free speech

‘My gurus demand I make no calculations about what is acceptable and what is offensive when I write'

Jerry Pinto’s acceptance speech, read out in absentia, of the Sahitya Akademi award for Best Book in English.

These are trying times for all of us, but perhaps for writers most of all.

We have become the keepers of the flame, a task for which not all of us might be suited. Some of us might argue quite rightly that the truth is not of much concern for the fiction writer. Others might say with as much justification that the truth is one of the many shades that hangs around the birth of each new novel and it is not always a pleasant spirit.

So what is it we are supposed to be doing here? Are we to hold up a mirror to society? Can we say our mirrors are without flaws, that we offer a true reflection or do our political beliefs bend the light just that much, so that what is offered is a refraction?

In Baluta, which I had the good fortune to translate, the late Marathi writer Daya Pawar says that the books he read did not reflect his life at all but he suggests that this might have been why he enjoyed them.

The new criticism tells us that every writer only writes about himself or herself. If this is true, we run the twin risks of solipsism and narcissism. There are other critics who warn against cultural appropriation: that we may not write about that which we have not lived. What then is the role of the imagination in this space?

Each time I open a file on my computer, or pick up my pen, I run the risk of offending someone.

Is this risk implicit in reflection or is the problem refraction? Is it because I cut too close to the bone or is it because I allow my imagination to run wild?

And what is the role of the state in my life? I might have some rights, as a citizen of India, to the protection of my freedom of speech but since this is a right limited and hedged about, the protection extends only so far as the law will allow it. I do not know what the law will allow and will not allow because I do not know what a reasonable man will think and this legal fiction, the reasonable man, must now try to understand the unreasonable man of letters.

When Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, he was not being reasonable for he demanded that we give up the notion of “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” and to turn the other cheek. When Rabindranath Tagore wrote Char Adhyay, a novel that interrogated the notion of nationalism, he was being an unreasonable man. When Ismat Chugtai tore the veils of feudalism and child abuse in Lihaaf, she was being an unreasonable woman. When Gandhi wrote polemics against the British rule, he was not being a reasonable man.

I return often to these men and women as my guides and my preceptors.

I think of Jesus using deceptively simple stories to drive home complex messages about justice and forgiveness; I think of Tagore’s Where the mind is without fear; I relish the elegance of the image of Chugtai eating oranges in the British court, refusing to be cowed by the law and its demands; I think of Gandhi retreating every week into silence and reaching out, connecting, talking to his correspondents about everything from their dietary problems to their spiritual quests to their political opinions.

These are my gurus. They teach me reason and they urge me to the unreasonable space of creation; they teach me to dream but they remind me that the dream is paid for in work; they teach me to think but they ask of me that I leaven reason with intuition; they demand that I write from a place deep within, a place where I make no calculations about what is acceptable and what is offensive.

I have not always kept the faith. I am human, after all. Most writers are. That’s why we surprise ourselves when we create beauty for we know what kind of place it is made in.

But somehow, we have been handed the flaming torch of truth and we have been told, it is now yours to protect.

I am terrified.

But I am going to try. My gurus did.

Mumbai-based Jerry Pinto is one of the 24 award winners for 2016 by the Sahitya Akademi for his novel Em and the Big Hoom.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.