British media suspects motive behind Nobel for Naipaul

By Hasan Suroor

LONDON, OCT. 13. A day after he dedicated his Nobel Prize to India, Sir V.S. Naipaul returned to his acerbic form bracketing 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, in India people were living in ritual. This is one of the things I have helped India with,'' he said condescendingly, barely 24 hours after he floored his Indian critics by hailing the Nobel Prize, awarded to him, as a tribute to the home of his ancestors.

Apparently referring to the hostile reaction to his books in the Third World, including India, where his ``An Area of Darkness'' virtually made him a persona non grata, he said: ``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.''

Sir Naipaul's remarks came even as a controversy swirled around the Swedish Academy's alleged motive behind its decision to give him the prize. There have been suggestions that his strong anti- Islamic views, particularly his attack on Islam after the September 11 terrorist outrage in the U.S., influenced the Academy whose judgments in the past are known to have been coloured by political considerations, especially while deciding prizes for peace and literature. The media reportage of Naipaul winning the prize has been laced with his recent remarks in which he spoke of the ``calamitous effect'' of Islam on the world, and compared it with colonialism.

There is a view that by choosing him, the Academy is seeking to ``legitimise'' the anti-Islamic backlash following the terrorist attacks in the U.S. The Academy, conscious of the sensitivities, sought to play Sir Naipaul's views on Islam.

Mr. Horace Engdahl, head of the Academy, said: ``What he is really attacking in Islam is a particular trait that it has in common with all cultures that conquerors bring along, that it tends to obliterate the preceding culture.''

Yet, there were fears that the decision could inflame passions. ``The choice may be seen as inflammatory in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the U.S., given Sir Vidia's condemnation of Muslim fundamentalism,'' The Independent said. The BBC's prestigious current affairs programme ``Newsnight'' prefaced its story with the remark that Sir Naipaul's face remained ``set'' against Islam and replayed his criticism of the Muslim faith.

A Muslim representative, interviewed on TV, was vehement that Sir Naipaul had been ``rewarded'' for his anti-Islam stance, as indeed had been Mr. Salman Rushdie, he said. The Guardian reproduced Sir 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.

However, there is unanimity that Sir Naipaul deserved the Prize and the controversy has less to do with merit than with the Nobel Committee's dubious record which, as a commentator in The Times said, was ``renowned for making political decisions''.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : Indian position unchanged: Maran