Taslima’s Lies, Ismat’s Truth

#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.``

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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!

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.

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

#28 by Naqshbandi on November 22, 2003 12:34pm PT

``....I have more respect for a harlot than I do for women like Tasleema Nasreen .....``

Mullahji are you through! Do you know what is a woman called who gets paid (a quid pro quo) for giving her body to the man! And how many times in her life a GOOD wife in a patraichal society is forced to do this.?
``..., she probably thinks it is liberating for her as a woman to write about how many men she has had...``

Control over her body , including the decision as to with whom she is going to bed, is indeed liberating for woman from in the patrairchal context.

So, it is a matter of admiration when men boast about their conquests with the women but when the same thing is done in reverse the woman becomes a HARLOT.!!!

I thought of a long post on the replies- but then I thought- what the heck- much of it is already been answered beautifully in this article http://www.genders.org/g30/g30_khatun.html .

Let people talk about ``POLITICALLY CORRECT`` feminism and try and become the power broker (like the billi in the bandar baant)- this is what I called POSTURING. Atleast I wouldn`t participate in it!!!

Ferz:

You write The subtitle was clear enough: Who is the truly contemporary Muslim woman?

...today’s star carried an interesting write up by haroon siddiqui on monia mazigh….monia who?...maher arar’s wife…maher was the Canadian national who on a return trip from tunisia to canada via ny was intercepted and deported by ayatollah ashcroft to syria where he was tortured…for over 370 days…monia relentlessly pursued her husband’s release…(dost wrote about him here also)

Here is a link to a One 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.

...you can set up and judge A against any B or C… ismat was a pioneer…taslima is not…perhaps she should have been paired with fehmida reyaz or kishwar nahid…but i cannot be certain because i have not read taslima nasreen...

lve,

t

Author,

Re:“…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..”.

While the goal in itself seems fairly simple (although an explanation of “better“ is fairly subjective), the question begs a explication of criterion that seems fairly reasonable-but that criterion will not be agreed to by all Muslims. Contemporary Muslim women themselves cover a variety of ideological positions; from the theorist who works with women whose discourse on Islamic theology and practice are marginalized from the learned and male scholarly institutions, to Arab progressive journalists to hijabed Black American ESL doctorate specialists (these are all women that I have met or worked with in the tri-state area, btw). The point is that these Muslim women, like Nasrin and others have complicated world views that have developed in a fluidity and overlapping of several congruent and conflicting identities. This flux is what needs to distinguish these discussions on political philosophy. My understanding of this piece is that the identities of these women are expected to stay fixed and adhere to a criteria that may be inauthentic to our realities.

These diversities and the adeptness in which these women negotiate them should serve as a lesson to the Muslim world. Do they? If the recent Chowk discussion on Said is any indication, we seem to be wedded to our binaries at immeasurable cost.

Re: “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.”

What is the purpose of these kinds of comparisons? What do we hope to gain by them? I agree that mainstream debates on Naipaul and Rushdie have been particularly unilluminating. If I compare Rushdie or Naipaul, I would not ask which writer is a “better” South Asian-American or South Asian Brit…I mean, how does one reasonably prove that without wading into dangerous territory? And yet we get discussions on why Rushdie is a sell out or why Naipaul is an Uncle Ram….these kinds of debates wilfully ignore the role of these two writers and their interrogations of certain diasporas-and certainly not of ALL South Asians. Rather than looking at how Naipaul and Rushdie render dislocation in their work, a majority of hyphen South Asians would rather play games of Desi Deficiency-as if one can innoculate themselves from the challenges of life and the reality of multiplicity. Its easy to take Naipaul and Rushdie to task for lampooning our frantic efforts at Desi Retention-its much more difficult to ask ourselves what identity/identities means and how the relationships between ideologies.

RE: “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. “

Um, no. I see this kind of set up as the good ole boys game-set up two members of an sector of society that suffers inequality in the mainstream and decide who wins. And yes, women can play this game. I’m not interested in if Marquez or Borges, two writers of varied political and aesthetic convictions, is the better writer.


“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.”

It would be instructive to know which segment of society finds them relevant/irrelevant. I can tell you that Nasrin is in my standard CUNY composition anthology and Chugtai is not. I hope one day Chugtai is included. Nasrin is there because she seems to answer the question a majority of my students (working class, women of color) ask: Why don’t South Asian women speak out against their oppression? I’d like to read South Asian women writers from all sectors-hopefully we can bring that about. In terms of relevance, Brecht is there as well, despite his avowed Marxist tendencies. Post USSR, readers have found Brecht remains relevant.

“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.”

The discussion of Chugtai is very exciting- I am interested in researching her thanks to your piece. And I myself am comparing Lahiri and Monica Ali in my thesis on ideology in South Asian diaspora writing. Again, my point would be to rephrase and redirect the comparison without degrading either author. For example, I found Lahiri’s subtext a discussion on the ideology of materialist/cultural identification as opposed to Ali’s more obvious conflict of religious/secular values. Both are in themselves very compelling narratives. If I were to compare their personal lives-(Lahiri has been quite open about her interracial marriage, Ali is the daughter of an interracial marriage) to their literary output, I’d be asking questions of fluidity and identity…people like your beloved Fosa would write about how they have “lost their culture and are prostitutes.” Which essay would you read?

“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.”

Actually, the binary is a construct that has served to impose various institutional agendas on societies that are inherently multiple and overlapping. For example, if we were to agree with the idea that the writer is the participant and observer, s/he is also the creator, each character, the reader, the text. The actual words in a text may be interpreted in many ways when contextualized in various ideologies. How many ways may one read the line, “my love is like a red rose”? How many meanings for the word red? More than two!

regards

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

Well, if you were the meaning of your name you`d know what I was saying. Yeah, she`s canny. She is also smart and well accomplished. A mordern day Voltaire, perhaps D.H Lawrence or Nabokov, not so much as a Rushdie. And she`s faced real dilemmas or ``darker tunnels`` as opposed to ``other`` writers. And I believe I am not out of line here comparing two authors. Its apparent one them isn`t Ismat Chugtai.

Satire

//..Who is the truly contemporary Muslim woman? ..//

Farzana, please - Is this really relevant in anyway? I mean - has anybody ever asked: Who is the ``truly contemporary`` Hindu woman, or Christian woman or Jewish or Buddhist woman? What would you say about somebody who does ask such questions?

I don`t know why ask meaningless questions like this and then waste time discussing it? It`s like you take an Onion and declare it an Apple and then cut it into pieces to prove that it is not an Apple.

Man - what is going on here? Why is urge to define and redefine what is ``truly something`` or not? There are mullahs who are trying to define who is ``truly islamic``. Then we have (self-declared??) liberals like Farzana who are trying to define who is ``truly contemporary``. What is the need to create a meaningless classification and then try to fit people into it who never made any such claims in the first place?

``Truly contemprary muslims woman`` - Jeez!!!

``ismat was a pioneer…taslima is not``(temporal)

dear t -- Taslima is not?

Ismat was way ahead of her Benevolent Islamic times -- Taslima is way ahead of her Extremists Islamic times --

now who is a braver pioneer -- if one isists on comparing apple with oranges...?