Edward Snowden asked 21 nations for political asylum. He got nothing but rejection, proving once again that free speech is just a decorative item for most governments. India’s embassy in Moscow received Snowden’s request for asylum. His request was rejected within hours. Since then, there has been much discussion about India’s generosity over giving shelter to persecuted people—and so then, why not Snowden? India has in the past granted political asylum to Dalai Lama and many other rebels. Some even mention my name in the list.
I am not sure whether I should be considered a political refugee in India. I was thrown out of my country, Bangladesh, in 1994 and found myself landing in Europe. It was difficult for me to live in a place which has a totally different climate and culture from where I grew up. Since I knew I couldn’t return to my country, I wanted to come to India. But India kept her doors firmly shut. Towards the end of 1999, I was given permission to visit as a tourist.
I’m not surprised India refused Snowden asylum. How can a country give asylum to a person chased by the almighty US when it panics over giving a residence permit to a secular writer? But with India, one understands; it can’t afford to take risks or make any big political mistake now. Indeed, a European country should have given Snowden asylum. They have a long tradition of defending writers and journalists. Compared to India, they have a much older, truer democracies, and violation of rights and free speech is a rarity there. It’s time for Europe to show they are not mere colonies of the US. However glorious a past India may have had, it doesn’t have the courage to face possible US sanctions. If democracy were practised everywhere, and if it were not reduced to mere elections, independent voices from independent countries would have been respected. As it stands, the human species is yet to make the world an evenly civilised place. We ordinary people pay the brunt, we sacrifice our dignity, honor, rights and freedom. I really feel sorry for Snowden. If I were a country, I’d have given him asylum.
Bangladesh-born Taslima Nasrin is the author of Lajja and other novels; E-mail your columnist: letters AT outlookindia.com
This article appeared in print under the title 'India Has No Courage' which was changed online to more accurately represent Ms Nasrin's views by using a direct quote from her piece.
Taslima Nasreen should be thankful for whatever India has done for her (‘India has no Courage’). Her experience should not be construed as a benchmark of India’s policies.
C.P. Nair, Kannur
She may have got it wrong about Snowden, but Taslima is right about her own situation. She is being persecuted simply for having a point of view that Muslims largely do not like. It’s amazing how all those shrill voices who were out in support of M.F. Husain’s right to paint Hindu goddesses in the nude are silent on the same right of expression for Taslima. A democratic and secular regime must provide her sanctuary as well as a long-term visa.
Ashutosh Kaul, Toronto
Since the Congress is by now a handmaiden of the US, it could not have granted Snowden asylum. And being behoven to the minority vote for its being in power, it cannot give Taslima her rights. PS: what’s the best bet that Snowden will soon be charged with a sexual offence?
J.N. Bhartiya, Hyderabad
That damn political expediency will cow you down every time. We just don’t have the guts to take on Uncle Sam.
Shyamal Barua, Calcutta
24 D Rajesh
You hit the nail on the head.
Compairing Snowden with Taslima is apples with oranges.
A China ( last century ) or Bangladesh ( weak ) are not comparable to the might of the Americans.
Whatever the gender of the offender might be
Damn political expediency, or hard nosed decision. India just do'nt have the guts to even consider giving asylum to Snowden, or for that matter any fugitive of Uncle Sam.
>> I doubt if the UPA can take a hard nosed decision for the sake of the country. Every decision has been taken keeping in mind political expediency.
It would be hard-nosed decision if the NDA government had taken it, but political expediency if the UPA government took it!
"For once, UPA government (has) taken hard nosed political decision."
It is not a difficult decision to take. It was a no-brainer. India has nothing to gain and plenty to lose by adopting an anti-US position. I doubt if the UPA can take a hard nosed decision for the sake of the country. Every decision has been taken keeping in mind political expediency.
For once, UPA government is kept Indian interest in mind and taken hard nosed political decision.
I second you.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT