Maoists and ISI terrorists would probably find another way to get in anyway, if the fence stopped them at all. Freeing up the visa and travel regime would enable people like Taslima to come and stay relatively easily – and it might even enable greater resources to be devoted to detecting threats. Again, as the largest country in the region, it is up to India to be enlightened, and see the chess game several moves ahead.
JGandhi, educate yourself before you broadcast self-indoctrinated hearsay! I’m not denying that Islamic culture is in utterly crucial need of reform (particularly in terms of gender equality, minority rights, and education), but this “anti-Semitism” you speak of is 1) a misnomer, since Arabs are also Semites! and [I’m assuming that you’re referencing Arab animosity towards Israel, since in this context, the term “anti-Semitic” has no basis] 2)the result of deep-rooted, multi-facted POLITICAL and CULTURAL (not specifically RELIGIOUS) turmoil within the Middle East. I’m not going to use this as an opportunity to delve into Islamic history, but the psyche of radical Muslims can be attributed largely to Wahabbism, which emerged in the 18th century (consider Islam’s 1400-year existence!) and has been propagated by the corrupt-as-hell House of Saud; it is an austere desert belief, based more on radical intensity than scholarly roots in authentic Islamic writings and teaching!
Additionally, Hezbollah is considered a legitimate defensive military organization by the vast majority of Maronite Christians and Druze within Lebanon (http://www.beirutcenter.info/default.asp?contentid=692&MenuID=46), and, considering its Shi’a Muslim tenets, it exists within a completely different scope than Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden!
& yaawwwwnnnnn. Nasreen’s work is of no particular literary merit, and much of it (i.e. the vast majority of what I’ve read) is overwrought with oft-repeated, trite “OMG-HE/SHE-CHOOSES-TO-PRACTICE-ISLAM-AND-IS-THUS-CLEARLY-SHROUDED-IN-IGNORANCE” sentiments. Also,Islamic purdah (burqah, niqab, headscarf, etc.) is NOT imposed by South Asian Islamic culture, as the majority of South Asian Muslim women DO NOT observe traditional purdah (i.e. headcovering), and it has gained a greater prominence within the past few years due to pan-Islamism and is more of a testament to Muslim identity rather than religious fervor. Ask your parents about the attire of young Muslim women of their generation…chances are, it rarely made it past the un-affixed, half-done dupatta, lol. Many secular Muslim families (yes, we DO exist!), including my own, see no increased religiosity in observation of traditional purdah (note: I am not referring to modest dress)and do not advocate it for women.
Lets think about this cooly.
Narendra Modi and his state of gujarat, might actually be one of the safest places for Taslima Nasreen after the State of Israel and the island nation of Tahiti.
Why?
1) Muslim terrorists, if someone like that exists.. do not come near gujarat for fear of their lives. Modi has a shoot on sight policy for islamic extremists that would put the mossad to shame.
2) They are part of gujarat, where people would risk human life to protect her, I am not so sure, where else in India, people would do that.. I am sure west bengal is not one of them.
3) Every Jihadi Muslim terror network in the world ranging from Al quaeda, HUJI, Hizballah, Chechnyan seperatists, Pakistani ISI, Bangladeshi HUJI, Hamas, Syrian intellegence forces, Azad Kashmir groups, Taliban, Dubai based desi mafia dons, Nigerian islamic drug cartels, egptyian military, the ruling islamic party of turkey, the sultan of brunei, chinese muslims from xianjing, sudanese janjaweed terror groups,… all have..
tried and failed to destroy/kill Narendra Modi over a period of 5 years…
now if you can beat that.. i can guarantee you, Taslima Nasreen,
Narendra Modi may not be a bad option. Islamic fundamentalist exists in gujarat, as much as micheal jackson can speak chinese.
god bless america
This is hilarious. Hindutva Icon Narendra Modi offers asylum to Taslima Nasreen.
Modi is the future prime minister of India. I guarantee you if that happens. India’s muslim population will bereduced to less then the population of muslims that exist in north korea.
not lets see where in indian can taslima stay?
1) kashmir 2) west bengal 3) delhi 4) hyderabad 5) andaman and nicobar islans 6) goa (maybe) ( unless she rights da vinci code part 2) 7) arunachal pradesh
ahem.. no..
maybe ahemdabad, gujarat, named after the king ahmed shah the great? is the place taslima may feel at home..
no muslim protest will happen for a 1000 years in gujarat.
Taslima says one thing ” Treat woman as equal to men “
This is not acceptable to conservative muslims. Thats where the war begins and peace ends.
Clash of civilizations – samuel huffington..
A very silly argument. Anti-semitism as its used today simply means bigotry and hatred towards Jews and this is a very real phenomenon in the Arab world, no in the Islamic world. But if you insist, then lets call it Judeophobica. ‘Real Islam”, whatever that may be, may veryw ell not be anti-Jewish. But a religion is defined by its practitioners – and contemporary Islam has a virulent streak of judeophobia.
I don’t want to get into a discussion of whether Hezbollah is a terrorist group (I think it is) but terrorist groups certainly have wide grassroots support in the Islamic world.
I don’t have a problem with women voluntarily practicing purdah – though I think the world would become quite dreary if all women practiced it. As long as women choose it of their own volition and society at large is not forced to make accomodations for it, purdah is fine by me.
That’s exactly why it’s a MISNOMER, darling, and reflective of large-scale attempts to classify Arabs and Jews as possessing completely dichotomous identities, which indeed further exacerbates the tension that already exists! And no, religion is not defined by its “practitioners!” Numerous atrocities have been committed in the name of ALL religions, yet conflict is an inculcated aspect of human nature and people use religion as a justification for violence, plain ‘n simple.
Also, despite the contentions of religious radicals (who adhere to Sharia, fierce Hindutva teachings, etc., doesn’t matter what form of extremism), no faith exists in a form of set-in-stone, codified doctrines, and ALL religious practices are subject to interpretation. The Arab/Muslim supposed animosity towards Jews is almost exclusively because of the violence occurring within Israeli-occupied Palestine, which (most) Arabs/Muslims feel is the direct result of Israeli-imposed apartheid. Hatred towards Jews (or any other religious group for that matter) is not an innate or integral aspect of Islam; to assume such is as dangerous as it is reprehensible…
supposed?
If you think Jew-hating began in Islam 1967 w/ the start of the occupation you are mistaken. Anyway it still does not excuse the demonization of Jews nor explain why newspapers even in small Pakistani towns print conspiracy theories about Jews.
Now thats a generalization. Dupatta or chunni is not worn by south Indian women. Even in north only rural & mostly Rajput women in Rajastan and some in bimaru states wear it. Btw it seems dupatta made its appearance in India with muslim invasions, maybe to hide the face of women from invaders or it is just a useful cultural import enforced by Hindu men on their women folk. Here is an excerpt from TVR Shenoy’s article “The debate over Muslim separatism in the US” http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/29flip.htm :
“The temple guardians at Guruvayur were quite right. I don’t know how many readers would have stepped into the National Museum in Delhi (sadly ignored by most visitors to the capital). The wealth of treasures in the museum is so great that it has actually spilled out into the lobby. One of the first pieces of sculpture you can see — before coming even to the ticket office — is a marvellous statue of the goddess Saraswati, from the Chauhan period as I recall.
The goddess of wisdom is portrayed without any covering on her head. So are depictions from thousands of years of Indian history, from the dawn of civilisation on the banks of the Sindhu through the Mauryas, the Guptas, and other dynasties. But as time passes — and you enter the galleries showing Rajput miniatures from later periods — the veil makes its appearance, until even Adishakti Parvati has her face partly covered.
It is, literally, a graphic demonstration of West Asian cultural mores replacing those that were native to India. South India, shielded by the arms of everyone from the imperial Chalukyas in the eighth century to Vijayanagara and the Marathas, retained the ancient cultural traditions. And so it was that a Rajput lady found that the act of covering her head, perfectly acceptable in Mathura, was frowned upon in Guruvayur.”
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/29flip.htm
the jewish-muslim animosity is a recent phenomena, not quite with 67, but ever since the zionists planned and carried out the plan for the jewish state. i don’t support the conspiracy theories and the overt hatred against jews – but truth be told that a few hundred years ago, jews had an easier time living with muslims than christians. jews were a protected minority under muslim rule (nothing like the protection offered by the liberal democracies of today, but for those times) while chritians regimes in northern europe persecuted jews relentlessly.
this point is debatable. i do agree with most of what you say – in practice, up until Israel was created, there wasn’t any great animosity between muslims and jews. however, if you go by the text of Qur’an, there are quite direct statements against jews – ie, not make friends with jews, slay them wherever you find them, etc.. i know this often has been sighted by muslim scholars as a narration of a war time, etc. but this very statement is used by the fundamentalists today to spread the hatred against jews. i do agree that there are equally violent statements in torah and bible, but unfortunately, in the hands of fundamentalists these turn into deadly consequences.