On Bal vs. Dalrymple

Every so often, a war of the words breaks out between two literary types. Onlookers, or should I say onliners, gather around to cheer, deride, or simply watch the tamasha with wonder and amusement. Many such exchanges have happened on the pages of Outlook India. A new one has just unfolded in Open Magazine between Hartosh Singh Bal, its political editor (and 3QD columnist), and William Dalrymple, UK author.

The Literary Raj — the opening salvo by Hartosh Singh Bal

The piece you ran is blatantly racist — rejoinder by William Dalrymple

Does Dalrymple know what racism really is? — response by Hartosh Singh Bal

An Inconvenient Truth — a statement on Dalrymple by Pramod Kumar KG

***

What's my take on this? I often think that we, the globalized Indian elites, haven't decolonized our minds enough. Sixty years after political independence, we still carry an inferiority complex about our literary culture. Our English language literati, chronically insecure and hungry for external validation, pursue British publishing venues and accolades over Indian ones. Yes, target markets and economics explain many things but there is more—it is as if we accord a higher caste to the British and subconsciously elevate and mimic their literary culture. It is one thing to admire and be inspired by other literary cultures, but our attitude here is one of deference, lacking the self-confidence of equals. Nothing like Bookers and Oscars, or reviews, endorsements, and fat book deals in Britain (also increasingly in the U.S.) to turn our heads. Indian novels that "make it" in the Anglophone West are then taken seriously in India—not vice-versa. Do we ever grant the same cachet to books that win Sahitya Akademi and other awards in India? Or crave translations of our best non-English books?

In his opening salvo, Bal makes many of these points. His bigger focus is inward, on the attitudes of us Indian elites, the language/culture hierarchies we subscribe to, the Anglo/American recognition we crave and which guides our sense of literary merit. We are yet to achieve intellectual independence, and "if Dalrymple appears central to our literary culture, it says something far more damaging about us than about him." I see in Bal's critique a bit of Ngugi wa Thiong'o—author of Decolonizing the Mind, a penetrating analysis of the colonization of Kenyan and other African minds.

Dalrymple, among the better UK writers to engage with India, seems to me more a vehicle for Bal's polemic. The fact that Dalrymple, a resident of India and a director of the Jaipur Literature Festival, didn't mention any Indian accolades in his profile supported Bal's point, as did the prompt edits that followed. It's unfortunate that Dalrymple took things so personally and overreacted. Ok, Bal did provokingly call him "pompous", but I see nothing racist in Bal's piece or the cartoon. Dalrymple took the attack on the festival and his role in it as an attack on his work and reputation (some damage to which actually comes from Pramod Kumar).

In Dalrymple's place, I too would have defended the festival's diversity, but then acknowledged Bal's point about the insecurities of the Indian elites and Britain's long shadow over the Indian literary scene as both valid and nothing new, and perhaps cited warm and fuzzy examples of how things may be changing. As it turns out, a story in DNA claims that Dalrymple now regrets the charge of racism he hurled at Bal. Check out the often interesting comments beneath the articles. What do you think, dear reader? Or is this really a storm in a teacup?

Comments

[Kapil]

Just read the first piece by Bal... related thoughts, which are however not about the British element at all:

I am unable to mention off the top of my head a single (who appeals to me and is both critically and commercially successful) Indian writer in English who is still active, and mostly resident in India.... in fact I can't think of anyone from a humble background (living in India or abroad) who is still active.

Bal says "What would be a reasonable salary in London is outrageous in Delhi. A residence in Golf Links or a farmhouse in Mehrauli is perhaps not the best beginning to an Indian sojourn, especially when you add to this a lack of knowledge of a local language..." I recently read Aatish Taseer's "The Temple Goers" in which the protagonist is just the kind of person Bal refers to. I believe Taseer has written a reasonably good book without pretending in any way to bridge the gap between himself and "the real India". At least some part of Bal's critique is about writers not knowing "the real India". What is that anyway? Several books could be written analyzing various (fiction and travel) writers' conception of "the real India" and of their having "discovered" it. I do think at least a few writers are acknowledging their own (elite?) place in society.

As for the Jaipur Literary Festival, I could not agree more with Bal about its general poor quality if nothing else. Maybe most such events are about the glitz and the glamour, but that's all there was to Jaipur, hardly any intelligent discussion whatsoever. They invited Hanif Kureishi to a panel discussion about (forget the exact topic) the experience of being a diasporic writer. As Kureishi made it clear all through, he doesn't see himself as a diasporic writer at all but as a British writer. His curt responses to most questions precluded any real discussion. I myself like Kureishi's writing, but it was clear they had invited him just because he was a big name British writer. And if their defence is "we wanted to get somebody from the diaspora who doesn't see himself as such so we could get a fresh perspective", I don't buy it; I prefer to think the organizers were just stupid. As for "literary tourism" (the Kerala quote towards the end of Bal's piece), I agree there as well. There was more than a reasonable amount of "Rajasthani color" at the event, designed no doubt to dazzle a non Indian audience. It is interesting that the festival manager talks of the impressive locales that Kerala has to offer, and not the rich literary culture of the state (of which I admit I am not very aware).

[vp]

Borrowing from the boxing match flavor of your title, here's Mishra vs. French.

I find it hard to motivate myself to read about these storms in assorted teacups. The one book I have read by Dalrymple (The Last Mughal, based on Bahadur Shah Zafar)was quite interesting. Likewise, Patrick French's account of the Indian independence movement, called Liberty or Death, was a racy read with a fair number of interesting details. I can't vouch for the quality of other books by either Dalrymple or French. The criticisms of their writing, or their blind spots, or their attitudes and tendencies for self-promotion, are perhaps valid,but I don't particularly care. If they can come up with reasonable writing once in a while, I am not complaining.

[narayan]

I am not well read except through samplings, but I like Paul Theroux' writings on India. Where others might see poison pen, I see hints of empathy. I specially like his short story 'A Love Knot' for its India & Boston themes. His 'Elephanta Suite' might make him a target.

[Namit]

vp, did you see French's rejoinder to Mishra's review of his book?

Anyhow, this post got me thinking and I'll soon have a longer essay up on the politics of language, literature, and colonialism.