November 27, 2007
Taslima Nasreen: A RoundupNews
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.”
amardeep on November 27, 2007 12:05 PM in News, Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
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...
>>it would take two years for the U.S. State Department to process her visa.
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.
>>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?
I would actually ask them to go to hell...
>>Or does this apply only to writers from third worild countries who dare raise uncomfortable questions?
Non-US citizens who criticise the US have no business emigrating here.
M. Nam
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.
>>Hail to that great champion of liberalism - Narender Modi
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Ikram:
The West Bengal unit of the BJP has demanded the immediate arrest of Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, accusing her of "insulting the whole country."
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.
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.