"Nasreen:
Sensibility And Sensitivity"
By I. K. Shukla
A book becoming a sensation, for any number of reasons, is no more
rare.
That a book is selling well (not always necessarily as "hot cake") is
always
welcome
news both to the publisher and the writer, and of course, the
readers.
Whether its contents are "hot" or perceived as "hot", cold , or just
cool, and
mostly for and by whom, will always be debatable. It may not always
have much to
do with either the style or the substance of the writing. It can be
deemed
"hot" for wrong reasons or different reasons. The label does not add to
or
detract
from its value. Nor, for being "hot", it can be banished from
literature.
The
writer cannot be prescribed what to write about (theme) or how to write
(mode/form)
.
Why this brouhaha over Taslima Nasreen's new book and massive unease
over
disclosures which, it is implied, should have been kept under the
wraps?
For whose benefit, remains unstated. But ostensibly, for the sake of
certain
(male)
reputations.
There is the terror or titillation that politicians, artists, writers
have been strip-mined.
They should not have been exposed so? They were "used" as promo devices
toward her career, that is
why?
So, they were not using the author? They were either innocent
simpletons,
or
altruistic, or both? Not having fun stealthily available? Not
exploiting their station
in life for "helping" some green horn come up? Why would they
(powerful)
do something for
nothing?
Why do we relish reading the torrid affairs of foreign writers, but
squirm to know
something steamy about our
own?
Is this a prerogative of the sub continental male, predatory and
privileged,
to be a profligate and yet masquerade as a saint? Can the tables be not
turned
once in a long while both for the sake of expose and confessional,
and for setting the record
straight?
Or, it can be allowed, this permissive and exploitative one-way street,
even its "literary" exposure, in the case of men but is verboten for
women?
Is misogyny fine, and patriarchal profanity eternally acceptable,
because "boys will be boys" in
perpetuity?
Is not jealousy (inflected by inferiority complex) the poisonous prod
of this "holy horror"?
Or, is it the "shock of recognition" that many in the fields of art and
literature are alarmed at?
The mirror is too big, too
bold?
Why should not there be some sympathy or admiration (depending on your
viewpoint)
for the author, the woman, who too is thus exposed? Whether daring,
foolhardiness, indiscretion,
or getting even prompted the writer and suffused her literary product,
can be endlessly
speculated.
But that would not detract a bit from her pains or her long suppressed
anguish nor from the reprise
of that pain as she put them in black and white. Maybe she is only one
of numerous sufferers,
and other victims find their fleeting sanctuary or vicarious salve in
the book. Maybe,
after reading the book, they get similarly reactive and
bold.
Sexual terrorism is the vogue now. A groper as governor, a molester as
supreme court judge,
acid throwing on the female rejectionist, killing a woman for refusing
to marry a cleric,
raping hundreds of women in Gujarat - are these just
aberrations?
Why do Modi and his ilk deny there was savage outrage perpetrated on
Muslim women?
Because they are sure they can get away with
it.
If nothing else, Ka may
embolden women to scream and fight and retaliate,
and not take the hurt and humiliation of a lifelong trauma lying
down.