In the early 1970s, the Trinidad-born British writer, V.S. Naipaul, won the Booker Prize. The prize was established in 1969 for the best work of English fiction. At the time, Naipaul was working with the BBC and a British literary critic described his winning the prize as ridiculous.
The critic said he could not comprehend how the judges could have selected him for the prize. However, the leftist intellectuals of the Arab world who, by the way, prefer a life of luxury while claiming to be the protectors of the weak and poor in the Middle East, rejected the critic’s views. These intellectuals respect Naipaul as a humane writer only because he criticized Islam.
On the other hand, Edward Said, a secular writer, wrote recently that he could not understand why Naipaul hated Islam. Said thought the influence of Hinduism, which was Naipaul’s ancestral religion, might have prompted him to vilify Islam and make such statements as "The entry of Islam was the greatest calamity that befell Indian society." Said added, "Naipaul’s prejudices led him to the brink of an intellectual suicide and exposed him to a terrible intellectual catastrophe in which he lost his talents and, consequently, his writings degenerated into incoherence and humdrum repetitions."
Naipaul’s work, Beyond Belief, reflects his deep-seated hatred of Islam and Muslims. He has never managed to get rid of his religious prejudices. But the Arab leftists, who used to welcome any writer who made a bid to tarnish the image of Islam, believe that he is the most logical and impartial writer. Unlike other writers and intellectuals who are proud of their cultural background, leftist Arab intellectuals have no distinctive identity of their own. Nobody respects people without identity or roots. Because of this, these intellectuals are not welcome in any group or society. These Arab writers are viewed by others as betrayers of their own religion and heritage.
In some of his writings, Naipaul glorifies the period of European colonization in Asian, African and Latin American countries. He also yearns for the return of the colonial period to Third World countries. The selection of such a man for this year’s Nobel Prize for literature, no doubt, is a slur on the good reputation of the Swedish Academy, which gives the prize to encourage persons working for the progress of humanity.
He was decorated with a knighthood in 1980. The title was conferred on him, seemingly, as a recognition of his efforts to tarnish the image of Islam in a way no one would dare to do in the case of other religions such as Judaism or Christianity. Western countries, which always put on a mask of secularism, believe that Judaism and Christianity are above criticism. It is a crime to criticize the two religions in the slightest manner in those countries. Naipaul and his likes such as Salman Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen have never criticized these two religions.
For some reason, Naipaul reportedly did not like to be described as a man of Indian roots or of Caribbean origin. Because a reporter on the Sunday Independent referred to his Indian roots in a story, Naipaul allegedly denied the journalist an interview and instead asked his wife to answer the man’s questions. The writer’s arrogant treatment made the reporter comment: "This interview changed my view of V.S. Naipaul. As an individual, he is nothing."
