What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Asked whether a writer should belong to a political camp, the Tamil writer B. Jeyamohan answers no. In a Scroll.in interview published on April 23, 2023, conducted by translators Priyamvada Ramkumar and Suchitra Ramachandran, he describes himself as a writer who is apolitical and spiritually free, and says he wants to keep it that way. The line behind this article’s headline is his personal position, not a neutral description of writers in general, and it carries two separate claims: one about politics and one about what spiritual freedom requires.
What the interview is and what it is not
The interview is an account of how Jeyamohan’s political ideas developed and how he sees the relationship between politics and literature. It is a set of recollections and opinions given by one author, and its claims about his past are his own testimony. Jeyamohan’s official website lists the interview in its English interview collection and dates it April 23, 2023, which matches the Scroll.in publication date.
Readers should treat the interview as a position statement. It is not a survey of writers, and it does not establish any standard that other writers are expected to meet. The statements about his earlier political life, his departure from it, and his religious experience are all attributed to him.
From the RSS to an independent position
Jeyamohan says he became involved in activity linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh after the Emergency and wrote for its publication Vijayabharatham under the names Jayan and Rajan. He says he later distanced himself, and he gives two reasons. The first was his opposition to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The second was an editorial dispute over a proposed derogatory drawing of Christ, which he recounts as the moment he became more aware of Christ’s importance in his own spirituality.
#1 Best Overall
He says he made the decision to leave in 1987–88, and that he has not been associated with a political party since. This is the core biographical claim that underpins the headline. Because it is his own account, it is best read as the reasoning he gives for his current stance rather than as a documented chronology of events.
He is also careful not to generalise his choice. In the interview he says ordinary people need politics, and that his position is not a prescription for everyone. What he argues for is narrower: a writer should not be bound to a party or ideology. He adds that a person on a spiritual quest should keep the ability to leave any organisation that no longer serves that quest.
Why he thinks a writer should not take a single stand
The most direct statement in the interview is this: “I believe a writer should never take a single political or ideological stand. If a writer takes a political stand for any reason, it will corrupt his ethics.” The argument is about ethics and freedom, not about whether political views are worth holding. In his account, a fixed commitment limits what a writer can see and say, and that limit eventually shapes the work.
Rank #2
This is a normative claim about writers. It is not a finding about how political commitment affects literature in general, and the interview does not test it against examples in a systematic way. Readers who accept it are accepting his judgment about his own craft.
Freedom from and freedom to
The phrase “spiritually free” carries most of the interview’s weight, and Jeyamohan takes care to define it. He writes: “Spirituality is something that comes about only in complete freedom.” He then adds a distinction: “However freedom is not just freedom ‘from’. It is also freedom ‘to’.”
In his account, rejecting social dogma, political dogma, nationalism or conventional morality does not by itself make someone free. He treats several conditions as forms of bondage that can survive such rejection: ego-centeredness, a view of events as isolated fragments, and a view of life that sees only its time-bound surface. The pursuit of liberation from these conditions is, in his reading, an important concern in Indian and other Eastern writing. That is his philosophical framing rather than a settled scholarly position.
The table below sets out the three distinctions that run through the interview. Each is his argument, not an externally validated category.
| Distinction | Jeyamohan’s framing | What it changes for a reader |
|---|---|---|
| Freedom from versus freedom to | Freedom from constraints is necessary but not sufficient; spiritual freedom also needs an aim. | A critic can ask what a work or author is free for, not only what it rejects. |
| Party or ideology versus independent judgment | A writer should not be bound to a party or ideology, and should be able to leave any group that stops serving the quest. | Political affiliation becomes a question of what it does to the writer’s ethics, not a badge to read off the text. |
| Political correctness versus aesthetic and spiritual criteria | Literature has its own ideology and is an aesthetic and spiritual pursuit that can offer another way of thought and life. | Political correctness can block judgment when it becomes the main measure of literary value. |
He also describes a writer as moving between spiritual insight and ordinary human desire and grief, rather than remaining permanently in an enlightened state. He quotes the Tamil poet Pramil in this context. The point is that a writer’s spiritual claims are not a claim to be above ordinary feeling.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Literature, politics and judgment
Jeyamohan says that literature has its own ideology and need not depend on an external political one. He describes the quest of writing as “aesthetic and spiritual”, and he opposes judging literary achievement mainly by an author’s political position or political correctness. He argues that writers can produce significant work despite politically regressive views.
Rank #4
These are the most contestable parts of the interview. Several of his judgments about individual authors and trends are sharp and polemical. They are his opinions, and they are not neutral editorial conclusions. A reader who wants to evaluate them should read the works in question and form a view separately from the interview.
He also comments that Indian writing in English is often oriented toward Western readers, and that many significant works in Indian languages have not been translated into English. This is his assessment, not a measured review of the publishing market, and the interview does not supply figures to test it.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Where to start reading
The interview refers to several books. The most accessible in English is The Abyss, the translation of his Tamil novel Ezhaam Ulagam. Scroll’s introduction to the interview describes it as published in April 2023 and as his first major novel in translation. The interview also mentions the collection Stories of the True, published in 2022, and the historical novel White Elephant, which was then under translation.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallOutdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchCurrent edition, availability and format should be checked with the publisher or a bookseller before buying, because the interview’s publication dates do not confirm what is in print today.
Reading the claim with its limits in view
The interview is dated April 23, 2023, and it records views at that time. Jeyamohan’s statements about his own departure from the RSS and his refusal to join a party are personal testimony. His broader claims about writers, literature and spiritual freedom are arguments he presents, and they are open to dispute. The most useful way to read the headline is as a stated principle: a writer who keeps independent judgment, and who measures literature by its own aesthetic and spiritual aims, rather than by a political scorecard.
Readers who want the argument in his own words should read the full Scroll.in interview. The quotations in this article are reproduced from it, and each should be cited with the interviewers’ names and the April 23, 2023 date.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
