Panaji, Aug 29: Ramrao Surya Wagh, brother of celebrated Goan poet, playwright and former MLA late Vishnu Surya Wagh, has strongly objected to remarks allegedly made by Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar at a book publication function in Panaji, accusing him of indirectly targeting Vishnu Wagh and his controversial Konkani poetry collection Sudhir Sukta.

In a formal representation addressed to Arlekar on Saturday, Ramrao expressed “deep anguish and disappointment” over remarks reportedly made by the Governor at the Institute Menezes Braganza on August 28, and demanded that he formally retract what the family described as unwarranted observations against the late writer.

According to Ramrao, Arlekar, while recalling his tenure as Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly, referred to a highly talented writer who was also an MLA and allegedly criticised the use of “unwanted language” in his literary work. Arlekar is also stated to have recalled asking the writer whether he could read such poetry aloud before his own family.

Though Vishnu Wagh was not named, Ramrao claimed that the references “clearly and unmistakably” pointed to his late brother and Sudhir Sukta.

‘Unfair to attack a writer who cannot defend himself’

Ramrao said it was deeply objectionable to revive such an episode years after Vishnu Wagh’s death, particularly when the writer was no longer alive to explain the social and literary context of his work.

He also disputed the narrative that Vishnu Wagh had no answer when confronted over the language used in his poetry.

Ramrao recalled that Sudhir Sukta was released in 2013 at the hands of then Chief Minister late Manohar Parrikar, and said the major controversy surrounding the collection erupted only later, after reports emerged in 2017 that it had been selected for a literary award by the Goa Konkani Akademi.

At that stage, he said, Vishnu Wagh was critically ill and in a prolonged coma following a massive cardiac arrest and was physically incapable of responding to the controversy.

Against this background, Ramrao alleged that presenting Vishnu Wagh today as someone who “had no answer” amounted to a misleading portrayal of events.

Defends ‘Sudhir Sukta’ as rebellious literature

The representation strongly defended the language and style of Sudhir Sukta, arguing that literature cannot be judged merely by whether it can be comfortably recited in a family setting.

Ramrao described Vishnu Wagh’s poetry as part of the tradition of Vidrohi Sahitya — rebellious literature — confronting caste discrimination, social oppression and systemic injustice.

He argued that literature dealing with humiliation and discrimination faced by marginalised communities was not necessarily intended to be polite or comfortable.

According to him, attempting to sanitise such literature merely to avoid offending social sensibilities would defeat its purpose of challenging entrenched inequalities.

Ramrao invoked the broader reformist literary tradition associated with Sant Tukaram, Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, saying Vishnu Wagh’s writing sought to speak for sections of society historically denied a voice.

Questions Governor’s intervention

Ramrao also sharply questioned Arlekar for using a public platform to comment on the literary work of a deceased former colleague.

He alleged that it was inappropriate for a person occupying a high constitutional office to pass judgment on creative expression in a manner that could diminish the reputation of a writer who was no longer alive to respond.

The letter further accused Arlekar of having remained silent on several controversial issues during his political career while choosing to publicly scrutinise Vishnu Wagh’s literary expression. These are allegations made by Ramrao Wagh in his representation.

Ramrao maintained that Vishnu Wagh continues to command respect among readers, particularly younger generations, for his outspoken writing on social equality, caste and empowerment.

‘Retract the remarks’

Concluding the representation, Ramrao said constitutional authorities are expected to uphold the principles of freedom of expression, pluralism and literary freedom.

He demanded that Arlekar formally withdraw the remarks which, according to the Wagh family, had insulted Vishnu Wagh’s memory and misrepresented his literary legacy.

The controversy is now likely to reopen the long-running debate surrounding Sudhir Sukta — whether provocative language in protest literature should be judged by conventional standards of propriety, or understood in the social and political context in which it is written.