[Reader-list] (non)citizen'sTaslima : Response to Shuddha and Naeem Mohaiemen

[ARNAB CHATTERJEE]

 Firstly apologies to SARAI readers and writers for
reposting More on free expression for
(non)citizens--for the second time on the 16th (though
with some additions) but still minor errors and lacks
go rife: Who knows that confusion could be plural( ist
line)? Even I didn't. And that this post had gone
through on the 15th and Shuddha's impostant response 
I had aboslutely missed  though Naeem Mohaiemen'one
presented itself before my eyes. Im surely aging. 
                Two things for both of them : first
Shuddha. The central that I wanted to make,and I think
it went through well except a reemphasis  here is
warranted: not only freedom of speech and other
liberties, all are ordinarily obtained by the aliens
including protection irrespective of the consitutional
guarantee that is given to citizens. Consideran US
citizen with a valid visa--who is raped, her valuables
stolen, and who is hounded out from aseminar just
because she is white. Isn't this infraction? Can't she
file a private complaint and look for redress within
the national laws and then if fails, under
international laws? Shuddha and all of the SARAI list
community know that she surely can do and claim. That
is,even the protection does 'ordinarily obtain.' The
rest I've already elaborated in my post and I think
Shuddha agrees with much of it. The right to listen I
think could be construedonly as a moral right or a
complex legal one. And I think we should discuss this
in the realm of civilrights--whether it is a freedom
rather than a right.But one thing, could a right to
listen vioate the rightagainst self incrimination?
--The convict's right to keep silent and not responsd
to even exacting questions? I"ll request Shuddha,
Jeebesh,Lawrence  and all others to use this URL  for
an illuminating discussion of the right to silence vis
a vis English Common law in--
http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/180rpt.pdf.

    Naeem here, "Taslima was the first
to write in 1989/90 about how the narrow confines and
massive crowds of boi mela had given cover to groups
of eve teasers.  In angry,clean, precise Bangla
(something she has lost over the years), shedescribed
which line, which area, which body part, which finger,
where when how-- the mathematics of nasty invasive
roping.  Through that campaign of writing she actually
managed to inspire a group of activists who formed
human chains at boi mela (this is all long forgotten."

Firstly, I may remind Naeem that it was not Taslima,
Sanjib Chattopadhyaya was the commercial first to talk
about sexual groping in bengali buses and puja crowds;
the Hungries were the first avantgarde to dothat in
parallel magazines. And the theoretical error in all
this has ( Naeem's "nasty,invasive groping")just
started to be acknowledged in orthodox, ordinary
feminist circles in Bengal. I'll give a fatal example.
That all girls are groped by lecherous men and they
hate it will be denied by a response theory first of
all; secondly what is known as a phenomenology of
feeling ( I had hinted at this in my IF SARAI post 2.5
( Towards a personal transformation of the public
sphere). That such generalisations are ridiculous have
been acknowledged by a book published by ALAP(?) in
alignment with the West Bengal Women's Commission
written by Bhaswati Chakraborty.She said while
discussing the inevitable sexual harassment contexts
--that there might be women who feel that through such
attention they discover themselves as desirable and
even might enjoy such attention, but ..BUT we are not
into discussing complex sexual psychology....etc etc
and she takes the predictable turn and u know what.
   Now,I'm far from generalising the reverse and harp
on the masculist scandal that all women enjoy or ought
to enjoy. I only think that feeling cannot be
theorised; the immediacy of consciousness cannot be
categorised in feminist or masculist brackets. That
makes them boring, theoretically incorrect  and
predictable---the lack they cover by cunning.
     What is significant about this in Taslima is how
she 'rightly exaggerates' this and brings in the
tailor, the doctor and everybody. The genuine
pornographic moment except the fictional kick.And the
power of acknowledged feminists to perform the
same--she has lately been realizing this. She will be
the best author of half,ill bred theoretical
narratives of the pure politics of dirty hands --a
stuff some people been theorising for some time. In
Taslima--I find some grand application of that. The
way she narrates her sexual escapades and names proper
names for cognitive redressal is just one instance of
the immense allergy among Calcutta feminists she has
been able to garner.Naeem's memoir made me think
through and visit this blind  alley, once more.
bye 
arnab
 

  

--- shuddha at sarai.net wrote:

> Dear All, 
> 
> I have followed with interest the discussion on
> Taslima Nasrin's status as
> an alien and her freedom of speech. While my views
> on the matter are
> reasonably well known on this list from my writing
> on this list earlier
> (and I will not repeat them here). I do want to add
> a thought that I think
> has not been seen to present itself in the entire
> discussion till now. I
> will be making what I hope is an argument (for
> arguments sake) strictly
> within the domain of constitutionality.
> 
> I am concerned with the freedom, not only of the
> speaker, but also of the
> listener. In any act of curtailment of speech, there
> are two parties who
> can be said to be affected. The speaker, (who is
> rendered speechless) and
> the listener, (who is denied access to what might
> have been spoken). While
> Taslima's rights to free speech may not be
> guaranteed under the law because
> she is not an citizen. Our rights to listen to her,
> (or to anyone else) are
> also taken away when she is rendered silent. As an
> Indian citizen, I can no
> longer exercise my right to listen, be informed,
> form my judgement
> (critical or appreciative or indifferent) of what
> this alien might have
> said.
> 
> Does this denial of a citizens right to listen to
> the voice of an alien not
> constitute a diminishing of the citizens exercise of
> the freedom of his/her
> conscience. I would be interested to hear any
> thoughts that anyone on this
> list might have on this matter. Similarly, the
> barrier to the aliens
> presence on our soil prevents us from coming into
> contact with the alien.
> Does the denial of the possibility of hospitality
> not also constitute a
> damage to the possilbe enrichment of experience of
> the person who could
> have been the host.
> 
> My concern with the issue of Taslima is two fold. On
> the one hand denying
> her the free use of her expressive faculties while
> she lives in India is an
> act of gross inhospitality which implicates us all,
> because it is being
> done in our name. Secondly, the matter of her
> freedom of expression
> involves not just her, but all of us. Because we are
> sought to be prevented
> from forming our independent judgements about what
> she says.
> 
> A great deal has been said about how Taslima's is an
> unreasonable voice.
> That may be so. What interests me is the intense
> paranoia and neurosis that
> surrounds the simple fact of the presence of that
> unreasonable voice.
> 
> It is a matter of conjecture, but I believe that
> every Bengali family has a
> a mad relative. The Pagol Pishi who suddenly emerges
> naked and cursing in
> the middle of some respectable bhadralok occasion
> like a wedding. The
> terrible hullaballoo that occurs after this fact
> tells us more about the
> neurosis of the bhadralok family than it does about
> the specific and rich
> insanity of the Pagol Pishi. I think that the matter
> of Taslima Nasrin has
> revealed a rich vein of neuroses in our public
> consciousness. If she is so
> crazy (as people say she is) then why not let her
> be. What harm can her
> speech do? What, if anything did the Pagol Pishi
> harm, other than the fusty
> sense of propriety that the bhadralok so
> neurotically cling to. Are the
> institutions of this republic or the public life of
> respectable religions
> so fragile as to be threatened by her occasional
> outbursts. If they are, I
> would be more interested in thinking about the
> aetiology of the neuroses
> that assail them. If we are so bothered by Taslima,
> it is time to ask what
> might the matter be with us. Do we all need therapy?
> 
> It often happens that people say something that many
> people consider
> terribly offensive on this list. I myself am
> offended very often. But
> whenever anyone allows that feeling of being
> offended to translate into a
> demand for silence they are revealing their own
> inability to deal with the
> presence of the alien, the outsider, the person who
> does not speak or think
> like them. There is always the option of choosing
> not to listen. It
> protects you from having to listen to what you dont
> want to, and at the
> same time it does not prevent other people from
> listening.
> 
> I wonder why this option, which is actually quite
> simple, is exercised so
> seldom.
> 
> regards
> 
> Shuddha
> 
> 
> 
> On 12:46 pm 02/15/08 ARNAB CHATTERJEE
> <apnawritings at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > Dear Sarai readers and writers,
> >
> >           Some confusions have been creeping it
> seems.
> > Perhaps I am aware of what could be claimed by
> > non-citizens in terms of close-ended
> constitutional
> > statements  in India. For that specially, there
> were
> > two levels I had demarcated for arguing
> differently,
> > one--the case for ordinary legalism in India and
> other
> > international paradigms when taken globally. Let
> me
> > expand on this further and clarify this through 
> an
> > example! And that too the Taslima one!
> >
> >  You will remember that her Dwakhindita was banned
> by
> > the west Bengal government, the government lost
> the
> > case and the book was released. Though it was
> > published by an Indian publisher, the writer being
> a
> > non-citizen is ofcourse a case in point since the
> > clause within which it was banned, inhibited its
> > production on the web too (meaning this text by
> this
> > writer could not made available in some other form
> as
> > well). If it were simply a case of an alien writer
> who
> > has no protection, it would have been enough for
> the
> > government to ban it on that ground, and ban it
> > eternally. It would have been an end there. But
> the
> > case ( of forbidding legitimate speech) was filed
> and
> > won with some qualifications; one of them being
> > Taslima had to agree to delete ( or distort:
> Samsul
> > Haque became Said Haque) in order to escape the
> charge
> > of defamation-- the proper names of real writers
> whom
> > she had named for unethical sexual escapades with
> her.
> > Now, the case of the Indian publisher filing the
> case
> > may be cited paramountly as a counter point. But
> any
> > non-citizen when speaks or writes-you will find a
> > whole regime of parties involved ( the landlord is
> > also arrested with a suspected snooper) and
> therefore
> > ultimately it is considered within the norm and
> > grounds of the familiar turf that is here; the
> > reasonable permissions and restrictions that
> obtain.
> > This is in the case of speech; charges of
> terrorism,
> > spying, active political parleying and sedition
> take a
> > different hue altogether.
> >      However, look at it now from another angle.
> That
> > the Taslima case could not be won juridically was
> > understood and thus given  another turn: the
> threat of
> > public disorder and communal war was staged
> > practically and Taslima deported to another state
> > successfully with sheer haste( Calcutta Highcourt
> had
> > said that W.B Government’s anticipative simple 
> threat
> > perception was not an adequate ground to forbid
> the
> > production and circulation of Dwakhindito).
> >            So I again reiterate, in the Taslima
> case
> > free speech is ofcourse a strong ground and that
> is
> > where the battle has been fought till now. And the
> > defeat on that ground being imminent, the grounds
> of
> > reasonable restriction are being irrationally
> charted
> > with voluntarism: they are lifted out from the
> pages
> > of law and played out in the open fields. And in
> this
> > case if you read my statement “The former do
> have
> > freedom of speech( in the ordinary sense) but are
> > prone to all 'reasonable restrtictions' and
> > modifications that the government could subject
> these
> > laws and modifications to” will have become
> clearer.As
> > evident when I specially mention ordinary, it has
> a
> > special weight. Every government ( and the
> political
> > type so much matters here) does sanction in this
> some
> > form ( consider some American poets have assembled
> for
> > a poetry session in an India city, they cannot
> just be
> > hounded out because only  right to life is 
> guranteed
> > here [ in a country where capital punishment
> exists,
> > Lawrence and Jeebesh know how this fundamental
> right
> > features for their own citizens and in what form].
> > This apart, I repeat,  the freedom of speech of
> aliens
> > not only are sanctioned under Human rights orders,
> > international law and European convention-al
> norms,
> > they do exist “ordinarily” and could be seen
> in
> > practice in our everyday life and when it meets a
> > challenge is considered within the juridical
> > parameters of the nation state that is in
> question. (
> > Peter Bleach-a Uk citizen convicted in the Purulia
> > Arms dropping case—and spending years in Alipore
> > central jail wrote a memoir in the Hindustan Times
> how
> > he wrote the second mercy petition to the
> President
> > for that infamous Dhananjay Chaterjee, the first
> flop
> > petitition having been written by the welfare
> officer
> > of the Alipore jail.) International legal
> protection
> > or other cases ( the US one that I have cited)
> come
> > later when the national restrictions are
> themselves
> > found to have been unjustified.
> >
> > Now, to answer Sudeshna, here there is no temporal
> > qualification like freedom before-at-after speech
> and
> > yes ofcourse Mahmood will agree that certain forms
> of
> > writing ( literature or art) have different claims
> to
> > remedies; in this the certain authorial agencies
> have
> > also restrictive claims proper ( e.g, intellectual
> > property rights). And much of what Lawrence says,
> I’ve
> > addressed above, but a short reminder about the
> > liberal clause. I myself have been a vociferous
> > critique of the liberal argument for freedom of
> > expression and Farooqui is all the way with me
> here .
> > But I want to forget my own critique and as a
> counter
> > point to Liang here, let me spell briefly what the
> > liberals would argue in defence. They will say, it
> is
> > not about Taslima’s freedom of critical speech
> that is
> > in question here; when the citizens or other
> Indians (
> > now you have the citizen reason here)stand for
> her, it
> > is their and all of our  freedom that is in peril
> > here. That cannot undercoded by the clause that
> > Taslima is a non-citizen. There is already a large
> > literature in the philosophy of law and
> jurisprudence
> > on the fact that protection to freedom of speech
> is a
> > misnomer; freedom of speech itself is a protection
> > against evils unlimited.
> >
> >   Let this be for the day; I hope more diffcult
> legal,
> > extra legal arguments will be coming up.
> > Till then
> > arnab
> >
> >
> >       5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails
> in your inbox. Go to
> >
>
http://help.yahoo.com/l/in/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/tools/tools-08.html
> > _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open
> > discussion list on media and the city. Critiques &
> Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > subscribe in the subject header. To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.ne
> > t/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive:
> <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> 
> 





      Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php