Exploring the context and issues behind the episode

Picture from: https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-32005320080218, February 18, 2008

This is a slightly revised piece of writing that I originally produced on 27 July 2014 for a Facebook posting, which was then published on 4 August 2014 in Alochonaa (Dialogue). I have now revised it slightly to get across the message that I wanted to convey more accurately. 

Society consists of groups that are perpetually engaged in competitions against each other, some of which are often destructive. However, some levels of conflicts and enmities between people and groups are necessary for human dynamism and progress. How we create good and cohesive societies, in the context of human rivalry, depends on the behaviours and examples set by our leaders – from the top at the head of the state level to the local level of voluntary organisations, sports clubs, religious establishments, etc. Leaders lead, and those they lead look up to them and are influenced by their decisions, guidance and general leadership qualities. 

When it comes to issues regarding religion, Islamic leaders have a duty to maintain honesty, sincerity, objectivity, and an empathetic outlook in their search for and pursuit of the truth. In the case of campaigns against Taslima Nasreen in 1994, as far as I can see, two main elements influenced Islamic or Muslim reactions against her Kolkata New Statement interview. First, prior anger against her earlier writings meant there was already an explosive powder keg waiting to be ignited. Second, the leaders’ requirements to aim for the truths and justice – the highest virtues of Islam after faith in one God and the complete submission to the will of that one God – were nowhere to be found in the mix of ingredients that set off the fire against Taslima Nasreen. They seemed to have found an issue to promote their own personal, political and social goals, forgetting that justice and truths must supersede everything else. There were people in Bangladesh who were already hurt by Taslima’s previous writings and felt very angry and outraged, who responded to the calls of the leaders.

Taslima Nasreen practised medicine in Bangladesh before she was forced out of the country in August 1994 at the age of thirty-two. In addition to her medical career, she wrote poetry with a strong focus on the oppression of women in Bangladesh and a collection of essays and novels. In 1993, she wrote a book called Lajja, which depicted the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, for which she was criticised for exaggerating the negative experiences of the Hindu minority in the country and for giving Bangladesh a bad name. She was also criticised for writing critically on Islam and for producing allegedly obscene pornographic style writings. 

Her exile from Bangladesh began when she was interviewed by the Kolkata New Statement, and the contents of what she said were published in May 1994. According to these reports, she called for a revision of the Holy Quran. This understandably caused outrage, massive public anger, and demonstrations and campaigns against her, including a demand for the death penalty. The government of Bangladesh found it prudent to send Taslima into exile rather than either confront the demonstrators or take legal action against her. She has lived in Europe and India during the last twenty-six years, and over that period, she has made several unsuccessful efforts to return to Bangladesh.

There are many grounds on which one can support or oppose Taslima Nasreen. Supporters and opponents will have their reasons for their respective positions. In this short article, I will explore the initial reasons for her being pushed into exile and whether there were any justifications for the campaigns waged against her that forced her out of Bangladesh. Here, I am not interested in the contents of her book Lajja, works of poetry or alleged ‘pornographic writings’, which undoubtedly constituted the background that triggered the reaction. One can legitimately argue that, without taking into account the context, it will not be possible to understand or explain the eruption of the public anger and the movements generated against her, as a result of the interview. This is true, but in this piece, I want to focus on the issues that set a large fire in 1994 in Bangladesh, caused by the opinions she expressed in the interview, as published by the New Statement, which were the main reasons why so many people in the country wanted her punished and killed.

In May 1994, the Kolkata version of the New Statement published an interview with Taslima Nasreen, where it was reported that she argued for the Holy Quran to be revised. When the news of this alleged interview position of Taslima went around, suddenly, immediately and seemingly spontaneously, massive public anger erupted within many sections of the Bangladeshi public who felt hurt and outraged. The understandable public anger, in the context of Bangladesh, was played on by organised groups who orchestrated large demonstrations demanding punishment and death for Taslima. Many such groups believed that this was an opportunity to flex their muscles and achieve some of their political objectives, in addition to seeking redress for the genuine hurt and outrage felt by a large segment of the general public.

After the interview and during the ongoing controversy, Taslima clarified her position. She stated that she made no demand for revising the Quran, but that she wanted the reinterpretation of Islamic law to fit with modern times. The Kolkata New Statement stuck to their original publication position that she did say that the Quran should be revised. Taslima’s clarification had no effect in dampening down the outrage, and demonstrations and the demand for her punishment continued and got larger by the day. Perhaps, at that time, nobody cared for her clarification, or that only a few heard about it. Demonstrations and campaigns against Taslima Nasreen continued day after day until she was sent into exile in August 1994. Rather than religious leaders and scholars in Bangladesh looking into her clarification, which would have been the right thing to do, particularly as we all know how the media often take things out of context and give wrong impressions of people’s ideas and actions, they continued to press their campaigns and demands for her punishment and death.

I remember participating in debates with friends, colleagues and many people in London at that time on the issue. At one time, I attended a packed meeting at the Davenant Centre in East London on Taslima’s interview, where she was denounced by speaker after speaker. One very prominent Islamic leader who spoke at the meeting claimed that Taslima Nasreen was a Jewish, Christian and Hindu conspiracy. When the meeting finished, I asked him how he knew about the conspiracy. He replied that he knew about it without elaborating, providing, or discussing any evidence. I had many one-to-one discussions with many individuals on this, and some of my friends even started to suspect my faith in Islam –  a few of them slowly began to become distanced. At that time, many people would start their criticism of Taslima by saying how she could say such nonsense and the offensive thing that the ‘Quran should be revised’, her writings lacked literary merits and that she wrote pornography in Bengali, which was going to damage our society.

One Bangladeshi university lecturer, who visited London in 1994 during the controversy, and whom I picked up from the airport, told me that she was worried Taslima might be offered a Nobel Prize and also that her writings lacked real literary merit. I told her that I did not think she would get any Nobel Prize and that the controversy was not about the literary qualities of her writings. I told her that I supported Taslima Nasreen on this controversy and provided two main reasons for my position.

First, I told her that during media interviews, people often use words which convey meanings different from what they intended. We all have such experiences of regretting using certain words which have conveyed wrong meanings. At the same time, a more careful choice of words would have better communicated our positions and thoughts. However, as human beings, we are not always able to choose the most suitable words in all circumstances. I believe Taslima when she said that she was not calling for the Quran to be revised. Unless you are completely mad, how can you argue for revising a holy book, which was written about one and a half millennia ago and was a revelation from God (according to Muslims). If you wanted to revise the Quran, then who would have the authority to undertake the task, and what changes would you make? Nobody can have the authority to change the Quranic texts. Similarly, nobody has the authority to change the works of Shakespeare, for example, or any other writings of the past. However, interpretations and understanding of religious and secular works of the past can be revised and are often revised by new generations, based on their experiences and challenges of the time. Concerning interpreting certain aspects of Islamic law in today’s context, nobody would ask Naslima for an opinion, but that does not mean that she cannot have an opinion. Reinterpretation of Islamic rules, regulations and laws can only be undertaken by respectable scholars based on tradition, internal religious reasonings, and to deal with new situations arising from pressures/challenges caused by the ever-changing modern world.

My position was that even if she used the word ‘revise’ she could not have meant it because no one can have the authority to undertake this task. Rational consideration and her clarification should have been sufficient to know that Taslima was not calling for the revision of the Quran. However, Islamic leaders in Bangladesh did not look at the issue rationally with justice and consider Taslima’s clarification with objectivity and moral consistency. The job of religion, including Islam, is to aim at the truth, rather than use emotion to whip up public feelings and use Tasmila’s interview to gain a political or social advantage. I believe wise leaders have the responsibility to look at issues carefully and arrive at considered positions – rather than whip up public feelings for political or other purposes – and guide the public towards the truth and justice.

Second, I supported Taslima Nasreen for standing up for the poor, oppressed and discriminated women of Bangladesh. Perhaps Taslima was naive to undertake her crusade against female oppression in a way that got her alienated from a large section of society and attracted the wrath of many. It would have been wiser to think of other ways that do not enrage public feelings or give certain parties and groups an excuse to launch campaigns and movements.

However, we are all different and different people have different temperaments and personalities. Some individuals cannot keep quiet or devise subtle methods because a fire burns within them, compelling them to speak out without thinking through the consequences and understanding their possible repercussions. As a result, they often pay a heavy price. However, what she was saying and how she was trying to inspire women to move forward, not turn back, is truly inspiring. I know from my personal experience of individuals and households how badly women are treated within the Bangladeshi community, and some of the stories that I have heard reported in the media and from other sources are just heartbreaking. So, why should I not defend someone who was standing up for women’s rights? It is about human dignity, justice and our equal rights to pursue happiness in life, regardless of gender.

In April 1995, I went to an Oxford Union event where Taslima was invited to speak to a packed audience. Many people waited outside as they could not get a ticket. I sat on an aisle seat, and as she walked past me towards the front of the hall, she looked rather nervous and then later she read out from a prepared speech. Her outlook and perspectives on Bangladesh and our history were, in many ways, reflective of how Bengali nationalism views Bangladesh and its history and culture. There were a few things she said that were only partially true, but they form part of the Bengali nationalist narratives. For example, she claimed that ‘they tried to change the Bengali language according to Middle Eastern and Islamic forms’ (my paraphrase), without exploring how the Bengali language evolved during the late 18th and 19th centuries. I realised that some of her anti-Islamic/Muslim positions originated from, in addition to the bad treatment of women in Bangladesh, the Bengali Nationalists’ interpretation of the history of Islam/Muslims, culture and identity in India and Bangladesh.

Twenty-six years on, there is the internet, which has all kinds of vile and nasty attacks against Islam/Muslims and is also full of pornography. The damage that many angry people thought Taslima would cause to our society and our religion, potentially, only represents a very small, tiny and insignificant threat if compared to the power of globalisation and the internet. On the other hand, the internet is also full of positive sights and videos on Islam, and Islamic people are using the internet to defend Islam and Muslims. Taslima does not represent any real threat, and it is better to engage with her ideas than exile or kill her. It is also better to fight against the oppression of and discrimination against women than to immorally silence someone who is enraged at what awful things we do to our women in Bangladesh.