Let me go back a bit in time for those who’ve not been following the issue. During the height of the Nandigram agitation, riots broke out in Kolkata by Muslims protesting the fact that the CPM was victimizing the people of Nandigram, most of whom were Muslims. For some mysterious reason, Taslima Nasreen also got dragged into the issue, citing the alleged derogatory references to Islam and Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) in her book Dwikhandito.
I read somewhere that the whole incident might have been stage managed by WB CM Buddhadev Bhattacharya (who, as Comrade Sitaram Yechury says, is not, I repeat not at all similar to Modi, no matter what the atrocities in Nandigram may suggest) to divert attention away from Nandigram. Regardless of that, however, is the fact that she was whisked by the police to Rajasthan and then to Delhi, and the Buddha passed on her buck to the Center.
Making the whole bedlam much more "colorful" was the inimitable Narendra Modi, who was now rolling out the red carpet for Nasreen. Of course, having done his very best to promote freedom of speech in Vadodara and also in the case of Aamir Khan’s Fanaa, and belonging to a party subscribing to the highest ideals of liberalism as they showed with MF Husain, Modi painting himself the mascot of freedom of speech in the country was entirely justified.
The Center, having been saddled with the responsibility of a woman wanted by the peaceful gentlemen who only wanted her head, went for the only option that any civilized, liberal, free society would take – they told her, in almost as many words, to shut the fuck up. Okay, they may have missed the "fuck" part.
So why is the government keeping her here at all? Since they very well do not want her to exercise any freedom of speech, why this whole charade of giving her refuge? Just declare her a persona non grata and throw her out. That would spare us all the daily nautanki that the mad Mullahs, the secular Communists and the wannabe soap-opera-queen Nasreen (“life is miserable”) are subjecting us to. While you’re at it, please also make it clear that, as someone pointed out on the NDTV.com columns, the only people who have freedom of speech in this country are those who are willing to use violence for shutting up other people.
“Freedom of speech does not mean you can hurt anyone’s sentiments”
This is a common refrain often heard in this issue, and nothing could be more wrong. I don’t need – nobody needs – freedom of speech to praise someone or something. I don’t need freedom of speech to say “Islam is good, the Prophet is excellent”. Freedom of speech is required only when I need to criticize something, when I want to explain why I don’t approve of Islam (or in fact most religions) when it comes to women’s rights and tolerance.
When something is criticized, it goes without saying that someone’s sentiments are going to get hurt. Freedom of speech which requires you to not hurt someone is a sham. When the anti-Sati movement began, it did hurt the sentiments of those who believed in the practice. The same is true for the anti-casteism movements. If the “don’t hurt anybody” philosophy had been in place in the times of Ram Mohan Roy, we wouldn’t have seen his movement to eradicate these evils.
Maybe Nasreen did actually hurt sentiments. But when a group of nuts thinks the best way to counter this is by physically assaulting her (as they did in Hyderabad) and then driving her out of the state, as done in West Bengal, the job of the government is to draw a line and tell them to get a life. Or maybe indulge in some kinky sex, if that is what cools them down. Instead the government attained the height of irresponsibility by virtually holding her responsible for the fact that some loons knew no better way to respond than Neanderthal violence.
There are many things that hurt my sentiments – for instance, the fact that people in the 21st century believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design and without knowing the slightest bit about evolution, proceed to criticize it. But I don’t think the way to answer them is violence – it is simply education or a debate. Telling them to shut up doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that I don’t have the slightest idea how to answer them.
Similarly the best way to answer Nasreen, if she is indeed propagating mindless hatred as alleged, is debate. Have the worthies, the Shahi Imam or anyone from the Deobandi Ulema challenged her to a discussion, or are they too busy telling her to get out?
Maybe I’m being too harsh. The Imam and his mad mullah friends in all probability have lesser brainpower than a Neanderthal. Their actions strongly suggest it. But surely someone like, say, Shabana Azmi would be an effective counter? She is intelligent, articulate and is a Muslim woman to boot, effectively countering Nasreen’s nonsensical and melodramatic “I’m victimized because I’m a woman” claim. What better way, what better candidate can be found to counter whatever Nasreen says about Muslim women’s status? Javed Akhtar and Aamir Khan are two other names that I can think right on the spur of the moment. Don’t tell me there aren’t any more moderate Muslims who have what it takes to debate her.
“We don’t like a foreigner criticizing our religion”
The above is another common argument given for seeking her expulsion. Unfortunately, the argument is an attempt at putting a smoke-screen on the whole issue. Firstly, Islam is, as Muslims themselves say, a religion not confined to India but a religion for all humanity. Naturally it follows that a person need not be constrained by national boundaries when criticizing it.
Secondly, are they alleging that the nationality of Nasreen is the reason they are opposing her? Why then do I hear a deafening silence from most Muslims, including the Shahi Imam, on the issue of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants? Unlike them, Nasreen has been officially given refuge by the Indian government, and so is here legally. Surely the outcry against the immigrants should be greater?
Thirdly and most importantly, are they trying to say that if Nasreen was an Indian Muslim saying the same things, they would have been cool with it? That would be the height of intellectual dishonesty, since the fate of Salman Rushdie is well-known.
So let’s not fool ourselves. This is not about her foreign origin, nor is it about “responsible freedom of speech”, whatever that means. It is simply about stifling an opinion that a group of people don’t like and don’t have the slightest idea how to respond to. It is simply about shutting up any points of view that do not toe the conventional line.
I for one would look forward to an honest discussion on Nasreen’s claims. Alas, no one in the Muslim community so far seems to have realized that this is also an option. And so, the Government of India, led by self-proclaimed “secular” parties, sees fit to not tell the mad mullahs to go take a hike, but to kowtow to them. I used to attribute it to “pseudo-secularism” like most people, but I don’t think that’s the whole truth. It doesn’t explain why the government, after presenting an affidavit stating (correctly) that there was no historical evidence for Rama’s existence, withdrew it after protests.
The bigger reason is simpler than that: the Congress, and in fact most secular parties, are actually cowards. They kowtow to any community that protests the loudest or takes religious issues seriously enough to vote on them. In most cases this is the Muslim community, but when the government bites off more than it can chew, as in the ASI affidavit, Hindus can be just as belligerent too.
The trouble is that the Congress knows it did not win the 2004 elections; it was the BJP which lost them. The Congress, way short of a majority in a house and experimenting with its first major coalition in the Center, doesn’t want to lose an opportunity it knows it got by sheer luck. And so it tries to please all, and thus emerges a toothless party not ready to take a no-nonsense bold stand on any issue. This is not to say the BJP was very bold, but then, they are a communal party, remember? I thought the secular Congress was supposed to be better. Secularism, democracy and liberalism would demand that the government take a stand favoring Nasreen, but that would take a courage the party lacks.
And so I come back to what I said in the beginning: when they don’t have the courage to walk the talk, why pretend? Why not simply accept that the government cannot protect Nasreen and kick her out? If the government wants to please the mad mullahs, it may just as well go the whole nine yards. At least they can do that properly, without the usual half-measures. We’ve had enough of the nautanki.
