‘Boycott of Israel would not serve any useful tactical purpose’: Amitav Ghosh
The British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) and Pakistanis for Palestine amongst others have appealed to the novelist Amitav Ghosh to decline the Israeli Dan David Prize he is being given jointly with Margaret Atwood.
The BRICUP open letter to Ghosh reads:
It’s surprising to have to raise Israeli colonialism with a writer whose entire oeuvre seems to us an attempt to imagine how human beings survived the depredations of colonialism. Gosh, even the Dan David judges like the way you evoke ‘the violent dislocations of people and regimes during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries’.
Those making him this appeal have reminded him of his rejection of the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize in 2001.
Give below is Ghosh’s response to the appeal:
Thank you for your message. I have received many others in relation to the Dan David Prize, which I am sharing with Margaret Atwood.
To begin with: I think it is of paramount importance to note that this prize is awarded by a university in conjunction with a private foundation: it is not awarded by the state of Israel.
I would like to state clearly that I do not believe in embargoes and boycotts where they concern matters of culture and learning. On the contrary I believe very strongly that it is important to defend the notion that institutions of culture and learning must, in principle, be regarded as autonomous of the state. Or else every writer in America and Britain, and everyone who teaches in a British or American university, would necessarily be implicated in the Iraq war, and by extension, in Israel?s actions in Gaza and Palestine. Similarly every Indian writer and academic would also be complicit in the actions of the Indian government in areas of conflict. And if we don?t defend this principle how will we defend the rights of dissent of those who are employed in universities ? especially, for instance, in times of war, when reasons of state can be cited to create an explicit complicity?
Against the advice of some activists, I went to Burma/Myanmar in 1996/7 when I was researching my book ?The Glass Palace?. I am convinced that by going there, and writing the book I did something that was, in some small way, useful; staying away would have achieved nothing. I traveled to Sri Lanka in 2001, to deliver a lecture during one of the worst periods of the conflict; I have been ?guest of honour? at a book fair in a Gulf country where millions of my compatriots live and work in conditions of helotry, without any civil rights and religious freedoms. Many areas of my own country, India, are racked by violent conflicts.
I do not see how it is possible to make the case that Israel is so different, so exceptional, that it requires the severing of connections with even the more liberal, more critically-minded members of that society. Is it really possible to argue that there is in that country such a unique and excessive malevolence that it contaminates every aspect of civil society, including private foundations and universities? Let me remind you of something that Sari Nusseibeh once said: “If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we’ve had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals… If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach.”
I have always felt that exceptionalism has been a major problem for the rest of the world in relation to both the US as well as Israel. How then can I now take an exceptionalist position myself?
I also do not believe that a boycott of Israel would serve any useful tactical purpose at this time. For more on this, please see this.
Some have mentioned my action in relation to the Commonwealth Prize. I would like to point out however that I did not turn that prize down; I withdrew my book from the competition because I disagreed with the specific mandate of that prize and did not wish to see my work placed within that framework. Not for a moment would I have considered severing my connections, such as they are, with Britain and the British literary or academic worlds.
So I am afraid this is an issue on which we must agree to respectfully disagree.