Sahitya Akademi Reforms: Addressing Structural Flaws and Institutional Culture for Literary Excellence

Maalan Narayanan
Controversy is no stranger to Sahitya Akademi. Each year, debates erupt over chosen authors, shortlisted titles, or the perceived leanings of the jury. This year, however, was different. The Akademi came under fire for withholding the announcement of awards across 24 languages, reportedly under instructions from the Union Ministry of Culture.
The decision has unsettled literary circles nationwide, including Tamil Nadu, where the award announcement is closely watched for literary preferences and bias. Tamil literary circles have reacted sharply, fuelled by leaks suggesting that left‑leaning writer S Tamil Selvan was among those selected but name withheld allegedly because of his anti-govt stance.

What ails Sahitya Akademi, and what recourse is available to it?


After Independence, one of the early and visionary steps taken by the Union govt was the creation of national academies to promote literature, visual arts and performing arts. Accordingly, Sahitya Akademi was constituted in 1952 as the National Academy of Letters, followed by Lalit Kala Akademi in 1953 for visual arts. Though created through separate resolutions, both share strikingly similar objectives, structures and funding patterns.

Yet, over the decades, Sahitya Akademi has increasingly drifted away from its founding purpose. A comparison with Lalit Kala Akademi reveals that the problem does not lie in the idea of a national academy, but in structural anomalies and an unhealthy institutional culture that have crept into Sahitya Akademi, which calls for reform.
The constitutions of Sahitya Akademi and Lalit Kala Akademi reveal near-identical mandates: promoting cooperation, encouraging research, recognising excellence through awards and fostering national and international cultural exchange. Their officer structures too are comparable, with both guided by general councils and executive boards.

Despite the similarities, styles of functioning differ. Lalit Kala Akademi, though not without flaws, displays greater institutional balance and accountability. Sahitya Akademi suffers from structural excess and systemic bias. Sahitya Akademi’s General Council (SAGC) has 101 members, compared to Lalit Kala Akademi’s 65. Size does not guarantee better governance; an excessively large body often leads to inefficiency and lobbying. Union govt representation is disproportionately low, just five, in the general council, which is crowded with nominees from states, universities, literary associations and “eminent writers”.

There’s a history behind the imbalance. Sahitya Akademi was constituted before the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, which reorganised states on linguistic lines. Today, this results in duplication: representation by state and language. Tamil, Telugu or Hindi — official in multiple states — end up being overrepresented, while others such as Sanskrit or Sindhi, which are not official languages of any state, remain marginal.
Tamil enjoys four to five representations in the general council in different categories, while Konkani has only two. The numerical imbalance inevitably translates into influence.
India has nearly 900 universities, yet only 20 are represented in the Sahitya Akademi general council. Lalit Kala Akademi sensibly channels academic representation through a single UGC nominee, avoiding arbitrariness and lobbying.

A major flaw in the Sahitya Akademi is that the outgoing general council determines the composition of the incoming one, based on recommendations from state govts, universities and literary bodies. This ensures continuity, but also institutionalised lobbying and factionalism.

Lalit Kala Akademi follows a more balanced approach: fellows are selected through rotation, state nominees are finalised in consultation with the ministry of culture, and there is mandatory representation for women, conspicuously absent in Sahitya Akademi.

The Sahitya Akademi executive board, elected by the already skewed general council, wields enormous power over appointments, awards, publications and administration. Since the culture ministry has minimal presence in both, public accountability is weak despite govt funding. It is difficult to understand why the Centre has allowed this imbalance to persist.

Beyond structural issues lies a deeper problem: institutional culture. The functioning of Sahitya Akademi has increasingly been marked by cronyism. A tacit quid pro quo — “You support me, I support you” — operates in nominations, appointments, jury selection and awards.

Another disturbing pattern is ideological gatekeeping. When Akademi presidents are unfamiliar with certain languages, they rely on language convenors and on the lists provided by general council members, who are imbued with their biases. Jury panels are often drawn from ideologically aligned circles. As a result, certain political or cultural viewpoints dominate, while writers with nationalist or alternative perspectives find themselves systematically excluded. This phenomenon is not confined to one language or region; it is visible in several states, including Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.

Such practices defeat the purpose of a national academy meant to represent the diversity of Indian thought.

Reforming Sahitya Akademi does not require dismantling it, nor does it diminish the role of states or languages. A few constitutional amendments can restore balance and credibility. The Union govt’s nominations to the general council should be increased, ideally to one per recognised language. Language convenors — and thereby the executive board — should be constituted by the Ministry of Culture from these nominees; university representation should be routed through the UGC; the head of the Akademi should be designated chairman and appointed by the President of India, as in Lalit Kala Akademi. Five vice-chairpersons may be appointed for the five regions (north, south, east, west and central) to ensure geographical balance. Jury composition should be broad-based and ideologically balanced.

Sahitya Akademi was envisioned as a national platform for literary excellence, not as a closed club driven by numbers, ideology or patronage. Structural correction and cultural cleansing are essential if the Akademi is to regain moral authority and public trust. Such reforms will not weaken states or languages; they will strengthen Indian literature, true to the spirit in which the Akademi was founded more than seven decades ago.

(The writer is a former member of the general council of Sahitya Akademi & Lalit Kala Akademi)