x-Indian
artist Maqbool Fida Husain and Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen have
hogged a lot of media attention in recent weeks. The reasons for the
self-imposed exile in both cases are more or less similar. Both have been
declared – extrajudicially – guilty of “hurting religious sentiments” and
live under threat to life and limb. Having kissed goodbye to his Indian
passport, Husain is now a Qatari citizen. Taslima on the other hand has
been desperately seeking the very passport that Husain no longer needs.
But as of now all that seems likely to come her way is a visa, one last
time. That’s it, ma’am!
The 95-year-old Husain did not relish the thought of
returning to India only to spend the rest of his life running from one
court to another, being hounded by Hindutva and having his paintings
repeatedly mutilated at art exhibitions. Government assurance, post facto,
of full protection to him was meaningless in the circumstances.
(Only our guardians of the law can explain how hate-spewers like the
Thackerays and the Varun Gandhis are provided with instant security cover
– no-need-to-apply – while the targets of hate must wait, and wait.)
Husain was given an option and he took the easy way out.
Only he knows whether he wants to, or will be allowed to, paint any more
nudes, whether he will ever place his brush at the service of artistic
freedom again. Either way, sorry, I don’t feel too sorry for him. So what
if he is a great artist; what about Husain, the man? He may be 95 now but
he was not on Freedom’s side even three or more decades ago, during the
emergency years. Nor do I recall him ever standing by the secular
activists who have stood by him since he was first targeted years ago.
Sadly for her, Taslima has no real option. She could never
dream of returning to Bangladesh again. Muslim fanatics will almost
certainly kill her long before the courts find the time to consider
charges. (When it comes to Direct Action against ‘one’s own’, the Muslim
Bajrangi is more vicious than the Hindu Taliban.) Citizenship of a western
country is a possibility but that is of no use to Taslima, for she is like
a fish out of water there. She lacks the literary talent or the cultural
flexibility to feel at home in the West like Salman Rushdie does. If not
Bangladesh, home to her can only mean West Bengal.
If Husain had to surrender his Indian citizenship because
of Hindu hoodlums, Taslima is being denied that same citizenship because
of Muslim hoodlums. The ultimate casualty is Indian democracy; with its
perennial inability to defend a principle – freedom of expression –
without which democracy remains a meaningless word. But since politics
always takes precedence over principles, with assembly elections due in
West Bengal about a year from now, there is little hope for Taslima today.
The state’s Muslims are disenchanted with the Left Front
government for a variety of good reasons. So we can expect the Left Front
to do nothing to alienate a large segment of its fast depleting
constituency. Nor should Taslima expect any words of sympathy from Mamata
Behenji, for she is in Muslim-come-hither mode now.
In the circumstances, here is my humble suggestion
to Taslima Nasreen. The moment you get your ‘last visa’ to India, Ms
Nasreen, you should take the first plane/train out to Pudukottai in Tamil
Nadu and ask for Sharifa Khanam Daud. You may not know this but when she
was asked for her reaction to your being attacked in Hyderabad and
unceremoniously bundled out of Kolkata to Jaipur and then Delhi some two
years ago, Sharifa had said, “Taslima Nasreen is welcome to join us.”
Indian Muslims have been baying for Taslima’s blood
because she has allegedly attacked Islam and insulted the prophet. Knowing
Sharifa as I do, she and the Muslim women who are with her would never
attack Islam and hold Prophet Muhammad in deep respect. Since Sharifa is
not the kind to dish out flippant sound bites merely to grab media
eyeballs, why would she welcome someone like Taslima with open arms? I
think it’s because she believes that at heart it is Taslima’s legitimate
anger against Muslim male chauvinists – a sentiment that Sharifa and her
group share wholeheartedly, a battle they too are fighting every day – an
anger that Taslima naïvely misdirects towards Islam thus giving her
enemies a convenient pretext. Were Taslima to tell her that she was an
atheist, I believe Sharifa would say that it was a matter between the
writer and her creator.
Taslima should jump at Sharifa’s offer, for the two women
could be of great help to one another. Sharifa’s organisation, STEP’s
effort to build a mosque for Muslim women has come to a standstill due to
a lack of funds. Perhaps Taslima could ask her supporters and human rights
defenders in the West to raise funds in order to complete Sharifa’s dream
mosque? Taslima’s beliefs, or unbelief, should be immaterial. If Sharifa
can respect Taslima for her beliefs, surely the sentiment must be
reciprocated? And with Sharifa and her Muslim women’s organisation by her
side, denying citizenship to Taslima would likely raise just the sort of
embarrassing international stink that the Indian state would prefer to
avoid.