On January 22, 2016, Hindustan Times published an article that carried this headline – “Intolerance row: Nayantara Sahgal agrees to accept awards she returned”. Its lead paragraph stated that Sahgal had “relented”. When you read further, it becomes clear that Sahgal had “accepted” back the award since the Akademi had returned the cheque stating that they did not have a policy to accept returned awards.

Sahgal, in a phone conversation with Newslaundry, narrated her side of the story: She said she had sent a cheque of Rs 1 lakh to the Akademi to register her protest in October. It is this cheque that the Akademi returned, a good three months later, stating that it had no policy to accept returned awards.

When we contacted the office of the Secretary of Sahitya Akademi, we were told that Sahgal was sent a letter in January, 2016. This letter informed her that there was no provision in the constitution of Sahitya Akademi to hold on to returned awards and that they were returning it to her. Sahgal told them that if there was no option of keeping it, they could send it back.

We were also informed that, so far, out of the 39 protesting writers, only Nand Bhardwaj had agreed to take his award back.

So, the story really was about the Akademi refusing to accept Sahgal’s returned award. Yet the way it played out in Big Media, it appeared as if Sahgal had backtracked on her protest and taken a conscious decision to take back her award.

Sahgal told us that she was so startled by false reports that she wrote a letter to the secretary of Sahitya Akademi, reiterating that she had no intention of taking her award back. She was in Kolkata at the time, attending a literary meet.

Sahgal read out the letter to us on the phone. Here’s the transcript:

To,

The Secretary
Sahitya Akademi
Dear Mr Sreenivasa Rao,

I’m writing to express my concern about the recent newspaper reports that I have reconsidered my decision and taken back the Sahitya Akademi Award, which I returned in October, 2015. As you know, I returned that award in protest against the Akademi’s silence over the murder of Kannada writer, MM Kalburgi, and earlier of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare in Maharashtra. Let me make it clear that I have in no way reconsidered my decision. My protest and that of other writers continues against the continuing attacks on freedom of expression. It is the Sahitya Akademi which should have done some reconsidering since your letter says that the Akademi has no policy of accepting returned awards and therefore you wish to return the cheque for one lakh which I sent you. The Akademi has taken so many months to make this statement of policy. The cheque I sent you in October is, in any case, no longer valid. Let me repeat that there has been no reconsidering on my part. If you are returning my now invalid cheque as a result of the Akademi’s new announcement of policy, that is your decision, not mine.

Yours sincerely,
Nayantara Sahgal
Dated: January 24, 2016

Newslaundry contacted Neelam Pandey, Hindustan Times correspondent. She refused to answer any questions because journalists at HT are supposedly not allowed to comment on their own stories for other news pieces. She asked us to mail our questions to her official email address, but upon doing so, we received no response from her.

But not just HT, other media organisations, too, carried misleading headlines and convoluted reports on the issue.

India Today’s piece was peppered with sarcasm and smileys. Its headline read: “#AwardWapsiReturns: Nayantara Sahgal and Nand Bharadwaj agree to take back the Akademi awards they returned”. Like Neelam Pandey, Vivek Surendran, the author of the piece, refused to clarify if he had checked facts with Sahgal before publishing the story.

The Times of India headline read: Twist to award wapsi: Writers retrace their steps. We contacted Atul Sethi, the co-author of the piece, and he said there was no contradiction at all since the story carried Sahgal’s quote on taking her award back. The quote only has Sahgal saying she has not yet decided what she would do about the “matter”.

Business Standard, India Today and Zee News referenced Neelam Pandey’s HT piece, adding no new information. It appears that none of them spoke to Sahgal before publishing their stories. This was Business Standard’s headline – “Nayantara Sahgal, Nand Bhardwaj accept returned awards sent back by Akademi: HT”. At least they make it clear that they picked the story from HT.

This is the headline Zee News ran with – “Months after returning her Sahitya Akademi award, Nayantara Sahgal agrees to take it back”. They further suggest that other writers are likely to accept their awards in the near future, but offer no reasons for the prophecy.

The Jaipur edition of Daily News and Analysis (DNA) carried a front-page story with this headline – “Raj author, Nayantara ready to reclaim award”.

Dainik Bhaskar carried the story saying 10 writers had taken their awards back. It quotes a culture ministry source saying, “there is a list of 10 writers who have agreed to take back the awards they had returned. Sahgal and Bhardwaj are two confirmed names in the list.”

Sahgal did not agree to take her award back. It was sent back to her. The way the story was spun around painted a narrative of dissenting writers being fickle and that one of the largest writers-led protests in India had wound up in three months.

The Bose files

Did Jawaharlal Nehru call Subhas Chandra Bose a war criminal? On January 23, 2016, in his piece for India Today, Rahul Kanwal announced that well-placed sources had informed India Today that Nehru had said so and that the proof lay within the declassified Netaji files. However, when the files were released in the national archives, it emerged that Nehru’s stenographer, Shyam Lal Jain, attributed these words to Nehru while deposing before the Khosla commission, set up in 1970.

It would have been more accurate for Kanwal to state that these claims were made by the steno. Since this wasn’t mentioned in the article, it leads one to believe that Nehru had indeed uttered these words and that the files would expose his “true” opinion of Bose.

To add further confusion, a letter purportedly written by Nehru to Clement Atlee started doing the rounds on the internet. The “letter” was full of glaring spelling and grammar errors. The India Today Flash Twitter handle tweeted out the contents of the letter stating that it was written by “then PM Jawahar Lal Nehru”, even though the letter was dated December 27, 1945.

When we contacted Kanwal, he refused to say anything beyond the statement he made on his Facebook page. This is the statement:

“The story that was run on Saturday on India Today and Aajtak about Pandit Nehru’s letter to Clement Attlee was based on the sworn testimony of Pandit Nehru’s biographer, a gentleman by the name of Shyam Lal Jain. Deposing before the Khosla Commission, Shyam Lal Jain had said, “Dear Mr Attlee, I understand from reliable sources that Suhas Chandra Bose, your war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery and betrayal of faith by the Russians as Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, which she should not have done. Please take note of it and do what you consider proper and fit.” The letter is signed, “Yours Sincerely, Jawaharlal Nehru.”

The testimony of Shyam Lal Jain can be found on Page 112 on www.netajipapers.gov.in The India Today report was based on an official government document that has now been declassified and is available on the National Archives website.

Whether the stenographer is telling the truth or was he lying, what were his motives while making such a deposition, these are questions that are in the realm of speculation and no one can provide a definite answer. India Today carried both comments of historians like Ramchandra Guha who felt that the letter was fake and also military historians like General GD Bakshi who feel that being a Congressman, the stenographer had no reason to lie against his former boss at a time when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister. These are theories that are best left to historians. [sic]”

Kanwal’s story makes no mention of Shyam Lal Jain. His story was published before the files were placed in the national archives. The original article was based entirely on sources and Kanwal was not in a position to verify the details.

The story was published anyway. Readers take what they see at face value and do not necessarily wait to see how the story evolves. Without clearly stating that these claims came from Nehru’s biographer, it becomes a case of misreporting. India Today’s social media team can claim that the “Prime Minister remark” was an oversight. However, in times of high public scrutiny, each error can stain hard-earned credibility.