Prize talk

Why Indian writers are never in the running for the Nobel

There are many problems – the absence of a national literary culture, to begin with.

Patrick Modiano, a 69-year old novelist little-known outside his native France, has just become the 110th recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature. It is now over a century since Rabindranath Tagore won the prize. As with science Nobels and individual Olympic golds, India has produced exactly one literature laureate*. Since the constraints of genetics or research budgets do not apply to literature, this ought to be a matter of some surprise, but it is unlikely to change anytime soon.

This failure is often attributed to the Swedish Academy’s Eurocentrism: Modiano is the fifteenth European winner in the past 20 years. But in recent decades, the prize has also gone to writers from countries such as Peru, Guatemala, St. Lucia, and twice each to China and South Africa. Those who suspect the Academy of valuing political and geographic as well as aesthetic considerations might conclude that another Indian winner is thus inevitable.

But while the nominees and shortlist (the Academy whittles 220 nominees down to a shortlist of five) are only released after 50 years, the betting odds calculated by bookmakers such as Ladbrokes are generally a good guide to the shortlist – in recent years, the winner has come from among the odds-on favourites. Writers such as Modiano or the Swedish poet Tomas Transtromer might have been obscure to an international audience, but they were favoured heavily by punters. The complete absence of Indian names from the odds indicates that no Indian writer has been seriously considered for some time. Moreover, there is little or no evidence that the Swedish Academy weights factors other than literary value in its decisions: choices that were interpreted as political statements – Orhan Pamuk and Harold Pinter – were easily defensible on literary grounds.

National literature

Perhaps the most important factor impeding Indian writers is the absence of a national literary culture and thus of a national literature. Tagore is not only the last Indian Nobel Laureate: he was our last “national” writer, read widely across regions and languages, beloved not only of Bengalis but of Indians. Non-Western Nobel winners tend to come from monolingual countries with unified literary cultures, and thus to be major cultural figures in their societies. In the international sphere, they become national embodiments – Naguib Mahfouz for Egypt, Octavio Paz for Mexico. There are no Indian equivalents. Chetan Bhagat is a culturally influential writer, but of a very different kind.

Many Indian writers are, of course, iconic cultural presences in their states or linguistic regions, as exemplified by the public mourning in Karnataka for U.R. Ananthamurthy – in whom India has lost one of its more plausible Nobel candidates. But their influence remains, as a rule, parochial. This is largely down to the lack of translation between regional languages, and the poor quality of translation into English. It is difficult to expect writers to develop international reputations when they are unknown outside their own states. English translations from regional languages are much more common, but very few translators are accomplished stylists in English. Thus, most translations convey the meaning of the original in a dull and often stodgy prose.

Lost in translation

The Swedish Academy read Indian-language writers in English and thus receive a rather poor representation of these literatures. The few high-quality translations of recent years – of Ashk, Manto, Senapati – are of novels by long-dead authors who are ineligible for the Nobel. In contrast, the high quality of translation from Spanish to English was essential to the globalisation of Latin American literature. The rare Indian-language writer to receive an international audience, Ananthamurthy, had a brilliant translator, A.K. Ramanujan. His successors have not been so fortunate.

What of Indian writers in English? Many have acquired international reputations, and three have won the Man Booker Prize. When Rohinton Mistry won the Neustadt Prize in 2012, Indian headlines said he’d won “the American Nobel”. Most of these internationally famous writers live outside India, and their work has become increasingly historical and removed from contemporary Indian themes (Aravind Adiga is an exception to both rules). This points to another explanation for the Nobel failure. The Academy has a clear preference for writers who chronicle the “national experience”, using literature to interrogate power structures and social change. It may also not consider any of the leading Indian writers in English to be quite Nobel-worthy–  while Adiga and Kiran Desai are too young.

Writers in English with international publishers have access to the institutional support that is essential to winning the prize. Regional-language writers need much better translations and a certain degree of promotion to stand any chance. Unlike the national literary academies of many other countries, the Sahitya Akademi is ineffective in this regard. There is an unfortunate parallel here with India’s attitude to the Foreign Language Film Oscar. It is not enough to nominate the “best” work – the Oscar and Nobel juries have hundreds of films/writers to consider and lobbying is essential. When the director of Liar’s Dice, India’s Oscar entry for next year, announced that she would do no lobbying or marketing and let her film “speak for itself”, she ensured that she would not stand a chance at winning the award.

Why, you might ask, should Indians care why we win international awards such as the Nobel or Oscar? It is not that Indian writers, or any writer, needs a certificate from an insular and secretive jury of Swedish academics. But an Indian Nobel winner, especially a regional-language writer, could have a transformative effect on the reach of Indian literature, both nationally and globally, as well as on the value accorded to literature in Indian society. It could prompt a long-needed increase in translations between Indian languages. In the long run, it would also discredit the unearned snobbery of the English-language literary elite and allow regional-language writers the reach and acclaim they deserve.

*Not counting the three scientists of Indian-origin to win Nobels, none of them being Indian citizens. The same applies to Rushdie and the Booker Prize.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.