Desicritics Category: Politics: Bangladesh

The South Asian Water That Is Indian

Diganta — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:15:14 EDT

It's been long since I have written about Farakka - the barrage on the Ganges just before it enters Bangladesh. There has been no permanent treaties between India and Bangladesh on the water sharing at Farakka. However, there is a 30 year agreement between India and Bangladesh that ends after 2020. As per the agreement, India ensures 35000 cusec water for Bangladesh at even the driest possible season. The dam was supposedly for supplying more water to the dying Kolkata port, which has already died its' natural death and handed over its responsibilities to Haldia port - a new and better one.

If you Google the term Farakka, you will encounter a lot of documents and articles about Indian unilateral water withdrawal. Some of them are written on a factual basis but some of them are not. So far, I have found an excellent paper written by Mikiyasu Nakayama from Utsunomia University, Japan. This is an excellent analysis of the entire proposal and its history.

I was delighted to find that both the proposals I raised in my previous article were indeed discussed between India and Bangladesh. It was my pleasure to know that the proposal that I stressed on, was indeed put forward by the Robert McNamara, the President of World Bank in 1976. He proposed that dams and water reservoirs should be built in Nepal to solve the long term water crisis in the Ganges. The dams could be on the tributaries of the Ganges (map), preferably on Kosi and Gandak. It was supposed to release water during dry season and to store during monsoon. Canada and World Bank both agreed to fund the project. It was not only for the storage, it would have created huge amount of hydro-electricity for both Nepal and India. Bangladesh also agreed to the proposal. But India did not.

India rejected the idea since it was going to 'internationalize' the issue and will involve a third party (Nepal). Indian policymakers stuck to the point that they'd help Bangladesh to construct a canal from Brahamaputra to the Ganges. Bangladesh opposed with the claim that it would involve displacement of a huge population in a densely populated country and also the Brahamaputra river might not have enough water during dry season. And I don't see Bangladesh was wrong in that. Brahamaputra water is also diminishing (though better than the Ganges).

The other point India cited was the possible earthquake in Nepal could destroy thousands of life if the water breaks out of the dam. The same hold true for counter-Indian proposal to build a water-reservoir in upstream Arunachal to augment the lower supply in Brahamaputra. Either of these two is a probably bitter truth - a dam in either place can carry destructive effects downstream should there be an Earthquake. However, how else can we get extra water?

Nakayama noted that since India was not hungry for World Bank loans in 1970s, they actually did not even bother to care about the proposal. In 1950s, the situation was different when India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water treaty. The other notable observation was India basically stuck to the same pattern that it was successful with Pakistan - get total ownership of a few rivers and ask others to interlink (with compensation of cost of canals ) - something that Pakistan did after the Indus Water treaty. But, it is clear to me that Indian policymakers lacked 'out-of-the-box' thinking and were more committed to stick to their position and never thought in terms of development of the whole region.

What would have possibly happened if Nepal was made a party to Ganges agreement? Indian policymakers could have thought from both political and technical point of view. They viewed it as an agreement where Nepal would come to the driver's seat having the storage capacity. Also, they might think that it would be difficult to tackle both the countries instead of one at a time. The other point could be serious. A possible earthquake in Nepal would devastate high populated Indian areas including Uttar Pradesh. Well, that's always a possibility with a water reservoir and we already have a lot of them all though out the country.

Instead of adding extra water to the supply, India and Bangladesh are still vying for water, from Teesta (another Indian river that enters Bangladesh) and the Ganges. It is noted that India gets 39% of water from Teesta and more than 50% of the Ganges. However, the upper-riparian withdrawal is generally restricted to 20-25% in all resolved water disputes till date including Indus water treaty and the Nile river water sharing treaty between Sudan and Egypt.

The paper also noted the unwillingness of lower-riparian states to gain popularity. I was personally very critical of that in case of Bangladesh where political parties do make politics out of this issue but showed little commitment towards solving it. He ended his opinion with a few possible reasons of failure including the mediation of an effective and neutral third party. ICJ interfered in only a single case on record - with Hungary and Slovenia on river Danube. That seems to me the last place for arbitration.

It is said that "better late than never". Even if after 30+ years of bad policies towards Indians and Bangladeshis, some of Indian policymakers get rid of casual attitude towards development - it will be a bonus for the majority of Indians. It should be noted that the extra water could not only solve the dry season water crisis, but also could fix the diminishing ground water levels and the lower growth in agriculture for last couple of decades. In an era when the food prices are doubling every year, it's worth taking a fresh look at the age-old problem. After all, what's wrong if we have a few dams in Nepal?

Access To Credit Should Be Recognised As Human Right

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:46:49 EDT

This post made me think. Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus of microcredit fame has said that access to credit should be recognised as a human right. Now, there are two aspects to this argument

1. That the state has a right or a duty to provide credit to its citizens which is something that I do not agree with. This habit of looking to the Government for everything and handouts is wrong. This is at par with the argument that there is a fundamental human right to employment. No, there is no human right to employment. Nobody owes you anything for employment, that is your own responsibility. That is not to say that people who are clearly unable to work should not be helped (such as physically disabled...) but generally, there is no right to work. Similarly, there is no right to credit or even access to credit. But the flip side is true and more on that at the bottom

2. That credit is the only thing which is stopping people from leading economically productive lives which is again debatable. Just having the credit available does not mean that people will take the credit and suddenly become entrepreneurs. That is not necessary, to be economically active, you can rely on somebody else having credit, or loaning out credit or relying on your own energy and being self sufficient.

But overall, it does make sense not because of the call for the right but because what I know that poor people are poor because of governments and not despite them. Governments actively connive in removing access to credit to their citizens. That is actually true. Let us look at the ways it is done. First by giving subsidies and deficit financing, they soak up funds in the market which can be given as credit to needy people.

Second by having inefficient means (such as corruption, bureaucracy, etc. ) even well meaning ways of passing on credit are bad (such as rural work schemes or forcing state owned banks to make loans cheaply such as in Iran). Third is by not having good land and other asset registries (like patent systems) or good land based infrastructure (such as rural markets, good deep secondary patent and land markets, good legal systems where land and asset rights can be protected, exchange and markets where these can be traded..... (see for example, work done by Hernando de Soto)

But, food for thought indeed! Giving people credit is a laudable aim and Governments can do worse than do that. Specially for countries like Iran, Bangladesh and India, the dead hand of the state has to be removed or at least made efficient in asset discovery and credit generation.

But then, remember that you CAN go too far. For example, see this. Well, you have a very simple way of getting credit, just send a text message and in 15 minutes, about $500 will land in your account. And when credit is that easy, it creates problems on the other side. I quote, "Swedish authorities, who are so concerned about the out-of-control debt build-up among some young and low-income Swedes that they in January banned interest payments superior to the cost of the initial loan.The main danger of the new lending system is that it gives people "the possibility to get money very, very quickly, which is stimulating impulsive actions without thinking," Also lets not forget the sub prime crisis where funds were lent to people who were clearly unable to repay the loans

So yes, credit should be available but not too easily.

Technorati Tags: India,Iran,Bangladesh,Financial Markets,Financial Products

Using Refugees for Strategic Purposes

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 9 Mar 2008 11:55:00 EDT

I have already written about refugees before but this time I want to look at what do the Bangladeshi, Kashmiri, Tamil, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh Refugees in India, Kosovo Albanian Refugees, Palestinian Refugees in various Arab countries, Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, Hutu refugees in Zaire, Cambodian refugees in Thailand, Cuban refugees in USA and all the other refugees all over the world have in common? Well, they have all been used by “other people” for their own needs and agendas. And these “other people” use these refugees as part of an explicit strategy, not for purely humanitarian objectives. I was quite surprised when I worked through the argument.

Using refugees for strategic purposes seems to have a very long history, especially in the post World War II period. And generally, if managed properly, it works. See the examples which we have? While the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war is considered by many as perhaps the best example of the “Just War” theory, the fact remains that India did use the Bangladeshi refugees as a reason to poke Pakistan in the eye. As a matter of fact, that entire episode of Partition with millions and millions of refugees is still being played out by strategic use of the refugees in Kashmir, Pakistan and India.

The Mohajirs in Pakistan are used as a strategic bloc by their own leaders, as well as so many other political and religious leaders in Pakistan. The ethnically cleansed Kashmiri Pundits are used in the greater strategic Hindutva discourse and are ignored strategically by the Indian government for the overall secular discourse. The Sri Lankan Tamil refugees were used strategically by the Indian central and State governments, as well as political parties to push their varied agendas just like the Singhalese and Sri Lankan Muslim refugees were themselves used by Singhalese politicians to push for a nationalist objective.

Pakistan, USA and Saudi Arabia used the Afghan refugees to push for their various nationalistic, ideological, autocratic and religious strategic objectives. It is quite well known how the refugees were armed and pushed into Afghanistan to fight against the Communist Godless Russians. So Pakistan wanted to do it to get its strategic depth and play to USA; and USA wanted to contain USSR, while Saudi Arabia didn’t want the godless communists anywhere near them. Thailand used the Cambodian refugees as a buffer to the poxy gits in Cambodia, while the Hutu refugees (who were in turn responsible for the Tutsi genocide) were armed by Zairian President Mobutu Sese Seko to fight an insurgency in Eastern Zaire! And all these cases generally worked for the strategy.

The entire Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo mess was and is heaving with refugees. The refugees have been pulled and pushed from and to all sides, and have been used disgracefully and hypocritically by almost all parties starting from the head honcho himself, Slobodan Milosevic. That was one spectacular example of ethnic cleansing and strategic use of refugees that went bad. The other two most hypocritical uses of refugees are the use of the Cuban refugees and second is the use of the Palestinian refugees. The Cuban refugees have been fleeing the totalitarian and authoritarian communist regime for the past few decades to the USA. And for purely ideological reasons, the USA has been using them to hit back at Fidel Castro and his regime.

Not that it worked. Fidel is fine and has retired with his Havana cigars. He is a happy man, and all those American presidents and other grand poo bah’s who used the refugees have also gone. So I am not very sure now about what was the result of using those refugees and sending them to their deaths. Similarly, the Palestinian refugees. I have spoken about them and the actual whine to pain ratio is perhaps the highest with them compared to all refugees. But that is not the point. The point is that almost every other government has used them for their strategic needs. Your own citizens being restive about jobs or cost of bread? Use the refugees as a reason to rattle your sabre's at the Jews / Israel? Do not give them citizenship, treat them as bargaining counters, keep them in camps, use their people as propaganda, use their situation in the United Nations, etc. etc. And it is just not the government, but also the common people ranging from Journalist Associations in the UK to the USSR wanting to tweak the noses of the Americans to Saudi Arabian Islamic Charities to Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Economic refugees and migrants also get it in the neck, whether you are talking about the BNP talking about the Asian refugees or the Conservative Party talking about the Eastern European migrants. How about that Raj Thakarey fellow, who was recently fulminating about internal economic migration inside India?, Or the huge debates around the East German migrants into Western Germany and using them for political purposes?

But this essay is more about the political refugees who cross borders. Unfortunately, our international security and political institutions do not have anything functional to fight these nasty hypocritical folks who use the refugees for their own ends. At some point in time, it is but natural that the legal and political framework will extend to cover the use or rather the abuse of these poor displaced refugees. And it is at that time that decisions taken today will come back to haunt them. If you do not believe me, just see Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, who tried to use population transfers as a weapon of war and politics… So whenever you hear anybody fulminating about refugees, do not take them at face value, there is almost always an ulterior motive.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Bird Flu in West Bengal

Ashish — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:31:26 EST

Over the course of the past 2 years, there has been an immense amount of literature and news over the dangers of bird flu, especially the H5N1 variety that is extremely destructive, and has caused human losses elsewhere. There is a lot of worry over the fact that a pandemic has not happened for a long time now, and with the current movement of humans all over the world, any spread of a human version will be a much higher killer than previous pandemics. What can cause such a thing to happen ? Well, the bird flu is mostly restricted to avian creatures, and spreads to humans very rarely. In addition, even if humans are affected due to contact with infected birds, the disease does not jump from person to person. It is feared that if the virus comes into close contact with the human influenza virus, and exchanges genetic material with the virus, it is possible that this may cause the bird flu virus may be capable of becoming capable of getting transferred from humans to other humans. This is one of the most feared scenarios for health care personnel, especially because while humans do not take human flu seriously, the bird flu variety is a much bigger killer.

In such a scenario, it is even more necessary that any case of bird flu may be handled with the utmost seriousness. However, seeing the spread of bird flu in West Bengal makes one believe that the West Bengal government has been in a serious case of dereliction of duty. After all, it has been known for some time that many districts of Bangladesh have been affected by bird flu, and given the close interaction between districts of Bangladesh and West Bengal, there should have been a much better contingency plan. Given the close interaction between man and fowl in many areas of West Bengal, the districts and panchayats should have been sensitized about the seriousness of the issue and about the steps that they should take in this regard.

Instead, the disease was allowed to fester, with initial reports of birds dying being hushed up, culling operations being not adequately backed up by security and authority (even in a case where it seems clear that this is a health emergency), inadequate provision of compensation to people whose birds have been culled (leading them to try and hide their birds), and a general lack of seriousness among the state's politicians and leaders. This was to the extent that the Central health minister criticized the efforts of the state (although she was hushed up later, no doubt with the Big Brother CPM putting pressure on the Congress leadership).

Now the disease has spread to 13 districts, and is on the doorstep of Kolkata, and one wonders whether the inept State Government will be able to do something at all.

Birdflu on Sunday spread to two more districts of West Bengal taking the number of affected districts to 13 out of a total 19 even as the state government said it was fully prepared to face any kind of adversity if any human being is found afflicted by the dreaded disease.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation has formed eight teams to to keep the metropolis insulated from birdflu. The teams were moving in different parts of the city to monitor the situation. The fear that the disease might hit Kolkata has aggravated since the spread to South 24 Parganas, part of which form the city's suburbs.

One can only hope that the Government is serious. It has also been reported that part of the reason that the Government is abstaining from taking the strict (and also seemingly harsh measures) is the fear of offending voters; if such an attitude characterizes the Government response, then god helps up. Instead, panchayats are an ideal medium to spread the message about the harmful affect of the disease, and how cooperation will help all. Couple this with a strong media campaign and adequate compensation, and things would be much better.

Oskar Spate and the Partition of India

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:33:27 EST

I came across this paper and the following discussion on the Partition of India. It is a fascinating paper, written by a famous professional geographer, Oskar Spate. He served on the Punjab Boundary Commission and there are quite a lot of interesting points which I found in his paper. (I learnt quite a lot about how canals, water ways, irrigation works, train lines, etc. form frontiers and how geography drives the country's frontiers!)

1. Khulna: I never knew that there was such a problem with respect to Khulna district. This is where my grandma comes from actually. But very interesting debate and discussion over which bits will go to which Dominion. I always knew that there was a problem and there was big issues on the west of the country, but never knew the challenges to the East. Apparently, the situations were reversed. The Sikhs and Congress wanted the division in the West to be done on the basis of economic, religious places and historical land ownership basis and the Muslims on the basis of population, while it was rather reversed in Bengal. Also, the chicken neck connecting Assam/rest of NE India to India is questionable to Oskar.

2. Gurdaspur: This district seems to be deep in the psyche of Pakistanis. I have to admit I never knew about this problem before. The problem was simple, it was majority Muslim and was still granted to India, the reverse to that of Khulna. To top it all, this was the heartland of the Qadiani's in the town of Qadian in the district of Gurdaspur. The link of this district to the retention of Jammu and Kashmir is also interesting (see the Wikipedia article on Gurdaspur.)

3. Ahmadi/Qaidani's: These chaps seriously wanted to be part of Pakistan and wanted their "hometown" to be part of Pakistan. What I found ironic is that despite their piety and wanting to be part of Pakistan, 60 years on, they are shunned in Pakistan. Reminds me of the stranded Pakistani's or Bihari's.

4. Assam. The problem with Assam's Muslim migrants (although that is debatable if they can be called as migrants inside one country at that time) goes way back, even before Independence). Spate himself mentions this and says, "Most of the migrants were Muslim family squatters, and the value of this potential lebensraum is shown by its inclusion in preliminary Pakistan propaganda"

5. Problems with the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Hindu's were 2.0%, Muslims were 2.8%, rest were aboriginals. So while geographically it was uncontested, politically and religiously, it was quite a difficult issue because I still cannot see any difference between tribals (aboriginal) religion and Hindu religion (if there is any such thing!).

Technorati Tags: Pakistan,India,Bangladesh,History,Religion

The Forgotten Bangladeshi Genocide

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:34:22 EST

I am always curious about one historical anomaly. Why is the Bangladeshi Genocide never considered in the same light as that of Rwanda, Darfur, Southern Sudan, Congo, Cambodia or other genocides? Why does it not even get a fraction of the attention paid to the Palestinian Question, the Kosovo Question, the Lebanese Question or a host of other minority based problems? I can only point to four reasons why this never hit the headlines. First is that the genocide was carried out by an American Ally. Second, the country never was part of the American Interest. Third, it was carried out by Muslims on other fellow Muslims. Fourth, both Bangladesh and Pakistan did not really show much interest in pushing for this to be resolved. Between these four issues, nobody cared or even still cares about the Bangladeshi genocide.

I am biased and I have to admit that right off the bat. I am a Hindu, and my roots are from Bangladesh (my father was a refugee from erstwhile East Pakistan many moons ago). So while Hindus were targeted solely for being Hindus, Muslims were targeted for being intellectuals or just wanting their rights, so I am connected to Bangladesh by virtue of language, cuisine, family, history, culture, geography, religion and a whole lot more. I know fully well that Hindus have been significantly and seriously ethnically cleansed from Bangladesh (and from Pakistan and from Kashmir) but they do not matter in the greater scheme of things of the international and the national grand Poo-Bahs. Nobody cares much for them. One of my childhood memories is about the 1971 Bangladeshi refugees fighting over left over food thrown into garbage bins but let us not go there for now. So this is a topic which is dear to my heart and I might be a bit more emotional than normal and I really don’t want to do an Alex Haley here.

Having said that, the history of the 1971 war and genocide is pretty well known and I do not want to reiterate it here. I quote from the report by the International Commission of Jurists here: “a campaign of genocide involved. . . the indiscriminate killing of civilians, including women and children and the poorest and weakest members of the community; the attempt to exterminate or drive out of the country a large part of the Hindu population; the arrest, torture and killing of Awami League activists and students, professionals, business men and other potential leaders among the Bengalis; the raping of women; the destruction of villages and towns.”

According to an excellent and thought provoking recent paper by Donald Beacher ('The politics of genocide scholarship : the case of Bangladesh', Patterns of Prejudice, 2007, 41:5, 467 – 492)many scholars bluntly even denied that any genocide took place. He says that compared to the Cambodian Genocide where a similar number of people were killed, "no ideological or partisan faction in the United States has stood to gain much from the study of the Bangladesh genocide." Think about it, Pakistan, that rogue country responsible for this genocide is an ally of USA!

It is still ruled by the same Pakistani Army, which is very much supporting the so-called “War on Terror”. Pakistan is still the primary base of most of the terrorists, they were either trained, educated, born in or have links to Pakistan. This “land of the pure” (an ironical name for Pakistan) was responsible. It has lost effective control over large swathes over its public and real life space to the fundamentalists. It has carried out massacres (some say it's also genocide, but that’s a bit debatable) in Baluchistan and Karachi. And this is a USA ally! So why on earth would American politicians, media or academics be interested in investigating it any further (specially compared to the Cambodian Genocide)?

Mind you, it seems like most of those guilty are easily travelling in and out of USA, their children are living in USA and some have even settled in the USA. A few of the guilty have been punished, but nowhere close to the number that should be! The presence of the ICC, Nuremberg tribunals, Rwanda Tribunals, the various tribunals in 'The Hague' is basically a slap on the face on all Bangladeshis. So what’s the big deal about Bangladesh? It does not have oil or gas, it is next to a nice polite big democratic state, it is full of very poor people and as an aside just produces lots of cheap clothing. So there is no American interest what-so-ever in Bangladesh, which basically tells one that the American interest is highly selective. What do you call somebody who says: "do as I tell you and not as I do? " Or what is a person called who says one thing and does another? Or what about somebody who is extremely moralistic say about prostitution, but turns around and is caught kerb crawling?

Remember this was Muslims killing other fellow Muslim brothers. Take the matter of this little Bangladeshi Genocide. Do you hear anything from the OIC? Or the Arab League? Which OIC country has raised this in the UN General Assembly or in the UN Human Rights Council? If it has been raised or sponsored by one of these members, then well, I am quite surprised and I would most certainly apologise, but I couldn’t find any such instance. Egypt can do chemical warfare on Yemen and not a peep is heard. (See here for another example) Iran and Iraq can kill millions of each others people and innocent whistles while fingers are pointed to USA. Iran kills literally millions in the Islamic revolution and it’s an internal matter. Sudan kills hundreds of thousands of Muslims and it is a Zionist plot. Indonesia kills thousands of its own citizens and it is wondered about of it actually happened? Syria tops thirty thousand of its own citizens and hey, they deserved it, they were bad boys. Egypt ran concentration camps for the Muslim Brothers and other opposition members and they are actually holiday camps. Al Qaeda and Iraqis kill thousands of their own people and it is not really that important and anyway is the fault of the west. If somebody else had done so, then the sky would have fallen down (just compare the resolutions in the OIC for Kashmir, Palestine, Thailand, Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia, Albania etc. and the above).

Bangladesh is not interested as the Army and a very large proportion of Bangladeshi society have bought into the argument that the liberation of Bangladesh was wrong, it was all a Hindu Bania plot, it was all the fault of the secular Awami League, the west was involved as it’s a war against Islam, we were not religious enough, let bygones be bygones, and it was a mistake which will be rectified eventually. Not only that, quite a lot of the political, social and defence folks are elbow deep in blood, and what remains is generally corrupt left, right and centre. There is a small, brave and vocal minority which is trying to keep the flame and the memory alive, but they are vanishingly small. They are pushing for the current military caretaker government to punish some of the really visible culprits, but I am afraid I am a bit too cynical. Mind you, the first amendment to the 1973 Constitution in Article 47 provides the Government with unlimited powers to prosecute the war criminals. The fact that nobody has used it leads me to the cynicism. Still, best of luck to them!!

Pakistan, on the other hand, has a very tiny constituency for punishing the guilty. Remember it was a civil war but in a separate geography - far away. So it wasn’t a South Africa or even a Spanish type of situation. The schism runs deep, the Army is not particularly from outer space or another world or even another country. The Army is Pakistan and Pakistan is its Army. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis participated in the genocide. The rot spread deep. If you had gone after the culprits, the heart of the country would have been held up to trial and it would have imploded. Even now it would implode, but then the propensity of Pakistanis to be kicked around by their Army is legendary - the army steals from them, murders them, rules over them, tells them that they are useless and incapable of ruling themselves and so on and so forth. So to actually expect any form of Pakistani agency or group to push for punishment is frankly laughable. So just join the majority and close your eyes and hope it did not really occur.

Remember, when you treat your own people so cheaply, others will also treat YOU equally cheaply and you dare not say anything when you are silent in the face of your own genocide. For all those big fat mustachioed blokes who are busy blowing hard about it being a Hindu, Zionist, Western, Crusader, Buddhist, or what have you plot against Islam, remember what you did to your own people. I was thinking about a good quote to end this but then thought, the situation is like the wolf in the cry wolf fable crying wolf when it is wolfed down by a tiger. How many will listen to that wolf and come to its rescue?

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Technorati Tags: Pakistan,Bangladesh,India,Muslims,Islam,Hinduism,Genocide,USA

Taslima Nasreen: Where Does She Go From Here?

GV Krishnan — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:37:45 EST

Where does she go from here? I refer not merely to her ‘homeless’ status, but also her literary works in progress, if any. I am not familiar with her writings; Taslima Nasreen is less widely read than written about, not always for the right reason. Leading a life, unsettled and under constant threat of violence takes courage. But can Taslima, or anyone else in her nomadic situation get any writing done at all?

I wonder if she ever regrets having written something, so long back, that was to pose a life-long challenge to her life; to brand her infidel and be banished from Bangladesh. Not that an apology would now alter her life. I am all for freedom of expression. But those who assert their right to write their personal truth on socially sensitive issues ought to realize that such freedom comes with social constraints, and consequences.

Arguably, the city she came to adopt as ‘home’, and the local authorities there have an obligation to protect Taslima. This hasn’t happened, which is why she is ‘on the run’, for her safety, from her beloved Kolkata. Her current situation is fluid, and sticky. And Taslima hasn’t helped matters by talking to the media from her ‘undisclosed location’.

She told The Hindu that the external affairs ministry has conveyed that she wouldn’t be able to return to Kolkata anytime soon; and wherever else she chose to stay in India, she would have to lead a life in captivity.

‘Captivity’ isn’t quite the word I would use to describe ‘security cover’ extended to the high profile writer. “Why do I have to lead a life in captivity?”, Taslima is quoted in her telephonic interview with The Hindu’s Marcus Dam, “all I’m asking for is to be able to lead a normal life”.

Isn’t she asking for a bit too much? Celebrities don’t have the luxury of ‘normal life’, as you and I understand it. Snag is Kolkata isn't the only city that isn’t happy to welcome her back. Authorities in Hyderabad and Jaipur have demonstrated their disinclination. However, Mr Narendra Modi of Gujarat, during his poll campaign, is reported to have invited her to his state. I don’t know if Taslima reacted to Mr Modi’s offer, which could well be public posturing.

Meanwhile, our media tracks Taslima wherever she goes, even in an ‘undisclosed location’. What’s more, she appears more than willing to oblige them, with quotable story. This, at a time when those concerned with her security would want to keep her location a secret. Wouldn’t it help if Taslima were to maintain a low profile, by staying off headlines, till such time the authorities finalize arrangements to settle her somewhere safe and secure?

The Bangladesh writer has, on more then one occasion, expressed her gratitude to the media. Their presence have been a life-saver, at times, for her, when Taslima came under attack from a bunch of intruders at the Hyderabad Press Club not long ago. But media exposure could also work against her; and it doesn’t always win her public sympathy. As she herself put it, “I have become, it appears, an embarrassment to all…”. And media interviews at this time don’t help matters, do they.

Islamic Lynch Mob Hounds Taslima Nasrin: In the Footsteps of the Prophet

Alamgir Hussain — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:36:35 EST

Last week, Muslim mobs in India, seeking Taslima Nasrin’s blood for her writings critical of Islam, hounded her out of Calcutta. With assistance from the police, she escaped from Bengal and is now hiding somewhere in the Indian capital. She had to flee her home country Bangladesh when militant Islamic mobs pursued her in 1994 in similar fashion on the same charges. She found a home of some sort in West Bengal, where people speak the same language she speaks and writes in. But now, Taslima has nowhere to go. She may well forget about her writing career altogether.

The mission of Muslims in life is to emulate Prophet Muhammad’s life in meticulous detail to gain access to Paradise. The slightest deviation from it will land Muslims in hell for some time to be roasted there in the terrible fire, before getting access to Paradise. Bravo Muslims of India, you are trying to emulate the Prophet. Let us go back 14 centuries to the time of Prophet Muhammad.

Prophet Muhammad’s 13 years of preaching Islam in Mecca yielded only about 150 converts in all. By 620, his mission in Mecca had come to a standstill. Open preaching among Mecca citizens had been banned. In 620, he secretly started preaching to pilgrims from Medina during the Hajj pilgrimage at the idol-temple of Ka’ba. Six Medina pilgrims converted to Muhammad’s faith. Next year during Hajj, another six joined to give allegiance to Muhammad’s creed. The pilgrims returned with a disciple of Muhammad named Musab to instruct the converts of Medina in Islamic creed.

Musab turned to be an able preacher; and came back with 75 converts during the following Hajj season in March 622 to meet Muhammad at a secret meeting at Akaba near Mecca. Obviously seeing the great success of his creed in Medina even in his absence, the Prophet sought to move there with them. In urging their support for his protection if move there, Muhammad said: "I invite your allegiance on the basis that you protect me as you would your [own] women and children." The Medina converts replied: "By Him [Allah] Who sent you with the truth we will protect you as we protect our women. We give our allegiance and we are men of war possessing arms which have been passed on from father to son” [Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p204].

Muhammad was all set to move to Medina. He ordered his disciples in April to relocate there. Over the next two months, all Muslim converts left for Medina in small batches except Muhammad and Abu Bakr and their families plus Ali still left behind. It was time for Muhammad to leave; and in the company of Abu Bakr, Muhammad set off for Medina. Ali and females of Abu Bakr’s and Muhammad’s families, including Prophet’s child-wife Aisha, were still left behind. They set off for Medina after a few more days like nothing had happened [Ibn Ishaq, p219-221].

The departure of the Muslim community from Mecca was completed. Muhammad arrived in Medina on 21 June 622 CE to a hero’s welcome from his eagerly awaiting disciples, from Mecca and Medina combined.

Muhammad took about six months to build a communal abode for his community. Once his community was comfortably settled, there came time for revenge against the Quraysh for rejecting his faith. Quraysh’s rejection of Muhammad’s creed, as described in the Quran―“to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members"―became tantamount to “Tumult and oppression,” which in turn was “worse than slaughter” [Quran 2:217].

Thereupon, Allah sanctioned Jihad or Holy war upon the Muslims to “fight them [Quraysh] on until there is no more Tumult or oppression [ie, rejection of Islam & practice of idolatry], and there prevail justice and faith in Allah” [Quran 2:193]. Muslims must “slay them [Quraysh idolaters] wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out” [Quran 2:191]. In other words, Muslims must take upon a mission to exterminate the idolatrous Quraysh from Mecca once and for all.

For those Muslims, who did not like fighting as it involved violence and even bloodbath―they still had to fight, because: “Fighting [Jihad] is prescribed for you [by Allah], and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not” [Quran 2:216].

Having made Jihad an obligatory duty on all Muslims, Prophet Muhammad started sending his armed comrades in search of trade-caravans from Mecca to plunder them. The Prophet himself pursued a few caravans; but they escaped before the messenger of Allah could reach there on time. The first success came in January 624 at Nakhla, 9 days away from Medina and only 2 days’ from Mecca. In the attack, one of the Quraysh attending the caravan was killed, two taken captive and another managed to flee. The raiders returned to Medina with the rich booty and two prisoners. The latter were ransomed bringing more revenue for the Prophet.

But, it was the sacred month of Rajab in which fighting was prohibited in Arabian tradition. This bloodbath, therefore, created unhappiness among the people of Medina and the region, including among the Prophet’s disciples. Allah justified this illegal holy-month attack and bloodbath, claiming that the ‘Tumult and Oppression’ [ie, the rejection of Allah’s religion] committed by the Quraysh was “worse than [the] slaughter,” which his henchmen committed at Nakhla:
“They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” [Quran 2:217].

In a couple of months, the Prophet pursued another huge caravan returning from Syria under the care of Quraysh leader Abu Sufyan. This led to the bloody battle of Badr, in which the Quraysh got defeated. Some 50 Quraysh were slain and similar number captured, while Muhammad’s side lost only 15 Jihadists.

Muhammad’s violent plundering raids one after another and such bloodbaths, rather uncommon in Arabia, enraged some conscientious intellectuals of Medina. There was among them the first Taslima, named Asma bte Marwan ― a poetess. She composed poetic verses disparaging Muhammad’s heinous acts and railed the men of Medina for allowing such as a bloodthirsty person settle in their community, who had no regard for life whatsoever even of his own kinfolk of Mecca.

As her verses spread quickly, an exasperated Muhammad said: “Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?” Umayr, a disciple of Muhammad, took up the job of finishing Asma off. On one night, Umayr stealthily entered Asma’s apartment, when she was deep asleep with her suckling baby on her bosom. Umayr removed the child quietly and plunged his sword into her breast with such force that it got stuck onto the couch. The next day at the mosque prayer, the Prophet thanked Umayr: 'You have helped God and His apostle, O 'Umayr” [Ibn Ishaq, p675-6].

Umayr belonged to Asma’s clan and when he was returning from upper Medina and passed by Asma’s sons burying their mother―they accused him of killing her, to which he responded that “if they dared to repeat things such as she had uttered, he would slay the whole clan of them” [William Muir, The Life of Mahomet, London, p240].

The next intellectual to be in line to embrace the same fate was another poet, 120-year old Abu Afak. Horrified by the bloodthirsty zeal of Muhammad’s followers in the name of their God and religion―he wrote verses condemning his actions. He even wrote a poem to incite the Quraysh to take revenge against Muhammad’s Badr massacre without regard for kinship whatsoever. The prophet sent another disciple, named Salim, to finish him off [Ibn Ishaq, p675].

There started Islam’s journey of Holy terror or Jihad against the intellectuals, critical of Islam. Six years later when Muhammad conquered Mecca in 630 CE, he ordered the death penalty on 10-12 people, who had criticized, strongly opposed, or, apostatized from, his creed. Those belonging to influential families were spared upon reconciliation achieved by lobbying from their families. Finally, four persons were executed, among whom were two singing-girls, who had composed songs ridiculing Muhammad [Muir, p392-3].

Four centuries later, we meet the great blasphemous thinker Ibn Sina, who considered that Greek Philosophy was revealed truth, not the Quran; and that Aristotle and Plato were greater than Muhammad. Enraged by this, the jealous Sunni and barbaric invader of India, Sultan Mahmud ordered hunting Ibn Sina down. To save his life, Ibn Sina fled to Egypt to take refuge under the deviant (Ismaili) Fatimid rulers. Some two centuries later in 1190s, the great thinker Ibn Rushd, a commentator on Aristotelian philosophy, got banished from Spain for his heretical views. French author, Renan writes, “Not a Musalman philosopher and scholar escaped persecution… who passed half their life in prison, in forced hiding…” [Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not a Muslim, p274].

Continuing in the Prophet’s footsteps, we witness his steadfast followers putting his writ into action in India. The Prophet must be delighted sitting among at least 72 celestial virgins in Paradise.

However, the Muslims in India deviated a little from the Prophet’s protocols by alerting Taslima beforehand, saving her from embracing the fate of Asma. Muhammad sent his assassins to Asma and Abu Afak quietly without altering them. Muslims in India have failed to emulate Prophet’s example in meticulous detail. Infidel observers may see this as a sign of their progress towards civility, but Allah and His Prophet may not be all too happy by this lapse of theirs.

The Non-BJP politicians and Taslima Nasreen

Ashish — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:37:26 EST

It is quite clear that Taslima Nasreen is a person from whom most politicians want to stay away from. So, while the Prime Minister feels for a terrorist's family suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack in Britain, he is absolutely quiet about the hounding of a writer all over India. This whole attitude is what leads to hardening of majority opinion against the kind of secularism practised in India.

I consider myself a moderate Hindu, not very religious, but aware to a large extent about what happens all around. And one keeps on watching what the Government does when faced with a ticklish issue, and invariably the Government keeps on failing to remain even-handed when dealing with the same issues but across different scenarios.

Do people remember the case of M F Hussain? He is the most famous painter from India, but he has been massively criticized by many for the paintings he has done of Hindu goddesses in the nude. He was threatened by right-wing Hindu organizations, and there was an instant uproar at the threats, with the Government and many sections of civil society reacting sharply at such threats (my opinion of MF Hussain however changed when he withdrew his movie, Meenaxi - A Tale of 3 cities after there were some protests by fundamentalist Muslim organizations. This sudden capitulation to fundamentalism was not protested or criticized).

Back to l'affaire Taslima Nasreen. Her works are controversial, and she is essentially a refugee from Bangladesh (there is a strong chance that she will be killed if she goes back to Bangladesh). The Indian Government has never claimed that she will not be allowed into India, and has issued her a visa regularly. If she is a person under threat by fundamentalists, then she deserves to be protected.

What does the Government do ? First, the Left Front essentially pushes her out of Kolkata under the pressure of religious Fundamentalists, then ties itself in knots when questioned about this action. And of course, the usual clutch of critics do not say much when it comes to either the Left or such actions. And now that the author has herself admitted that the Left pushed her out, it is a black mark on the Left and CPM:

Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen on Monday said that she had not decided on her own to leave Kolkata but chose to remain silent about her controversial departure. "Why should I take a decision on my own? It did come to my mind that someone would come and kill me. Many like my writings, many others don't," she told a Bengali TV news channel.

"I want to return to Kolkata. I have not received any green signal as yet. I wonder from where the green signal will come", she told the channel in a telephonic interview from Delhi.

Given how the CPM is unlikely to now do anything to imperil its Muslim support, it is unlikely that she will get a call from anybody in the CPM Government that she can come back. As it is, the Congress Government in the center is unable to decide what to do. Ideally, they would like her to go back to Europe, but that does not seem likely. Pushing her out of the country would make the Congress come under too much fire.

One wonders about the impact this has on the majority community. Given the highly politicized society that we have now, if there is a perception that the Government (essentially, everybody else except for the BJP) is pandering to minority fundamentalists, then there is an equal reaction against such thoughts. Almost all the media coverage that I have read till now in mainstream magazines and newspapers also points out this contradiction on the part of the Congress, Left, left-leaning intellectuals, and the like.

Such an attitude only reinforces the feeling that the Government will cave in whenever it is pushed by the thought of losing minority vote; at the same time, there is absolutely nothing in this position that can provide some support to moderate opinion (moderate opinion in turn gets marginalized). It's a never ending spiral, and one can be quite sure that in the next campaign, there will be more political push about the Congress pandering to minority fundamentalism and atleast a section of people will be convinced. The BJP of course is trying to make maximum advantage of the discomfort that all these parties are facing

Freedom, Taslima Nasreen, and the Ordinary Bangladeshi

Deepti Lamba — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:11:35 EST

Taslima Nasreen has been moved to an undisclosed location in India, reportedly New Delhi. In the land of supposed freedom, she has gone into hiding. Her fight is not colored by her gender but by her audacity to go against a culture she was born in. Her writing is at best mediocre but her spirit is that of a warrior. She stands resolute in her fight for freedom of speech, her right to demand changes in a culture that is decaying. Instead of being introspective, the leaders of the community want her removed from the country.

Some call her an attention-whore for writing controversial books to get easy attention and others consider her to be a low life who went against her faith. The truth is that it takes guts to write something so controversial that would get one branded as a traitor and beg for asylum in other countries. Her only crime was to bring to world attention the suffering of the Bangladeshi women under the Islamic fold and for that the author continues to live a disrupted life.

Today the cyclone-hit Bangladesh again draws world attention. Women and children in the worst hit areas find themselves in dire straits:

Approximately half of the homes were destroyed by the cyclone.
Thanks to the radio, women here knew maybe a day or so before about the cyclone. When the early warning reached them, they headed towards safer towns for refuge.

But many people refused to help them or provide a safe haven for the women, because of the stigma attached to sex work.

Many were forced to set up temporary homes on the bridges or roads on the outskirts of towns, while others returned to their homes to fight the cyclone there.

The women told me how it was extremely tough for them, having been shunned by the community, but their main concern was what would happen to their children.

This is how the most vulnerable are being treated in Bangladesh. Isn't this the time when apart from fighting for their rights in Nandigram, the Kolkata Communists/Muslims should be turning their attention to the plight of their brethren across the borders? Instead we find them raising a hue and cry over a woman who feels the most for her country.

Related Articles:
Taslima Nasreen Leaves Kolkata: A Giant Defeat for Secularism By Dweep Chanana

Violence In Kolkata- The Battle For Bengal By Sandeep