“Gandhi and Ambedkar were both liberation theologists” : Anand Patwardhan

For over 40 years Anand Patwardhan’s documentary films have stood for freedom of expression. He faced censorship on numerous occasions, took the government to court, and won each time. Anand is not just a filmmaker but an activist in the cause of Indian democracy, clearly under threat today. In this candid conversation with Vidya Bhushan Rawat, Anand discusses his views on the challenges before us, and most importantly, how he perceives both Gandhi and Ambedkar as liberation theologists whose ideas are in danger of being revised by their enemies.

VB: As a freedom lover secularist what is the difference between today’s media and that which existed during the official Emergency in 1975.

AP: The Emergency of 1975 was visible to all. The world condemned it and in India some brave newspapers like the Indian Express protested with blank editorials. Within a fairly short time a strong resistance movement grew. Today’s Emergency is largely invisible to the masses because Indian media houses have been corporatized and these corporates, both Indian and foreign, are direct beneficiaries of an economic system that has been surreptitiously imposed on the country not just by the present regime but by forces that were already moving in the same direction but at a slower pace. We have sold our sovereignty to USA and the global corporates and people have been told that this is for our own good. The invisible Emergency of today depends on what Chomsky called “manufactured consent”.

VB: Today we face the biggest challenge to Indian democracy since independence when our civil liberties are under the attack, when freedom of expression is under threat and when media is constructing the 'news'. Is 'free media' now the biggest threat to democracy?

AP: The media is free in the sense that it now has the freedom to tell lies about both, the domestic economy and about national security - lies that parrot an American-Israeli-Saudi axis which created, nurtured and unleashed Al Qaeda and ISIS on the one hand and pretended to “fight terror” on the other.

VB: You have documented major events not only of communal violence but also of violence against Dalits in Maharashtra. After the death of Rohit Vemula, in HCU, JNU and other campuses, students of all ideological frames – from the Left, to Ambedkarites and other Bahujan groups, joined in a common struggle against the ABVP and its attempt to vitiate the climate in the universities. Today that unity appears to be crumbling and we are again at the cross roads. Why ?

AP: The fault lies as much with the Left (of all shades) which is still unclear about how to destroy the caste system within, as with Dalit groups that fall prey to red-baiting and exclusivist identity politics. On one side are traditional Marxists who were brought up to think that caste is part of a superstructure that will automatically wither away when the economic base becomes socialist. On the other side are those who think that the caste of your birth alone forever determines how you think and how you act. Not only is such thinking contrary to the teachings of Dr. Ambedkar, it mirrors the mindset of the worst Manuvadis who believe that caste determines everything.

Luckily reality is proving both positions wrong. I believe that the Left and Dalits are natural allies so it is a matter of time before a genuine, long-lasting unity is forged. People like Comrade Govind Pansare, Kanhaiya Kumar and Jignesh Mevani have shown us that this unity is possible. At HCU and JNU and across Indian campuses we saw the amazing potential of unity.  Into this mix I would add progressive Gandhians - people like Narendra Dabholkar and Medha Patkar. Together these forces represent the politics of Reason that this country so desperately needs.

VB: Your film Jai Bhim Comrade was an extraordinary work which brought us back the memories of the struggle for justice of the people of Ramabai Nagar in Mumbai. You screened the film in various places. What were the reactions?

AP: The film as you know took 14 years to make. In the winter of 2011 we screened it in the open air in Dalit bastis across urban Maharashtra. We bought a powerful video projector, made a huge foldable cloth screen, and in each basti erected bamboo scaffolding to mount it on. As the screen was being erected, we played progressive film songs and Dalit movement songs to alert and attract the audience. Often the crowd would swell to well over a 1000 people. As we could not afford so many chairs, people sat on the ground or stood at the back and on the sides for the three hour duration of the film. At the end of the screening we tried to organize a discussion but often instead of a back and forth question and answer session, people just grabbed the mike and poured their hearts out about what the film had meant to them. It was an overwhelming experience for me. Later I began to understand the reasons for this amazing response. Although in the bastis, little of the hardship shown in the film was unknown to people, the fact that the film presented its protagonists not as victims but as resisters, was a morale booster. The genre of music heard in the film was in danger of either dying out or getting commercialized, so the film, so full of these songs captured over decades, served as a valuable archive. Lastly the politics of the film was appreciated, as it did not pull punches. It called to task not only sections of the Left for not recognizing the primacy of caste, but also Dalit leaders who were being lured by Manuvadi Hindutva to betray the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar.

Much later I began to show the film in colleges and schools and other middle class and elite circles. Here the response was enthusiastic but very different from that in the bastis. Even though people generally appreciated the film, almost invariably someone would ask about the evils of “reservations”. It was as if the audience had been blind and deaf to what they had just seen. After 3000 years where manual scavenging has been reserved for one caste alone and education has been forbidden, was it not time to reserve education seats for the dispossessed? In the end after long discussions, we agreed that reservations could be done away with only when the children of the rich and the children of the poor start going to the same schools - from the primary to the college level. Such prolonged inter-caste, inter-class contact could also open the door for inter-caste marriages. Many generations of such mixed marriages could finally end the caste system. This sounds idealistic but in my view this is the only way to finally end caste - when bloodlines become so mixed that no one can clearly say what caste they come from.

VB: Do you think that as secular activists we have not been able to communicate to common people in the language they understand or have failed to use the great secular legacy of India which was radical and rational as well?

AP: In general this is true but in particular some people are genuinely trying to address this. Of course the task is huge and we are up against a fascist force in the Brahminist RSS that has created a hydra-headed, cadre based organization that indoctrinates people in the name of cultural and religious pride, as well as today, of fake nationalism. In the early days they attracted mainly Brahmins. Today they are drawing in all castes and tribes that can be mobilized against their stated three enemies - Muslims, Christians and Communists. Religious culture and right wing politics is a potent combination and we rationalists have so far failed to match the organizational genius that runs this fascist machine.

VB: This government has been in hyper-active mode to keep people busy but if we analyse their actions we find clear attempts to divide people and polarize the debate. It started with their favorite topics like 'Gaay', Ganga, Rastrawaad, beef, Jana Gana Mana and then to Kashmir. Things went horribly wrong in Kashmir and the last part was a surgical strike but that too was questioned. Then came demonetization which hurt the poorest of the poor but was dressed up to look like an attack on “black money” and the rich. Each act is commonly linked, in my opinion, to privatizing our national resources and creating business for crony capital.

AP: Yes there is a clear strategy. Nothing in the Hindutva Parivar happens ad hoc or without central planning. At the same time perhaps Modi and Amit Shah have surprised even their own cadre by their willingness to be brutal and dishonest. Demonetization is an example. Even the direct beneficiaries, like the crony capitalists who emptied the banks and refused to pay back their loans must have been surprised at how the poor were squeezed to fill the bank coffers up again and then sold the idea that this was a strike on the unscrupulous rich. Even when all the “black money” came back into the banks and became white money, no question was raised while thousands of jobs were lost across the nation. It may be the undoing of Modi in the long run but in the short term he is still fooling most of the people most of the time.

VB: Communalism or I would call it Brahminism has joined hands with capitalism here but the resistance too is stronger. Unfortunately, political parties are unable to join hands with their egos and brinkmanship for votes. Will people's pressure bring them together?

AP: At the moment there is no visible peoples’ pressure. There is visible suffering but the anger is not yet visible. Let us see if it manifests later.

VB: Do you feel that the Indian way of secularism i.e. equal respect to all religions, or what we call Sarva Dharma Samabhava is damaging the cause of social change as it allows religious dogmatics to hijack the leadership of different communities? There is a virtual competition between the religious right taking place in the polity thereby denying common persons of all communities the means to counter them. How do we respond to it?

AP: All over the world rationalists have found that religion that has existed for centuries is hard to stamp out and some form of co-existence is the norm in most secular countries. After the Soviet Revolution, St. Petersburgh became Leningrad but in 1991 it became St. Petersburgh again.

In India, both Gandhi and Ambedkar recognized that this country was so steeped in the idiom of religion that atheism or pure rationality would not be easily accepted by the masses. I consider Gandhi and Ambedkar, each in their own right, to be liberation theologists. Of course, Gandhi unlike Ambedkar, did not choose his own religion, he inherited it. But to whatever he inherited, he applied post-Enlightenment ethical values that were essentially modern. When he began to do manual scavenging and began to advocate this (even force it) on to his followers, he actually destroyed the very basis of the Pollution/Purity dichotomy that is at the heart of the caste system. Theoretically he for a long time infamously clung to the concept of Varnashram Dharma, but in actual deed he destroyed it the day he took up manual scavenging, a job that had been hitherto reserved for the so-called ‘untouchables’. As time went on Gandhi became ever more radical. He clearly learned from Dr. Ambedkar as well as from his own intuitive understanding of the world he was witnessing. For instance, towards the latter stages of his life, Gandhi refused to attend any marriage that was not an inter-caste marriage. By the end of his life he had fashioned out of his inherited Hinduism, something entirely new. Only the idiom remained, and not the original hierarchical Sanatan dharma. Whether his reluctance to discard the idiom was a practical decision that stemmed from a desire to remain in touch with the vast Indian masses in a language they could easily follow, or from his own inner belief system, is something that can be debated, but is of no great interest to me. What is unmistakable is that Gandhi’s ethical code bears little resemblance to the hierarchical and vengeful structure of traditional Hinduism.

Dr. Ambedkar in some ways was more fortunate than Gandhi in that he clearly saw how oppressive the religion of his birth was, being as he was, a direct victim of it. So he discarded it and searched for the best alternative to it. After examining many religions he finally chose the religion that was closest to Reason. Buddhism is the one world religion that does not posit an external, all-knowing God. However it has a very strong ethical core that Dr. Ambedkar highlighted. At the same time he discarded irrational and unproveable Buddhist tenets like Reincarnation that many traditional Buddhists ardently follow. This is why I see both Ambedkar and Gandhi as liberation theologists. In the same way that Left wing priests like Ernesto Cardenal in Latin America, a minister in Nicaragua’s revolutionary Sandinista government, re-interpreted Jesus Christ as a revolutionary who fought and died for justice to the poor and powerless, Gandhi and Ambedkar gave new ethical meaning to the religions they adopted and adapted.

Make no mistake that I am equating the two. Their differences are obvious. One came from a privileged caste, the other from the most oppressed. One was educated in a limited sense and steeped in traditional religion in his formative years while the other came from a caste denied the right to education and rose to become the best-read and easily the greatest intellectual of modern India.

I am not at all blind to the things about Gandhi that are paradoxical and irrational like his life-long demonization of sexuality.  Gandhi’s insistence on chastity puts him in the same irrational, patriarchal boat as the priests and monks and nuns of many world religions. To examine this aspect in depth would take a whole chapter. And yet this same sex-denying man, by introducing the Charkha as a weapon of non-violent resistance, brought thousands of women into the mainstream of the Indian freedom movement.   

I realize that I have let my stream of consciousness diverge from your original question. To get back to the issue about whether Sarva Dharma Samabhava can take the place of constitutionally guaranteed secular democratic rights, I think it cannot.  We need Dr. Ambedkar’s Constitution much more than we need holy books. And yet as many in our country are still hooked to holy books and unholy pretenders, we need liberation theologists who can help people to culturally discard the worst features of their inherited religious culture and replace these with ethical, just and non-exclusivist interpretations.

Waiting for everyone to become atheist or rationalist may take centuries. Ethics is the answer. Small wonder that Ambedkar and Gandhi, each in their own way, arrived at individual definitions of Ahimsa.

VB: In post-Mandal India communities are seeking their space in the polity. In the earlier phase of secularism the Indian elite always kept the marginalised communities like Dalits, OBCs, Muslims outside the gates of their decision making bodies and public platforms but things are changing now. Very unfortunately more than the seculars it is the communalists who are jumping into identity politics and social engineering. Meanwhile communist parties still retain their upper caste leadership. Will we be able to face the challenge in such a way?

AP: Actually identity politics is a double-edged weapon. As long as oppression of identifiable groups exists, it is perfectly legitimate for oppressed groups to unite according to their identity. “Black is beautiful’ was a necessary movement for Afro-Americans in the USA, just as pride in Dalit or Buddhist identity is necessary in India. The trouble begins when this turns into an exclusivist or separatist movement. Malcolm X went through a Black Muslim phase when he described all white people as “devils”. But in the latter stages of his life he completely rejected this theory for a much more inclusive critique of injustice and inequality. That is when the American deep State killed him. Similarly while a broad section of Dalits are inclusive and fully understand the distinction Dr. Ambedkar made between the ideology of Brahminism and individuals who happen to be born into one or the other “upper” castes, there is a tiny section of separatist Dalits today who see birth as the sole determining factor. The fact that Western post-modern academia encourages such identity politics in preference to class analysis has given this form of separatist politics international acceptance. Meanwhile in India Manuvadi forces feel obvious glee when Dalits attack the Left or Gandhi, as both have long been the enemies of Hindutva.

VB: Hindutva people are expert in appropriating icons who are secular. They used Ambedkar, Bhagat Singh, Vivekananda, Subhash Chandra Bose, Sri Narayan Guru etc for their purposes. Is this because an overdose of Gandhi and Nehru's role in our freedom struggle minimized all other icons that a kind of resentment began against Nehru and Gandhi?

AP: Frankly I am not a fan of Subhash Chandra Bose. I cannot swallow his alliance with Hitler and Hirohito. Freedom could not be wrested at such a cost. Vivekanand is also very troubling because he advocated a kind of machismo that I think is deeply problematic. Also what is little known about him is that he was deeply casteist. In fact he seems perfectly suited as a BJP icon. The resentment against Gandhi lies at the heart of the project of Hindutva which is why they killed him first and then attempted to appropriate his glasses and broomstick later. Nehru is hated because his development paradigm goes against the grain of privatization. Ambedkar they do not dare criticize openly these days so the only option is to use his image, minus any content.

VB: Your uncle Achyut Patwardhan was an icon of the socialist movement in India. We heard a lot about his relationship with Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar. Was there any influence of him on your socio-political thoughts?

AP: Achyutkaka and Aruna Asaf Ali, according to British records, were amongst the most wanted underground leaders of 1942. He ran the underground radio and was a master of disguise amongst other things but in later years he ensured that history erased him. You hardly hear or read about him anywhere because soon after Independence he became disillusioned with mainstream politics. He did educational and social work but he would never discuss the past, even with me. He felt it had all been mostly an illusion. His elder brother, Purshottam (Raokaka to me) was also a freedom fighter and spent over 10 years in British jails. In the 1930’s while he was making an anti-communal speech, Madanlal Pahwa tried to assassinate him but was caught. Raokaka who was a Gandhian socialist, refused to file charges and Pahwa was let off. Later this same Pahwa threw a bomb at Gandhi and was part of the conspiracy that finally killed him.

To answer your next question, it is true that in the decade of the 1930’s Dr. Ambedkar spent several months living, writing and studying at our family farm home in Ahmednagar, but this again is a chapter of history that has been irretrievably lost. Raokaka like Achyut left active politics after Independence and both, by their own choice, were written out of history. I have heard that Dr. Ambedkar and Achyutkaka were friends and met when Achyutkaka was underground, but I have no documents about this. What I do know is that my family opposed the caste system and many married outside their own caste, including my parents.

VB: You have always tried to bring together not only left and Ambedkarites but also what you call 'Progressive Gandhians'. Why are you using this term ? You have been critical of people who as you say 'blow out of proportion' the differences between Gandhi and Ambedkar. Many of the Ambedkarites feel it quite disturbing?

AP: I must speak the truth as I see it. I have always felt that the affinities between Gandhi and Ambedkar are greater than their differences. They were both egalitarian humanists at heart. It may not win me any popularity contest today but I think those who are ready to set prejudice aside and undertake a proper historical study will come around to this point of view. Take the act of “Satyagraha”, a term coined by Gandhi. Ambedkar used this very term and form of struggle to launch his Mahad Satyagraha to claim drinking water rights. There are many other examples of common ideas and action. I was pleasantly shocked to read what Dr. Ambedkar had to say in 1932 immediately after concluding the now infamous Poona Pact (where the idea of separate electorates for Dalits was abandoned in favour of reserved seats for Dalits). Popular theory is that Ambedkar was blackmailed by Gandhi’s fast-unto-death into accepting a bitter compromise. But Ambedkar’s statement in 1932 after signing the pact was totally different in tone. He had high praise for Gandhi and stated that the “Mahatma” (yes, contrary to popular belief, Ambedkar referred to Gandhi as “Mahatma” at this point in time) offered a much better deal for Dalits in terms of reserved seats than Ambedkar himself had asked or hoped for. There is no denying however that Ambedkar did get disgusted with the Congress in later years. How much of the blame for the failures of Congress are attributable to Gandhi is a matter of discussion and debate. We know that Gandhi’s writ did not work in preventing Partition or the bloodshed that preceded and followed it and that Gandhi did not attend the Independence Day flag hoisting at the Red Fort in Delhi. He was busy fighting the communal inferno in the countryside.

Gandhi had a lot of obscurantist ideas to start with but as time went on he was honest enough to keep evolving. In the end I see him as a great humanist who died for his belief in non-violence and religious universality. He was also an inventive anti-Imperialist (though in his earlier days he had supported the British Empire) and an organic naturalist that today’s madly consumerist, globally warmed world desperately needs. Are most of today’s Gandhians like that?  Of course not. That is why I used the term ‘progressive Gandhians’. It describes dedicated non-violent fighters like Medha Patkar, Narendra Dabholkar, the whole Baba Amte family, Asghar Ali Engineer, Sandeep Pande, S.P Udaykumar, Teesta Setalvad, Aruna Roy, Admiral Ramdas, and so many others. It certainly does not include government-fed Gandhians and those Gandhians who jump onto the Hindutva bandwagon as soon as it gathers steam. 

Throughout his life Dr. Ambedkar fought for reason and justice without resorting to violence. Today his followers, like the Ambedkar Students Association and Dr. Prakash Ambedkar are leading the resistance against religious and caste hatred. Against all odds Radhika and Raja Vemula (Rohith Vemula’s mother and brother) are continuing the fight for justice. With the rising spectre of intolerant authoritarianism, the time has come for all humanists, rationalists and fighters for social and economic justice to unite against the usurpers of our democracy and our history.

The Paradox of Taslima Nasreen

Is Taslima treading a dangerous path in India by courting the Hindu fundamentalists?

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat


In an interview to the Indian Express, Delhi on November 24th, noted Bengali author Taslima Nasreen said, “Nothing happens to MF Hussain, who has done so many things, while everybody is after my life’. It is ironical that the statement comes from a person who has been ‘wronged’ by the Muslim clergy in Bangladesh and whose issue rocked Indian parliament as well as has exposed the hypocrisy of our society and so-called ‘liberal’ values.

It is more than shocking that the issue cropped up at a time when the self style custodian of the secular values in India were exposed to the outside world on the issue of the socio-economic conditions of Muslims in West Bengal. Their own intellectuals, artists started questioning the take over of Nandigram and communalization of West Bengal. The seer hypocrisy of the Government of West Bengal was visible as the CPI(M)’s cadre went back to ‘annex’ Nandigram and the victory day celebrations took place there. The red flags were hoisted as if Nandigram was an alien territory and great nationalist forces of the left have won.

A fortnight ago when some of the intellectuals and political activists from Kolkata came to Delhi for a meeting, the issue of emergence of some outstanding Muslim leaders also came into focus. It was said that the Muslim Dalit combination is set to win over West Bengal and future of the West Bengal politics would always be in the secular hands and not to a Bhadralok politician. I thought it was rare that Muslim political leadership would raise the issue of the concern of Muslim Samaj, which is mainly socio-economical and not religious. The literacy rate is very low; there are no health centers in Muslim localities, no government jobs for them and virtually no benefit of land reforms for them. West Bengal’s government was already targeting many of them in the name of Bangladeshi’s infiltrators. Yet, what happened in the streets of Kolkata November 21st was not only shameful deviation from the real issues of Muslims in West Bengal but it gave the CPM’s government as much waited relief to hide in the shade of Taslima Nasreen. How come Taslima become the main issue of the community which is fighting for its survival in Nandigram ? It is another matter that many of the Muslim leaders from Bengal are blaming the CPM for the current crisis. They charge that these riots were engineered by the CPM to save themselves from further charges of anti Muslim rhetoric. Not to be left behind in this exercise, West Bengal’s ruling party’s spokesperson Biman Bose retorted that Taslima was unwelcome in Kolkata, a city which prided itself in giving shelter to a hapless Muslim tailor of Ahmedabad in Gujarat who became face of terrorized Muslim community in Gujarat.

It is unfortunate that Muslim leadership everywhere joined hand and started protesting against Taslima ignoring the vital fact that the more they would protest against her, the bigger would be the damage done to the community. A community which is living in marginalization in India, where the brahmanical supremacy is working over time to marginalized communities, Muslim political leadership has completely failed and betrayed their community. The west takes it a chance to target Islam in further isolating the Muslims. It is not the Islam but the Mullahs who are in danger. Taslima is no Salman Rushdie. She has projected the face of fundamentalist Muslims in Bangladesh in the aftermath of the Babari demolition. It might have been the genuine grievances of the minority community in Bangladesh and the same is true about the Muslims in India who are living on the margins. And more importantly same is true about both the communities and their treatment to Dalits in all our South Asian societies including Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and India. Poor Nasreen perhaps does not know the plight except the plight of a bhadralok Bengali upper caste Hindu in Bangladesh.

While any one is free to ignore Taslima’s writings which many of the scholars term as blasphemous. That she has no right to live in India is the case point that every one of them has been making. She has hurt the sentiments of Islam, they said. Nobody has a right to hurt religious sentiments, said Pranab Mukherjee, Indian foreign minister, in Parliament. One does not know how sentiments are hurt. If ask for a ban on Kumbha fair, it hurts the sentiments of Hindus. If we say that the roads which are closed for nearly a fortnight between Delhi and Hardwar for ensuring that Hindu pilgrims walks on the road freely despite all other problems for commuters and travelers, during Savan, its appeasement. Again when we speak against susidy provided to Haz pilgrims, it is appeasement says, Hindu right wing while seculars keep quiet and Muslims are happy. That makes things easier for the Hindu right wing and they make it point to explain it their constituency and others through media. Therefore when M.F.Hussain paints something and the Hindu right wing are up in arms against him for hurting their sentiments. Actually the Hindu fundamentalists also want to have a ‘right to take life’ or threat to issue ‘fatwa’ like their Islamic friends in India and elsewhere. And that way, the Jamayate Islami in Bangldesh has been of great help to Sangh Parivar here for threatening Taslima Nasreen. Now she is more than welcome in India by them. And unfortunately, Ms Nasreen seems to have played in their hand when she said that nothing happens to M F Hussain. What do you want to be done to Hussain, Ms Nasreen? Should we hang him, beat him to equate ourselves with the Bangladeshi Mullahs or Talibani thugs?

Taslima should not let down all those who stood for her. All those who stood for her are fighting the case against the Hindu fundamentalists in India. These fundamentalists who do not want any dissent in this country. Who want brahmanical hegemony at all cost? Narendra Modi invited her to Gujarat, the other day saying that a woman and that too an ‘intellectual’ of Taslima’s stature should be welcomed. He used the same Bangladeshi refugee card in his speeches. Modi, who tells us that ‘scavenging’ is a spiritual experience, and that every time the questions about his sincerity towards the Muslim population of Gujarat are raised, he comes back to his pet old thesis. In the last election it was Mia Musharraf and this time, it seems, he want Taslima to be in Gujarat. Modi’s Gujarat shines at the cost of Dalits and tribals and Muslims and Christians are the hunting ground for him. Many leaders of the Hindutva brigade have already given Taslima the status which she never had. Her victimization story might be true but there is nothing new what she says. The fact of the matter is that the oppression of women and marginalized is not an Islam Centric thing. It is everywhere in religion which have become our daily routine. They are also part of cultural values and have mixed up with religion in different parts of the world. Many people try to explain religion in a different way to make it more inclusive while others go in to every word written there. There is another stream which feel every word written in these texts need to be challenged and questioned.

It is equally baffling that the secular voices remained mute in this entire exercise and the support to Taslima came from the right wing Hindu fundamentalists. And to the discomfiture of secularists as well as humanists, as Taslima claims herself to be, she has linked her problems with that of M.F.Hussain. There are two different issues involved here and one commonality between them. First the common point is that attack on both of them is an assault on freedom of artistic expression and freedom of conscience. Hussain is facing many charges against him in the courts filed by various Sangh Parivar outfits. The officially he is not debarred from India but at this age of 90 he is running here and there. Secondly, Hussain actually has not defamed the Hindu Gods and Goddesses but celebrate them. A large number of his paintings are bought by the Hindus themselves. He celebrates Madhuri Dixit and her ‘Naritva’, an ideal Indian womanhood. I am sure Taslima would agree that any such concept is not only derogatory in nature but stereotype
the women in general.

Taslima’s main problem emanates from her one sided writings. Surely, she is not an activist hence can take liberty to so-called freedom of conscience even if there are riots and mayhem caused by them. Her writings are one way passage to demonize Islam. It is no doubt that she faced victimization in Bangladesh. That such feudal outlook is not confined to Islam and Bangladesh only. Such situation exists in our part of the world also and elsewhere too. Women were always used in religion and considered subservient to man. Taslima can speak to a Shankaracharya and a Christian clergy who would never say that they are equal. Ofcouse, an enlightened and politically mature religious leader would always say that they are equal. Unfortunately, like many others, she also feels that her best security in Indian would come from the Hindu fundamentalist. That approach is dangerous and self defeating. Taslima should understand that Muslims in India live in utter fear and are even more marginalized than the Dalits as far as participation in the governance is concerned. All those who support here from the Hindu rightwing organizations target M.F.Hussain for denigrating the Hindu Gods. What happens when these rituals and practices denigrates the 170 million Dalits in India. Yes, as I mentioned and hopefully Taslima would also be reading that, Narendra Modi, the chief Minister of Gujarat, who presided over a regime that butchered innocent Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and further isolated them till this date, consider scavenging as a ‘spiritual’ experience. Yes, one can only hope that Modi and his generations would leave politics and adopt this ‘noble’ profession of cleaning shit of others so that their sins are washed.

I would also like to remind Taslima that she seems to be ignorant of the vast anti caste movement in India. One is not sure whether she ever read the work of Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar, she would not have uttered the word against M.F.Hussain and his creative work. Much before Taslima and Salman Rushdie could think of challenging the religious orthodoxy, I am not sure whether they ever challenged it or just narrated to us their own ‘experiences’. Ambedkar wrote ‘Riddles of Hinduism’ and Periyar wrote his own explanation of ‘Ramayana’. Phule condemned Brahmanical values and many others fought against the brahmanical social order and hegemonistic concept of the brahmanical values. When Ambedkar’s riddles were published, the government banned it buckling under the pressure of the Hindu right wing elements. Thanks to the strong Dalit protest against this proscription that government had to lift ban over it. If Taslima think that Ambedkar and Periyar would not have allowed to live after all they wrote much more against brahmanical values than Taslima could think of writing against Islam. Yes, it was the power of the people. Ambedkar, Periyar, Phule were not just philosophers and writers but responsible social revolutionaries. When they were targeting against rituals and religious values, they were enlightening another group of people who were denied basic human rights by the same religion. And Taslima, I hope would remember how Dalits have been living in India, and how their untouchability had got religious sanction. Yet, these great revolutionaries changed the mindset of the people and their power was understood. Today, Dalits are a powerful political force in India despite all disabilities attached to their birth and caste. A majority of Muslims and Christians got converted overtly or covertly to escape from the tyranny of the brahmanical system in India.

Taslima love Bengal. It is natural. She says Kolkata was a secular place. Yes, in that secular space there was no space for Muslim voices, no space for dissent. During the partition days, Kolkata saw the worst ever communal riots. In the 1990s, the bhadralok public did not allow a new comer ‘ Srilankan’ to win against India in the world cup semi finals. Yes, in this entire jargon of secularism in India only powerful upper elite of every religion participated, others were votary of secularism but not leaders of it. The secular debate came from those whose ancestors created this caste divide. Taslima is a proud member of this elite club today. She is a welcome guest and must speak out openly against all forms of oppression. I am sure the day she will open her mouth against the Hindu fundamentalism, the same voices of ‘sanity’ will ask for her head.

Voices of dissent have to be careful in their criticism. After all for whom are they working? As I mentioned earlier, India had the history of voices of dissent right from Carvaka to Buddha and in this age in the form of Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar. They dissented and lived a life for their people and today they are loved and respected. Not only that, Ambedkar is supremely respected and worshipped by the millions of Dalits all over the world for his unrelenting and uncompromising struggle against brahmanical supremacy. The problem of Islamic fundamentalism in the subcontinent lies in the same. They need an enemy to retain their upper elite hegemony. In India, already, there are voices of the down trodden Muslims asking for their share in power structure and for the socio-economic benefit of the community. Lot of work is being done at the grassroots and people are protesting. Ofcourse, not every one will leave the religion. Ambedkar and Phule were working for the communities and hence they fought and had the courage to tell the Dalits to reject the brahmanical Hinduism and embrace radical Buddhism. Taslima is an individual hence perhaps can not even tell any one to do what Ambedkar and Periyar could ask for?

As far as the Islamic zealots are concerned, the least said about them is better. They have no work except the religious issues. It is strange how they use democracy for their own purposes. They need liberal voices from other religions, from secularists, from atheists when the community faces music from the right wing Hindus but they are not ready to change. They are unable to understand that in the 21st century a lot of things have to be changed. The socio-economic-cultural paradigms are changing. Muslim women will come out and work in the offices, do PhDs, and join films and sports. As the economic independence knock at their doors, women’s can not be expected to remain mute on violence against them. They will speak and they will have to speak. There is no other alternative against violence and hegemony. Religions have been a male hegemony and modernity demand equal rights for all. The power of religion would not allow this power equation to change. But as their time is coming closure so will be the targets. They would attack all those who challenge them because it is the threat from with in that seems powerful and not from outside. Both the Hindu Fundamentalists and the Muslim fundamentalists know it well. For a Narendra Modi, Taslima is the best to demonize Islam and deviate from the assertive OBCs, Dalits and tribals who are asking him where is Gujarat shining, for the Muslim fanatic groups, since they have done very little work to gain the faith of the Muslim masses, Taslima gives them hope to revive their dirty agenda. As usual the Muslim intelligentsia is submissive and does not have the courage to stand on its own.

The only answer to both these fundamentalist groups could be the forces of change with in the communities. Yes, the Dalit Muslims are now asking their share in power and will not succumb to these tactics and a broader alliance with the Dalits, tribals and OBCs will not only throw away their own middlemen leaders but ultimately pave the way for a humanist society where every one can live in harmony and where criticism is constructive and aimed at resolving the crisis and not to further it. One sincerely hopes that good sense will prevail to Kolkata’s Muslims and they will ally with other secular Dalit groups in opposing the socio-economic marginalization of their community people in Nandigram. Taslima is not an issue. Let her live in peace otherwise she will become fodder for those who have demonize Muslims in India. For Taslima, it would be good if she continue her writing without any prejudice and should not become another Francis Goutier, who has today become the soldier of Sangh Parivar. One hopes that all those opposing Taslima will understand that her withdrawal from Kolkata and West Bengal does not solve the crisis of the people of Nandigram. In fact, it will unnecessarily divide forces who stand with the displaced people of Nandigram and salute their heroic struggle against the land acquisition in the name of Developing an SEZ in Nandigram.