This year’s Jnanpith Award has gone to Vinod Kumar Shukla, one of the greatest Indian writers alive. Naturally, the literary world has welcomed the decision of the Jnanpith Award committee. The award is the oldest literary prize and is given by the Bharatiya Jnanpith, an organisation founded by the same family that owns the Times of India newspaper.
Vinod Kumar Shukla, a recluse, has also expressed his happiness. He has said that he had no idea that he would get this award. This, he said, will motivate him to write more. His admirers have said that this decision has increased the prestige of the Jnanpith Award.
Vinod Kumar Shukla. Photo: PTI.
Observing the reaction of the writer and his admirers to this award, it seems that our literary class is slowly getting relieved of two qualities which are integral to literature. One of these is memory and the other is social responsibility. Otherwise, the applause over this award would not have drowned the cries of indignation which the Jnanpith Award of 2024 had caused. This also shows that we, who treat ourselves as the most enlightened of our society, have not drawn a moral line for ourselves which must not be breached. We don’t have one non-negotiable which cannot be compromised.
Last year, the Jnanpith Award was given to Swami Rambhadracharya and Gulzar jointly. I found this decision disgusting. Rambhadracharya is not known as a literary figure. Like many other Hindu spiritual leaders of today, he is famous for his abusive anti-Muslim and anti-Dalit statements. Everyone is aware of his role in India’s biggest anti-Muslim campaign, the campaign to demolish the Babri Masjid and build a Ram temple. By awarding him last year, the Jnanpith gave hatred, abuse, and violence the status of cultural and creative activities.
Swami Rambhadracharya. Photo: X/@Varun_Jhaveri.
Hindi writers condemned this award. Editor and author Om Thanvi wrote:
“Swamiji had testified in favour of Ramlala Virajman in the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. He was among the initial ‘warriors’ of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, was at the forefront of the campaign to demolish the ‘tainted structure’, and went to jail too. He denigrates the leaders of Shiv Sena, Samajwadi Party and Congress by name and calls them ‘fools’. He is also known to make controversial statements regarding Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Recently, he was appointed the guardian of Ram Janmabhoomi Pran Pratistha.”
But the Jnanpith Award is not just for Hindi, it is for all Indian languages. Some of those who have received the Jnanpith are still alive. We did not hear them condemning this decision. Poet Vishnu Nagar expressed his grief:
“The Bharatiya Jnanpith Award has been given to Gulzar and Rambhadracharya. Leave aside Gulzar, giving this award to Rambhadracharya – who is one of the pillars of the Ram Mandir movement – and who has recently been in controversy for making derogatory remarks against a particular caste by saying that he does not worship Ram, who is also involved in a controversy of tampering with Ramcharit Manas in 2009, whose literary contribution is not known to anyone–if he can also be given the award considered to be the best in India, then what is left?”
Gulzar. Photo: Bollywood Hungama/Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported.
He lamented:
“Such a decision of ignoring Vinod Kumar Shukla and many other great writers of Hindi is disappointing. Vinod Kumar Shukla, who has received the International PEN Award, was not found suitable for the Bharatiya Jnanpith Award. It is unfortunate. He has dazzled the Hindi and non-Hindi world with his excellent creativity for the last four decades, whose unique poems and two novels (Naukar Ki Kameez and Deewar Mein Ek Khidki Rehti Thi) have a rare place in Indian literature. It is insulting to award Rambhadracharya by ignoring them and many other important authors.”
In fact, Jnanpith had insulted literature itself. In a way, it insulted all the other award-winning authors till date by placing Rambhadracharya in their league. Imagine Amitav Ghosh, Damodar Mauzo, and Rambhadracharya standing in the same line!
This time it seems the Jnanpith Award committee decided that it would regain its prestige by awarding Vinod Kumar Shukla. It thought that by awarding Shukla, it would whitewash its cultural crime. It was not wrong. There is indeed a widespread celebration of the award. The award has been redeemed.
But it is not very unnatural for Vinod Kumar Shukla’s readers like me to be hurt by this. Needless to say that he did not need this award to enhance his stature. He may need the money attached to it and that is perfectly legitimate. But the ease with which last year’s disappointment turned into this year’s joy gives an idea of the growing insensitivity in society, especially in the literary society.
The writers did not seek any explanation from the Jnanpith for its decision to honour Rambhadracharya. They did not force it to apologise for it. This time, the Jnanpith too, by awarding Vinod Kumar Shukla, told the literary people, “See, we have accommodated your own, now move on.”
Also read: Gulzar, Jagadguru Swami Rambhadracharya, and the Downfall of the Jnanpith Award
We do not hesitate to shake hands with a criminal if he washes his blood-stained hands with perfume. As said earlier, nothing is unacceptable to us. We can share the stage with anyone and call it our tolerance and generosity.
This also drew attention to another thing. Such awards provide an opportunity to writers and artists to make the society aware of the logic of their creative work, about its objectives-they are occasions for them to make the society aware of their social concern. In the last two years, we have seen many artists, filmmakers, writers in other countries using such occasions to create public opinion in favor of Palestine, against the genocide. But in India, we do not do that. Our writers take care of the decorum of such occasions and do not say anything that is inconvenient for the organisers.
Recently, the annual festival of the Sahitya Akademi was held. Did any award-winning writer protest against the hatred and violence against Muslims and Christians being spread by the government in India today? It seemed that this entire festival was taking place in a timeless space. The Akademi award winners did not even consider it necessary to issue a statement on the attack on 2015 Sahitya Akademi winner Konkani writer Uday Bhembre. They would argue that since the attack was caused by his non-literary statement, it was not for them as writers to react to it. It is for the police to take care of him.
Ten years ago, writers returned their Akademi awards to protest against the growing anti-Muslim hatred, violence, and attacks on intellectuals in the country. That protest had an impact. It rattled the government and it coined a term “award wapsi gang” to humiliate them. Today, that violence and hatred has increased a thousand times compared to 2015. Will writers not use their voices for public protest against this?
Literature is one of the most serious businesses of language. It is written in the same language that the society uses. But it changes it, transforms it, and thus challenges the social practice of language. The language that the writer is getting in India today is soaked in hatred and violence. How does he free this language from this and how does he create a new language against it? Should he not talk about this painful creative struggle publicly?
Literature is a cultural activity. Today, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian hatred is defining the culture of India. Hatred and violence are the biggest cultural phenomena of our times. It has infiltrated language and corrupted it. Efforts are being made to give this language legitimacy by institutions like Jnanpith. Will our writers not see through it and refuse to be part of it?
Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.
