Taslima is a victim of inverted secularism

by Dina Nath Mishra

India gave refuge with honour to all those people who were persecuted in their own country; be it Jews, Parsis or Tibetans. It has been an ageold tradition to treat them well. Many of them were given land and other liberal relief by Indian kings.

Perhaps, Taslima is the only exception. She was first hounded out by the West Bengal Government and then by the Centre. Her case is similar to that of Salman Rushdie's. Rushdie wrote Satanic Verses wherein he criticised Prophet Mohammed. Ayatullah Khomeini, Islamist ruler of Iran, issued a fatwa against Rushdie for his "blasphemous writings".

Rushdie is a British citizen who has all freedom and rights, including freedom of expression and writing. Khomeini decreed that anyone who killed Rushdie would be rewarded bigtime.

According to his version of Islam he had the right to punish citizens of any country. For him, the sovereignty of Britain did not mean anything, on ground that all of Earth belongs to Allah.
Sovereignty does not stand anywhere against the sovereign rights of Allah and, therefore, Khomeini had the right to exterminate citizens of other countries.

Taslima wrote a novel depicting the shameful atrocities on Hindu minorities in Bangladesh in an aptly titled novel Lajja. There is no concept of gender justice in Islam. She wrote on feminists too. Top Islamic clergy charged her with blasphemy and there was every danger of her being persecuted. She took shelter in Kolkata, known for its cultural homogeneity. She took refuge in European countries for some years but the alien atmosphere there compelled her to return to Kolkata.

This time, in November 2007, she had to face mob fury in a State ruled by Marxists, the most vocal champions of secularism.

Ironically, the mob was managed and led by yet another champion of secularism, the Congress. The CPM bundled her out to Delhi via Rajasthan. In Delhi, she could have lived under ordinary security peacefully continuing with her writing. But the Centre kept her in an IB House where she was not allowed to talk to anybody. "It was a virtual jail," she said. Officials of the Foreign Ministry talked to her periodically in order to persuade her to go to some European country. She wanted to return to Kolkata but Marxists refused her request.

She succumbed to the pressure and took a plane to London. She told journalists that the Manmohan Government was the worst type of fundamentalist.

Nasreen doesn't know the Indian definition of secularism. Here, it means exotic romance with Muslims, particularly the fundamentalists, and offending the majority routinely. It means meek and tolerant behaviour from Hindus and empowering fundamentalists with veto.

Taslima could not understand the invertedness of Indian secularism. It is like a pyramid. All the burden has to be borne by the lower portion and the top portion enjoys the pleasure of height.
People in general and top intellectuals, particularly the Left, have openly condemned the behaviour and decisions of West Bengal and the Centre, hounding Taslima out of the country.
The Dalai Lama is given periodic instructions to not speak or do anything which may harm Sino-Indian ties. Taslima, too, was stopped from writing and giving any statements.

These are against basic tenets of rights of refugees as per the UN charter. Most countries practice it. But in India, due to growing Muslim vote politics, it has been distorted. The votes are of paramount importance; ethics, code of conduct and human rights of refugees do not count, if weighed against votes.

During British rule, VD Sarvarkar was fighting for the freedom of the country but when, in London, he was given refugee status, he had all human rights.

Sun Yet-Sen of China, too, was a refugee and had full freedom in the host country. Lala Hardyal, a freedom fighter, was given refuge by the US. It was in the US that he wrote some of his best books.

The late Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, too, lived as refugees. Khomeini was a refugee in France during the Shah's rule in Iran.

No country humiliates even political refugees barring, probably, India. The way India treated Taslima and is now treating the Dalai Lama is shameful and against its glorious traditions.

One can imagine the fear in which Taslima lived. Many human rights activists spring up whenever a case of a terrorist comes to the fore. Where are they now? They have not shed a single tear.

The entire nation is unconcerned, watching TV. Political statements as per party lines do appear but they do not galvanise people in the manner required. Who can dare act against the aforesaid veto?

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=mishra%2Fmishra217.txt&writer=mishra