Some two decades or so, when I was still a full-time journalist, a controversy erupted over an aspect of history writing in India. The publication where I worked naturally commissioned a report on the kerfuffle and a mid-level reporter was entrusted with the task. As the editor supervising the news coverage, I noticed that the report was woefully one-sided and didn’t factor in the other point of view. I pointed this out to the reporter, suggesting that a mere repetition of the perspectives of those Arun Shourie dubbed “eminent historians” wasn’t good journalism. If everyone agreed with them, a controversy wouldn’t have arisen in the first place. The reporter — a feisty, opinionated individual who has since made a transition to the ranks of ‘secular’ activism — was gobsmacked: “There is no other side in this controversy.”
I am reminded of this incident in the context of the furore over the withdrawal of a book on the Delhi riots that took place earlier this year by its publishers, Bloomsbury India. The book written by a group who see themselves as nationalists, contested the notion that the riot was a state-sponsored “pogrom” aimed at punishing Muslims for the community’s participation in the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Instead, it saw the mayhem in Delhi as being orchestrated by a combination of the radical Left and radical Islamists.
Without going into the merits or demerits of the arguments in the now-withdrawn book — I am fortunate that a PDF version was sent to me by a West Bengal-based WhatsApp group — some observations are in order.
First, the contentious book is not a crude polemic that is centred on Muslim-bashing. It is undeniably a quickie that hasn’t factored in some of the evidence that may well be placed before the courts by both the prosecution and defence in the forthcoming trials of those who have been charged with involvement in the riots. However, I don’t think that it was intended to be a definitive view of the three-day disturbances in the Capital that coincided with the visit of President Donald Trump. It was a perspective that aimed to counter a prevailing narrative in some English-language publications, both in India and overseas, blaming the riot on politicians linked to the BJP. It merely sought to give an alternative perspective.
Secondly, it was clear from the explosion in the social media, that those who imagine that there can be only one narrative didn’t believe there is any scope for dispute. They also believed that any alternative view is illegitimate and unworthy of being disseminated by a reputed publisher. They wouldn’t have bothered if the book was published by a fringe publishing house. Their hackles were raised because Bloomsbury India is a subsidiary of an international publisher that is also patronised by writers in the Left-liberal ecosystem. The outrage was, therefore, directed not merely at the contents of the book but also the “betrayal” by a publisher that hosts good evening parties at literary festivals where the beautiful people of the literary world love to be seen.
Thirdly, I believe that the outrage involving the presiding deities of the literary world, was not because they believed that the launch was non-kosher. They wanted to use the presence of a controversial politician in the launch to drive home their concern that the so-called Right wing has been increasingly successful in getting their works published by the Indian subsidiaries of international publishers. Bloomsbury India has, for example, published sympathetic studies of Amit Shah’s electoral strategies and the political appeal of Yogi Adityanath. Other publishers have included biographies of Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and VD Savarkar in their lists. From all accounts, these books have done well commercially — hardly surprising because there is a huge public appetite for books that are, loosely speaking, from the Right. In short, since 2014, there has been the growth of an alternative intellectual tradition. This alternative perspective may not have secured widespread international acknowledgement as yet. But if the trend persisted — and with the compulsions of commerce — it would be only a matter of time before the India story overseas would cease to be entirely one-sided.
I don’t think the pulped book on the Delhi riots posed a challenge by itself. However, by drawing it into controversy and getting a clutch of established writers and literary critics to feign outrage, the publishers were told that there are high risks in accommodating manuscripts from those who are seen to be on the Right. The attack on Bloomsbury India was a pre-emptive strike and the message will resonate among organisers of literary festivals who, in any case, regard BJP voters as outlanders.
Finally, the furore over the book on Delhi riots is a pale imitation of the “cancel” culture that is making intellectual life in the West so oppressive. It is becoming increasingly clear that the streak of intolerance that is already present among the tribe of dogmatists is acquiring the upper hand in public spaces. The belief that no one has the monopoly of the truth is yield place to a regime built on absolute certitudes. Liberalism is being re-designed by fanatics professing correctness over race, gender and history.
India has so far been insulated from these explosions of ugly lunacy. But as the Left-liberal ecosystem becomes progressively less significant in both electoral politics and the decision-making processes of India, there are likely to be strident assertions of the beleaguered. They may have won a small victory in pressuring Bloomsbury India to renege on a commitment and capitulate before the beautiful people, but it was a sign of their weakness and their desperation to cling on to their relevance. In the process they may have triggered a vicious backlash driven by an it-is-our-turn-now logic.
