I have been reading with interest, and a growing sense of dismay, articles and rebuttals being issued by Mr William Dalrymple on the Jaipur Literature Festival, its origins and now finally on his version of how he thinks the festival is successfully executed. Most of this has been printed in Open and now in his latest interview to the Crest edition of the Times of India.
The time is perhaps right to set the record straight on the ‘post colonial’ whitewashing Mr Dalrymple seems to be indulging in. For the record, the festival was NOT conceived or co-directed by him—or Ms Namita Gokhale for that matter—when it started in 2006. That honour, if indeed you were to call it one, would rest solely on myself, as the first Director of the Jaipur Virasat Foundation and of the Jaipur Literature Festival 2006. The literature festival was conceived during discussions on a drive back to Jaipur from Delhi with Ms Faith Singh, the founder of the Jaipur Virasat Foundation, and Ms Di Robson, our then International Festival advisor.
Ms Gokhale, to her credit, has always acknowledged this, though for some reason it seems to be a rather uncomfortable truth for Mr Dalrymple to accept. This year it seems to be getting even more unpalatable for him as can be seen in his polemic ‘The piece you ran is blatantly racist’. Or perhaps it’s just an inconvenient truth that he would like to airbrush out of history, completely once and for all, when he repeatedly states that “I conceived, co-founded and co-direct the Jaipur Literature Festival…” The truth is anyway out in the public domain if one were to look at the 2006 literature festival brochures and pamphlets. Mr Dalrymple and Ms Gokhale are listed purely as advisors to the festival.
My concern turned to incredulity when I saw his latest interview in Times of India’s Crest edition, dated 15 January, when the self-proclaimed founder [of the JLF] declares and I quote: “The USP is, there’s nothing sarkari, official or even professional about it. We don’t even have an office. There are no full-time paid members of staff. Festivals like Sydney have a full-time director and support staff. We don’t even have a telephone! This is run via four Blackberries, basically friends doing this from their bedrooms. But it’s full of love and enthusiasm”.
What is Mr Dalrymple talking about? Of course the festival has an office. Last I heard, the festival was being run and produced by Teamworks Films, which has at least 40 people working day and night to pull off this grand event. Does he really think, visas, hotel accommodations, travel logistics and the entire planning of sessions for 220 authors over five days gets done by four Blackberries and friends working out of bedrooms? The unkindest cut is, of course, to say that there is ‘nothing professional’ about the planning of the festival. Perhaps the efforts of Mr Sanjoy Roy and Ms Sheuli Sethi (who I have never met, but has been brilliantly producing the festival) are not professional enough for him. They definitely seemed good enough for the 180 speakers and 30,000 people over five days who attended last year’s festival.
Elsewhere in the same interview, he remarks that 40 people turned up for the first festival, I suspect the truth that 300 people came to hear Ms Shobhaa De in a fully packed hall with additional chairs set out in the lawns is a scar still festering somewhere. His own audience that year was considerably poorer!
The real issue is, however, not who conceived this festival or ran it for the first year or even worked on it for the second year and so on and so forth. The real issue is a growing sense of overarching ownership that Mr Dalrymple has about the festival over the efforts of countless Indians who have worked very hard to make the festival what it is and still do the dog’s work to make it happen every year. I would never debate Mr Dalrymple’s immense contribution to the festival and the fact that it has reached where it has today purely through his and Ms Gokhale’s untiring efforts. Though in his current inclusive version of history that slips out in every interview, she only works on ‘desi/bhasha’ bits of the festival; the western writers who come are, of course, purely through his efforts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Ms Gokhale has pioneered the literature festival idea in India, and was for this very reason invited as our first advisor to the Jaipur Literature Festival in 2005.
A senior Indian academic and collector of popular Indian art once told me of how a European counterpart of his always referred to her own collection as an archive while calling his a database. Racism plays out in very subtle ways and very often we are able to pinpoint the truth of the matter much after the attack is over. As Mr Hartosh Singh Bal correctly summarised in his rebuttal to Mr Dalrymple, to mock the experience of racism is easy for someone who has never really had to face it. Ask me? I left the Jaipur Virasat Foundation because of that and it has taken me this long to be able to say it.
OLDER COMMENTS FIRST
10 COMMENTS
Permalink
Mr. Darlymple has probably bitten off more than what he could chew. A pity really, considering the fact that the Jaipur festival seems to have become a very vibrant (and may I say, long overdue) exhibition and celebration of creative writing. He certainly does deserve kudos for the effort he has put in this regard. He also deserves the brickbats he is getting for trying to garner all the credit.
Hartosh's original piece was an indictment of our literary scene more than an affront to our own Scotsman. The fact that he chose to react in the way he did is puzzling. His cry of racism was even more funnier -- if he needs to understand what racism in India is, he only needs to ask any African (or black) who visits India. Let him honestly compare that with the treatment he gets - both in his personal space as well as in the media- and think out for himself whether he is 'over' or 'under' privileged. Surely that should not be very difficult for a man of his intelligence.
Permalink
It is sad to see Mr. Darlymple taken the original article by Mr. Hartosh so personally.
The original article was more about how foreign correspondents (who have seen little of India as compared to its people) get more royalties for their view on India. The entire article could be summed up in the lines: "Our publishers need the stamp of British approval."
This is very true. Even today, as I searched for some books on the Indian independence and 1857, I was scouring on Amazon.com for some reviews. I fail to see why Mr. Darlymple has taken offence to such an obvious fact.
Permalink
Thank God for this voice of reason.
Whlist the original piece might have been a little muddled the bigger issues of the article are vital ones to focus on and not the banter that it created, which for me is a side track.
The problem is that although WD might be highly regarded and has surely earnt the respect, for demonstrating his passion for India by writing about it, it is also suffice and very evident for years, either in his print interviews, his TV docu's or his readings that he guards his subject matter India close to his chest as if it where his thrown and he alone is a specialist.
This isn't endearing but highly frustrating. India welcomes you WD and always has done, but that has much to do with your background too, one would argue.
You in return, and more so now that you have the title of creator of Jaipur Lit Fes, have created a sort of club made up of elitist. And the game is all about who you or 'one' knows.
The danger with this of course is that it is in fear, if it hasn't already become so, your own personnel fairground. any eyebrows raised to this, i would say look no further a field then the repeated programming of Susheela Rahman, Mimlu Sen and Paban Das Baul, what other festival does this? And weren't they all part of his Nine Lives book launch globally? Fair enough but to have your mates as a main part of the music programming year in year out?
Be a little humble and look further a field. India is fast changing and a whole new breed of Indian writers, thinkers and doers are coming of age.
Having said the above, I would like to end this by saying that whilst there might be much wrong with WD's approach and his self congratulations and crowning he should be respected for his endorsement and hard work on the festival.
Credit where credit is due.
Permalink
i strongly suspect mr. dalrymple has done all this letter-writing just to ensure that his talk at Jaipur this year runs to a full house.
Permalink
Not sure what is more alarming, our continuing tendency to seek western approval on the one hand, or the inverse snobbery in 'intellectual' circles that reads 'subservience' into most international platforms/links. Both are dangerous and simplistic.
I think Dalrymple, however foolish his outburst may seem, has simply taken personally what was probably not meant so. Instead of getting caught in a slanging match, it would probably have served the purpose of both sides better to make that clear. But clarity is the enemy of controversy and both sides here seem to be thriving on the controversy, rather than its resolution.
To me, the advantage of literature is that you cannot, for all the fests and awards in the world, make someone like writing that they don't. Whether we slobber over Brit authors or ignore them seems hardly relevant when in the ultimate reckoning we have the liberty to read and like - or dislike - what we choose.
I'm with the commenter above who points out that a large part of this is a perception issue, created by selective media reporting of the JLF itself, that focuses almost entirely on the more 'celebrated' names. It doesn't necessarily reflect on-ground reality; going by the reportage of people like Nilanjana Roy, there seems a strong, parallel interest in writing/debates not aligned with famous faces. It's remarkable that we, the media, take our right to criticize so seriously, but our duty to inform is selective at best.
As for Dalrymple's narcissistic attempt to take credit for the original event idea - while I would be delighted for the gentleman behind the event to get his due, it's important not to confuse the two issues. Dalrymple's lack of integrity on that front doesn't necessarily have bearing on the debate at hand. It many ways it's the Kapil Dev-Lalit Modi conundrum. The league idea originated with Kapil, but it was Modi who ran with it - though in his case, he kind of ran away with it! Come to think of it, so has Dalrymple.
Either way, to me the debate doesn't take away from WDs ability to do the job at hand currently - which is to put up a great show. What we take away from it cannot be of his dictation and as long as we realise that, I don't see where the threat lies.
Permalink
I met WD at a British Council event years ago and I remember thinking "What a Racist"! He spoke to Indians then with condescension and a sneer. His reactions now confirm my original opinion.
Permalink
I once wrote a response to Dalrymple's "Jehad Dejavu" in August 2007 in Pakistan's English daily Dawn entitled Dalrymple's Intellectual Dishonesty objecting at his inaccurate depiction of Indian history in that article [his was originally published in an American newspaper (If my memory serves me right it was Los Angeles Times)].
Permalink
These revelations do WD no credit at all. It seems that all the VIP treatment that he has received over the years from the Delhi circuit has gone to his head! How different he now seems from the eager, fresh-faced Scotsman who first came to India all those years back to spend a year in Delhi? Its quite sad really.
Permalink
For anyone having read different points of view (Hartosh, William, Pramod) it's clear that reality is complex, and a battle to finally designate the heros and villains is a sad spectacle. Apparently William's inviting Hartosh for a drink, so maybe, with Pramod invited too, all three of you could get pissed, rashly admit that there are different sides to every story, and (you don't have to kiss) make up ! I remember last year in Delhi at the 30th January Ahimsa Day Lectures in Delhi, Dilip (Simeon), just back quite excited from Jaipur, found it curious that his "comrade guru", the exceptional Hindi writer, critic and thinker Purushottam Agrawal was never invited, while he should obviously have been a central figure at such a festival ! Purushottam of course will say that Dilip is his "comrade guru". (See both speakers at this event on YouTube!). But why can't the two worlds meet, in Jaipur? Right now, in a polemical atmosphere, no one seems to be in the mood for humility and reflection. But my guess is, after the dust settles down, and some valid points sink in, things will change, and we'll see that change at Jaipur too next year !
Permalink
Open is trying hard to smear the good intentions of William Dalrymple and thus had that article by a rather stupid and poorly educated Hartosh Singh Bal. Mr. Dalrymple's reply was befitting and hence we have this obscene article trying to drap Mr. Dalrymple's reputation down.
Open - get yourselves a life.
Post new comment