The "manufactured controversy" (to quote our honourable Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley) over the return by over 40 writers of their Sahitya Akademi Awards in protest against the Dadri butchery of Mohammed Akhlaq and related killings refuses to die down. Each day more writers join what is already being dubbed by some (in an allusion to one of the Sangh Parivar's more egregious schemes) as "#AwardWapasi". The latest was a 17-year-old who returned her Bala Sahitya Akademi award. There are some 1,300 award recipients, and there is no sign that the steady hemorrhage from their ranks is about to stop.
When questioned by a young PTI reporter about this on the sidelines of an academic event in Thiruvananthapuram, I said three things. First, with all due modesty, I pointed out that I have never been given a Sahitya Akademi Award, so I don't really have a locus standi to comment. Nonetheless, in response to her insistence that I speak as a writer, I stated that I strongly support and admire the values, convictions and courage of the writers who have stood for freedom of expression by returning their awards. Still, I added, I regret this method of protest, since the award is recognition by an independent body of intellectual, literary, creative or academic merit, and should not be confused with the political issues of the day. The Sahitya Akademi, though set up and maintained by the Government of India, is not a political body. The political fight must be fought - but why dishonour this recognition, which the writers have received from juries of eminent writers, not from government bureaucrats?
In the firestorm of debate and commentary that followed, several reminded me (not that I needed reminding) of Rabindranath Tagore's reaction to the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre. Gurudev had returned his knighthood in protest, writing to the Viceroy that he did not wish to sport such an honour "in the incongruous context of humiliation". But there is a huge difference my critics failed to notice. Tagore returned a knighthood, not his Nobel Prize for Literature. The equivalent today would be a writer returning a Padma Shri given by the Modi Government - not a Sahitya Akademi Award.
As I also pointed out (and the reporter quoted, in the fuller version of my remarks that few bothered to read), awards are our society's tributes to the achievements of writers, and neither the achievements nor the tributes can be rolled back. What is more, the Modi Government is a temporary phenomenon, which my fellow Congressmen hope to bring to an end in another four years - literature is, and should be, far more enduring. What happens if a more acceptably liberal government comes to power - will those who have today returned their awards then petition to get them back again?
Of course, I admire these writers for the strength of their convictions and their rejection of the climate of intolerance that has been fuelled by the Modi Government. It took courage to stand up for their cause at a time when so many others have preferred silence. The protesting writers are justified in their concern, because an atmosphere of intellectual freedom is essential to promote and permit creativity in writing.
Freedom of expression is something which any writer has a moral obligation to speak up for. It is not just an abstract right in the Constitution; it is as important as the blood that flows in our veins or the ink that flows in our pens.
If the Sahitya Akademi's limp response to recent developments is a disappointment to these writers, the Akademi itself must be pressured to review its stand on these issues. But the way to do it, for a writer, is to write - to find creative expressions for her legitimate disquiet - not to return an award which the Modi Government had no part in giving them. Indeed, since I was speaking in Kerala, I pointed out that many prominent Malayalam writers including M T Vasudevan Nair, Paul Zacharia and Sugathakumari have not returned their Akademi honours.I do not think that they are any less committed to freedom.
This does not mean, however, that I share Mr Jaitley's rejection of their conduct as an "alternative strategy" of "politics by other means". Mr Jaitley argues in his blog that the writers are "camouflag[ing] the truth"and blaming the Central Government for crimes for which "nobody has alleged any governmental complacency" (I assume he meant "complicity", but let's let that pass). The crimes alluded to are, of course, the Dadri lynching and the murders of three rationalists, most recently the Sahitya award-winning Mr Kalburgi. Mr Jaitley tries to turn the political tables by adding: "to manufacture a revolt, it is necessary to obfuscate the truth and create the impression that the Modi Government is responsible for these crimes, even if they took place in the Congress and Samajwadi Party ruled States."
Now that is political sophistry of the most cynical order. It is absurd to take refuge behind state governments' constitutional responsibility for law and order when no one in their wildest imaginations ascribes any of the crimes Mr Jaitley is referring to, to supporters of either the Congress or the Samajwadi party. The blame rests clearly on the climate created by the BJP government during its 17 months in power, when intolerance of the worst kind has been allowed to rage rampant across the land - fuelled by the most irresponsible statements by BJP ministers like Giriraj Singh, Mahesh Sharma and Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, and prominent BJP MPs like Yogi Adityanath and Sakshi Maharaj. As even a vocal sympathizer of Mr Modi like the editor R. Jagannathan admits, "Public perceptions are not formed in a vacuum - they have some basis in reality."
None of these statements by senior figures in the ruling dispensation has ever been repudiated by the Prime Minister. Mr Modi's feeble denial - after a prolonged silence that even his admirers found difficult to defend - was universally derided as falling well short of the mark.
If Mr Modi sincerely wished to say the right thing to the nation, this is what he should have said:
"As Prime Minister, I condemn such acts as unworthy of the civilization we are proud to claim as our own. As leader of the BJP, I call upon my supporters to desist in word and deed from statements and actions that can fuel or legitimize intolerance and violence against people of different views in our diverse society. Anyone who supports, incites or condones such behaviour will have no place in my government or on the Treasury benches. I will demand their resignations immediately and I will prosecute the wrongdoers to the fullest extent of the law,,even if they belong to my party."
Now that would be statesmanship worthy of a man who seeks to lead the whole of India. What a pity we cannot expect such words from our Prime Minister.
(Dr Shashi Tharoor is a two-time MP from Thiruvananthapuram, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, the former Union Minister of State for External Affairs and Human Resource Development and the former UN Under-Secretary-General. He has written 15 books, including, most recently, India Shastra: Reflections On the Nation in Our Time.)Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.