A parliamentary panel, constituted in the wake of the 2015 “award wapsi” controversy, wants writers chosen for the Sahitya Akademi honour to sign an undertaking that they would not return their awards at any stage to protest any political incident. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture, which tabled its report in Parliament on Monday, reported that “such inappropriate incidents involving return of awards undermine the achievements of other awardees and also impact the overall prestige and reputation of the awards”. So, the panel wants “prior concurrence of shortlisted candidates for awards before finalisation”. The panel’s recommendations suggest wilful ignorance of, and disregard for, the role of Akademis, the place of writers in society, and the idea behind honouring them.
First, the Sahitya Akademi is an autonomous body. At the time of its inception in the early 1950s, the understanding was that the government would set it up, but once established “it (government) would refrain from exercising any control and leave them to perform their function as autonomous institution”. It honours writers in 24 Indian languages for original writings as well as translations annually. A panel of writers makes the selections. A Sahitya Akademi award is not a state honour like the Padma awards — it is the appreciation of an author by her peers, on behalf of the Akademi, which is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Second, the writer is not a representative of the state. The panel’s apprehension that if an awardee returns an Akademi honour, it is “disgraceful to the country” is misplaced. Third, an award is an honour for individual excellence, it is not the state extending patronage — in fact, the state must see its association with a writer as a privilege. Finally, an award dangled as an incentive to conform is no honour.
Of course, “award wapsi” had a political context. The 39 writers who returned their awards did so as an act of protest against a growing “climate of intolerance”, wherein dissenting voices were targeted by right-wing groups. The immediate trigger in 2015 was the murder of Kannada scholar and Sahitya Akademi winner M M Kalburgi, who was shot, allegedly by right-wing activists, for his views. The protesting writers were highlighting the right to dissent and the state’s failure to protect this right. The government — and Parliament — should heed this message instead of finger-wagging at the protest’s political consequences.
