Taslima’s Lies, Ismat’s Truth

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re author

``She has not managed to go beyond Bangladesh.``

She is a fellow at Harvard University right now, a little beyond `that little dump of hers`, I assume.

In a larger and perhaps fundamental sense, this particular article and your subsequent interacts unveil one of the sorriest features of our South Asian collective character (of which I am not always innocent of myself): for someone to appear great, someone else has to appear less than great.

From the ISIS website: a hard-hitting interview with Taslima Nasrin. A frontal assault on belief in ‘revealed truth’.

Some excerpts:

“ISIS: But you were harder on fundamentalists?

TN: I criticized fundamentalists as well as religion in general. I don`t find any difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. I believe religion is the root, and from the root fundamentalism grows as a poisonous stem. If we remove fundamentalism and keep religion, then one day or other fundamentalism will grow again. I need to say that because some liberals always defend Islam and blame fundamentalists for creating problems. But Islam itself oppresses women. Islam itself doesn`t permit democracy, and violates human rights.

And because Islam itself is causing injustices, so it is our duty to make people alert. It is our responsibility to wake people up, to make them understand that religious scriptures come from a particular period in time and a particular place.”

I especially liked this (italics mine):

“ISIS: Do you think there is also a clash of civilizations between East and West?

TN: No. I don`t agree with those who think that the conflict is simply between two religions, namely Christianity and Islam. Nor do I think that this is a conflict between East and West. To me, the key conflict is between irrational blind faith and rational logical minds. Or between modernity and anti-modernity. While some people want to go forward, others are trying to go backward. It is a conflict between the future and the past, between innovation and tradition, between those who value freedom and those who do not.”

Bravo!

A Woman`s worst enemy is -- another Woman....

``Ismat Chughtai was at least a good writer. ``(Naqshhbandi)

a great tribute indeed --Naqsh miaN...:-)

I am intrigued by the article by Sayeda Khatun (post #33).

“She defies assimilation into the Bangladeshi discourse of social criticism through her strangeness, so to speak, to the tradition of that discourse at least in two ways: by her provocative assertion of female sexuality leading to female empowerment, and through her uniquely aggressive style which is employed to celebrate the transgression of her writings.”

I would imagine that no true-blue radical would wish to be assimilated. Her strangeness was not germane to empowerment, but merely a tool to stand out. Let us not forget, if it were all that strange, she would not have been in a position to do what she did. It is convenient to convert grunge into couture if you have a label.

“By declaring herself ``nastya`` or ``fallen`` Taslima calls into question the patriarchal formulation of the categories of good and bad woman. Taslima builds an alliance with the downtrodden by giving herself the title fallen. A fallen woman in Taslima`s economy is the one who initiates the agenda of claiming her rights (no matter how ``immodest`` it is), of defining herself and her sexual desire in her own terms as a subject, of rejecting male protection as oppressive and exploitative, of transforming society for her own emancipation.”

The idea that female sexuality leads to empowerment of women is itself questionable. We are aware of the sexual dynamics at play in relationships, even the most liberated ones – the woman asserting her physical needs is just that. Taslima seems to have made it only worse by tagging herself as ‘fallen’. I know she has used the term as men would to make a point, so there is no quarrel there, but what rights does such a woman claim? If she knows about the real fallen women, she would have been a bit more prudent. They do not have the luxury of claiming rights, leave alone what they rightfully deserve. In the subcontinent, even the money does not end up in their hands. What sexual desire is she talking about? If it is the urban, educated woman, then most such women would not want to be called fallen; to have sexual desires is a given. That you might need a man for it is a given too. Now, how much of exploitation one allows has to do not with emancipation but making the right choice. Two people in a sexual situation are ‘using’ each other. At that point, the male is as vulnerable.

Returning to the fallen woman theory, Taslima cannot speak for even the minuscule section she might want to represent. A Monica Lewinsky who one might say sallied forth and allowed herself to be exploited, and then tried to exploit that situation for gains, today rues the fact that no man will have a relationship with her because of her past. This is a reality even in the West.

In Taslima’s own words, “The first condition for purification of a woman is to become `fallen` (in the eyes of this society).” She sounds like some character from an old mythological film talking of ‘agni-pariksha’, trial by fire. And how will the thousands of ‘fallen’ women in our societies purify themselves? (Curiously, we have Naqshbandi saying “I have more respect for a harlot than I do for women like Tasleema Nasreen…” Oh, binaries again…)

Please people, before you try and ‘deconstruct’ look at it from different angles.

[When we do a courageous thing it is heroic; when someone else does it , it is foolhardy.]

Is it the royal WE? Who has claimed to be heroic? And Taslima Nasreen is not foolhardy…she is far too canny.

Harish (#11):

I agree with you about Quratulain Haider, but we are not talking about “first ladies” here!

[Ismat Chugtai wrote at a time when her slightest act of independence seemed to rock first her family, then her immediate world, and then the Urdu speaking world. She too, in many ways, has benefitted from the fact that her persona and her life was inextricably linked with her works. If she was a man with the same amount of radicalism, she might not have had the same reputation. She became an icon as much for her radicalism as for her works.]

Precisely. This is why the comparison becomes even more valid. What has really changed? And has a Taslima Nasreen made that great leap forward? Besides defiance, Chugtai was exposing layers of thought, as opposed to merely extraneous factors. I think someone`s comment that in later years she had mellowed into a Bombay socialite is such a wrong view. I met her at that stage, and she in no manner came across as that. As I pointed out, the communal harmony and meshing of religions that she sought was intrinsic to her; she did not have to make an issue of it. It was a part of her house, her existence. This is the reason she is relevant even today.

I am glad you made a reference to Tehmina Durrani. While I do have reservations about that sort of expose, ‘My Feudal lord’ did use a microcosmic format to comment on larger societal norms, though it clearly did so inadvertently. However, with ‘Blasphemy’, she has made that move to go beyond personal travails. I would also rate Benazir Bhutto’s ‘Daughter of the East’ as an honest attempt.

[I think you just gifted Taslima one more page on her vanity search on the google!]

Anything to upgrade a person of the same gender :) I also realise that those who might have not given her a second look are noticing her great qualities only because this they have decided is a catfight.

Btw, I do hope that those who are accusing me of b!tching, will see that Taslima is doing pretty much the same about the men… not every feminist is free.

Farzana

The subtitle was clear enough: Who is the truly contemporary Muslim woman? And this query is as relevant as discussing whether X represents a political philosophy better than Y. My comparing (if one starts with the concept of “setting up”, then one has begun to enjoy the spectacle with one’s own perspective) Rushdie with Naipaul was not seen as a bloodthirsty sport, which in itself is revealing. I see an inherent insecurity when women are unable to accept that if we are to see contrast two writers of one gender in literary terms (and that will perforce include their personalities), it becomes unethical. The simplification comes in the reading of it as good and bad…I would much rather see it in terms of their relevance/irrelevance today to a segment of society.

One can just as easily use Arundhati Roy (as voice protesting against the system) or Jhumpa Lahiri (as displaced voice) or even the venerable Mahashweta Devi (for the strong women characters in her native Bengal) as counter-points to Nasreen. But Chugtai works here as a Muslim woman with radical views.

An identity cannot exist in a vacuum. Binaries in fact prevent the inevitable cul de sac one might reach when discussing a limited body of work/persona. Every social construct has within it the potential to not only bifurcate, but to disperse in various directions. How then does one try and understand them? In literary terms, the binaries are imposed within as we see the writer as observer and participant. There is no escape from that.

I am rather appalled at one point of view that Taslima is experimenting with stuff way beyond South Asia. She has not managed to go beyond Bangladesh. Her relevance lies in her striving to put her head in the water and then come out gasping for breath. It is true that the ability to make choices is a tough proposition for the majority of women in the sub-continent; that does not mean those who have managed to make those choices represent emancipation. I would use the flower-power years as an example. That was escapism, the creation of a clubby, campy lifestyle inhabited only by its members...the only myths they broke were the ones that were breakable. Upsetting the apple-cart does not stop people from growing apples, however rotten they might turn out to be. Taslima writing about her personal foibles and fights against the establishment might make sense, but this is no social experiment.

She has been quoted by someone as having said, “am an atheist. I do not believe in prayers, I believe in work. And my work is that of an author. My pen is my weapon”. Fair enough. I did not call her an “Islamic woman”. (Read what I write first.) But I am discussing her as a Muslim woman, because that is what she has been making a huge noise about. Anyone who has read ‘Lajja’ will tell you that is the voice in denial. I am pretty sure that one fine day she too will end up like Rushdie, managing a weak apology. But she is most certainly not in the same league. And what has she experimented with – form, content? Nothing. Only by putting the Hindu-Muslim contexts (now that too is about binaries!) do not make her efforts an experiment.

There is nothing wrong about women choosing who they mate with (I would think this is a non sequiter), but how does it liberate them, let alone reveal any sort of liberalism? As I wrote: “Does one wonder at her naiveté or call her brave or pat her on the back for exposing the men?” If the men are total cads, then it reveals something of the so-called choices she has made. If they were social pariahs, then one would hope she would attempt something beyond the obvious. If she just wants to get it all out (catharsis is an important literary tool, but associated with Greek tragedies, not bare-it-all breathlessness), then giving her the benefit of doubt one can safely say that this is an easy way to become a pawn. The initiator does not always end up on top.

Re. Ismat Chugtai, I did meet her, but in my professional capacity, therefore there is no “partiality”. Any one conversant with the writings of both would unhesitatingly realise who is the better writer and even social commentator, and therefore a more potent voice in contemporary terms.

Taslima writes in Bengali, therefore the attitude towards English in her country would not have affected her at all. I would be interested in knowing what exactly is it that she has contributed that would make her stand out as a historical document of a specific narrative at a point in time? Even if there are some reasons handed out, one can still argue that there is a vast chasm between an IDEA and an IDEAL. Everyone has ideas… there are a range of women authors and they, like men, will have to go through the process of being seen through various prisms, including comparisons. They would be seen to be downgraded if they are of the level to which they can be… there are no firewalls even when championing the cause of complexities.

#30 by Satire on November 22, 2003 6:31pm PT

Conspiracy Theorists again!!!

LEt me quote from the well written article by SAIYEDA KHATUN I refered to in my previous post:

http://www.genders.org/g30/g30_khatun.html

``In the controversy surrounding Taslima, critics who are unsympathetic to her have argued that Taslima is anti-Islamic, anti-male, and that she is too vulgar and commercial a writer in her representation of sex. Some have labelled her as ``unscrupulous and market-oriented.``18

[24] While critics opposed to Taslima bring charges of obscenity, immodesty and anti-religious sentiments against her, her supporters praise the openness and honesty of the unvarnished mode of her representations. Her opponents cry foul and moral chaos when Taslima wants to shake the entire structure of patriarchy; her supporters praise her courage and honesty and welcome the tremor which causes cracks in the patriarchal defence. Underneath it all, what comes across is that one group considers gender inequality a given, the other sees it as a construction and calls for its deconstruction.``

................

``She defies assimilation into the Bangladeshi discourse of social criticism through her strangeness, so to speak, to the tradition of that discourse at least in two ways: by her provocative assertion of female sexuality leading to female empowerment, and through her uniquely aggressive style which is employed to celebrate the transgression of her writings.20 She writes:

I adore to proclaim that I am a fallen woman in the eyes of this society. . . . The first condition for purification of a woman is to become `fallen` (in the eyes of this society). Unless a woman becomes `fallen,` there is no way she can liberate herself from the clutch of this society. She is the real sane and admirable person, whom people call `fallen.`21



By declaring herself ``nastya`` or ``fallen`` Taslima calls into question the patriarchal formulation of the categories of good and bad woman. Taslima builds an alliance with the downtrodden by giving herself the title fallen. A fallen woman in Taslima`s economy is the one who initiates the agenda of claiming her rights (no matter how ``immodest`` it is), of defining herself and her sexual desire in her own terms as a subject, of rejecting male protection as oppressive and exploitative, of transforming society for her own emancipation. By the same token, a woman who upholds the notion of ``purification`` only contributes to her own subordination and self-effacement. Taslima makes it clear that it is self-deceiving to claim ``purity`` and maintain the facade of a ``happy`` family life when a woman knows that it is based on the ashes of her dreams.22 Taslima believes in pushing the prescribed parameters of modesty to reappropriate power from the Bangladeshi male.``

Sigalph,

Interesting...

Here `Islamic Nationalists` are being accused of imposing Bengali... and on another board... Punjabi lovers are accusing the so called `Islamic nationalists` of subding Punjabi.

I am not sure who these `Islamic Nationalists` ... especially since nationalism itself is a secular concept.

-YLH

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Farzana Versey,

You couldn`t have been more accurate about Taslima Nasrin. All she did was lash out at totally imaginary demons, trying to live a life style that was totally acceptable for a woman. There were/are no prejudices against her or any women in her land. And her fleeing Bangladesh was the best publicity stunt that we`ve all ever seen. There was no fatwa placed on her head. All tunnels were imaginary. In fact the whole thing was a Jewish conspiracy. She wasn`t courageous at all, she was foolhardy. If she lived in Paris, she`d still be practising boring old medicine.

Satire

PS

When we do a courageous thing it is heroic; when someone else does it , it is foolhardy.

Apart from the obvious issue of derision I pointed out earlier, to my untrained eye the author`s comparison seems a bit of a leap. It would appear she KNOWS Ismat Chughtai on somewhat of a personal level but wants to compare/contrast her with Taslima Nasreen whom she seemingly does not know. I`d suspect there is an in-built partiality there which is probably unavoidable and well-intentioned but still may flow over into the literary comparison.

I don`t know Taslima Nasreen, and her in-your-face style is rather alien to my far more subdued mode of discourse. She is in her `40s and is (was) a rather decent physician. I happened to meet her once ot twice when I was a child and she and my youngest aunt shared an office in our hospital. Seemed to be an agreeble lady then.

Re English and education in Bangladesh

Islamist nationalists-an oxymoron in itself-had nothing to do with it. English was downgraded (though not abolished) by the Mujib regime immediately after independence; it was further banished as an alternative language for offices/courts by the Ershad regime. Seems language (and religion) politics are the first avenue to legitimacy by dictators and dictator wannabes. Only during the second BNP govt (1991-1996) was the trend arrested and it was realized that the world does not communicate in Bengali. Intermediate exams were allowed to be taken in English for the first time in 20 years in 1994.

Re # 24

Ballukhan`s pot-shots at the author are quite cheap and immature, not to say patently disrespectful. Reveals more of your insecurities and less about the author`s social life.

Ismat Chughtai was at least a good writer. I have more respect for a harlot than I do for women like Tasleema Nasreen who like to bad mouth their religion and culture just so that it wins them browny points certain circles in the West.

See, she probably thinks it is liberating for her as a woman to write about how many men she has had. Some `liberation`.

One of your good articles.
Guess this lady deserves being mentioned, eventhough it was long time back. Not so long ago, but still at that time it was hard for a women to do kind of work she did. That`s cool.

Sure they can. Sadaat Manto faced a lot of criticism for his ``unseemingly`` work.

I have to confess I understood neither the point of this article nor the vast majority of the replies!!!