English title states the text is a novel but the

original Bangla title was simply Lajja.

Shame is narrated in sequential days, and tells the
story of a Hindu family in Bangladesh, and how
they are affected by religious and social conflict.
Taslima Nasrin wrote the text in only a few days,
in response to anti-Hindu riots that followed the
destruction of a (Muslim) mosque.
However, in spite of how quickly it may have been
written, there are structural, stylistic, and
sthetic flaws which detract from the impact of
the work.

 Lists: one of the most depreciating aspects of

Nasrins text is her extensive use of lists. She goes
on at great length to comprehensively itemize the
violence and destruction suffered throughout the
conflict.
These lists are distracting from the narrative
story, and the interruptions lend themselves to an
unfortunate sense of apathy in the reader.
Even more unfortunate is that this apathy is
reinforced by several other structural aspects of
the text.

 In addition to her seemingly endless lists, Nasrin

also tends to repeat her main themes ad
infinitum. This repetition dehumanizes her story
and the situation, and tends to impair our
empathy.
Her idea of communalism/ fundamentalism vs
non-communalism/ secularism is restated
continually.
Static and repetitive behaviors in characters
further alienates the reader, particularly the
aggravating stagnancy of Suranjan.
Nasrin also quotes from particular laws, such as
the Enemy Property Act.

LAJJA: SYNOPSIS
The novel tracks the (mostly atheist) Hindu Dutta family throughout
thirteen days of the destruction of Babri Masjids repercussions in
Bangladesh. The action of the novel in the first few days is limited to
the son, Suranjan, wandering the city and conversing with various
Muslims and Hindus, which allows Nasrin to put forth various points of
view typically associated with both sides of the conflict and detail the
destruction wrought on the Hindu community. In Day Six, Maya, the
daughter, is abducted by a band of Muslim youths, and the rest of the
novel is keenly emotional and split between the father and mother
lamenting what has occurred as Suranjan desperately searching for
her. In the end, Maya does not return, and it is alluded to that she has
been seen, drowned, floating in the river. What remains of the Dutta
family, after many years of refusing to abandon Bangladesh and move
to India, which has a majority Hindu population versus Bangladeshs
Hindu minority population, as many of their family and friends have,
finally concede that doing so is an action necessary to protect
themselves.

 The portrayal and reinforcement of gender roles is

also alienating to the Western reader. The mother
and sister are completely docile and subservient,
showing admirable qualities perhaps only when
directed to do so by men.
Nasrin describes herself as a physician, writer,
radical feminist, human rights activist, and
secular humanist, but does not suggest any
solutions or means of social change for the
improvement of this situation.

 Its hard not to see the similarities between

Taslima Nasrin and Salman Rushie. Both are known
for the scandals and controversy they incited,
both were forced into political exile/hiding, and
there have been fatwa proclaimed on both. In
fact, Rushie also wrote a novel titled Shame,
which was published in 1983, ten years before
Nasrin.

Whether or not Nasrin is intentionally riding the

success of Rushies coattails is uncertain, but she
has probably benefited from the notoriety of both
of their scandals.

While the Islamic fundamentalist parties

demanded Nasrin's execution, the secular,
progressive, and modernist intellectuals and
writers were equally dismissive of her
writings. Without demanding her death,
they variously described Nasrin as
immature, rather repulsive, politically
naive, obsessed with sex, and an
antimale extremist.
- Shamsul Alam

 communalism
Main Entry: communalism
Pronunciation: \-n-,li-zm\
Function: noun
Date: 1871
1 :social organization on a communal basis
2 :loyalty to a sociopolitical grouping based on
religious or ethnic affiliation
secularism
Main Entry: secularism
Pronunciation: \se-ky-l-,ri-zm\
Function: noun
Date: 1851
:indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion
and religious considerations

 Nasrins website details her anti-religious beliefs very

clearly; a skim of her posted articles reveals titles such as
Beware of Dogma, This Only Proves Religion is the Best
Way to Fool the Poor and Briser les chanes de la religion.
It is made evident that her views on religion directly
influence her views on womens rights; from Briser les
chanes de la religion:
Mais aucune religion ne respecte les femmes et ne leur
reconnat le statut dtre humain. [] en Asie, en Afrique, en
Amrique latine, les femmes sont tellement opprimes
socialement, conomiquement, politiquement, que leur
libration sera impossible sans une transformation radicale des
structures de la socit et de ltat, ni sans rompre les chanes
de la religion.

She describes this attitude as a staunch stance of secularism.

Secularism, or militant atheism? What separates the two? Has
Nasrin crossed that line?

 Throughout the text, Nasrin unfailingly pairs

communalism with fundamentalism and noncommunalism with secularism. It is evident that, in
her mind, they are either synonymous, or very intimately,
causally related -- logical necessities.
This is problematic by virtue of how consistent it is. One
gets the sense that Nasrin would like to attack religious
fundamentalism, and then separately attack the spirit of
communalism that feeds off the us-them dynamic
proposed by fundamentalism, but instead she attacks
fundamentalism-communalism as one entity. In reality,
communalism was present within the Muslim and Hindu
communities, but was also very present in the actions of
the Bangladeshi government, to deny that anything was
remiss in the country -- clinging to ideas of communal
harmony, a term she uses often. Nasrins target is illdefined.
Is religion always communalist? Is secularism never
communalist? Nasrins politics are unapologetically left.
Leftist politics, elevated as the only thing that can
correct religious fundamentalism, are historically both
very secular and VERY communalist.

 Nasrin has a very strong appreciation of an idealized

West that may well only exist in her mind.
First, though she mentions it in her book on several
occasions, the condemnation of the destruction of the
Babri Masjid by the West, especially through news outlets
like CNN helped fanned flames of hate and, consequently,
destruction.
More importantly, she equates the West with the concept
of perfected secularism, and consequently perfected
womens rights. From the website:
Until a society is not based on religion and women are
considered equal to men before the law, I do not think that
politics will advance the cause of women. In Western
countries, women are educated, they are treated equally,
they have access to jobs. In these conditions, their
participation in politics has a meaning. (Article in the UNESCO
Courier, June 2000)

Secular West? Really? How committed to that idea are we?

'Humankind is facing an uncertain future. The

probability of new kinds of rivalry and conflict looms
large. In particular, the conflict is between two
different ideas, secularism and fundamentalism. I
don't agree with those who think the conflict is
between two religions, namely Christianity and
Islam, or Judaism and Islam. After all there are
fundamentalists in every religious community. I don't
agree with those people who think that the crusades
of the Middle Ages are going to be repeated soon.
Nor do I think that this is a conflict between the East
and the West. To me, this conflict is basically
between modern, rational, logical thinking and
irrational, blind faith. To me, this is a conflict
between modernity and anti-modernism. While some
strive to go forward, others strive to go backward. It
is a conflict between the future and the past,
between innovation and tradition, between those
who value freedom and those who do not.'

[] he remembered their neighbors suggestion to his wife about

changing their identity with Muslim-sounding names like Fatima or
Akhtar. Sudhamoy thought his Hindu name was sure to spell disaster
at this moment. Besides forcing his own name into oblivion, he did
the same to his father Sukumar Dutta and grandfather Jyyotirmay
Duttas names. He was startled by his own voice when he revealed his
name as Sirajuddin Hussain. (Nasrin, 27)

For seven long months he continued his existence with his identity
as Abdus Salam [...] passing Suranjan off as Saber and suffering the
indignity of his wife Kironmoyee being known as Fatima by the people
around. This pain of calling Kironmoyee Fatima was much more
excruciating than the sufferings caused by the still unhealed
fractures in his chest. (Nasrin, 63)

Maya had to face awkward situations when Paruls visiting relatives

asked her name. She replied, Maya. Whats your full name? the
questioner insisted. Intervening before she could say anything, Parul
said, Her name is Sakia Sultana. Maya had been startled at the
dropping of a Muslim name. [...] The point was driven home. But
Maya felt the agony of humiliation. Was it wrong to offer shelter to
the Hindus? [...] Why should Hindus be forced to seek protection
outside their homes? (Nasrin, 140)

 He [Suranjan] never offered prayers in his life, nor

did he ever visit a temple ... And against this same
Suranjan accusing fingers were raised, pointing to his
Hindu identity. (Nasrin, 88)
What did Sudhamoy gain, or, for that matter,
Suranjan himself by not observing any religious rites
and treating the Muslims as brothers and friends for so
long? After all this, everyone still branded them as
Hindus. What did the family achieve by always
remaining atheist and professing humanism and
humanitarianism? (Nasrin, 93)
What had Maya done to deserve this fate? Was it such
a crime to be a Hindu? Could it go to such an extent
that his house would be pulled down? Could he be
assaulted whenever it pleased the raiders? Could his
wife and daughter be raped with impunity? (Nasrin,
214)

 But when would that freedom arrive, that freedom for

her to wear conch shell bangles and display the
vermilion mark on her forehead and for him to put on a
dhoti without fear? (Nasrin, 97)
No one can be spotted as a Hindu from looks alone.
Still, he suspected something in his gait, use of language
and way of glancing that might give him away. (Nasrin,
117)
He felt absolutely alone. There was no one to stand by
his side. He felt like an alien in his own country.
(Nasrin, 292)
He felt a deep sense of isolation. The idea that he was
one kind of human being and they another crossed his
mind for the first time... (Nasrin, 94)

You never identified yourself as a Hindu [] I used to describe

myself as a human being, a humanist. The Muslims did not allow me
to remain a human being. It was they who made me a Hindu.
(Nasrin, 222)

Was he basically a Hindu alone? Did the onus of a mosque demolition

in India rest on Suranjan? Could country and nationality be deemed
less important then religion? (Nasrin, 241)

He said, Do you not belong to this country? No, I can no longer

think of myself as someone of his land although I am trying to...
(Nasrin, 281)

You are thinking of yourself as a Hindu, said Sudhamoy... However

much we proclaim ourselves as atheists or humanists, still the stigma
of being a Hindu will stick to us. Theyll call us malauns [something
refused from heaven]. The more I love this country, the more itll
move away from me. The more we love the people of this land, the
more quickly well be ostracized. (Nasrin, 290)

 This passage is pleasant to read (in contrast with

the rest of the book):
It is very lyrical in its description;
It uses metaphor to get the books true point
across to the reader.
The point is, religion is a human (social)
construction (i.e., it does not exist in the natural
world, but rather is a societal, detrimental
construction).
If only he could become a free-moving cat.
(Nasrin 88)
Suranjan longs to be free of the religious confines
placed on him, a non-religious man, by the society
in which he lives.

 Was it a Hindu? Possibly so, since it resided in a

Hindu household. (Nasrin 88)
But as a non-human, the cat is not bound by
human rules and categorizations.
As such, living in a Hindu household does not make
the cat a Hindu.
But the Duttas are atheists, and do not practice
Hinduism.
Does coming from a Hindu family and having a
Hindu name make one a Hindu?
Remember, the Duttas are persecuted for being
Hindus, even though they do not practice the
Hindu faith.

 Was this cat looking at him with compassion?

[] It must be a liberal Muslim who viewed the
Hindus with pity. (Nasrin 88)
At this point, Suranjan is comparing the liberal
Muslim cat with his liberal Muslim friends, who
also view him with pity and compassion.
The cooking stove was mostly unlit. Might be
the cat would have a try in the kitchen of the
Muslim next door. (Nasrin 88)
The cat, like Suranjans sister Maya, thinks that
perhaps it will fare better under the care and
protection of Muslims rather than the Hindu
Duttas.

Official website for Taslima Nasrin.

http://taslimanasrin.com/index2.html
Nasrin, Taslima. Shame. Amherst: Prometheus Books,
1997.
Alam, Shamsul. Women in the Era of Modernity and
Islamic Fundamentalism: The Case of Taslima
Nasrin of Bangladesh Signs. Vol 23, No 2: Winter
1998. 429-461.

 Based on the information given, how likely do you think

it is that Nasrin's beliefs have led her from one extreme
of ignorance/navet to another?
There is presently a fairly notable movement of "extreme
atheism" as counter to religious fundamentalism -- how
effective do you think it is to fight fundamentalism with
extremism? Does the work successfully argue that
fundamentalism should be 'solved' by noncommunalism/secularism?
How do you think a lyrical, touching excerpt fits into a
work that is, as a whole, rather didactic and impersonal?
What degree of intention would you ascribe to such an
excerpt?
Do you agree with the family's decision to leave to India?
Why? Do you see it as maintaining or abandoning their
identity?