Sahitya Academy misdeeds !

The country’s biggest literature festival ended in Jaipur recently without any big controversy. Some controversy crept up but of less impact. Film director Karan Johar questioned the democracy and freedom of speech in the country. Karan also tried to fuel the intolerance debate by saying that it is very difficult to say ‘Mann ki Baat’ in this country. Karan sarcastically said that the freedom of expression in this country is a joke and democracy is even bigger joke. By terming freedom of expression a joke, Karan made a mockery of himself.

It is because of the freedom of expression, which the constitution guarantees to every citizen of the country, Karan had the courage to say that our democracy is a joke. Very often, it is said that artists are emotional but Karan appeared ‘childish’ when he opined about democracy in this great country. The people who came to this planet with silver spoon in their mouth would not feel the essence of democracy. Ask those marginalized people who got the right to live with dignity. But one thing that needs to be underlined is that whenever any film or book nears its release, such celebrities try to create a controversy. They all know that the memory of the people in this country is short-lived so they take advantage of that.

It’s only when the biography of Karan Johar is nearing release, he realized that intolerance is rising in society and our democracy is a joke. Shah Rukh Khan felt intolerance just before the release of his film Dilwale. But, when a section of the people gave a call to boycott Shahrukh Khan’s film, then he started saying that this is not his film only, many people are related with this film. In fact, these film stars think that controversy is the formula of their instant success.

Actors sometimes feel like leaving this country but they always forget that this country and its people gave them immense love and affection. Their films made huge profit in this country only and people from all religion watched their movies without thinking of the actors religion. These stars created controversy for their benefit but what about those group of people who supported them in their bid to tarnish the image of the country. By supporting the controversial statements of the film stars about intolerence, these people badly damage the image of the country nationally and internationally.

Social fabric of this country is so strong that one Shah Rukh or one Aamir could not malign its image. A look at the history of Sahitya Akademi Awards exposes the so-called champions of secularism. In the history of six decades of Sahitya Akademi Awards, not a single Muslim or Dalit was given award for writing in Hindi. Last year, the award for Hindi was given to 92-year-old writer Ram Darash Mishra.

Constitution of Sahitya Akademi needs major changes with regard to awards, Changes are also required in the Sahitya Akademi constitution for filling the members of General Council. We are analyzing the credibility of the Marxists writers who entered into Sahitya Akademi in early 70s and got prominence after supporting emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi. Sahitya Akademi started honoring writers in 1955 and the first award for Hindi Literature was given to Makhan Lal Chaturvedi. And for the last 60 years, Academy did not find any Muslim and Dalit Writer, who writes in Hindi, for this prestigious award. This shows the communal face of the Sahitya Akademi.

It is good to hear that literature does not differentiate on basis of caste, creed and community. But when for a period of 6 decades if a community is kept at the fence, question arises about the motive. There is a long and distinguished list of Muslim writers who wrote and are still writing in Hindi. It is beyond doubt that their books are par excellence and loved by the readers too. Novelist Gulsher Khan Shani wrote a novel like Kala Jal, Rahi Masssom Raza wrote Aadha Gaon. Manzoor Ehtesham wrote Sukh Bargad but Sahitya Akademi did not found their novels fit for the award. In recent years Abdul Bismillah, Asagar Wazahat and Nasira Sharma wrote some masterpieces but they were not considered by the Sahitya Akademi. This can’t be a coincidence.

This is design by the Marxist writers who are at the helm of affairs at the Sahitya Akademi. Those were the days of tolerance and in those tolerant days no Muslim writers were awarded by Sahitya Akademi, it needs to be examined. In fact, the Marxist writers always posed themselves as the champions of secularism and pretended to fight for the Muslim cause but when time comes to recognize them they become the flag bearer of Marxism.

If we see the list of the coordinators of Hindi language in Sahitya Akademi, most of them were from the school of one thought that is Marxism. They rewarded those writers who came from the same ideology and sidelined those who opposed them. Year by year, comrades were rewarded. In the late eighties, casteism entered the Akademi and took control of Hindi Language. So, no Dalit writer was ever recognized. Now, time has come that questions should be asked about the exclusion of Shani, Raza, Manzoor Ehtesham, Abdul Bismillah, Nasira Sharma, Asgar Wajahat.  This was happening in Sahitya Akademi in the time when Hindu writers like Gopichand Narang and Gulzar were given Akademi award for urdu.

In fact, Sahitya Akademi is a place where every possible ‘Saudebaazi’ happens. Once the serving President of Akademi Mr V N Tiwari was fighting for the post of convenor of Hindi. Another senior writer also wanted to contest. Some people came to the rescue of Mr Tiwari and made another writer agree to withdraw his candidature. He was promised Akademi award which was given to him. When awards are given on the basis of ideology, caste and religion, then how can it be expected that genuine writers are being chosen for the award. So, when they raise the question of rising intolerance, it becomes hollow. 

(writer is a journalist working with IBN)

9871697248

Mela of Powerful Discourse also

The Jaipur Literature Festival, the biggest in south Asia has earned a reputation among world literary circle as a platform for serious dialogue. But in India some feudal intellectuals see it as a useless platform and label it ‘Tamasha’. Leading this criticism is the learned Ex judge of Supreme court of India and currently the Chairman of Press Council of India – Justice Katju. The critics of Jaipur Lit Fest think that there was only sound and fury and it had no significance. They borrow this phrase from Shakespeare.  But in criticism they show so much excitement and make a comment that puts a big question mark on the contemaporary creative writing. While questioning the ability of the contemporary writers and their writings it is said that there is hardly any worthwhile literature to be read nowadays and there was certainly none at the festival. Everything has become commercialized. This generalized statement of retired Justice  Katju is most bizarre statement coming from a person of his repute. It also reflects his ambit of knowledge of the Indian writing as well as the world literary writing. He is looking for writers like Premchand and Sharat Chandra. He made the very objectionable statement that writers often write only to earn money and there is hardly any artistic value in what they produce. At the same time this statement also shows that he doesn’t have  iota of idea about the contemporary writing of Hindi, Marathi, Bengoli and to some extent Kannada language. The Dalit writing movement in Marathi not only makes ripples among the literary world but it made remarkable impact on the life of Dalits. How can anybody forget the feminist movement run by Rajendra Yadav, the Editor of Hindi literary magazine. The argument that the writers often write only for the money is a juvenile one as he did not gave any fact to support it. Katju was a learned judge of the apex court and it was expected of him that the selection of the words in his writing must be near perfect. But in the above example he said that writers often write ONLY for money. This word ONLY is an insult to the whole writing community of our country.  
Katju is in the Habit of dropping names of world philosophers and writers like Victor Hugo, Voltaire and many more in support of his argument. On the surface this makes his articles more serious but in the process he loses the focus and gives logic which is of no relevance.
Justice Katju also advised the writers of the country to join those who are fighting to make India free from the socio economic evils. He also preaches the writers community to inspire the people and also write against oppression and backword mentality. This advise also shows that he doesn’t have any iota of idea about the progressive Hindi writing after the sixties. The almost entire writing of that period is in support of the downtrodden and the oppressed classs of the society. Even before that the famous Hindi writer Yashpal wrote a novel in 1941 in which he advocated socialism. How can anybody forget the writing of Amrit Lal Nagar, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar. Fanishwar nath Renu, Shiv Prasad Singh, Nagarjun, Raghubir Sahay, Mahasweta Devi, Rambriksha Benipuri and many more.
Katju preaches that there is hardly any great art and literature in our country today. Again by making this generalized statement in his scholarly article Katju  shows his limitations and less knowledge about the Indian writing.
 In criticizing the literati of the country he turned his gun on Jaipur Literature festival and said that the elite of this country descended at Diggi Palace of Jaipur and discussed Sex and Kamsutra. Here again he is misinformed or rather ill-informed. Sessions were there on  sex and Kamsutra but they were a part of whole Lit Fest. There was a  session on the films and the songs where speakers showed their worry on the wordings used in the item songs thses days. Mahasweta Devi was present in one of the inaugural sessions. Has anybody any doubt about the writings of Mahashweta Devi . She is the classical case of making the impact on oppressed class by of her writing, which Katju missed. She worked and wrote for more than four decades for the oppressed class. The need is to read her work and than make comments.
But one must praise Katju who is very kind in comparing the Indian literature with other countries and here also delivered a judgment that in other countries also hardly any great literature is being written. The question is that how can anybody in a sentence say like this. Has he heard about the works of British Writer Howard Jacobson or does he know about the works of so many Latin American writers who attended the lit Fest. Doesn’t seem so. If Freedom, the Masterpiece written by Jonathan Frenzen of America was taken into consideration, such statement cant be made. The list is very long but these are some examples which proves Katju wrong. We can not forget the contribution of JLF that it showed the path and now in many big or small country there is lit Fest. This is a good sign for cultural revival of the country. And despite of controversies involving Ashish Nandy and Salman Rushdie, Jaipur lit fest was a great platform for serious discourse. So by saying it a Tamasha or sound and fury shows the feudal or orthodox mindset which has to be intellectually fought.