IN 2009-2010, I was on research leave from the University of Dhaka to do a postdoctoral stint at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. I was going to work on a project titled 鈥楩rom Rokeya to Taslima: Trends in Muslim Feminism in South Asia鈥� 鈥� a topic related to my doctoral research completed at the University of Portsmouth, UK, in 2007 under the supervision of Dr Bronwen Price and Dr Alex Tickell (now Professor of Global Literatures in English at the Open University, UK).
I arrived in Heidelberg in late July 2009 and in about a month received an email from Professor Tickell. He asked me if I would be interested in presenting a paper on Taslima Nasrin鈥檚 work at my alma mater. I was delighted by this opportunity. Finally, the Centre for Studies in Literature at Portsmouth organised a seminar (scheduled for November 10, 2009) at which I spoke on Taslima Nasrin鈥檚 feminism.
As I was preparing for the Portsmouth seminar, on October 3, 2009, Professor Tickell informed me that he was editing a special issue of the prestigious听Journal of Postcolonial Writing听and that its theme was literature and the law. He asked me if I would be able to contribute an article to it on the censorship of Taslima Nasrin鈥檚 books.
I felt honoured that my PhD supervisor trusted me with this important writing project. I was thrilled about the prospect of publishing in such a reputed journal; I also knew very well that my essay would make it to the special issue only if it reached the quality expected by the journal.
I kept reading Taslima Nasirn鈥檚 work and went to great lengths to explore censorship and other issues in relation to her writings. I spent months researching censorship laws in Bangladesh and how they played out in the case of Taslima Nasrin. I finally wrote 鈥楩ree speech, ban and 鈥渇atwa鈥�: A study of the Taslima Nasrin affair鈥� (Journal of Postcolonial Writing听46.5: 2010, 540-552).听I was in the early phase of my publication career, and it took me an enormous amount of time and effort to produce the article.
I continued researching Nasrin鈥檚 work intermittently for years. In May 2011, thanks to a travel grant from International Islamic University Malaysia, I presented a paper on Nasrin鈥檚 criticisms of Islam at a conference in Osaka, Japan. I worked more on the topic and later published my second journal article on Nasrin鈥檚 work: 鈥楴asrin gone global: A critique of Taslima Nasrin鈥檚 criticism of Islam and her feminist strategy鈥� (South Asia Research听36.2: 2016, 167-185).
At the Ekushey Boi Mela in Dhaka this year, a group of people sought to take the law into their own hands by attempting to prevent a bookstall from selling a book by Nasrin. An altercation that ensued needed police intervention, which eventually led to the closure of the bookstall. It received considerable media attention.
The unfortunate Boi Mela incident brought my research on Nasrin鈥檚 work to my recollection. I have mentioned the anecdotes of my research on her writing partly to assure readers that the deliberation that follows comes from an informed source. I am familiar with controversies and public debates about Nasrin鈥檚 work.
The Taslima Nasrin affair came to the fore after her fictional work听尝补箩箩补听was published in 1993, whilst the historic Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, India was demolished on December 6, 1992. Was there a link between the levelling of the historic mosque and the publication of the book?听The following discussion will shed some light on the question.
In the novel, Nasrin exaggerated 鈥� though fictionally 鈥� the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh. However, commentators do not regard the novel purely as an artistic endeavour. Many consider it a political ploy to distract global attention from India鈥檚 horrendous communal violence against Muslims epitomised by the destruction of the Babri Masjid. The ban on the book, lawsuit against its author, her flight from Bangladesh and other incidents that followed presented Bangladesh 鈥� not India 鈥� as a country plagued by religious animosities and intolerance.
狈补蝉谤颈苍鈥檚听尝补箩箩补听had six chapters but Indian publishers expanded it to thirteen. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) distributed free of charge its Hindi version that contained 鈥榮ections not in the original novel.鈥� The entire affair was optimally used to put Bangladesh under a negative media spotlight.听尝补箩箩补听and subsequently some other books by Nasrin were banned in Bangladesh. As a result, Bangladesh and Bangladeshis 鈥� majority of whom are Muslim 鈥� as well as their religion came to be portrayed as antagonistic to freedom of expression. 听
There are a couple of aspects that need to be considered in this respect. First, censorship and proscription of books are generally unnecessary and counterproductive and can also work as a promotion tool. They increase the curiosity of readers who somehow find ways to get access to banned books, as one observer says that 鈥榥othing sparks more interest in a book than mentioning it鈥檚 been banned.鈥�
It is alleged that many writers and (visual) content producers include offensive or objectionable materials or images as 鈥榩ublicity stunts.鈥� As William Mazzarella and Rabinder Kaur state in an essay titled 鈥楤etween Sedition and Seduction: Thinking censorship in South Asia鈥� (2009):
鈥榃e are all familiar with this compulsive dependency from the drama of legal process, in which the forbidden word must be spoken again and again precisely to establish its unspeakability. We recognise it in marketing strategies: court bans often heighten the desirability of a product by marking it as controversial.鈥�
Second, the genealogy of censorship laws in Bangladesh shows that section 295-A of the Penal Code of 1860 that was used to proscribe Nasrin鈥檚 books was introduced in this region by British colonial rulers. In other words, books are censored in our country in light of the (colonial) British government strategy and administrative practice.听
It should also be noted that while the ban on听尝补箩箩补听was sparked by people who often present themselves as custodians of Islam, the ban on 狈补蝉谤颈苍鈥檚听Ka听(2003) in Bangladesh and on its West Bengal version听Dwikhandita听in India was instigated by secularly oriented people the likes of whom were opposed to the ban on听Lajja. Even though Nasrin鈥檚 offensive remarks about Islam and its prophet were harped on to ban her books, religion was not always the reason for proscribing her work.
The West Bengal authorities banned听Dwikhandita听stating that the book made distasteful remarks about the Qur鈥檃n and Prophet Muhammad. But they had not banned an earlier book by Nasrin 鈥斕�Aamar Meyebela听(My Girlhood, 1999) 鈥� which made more virulent attacks on Islam and Muslims. On the contrary, the literary establishment in West Bengal gave Nasrin the Ananda Award in 2000 for the book. What is more, many of those commentators and media outlets that were critical of the ban on听尝补箩箩补听maintained a strategic silence after the ban on听Ka/Dwikhandita听in both Bangladesh and India.
What I have attempted to highlight through the above discussion is that Nasrin鈥檚 literary career and controversies about her writings are complex, and many players 鈥� local and international 鈥� are involved in highlighting them. Religious considerations or the putative Islam-free speech dualism were not the principal reason for banning her books. In many cases, writers and artists caricature Islam and its prophet (peace be upon him) for reasons that go beyond freedom of expression.
However, attacks on bookstalls/bookshops for what they sell or shouting and burning books in the streets are a sign of poor taste and intellectual impotence of the protesters. That is a topic for a separate investigation, which I have addressed in 鈥榃hat鈥檚 wrong with Muslim response to Rushdie affair?鈥� (2009).
听
Dr Md Mahmudul Hasan is professor in the department of English Language and Literature, International Islamic University Malaysia.