by Nan
I’ve been reading more about V. S. Naipaul, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize for literature, a prize with added value, it being the centenary award. I feel I should give you a little more about the man and the awarding, probably, since I was, in the article I wrote two weeks ago, quite gaga about both.

Naipaul and India

I had read Naipaul’s earlier novels like A House for Mr. Biswas, but not his autobiographical novel nor his travel books, not even An Area of Darkness. I was quite aware of the uproar it caused, specially in India, since he was over-critical of the nation. Speaking with a friend recently I got her opinion. She was looking for his autobiographical novel in a well-stocked bookshop. Incidentally, it was not on sale. She commented that she did not like at all his criticism of India. "He goes on a train journey and thinks he knows all about India and feels justified in tearing it to pieces," she said.

Be that as it may, his hyper-critical travel writing did cause a hostile reaction in the Third World. He virtually became persona non grata to the Indians. Hence their reported surprise that he hailed his winning the Nobel Prize as a tribute to the home of his ancestors.

Naipaul and the Nobel Prize

But, according to an article sent me, written by Hasan Suroor titled British media suspects motive behind Nobel for Naipaul, a day after giving praise and acknowledgement to India, Naipaul is supposed to have gone back to his "acerbic form". He bracketed India with societies where there is no intellectual life, though he acknowledged that the situation had improved and now books were accepted.

"Forty years ago," says Naipaul, "people in India were living in ritual. This is one of the things I have helped India with". (Imagine that for egotistical daydreaming and condescension to a great nation with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore and Sarojini Naidu as sons and daughters). He continues: "The trouble with people like me writing about societies where there is no intellectual life is that if you write about it, people are angry. If they read the book, which in most cases they don’t, they want approval. Now India has improved, the books have been accepted."

Goodness that’s a nasty mouthful!

When he says "the books" does he mean his? I agree that people do not like to be criticised and do not like to be faulted. We could fault them if the criticism is justified. But how on earth can anyone, even a Noble laureate, least of all a man of such distinction, make such sweeping statement about a country that is a vast subcontinent and has such an ancient culture and distinguished writers, writing even in English.

Controversy has been swirling around the Swedish Academy’s alleged motive behind its decision to give him the prize. I mentioned in my earlier article that even the head of the Academy, Horace Engdahl, expressed the view that people may accuse the Academy of awarding the prize with a political motive; that Naipaul’s stand against Islamic fundamentalism may have won him the prize. I personally felt this could not be the case, since 11 September was so closely followed by the awards.

Views are expressed that Naipaul’s strong attack on Islam after the terrorist outrage in the US influenced the Academy whose judgements in the past are known to have been coloured by political considerations, specially when deciding the peace and literature prizes. The former is justified but not the later, we suppose.

I quote some comments, reported in the articles I read.

The BBC’s prestigious current affairs programme Newsnight prefaced its story on the Nobel winner with the comment that Naipaul’s face remained "set" against Islam and replayed his criticism of the Muslim faith. The Guardian reproduced Naipaul’s remark in which he said modern life had shaken up "retarded Islamic societies and the answers had come not from the Islamic faith but from the 20th century institutions".

But all agree that V. S. Naipaul deserved the prize and the controversy has less to do with the merit of the man than with the Nobel Committee’s record of being "renowned for making political decisions".

Again, be that as it may.

Interview with the BBC

I wonder whether HE the President’s interview with the BBC was telecast to local audiences. We had the benefit of reading the transcript of her chat with Frost. Did I miss the paper coverage of the BBC interview and also the interview itself over TV? She is dynamic when interviewed and we don’t miss tuning in on such happenings.

Why I wonder is because I have received a message with the substance of her talk and I asked that person not to pull my leg and he got annoyed swearing he was a good reporter.

HE The President had referred in detail, according to the e-mail I received, to the 17 year UNP rule and had said that the economy of this magic Island of ours lifted off only after she came to power. She had also said that wrongs had been done to the Tamils and she apologised.

Having lived through 50 years as a sentient being keenly interested in the country and its politics, I could not believe the report. I am no racist whatsoever, and feel all of us are Sri Lankans first and then Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslims, etc. I do not think we have been unfair by the minority races, specially the Tamils, who constitute only about one-fifth of the population of the Sinhalese. So why say we wronged them and apologise?

Surely she would not have referred to the period of dhooshana and bheeshana, so long past. Even the BBC would be tired of that tirade!

This is why I accused my report sender of pulling my leg, trying a joke on me, and a joke on a very serious matter. How many others was this person, and others like him, trying to tell a d... lie to.

The papers and TV stations should splash the BBC interview with Madame President (not only the conversation had with Frost) to kill such rumours and false reporting.