K Satchidanandan

Culture Ministry May Have Lowered Its Own Rating With the New Grading System For Artists

While the Culture Ministry’s new ‘Outstanding’ category of artists puts stalwarts alongside young practitioners for festivals of India abroad, the ‘Promising’ section has organisations that call themselves NGOs.

While the ministry’s new ‘Outstanding’ category of artists puts stalwarts alongside young practitioners for festivals of India abroad, the ‘Promising’ section has organisations that call themselves NGOs.

Sarod maestro Ustad Amjad Ali Khan. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

New Delhi: Devaang Jain has reason to be thrilled. “This year has been particularly great,” he tells this correspondent from his home city, Jaipur.

Among the 185 artistes and others, which the union culture ministry has graded as per its new system for eligibility for participation in festivals of India abroad, Jain has been rated ‘O’ for outstanding.

Of the 46 rated ‘O’ by the ministry according to a June 2 memorandum uploaded on its website this week, he is perhaps the youngest in that category.

At 26, Jain shares space with some of the stalwarts of Indian cultural firmament – Carnbatic vocalist T. V. Gopalakrishnan, Bharatanatyam dancer Saroja Vaidyanathan, Gopal Sharman and Jalabala Vaidya’s Akshara Theatre, vocalist Sumitra Guha, Odissi dancers Mayadhar Raut and Ranjana Gauhar, Kathak dancers Shovana Narayan and Gitanjali Lal, Mohan Upreti’s Parvatiya Kala Kendra, et al.

Compared to these veterans, Jain is fairly unknown. He identifies himself as “a filmmaker who specialises in archeology, heritage and travel, a field rarely explored in India.” His claim to fame is two television series, which ran on Doordarshan last year.

“Yes, it is an honour to be selected in the outstanding category, but it is by dint of our quality work. Our company Sukhnidhey Films has made over 108 episodes for Doordarshan so far. The show ‘Bharat Darshan – Exploring the Unexplored’ ran for 52 episodes [and] so did our other program, ‘Jambudweep – A Journey Through Incredible India’. Yet another series, ‘Highway’ has begun on Doordarshan Rajasthan,” said Jain.

A graduate of the Malaviya National Institute of Technology (MNIT), Jaipur, Jain has been making films for the past seven years.

“I started making films when I was studying in MNIT. This April, one of our films, Art from the Past, was screened in Johannesburg, while a film on the forts of Ranthambore will be screened this October in the International Archeology Film Festival in Italy,” he said.

Sharing space with him in the ministry’s ‘O’ list is young Kathakali exponent, Prabal Gupta.

A May 2014 review of a dance performance by Gupta in The Hindu says, “Prabal is in the process of maturing. He has a fair amount of technical virtuosity that includes footwork, arm movements and movements of the facial muscles. Though he does not carry the expertise, the stiffness and experience of seasoned ensemble artists, his sense of timing and dramatisation is impressive. He was able to hold his own during the performance.”

When The Wire contacted Bangalore-based Gupta, he was “busy conducting a workshop” but added that “ The fact that ministry has empanelled me as outstanding certainly means [that] I have the calibre for it. There are stalwarts in that group.”

Delhi-based Shivendra Kumar Singh’s Raaggiri features in the ‘O’ category as well. A former sports journalist with ABP News and Zee TV, Singh is the managing trustee of Raaggiri, which he describes as “a platform that works in two levels. One, to promote classical music by holding programmes of well known names and two, by imparting training in music to the underprivileged section of the society.”

Formed in 2015, Raaggiri has till date organised programmes by vocalists like Shubha Mudgal and Malini Awasthi among others, and runs music classes for visually impaired children in the city’s National Association for The Blind and for underprivileged children in a gurudwara in south Delhi. “Also, once in one or two months, we organise music programmes for old age homes,” he adds.

Singh is happy at the new categorisation system adopted by the ministry. “Classical music has been run by a group of 20-25 artistes. They are the big names. We respect them, but it is time for Indian classical music to go beyond them. If a big vocalist is selected for a festival of India, he will himself sing there and take along singers from his own gharana. But if we are invited, we will bring together artistes from various gharanas. Our aim will be to showcase those who hardly get a platform,” he told The Wire.

Here, Singh certainly reflects culture minister Mahesh Sharma’s stated sentiments on the working out of the new grading system.

Speaking to the Indian Express on July 18, Sharma said, “There was this usual allegation that only a selected few artistes or a group of artistes participated at various events. We want to send them [the newly graded artistes] to various places as per their grading. It will also fix their honorarium permanently. We will prepare an index. We can then invite them anytime and send them anywhere.”

Sharma’s ministry, in the process of grading artistes, may have adopted some rather odd categories – Outstanding (O), Promising (P) and Waiting (W) – but to rate an artist is not an eyebrow raising exercise in the country. It isn’t anything new.

All India Radio (AIR) and Doordarshan have been holding periodic auditions to grade artists for their programming for decades. It is a known fact that an ‘A’ grade from the AIR is a big advantage in a musician’s resume, besides providing access to better financial support.

Renowned music critic and literary commentator, Kuldeep Kumar, points out that “The auditions for AIR and Doordarshan are different from this new system because the government is not directly involved in the exercise. It has a selection committee comprising experts from the fields. There are no bureaucrats involved. At times, there are allegations of bias against particular artists but there is no denying that the experts know their subject well. They listen to the applicants, watch them perform live, ask them questions on theory of music and dance and then grade them.”

But, according to Kumar, “In this case, you have to fill up a very basic form which doesn’t reflect the artist’s work much. Then, all you need to do is upload a video.”

This new system, he fears, will enable anyone to call himself an international artist.

“Art needs years of dedicated work, not a mere music or a dance video. Even to get admission in Delhi University on [an] arts quota, an applicant has to perform live.”

The 185 artists who made it to the three categories had all responded to an advertisement issued by the ministry at the end of 2015. They were then graded “by a high powered committee of bureaucrats and selected artists.”

Raising another pertinent point, Kumar said, “Being invited by the government to perform at a festival of India event is a prestigious thing for an artist. It indicates that the artist’s work has been noticed without he/she needing to go to the government. It is different from seeking eligibility by filling up a form, which can be filled up by someone even with one year of experience. The difference in terms of age and experience in the ‘O’ category itself shows [that] fairly young practitioners of art have been put together with the gurus.”

As per the June 2 memorandum issued by the ministry, those marked ‘O’ or ‘P’ will be selected for festivals of India abroad and the ones with a ‘W’ will obviously have to wait, though it is unclear how long their waiting period will be. The memo says that there will be a cooling off period of two years before a participant can be selected for another government of India event abroad.

“No self-respecting artist with many years of work behind him/her would like to be a part of it. Some do because they need state patronage as unfortunately there is no other way of financing creative work,” said Kumar.

Perhaps for this reason, many senior artists that The Wire contacted – some of them in the Ministry’s O list – preferred to keep quiet on the new grading system.

“I have no comments on this subject. However, I would say every musician can live in the hearts of the people of India or the world, something that goes beyond the grades,” Sarod maestro Ustad Amjad Ali Khan said.

The new grading system will also apply to those who indulge in “written literature”. However, the writers’ fraternity is not found wanting in on the issue.

Renowned writer Nayantara Sahgal, expressed her opinion on the issue on the Indian Cultural Forum (ICF), a New Delhi-based platform of readers and writers that celebrates India’s plural literary heritage, “This comes as no surprise. It has been government policy to control freedom of thought in every sphere – science, art, and literature. This particular measure, as I understand it, applies to ‘the official cultural space’, i.e. the events for which the government chooses participants. It cannot affect festivals of literature all over the world or film and other festivals for which participants are invited by the festival organisers themselves, and are not government-sponsored or controlled. It is, in any case, an appalling but expected measure, and one that artists, writers etc. who seek government patronage should deal with. We should make it clear we are not in that category and utterly reject this ridiculous fiat.”

Among others, former Sahitya Akademi secretary and celebrated Malayalam poet, K. Satchidanandan also wrote on ICF.

“It is a national shame. No self-respecting writer or artist can put in an application to be graded and included in festival teams. And the state has no business deciding the value of art and artists. That is something that time and the community of concerned sahrudayas and critics and the larger society do, and they do it constantly and variously. This is the sure way to favouritism, nepotism, corruption, and the play of professional jealousy and rivalry. I know that AIR and DD have been doing this to musicians and dancers to fix their honorarium. Even that was bad. Now all artists, and even writers, are being coaxed into this new servitude of a forced hierarchy. The community should say a big no to this stupid exercise. This is another example of the state entering autonomous cultural realms and playing the police and the nursery teacher.”

On being contacted by The Wire, Satchidanandan elaborated, “All the three akademis and the National School of Drama give annual awards to writers, artistes and theatre persons based on their work. These awards. Artistes have so far been selected for these festivals and other events based on such recognitions. By bringing in this new grading system, those awards are being undermined. In a way, the government is questioning the autonomous nature of these institutions set up during Jawaharlal Nehru’s time and want to become the ultimate judge of cultural practitioners.”

As per ministry officials, the Centre for Cultural Resources and Training (CCRT), an autonomous institution under the ministry, is the nodal agency for the grading project titled Cultural Mapping of India, and has already profiled nearly 70 lakh artistes and writers.

To implement the system as the norm henceforth, the Festival of India Cell of the ministry issued a fresh advertisement dated July 4 “seeking proposal/application for empanelment of artistes/events to take part in various festivals abroad” within a month’s time.

Of the present 185 participants, 46 have been graded ‘O’, 112 were given a ‘P’ and 27 a ‘W’. The culture minister might have told the media about the need to take the new grading system even to the villages, but a close look at the present exercise conducted by his ministry is clearly National Capital Region centric. Twenty of the 46 graded ‘O’ belong to Delhi and so do 46 of the 112 marked ‘P’. Four among these 112 names belong to Sharma’s constituency of Gautam Buddh Nagar.

Among the names found “Promising” are also quite a few organisations that describe themselves as NGOs.

A random check of the list brings to fore names like Indian Council for Social Welfare (ICSW) of Indirapuram (UP) and Su Samannaya of Kolkata.

While the website for ICSW doesn’t overtly show anything that relates it to culture, it has been selected for “dance production”.

Su Samannaya describes itself as “working in the area of aged and elderly, animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries, animal welfare, art & culture, children, civic issues, education and literacy, environment and natural resource management, health and nutrition, HIV/AIDS, legal awareness and aid, panchayati raj, rural development and poverty alleviation, sports, vocational training, women’s development and empowerment, youth Affairs, etc.” besides art and culture. It has been selected to take part in festivals of India for “praising the divine mother through the concept of Kavi guru Rabindranath Tagore” and for a performance on goddess Kali.

One of the 185 applicants was also Indore-based Shailendra Singh’s communication and branding agency, Ascent Group India.

His website counts the Bharatiya Janata Party as a client. Singh, whose agency also helped the recent Simhasta Kumbh Mela gain footfall, helped the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh government launch the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao and Vikas Suchna Rath initiatives as well.

Though for now the Ascent Group has found itself in ‘Waiting’.

Review: Govind Pansare Had Some Lessons For the Left, If They Would Only Pay Attention

The relative marginalisation of Pansare’s work is likely a consequence of the larger unquestioned practices that have become normal fare in communist parties today.

File photo of a march commemorating Govind Pansare. Credit: PTI

Govind Pansare was not among the nationally well known faces of the Communist Party of India (CPI), even though it was his political home for over six decades. Tragically, it was Pansare’s assassination in February 2015 that catapulted the CPI leader to the centre of national discourse. Prior to his murder, not many beyond Maharashtra, where he was based all his life, knew about the richness of his innovative work, his scholarship, and his organic links with the people he spent most of his time with.

Reading Pansare’s writings in the recently published book Words Matter: Writings against Silence, I wondered why his work did not get the attention it deserves during his life time, even within his own party. These diverse writings – he authored 21 books – clearly distinguish Pansare from run-of-the-mill communist leaders, many of whom despite their ordinariness, have become well known faces representing the party. His relative marginalisation seems to be a consequence of the larger unquestioned practices that have become normal fare in communist parties today.

K. Satchidanandan
Words Matter: Writings against Silence
Penguin Books, 2016

Pansare, along with M.M. Kalburgi and Narendra Dhabolkar, whose murders captured national headlines, were all rationalists. Given this, it is perhaps not surprising that religion is one arena where his distinctive mode of intellectual inquiry is on full display. In his work, the communist leader reckoned with questions like: how can communist parties – which believe in and practise atheism – reach out to vast numbers of deeply religious people? What kind of popular cultural idioms do they need to evolve that move beyond a ‘class only’ approach? These are questions that have a direct bearing on contemporary politics in India where aggressive forms of religious fundamentalism have rendered Left-Liberals quite helpless in the political sphere.

While Pansare reflected at length on the complexities of religious and political mobilisation for Left forces in the country, Left parties as a whole shunned deeper intellectual exercises to understand the politics of religion. Instead, the Left parties clung to unchanging formulations year after year, decade after decade. Consider for instance the deadening language of the section on communalism in the CPI-M’s organisation report presented at the party’s Kolkata plenum in December 2015. Para 1.187 of the document states: “Utilising the intellectuals with us and our contacts with democratic intellectuals and prominent personalities, we should set up joint platforms against communalism. We should use the intellectual resources and the research centres that we have to produce political and ideological material for the campaign against communalism.”

These words are typical of the Left’s general tendency to reduce its fight against communalism to a string of (failed) electoral strategies. The latest example of this comes from the politically bankrupt and disastrous Left-Congress alliance in the recent elections in Bengal. The language deployed by the Left to wean people away from communalism has been no different from that used by so-called secular parties like the Congress or Samajwadi Party. However, while the latter of these parties has successfully leveraged caste arithmetic in its favour, Left parties have, for too long, been slow to react on that front as well.

In his writings on religion, Pansare seems to ask more interesting questions and spell out potentially more fruitful strategies. For example, he writes: “On the one hand, we should not hesitate to explain religion in a straightforward language. We should note the historical role played by religion, and at the same time explain how the established system has used the miserable and helpless in their place.” He goes on to explain how communist parties should deconstruct religion and how it has been used by vested interest groups to acquire power and wealth. “We should not spare any effort in showing how religion has been used by the rulers to further their vested interests and explain this to the exploiters. But we should be sympathetic to those who have fallen victim to religious bigotry.”

Delving deeper into the question of communist parties’ engagement with people who are religious, Pansare cites Lenin’s response to the question of whether believers can be admitted into the party. Lenin was of the opinion that millions of workers, peasants and the poor would stand to be excluded from membership if the party shut its doors on believers. He maintained that his “party is not a debating society between believers and non-believers.” It is this deep attention to local conditions, to the intricate histories of caste and religion that appear to set Pansare apart from the most prominent faces of the Left movement today.

In contrast to what is often the Left’s dismissive attitude of religion, Pansare emphasises that “revolutionaries” need to intellectually engage with religion: “All the revolutionaries in the world have had to think about religion. They did so by putting in front of them two sections of society. One section is that of oppressors using religion to exploit. The other is that of the exploited and the poor who have taken shelter under religion with false hope.”

However, Pansare also argued that to liberate the masses from the clutches of religion, one has to analyse it in specific social contexts. The views revolutionaries have of religion, he writes, “must be based on the social conditions of the time. It may be convenient for those who wish to interpret the world to go on repeating the same views irrespective of time and space. Such a position does not help those who wish to ‘change the world.’”

In observing that “religion thus occupies a singular space as far as the scope, depth and continuity of its impact on society is concerned”, Pansare seems to suggest that mere sloganeering will not effectively challenge the increasing politicisation of religion, or wean people away from such a process. The pull of religion is perhaps stronger than most identities. It is not enough to understand religious mobilisation either in purely electoral terms or simply as a subset of questions related to class. The matter is far more complex.

Pansare therefore asks: “What are the reasons for it? No system in society survives without reason. It does not become universal unnecessarily. It does not create hegemony for no reason. There is something in religion that fulfils a social need.”

In the chapter introducing him, author and translator Uday Narkar writes that Pansare “was perhaps the only Left leader in Maharashtra who was struggling to engage with the people’s imagination.” At a time when the masses at large seem disillusioned with dogmatic party line and staid politics, getting back in touch with “the people’s imagination” – even if to critically interrogate it – could be well worth the effort.

What Left parties need right now is to revive a culture of intellectual debate – one in which grassroots leaders like Pansare (there surely are many more such invisible and restless party intellectuals away from the glare of publicity) can make a worthy contribution. It is equally necessary for communist parties to make space for dissident opinions on critical subjects like religion and caste rather than penalise them, for the debate to lead to a genuinely different conversation.

Writers Protest Vedanta Sponsorship of Jaipur Lit Fest London

Over a hundred Individuals have condemned Vedanta’s sponsorship of JLF, London, expressing “solidarity with the communities suffering pollution, oppression and displacement” as a result of its operations.

A session at the 2015 Jaipur Literature Festival in Jaipur, with Sanjoy Roy, festival producer, on the left. Credit: Jaipur Literature Festival

New Delhi: On May 21, writers, academics and others plan to gather at Southbank London, to protest the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) London, for receiving sponsorship from Vedanta Resources, the controversial British mining company with operations in India, Zambia and Australia.

According to the ‘Boycott Vedanta JLF London’ Facebook event page, the protest will target “Vedanta’s shameless PR campaign through the sponsorship of Jaipur Literature Festival, London” and express “solidarity with the many communities suffering pollution, illness, oppression, displacement and poverty as a result of Vedanta’s operations.”

The protest follows an open letter, signed by over a hundred writers, academics, professionals and students, urging participants of JLF London to boycott it.

On May 19, writer and broadcaster Aarathi Prasad and Malayalam and English poet K. Satchidanandan pulled out of the festival as a result of the letter.

Vedanta’s mining operations have met with repeated criticism for being unsafe and aggressive towards local peoples and environments. In particular, individuals and groups, including Amnesty International and Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti, have condemned Vedanta’s treatment of the Dongria Kondh tribe and the region around the Niyamgiri hills in Odisha where they have lived for generations.

Vedanta has consistently denied allegations of environmental pollution and human rights violations. It has claimed to be working to benefit the lives of millions of people through its various corporate and social responsibility programmes.

In response to the open letter, Sanjoy Roy, managing director of Teamwork Arts, which produces the festival, said in a statement:

“While we appreciate the concerns of those who have posted the open letter, we remain an open platform that allows for free thought and expression. Our strength continues to be our programming, the speakers and the quality of free and frank discussions that JLF brings to audiences. Our sponsors do not influence these choices nor have a say in our content.”

Also read: Mining At Any Cost: The Odisha Government’s Continued Dismissal of Adivasi Rights

Writer Kavita Bhanot, however, questions JLF’s self-description as an “open platform” for “free thought and expression,” no less because of the “hypocrisy” apparent in such a venture receiving funding from a company accused of violating human rights, but also because of what she calls the “colonial core” of the festival.

She points to descriptions of the festival on its website as “a creative caravan of writers and thinkers” that will “bask in the colourful ideas of Jaipur,” and by one of its founders William Dalrymple as “a chance to enjoy early summer in Britain, escaping the heat in India,” claiming that these are fundamentally and problematically colonialist in character and that the festival is thus based on such a colonialist engagement with India’s literatures, cultures and peoples.

According to Bhanot, the festival’s choice of sponsorship this year, but also in previous years (which has included Shell and Coca Cola), raises questions about “whose freedom of speech” it allows, and about its very legitimacy and relevance. Bhanot says: “Hidden behind this colourful celebration… is the blood of those at whose cost such a festival is being put together, highlighted so clearly in JLF’s sponsorship by Vedanta.”

Bhanot quotes Gladson Dungdung, a Jharkhand based human rights activist, as saying: “Vedanta intends to manufacture consent in its favour in order to ensure the loots of the natural resources of India.” Bhanot adds that Vedanta has “been desperately attempting to save its image internationally, and to whitewash over its crimes. The latest manifestation of this is its foray into the world of ‘literature.'”

The protest against “Vedanta JLF” comes after two other recent literary festival controversies in India that have highlighted the complexities in the relationship between literature and politics.

In 2011, Kashmir’s first-ever literary festival “The Harud” was cancelled following organisers’ concerns about possible violence. At the time, over 200 people signed an open letter stating that a literary festival is “an event that celebrates the free flow of ideas and opinions… To hold it in a context where some basic fundamental rights are markedly absent… is to commit a travesty.”

In November 2015, Vikram Sampath stepped down as director of the Bangalore Literature Festival, after a furore over his views on writers returning their awards to protest government policies and actions.

Fact Check: Has the Narendra Modi Govt Really Given India’s Cultural Institutions a ‘Facelift’?

The culture minister has three more years to go. One can only hope that at least all vacancies in the cultural institutes are filled before he releases any future self-signed progress reports.

Culture minister Mahesh Sharma. Credit: Reuters

New Delhi: Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma recently claimed that the country’s cultural institutions, which were “in total ruins” before the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the Centre two years ago, were given a “facelift” by the government. Cultural institutions run on public money and clearly must serve the purpose they were assigned, particularly premier institutions that enjoy a greater share of government funds. So how does Sharma’s self-attested progress report stack up against the facts? The Wire did a quick audit.

Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML)

The NMML, an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Culture, is considered one of the premier centres of research on the social sciences, attached with a museum that celebrated India’s freedom movement and highlights the life and times of India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru – all housed in a building where Nehru spent the last 16 years of his life. Every year, the library awards fellowships to scholars to carry forward work on a range of intellectual pursuits. A fellowship here is a much sought after opportunity for anyone interested in making a mark in the social sciences.

Since mid-September 2015, however, the NMML has been running without a full-fledged director.

The government reconstituted the NMML Board in April 2015 and began making the necessary noises in the media about the intent to have a change of guard at the director level too, even though the UPA government had extended the tenure of Mahesh Rangarajan. This prompted Rangarajan to step down as director five months later. Seven months on, however, Sharma seems undecided on Rangarajan’s replacement and still needs a “few weeks’ time”.

Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Credit: Wikimedia Commobs

Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

So far, the day-to-day activities of the NMML have been taken care of by a joint secretary the ministry, Sunil Mittal, who has been given additional charge. Direct rule by the Ministry has robbed the institution of its autonomy.

Last year, Rs. 10 crore was set aside to give NMML a “facelift”. The work, supervised by a sub-committee headed by BJP spokesperson M. J. Akbar, also the vice chairman of NMML’s new executive council, continues. However, the “facelift” in this case seems more of a “cleansing” act. With the name ‘Nehru’ attached to the institution, it is apparent that the BJP sees the institution in its current form more as a Congress legacy than a national bequest. No surprise then that the ministry expressed its aim “to focus on the evolution of Indian democracy and highlight recent achievements” through the exercise. The decision has attracted criticism from many quarters, including the Congress, which decried the effort to undermine the role of Nehru in the freedom struggle under the guise of a “facelift”.

“The present government may think that the museum is all about Nehru but a walk around here doesn’t give the idea that even if it is the former residence of Nehru, it is only about him. Among others, it also features Veer Savarkar, the man who coined the term Hindutva,” says a museum official who doesn’t want to be named here.

Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA)

The IGNCA, established by former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1985 in memory of his mother Indira Gandhi, also functions under the ministry of culture, and focuses on academic pursuits and the dissemination of the arts.

Recently, the ministry rejigged the IGNCA’s board of trustees. Former diplomat Chinmaya Gharekhan was replaced as board president by senior Hindi journalist Ram Bahadur Rai, with dancer Sonal Mansingh, artist Vasudeo Kamath and Bollywood lyricist Prasoon Joshi joining the 19-member board. Nothing out of the ordinary here, considering Gharekhan held the post since 2007.

It is typical of a government in power to choose people it thinks it can trust for these posts. Thus, Rai, a former news editor at Jansatta and a former national president of the BJP-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, was ushered in. On hindsight, it seems he was readied since 2015 for the prestigious post, with the government conferring a Padma Shri on him. Rai’s other claims to fame are books on two former prime ministers, Chandrasekhar and V.P. Singh, and being the patron of the Integrated Talent Development Mission (ITDM), a social organisation constituted in 2012 to work among the youth based on the ideology of Swami Vivekananda. ITDM works in close proximity with right-wing associations.

The ministry is, however, yet to fill the post of IGNCA’s member secretary, even though an advertisement for the post was issued in September 2014.

This correspondent spoke to some artistes and cultural connoisseurs (who wish to remain anonymous) who regularly attend IGNCA programmes to understand what they make of the changes at the institute. All pointed out only one initiative that they found “interesting” – Project Mausam. Launched in June 2014, Project Mausam is an endeavour to understand how the knowledge and manipulation of the monsoon winds shaped interactions across the Indian Ocean, leading to the spread of shared knowledge systems, traditions, technologies and ideas along maritime routes. The recently-concluded travelling exhibition, ‘Africans in India” A Rediscovery,’ which traces the contribution of the Africans in the socio-cultural heritage of India, was held at the IGNCA as a part of this initiative, though the inputs were external.

National School of Drama (NSD)

Not far from IGNCA stands the NSD, another premier cultural institute. Since last year, Sharma has been pretty generous to the NSD, both in terms of promises made and funds released.

For a long time, the NSD had been urging the ministry to change its status to that of an institution of national importance, which can only be done through an act of parliament. According to sources in the NSD, Sharma has not only promised the status to the institute but has also begun drafting a bill to that effect.

The ministry is planning to hold an international theatre olympiad at the NSD in 2018. Additionally, since last year, the ministry has set aside Rs. 180 crore, to be staggered through five years, to improve the infrastructure of the institute, such as by building more classrooms, hostels and completing repair work.

Veteran theatre director and former NSD faculty K.S. Rajendran says, “I am glad that a huge sum is coming to the NSD. Unfortunately, it is meant only for infrastructure and not to improve the quality of the institute, say, spending on training, setting up more regional drama schools, etc. After all, it is ridiculous that in a country of 1.8 billion people, only 26 students are given admission at the NSD every year.”

Rajendran retired from the institute last year as associate professor of drama. His post is yet to be filled. “I still teach the students as a guest lecturer. Not just my post but those of former lecturers like Robin Das, Kirti Sharma and Anuradha Kapur, who retired much before me, have been left vacant.”

Rajendran makes a pertinent point about the olympiad. “Such jamborees take the attention away from what NSD is mandated for – training of people. In fact, not just this festival but so many others are now being organised by NSD that it now looks more like a national institute of theatre festivals than a drama school. No theatre person will be against a festival as it gives them a platform and an audience but why deflect from what the NSD is supposed to do? Why not create a separate entity for theatre festivals, like we have the Directorate of Film Festivals?”

Rabindra Bhawan, Delhi which houses the Sangeet Natak Akademi, Lalit Kala Akademi and Sahitya Akademi. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Lalit Kala Akademi

A stone’s throw away from the NSD is the Lalit Kala Akademi, the country’s national academy of art. In April 2015, the ministry disbanded the academy’s governing body, the general council and the executive committee, but is yet to reconstitute them. Instead, additional secretary K. K. Mittal was made its administrator.

However, the man who practically conducts the academy’s everyday affairs is secretary Sudhakar Sharma, against whom former chairperson K. Chakravarty wrote a letter to President Pranab Mukherjee, urging him to look into the alleged financial bungling by Sudhakar. Chakravarty had put Sudhakar under suspension, his second time since 2011, on similar charges made during the tenure of the earlier chairperson Ashok Vajpeyi.

The scope of financial bungling in the academy is higher than at other cultural bodies as it has a revenue model. It is the only sarkari arts institution that has a physical space that is rented out for exhibitions, through which it earns a tidy sum every year.

The ministry, instead of looking into the chairperson’s allegations, removed him from the post and reinstated Sharma.

“That he has been able to return to his post even after serious charges have been levelled against him points to the fact that he has the backing of the ministry,” states well known photographer Ram Rahman.

In 2013, Rahman made a presentation on the alleged financial bungling by Sudhakar at the Lalit Kala Akademi before the parliamentary standing committee on culture. In a report submitted to Rajya Sabha chairman Hamid Ansari, the committee pointed out that secretaries of the cultural institutions, including the Lalit Kala Akademi, were manned by the people who have little idea or knowledge about how to manage arts and culture. Instead, it suggested, “A cultural cadre distinct from the regular administrative cadre needs to be created to undertake the functioning of the Akademis, museums and all other cultural institutions.” The culture minister’s “facelift” exercise is yet to take that report into account.

Although the ministry did not act against Sudhakar, it did take action again B. Venugopal, director of Kolkata’s Indian Museum, who was questioned by the state CID over the mysterious disappearance of museum conservator Sunil Upadhay. Venugopal was replaced by J. Sengupta, the former curator of the Victoria Memorial, last June, reportedly for a one-year term. If not a “facelift”, this move is certainly a face saver for the ministry.

Sahitya Akademi

The Sahitya Akademi holds one of the most important multi-lingual libraries in India, with a collection of over two lakh books. The institute was in the news recently when many top writers and poets returned their Akademi awards, and some others tendered their resignation from its various committees, in protest against its “failure to stand by the writers’ freedom of expression”.

One such celebrated critic who resigned from the Akademi committees is K. Satchidanandan. Speaking to The Wire, the acclaimed Malayalam author, who once served as the secretary of the Akademi, particularly points out the ministry’s failure to give a boost to the Indian Literature Abroad (ILA), an ambitious government plan started in 2010 that involved some of the finest writers to project the country’s literary canon on the international stage. The idea was conceived by Ashok Vajpeyi along the lines of what former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee envisioned. The mandate was to translate Indian regional literature into eight foreign languages recognised by UNESCO.

“Now, none of the people involved in the project seem to know its status,” says Satchidanandan, also a part of ILA.

Sharma has also paid no attention to filling posts that have been lying vacant at the Akademi, although Satchidanandan’s position has been filled by Malashri Lal. Instead, the corridors of the Akademi are abuzz with talk of “continuous ministry and Rashtriya Sawayamsevak Sangh interference in every meeting” even though it is an autonomous body. Satchidandan reacts, “I can’t say about now but I was the secretary during the Vajpayee government and can’t recall any incident where I was told to do the government’s bidding.”

Other institutes

Last year, the Sangeet Natak Akademi too saw a new chairperson. Four months after the previous government’s nominee, Leela Samson, resigned from the post, Shekhar Sen, a Bhajan singer who had also done mono-acts on Vivekananda, Surdas and Kabir among others, was chosen as the new chairperson in January. Sen was also conferred the Padma Shri by the government in 2015.

Last year, Sharma removed the National Museum’s director general Venu Vasudevan, who was halfway through his three-year term at that time. Vasudevan is credited with bringing in a much-needed vibrancy to the museum. It was during his time that four galleries were revived, a new garden café began, the museum’s outreach programme was strengthened and the premise was let open to scholars and interested students for research. Among other crucial changes, he also put up landmark exhibitions like ‘Nauras’ and ‘Body of Indian Art’, and planned a section for the visually impaired – the first by any government-owned museum. Some media reports say Vasudevan’s measures led to a 30% increase in visitors within a year and a 112% increase in merchandise sale.

Protesting Vasudevan’s removal, many prominent people from the field of culture, including Gulzar, Romila Thapar, Ranjit Hoskote, Girish Karnad and Vajpeyi, petitioned the ministry to reinstate him. Noted art historian B. N. Goswamy, who was part of the selection committee that picked Vasudevan, said, “I wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to allow him to finish his term as he was brought under that understanding from the ministry and also that he will not hold a dual charge but I failed to get a reply.” Joint Secretary Sanjeev Mittal was given dual charge for some time until bureaucrat Sonia Sethi was brought in as the National Museum’s new director general.

Although Sethi’s name appears as the National Museum’s new director general, Sharma, in a written reply to the Lok Sabha on April 25, named it among the five museums that are presently headless due to “non-availability of suitable candidates” and “litigation”.

Besides the National Museum, he said the post of directors are lying vacant in the National Gallery of Modern Art in Mumbai and Bengaluru, the Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad, and also the Indian Museum.

The National Archives of India is also being run by a joint secretary on dual charge. Pankaj Rag was given additional duty in December last year.

Sharma has three more years to go. One can only hope that at least all vacancies in these institutions are filled before he releases any future self-signed progress reports.

Writers Step up Protest, Four More Return Sahitya Akademi Award

More than a dozen prominent cultural personalities have now publicly shared their anguish over the growing intolerance in the country

New Delhi: Decrying the rising intolerance and communal atmosphere in the country as manifested by incidents such as the murder of writer MM Kalburgi and the lynching of a Muslim man over rumours that he had eaten beef, four eminent writers announced on Sunday that they were returning their Sahitya Akademi awards, while Kannada writer Aravind Malagatti resigned from the body’s general council – joining the growing protest by litterateurs and cultural personalities that has already seen more than a dozen resignations and open letters directed at the literary institution, the government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Eminent writers Gurbachan Bhullar, Ajmer Singh Aulakh and Atamjit Singh from Punjab and GN Devy from Gujarat today announced that they were returning their Sahitya Akademi awards like several other authors including Nayantara Sehgal, Sarah Joseph, Uday Prakash and Ashok Vajpeyi demanding that the Akademi speak out against the killing of its member Kalburgi and other rationalists and the “communal” atmosphere in the backdrop of the Dadri lynching incident.

Recently, literary figures like Shashi Deshpande, K Satchidanandan, P K Parakkadavu had resigned from their posts in the Akademi, citing similar reasons.

Among those who have also raised their voices are the Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna, the poets Keki N. Dariwalla and Adil Jusawalla, the Hindi author Mridula Garg and the Urdu writer Rahman Abbas.

Akademi’s response

Eye of the storm. Vishnwanath Prasad Tiwari of the Sahitya Akademi. Credit: National Book Trust

With the writers’ protest over its “silence” on rationalist MM Kalburgi’s murder growing louder, Sahitya Akademi chairperson Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari came out with a statement saying the apex literary body stands for freedom of expression and condemns attacks on any writer or artist anywhere. It asserted its commitment to the “core secular values” enshrined in the Constitution and the “right to life of all”.

Bhullar said he was perturbed by the attempts to “disrupt the social fabric of the country”

“During the recent past, the attempts at disrupting the social fabric of the country, targeting particularly the area of literature and culture, under an orchestrated plan of action, has been perturbing me,” he said.

The 78-year-old author born in Bathinda in Punjab had been awarded the Sahitya Akademi for his 2005 book of short stories Agni-Kalas.

A renowned Punjabi playwright, Aulakh said he was very pained by the attacks on “progressive writers, leaders of the rational movement and the forcible saffronisation of education and culture”.

He said he was “very upset over the communal atmosphere being created in the country and the central government was not performing its duty as the representative of a secular and democratic country”.

Punjabi theatre personality Atamjit Singh said he was returning his Akademi Award as he “is very upset over the incidents communal hatred in the country for the last some months”.

In more embarrassment for the Akademi, Aravind Malagatti resigned from its General Council, condemning its ‘silence’ over the killing of progressive thinker and scholar Kalburgi.

“Killing of personalities like Kalburgi, (Govind) Pansare and incidents like Dadri lynching are an attack on the Constitutional rights in this country. They are highly condemnable,” Malagatti said.

Malagatti is among 20 representatives from various universities in the General Council of the Sahitya Akademi.

Adil Jussawalla. Credit: montrealprize.com

A federation of Kashmiri scholars, Adbee Markaz Kamraz, too expressed solidarity with the eminent writers for their decision to return Sahitya Akademi awards, asking the top literary body to break its silence over the increasing “communal frenzy”.

Poet and critic Adil Jussawalla, who won the Sahitya Akademi honour for his 2014 work, also urged the literary body to condemn the “unacceptable censoring” of writers by “violently intolerant groups.”

Jussawalla said he has written to chairperson of Sahitya Akademi.

In his statement, the Akademi’s chairperson said,”We wish to emphasise that the Akademi stands for freedom of expression of all writers, irrespective of caste, colour, creed or nationality.

“Sahitya Akademi condemns the attack on and murder of any writer or artist anywhere.

“Sahitya Akademi is committed to the core secular values enshrined in the Constitution of India and the golden principle of the right to life of all,” Tiwari said.

Stating that he was pained at reports in the media that Sahitya Akademi is “silent” on many recent events, he said, “I as the President can express my official views on any matter only after placing the same before and getting the requisite approval form the Executive Board of Sahitya Akademi in the next meeting.”

Appealing to the writers community, Tiwari said since the Akademi, India’s National Academy of Letters, is also run by writers, they should come forward and protect the dignity of the autonomous body.

Nayantara Sahgal hits back

Author Nayantara Sahgal who has returned her award to the Sahitya Akademi. (Photo: Ranjona Banerji.)

Meanwhile, in a response to remarks Tiwari had made that accused her of having “profited” from the Sahitya Akademi award which she had now returned, Nayantara Sahgal said on Sunday in a statement that she was sending a cheque for one lakh rupees to the Akademi:

“I am writing to you in response to your comments about me to the Indian Express of October 7th: ‘Her Award-winning book has been translated into several Indian languages. She earned all the profits. She can now return all the Award money, but what of the credibility and goodwill she earned through the Award?’

“I have considered the Award a high honour, but my “credibility” had been established decades before 1986 through my long career as a writer, as had the “goodwill” and recognition I have received over many years in India and abroad. You have mentioned “profits”. The Award in 1986 would perhaps have been Rs. 25,000, but not more than Rs. 50,000. In consultation with Ashok Vajpeyi, who has also returned his Award, I am enclosing a cheque for one lakh rupees.

“The fact that so many writers are returning their Awards or resigning from Akademi posts makes it clear how anguished we are that you have remained silent over the murder and intimidation of writers and the threat that hangs over dissent and debate. Has the Sahitya Akademi, like Pontius Pilate, washed its hands of its responsibility to safeguard our Constitutional right to freedom of speech?”

Malayalam poet K Satchidanandan has also decided to quit all posts in the Akademi while another Malayalam short story writer P K Parakkadavu also said he will quit the Akademi membership.

Bhullar said the “serious challenge posed by regressive forces in the domains of literature and culture” have led him to raise his voice.

“Literature, culture, multi-faceted creative arts, history -all representing the excellent attainments of humanity-are being debunked, ridiculed and demeaned,” he said.

Devy says ‘moment of reckoning’ has come

G.N. Devy of the Bhasha Research and Publication Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat. Credit: Hadley Robinson

In his letter to the Akademi, the writer GN Devy said:

It is with utmost regret that I convey to you that I wish to return the 1993 Sahitya Akademi Award given in the category of books in English to my work After Amnesia (1992). I do this as an expression of my solidarity with several eminent writers who have recently returned their awards to highlight their concern and anxiety over the shrinking space for free expression and growing intolerance towards difference of opinion.

These eminent writers have already stated their concerns in statements sent to you as well as through media interviews and discussions. I need not, therefore, state again what has already been conveyed to you. However, I would like to add that I visited Dharwad in the first week of August, just three weeks before the shocking attack on the late Dr. M. M. Kalburgi which resulted in his death. I was there to deliver the First V. K. Gokak Memorial Lecture. You may recall that the high office that you hold at present, on behalf of the literary community of our country, was at one time held, among many other mighty predecessors, by V.K. Gokak. He was the Principle of Willingdon College during the years of the Independence movement. On one occasion, when the police came to arrest students, he stood at the entrance of the college, blocked their entry and asked them to first arrest him before they touched the students. It was this kind of concern for freedom that he brought to the institutions he headed. I hope you do not think that he was not sufficiently pragmatic.

When I gave the Gokak lecture, Dr. Kalburgi was still alive. Alas, he had to fall to the forces of intolerance. A week after his killing, I participated in a Seminar organized by the Sahitya Akademi. This was in Nagpur. I was to preside over the Inaugural Session. I was quite dismayed to see that the seminar began without a word of reference to the recent attack on a scholar honoured by the Akademi. Therefore, when my turn to speak came at the end of the session, I asked the audience if they would object to my observing a two-minute silence to mourn the dastardly killing. Please note that all of them stood up in silence with me. If our writers and literary scholars had the courage to stand up in Nagpur, I fail to understand why there should be such a deafening silence at Ravindra Bhavan about what is happening to free expression in our country.

I have personally known both of you as my seniors, and have admired your writings and imaginative powers. May I make bold to say that your moment of reckoning has come? I hope you will give this country the assurance that it is the writers and thinkers who have come forward to rescue sense, good-will, values, tolerance and mutual respect in all past ages. Had this not been so, why would we be remembering the great saint poets who made our modern Indian languages what they are today? The great idea of India is based on a profound tolerance for diversity and difference. They far surpass everything else in importance. That we have come to a stage when the honourable Rastrapatiji had to remind the nation that these must be seen as non-negotiable foundations of India, should be enough of a reason for the Sahitya Akademi to act.

The journalist Aman Sethi, who received a youth award from the Akademi in 2012 for his book A Free Man, also announced on Sunday that he was returning it.

With inputs from PTI

The story has been edited to add the information about Aman Sethi.

Poet Satchidanandan Quits Sahitya Akademi Panel in Protest

The list of writers returning state honours or protesting against the silence of government cultural institutions is growing and includes Sara Joseph and Rehman Abbas.

The list of writers returning state honours or protesting against the silence of government cultural institutions is growing and includes Sarah Joseph and Rehman Abbas

Well known poet K Satchidanandan who has resigned from his posts on the Sahitya Akademi (photo: Indian Cultural Forum)

The list of prominent writers who are protesting against the increasing attacks on dissent is growing. Eminent Malayalam poet and critic K Satchidanandan has resigned from the Executive Council of the Sahitya Akademi and Urdu novelist Rahman Abbas has returned his Maharashtra state award. Malayalam writer Sarah Joseph too returned her Kerala Sahitya Akademi Award to protest against the “rising communal violence” in the country. “Shocking tales are coming out every day. A writer can’t keep quiet. And higher authorities’ continued silence is really frightening,” she said.

They follow authors Nayantara Sahgal and Shashi Deshpande and poet Ashok Vajpeyi, all of whom have protested the ‘vicious assaults’ on Indian’s diversity. Deshpande said she was distressed at the silence of the Akademi at the murder of M M Kalburgi while Vajpeyi had stated that “It is high time that writers take a stand” and that the Sahitya Akademi had failed to rise to the occasion.

On October 4, six Kannada writers – Veeranna Madiwalar, T. Satish Javare Gowda, Sangamesh Menasinakai, Hanumanth Haligeri, Shridevi V Aloor and Chidanand Sali – returned their awards to protest the delay in the inquiry into the murder of M M Kalburgi.

Rahman Abbas announced his decision to return his Sahitya Akademi award on Facebook while urging other Urdu writers to do the same. In his open letter he said, “I request senior Urdu writers, poets and critics including Nida Fazli, Salam Bin Razzak, Abdus Samad, Javid Akhtar, Gulzar, Munawwar Rana, to register protest against murder and killing of creative writers by returning Sahitya Academy Awards. This might be a small step but in such volatile times, it is inescapable.”

As a writer Abbas has faced a fair amount of attacks from the state himself. His first novel published in 2004 Nakhlistan ki Talash – a book about an educated Muslim man facing alienation after the 1992 riots in Mumbai till he finally joins a terrorist organisation – was the cause of much controversy as it forced him to give up his position as a lecturer in a college in Mumbai. The novel also led to his arrest after an FIR was filed against him. He was charged in 2005 under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the printing of ‘grossly indecent or scurrilous text’, which carries a jail term of up to two years. The case is still pending.

Referring to recent events in his open letter he stated, “I demand that the state punish the forces which killed Narendra Dabholkar and Comrade Pansare. I demand the Central government to book those responsible for instigating the mob, which killed Md. Akhlaq in Dadri. I urge senior Urdu writers to take a stand as this is high time and our secular democracy is under attacked.” He announced has decision to return his award this Saturday.

Satchidanandan, in his letter said, “The Akademi has to stand with writers and uphold the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India… To writers like me, this is an issue of our basic freedom to live, think and write”.

He is a also on the board of the Indian Cultural Forum, (www.indianculturalforum.in), an online platform to discuss issues facing writers and “to resist the range of threats faced by our culture of free expression, exchange, dialogue and debate.”