Author: Balbir K Punj
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 20, 2005
To our eternal lajja, Taslima Nasreen
recently left Kolkata for Europe after being refused the citizenship of
India. The intrepid writer who, in 1993, shook the conscience of humanity
with her novel, Lajja, earned the ire of Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh.
She had been "politically incorrect" in highlighting the plight of the
Hindu minority in Islamic Bangladesh. Ms Nasreen had to flee Bangladesh
for fear of Islamic fundamentalists who wanted to execute her publicly
for her perceived apostasy.
In the process, Bangladesh, established
in 1971 as a secular country, was shamed twice. However, it is also true
that Bangladesh had in 1988 constitutionally disowned secularism as an
article of faith. But what about India, whose statesmen swore by secularism
at least five times a day in the PMO, Parliament, public meetings, television
discussion and press briefings? Why did they fail to live up to their proclaimed
commitment to the cause? Or does secularism lie in condemning Gujarat but
recoiling from any mention of Bangladesh, where the minorities have been
all but driven out?
The UPA Government is constituted
of and supported by secularists who try to outdo each other in their zeal
for secularism. However, it is strange that all agree with the Islamic
fundamentalists of Bangladesh on one point. It is that Ms Nasreen should
have no place in Bangladesh. There are prizes for guessing whom the Government
wishes to placate with such a policy. Canvassing for elections with an
Osama look-alike is secular; bargaining with the local Mufti for Muslim
votes is secular; retaining Article 370 and the IMDT Act too is secular;
however, allowing citizenship to Ms Nasreen is communal! Is it secularism
of conviction or convenience?
One does not need to read out the
Citizenship Act (1955) under whose Clause 6 (Citizenship of Naturalisation)
a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science,
philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress can get Indian
citizenship. But Ms Nasreen has been felicitated in many western countries
that were beacons of constitutional secularism. Even now she is likely
to attend conferences in Europe and receive honours, including one from
Belgium's Parliament.
Duplicity has stained Indian secularism
all along. Remember how India (when "Indira was India") sought to clarify
its position in advance to Arab countries vis-a-vis Pakistan in midst of
the Bangladesh crisis in the summer of 1971? Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, then
a Union Minister, was sent to Syria and Egypt, with personal letter from
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Moinul Haq Chaudhuri, another Union Minister,
was sent to Iran. Shah Nawaz Khan, yet another Union Minister, was sent
to King Hussein of Jordan. After having exhausted the stock of Muslim ministers,
Mrs Gandhi requisitioned Barkatullah Khan from the deserts of Rajasthan
and despatched him to Morocco. Barkatullah Khan, on his return, was made
the Chief Minister of Rajasthan. What was common to all these emissaries
was that they were all Muslims.
One of the observers of these events
was the illustrious journalist, NG Jog. He writes, "What is more ironic
is that it was conducted for the sake of Bangladesh whose leader has, from
the very beginning, taken his stand on its strictly secular character.
Indeed, the real significance of Bangladesh to us in India-and its most
heinous sin in the eyes of Pakistan-is that it represents the victory of
secularism over religion. It was absurd and far-fetched to expect any Government,
which can respond only to religious sentiment, to extend support to our
stand on Bangladesh-let alone to Bangladesh itself (NG Jog's Commemoration
Volume; Crusaders of the Fourth Estate in India; Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan,
Bombay, 1989 p 21).
Today, Bangladesh is no longer secular,
while India still claims to be. So what message are we sending, and to
whom, by being mute onlookers to the banishment of a writer whose works
are a triumph of humanity over religious bigotry?
The situation in Bangladesh has
turned a full circle. Today, not only the ideals that inspired that Liberation
War have been reversed but the gathering storm over Ms Nasreen has become
a tornado. All through the 1980s President General HM Ershad, an apt contemporary
of Pakistan's Zia ul Haq, accomplished the political Islamisation of Bangladesh.
Islamic fundamentalists wanted only Muslims to live in Bangladesh while
Hindus, Buddhists and Christians were expected to leave it. Now, under
the BNP Government and its more hardlined allies namely Jamaat-e-Islami,
Bangladesh is heading towards a Talibanisation. The Islamic fundamentalists
feel that only the BNP-coalition supporter (Muslim hardliners) should live
in Bangladesh while moderates who support the Awami League must leave.
On February 27, 2004, eminent Bangladeshi
litterateur, Dr Humayun Azad, was brutally attacked by Islamist fundamentalists
for his outspoken views on the activities of Islamists in his then just
released novel. On January 27 this year, Shah AMS Kibria, Finance Minister
in the Awami League government, was killed along with five other activists
of his party while 150 more were injured when Islamic fundamentalists attacked
the party's rally in Habiganj. On August 21, 2004, Sheikh Hasina herself
had a narrow escape-unlike 24 others who died and several thousand who
received wounds in another Awami rally in Dhaka. The day is not far when
far-right members of the BNP-led coalition like Jamaat-e-Islami would feel
that only Jamaat supporters are fit enough to live in Bangladesh while
supporters of BNP are too moderate to be allowed.
But the Jamaat will not stop at
that. Its desire to create a greater Bangladesh (Banga-e-Islam) by incorporating
Assam, Bengal, parts of north Bihar and Northeastern India through demographic
invasion now seems within its reach. To the Pakistani ISI, which has Bangladesh
under its thumb, this is also a way to avenge the defeat and dismemberment
of Pakistan in 1971. I don't think we can get rid of these problems by
turning a blind eye to Ms Nasreen.
The UPA Government wants to reduce
communalism by reducing it to a law and order problem. By doing so, it
is going against historic and contemporary experiences. The Prevention
of Communalism Bill slated to be tabled towards the end of the year will
reportedly treat convicts of communal riot as traitors to the country.
But the problem is that the legislators live in New Delhi whereas the affected
people live in districts bordering Bangladesh.
There was small but significant
information in almost all newspapers recently. This could be considered
the charge of the "light brigade". The Chirang Chapori Yuva Mancha, named
after a Dibrugarh locality, launched its campaign by distributing leaflets
calling for a socio-economic boycott of Bangladeshi migrants. An exodus
of Bangladeshis under threat from the Assamese took place from Digbrugarh
recently. Taking a cue from Dibrugarh, some young Assamese of Jorhat began
a campaign to save future generations of Assam from the clutches of Bangladeshi
rule. The UPA Government has asked intelligence agencies to probe and find
out whether it was motivated by the BJP's and AGP's electrol concerns.
But what makes the Congress believe
that there is threat to it from the BJP or AGP in the Assembly elections
next year? Tarun Gogoi's Government has to live up to a deadline nearer
at hand. On April 3, 2005, in a Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind rally, its president
Maulana Asad Madani openly threatened to topple Mr Tarun Gogoi's Government
unless its 18-point demand was fulfilled. The Chief Minister ended up with
all sorts of conciliatory voices. Is this "secularism" or a sham? We have
shamed the concept of secularism more than Bangladesh.
(The writer, a Rajya Sabha MP and
Convenor of BJP's think-tank can be contacted at bpunj@email.com)
