The Bloomsbury Brouhaha

In Current Affairs
09:53 AM, Aug 24, 2020
Venkataraman Ganesan

Bloomsbury Publications India (Bloomsbury India), a publishing house of some renown and repute set social media alight on the 22^nd of August 2020, for what arguably has to be one of the worst possible reasons. In a bewildering act of rank unprofessionalism, Bloomsbury India seemed to have brazenly reneged on a contract entered into with three authors, by backing out from the ensuing publication of a book co-authored by the trio. The book titled “The Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story” authored by Advocate Monica Arora, and Delhi University lecturers, Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra was even listed on online retail stores as available for pre-order. In a meek and uninspiring statement released as an attendant justification for the volte face, the publishing house lamented that while it was a strong advocate of freedom of speech, it also had a “deep sense of responsibility towards society.” This sudden and spontaneous awakening of societal responsibility seems to have been triggered by two events. The first one took the form of a virtual pre-publication launch organized without the apparent knowledge of Bloomsbury India by the author, in which there was participation by “parties of whom the Publishers would not have approved.” The offending participants included Ms. Nupur Sharma of the right-wing publication “Op India.” Hardly a reason for a breach of contract, more so when it is every author’s sole preserve to market his or her book.

The complete press statement as issued by Bloomsbury. Courtesy: India Today¹-

The second and more sinister reason is what incited the maximum umbrage from readers and authors alike. Antithetical to the very sacrosanct notion of even-handedness, the decision to dissociate from the book looked to be a culmination of arm-twisting mechanisms initiated by a cabal of authors whose avowed reputation as Left Leaning ideologues is as prominent (if not higher) as their writing. The rationale swiftly shifted from mere conjecture to concrete causality when Twitter users started sharing messages of approbation being passed on by fervent opponents of the book to their likeminded compatriots. For example, the raucous rabble rouser in perpetuity, Aatish Taseer, who was recently in the news for abusing Home Minister Amit Shah when the latter was diagnosed with COVID-19, was effusive in his praise for William Dalrymple, who presumably was turning “Archimedean” levers to ensure that the book in question did not see the light of day.

This invertebrate capitulation by Bloomsbury India not only ushers in the culture of cancellation in India, but also raises many questions of great pertinence and relevance.

Propriety & Ethics

Before even indulging in a discourse on competing or conflicting ideologies, it is prudent to evaluate this action of Bloomsbury India from the perspective of propriety and ethics. The manuscript had been received from the authors in advance by the publishing house. The contents within the confines of the manuscript would have been evaluated in microscopic terms both in respect of authenticity and propriety. Only after such an examination would Bloomsbury India have communicated to the authors, in the affirmative, about their inclination to publish the work. So, what was it that occurred in the interregnum between the communication of the consent and the publication that made Bloomsbury India develop cold feet? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the contents of the book were improper, incendiary and in contradiction to the general tenets of authorship, what prevented Bloomsbury India from raising their objections post perusal of the manuscript? I am sure neither Bloomsbury India nor the authors are informed by and invested with a sense of deviousness to tamper with the original manuscript, thereby transforming the innocuous into the inappropriate.

Hence this ill-advised move, more likely than not, is an unfortunate consequence of a puerile and reprehensible need to solely pander to the whimsical devises and preconceived conjectures of a set of influential voices. Voices of renegade activists pursuing a motive and chasing an outcome, both of which in all likelihood are not in the general interest of the public. Laurie Halse Anderson, the author of “Speak”, once famously said, “Censorship is the child of fear and the father of ignorance.” What is it that Bloomsbury India fears exactly? A lack of patronage of the likes of William Dalrymple, Aatish Taseer, Kamila Shamsie, and Khalid Hosseini? If Bloomsbury India was to evaluate a potential loss of patronage against the company’s uncompromising mission statement/core set of values, would this action of refusal to publish “Delhi Riots 2020” do justice to such a mission statement?

Management Guru Jim Collins2, the author of the best-selling work, “Built to Last”, a seminal management classic which he co-authored along with Jerry Porras3 coined the term “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” (BHAGs). These represented values that acted as a spurt to companies. BHAGs stood for excitement, energy, and envelope-pushing boldness.4 What is/are Bloomsbury India’s BHAG/s? It is time for the publishing house to introspect, reflect and, if they feel it is absolutely necessary, retract from their core set of values?

When it comes to censorship, there is no greater authority than the master of dystopia, George Orwell5. A conscience keeper of the common man, he waxed eloquent thus on censorship, “The chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of … any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face. … The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.6”

It is precisely an intellectual cowardice that has made Bloomsbury India grovel and succumb to the diktats of a select group of metaphorical brigands masquerading as wielders of the pen. A cowardice that has stripped Bloomsbury India of all dignity, self-esteem and independence. By this despicable act, they have given an impression that they are being held hostage by a vexatious gang of sophisticated ruffians.

Industry Clique?

Following Bloomsbury India’s indiscreet move to back away from publishing, informed opinions suggesting the prevalence of a clique in the publishing world started making the rounds on social media. Bearing an eerie resemblance to Bollywood, an industry that is at present reeling under the weight of the mysterious death of one of its starlets Sushant Singh Rajput, the world of publishing seems to be in the vice like grip of nepotism. Economist and best-selling author Sanjeev Sanyal proceeded to illustrate in a Twitter “thread” the insidious workings of this clique that puts paid to the hopes of many a talented author who has neither influence nor backing.

This makes for some sobering reading, putting it mildly. However, this is not a unique phenomenon. The scourge of nepotism has plagued the publishing industry worldwide. Matt Fraction, better known as the husband of superstar writer Kelly Sue DeConnick, exposed a rampant nepotism problem in the comic book industry in an interview with Comic Book Resources today. In an uncomfortable article, Fraction describes the process of pitching an Adventure Time comic to BOOM!7 In a candid article penned for the Los Angeles times, Adam Bellow, son of the Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow makes an almost apologetic plea for nepotism in an article titled “Nepotism is merely a Boogeyman.”8 However the claim of nepotism stands a very weak chance in this particular case since Bloomsbury India to their credit (the devil also needs to be accorded a deserving due), accepted the manuscript submitted by the authors initially and even confirmed their willingness to go the whole hog in so far as publication was concerned.

Selective Bias

Jon Krakauer9, a journalist for the adventure magazine Outside, penned a hair raising, cathartic memoir (“Into Thin Air”10), detailing an ill-fated expedition to Mount Everest, of which he was a part, in the year 1996. Eight mountaineers including one of the greatest mountain climbers ever, Rob Hall, were killed and several others stranded by a storm. Krakauer's book placed a considerable degree of blame on a Russian climber Anatoly Boukreev. Boukreev in turn, wrote his account of the story in a book titled “The Climb”11 where he attempted to vindicate his stance.

The point that I am striving to make here is that neither Bourkeev nor Krakauer was inhibited by or intimidated from narrating their side of the story. Neither was coerced, coaxed or cajoled into either publishing a common version or desisting from laying bare their conflicting contentions. However, in the current instance, while we have Bloomsbury India all set to publish an account of the Shaheen Bagh protests against the Citizenship (Amendment Act), 201912, advocate Monika Arora and Delhi University teachers Sonali Chitalkar and Prerna Malhotra find themselves drawing the short end of the stick, courtesy Bloomsbury India’s decision to desist from publishing their book. Publishing fails in its duty to the public when it ensures that bookstores have works by Rana Ayyub and Aatish Taseer lining the bookshelves while making short shrift of works by Messrs. Monika Arora and Co.

When in doubt on any literary conundrum, I am drawn to George Orwell like iron filings that are transported towards a magnet. To quote the immortal legend, “using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people’s idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.” According to Orwell, one of the reasons why people write lies is political purpose. Hence, irrespective of the political line that the author may be toeing or the allegiance she/he might be espousing, the publisher has no rights whatsoever to reserve either a comment on the same or reject such views as being opposed to those harboured by the publishing house, unless such a publishing house stands guided by an uncompromising ideology, a point which would be addressed in the succeeding paragraphs. If motivated by the tenets of impartiality, a publisher is akin to a judge. All that a judge has to do is to provide both the parties a fair hearing before pronouncing a judgment that would not have the impact of tilting the scales of justice either side.

Left is Right – An ideological Panjandrum

All of the above arguments finally bring us to a disquieting crescendo that has at its edifice the quintessence of ideology. While there is nothing wrong is espousing one’s professed ideologies, it is downright dangerous when one dons the mantle of a closet ideologist. Is Bloomsbury India struggling to come out of the closet? Is it a publication for, of and by the Left? If the answer to this question is a resounding yes, then there is nothing that prevents Bloomsbury India to come out in the open and say so. This would save an inordinate degree of time, effort and energy that consumes the time of both authors and publishers. A rabid Alt-Right newspaper such as Breitbart13 would, for instance, never carry an article that eulogizes even the genuine achievements of Barak Obama!14

Is Bloomsbury India an inveterate panjandrum for and of the Left or is this affiliation newly inculcated as a result of some calculated brain washing and puissance? Either way its actions are as ambiguous as its affiliations.

In conclusion, Bloomsbury India has unfortunately, ungainly and unfathomably shot itself in the foot. Following its announcement not to publish “The Delhi Riots 2020”, it faced the ire of many of its loyal brand patrons who publicly terminated their association with the Company. Prominent amongst those making such a declaration included, Mr. Anand Ranganathan; Mr. Sanjay Dixit, and Mr. Sanjeev Sanyal. In a moment of indescribable madness, Bloomsbury India seems to have missed the forest for the trees. However, there is still time for redemption. A time for growing a spine. A time to cock a snook in the face of selective paternalism and to stand by the side of justice. In the interests of one of the most noble and dynamic professions of all, we sincerely hope that Bloomsbury mends its ways.

Image Credits: Editorji

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. MyIndMakers is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of MyindMakers and it does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.

Comments

Venkataraman Ganesan

Contributor Profile

Current Affairs