[Reader-list] Taslima Nasreen

[Shohini Ghosh]

Dear Naeem and everyone else:

You wrote:

"But the reason Taslima is often the ONLY example invoked in an Indian
context is because her story is so intricately linked with Indian
patronage-- with the Indian progressives' idea of who they themselves
are as a beacon to South Asia (a rescuing force that will save all
South Asia from itself)."

That's a reductive and sweeping generalization. Many of us have been avid
readers of Taslima much before she became the subject of Indian "patronage".She became known all over India after The Statesman Controversy but many of us have admired her column writings much before that. Needless, to say this was restricted to only a Bengali reading crowd. To mistake West Bengal's interest in Taslima as "Indian" interest is a mistake.

I went to Bangladesh for a SAARC meeting the same year that Taslima had to leave Bangladesh. The last day's session was very tense with lawyer Sara Hossain making an intrepid presentation on Taslima and about the threat to Freedom of Speech and Expression. She asked why Feminists in Bangladesh were not supporting Taslima. The Feminists around the table - and there were many - chose to remain silent. In absolute exasperation  Sara wanted to know whether I had anything to say. Knowing how predictably my defense of Taslima would be taken, I started by talking about the  threats posed to speech and expression by the Hindu Right in India and what the implications of that could be. And therefore, why it was important to support Taslima. To which I was told exactly what Naeem has written! Of course, it was said by someone who is now a close friend.

Later, when I engaged people in conversation about the issue, I was given a host of  different reasons, none of which were very persuasive.  "She's a
sensationalist", "She's a bad writer", "She writes only about sex", "She
asked for it.", "She enjoys patronage from writers in Calcutta" , "She's not
the only one" and so on. This of course is not new. Similar arguments are
mobilized around the Hussain controversy, for instance, allowing certain "liberals" to sit on the fence.

The decision, at the time, of a large number of Feminists in Bangladesh not
to support Taslima for these assortment of reasons was nothing admirable. In fact, they spread much confusion among Feminists in India, a majority of whom refused to support Taslima in a gesture of solidarity with their Bangladeshi counterparts. This coalition of the "unwilling" is not a chapter in feminist history to be proud of.

Freedom of Speech and Expression is not contingent upon the content and
worth of what is spoken but about that very act of speaking. Whether or not we agree with Taslima, or anyone else, is entirely irrelevant to the debate.Besides, there is no great virtue in fighting to protect speech that we
agree with. The true test of our commitment to the principle of free
expression happens when we are confronted with the hard choice of
protecting speech that we do not agree with.

Feminism is complicated business today. I call myself a Feminist but there
are positions taken by many Feminist on many issues that I have strong
disagreements with. We are as fractured as any other 'ism".

I am also familiar with many of the people you have mentioned whose speech has irked the right wing and who have been made the target of different kinds of attacks. Then there are others like, Shameem Akhtar for example, who wrote about issues and ideas equally transgressive but was not made the target of attacks. So what makes the Taslima issue different - or is it no different?  Why do certain people become hyper-visible targets at certain times even though they may not be the only one articulating radical thoughts? That's something worth pondering about.

Thanks,
Shohini