Press Trust of India, Kolkata, April 8, 2005: The who's who of contemporary Bengali literature today rallied behind controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen's plea for Indian citizenship saying her immense contribution to literature should be given due regard by the Centre while considering her request.
In a signed statement backing the embattled writer, Magsaysay awardee Mahasveta Devi, litterateurs Sunil Gangopadhyay, Shankha Ghosh, Buddhadev Guha and Dibyendu Palit said India was a strong advocate of freedom of speech and expression and her case must be considered in order to provide her a place to exercise this right.
"Taslima Nasreen is a powerful writer of the Bangla language. To take her literature to greater heights she needs to live in the land that speaks the language. Since she has
been expelled by the Bangladeshi government, West Bengal is the only other place she can let her pen flourish", the appeal, signed by 79 creative people, said.
According to them, "India's great ethical tradition made it obligatory to offer shelter to those who need it".
Writers, artists, academicians and actors got together at a press conference in the evening to urge the Union government to grant her an Indian citizenship.
"If it is not possible to consider her citizenship immediately, she must be given a residential permit to live in the country, where she has the maximum readership base, and
allowed to cultivate her literary activities", economist Amlan Dutta said.
Reiterating her plea Nasreen, who was present on the occasion, said “to live far away from people who speak the language of my heart, the language in which I think and write,
is almost like death for a creative writer".
She hoped that the Indian government would see reason in her appeal.
|
"Human beings have still not been able to form a human society, and have still not learned to move with the spirit of a pilgrim. Although many small groups, motivated by self-interest, work together in particular situations, not even a small fraction of their work is done with a broader social motive. By strict definition, shall we have to declare that each small family unit is a society in itself? If going ahead in mutual adjustment only out of narrow self-interest or momentary self-seeking is called society, then in such a society, no provision can be made for the disabled, the diseased or the helpless, because in most cases nobody can benefit from them in any way... in that case there always remains the possibility of some people getting isolated from the collective. All human beings must attach themselves to others by the common bond of love and march forward hand in hand; then only will I proclaim it a society." |