Taslima Nasreen

I don't think Taslima has created the unrest by her writing any more than a
woman wearing a miniskirt could be said to have created any subsequent
sexual assault. In both cases, 'the readiness to commit assault and the
incapability to exercise civilized and considerate restraint are preexisting
social conditions'. Taslima's success or failure as a writer should only be
judged 'based on her writing', not on metaphenomena like the assaults and
riots, which are actually reflective of the success or failure of society





A writing that does not lead to reading by those it precisely
intended to reach





In the weirdest or ironies, Taslima herself complained that she is being
hounded while "nothing happens to [M.F.] Hussain." As if the issue is not
about freedom of expression, but it is more like a game of a child
complaining that she is being beaten by a parent while a sibling gets away
with the same thing. You would think that seeing it, writing about it, and
actually writing about it, would have made Taslima wiser





[Excerpts from Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The real fundamentalist explosion came in May 1994, when she was
quoted in the Calcutta Statesman as saying that the Qur`an "should
be revised thoroughly." This brought larger and more vociferous
demonstrations, demanding that the government put Nasrin to death.
She insisted that her statement referred to the Shari'ah, the
Islamic code of law, rather than the Qur`an itself. Unfazed, she
went even further and in November declared that the Qur`an had only
historical value.
....................


---------------------------------------------- ----

To say that Quran or Veda or Torah or Avesta should be revised is to make an
ignorant and silly statement, because it is a meaningless and impossible
proposition (you can't alter the past, especially when it is considered a
revelation.). Taslima may have spoken thoughtlessly or carelessly when she
said that. It is another matter why such a statement should draw violent
outrage rather than simply amused chuckles at such evident







the only book i have read of taslima's is Lajja, and that in english
translation. to my sense of aesthetics it was quite well done in the
way the book begins ominously and the events unfold.
according to her website all her books are banned now in BD and i
don't know what is available now in india. i did not see any of her
books in translation in the bookstore but then i was also not looking
very carefully. the website has many translations of her poetry and
frankly they are dynamite.

it is perhaps true that not many people who support her are very
familiar with her work and the simple reason could be that they are
not that easily available. but what makes one sure that those who want
her killed or exiled have actually read her books? every time she is
written about the same refrain is repeated as if it has been cast in
stone - her writing is not that great or that it is trashy, and the
fear that this publicity is making her only undeservedly famous.

for once i would like those who say that tell me why they think it is
not great. what is it being compared to? her writing actually reminds
me of mahasweta devi who also i have read only in translation, but it
is the same kind of aggressive, assertive, and unflinching style that
they both have. alice walker's the Color People is cringe inducing as
well but it too spoke a truth about very painful adolescence.
.............................
Without having actually read Taslima's books I can't really talk about what
she says or how she says it. But I really don't think the matter is all that
complicated.

Taslima wrote books--which are more or less like private communications to a
willing reader; she didn't shout from the rooftops where the listener
doesn't have a choice. My general understanding is that at least one of the
books, Lajja was written as a protest against a situation that prevailed in
Bangladesh, which was qualitatively if not quantitatively similar to the
situation in Gujarat in '02. Question of being thoughtful and sensitive is a
bit problematic in such a context. The thing that can change the
attitude of perpetrators in such instances is not gentle suasion but
resistance. Resistance sends the message that what was done is not
acceptable. The message should be unambiguous. I know of no approach to
non-acquiescence in evil which doesn't stress clarity and unambiguity in
standing up to the evil.

Resistance is disturbing to the perpetrator because everyone has a
conscience. The angry and violent reaction to the one who says, "j'accuse"
is completely human and understandable--usually the greater the knowledge of
the guilt, the more violent the guilty rage. (It doesn't necessarily follow
that every case of rage has guilt behind it, just that knowledge of one's
own guilt often expresses itself as rage). No one has said in this instance
that Taslima wrote things that are untrue or unfair--we would have the
beginnings of a debate then. The only thing that is being said is that she
is 'hurting people's sentiments' which is impossible to discuss or debate.
In a society of mature and responsible adults, anyone who advocates yielding
to a plea of 'hurt sentiments' would have the obligation to explain how he
proposes to maintain social order and stability in the face of blackmail by
various groups who might decide to throw violent tantrums on arbitrary,
capricious or morally twisted grounds.
.............................................
I think that comparison with the cases of Gurazada et al might be a case of
apples and oranges. The British rulers of Gurazada's time (second half of
19th century, just after the 1857 rebellion was crushed ) had a vested
interest in maintaining social order, not in promoting the opposite as
today's leaders and rulers are doing. So, until Satyagraha came along,
nobody was going to wag their tails. As a matter of fact, Veeresalingam did
face social ostracism for his heterodoxy.

I would guess that by the time Jashua started publishing, enough liberal
thought had already steeped into the Telugu intellectual circles that his
level of risk was not prohibitive.

--------------------------------------------------

To say that Quran or Veda or Torah or Avesta should be revised is to make an
ignorant and silly statement, because it is a meaningless and impossible
proposition (you can't alter the past, especially when it is considered a
revelation.). Taslima may have spoken thoughtlessly or carelessly when she
said that. It is another matter why such a statement should draw violent
outrage rather than simply amused chuckles at such evident cluelessness.
There could also have been some debate as to the hints of a totalitarian
mindset (recall Orwell's Ministry of Truth in which people are constantly
engaged in erasing and rewriting the past) underlying such a proposal. That
latter line of attack could have hit home with Taslima and forced her to
re-examine her own certitudes. Instead, people allow themselves to be made
angry, run out and burn other people's property and assault Taslima or
whoever else they can lay their hands on.
...................................
Again, Taslima may have made a foolish or ignorant statement but she didn't
create the cultural milieu in which people are ready to become enraged and
commit violence as a result of that statement, a milieu in which people
don't have a stake in things like peace, stability, understanding,
progressive thinking and so on. She didn't create a society in which the
path to power and riches is often leads through murder, mayhem and
degeneration of values. (To Ajit Dongre: I don't think 'these' people are
subhuman idiots at all, they are very human, reasonably smart if ruthless
people who see a path to wealth and riches and follow it)
......................................
When I debate l'affaire Taslima I am not too concerned specifically about
Taslima or her specific writings. I care because (a) being made aware--once
again-- of the unstable, violent and morally degenerate substructure of our
society is very disturbing to me and (b) as a reader I have a stake in
writers being free to write what they want, otherwise I would end up with
nothing but bland and genericized fare.

When you conceive of a functional system, there is an implicit expectation
of fault tolerance and robustness. If the system comes apart and starts
self-destructing because of one random ignorant statement by one
not-too-widely-read woman writer, then we need to look at the system, rather
than wish that said writer would have been letter-perfect in all that she
wrote and said. Taslimas will come and go at random, but it is the system
that we stand or fall by.
...................................
agree mostly. Writing aimed to change writer himself, seems to bring
out not only his/her inner struggle, but also lends authenticity to it-
and appears to (me!) exert greater influence on the readers.
..................................
I am not sure provocative writing can be compared to provocative outfit.
While outfit is all about who wears it, writing seems
to be all about what it addresses or attacks. Published provocative
writing seems more like standing on a tower with a mike and calling
names or whatever! Not that it is right or wrong. But I wonder
if that is the best way to engage the minds to reach out.

Works of Jashua, Gurajada et.al in Telugu come to my mind that
addressed several social maladies, all with no protests of the
writings whatsoever from the same society, even if their impact on
readers' hearts is left out.

I agree writing has to be judged only by itself. We seem to hold
accountable, a speaker's tone, voice and choice of words when that
Leads to brawls or bar-fights. I wonder if writing should not be as
Much thoughtful and sensitive. Particularly when it is all about
criticizing severely and harshly something many hold dear and holy.

May be I am mistaken and this might not be pertinent to Taslima's
writings in the first place.


I don't know whether creative writing should be aiming to bring about change
in anyone other than the author. Seems like that'd be an exercise in
futility. A writer has to tell a compelling story and bring out some of his
inner life.

The people who are kicking Taslima around (distinguished from those who
condone said kicking) would never be her potential readers let alone
converts. Their antics are a product of ruthless partisan competition for
political and economic space and control. Generally speaking, the
constituency that might be interested in what Taslima et al have to say has
had no influence over the 'kickers.' I think the reason is that there is a
lot of overlap between that same constituency and the partisans. Till the
members of this constituency learn to elevate their interest in freedom to
read above their partisan instincts, nothing will change.
......................................
I don't think Taslima has created the unrest by her writing any more than a
woman wearing a miniskirt could be said to have created any subsequent
sexual assault. In both cases, the readiness to commit assault and the
incapability to exercise civilized and considerate restraint are preexisting
social conditions. Taslima's success or failure as a writer should only be
judged based on her writing, not on metaphenomena like the assaults and
riots, which are actually reflective of the success or failure of society
...........................
While I sympathise, I wan't to throw my less than 2 cents.

It is understandable, even commendable, for a piece of writing to
make its audience reflect, think, question and may be even change
their ideas. Instead, if it is enraging not engaging, making them
take to fists and not the book(s), did the writing succeed?

Claiming that only thugs and rowdies resort to such acts
doesn't cut it! Why? Because the writing was intended precisely to
make exactly those think. Isn't it?!

My point is not about politics or religion, but writing. And writing
that won some international accolades. It seems her writings are
protested more than read, and turned away more than taking a look.
A writing that does not lead to reading by those it precisely
intended to reach, has simply failed its own goal. If this is not a
failure for writing, what else would it be!
................................


it's not just fundies, a lot of nominally liberal people have been at best
lukewarm when it came to supporting Taslima's right to not be attacked and
assaulted for her writing. We have seen some of that on this forum as well.

In the weirdest or ironies, Taslima herself complained that she is being
hounded while "nothing happens to [M.F.] Hussain." As if the issue is not
about freedom of expression, but it is more like a game of a child
complaining that she is being beaten by a parent while a sibling gets away
with the same thing. You would think that seeing it, writing about it, and
actually writing about it, would have made Taslima wiser. We could say,
extending logic, that she played right into the hands of Farooq
Abdullah, Owaisi The Latest (which one is it now? I tend to lose track), and
the MBT.

There is no one--so-called intelligentsia, left parties, naxalites, right
wingers, congress all included for whom the principle of liberty and rule of
law itself is sacred. The only thing that matters is momentary tactical
advantage.

Modi would have more credibility if he said Taslima is welcome, and by the
way, 'we are dropping all charges against Hussain 'as well. But that's not
going to happen.

Ha, ha, ha...
-----

Narendra Modi invites Taslima to Gujarat
27 Nov 2007, 1700 hrs IST,PTI
Botad (Gujarat)/New Delhi: Saffron forces on Tuesday
jumped into the raging controversy over Bangladeshi
writer Taslima Nasreen with Chief Minister Narendra
Modi inviting her to Gujarat and RSS demanding
political asylum for her.

"Taslima has been courageous in speaking out against
fundamentalists. If the Central government cannot look
after her, send her to Gujarat. The people and
government of Gujarat will look after her. I have the
courage to protect her," the Chief Minister said while
addressing an election meeting in Botad town of
Bhavnagar district.

Modi, the Sangh's poster-boy, alleged that the Central
government was trying to send Nasreen out of the
country.

Accusing the Central Government of not being clear on
Bangladesh, Modi said first it was unsuccessful in
stopping infiltration and now the political allies of
those in power have overnight forced Nasreen to flee
from Kolkata.

He said Taslima, who has written against
fundamentalists, was first sent to Rajasthan and then
to New Delhi.

Speaking on the sidelines of a function in Delhi, RSS
Chief K S Sudharshan told PTI that "she should be
given political asylum.

Allow Taslima to stay in India peacefully: Muslim Forum

Kozhikode (PTI): Hounded Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen won support from an unexpected quarter on Tuesday as a prominent Muslim women's group in Kerala demanded steps by the Centre to ensure her stay in India, respecting her wishes.

As the union government rushed her to an unknown destination to protect her from threats by some Muslim organisations, the Progressive Muslim Women's Forum said it was wrong on the part of fundamentalist groups to brand her anti-Islam.

"Having granted her a visa till February 2008, the Centre has a moral responsibility to provide security to her rather than allowing some state governments to politicise her stay', Forum President V P Suhara told reporters here.

She said Taslima Nasreen was not carrying out a campaign against Islam as alleged by some outfits. "If Nasreen had come to India in self-exile, we have a duty to protect her rather than humiliate her in the name of religion", she said.

She flayed the Left Front Government in West Bengal for 'not handling the situation effectively.' "If the government cannot ensure the security of a Muslim woman, how do you expect minorities to live in peace there?' she said.