Neemrana-Festival of Indian Literature

"Those who write in languages other than English often suffer from very undeserved neglect." – A B Vajpayee

".. it cannot be helped if they are not read enough….If you can’t get readership in your local language, we can’t do it for you." – V S Naipaul

A high profile International Festival of Indian literature was held at the Neemrana Fort resort in Rajasthan last month. It underscored the fact that despite the dissent, Indian writing in English is alive and creative. The regional Indian writers suffer from an undeserved neglect - the sudden growth of English writing has made regional literature a casualty. Cramped with a limited readership, vernacular writers have tried to bridge the gap by getting their works translated. But the result has been shoddy translations that have completely failed to bring out the true essence of their works.

What happens when a freshly minted Nobel laureate presides over some of the most critically acclaimed Indian authors? The appropriate perception would be that the meeting resulted in a flow of intellectual reflections that pondered over the past and charted the future of Indian writings. But in reality the result was clash of egos resulting in a sharp divide between regional literature and contemporary Indian writing in English.

Ironically, even as the curtain came down on the high profile International Festival of Indian literature at the Neemrana Fort resort in the Aravalli ranges in Rajasthan, it was clear that despite the dissent and the sound and fury, Indian writing in English is alive.

The six-day literary fest organised by the Indian Council of Cultural Relations proved that the new genre of English writing owes a debt of substance to enterprising authors who have taken off from the literary launch pad and are soaring comfortably in the world of serious readers. Their language is not a contorted version of the Queen’s English but a language they have learnt in India. It is English without its Shakespearean overtones. And the settings are usually middle class India.

Those who expressed their views on English writings by India-born writers included Sir V.S.Naipaul, Amitava Ghosh, Vikram Seth, Khushwant Singh, Ved Mehta, Sunil Gangopadhya and many more literary giants. Curiously, the absentees included names like Arundhati Roy, Mahashweta Devi, and Krishna Sobti. According to reports, Arundhati was put off by the initial decision of the organisers not to invite one-book authors.

Writer Nayantara Sehgal pointed out during the course of discussion, that "Indian writing in English definitely has an edge over language writers because of its sheer vastness of readership. Major literary festivals have seen an increasing participation by India-born English writers. Every notable international award has been won by these writers."

Indeed, starting with the Booker to Arundhati Roy for God Of Small Things, the Pulitzer for Jhumpa Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies, the Onassis International Award for Manjula Padmanabhan’s Harvest and the Earnest Hemmingway Foundation/PEN Award for Akhil Sharma’s An Obedient Father and a slew of awards awaiting Manil Suri’s Death Of Vishnu, Indian writing in English surely has taken centre stage.

Undeserved Neglect

Nayantara Sehgal - "... failure of regional writers to get a mass readership had many connections to political, social and economic circumstances."

In fact, the point was driven home by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in his inaugural address. " It may seem somewhat ironic that the literary heritage of India is celebrated principally through the medium English. Sometimes this international recognition is so lopsided that there is a tendency abroad to view Indian literature as being synonymous with Indian writings in English. Those who write in languages other than English often suffer from very undeserved neglect."

However Sir Vidya Naipaul had an opposing view. He said, "the true strength of a writer depended upon the amount of readership he or she could garner. " The Prime Minister spoke movingly of Indian writing in languages but writing depends on readership. And it cannot be helped if they are not read enough….If you can’t get readership in your local language, we can’t do it for you."

There was at once a murmur of consent and dissidence on his remark that had been carefully chosen to attract sharp response from the group that included senior writers like Khushwant Singh, Nayantara Sehgal and Ved Mehta and vernacular doyens like U.R.Anathamurthy, Indira Goswami and Vijay Tendulkar.

Most literary observers felt that the sudden growth of English writing has made regional literature a casualty. Cramped with a limited readership, vernacular writers have tried to bridge the gap by getting their works translated. But the result has been shoddy translations that have completely failed to bring out the true essence of their works.

As Nayantara Sehgal says, "failure of regional writers to get a mass readership had many connections to political, social and economic circumstances."

Sunil Gangopadhyay - "Writers must learn to co-exist peacefully."

However, celebrated Bengali author, Sunil Gangopadhyay has a very different point of view, " From pre-independence days there has been a nascent hostility towards language writers by Indians who write in English. You cannot become superior or inferior simply because of the language you write in. They should learn to peacefully co-exist without eating into each others markets".

Eclectic Group

Khushwant Singh - "During independence both language and English writers were affected by the holocaust, and both showed equal concern for the same issues through their writings. It was a living example of co-existence."

Amitava Ghosh "It is a cyclical process, when the translated work gets to the reader the writer gets recognition, which in a way helps boost language writing."

Vikram Seth - "Language Indian writers are not in the same money bracket as those who write in English, but for that to change, there have to be many more quality translations so that language writers also come in the global reckoning."

The surge of English writings has attracted an eclectic group. From publishers to journalists and from socialites to civil servants – they have all tried their hand with varying degree of success. But the real metamorphosis has come in the last couple of decades. Thanks to the opening up of branches by upmarket foreign publishers like Penguin, Picador, and Harper Collins, Indian writers in English today are hot property.

It was not so earlier. That is because there were few Indians writing in English and their literary concerns were virtually the same as those of bhasha (language) writers.

Says noted author and columnist Khushwant Singh, "During independence both language and English writers were affected by the holocaust, and both showed equal concern for the same issues through their writings. It was a living example of co-existence."

Today, co-existence sounds a very remote concept. Language writers have long felt that despite their good work they loose out to English writers when it comes to money, recognition and readership. Publishers pay huge sums to eminent English writers while vernacular authors have to beg and plead with publishers for their work to see the light of day.

Author Vikram Seth agrees. "Language Indian writers are not in the same money bracket as those who write in English, but for that to change, there have to be many more quality translations so that language writers also come in the global reckoning."

Amitava Ghosh seconds Seth’s comment. "It is a cyclical process, when the translated work gets to the reader the writer gets recognition, which in a way helps boost language writing."

But some language writers are not as charitable when it comes to Indian authors in English. Says Punjabi writer Gurdial Singh, "English books by Indians operate like a commercial industry. A publisher gets his book reviewed in leading English publications, then it becomes a status symbol for readers to buy it."

Leading Kannada writer U.R.Ananthamurthy too has a grouse. " People like us who write in our mother tongue suffer because our language is not the global language of America."

But according to Ved Mehta the doyen of books such as The New Theologian and Portrait of India, "In recent times I have read better books than have been written earlier by any Indian writing in English….there’s a spark in these writers. They have set out on a distant voyage and they are seeing new horizons. I don’t see any clash with vernacular writings. Both have a place under the sun."

Will this perceived confrontation between language and English writer bring out the best in both or will it turn Indian literature, as Italian writer Roberto Colaso says, into a ‘dull and insipid affair’?

Many at the festival felt that strained relations between the two genres would actually be beneficial, as both would strive to give their best. But it was left to celebrated Gujarati writer Dhiruben Patel who has written both in Gujarati and English, to calm frayed nerves. Literature, she said, be it in English or in any other Indian language is far above such considerations of language, reach and money. If at all literature can be defined it is only in two ways, either it is good literature or bad literature."

Perhaps the best example of bad literature was cited by none other than the inimitable Khushwant Singh who was heard narrating a limerick to a visibly embarrassed Naipaul. The title of the limerick said it all….The Constipated Writer!

_____________________

Disclaimer

Home