Between "Islam"ists and "Secular Human"ists - Caught in Between (and Needing Badly to Get Out): the World's Muslims! - Part 2

Please read Part 1 before this.

Ms. Nasrin and the "Secular Human"ists

So continuing on with my evening: after pondering the sheer hypocrisy of Islamists when it comes to turning a blind eye to the un-Islamic behaviour of their ideological allies, and re-affirming once again their inability to better the conditions of the world's Muslims, I decided to cool off by distracting myself.

A visit to The 3rd World View produced this real gem of a resource on the latest controversy surrounding Taslima Nasrin.

For those who do not know, Taslima Nasrin is a self-confessed secular humanist. This means that she is in support of the separation of church/temple/mosque/synagogue/whathaveyou and state.

Now while I do not subscribe to secular humanism (or Islamism), what I expect from the adherents of these ideologies is consistency. Plain and simple. Yesterday I highlighted how the controversies created by Islamists were hollow and self-serving, simply the opposite of Islam which values consistency and deliberation in judgement. Today, I will highlight how secular humanists of the Nasrin variety create controversies that are equally self-serving and without any consistency, but which have the unfortunate effects of demonising the world's Muslims to an increasingly suspicious non-Muslim audience.

Taslima Nasrin's writings against Islam what she experienced in the name of Islam at the hands of some Muslims are well-known. She has been living in exile since then, ironically in a country with more Muslims than in her home-country of Bangladesh - and yet her plight is constantly used as an instance of "Muslim intolerance" by vested quarters. The Indian government - normally so harsh on Bangladeshis immigrating to its territory - has continuously given her visa extensions. (I leave readers to draw their own conclusions. Frankly, Bangladesh's response should have been to offer asylum to M.F. Husain, but then our "national security" warriors worriers don't like paintings of Hindu goddesses either, do they? Damn, we BADLY need a good debate about national security that is free of communal dynamics!)

What really screamed out at me from the 3rd World View post linked above however was this particular newspiece:

Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, in hiding in India after death threats from Islamic groups, has found an ally in a hardline Hindu leader accused of collusion in the killing of Muslims during religious riots in 2002.

Gujarat chief minister Narender Modi has invited the author to stay in his western state after she fled Marxist-ruled West Bengal last week, the Economic Times newspaper reported Tuesday.

"She is welcome to come and stay in Gujarat. She can carry on her work in the field of literature and serve mankind," Modi was quoted as saying in an interview to the paper.

"Even if she criticises me in her book, I will welcome it."

"Never underestimate the impudence of an impudent man", to paraphrase an unmarried Christian woman on a small island off the coast of Europe (and I can't wait to find out how the Jamaatis spin that one tomorrow!). It went through my head as I imagined Modi being so magnanimous to a critic of Islam.

For those who don't know, Narendra Modi was the godfather behind the genocide (the ONLY word) of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. What started off as commmunal rioting was transformed into ethnic cleansing thanks to the government of Gujarat's then chief minister, Narendra Modi. RSS "volunteers" roamed free with voters' list furnished by the government showing where Muslims lived. The state and the police were complicit in this massacre of a people based on their religion. And the victims were Muslim. The latest from the investigation into Gujarat comes from Tehelka (h/t Tacit).

I think it is pretty clear that Narendra Modi's dislike for "Muslims" stems from a very different source than Taslima Nasrin's. Yet, their dislike brings them together - (just as, in our country, a hatred for the centre-left makes far-left eccentrics like Farhad Mazhar write for far-right newspapers like Naya Diganta).

But this is not my real disappointment with Ms. Nasrin. I am not as thin-skinned as some people who call themselves Muslim. I do not really give a **** what cartoons are being published or who wrote what in which third-rate novel. If someone's written against Islam: fine, whatever. I have many more productive ways to follow Islam in everyday life (prayer, good deeds, fundraising for some cyclone victims, alms, a few polemics against Islamists) than to take up some placard and waste half my day.

No my real disappointment with Ms. Nasrin lies in the fact that in all her years in India, very rarely have I heard her speak against the religious fundamentalism of the Sangh Parivar and its affiliates. I have not found any utterance by her against the Gujarat Genocide, the censoring and "voluntary" exile of M.F. Husain, the censoring of and RSS-backed protetsts against the film Final Solution on the Gujarat Massacres by Rakesh Sharma. I emphasise, I have not found and if you know of any, I will put in the correction. Indeed, the only criticism she has ventured against any of the RSS's pet projects have been her support for Deepa Mehta's film "Water" (one of my favourite movies), whose filming was stopped by threats from religious fundamentalists. The movie is about the lives of Hindu widows in the backdrop of Indian's independence, and has nothing to do with Muslims.

So basically, secular-humanists of the Nasrin, Rushdie or the Hitchens variety really say a lot by their selective silence on and selective speeches against some religions more than others. Wrongs are done in the name of all religions, yet Islam what they think is "Islam" always comes in for more than it's share of flak for a lot of reasons.

And this flak by secular humanists can then be used by bigots like Modi to de-humanise Muslims, disenfranchise them and in extreme cases like Gujarat, wipe them off completely. One can then invite a secular-humanist with a beef against Muslims to "criticise away" with no problem whatsoever!

If Taslima Nasrin actually takes up that offer, I'll be more than happy to retract this blog post and put up "I was wrong" in big, bold letters. But she won't. Firstly, because as an author she is terribly narrow: she can only write about her personal experience and her personal tragedy and those were inflicted on her by Muslims. Secondly because her world-view is such that "religious fundamentalism" is always worse than fundamentalism in the name of the nation. The RSS never simply presents themselves as a religious outfit, but as a nationalist one as well, all about restoring Bharat to an imagined pristine state before the Muslims and Christians "sullied" it. She'll buy it as an instance of "secular" nationalism, just as V.S. Naipaul did. Thirdly, who exactly is going to bite the hand that's sheltering them? (Hint: people with integrity)

And that, dear readers, is how I came to the conclusion that Muslims worldwide are being screwed over - by "Islam"ists who really care about certain policies rather than Islam or Muslims; and by "secular human"ists whose humanism is not magnanimous enough to care about Muslims, 1/6 of the world's human population. Attendant caveats as always: not all Islamists are like this and neither are all secular humanists. And thankfully most of the world's populaton, let alone most of the world's Muslims do not fall into these two blindingly rigid categories. That is what gave me some hope as I tended to my throat. But I admit, not a lot.

Concluding remarks: such "secular human"ists and "Islam"ists have certain traits in common. As I've said before: neo-cons/"secular human"ists and Islamists have a monolithic view of Islam. Their view of Islam is that of an intolerant, illiberal, stupefying dogma (a view that serves both their interests) rather than the tolerant, merciful, moderate and sympathetic religion that was once the driving engine of several cosmopolitan empires.

Lastly, they both need each other. Both need each other to get rid of the ideological adversaries within their own communities, namely "domestic" liberals. "Secular human"ists need to point to Islamists in order to convince REAL liberals that "Muslims" are simply different, they neither understand nor deserve any response but the brute force and torture that liberals frown upon. (And if they get those from non-secular communalists like Modi, well "All's well that ends well".) When REAL liberals refuse to agree, well then it's easy to paint them as "terrorist sympathisers", "appeasers" and "liberal wimps who empathise too much with other cultures" etc etc. Although the word "over-smartness" is yet to be used, the connotations are there among neo-cons and their apologists.

On the other hand, Islamists take liberals within Muslim communities to task using these "secular human"ists as examples of "liberals". Thus the Daily Star becomes an "Islamophobic" paper to them and Zafar Sobhan's adherence to Islam is questioned by them, even though a few weeks back, Zafar Sobhan had this to say about a particularly sordid neo-con venture. In other words, all domestic liberals are "neo-cons/Islamophobes" to Islamists. Even when they are Muslims!

In between, a large swath of the world's population is left to rot in ignorance and poverty and insecurity. Maybe for generations to come.

This post would not have been possible without two posts by The 3rd World View and Bonbibi, both of whose writing prove them to be much better humanists and humans than the ones I've criticised here.

Shabash New Age!

Yesterday on Tacit's blog, I commented:

"how we are to distinguish between uncritical support and government coercion, I leave you to figure out. Yes, they (Daily Star) can be slightly more critical as NA (New Age) is, but even then, one does not quite know what kind of pressures are on them."

Today, I think we see a clear difference between those who are coerced into silence and those who are in bed with the current government. While some newspapers go so DISGUSTINGLY low as to report on what brand of undergarments a female arrestee possesses, others take bold - even provocative - stances. From the sidebar of the New Age:

"WE APOLOGISE

When New Age was going to press on Wednesday evening, we had in our possession photographs of top-brass BNP leaders, including standing committee member Mahbubur Rahman, being assaulted by activists of their own party. While we at New Age strongly believe that – in the spirit of freedom of the press and our readers’ right to information – we are committed to bring those photographs to our readers, a number of our journalists were repeatedly ‘reminded’, however courteously, that Mahbub after all is a former army chief and publishing photographs of him being assaulted may not go down well with his former charges. Living in these times of ‘reminders’ and their untold consequences as they are, we, therefore, sincerely apologise to our readers for our inability to publish those photographs, and hence absconding, even if momentarily, in our responsibility to bring to you the whole truth in its full, graphic manifestation."

(emphasis mine)

Ahhh yes, his former charges. The paternalistic patriots whose patriotism is simple suspicion of their fellow countrymen. We already know what retribution against their fellow countrymen another picture brought.

I do NOT approve of the treatment meted out to a Bangladeshi citizen (Mahbubur Rahman's most important identity to this blog) because of his views, nor do I approve of the picture. But out of sympathy for a young lady who is being subjected to a Bangladeshi version of witch-burning and stigmatization, I will link the picture. Yes, just for today, let me wallow in the one rule I frown upon: two wrongs don't make a right.

But remember, there is no news censorship in Bangladesh. How could there be when the Daily Star is free to tell us what brand of undergarments is worn by different people?

God Bless Nurul Kabir!

Birongonas - A Fitting Reply to an Undeserving "Scholar"

Here's a small hate list:

I hate self-hating Indians who decide to take it out on us.

I hate self-hating women who feel the need to undermine the pain of their sisters.

I hate people who decide to undermine the pain of others.

I REALLY hate people who decide to overlook the pain their fellow-Bangladeshis suffered.

I hate, simply hate having to go through this drivel over and over again.

So thankfully, someone else has done it for me. Please read Mash's knockout punch reply to Sarmila Bose. Thank you Mash!

Failing Our Women

Last month, I speculated that income foregone might be a small factor for female NRBs' decisions to stay abroad or return home compared to freedoms foregone. Fellow blogger Bonbibi then elaborated a bit on this issue, even as she prepared to tackle life back home. Today, I came across this article that further confirms my speculations.

While we squabble about "democracy" and "evil forces", half of our people are suffering on a daily basis. We as a people are failing our women.

Missing Women and Missing Arguments

"Western" pundits regularly castigate something they understand to be Islam for "its" attitude towards women (and Hitchens is by no means the best example, I'm feeling particularly lazy).

Today, I revisited something that Amartya Sen (the fourth or fifth greatest Bangali after Mujib, Zia, Sher-e-Bangla and arguably Dr. Yunus) brought to light 17 long years ago: missing women. Revisited in the form of a BBC story on a family from the Other partitioned province.

Two partitioned provinces. Two "nations". Two religions. Same attitude towards women. Yet, "culture", poverty, education are never singled out by anyone as potential factors for discrimination against women, except of course geniuses like Dr. Sen.

Religion is. Islam to a greater extent because of its unique position at the intersection of the Western political zeitgeist and Hindutva propaganda. Hinduism also, but to a lesser extent due to the absence of a global media consensus on it, and India's own "secular" self-image.

A secularism that has done NOTHING for women.

Lesson of the piece: Say "Islam is detrimental to women" and feel all sexy inside as the applause trickles in. Real scholars challenge orthodoxies.

Millionaires, Amartya Sen and NRBs

The New York Times has a different twist on the American Dream: millionaires who do not feel rich. Read about it here.

Reminded me of Amartya Sen's thoughts on poverty and inequality. That these things were determined in part by the ability of the individual to "take part in the life of the community" and to "appear in public without shame".

Poverty and inequality thus become subjective, dependent on time and place and the individual. A million dollars might not be a lot in Silicon Valley. But it sure is a lot in Oregon. Or for that matter Dhaka. But it might mean a lot more to an independent woman in America than to a woman who has no control over her own income in Dhaka. And so on and so forth.

I wonder how such considerations factors into NRB decisions to move back or not.

Do the Right Thing!

Indigenous feminism. Not "white men trying to save brown women from brown men". (Thank you Gayatri Spivak!) Don't expect extensive BBC coverage on this.

Three Burqa Stories

On the 27th of June, BBC reported that a male Bollywood singer had apologised for wearing a burqa while visiting the famous Chishti shrine in Ajmer:

Reshammiya created a stir at the shrine on Tuesday night when some devotees spotted him in a burqa. They took it up with the prayer attendants.

I wonder what these very same devotees - oh so vigilant about other people's dresses rather then their own devotions - would have made of the Imam of the Islamabad Red Mosque donning a burqa to escape the "authorities" currently besieging the mosque. Hmmmm.... the burqa as a gender-denoting garment or as the last resort of the hopelessly outnumbered and surrounded? And here I was thinking that most people wear it for "modesty". Never before has so much confusion surrounded a piece of clothing. Bikinis included.

On the Third World View, a debate about the burqa is about to start. Third World View talks about the comments made by a radio talk show host comparing burqa-wearing women to Nazis. (Yes, Nazis. I'm waiting for Jewish groups to take this fool to task for trivialising the Holocaust.) I've made my stance clear there, and before further controversy erupts I'll explain it here just a bit further. I'm neither pro/anti-burqa. I'm pro a woman's freedom to choose what she wants to wear. If women CHOOSE to wear the burqa, then Savaga, Straw and Rushdie should just suck it up and remain mum (watch this space for more rants on Rushdie). If women do NOT choose to wear the burqa or even a hijab, then all our Islamists should just suck it up and remain mum (without exploding).

Those who want women's rights to be equal to that of men's should remember one thing: a burqa is rarely the cause and mostly the consequence of discrimination against women. Remove the causes and the consequence will follow. If then, the burqa or the hijab is retained by liberated women as a sign of their identities or idiosyncrasies, then who are we to protest? Until that day, anyone (like me) who argues for a woman's right to wear a burqa will be treated as though we are speaking for the patriarchal order in the idiom of women's rights.

Remembering Shohid Jononi

26th June marks the death anniversary of one of those Bangladeshis whose love for the motherland is above question. It is a reflection of the nature of the true patriot that she had government charges against her name even as she lay dying. Those who love Bangladesh must be ever ready, ever vigilant to protect Bangladeshis, even if it means being at odds with the government of the day, whatever their political hue, whatever their political rhetoric. Jahanara Imam was one such patriot.

Unlike many, she was no hollow patriot. Not for her the nationalism that rehabilitated former collaborators. Not for her the elitism that played to well-fed, clothed urban Dhaka-ites. Not for her the Islam that overlooks the suffering of the weak and poor.

No. She gave her all. A son and a husband to the struggle for an entire people's freedom. Her pen to chronicle the forgotten pages of history. Her failing light to a cause that was as politically dangerous as it was right.

The least we can give her in return is remembrance. God bless your soul mother of martyrs!

Mrs. Hasina's final gambit? New generation's first hope?

(updated below)

In her interview with the Daily Star, Mrs. Sheikh Hasina Wajed claimed that she wanted deeper reforms than those that "dissidents" within her party proposed. Today's Daily Star reports that she has come up with them.

She not only wants a complete separation of party politics and government politics as she claimed in the interview. She also wants 60 years to be the age-limit set for all presidium members of the AL.

What this move does is pretty simple: it puts other "dinosaurs" (old AND slow moving) such as Tofael and Motia Chowdhury in the same boat as her. The end of the article carries a list of other "heavweights" over 60.

But what this move accomplishes is amazing. It gets her allies in her fight to stay on. It does this by transforming the fight into one between the Old Guard" vs. the "New Upstarts", instead of the old fight between the Chairperson vs. the Rest. Amazing really! Sheer political genius. Frankly, I never thought her capable of it.

Well played madam, well played!

Further thoughts: When I initially described this move as "a gambit" and ended with "well played", I did so intentionally, to evoke the chess-like quality of politics and highlight what a skilled player Mrs. Sheikh Hasina has proven herself to be by making this move (alas! if only we had seen this while she was in opposition).

It just shows how much chess I know that "gambit" refers to a situation where a pawn is sacrificed. Mrs. Sheikh Hasina has made a move that will sacrifice her own political career, or what could be quite accurately called a "Queen sacrifice". Whether her opponents will take the bait or not is of course another story.

But here's the really amazing part of this move: she wins either way, whether her opponents takes the bait or not.

Consider this: if her opponents do push forward with the reforms and she does retire voluntarily, with silence and dignity, in accordance with her own new rule, her popularity shoots up. In that situation, even if she does not come back "out of popular demand", she goes down in history as one of the most selfless politicians we have ever had. If her opponents decide to discontinue their call for reforms, she stays on as Chairperson with a fresh mandate and greater legitimacy than ever. Of course the first victory is a bit more long-term than the second, which is what makes me think that the second is what she'll go with.

Here's what I think will happen: the over-60-ites are all shuffling behind the scenes right now with renewed energy. Their livelihoods are being threatened, not just that of the Chairperson. They orchestrate mass rallies soon (or as soon as the ban on politics is lifted) calling on Mrs. Hasina to stay on. If she does, they do too.

Oh the sheer genius of it! I still can't get over this magnificent instance of issue-linkage, pinning others' fate to hers. Frankly her talents are wasted within the Awami League. She would have been an international negotiator par excellence.

Follow up to DP post on education

Yesterday I posted on Drishtipat about Bangladesh's success in achieving gender parity in secondary education. In response, shahpar had this excellent observation to offer:

"i’d like to see how that correlates to birth rates and female infanticide. i wonder if increased education among women is linked to them having a smaller families, and to less deaths of girl babies. or if their education is only a small first step in having the right to decide what happens to their own bodies"

I don't think female infanticide has been a problem in Bangladesh post-independence since the female mortality rate has fallen faster than the male mortality rate during that time.

The correlation between lower birth rates and increased education for women has been observed time and time again in various places and cultures. Social scientists assert that educated women might like to pursue numerous goals other than childbearing, and thus prefer smaller families. Added to this is the greater voice, dignity and awareness of rights within the marriage that educated women enjoy, which enables them to assert their preference - what shahpar rightly calls deciding "what happens to their bodies". Thus education leads to smaller families.

There is however a parallel dynamic in work, just in the opposite direction. This is where smaller families lead to education - the opposite direction of causality. As families get smaller, parents find that they have more resources to spend on smaller number of children. Thus they send more of their children to school for longer years.

I'm afraid to say that I believe it is the second dynamic we have observed over the '90s in Bangladesh. The birth rate fell first, in the 80s, leading to smaller families. So parents figured, "Well why not send the girls to school as well?" Thus the parity in secondary education, attained around 2000-2001. This is also borne out by the fact that the female:male ratio in tertiary education has been the slowest to rise. Parents simply do not have enough resources yet.

As much as I'd like to believe that educated mothers are currently making choices within their families and having greater voice; as much as I'd like to believe that young women are no longer seen as the "dispensable" ones within the family when it comes to education, the analysis just does not support that.

I give it a generation. Ours.

(Please re-direct all comments on the DP post above. Thanks!)

Is misogyny South Asian?

Yesterday a friend of mine wrote a note on facebook that had a direct bearing on my last post about Mandira Bedi and Ann Coulter.

Turns out that some of my countrymen (and women apparently) have put up an anti-Mandira group on facebook. No surprises there. The appalling part is the language used against Bedi, which I’m not going to give wider circulation by reproducing it here. It’s even spelled out in the name of the group. Any surprises there?

More specifically, let me ask this: is there something inherently misogynistic about South Asians?

When someone says something we strongly disagree with, most people’s first reaction is to attack the individual instead of countering what is being said. And internet forums, even on the once-elitist facebook, bring out the worst in people. Therefore, when Al Gore speaks of global warming, people on the internet call him fat . They don’t go on live television and do so, because let’s face it: that’s tacky! But the anonymity of the internet suits them just fine. And to be completely “non-partisan” about this: people highly critical of Bush’s policies almost always mention the man’s inability to string two coherent sentences together. As much fun as Bushisms are, they should not be mistaken for criticisms of his policies. In any case, South Asians/ “Third worlders”/ Bangladeshis aren’t the only ones to mount personal attacks.

The problem is with the nature of the personal attack. Bush is called stupid. Gore is called fat. Kerry is called a coward. Mandira Bedi is called a “whore”. Even ignoring the fact that being labelled with an epithet for a sex-worker should not be insulting in an ideal world, why focus on her sexuality? Even if criticism was warranted (and in my last post, I tell people that even mild criticism would be an over-reaction), why not call her stupid or anorexic or a coward? Because, underpinning all this is the assumption that informs all misogyny: men can be whatever they want and women are only sex-objects. Ergo, men possess other qualities to criticise, while women have only that one thing you can put her down with. Even worse, in this construction men can be other things not related to their biology, in the process transcending their gender. But women! They remain slaves of their biology regardless of what they become. As a result, you can criticise Kerry for being a traitor and a liar, but your first criticism of/fear for Hillary is that she might come across as a “frigid woman”, “robotic”, “passionless”. Don’t believe that Westerners are capable of that sort of sentiment? Try googling “Hillary” and “frigid” and take a look for yourself!

So back to my original question: is misogyny peculiarly South Asian? Well, clearly not. But it is prevalent more in South Asia (and other parts of the South) than in the North. Ahh, when I put it this way, inevitably you think: so it is income-poverty that leads to misogyny? Possibly not, but it might lead to misogynistic values being shared and thus to misogynistic cultures. That’s simply my intuition and if someone has any research leads for me, I’d be more than happy. What I DO know is that in South Asia (and elsewhere in the global South) there is a gender imbalance in the total population that is unfavourable to women. Amartya Sen (South Asian, Bangali, born in Shantiniketon to a family hailing from - you guessed it - Dhaka!) has been trying to raise awareness of this for years, but not even his Nobel Prize seems to helped in making any impact in South Asia on this issue.

And now we are attacking Mandira Bedi. In my last post, I divided the blame equally between her producers - who cynically use her charms as a woman - and the Indian and Bangladeshi supporters, who lap it up and give her disproportionate attention simply because she is a beautiful woman. This time I have no one to blame except my fellow Bangladeshi supporters. Attacking her in the first place was utterly useless. Attacking her womanhood is simply part of the sick disease we want to cure. Here’s hoping that Bangladesh is the first South Asian country to elect a woman whose father, husband, brother or son did not also hold office!