But, it isn’t only the Islamic bigots who are crestfallen. The secular brigade, too, comprising the Congress, the communists and Mamata Banerjee, will not be too pleased with the latest turn of events. The reason is that the controversial Bangladeshi author has been a thorn in their flesh because she is the bête noire of the Muslim zealots who have long been up in arms against her because of her outspoken stand militant religiosity.

As a result, she had to flee from her native country in 1994 after receiving death threats and also, surprisingly, from Kolkata at the behest of none other than the Left Front government in 2007 notwithstanding all its pretences about being “progressive”. Nor has the Left’s successor in West Bengal been any more broad-minded, for it is no secret that the combative Mamata Banerjee, who is forever taking up cudgels against real and imaginary enemies, does not have much time for the writer of Lajja (Shame), a novel on the anti-Hindu riots in Bangladesh following the Babri masjid demolition.

Like the Left, Mamata is playing safe by denying Taslima her desire to live in West Bengal because the chief minister does not want to antagonize the Muslims who comprise nearly 30 per cent of the electorate. However, neither the communists nor their arch-opponents, the Trinamool Congress, know for certain whether it is the ordinary Muslims who are offended by Taslima’s targeting of the anti-women posturing of the fundamentalists, or whether it is only the latter who whip up protests against her – including an outbreak which led to the calling out of the army in Kolkata in 2007 – to retain their hold on their putative followers.

In all probability, if Taslima is allowed to live in Kolkata and even writes occasionally on the prejudices and intolerance of both Hindu and Muslim bigots, there will not be a major law and order situation if the trouble-makers are made aware that the authorities will crack down on any act of hooliganism. But, as is known, no government will be willing to take the risk. Instead, it is easier to ostracise a writer or artist (like M.F. Husain) or ban a book like Wendy Doniger’s on Hinduism.

It will be a mistake, however, to see the Narendra Modi government’s decision to let Taslima to stay on India as an outbreak of liberalism. The only reason why the government is being kind towards her is that she riles the Muslims. Evidently, neither the RSS nor the BJP would have shown the same consideration to someone like Husain, for instance, who antagonizes the Hindu storm troopers.

In deciding to allow Taslima to live in India, however, the saffronites may be taking a risk for, as a feminist and an agnostic, she will be unsparing in her criticism of the patriarchs in any religion who flaunt male superiority. Her views, for instance, that “all religions are anti-women” and that “religion pulls human beings backwards, it goes against science and progressiveness ... bars people from laughing” will not please many in the Sangh parivar.

Nor will her comment that “unfortunately, I haven’t met any doctor in the Indian subcontinent who doesn’t believe in god. I have no idea how doctors who are fine scientists find it so easy to believe in mythological gods or superstitions ... the medical clinic I visited this evening was having a god at their gate”.

On international affairs, too, her views underline her forthrightness. “Israel and Palestine hate each other”, she says. “True, but you see no difference between the hatred of the powerful and the hatred of the powerless?”

Now that the VHP’s Ashok Singhal has revived the question of “liberating” the Mathura and Varanasi mosques and the RSS wants clear-cut answers from the Modi government on the construction of the Ram temple, it is not impossible that there will be a return to the anarchic period mentioned in Lajja despite the government’s best efforts. In such a situation, it will be futile to expect Taslima to remain quiet.

As someone who has said that she an “enemy of all religions”, Taslima is different from most liberals who confine their criticism to the zealots who, they say, distort the otherwise admirable doctrines of the various faiths and give religion a bad name. In this respect, Taslima is unique. She is also not afraid to speak her mind. Not surprisingly, she has been living under house arrest, as she says, for prolonged periods.

Even if she acquires the rights of a permanent citizen, it is unlikely that she will be able to move around freely since, in course of time, she is likely to arouse the antipathy of the militants of all hues. This will be a compliment of sorts, however, to a gynaecologist who became a rebel on seeing the despair of women in delivery rooms when they heard that they had given birth to a girl. (IPA Service)