Nobel Literature jury: Living in a time warp

Rajesh Singh

The Cold War is long over, the Iron Curtain dismantled and the Berlin Wall demolished.
It may clearly be a new world for us, but the jury at the Nobel Literature continues to be
influenced by communist wrongdoings and excesses, suppressions and detentions,
subjugations and exterminations, in determing the worth of a writer fit to win the prize.
The dark days were indeed horrible and they produced an array of moving literature,
several deserving the Nobel. But while things have changed across the globe – and
continue to change further – none of that seems to reflect in the choice of the Nobel
candidate for this year’s literature prize.

Winner Herta Mueller fled Romania in 1987 following her persecution for writing on life
behind the Iron Curtain. She was unsparingly critical of the communist regime there.
Herta came to Germany that had earlier bestowed her with herodom. By then she was as
much an anti-communist activist as a litterateur. And, for the Swedish Academy, the first
credential was perhaps the clincher. Her work, it said, in announcing the award, dazzled
“with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, (and) depicts the landscape
of the dispossed.”

That Herta happens to be the third European in a row to win the Literature prize, is not
surprising. Europe has been, after all, the crucible of the anti-communist movement, more
so in the eighties. For the jury, it was a perfect situation for quality literary outpourings
that needed to be recognized. That high-value literature dealing with a wide range of
social issues, being written in several languages across the world, deserved the honour,
never occurred to the learned judges. In what gives their prejudice away, Horace
Engdahl, then the permanent secretary of the Academy, declared only last year, "Europe
still is the center of the literary world." He dismissed the US as being “too insulated.”
Asia did not, of course, stand a chance of being even mentioned.

The US apparently continues to be insulated. Two of its front-runners, Philip Roth and
Joyce Carol Oates, were eliminated this year. Which brings us to India. Noted author and
activist, Mahasweta Devi was being mentioned this year by those who thought the Nobel
jury had outgrown its age-old obsession. But one doubts she was even given a serious
thought. The only time a home-bred Indian won the Nobel for literature was 96 years
ago. Then, the Swedish Academy viewed writings less as a tool to further political
agendas and more for their literary merit. So, while Rabindranath Tagore’s outpourings
had a strong nationalist feel, his poetry and prose had an unparalleled literary magic.

V S Naipaul was the only other winner eight years ago with an `Indian connection.’ He
bagged the award for “having united perceptive narrative and incorruptible scrutiny in
works that compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories." With `suppression’ and
`dispossession’ being the favourite key words, one wonders how long it would be before
Mahasweta Devi takes the centre-stage at the awards function!
But she is not the only one doing recognizable work in literature. The vernacular sector in
the country is splashed with brilliant writers, some alive others dead. MT Vasudevan
Nair, Gopinath Mohanty, Mohammed Basheer and Sitakant Mahapatra, for instance, have
produced writings (in their native tongue) that are on par with the the best in the world.
Yet, they remain largely confined to their states, despite the efforts of literary bodies to
enlarge their scope through translations.

Because of the mercurial conduct of the jury year after year, sensible observers have
stopped predicting the award. Sometimes, the jury attains great heights in awarding a
truly accomplished and outstanding author, at other times it picks a writer whose choice
triggers a minor revolt within the Academy itself, not to mention the outrage outside
among readers and publishers. For instance, the choice of the 2004 winner, Elfriede
Jelinek was protested by a member of the Swedish Academy, Knut Ahnlund, who
resigned, alleging "irreparable damage" had been done to the reputation of the award in
selecting Jelinek. He was reportedly not comfortable with her politically strong leanings
and writings on feminism.

On the other hand, the Swedish Acadmey has overlooked for a variety of reasons noted
writers like R K Narayan, Andre Malraux, John Updike, Graham Greene, W H Auden,
Leo Tolstoy and Anton Chekhov, among others. The last two lost out apparently because
their works did not have the “lofty and sound idealism” that determines the spirit of the
award. Greene did not qualify ostensibly for his critique of `American imperialism’ and
support to Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

The Academy came in for criticism for failing to give Salman Rushdie the prize in 1989,
more so after an Islamic cleric issued a fatwa for his killing. Two members of the
Academy resigned over the body’s refusal to support the author.

Amidst the controversies, there have been some who have had the courage to flatly refuse
the award or compromise to secure it. In 1964, Jean Paul Sartre declined the Nobel Prize
for Literature, saying, "It is not the same thing if I sign Jean-Paul Sartre or if I sign Jean-
Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize winner. A writer must refuse to allow himself to be transformed
into an institution, even if it takes place in the most honorable form."

Czech writer Karel Capek willingly ruined his chance. With his `War With the Newts’
considered too offensive to the German government, the Academy asked him to suggest
some other less controversial publication as an example of his writing. He declined,
saying, “Thank you for the good will, but I have already written my doctoral
dissertation.” He was denied the prize.

END