According to your statement, the decision to publish now rests with the translator. But how would you explain your initial stand, considering D’Cruz’s novel has nothing to do with Modi?
I share the translator’s anguish and concerns over D’Cruz’s decision. However, I cannot publish the book when the translator makes it clear that she has “withdrawn the translation”. The translation is, technically, her intellectual property. Like any publisher, I have had to sign a separate agreement with her on this. We may enjoy Bhupen Hazarika’s songs after he joins the BJP; or appreciate Ilayaraja’s music even after he warms up to a Brahminical Sankaracharya. Or even suffer Yo Yo (Honey) Singh.
But if I were the producer of their music, I would worry about their politics, and take a decision based on that. I’m not a publisher whose sole motive is profit or entertainment. Given the political scenario today, and as a political publisher, I have to worry about what I am “making public” — for that’s what publishing literally means; a publisher sits in judgment on what needs to see the light of day, when and how. And, all publishers are gatekeepers. So, yes, D’Cruz’s support for Modi does change things for me. But the point is, he refused to engage in a conversation with Geetha and Navayana on this. Navayana would still like to publish the book; maybe with a caveat from Geetha and me, should D’Cruz continue to endorse Modi. But as yet, I do not have a manuscript!
How would you distinguish your decision from Penguin’s to withdraw Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History?
This is a fallacious, irresponsible and lazy comparison. Penguin succumbed to pressure from a rightwing group, and withdrew a book they had already published when there was no legal ground or need for the withdrawal. For Navayana, it was a question of ethics, even when the decision was taken in the heat of the moment; and we have now expressed regret over that haste. There are scores of authors and books we would never publish, just as there are authors who would never turn to a press like Navayana. Should it turn out that we cannot publish D’Cruz with Geetha’s translation, that does not preempt or prejudice the publication of the novel as such. However, in Doniger’s case, Penguin was the sole publisher with whom the author had a licensing agreement. They quit the field without a legal fight. They withdrew a book they had published. No other publisher can publish Doniger’s book till Penguin rescinds their agreement with Doniger or vice versa. However, with D’Cruz, we are mulling over a book we wish to publish.
You have also published the works of Namdeo Dhasal, who wrote for Shiv Sena’s Saamna. Isn't there a contradiction?
I would submit that there’s no purity of politics or absolute morality that Navayana is advocating. D’Cruz is supporting a person who masterminded the Gujarat pogrom, in the middle of an election. He refuses to make a single mention of 2002 in his statements. This is worrying. Navayana has not ruled out anything — when we published Dhasal first in 2007, the translator, the late Dilip Chitre, and I were critical of Dhasal’s pro-Sena positions; but we also made a choice – we published one of India’s greatest poets ever. Dhasal continues to be published in Marathi by Lokvangmaya Grih, a CPI (Communist Party of India)-affiliated publishing house. We hope Joe responds to Geetha and me more keenly than he does to the media. Since he did not respond to us, we, too, are forced to turn to the media.
D'Cruz has called this a case of “crass intellectual dishonesty and blackmail”.
I am sorry but he is the one who could be accused of that. Perhaps sensing Geetha and I would not have signed up his book had we known of his endorsement of Modi, he signed the agreement and only then announced his support for Modi. He chose to speak to the media before he responded to my and Geetha’s emails or calls. But we genuinely hope and believe Joe will eventually reconsider his views, which have drawn flak in Tamil literary and political spheres. We cannot so easily hand over a good writer to the Modi camp, not without a fight — that is why I have admitted that our April 13 decision, even if precipitated by D’Cruz’s media statements, was an error of judgment.
The current discussions also bring to the fore the large issue of whether we should separate the writer from his work. Your thoughts?
Can we separate the tree from the fruit? Yes, maybe, when the tree becomes rotten (or in mass-market production, when we don’t know which tree or even which place a mango comes from). But we do try to stem the rot in the tree, so that at least its future fruits are edible. That’s our ethical and political responsibility. Else, we are in for a strange and bitter crop.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)