Saturday, July 30, 2011

The Israel Boycott

My friend the artist N Pushpamala, has issued a call for artists to boycott a forthcoming show of Indian art, called Deconstructing India, to be mounted at the Tel Aviv Museum next April. Pushpamala's central point is that the exhibition, and the museum that will host it, serves to legitimise the 'racist and apartheid' policies of Israel.
I don't care overmuch if the show happens or not. It sounds like a replica of a dozen other exhibitions of contemporary Indian art with names like Chalo India, Indian Highway, Indian Summer, India-this, and Indian-that, none of which got rave notices or created any genuine excitement among foreign spectators.
As anybody who reads this blog regularly will know, I'm not a big fan of Israel. I am, however, even less a fan of blanket cultural boycotts. When another friend, the artist Tushar Joag, circulated Pushpamala's mail to a wide group, I responded with the letter quoted below (I've removed a few specific examples I gave):

I don't understand this, frankly. If we start boycotting museum shows because of bad things governments are doing, where will it end?

Why should Indian artists exhibit in China, when the regime there has been responsible for horrendous massacres and continues to deny basic freedom of expression to its citizens?

Why should people exhibit in museums and universities in the United States (almost all of which receive state funding), when the country is responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqi civilians in the past decade and many more in the decade before that?

Why should galleries exhibit at the state-backed Sharjah Biennale and Dubai art fair, when the UAE denies the most basic rights to migrant labour, much of which is sourced from the sub-continent (if you want to speak about apartheid, the UAE is a great example of apartheid written into law)?

Why should we collaborate with artists and curators from Iran and Pakistan despite the terrible record of the governments of those countries in protecting minority rights? Denying minorities equality under the law is very akin to apartheid, isn't it?

Why, in the end, should artists and curators exhibit at the Lalit Kala Akademi and the National Gallery of Modern Art when we know the many kinds of repression unleashed by the Indian state, many of which have been explored and interrogated by artists and activists on this email? Does showing at the Lalit Kala legitimise all the dreadful policies of the Indian governments in Kashmir, the North East, Chattisgarh, Gujarat etc.?

Israel has done terribly by the Palestinians, but associating art institutions and centres of learning, even state funded ones, so closely with state policy is a silly mistake in my opinion, and tokenism of the worst kind as well.

I'd hoped a debate would begin about the issue, but received only personal mails from people supporting my position. I presume other mails went out to those proposing the boycott, supporting their position. Today, Pushpamala forwarded a response to my letter from Lisa Taraki of PACBI (The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel).
Lisa wrote:
This is a very familiar argument, and this is our usual response:
There are indeed plenty of repressive regimes, and some of them are already subject to sanctions. There are also many other regimes that trample on their citizens' rights while enjoying support from world powers such as the USA, the EU, and other centers of power.
However, when there is a people's movement, such as the Palestinian BDS movement, that explicitly calls upon conscientious citizens of the world to boycott their oppressor in order to bear pressure to achieve its rights, it is the obligation of those conscientious people, whether in India or in France, to heed the call. If there were a boycott movement in China, Iran, or Pakistan urging conscientious artists and academics, etc. to boycott the major cultural and academic institutions in those countries, then it would be the duty of conscientious artists and academics to respond to the call.
The vast majority of Palestinian civil society has adopted the Palestinian BDS Call (http://www.bdsmovement.net/call)
Just consider what the reaction of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa would have been if artists, academics, and sportsmen and sportswomen around the world had refused to support the boycott of the South African state because there were other oppressive regimes the world over. Either boycott all such regimes, or no support for your struggle, they would have said! That would have rightly been considered an abrogation of responsibility, a diversionary tactic. Why is Israel being treated differently? Why the special allowances for Israel?
Palestinian civil society is asking artists, academics, and other conscientious people the world over to support its call for BDS. Do we listen to the voice of the oppressed? That is the basic issue.
The cultural and academic boycott, targeting the mainstream institutions of the Israeli state (and the Tel Aviv Museum of Art is certainly part of the establishment, as is clear from a review of its website), aims to isolate Israel until Palestinian rights guaranteed by international law are achieved. Pressure on the Israeli state is the only avenue left, in view of the failure of all other measures, from diplomacy to "constructive engagement" to persuasion.

And this is my reply to Lisa:
Hi Lisa,

If this is a familiar argument, I'm surprised you have not come up with better answers. But that might be because there ARE no better answers.

You write:
"...when there is a people's movement, such as the Palestinian BDS movement, that explicitly calls upon conscientious citizens of the world to boycott their oppressor in order to bear pressure to achieve its rights, it is the obligation of those conscientious people, whether in India or in France, to heed the call."

There is absolutely no obligation on conscientious citizens anywhere in the world to heed anybody else's call. There are a thousand people's movements across the globe, and many of them issue such boycott calls. The validity of every call has to be determined by individuals rather than result from the sort of obligatory Groupthink you recommend. Just because I consider your boycott call absurd does not make me any less conscientious a citizen than those who choose to obey it.

You write:
"Just consider what the reaction of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa would have been if artists, academics, and sportsmen and sportswomen around the world had refused to support the boycott of the South African state because there were other oppressive regimes the world over. Either boycott all such regimes, or no support for your struggle, they would have said! That would have rightly been considered an abrogation of responsibility, a diversionary tactic. Why is Israel being treated differently? Why the special allowances for Israel?"

Artists academics and sportsmen joined the boycott of South Africa as part of a worldwide political and economic boycott. The cultural contribution was significant, but nowhere near as significant as political isolation and economic strangulation; without those two components, and the worldwide political consensus that engenders them, cultural boycotts are of little use. You will not be able to give me a single example of a cultural boycott of the kind you propose having produced significant political change anywhere in the world.
Besides, even at the height of the apartheid ban, people all over the world read and admired novels by the likes of Nadine Gordimer and J.M. Coetzee. Their being South African, and continuing to live in South Africa, did not lead to us boycotting their publications. Your movement, on the other hand, insists on boycotting all individuals with Israeli citizenship. How can you decide, on the basis of a website, what the affiliations of curators in Tel Aviv's Museum of Art are? Do you know any of them? Or have you studied their writing and concluded that they support the excesses of the Israeli State? I'm willing to wager you do not and have not.

You write:
"The cultural and academic boycott, targeting the mainstream institutions of the Israeli state (and the Tel Aviv Museum of Art is certainly part of the establishment, as is clear from a review of its website), aims to isolate Israel until Palestinian rights guaranteed by international law are achieved. Pressure on the Israeli state is the only avenue left, in view of the failure of all other measures, from diplomacy to "constructive engagement" to persuasion."

If the Palestinians had adopted a primarily non-violent form of resistance like India did in its struggle against imperialism, or like the American Civil Rights movement did, I have no doubt there would have been a viable Palestinian state in existence by now. Decades of Islamist terrorism failed to shake the Mubarak regime, but a few weeks of widespread non-violent protest brought it down. The Palestinians have kept the option of resorting to violence open even when they have entered negotiations with Israel. The Palestinian public continues to support the targetting of Israeli civilians, and a martyr cult has been fostered in the Occupied Territories. Perhaps Palestinians should look more closely at their own failures down the decades, before speaking of what is "the only avenue left" and of the "failure of all other measures".

regards

Girish

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey man, this is excellent (not the controversy, of course, but your response to it). Achal.

Anonymous said...

oh, there he is, the silly Indian artist!

Girish Shahane said...

Thanks, Achal!

Anonymous said...

Get on twitter if for no other reason than to link up to your posts!
S ANAND

Girish Shahane said...

Spend far too much time online as it is, SA, but thanks!

Deepak said...

You hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph - Palestinians have let slip many opportunities to be sovereign...from the violent nature of their resistance (the martyr cult is especially abhorrent) to their negotiating leaders and tactics. The cultural boycott is all smoke and no fire.

I am surprised though N Pushpamala is silent on it (or so it seems as there doesn't seem to be a response from s/he). What's the point of calling the boycott when you cannot explain your convictions?

Girish Shahane said...

Deepak, she did forward me Lisa Taraki's mail; Pushpamala has read the manifestos and websites of those pushing the boycott and is obviously convinced by their arguments. Presumably those documents explain her point of view, she feels no need to elaborate on them.

Yogesh Kamdar said...

Such a call for boycott is nothing but Political Correctness gone mad.

- Yogesh

Winnowed said...

Israel is no saint, but then, neither are the Palestinians. Unless a regime is truly evil (Israel does not even come close), a boycott of affiliated cultural institutions is not justified.

Satish said...

Fantastic series of posts. Have helped me question and refine my own stand on the issue. Thanks!

Girish Shahane said...

Thanks, Satish.

DS said...

You've mentioned John Berger's 'nuanced position', that's the one most of us have. When Lisa and others bring up South Africa they are bringing up a country who imposed apartheid on it's own people, a section of society who had but a feeble voice at the time, and no recourse to correct the wrong in a time when the media was not so pan global in dispensing breaking news overnight, or nations politically correct on sanctions, or an 'Arab Spring' was even notionally in sight.

I sent you a msg saying I agreed with you and left it that. What is there to take much further? The issue of Israel's formation, state backed attacks on civilians in Arab territories, their defense that it is survival in their hostile surround we debate rightfully, even as we understand the distress of Palestine and do not condone their resort to violence.

But for Indian Artists to ask for a blanket boycott of a show of Indian Art at the Tel Aviv Museum because it serves to "legitimise the'racist and apartheid' policies of Israel" left me confused on first reading. If that is the central point of their argument then why, as you say, allow shows to go on in other countries that repress their own people? There are two nations involved here, there are grey areas in the arguments of both the countries claims and actions, and while I am no fan either of Israel's Palestine track record, this knee jerk reaction to what essentially is a political impasse is removing the one avenue where sensible or a humane dialogue can still take place. Through cultural exchanges.

Though going by the recent Indian HotchPotch show a cultural boycott of yet another mela may not be such a bad thing. On those grounds, yes, a call may be justified. : )

Anonymous said...

these kinds of boycott calls sound pretty routine no? I remember a similar appeal made by British writers to Ian McEwan when he was awarded the state-backed Jerusalem prize. There were similar mails circulating over email in India, asking McEwan to boycott the book festival and decline the prize.

Alex Morgan said...

This has got to be one of the most intelligent analysis and response to the boycott campaign I've seen yet. Thank you so much, Girish, for your thoughts.

Girish Shahane said...

DS, Alex, thanks a lot.

Shazzy said...

On one very important level I agree with you: For Palestine, a much smaller nation than the US funded Israel, violence is simply not a solution. It should, ideally, seek out other methods.

But I find it unfair to lay the onus of non-violent behaviour on one country. For the same reasons as above: Israel is the bigger country. As far as comparing the situation to our struggle for independence, I wish, like you, that there was a Gandhi born in all countries and eras. This is sadly not possible. Plus, our country was (is?) a victim of colonialism. The Middle-Eastern conflict can be traced back to the Crusades. It is not just territorial, geographical or economical. It is also religious. It is no surprise, then that fanatics have seized the 'opportunity' to foster the repulsive martyr cult.

Thanks for this stimulating blog, btw!

Girish Shahane said...

And thanks for your thoughtful response, Shazzy