Return to: Home | Life & Society | Society

When governments gag writers

Tahmima Anam

Published 23 August 2007

Taslima Nasreen is neither likeable nor easy to support but it is time for moderate Muslims to stand behind her

Taslima Nasreen is in trouble again. The Bangladeshi novelist, essayist and poet, best known for her 1993 novel Lajja and the resultant fatwa issued against her, was recently attacked by audience members at a book launch in Hyderabad, India. The social and political fracas that has ensued has had myriad twists and turns, from Nasreen herself being accused of inciting religious hatred, to those responsible putting a price on her head.

The row over Nasreen asks us pressing questions about the responsibilities of writers and social commentators.

Like many progressive Bangladeshis, I have had mixed feelings about Nasreen. I cringed when, in the wake of the fatwa, the western media dubbed her the "best Bengali writer since Rabindranath Tagore" or "the female Salman Rushdie". Rather than resisting these overblown comparisons, Nasreen has seemingly preferred the role of diva to that of social critic. Her politics appear to stem almost entirely from a sense of her own victimhood. Thus, because she was the victim of religious hatred, she hates religion. She was exiled from Bangladesh, and therefore claims there is no freedom of expression in Bangladesh. She is a feminist, and therefore argues that there is no effective feminist movement in Bangladesh and that it is simply a country in which "murders are rampant, women are being raped . . . [and] are committing suicide".

As a Bangladeshi citizen, as an activist and as a feminist, I have real stakes in resisting Nasreen's trite and reactionary politics. She argues for the complete abolition of religion - Islam in particular - without recognising the historical and social importance of faith, or the risks she takes in adopting a stance that can easily be adopted by anti-Islamic rhetoric the world over. We know that this sort of stereotyping has grave consequences in the current global political climate. Her views on Bangladeshi society are ahistorical and do nothing to index the struggles of the feminist movement, which has campaigned for more than three decades to challenge social and legal strictures on freedoms for women.

Because her books have been banned in Bangladesh, she refuses to acknowledge the valiant struggle against censorship that has been waged by journalists, writers and academics. Her radicalism appears often to be uttered for its own sake, making her a caricature of the dissident - all protest and no programme, more interested in scandal than radical change.

Nonetheless, it is important to remember that, despite having spent more than a decade in exile and suffered countless threats upon her life, Nasreen has continued to campaign against religious extremism, bigotry and patriarchy. We must applaud her tenacity and courage. She has also brought to light two painful truths about Bangladeshi society: discrimination against the Hindu minority, and the abuse and rape of adolescent girls in extended families, which she detailed in her 1999 memoir Amar Meyebela (My Girlhood). Finally, and most importantly, she has been exiled from her country and denied citizenship for her writing. As a writer, I can only adamantly oppose the idea that citizenship is conditional upon our making good with those who would silence us. The Bangladeshi courts have used Nasreen as a scapegoat, claiming that her writing "disrupts religious unity". It is easier to blame a book than a society.

In the meantime, the Nasreen question has also become relevant in India. Eager to capitalise on the anti-Taslima sentiment, the Hyderabad police have decided to charge her with "creating religious tensions" (sound familiar?), in an attempt to demonstrate its sensitivity to the large Muslim minority in the region. This charge has in turn caused a group of Indian citizens to protest, in a joint statement: "The deafening silence on these physical assaults from those who are the arbiters of citizenship points in only one direction - that the values that we had associated with Indian citizenship are being shamelessly subordinated to the arithmetic of electoral politics." Even in India, Nasreen is a symbol of competing claims on citizenship.

Taslima Nasreen is neither likeable nor easy to support. But it is time for moderate Muslims to stand behind her. Not because we agree with what she says, but because we adamantly disagree with what her detractors stand for: the absolute silencing of anyone who dares to speak out against them.

Tahmima Anam is author of "A Golden Age" (John Murray, £14.99)

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

Carl Jones
24 August 2007 at 16:56

I don`t know much about this, but anyone who advocates the banning of one particular religion in one specific country is a fool.

I would like to see an end to all religion, I would also like pet ownership banned...pet owners often invest more in their pet relationships than in human relationships. One could argue that Religion has a similar effect.

The banning of religions isn`t going to happen soon, because elites all over the world use religion as a mechanism in their quest for power.

Sorry I couldn`t contribute more.

Sharif
29 August 2007 at 12:36

I agree with the author. Moderate Muslims must defend her. But the question, are they any moderate Muslims around? Unfortunaterly, not many. I am a tiny ,inorityy and I tell you my friends do not look up to me.

Sharlone

niaz
29 August 2007 at 14:09

A very good article. I'm sorry that Sharlone thinks there are few moderate Muslims around as I've heard many Bangladeshis express exactly the same carrefully balanced views as Tahmima Anam.

Of course the real test of free speech is willingness to defend the views of those you don't like and Taslima Nasreen is a useful starting point.

I'd go further and argue that 'British style' free speech ought to be as much as a patriotic aspiration as economic development -and point out that most of the sub-continent's laws on blaspehmy, censorship and sexuality, all date from archaic colonial era statutes.

Charbak
16 March 2008 at 01:46

Thanks Tahmina for braving to touch this sensitive issue. Agreeing to disagree is perhaps the first step to democracy. I am a non-Muslim and so I don't want to sound like preaching from outside. But moderate Muslims do need to take a stand on that.

Tiff2105
30 October 2008 at 12:20

What are moderate Muslims? What are extreme Muslims, and who are the people that are controling the country?

My view would be that Taslima Nasreens quest into blaiming islam is a very fool hardy thing to do, why not name and shame the people who have offended you and hurt you rather that blaming something which you do not seem to have much concept of!

I as a British Bengali cannot advocate TN's words as they seem to be a very generalised view of religion. It is like saying that all jews are Money swindling Zionists or something but you CANNOT just generlise is this way, and that is what TN has done to Islam.

Obviously instances such as forced marriages and even Female circumcisions do happen but we cannot say this is the results of islam!

Obviously I as a Muslim will stand for what is right and that includes womens rights human rights and we do need to stop incorrect arrests and imprisonment but this cannot happen by blaming Religon is it?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker