Writer and activist T.K. Dayanand – who with poet Arif Raja decided to opt out of Bangalore Literature Festival (BLF) citing his disagreements with key organiser Vikram Sampath’s views on ‘award wapsi’ – spoke to The Hindu on his decision and the events that have since unfolded:
It is being argued that your decision to withdraw is a reflection of your own ‘intolerance’. How do you respond?
Firstly, Arif Raja and I decided to stay out of the festival and did not even use a strong word like ‘boycott’ in our communication. We had serious issues with organiser Vikram Sampath’s views on ‘award wapsi’ and we felt the article he wrote misrepresented facts about writers returning awards. It seemed to presume that writers protesting against social issues are unprecedented. Writers have expressed protest in various ways at various points of time – be it Emergency, Sikh riots or Godhra riots. We have examples like Rabindranath Tagore and Shivaram Karanth returning honours bestowed on them. The arguments he used against those returning awards were very similar to those used by the RSS and BJP, which we are not comfortable with. Our decision to stay away was our way of standing with the writers who are returning awards. We had ended our letter on a cordial note wishing the festival well. We were surprised by the response our stand received.
Many writers have said your move ‘forced’ Vikram Sampath to withdraw from his responsibilities as organiser. Was there an element of coercion in your decision to opt out?
Absolutely not. Let alone coercion, there wasn’t even a demand to the effect. Never did we say we will come only if Vikram Sampath quits. We have no idea who did. It is up to Mr. Sampath to tell why he decided to quit the post. Instead, he is pointing a finger at us. He is being portrayed as a martyr.
There has been overwhelming support for Vikram Sampath, especially on social media, from across India. How do you look at this support and mobilisation?
Neither I nor Arif have tweeted or put any Facebook post ever since we announced our decision to stay out. We chose to stay out of high-pitched television debates too because we were not interested in mud slinging. I believe we have acted with patience and responsibility. This is in contrast with Mr. Sampath who described us as ‘tolerance mafia’ and accused us of making ‘personalised campaign’. We have not even met Mr. Sampath. What personal grudge could we possibly hold against him? If our silence too is a sign of ‘intolerance’, what can we even say?!
Do you think the ‘intolerance’ debate is leading to polarisation where no debate is possible between two groups and everyone is speaking within their own circles?
There can indeed be debate between two points of view. But what debate can there be in a time when dissent is being met with offers of being sent off to Pakistan, threats or being branded? The kind of branding that we are being subjected to now is also symptomatic of the same attitude.
‘Never did we say we will come only if Vikram Sampath quits. We have no idea who did’
