 "Navayana would like to publish but D'Cruz refuses to engage with us: S Anand")
Earlier this week, Delhi-based publisher Navayana decided to cancel an agreement to publish the translation of Sahitya Akademi Award winner Joe D’Cruz’s Tamil novel Aazhi Soozh Ulagu (Ocean Ringed World) after D’Cruz announced his support for the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi. In the wake of the furore, Navayana issued a statement saying it was willing to reconsider its decision, though the translator, V Geetha, is unwilling to allow her translation to be published “given D’Cruz’s “insistent and clear-cut support for Narendra Modi”. In an email interview, publisher S Anand tells Indulekha Aravind that Navayana would still like to publish the book but D’Cruz refuses to engage with them. Edited excerpts:
According to your statement, the decision to publish now rests with the translator. But how would you explain your initial stand, considering D’Cruz’s novel has nothing to do with Modi?
I share the translator’s anguish and concerns over D’Cruz’s decision. However, I cannot publish the book when the translator makes it clear that she has “withdrawn the translation”. The translation is, technically, her intellectual property. Like any publisher, I have had to sign a separate agreement with her on this. We may enjoy Bhupen Hazarika’s songs after he joins the BJP; or appreciate Ilayaraja’s music even after he warms up to a Brahminical Sankaracharya. Or even suffer Yo Yo (Honey) Singh.
How would you distinguish your decision from Penguin’s to withdraw Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History?
This is a fallacious, irresponsible and lazy comparison. Penguin succumbed to pressure from a rightwing group, and withdrew a book they had already published when there was no legal ground or need for the withdrawal. For Navayana, it was a question of ethics, even when the decision was taken in the heat of the moment; and we have now expressed regret over that haste. There are scores of authors and books we would never publish, just as there are authors who would never turn to a press like Navayana. Should it turn out that we cannot publish D’Cruz with Geetha’s translation, that does not preempt or prejudice the publication of the novel as such. However, in Doniger’s case, Penguin was the sole publisher with whom the author had a licensing agreement. They quit the field without a legal fight. They withdrew a book they had published. No other publisher can publish Doniger’s book till Penguin rescinds their agreement with Doniger or vice versa. However, with D’Cruz, we are mulling over a book we wish to publish.
You have also published the works of Namdeo Dhasal, who wrote for Shiv Sena’s Saamna. Isn't there a contradiction?
I would submit that there’s no purity of politics or absolute morality that Navayana is advocating. D’Cruz is supporting a person who masterminded the Gujarat pogrom, in the middle of an election. He refuses to make a single mention of 2002 in his statements. This is worrying. Navayana has not ruled out anything — when we published Dhasal first in 2007, the translator, the late Dilip Chitre, and I were critical of Dhasal’s pro-Sena positions; but we also made a choice – we published one of India’s greatest poets ever. Dhasal continues to be published in Marathi by Lokvangmaya Grih, a CPI (Communist Party of India)-affiliated publishing house. We hope Joe responds to Geetha and me more keenly than he does to the media. Since he did not respond to us, we, too, are forced to turn to the media.
D'Cruz has called this a case of “crass intellectual dishonesty and blackmail”.
I am sorry but he is the one who could be accused of that. Perhaps sensing Geetha and I would not have signed up his book had we known of his endorsement of Modi, he signed the agreement and only then announced his support for Modi. He chose to speak to the media before he responded to my and Geetha’s emails or calls. But we genuinely hope and believe Joe will eventually reconsider his views, which have drawn flak in Tamil literary and political spheres. We cannot so easily hand over a good writer to the Modi camp, not without a fight — that is why I have admitted that our April 13 decision, even if precipitated by D’Cruz’s media statements, was an error of judgment.
The current discussions also bring to the fore the large issue of whether we should separate the writer from his work. Your thoughts?
Can we separate the tree from the fruit? Yes, maybe, when the tree becomes rotten (or in mass-market production, when we don’t know which tree or even which place a mango comes from). But we do try to stem the rot in the tree, so that at least its future fruits are edible. That’s our ethical and political responsibility. Else, we are in for a strange and bitter crop.
According to your statement, the decision to publish now rests with the translator. But how would you explain your initial stand, considering D’Cruz’s novel has nothing to do with Modi?
I share the translator’s anguish and concerns over D’Cruz’s decision. However, I cannot publish the book when the translator makes it clear that she has “withdrawn the translation”. The translation is, technically, her intellectual property. Like any publisher, I have had to sign a separate agreement with her on this. We may enjoy Bhupen Hazarika’s songs after he joins the BJP; or appreciate Ilayaraja’s music even after he warms up to a Brahminical Sankaracharya. Or even suffer Yo Yo (Honey) Singh.
More From This Section
But if I were the producer of their music, I would worry about their politics, and take a decision based on that. I’m not a publisher whose sole motive is profit or entertainment. Given the political scenario today, and as a political publisher, I have to worry about what I am “making public” — for that’s what publishing literally means; a publisher sits in judgment on what needs to see the light of day, when and how. And, all publishers are gatekeepers. So, yes, D’Cruz’s support for Modi does change things for me. But the point is, he refused to engage in a conversation with Geetha and Navayana on this. Navayana would still like to publish the book; maybe with a caveat from Geetha and me, should D’Cruz continue to endorse Modi. But as yet, I do not have a manuscript!
How would you distinguish your decision from Penguin’s to withdraw Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History?
This is a fallacious, irresponsible and lazy comparison. Penguin succumbed to pressure from a rightwing group, and withdrew a book they had already published when there was no legal ground or need for the withdrawal. For Navayana, it was a question of ethics, even when the decision was taken in the heat of the moment; and we have now expressed regret over that haste. There are scores of authors and books we would never publish, just as there are authors who would never turn to a press like Navayana. Should it turn out that we cannot publish D’Cruz with Geetha’s translation, that does not preempt or prejudice the publication of the novel as such. However, in Doniger’s case, Penguin was the sole publisher with whom the author had a licensing agreement. They quit the field without a legal fight. They withdrew a book they had published. No other publisher can publish Doniger’s book till Penguin rescinds their agreement with Doniger or vice versa. However, with D’Cruz, we are mulling over a book we wish to publish.
You have also published the works of Namdeo Dhasal, who wrote for Shiv Sena’s Saamna. Isn't there a contradiction?
I would submit that there’s no purity of politics or absolute morality that Navayana is advocating. D’Cruz is supporting a person who masterminded the Gujarat pogrom, in the middle of an election. He refuses to make a single mention of 2002 in his statements. This is worrying. Navayana has not ruled out anything — when we published Dhasal first in 2007, the translator, the late Dilip Chitre, and I were critical of Dhasal’s pro-Sena positions; but we also made a choice – we published one of India’s greatest poets ever. Dhasal continues to be published in Marathi by Lokvangmaya Grih, a CPI (Communist Party of India)-affiliated publishing house. We hope Joe responds to Geetha and me more keenly than he does to the media. Since he did not respond to us, we, too, are forced to turn to the media.
D'Cruz has called this a case of “crass intellectual dishonesty and blackmail”.
I am sorry but he is the one who could be accused of that. Perhaps sensing Geetha and I would not have signed up his book had we known of his endorsement of Modi, he signed the agreement and only then announced his support for Modi. He chose to speak to the media before he responded to my and Geetha’s emails or calls. But we genuinely hope and believe Joe will eventually reconsider his views, which have drawn flak in Tamil literary and political spheres. We cannot so easily hand over a good writer to the Modi camp, not without a fight — that is why I have admitted that our April 13 decision, even if precipitated by D’Cruz’s media statements, was an error of judgment.
The current discussions also bring to the fore the large issue of whether we should separate the writer from his work. Your thoughts?
Can we separate the tree from the fruit? Yes, maybe, when the tree becomes rotten (or in mass-market production, when we don’t know which tree or even which place a mango comes from). But we do try to stem the rot in the tree, so that at least its future fruits are edible. That’s our ethical and political responsibility. Else, we are in for a strange and bitter crop.