Teesta vs. Tavleen
Published by Yazad Jal December 4th, 2004 in MediaThere is a very interesting exchange of views between Tavleen Singh and Teesta Setalvad in the Indian Express. Teesta and Javed Anand (her husband and co-editor of Communalism Combat) also list a sample of Communalism Combat cover stories and special reports since 1993 which go a long way in showing that they’re not just anti Hindu fundamentalism, but anti “any” fundamentalism. A very good read. Especially for certain sceptics.
Update (December 5): Tavleen Singh has a rejoinder in today’s Indian Express. And drips with heavy sarcasm. Are we seeing the journalistic equivalent of a bitch fight?
My impression of Teesta and Anand has always been skeptical. A few months ago, I did a google search on Anand and decided to read what he has to say. I came upon an article on the film Bombay.
http://www.sacw.net/i_aii/bombay.html
In the beginning, I read his objections to threats to Ratnam and I actually changed my mind - I said to myself I was wrong - he does speak out against Islamic fundamentalism. But then I read on, and I realized that he uses his opening sentences as a shield to really train his guns on Ratnam. What is Ratnam’s sin? It isn’t clear to me. Some garbled sentences suggest that Anand is indignant that the film is fictional.
I also draw your attention to the language used -
“It is no one’s argument that some groups of hot-heads among Muslims are also not guilty of having targeted innocent Hindus in Muslim majority areas of the city both in December 1992 and January 1993.”
‘Hot-heads’? For people who ‘target’ (murder?) innocent Hindus? Their crime is one merely a shortness of temper?
I have seen the exact same language by Hindu fundamentalists covering up for Hindu ‘hot-heads’. I’m damned if I can see a difference between Anand and Hindu fundamentalists. “Same difference” as the Americans say.
Will the self-appointed custodians of secularism respond to my comment?