Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:21:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: V.S.Naipaukl


Hi,

The (only?) interview in the Times of India this year with Naipaul (23 April
2000) is on cricket.  Of course, he's more 'English' than the British even
here (or at least would like to be), but I don't think he's all that
controversial in the interview.  However, there is a report in the same
newspaper on an interview in the Tatler, which I think is what you are
looking for (sorry, no reference for the Tatler interview for the moment,
but I believe you are right that it's published in July (or June)).  Anyway,
here is the report (below).

Ismail S Talib

PS: Naipaul was interviewed a few times during the year, but I think the
Tatler interview was the one that was 'heavily debated'.

---

Naipaul feels let down by Blair
L K Sharma

July 12 2000
The Times of India


LONDON: Tony Blair never had it so bad. In the recent weeks, he has faced
setbacks on all fronts and now comes a blow from the intellectual quarter.
An angry V S Naipaul, the writer, blames the government for its role in
‘‘destroying the idea of civilisation in the country’’ and ‘‘imposing a
plebeian culture’‘.

Naipaul is no politician but his attack on the Labour prime minister could
not have been timed better.

Naipaul’s words will please large anti-Blair constituencies that have sprung
across the ideological divide and the party lines. Blair has made many
enemies in the world of arts and high culture. Many of them, unlike,
Naipual, believe in the socialist revolution and had pinned their hopes on
Blair’s arrival in 10 Downing Street. Thus on the issue raised by Naipaul,
Blair is getting slings and arrows both from the right and from the left.

Naipaul’s criticism will also please a large ‘‘elite’’ constituency
antagonised by the Labour government’s tirade against elitism and the
Oxbridge culture. The conservatives among them have been attacking the
Labour government for its ‘‘niggardly, atavistic and pettifogging’’ attitude
to the arts for its policies destroying quality education.

Naipaul joins a formidable line-up of leading intellectuals and theatre and
arts figures who accuse the government of wilfully dumbing down Britain.
Theatre director Sir Peter Hall said the government, because of its
populism, could not tell the difference between arts and popular
entertainment. Naipaul has also cautioned that philistinism would ‘‘cause
long-term damage to the economy’’. The adverse economic impact of a cultural
void will hardly bother many elites. Perhaps Naipaul believes that art for
money’s sake is an argument that the government would understand.

Blair’s spin doctors may be wondering as to how many votes the opera goers
have and whether after the long Thatcher years, the pen is still mightier
than the sword. Unfortunately, while Labour’s love affair with one of the
elite constituencies is over, the doors of 10 Downing Street have hardly
been thrown open for the coarse beer-drinking mobs. The party spokesmen have
described museums ‘‘elitist’’ but took no action on their plans to transfer
the exhibits to pubs to enable the ordinary people to appreciate these.

The Blair government can now either ignore the cultured voices and keep up
its attacks on ‘‘elitism’’ or try to befriend this alienated constituency by
changing its education, arts and culture policies. The government may like
to examine why modern Britain shocked and disappointed even certified
anglophiles such as the late Nirad C Chaudhuri.

Naipaul and Nirad Chaudhuri had very little in common but during his last
years in Oxford, the Bengali writer, another great upholder of standards,
never stopped lamenting the death of all that was great and noble in British
society.

The discriminating consumers of high culture have been saddened by the
dumbing down of the TV and newspapers and the book publishing industry in
the past few years. Naipaul’s onslaught comes in an interview with Tatler
magazine. He displays his moral outrage at the Blair government’s use of
language to hide its lack of commitment. ‘‘I am depressed by their dreadful
use of rhetoric, the misuse of language. They don’t believe half the things
they say and they are trying to find words for their lack of belief’’.

‘‘This has destroyed the idea of civilisation in this country’’. The rot,
according to him, began with the post-war Labour government of 1945. ‘‘It is
terrible, this ... aggressively plebeian culture that celebrates itself as
plebeian’’. ‘‘For the first time in 50 years of living here I feel depressed
by a government’’, Naipaul says. ‘‘There is nothing going on. it is all
over’’, says Naipaul.



------Original Message------
From: hesterma <hesterma-AT-uni-freiburg.de>
To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Sent: October 2, 2000 1:25:42 PM GMT
Subject: V.S.Naipaukl



Hello dear all,

any idea where the heavily debated interview with V.S. Naipaul was
originally published this year
(June,July) - Times of India??
Thanks for your help.
Sandra


-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address -AT-email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---