The Algebra of Arundhati’s Injudiciousness

Prize-winning author and activist Arundhati Roy has declined this year’s Sahitya Akademi Award, saying she cannot accept the honour from an institution linked to the Government whose policies she opposes.

Is this an unwavering stand or a whimsical sulk? For several reasons I have openly expressed my admiration for Arundhati Roy.

Today, I am completely pissed off. I have a few questions to ask of her:

1. She has been given this award for her book, ‘The Algebra of Infinite Justice’. Does it not strike her that the organisation is not looking for her to drip honey from her tongue?
2. She is of course right to oppose the policies of the government, but does she check on the antecedents and financial history of the organisations that invite her to lecture against the government?
3. By rejecting the award, is she trying to convey that the other writers who have won it in the past were in favour of or kowtowing to government policies?

Ironically, Vijay Tendulkar’s play, ‘Shantata! Court Chalu Ahe’ was banned by the government; it had won a Sahitya Akademi award. Upamanyu Chatterji won his prize despite raising questions about the bureaucracy; Mahesh Dattani won it for his biting play ‘Final Solutions’ on the Bombay riots. Many more anti-establishment voices have won it – people like Dilip Chitre and Kiran Nagarkar can hardly be called lackeys of any authority. And there are far too many writers from the regional languages that have been honoured for asking tough questions through their works.

Assuming that the organisation is working in tandem with the government (it is not), is Roy against the government policy of encouraging literary efforts?

If it is principles…

Then why does she accept encomiums from countries that India has problems with? She has visited Pakistan, spoken out candidly on various issues, which is just as it should be. But if you can accept the hospitality of a government that does not have an impeccable track record, then you have to show some respect for your own country too – its track record notwithstanding.

Does she not go to the West and speak out against Western imperialism? This is good. Using the same standards, is she then conveying that she approves of Occidental freedom of speech versus ours? Indirectly, she is sponsored by the various governments whose policies she opposes. The minute she applies for a visa and is ushered through immigrations till she returns home, she is hostage to the environment.

It is a dichotomy of social consciousness that you may not sleep with the enemy, but you have to sometimes use its bed.

Last month, Robert Redford was honoured by the Kennedy Centre for his lifetime contribution to the arts and American culture. He had second thoughts about attending the function because if he had to sit next to President George Bush, whose policies he disapproves of, he would be seen as his supporter. Instead of getting self-righteous about it, he said, “It’s obviously a big honour that cannot be denied. My initial confusion was whether it was in any way tied to the government. Once I realised it was an honour above politics, I breathed easier.”

He was mature enough to recognise that the arts have no politics and as an American he ought not to have a problem with ‘American culture’. Therefore, Indian art and Indian culture have nothing to do with who runs the government.

Dilip Chitre, who has called the government all sorts of things in the past, is unsparing: “…is Ms. Roy holding the award jury responsible for ‘the construction of big dams, pursuing nuclear weapons, increasing militarisation and economic liberalisation…’? In her eloquent fury, Ms. Roy even mentions farmers’ suicides, forcible eviction of people from their lands and livelihood, the police brutalisation of industrial workers in Gurgaon—and so forth. Where will the poor jury that chose her for the award look now?”

The Sahitya Akademi Secretary, K Sachidanandan, tried to convince Roy, “We are telling her that the Akademi is intellectually and culturally purely autonomous although it is funded by the Government.” He further added, “There have been many occasions when we opposed government policies ourselves. There is absolutely no question of replacing Roy with anybody else. She will remain our awardee.”

I think the Akademi has expressed more grace than the lady in this particular context.

Cynics might well conjecture that the whole tribute business is about the conceit of people who believe they are intelligent enough to recognise somebody’s contribution.

If it is a moral position…

Then what would be Arundhati Roy’s take on the Jamnalal Bajaj award? It is considered a respected milestone for anyone working in the social services sector. It is named after an industrialist. Some of the most well-regarded people have been honoured. Like all business families, the Bajajs too have factories that cause problems for the environment, they too try to find loopholes to get exemption from import-export duties and find ways to save on taxes. Would she decline the award on moral grounds?

Would she at some stage in life refuse the Nobel Prize because Alfred Nobel was the man behind the bomb, which she opposes, or because V. S. Naipaul – an open supporter of the Hindutva wave in India – had won it?

Would she ever refuse to be ‘Time’ magazine’s Person of the Year because there have been some unsavoury characters who have figured in their list?

Would she refuse an award named after any famous person? Who is being commemorated here – the celebrity after whom it is named or the recipient? Do the two necessarily have to follow similar ideologies?

Yasser Arafat had got the Ambedkar International Award, and also the Nehru and Indira Gandhi awards – the latter two clearly being establishment figures, while Dr. Ambedkar was a champion of the downtrodden. Which one was truer for him?

The Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela too have been recipients. What is common between these leaders?

It ultimately becomes a recognition for what they represent.

If it is vanity…

Then it surely cannot be the mere addition of a scroll of honour or a piece of medal. How would it make a person feel special for being the chosen one?

Several years ago I wanted to do a follow-up profile on a woman who had once worked in a village and won a prestigious award; nothing much was heard about her later and I got her details only in a musty file. I called up the number I found. The voice at the other end was hesitant, “She has been dead for several years now.” It was an eerie sensation, but from this incident two questions formed – can an award outlast the beneficiary, and how relevant is the title when you leave it all behind?

The latter has always interested me much more. The sense of futility, the ennui of tasting the fruits of a labour that ought to be fruit enough, and the sheer effort of becoming part of a charmed circle and to have to follow the rules set by it. Often, there is the danger of the you-scratch-my-back-I-give-you-credit-for-the-nailmarks situation. On such fragile needs are reputations made. Or unmade.

Who do you want to be accepted by? This is an important poser. I am sure Roy is aware of how the establishment can silence sounds of dissent. So, is she on one of those trips where to be victimised by the powerful ensures that success has been achieved? Does she, therefore, feel threatened that she might become a tagged person made to trot holding on to the Rein of Terror?

I might like to remind her of her own avowed purpose. She is not the sole person running the show; it is a team effort. Approval has to be sought from the ‘target’ audience and for it. The ideas have to be not merely expressed, but received. They cannot be left out in the cold as a conflagration is started elsewhere to draw attention to them.

Arundhati Roy should realise that to light people’s lives you have to keep the flame burning alive where they are and not where you are.