On
Friday evening, my gang of friends and I decided to go out for dinner. Parents
being parents, bundled our siblings along with us too and we were then a bunch
of boys-ages ranging from 10 to 23. I scanned the menu and casually ordered a
beef dish that was part of the ‘today’s specials’ list. While I pondered over
the fact that beef-eating Mumbaikars were not as fortunate as me, the youngest
on the table stared at me with a bewildered look on his face. I asked him if
everything was alright, and he said, “Actually, no. Aren’t you a Hindu?” I
replied in the affirmative. He went on, “Aren’t you a Brahmin?” Not exactly
knowing where this was heading, I said, “Yes. Why are you asking me this stuff
right now?” He then asked innocently, “How can you dare to eat beef? Aren’t you
scared you will be punished?”… I did not reply as I was stunned, confused with
the various thoughts flooding my head. Though I knew he was asking me from the
perspective of ‘God’ ‘punishing’ me, the past week or two were filled with
debate and discourse on the beef ban, the Dadri lynching and the dissent of
writers.
A
couple of nights before that, I turn on the television and switch to Times Now.
It’s the Newshour with Arnab Goswami that’s on and the debate that is titled
(rather, hashtagged) #KherVsRebels. Firstly, the name of the subject being
debated itself is highly unfair. The term ‘rebels’ make the writers seem like
some sort of unified negative force that is indulging in illegal and
anti-constitutional activity and a saviour with the surname ‘Kher’ now has the
gumption to take them on. From the word go, the debate was highly tilted
against the dissenting writers.
As
of today, more than 40 writers have returned their literary awards in protest
over the growing religious and political intolerance as well as the shrinking
space for freedom in a democracy. It all started with Hindi writer Uday Prakash
returning his Sahitya Akademi award protesting the silence of the body on the
brutal assassination of Kannada writer MM Kalburgi. After him, it was Nayantara
Sahgal and then, as some journalists put it, the trickle became a flood with a host
of eminent artists returning their awards.
Theatre
person and actor Anupam Kher, dismissing the writers, called their move
‘politically motivated’. He questioned their intentions and accused the writers
of trying to discredit Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Let me tell you why he is a
hypocrite.
Firstly,
his wife Kirron Kher is a member of the BJP. He has also openly and actively
supported the Modi campaign during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. There is
absolutely nothing wrong in that, but did anyone question his integrity at that
point and accuse him of discrediting the opponents? Just because he claims to
be ‘independent in his views’, must we believe that?
During
the debate, he questioned why the writers did not do anything or return awards
during several instances of violence and threats to freedom in the past, like
the emergency, anti-Sikh riots, Muzaffarnagar riots, hounding of Taslima
Nasreen, Salman Rushdie etc. Well, what exactly did Anupam Kher do during these
incidents? Did he raise his voice or contribute in any way? If he does not need
to explain his contributions, the writers certainly don’t need to as well. They
might not have returned awards after those shameful events in the country’s
history, but neither did they during other shameful events such as 2002 Gujarat
riots, demolition of Babri Masjid, hounding of MF Hussain etc. So, as Shashi
Deshpande rightly put it, ‘the question is not why now, but why so late?’
Did
Kher question the motives of Arun Shourie, Swapan Dasgupta, Madhu Kishwar and
all the other writers who rooted for Modi last year? Then why question another
set of writers? The assumption that all right wingers are nationalist and the
rest anti-national, hence they need not answer questions, is baseless. Why must
anyone be beyond question? The point is not about being leftist or rightist. It
is about being liberal, and all writers who are raising their voice today are
liberals. In fact, even Dasgupta, Shourie and Kishwar are liberals on the other
end of the ideological spectrum and believe in debate.
Now,
let me explain Arnab’s hypocrisy. Firstly, all he did during the debate was
indulge in ‘Whataboutery’. Author and filmmaker Piyush Jha brought back the
limelight onto this rarely used term. Collins online dictionary defines it as ‘the
practice of repeatedly blaming the other side and referring to events from the
past’. The problem with this is, regardless of the merits of an argument,
‘whataboutery’ diminishes its effect by shifting focus. Like the Congress and
BJP always juxtaposing 1984 with 2002, 2G with Yedyurappa, Kalmadi with
Gadkari, Vadra with Raje, Arnab too lowered the level of the debate with a
softer version of the usual tu-tu main-main that goes on.
Arnab
also accused the writers of having an ‘agenda’ and hence questioned their
‘selective outrage’. As a journalist, Arnab, like all others, gets his news
from sources. Now in journalism, most people believe that irrespective of who
the source is, or what they seek to achieve by giving out certain information,
it is the journalist’s job to check the facts behind the case. As long as it is
factual and true, never mind the motive, a source’s lead is followed to get the
story. Applying a similar logic, let us assume for a moment then that the
writers did have an agenda. Irrespective of their motive, as long as what they
are saying is true, it must be accepted.
Arnab
and his channel often also take immense pride in being the first channel to
break the news and the first to report from ground zero etc. The channel then
goes on to boast about how all other channels followed their lead. So, the only
charge against other channels is not that the story is false or based on loose
facts, but that they brought it out later. Uday Prakash returned his award
first condemning the Akademi’s silence. After Dadri, Nayantara Sahgal returned
hers questioning the Prime Minister’s silence on the incident and the growing
atmosphere of religious intolerance. This was followed by a host of others. So
logically, one must ask why these writers needed Sahgal as a catalyst to speak
out. Instead, Arnab questions the basis of their argument rather than the delay
in response.
Returning
awards are just one among many forms of protest. It must not be the yardstick
by which dissent is judged. Many writers, artists and intellectuals have raised
their voice on several occasions in different ways, be it any of the
unfortunate events in India’s history, irrespective of who was in power.
Writers are not a monolithic group who run a closed club with one way of
thinking or one common ideology. Take the award returners itself as an example-
there are people from several states, men and women, of all ages, some anti-BJP
and some anti-Congress, some who were jailed during the emergency, writing in various languages, poets, authors,
theatrepersons, so on and so forth.
The
media or the Government cannot dictate who should return an award and when. It
is completely an individual choice. There are many intellectuals who haven’t
returned their awards even though they fear the current polarisation in the
country. There are even more who are speaking out against the current regime
but haven’t received any awards. Therefore, judging based on the returning of
awards as a benchmark is nonsensical. It’s the media’s problem if it highlights
only award returns and not other forms of protest. There have been protest
rallies and several meetings across the country but the media will debate only
who returned an Akademi award.
With
several Union ministers getting involved and making silly statements, literary
luminaries like Vikram Seth and Salman Rushdie siding with the dissenters and
the international media and literary community raising serious questions, a PR
disaster is looming large over the Govt. The fact is, that the concerns of the
artists are serious and not to be brushed aside. It is always writers who
question the Government but now, it’s the opposite. Instead of turning the heat
on them, casting aspersions on their integrity and trying to turn them into the
villains, the Govt. must reach out, take them into confidence and assure
everyone that the liberal-secular fabric of the nation will be safeguarded. If
the Prime Minister himself can host the Bose family and promise a timeline for
action, can’t he do the same for the artists as well?
Though
the returning of awards is merely a symbolic gesture of trying to capture media
attention, it is important to do so to bring the spotlight on the issue in
question. They could have continued their protest through writings, rallies and
using social media, but then neither the likes of Anupam Kher nor Arnab Goswami
would care. At the end of this combative week, one needs a break from all the
negativity and tension. I just switch the channel and tune in to India’s pride
and national obsession, Bigg Boss, for some more shouting matches and outrage,
which is almost as colourful and entertaining as our news channels. To bridge
the gap, the show has now introduced a segment called ‘Bigg Boss debate’ hosted
by Salman Khan.
Jai
Hind!
