
The Lotus Prize for Afro-Asian Literature (1969–1988)
During the Cold War, well before the emergence of post-colonial scholarship in the Anglo-American academy in the 1990s, much of the work of canonizing postcolonial (or Afro-Asian, as it was called then) literature was done by writers and critics from the two continents themselves. Of particular centrality in the process was the Lotus Prize. Awarded between 1969 to 1988 by the Soviet-aligned Afro-Asian Writers Association, it sought to be an Afro-Asian Nobel at a time when very few writers from these continents were awarded an actual Nobel. The success of this prize is reflected in the continued fame of its recipients. Many of them received the award well before they reached the peak of their fame in the West.
There is no uniform aesthetic unifying the diverse writings of its recipients: the modernism of the older Egyptian novelist Taha Husien, the militant anti-colonial verse of the Mozambican militant poet-independence-fighter Marcelino dos Santos, Aziz Nesin’s biting satire of Turkish state and society, and Chinghiz Aitmatov’s unique synthesis of socialist and magical realism. The award made a particular effort to put certain “fighting” or “endangered” national literatures on the map: thus, Palestinian writers received more prizes than anybody else. While geography seems to have been a major consideration in selecting Lotus Prize winners, gender balance does not. In fact, of the fifty-nine awards that were given, only two went to women: the Uzbek poet Zulfiya and the Mongolian prose writer Sonomyn Udval. Gradually, the award experienced a Brezhnevization of sorts. If you were a literary official heading your national section of the Afro-Asian Writers Association, sooner or later you would receive your Lotus.
The following is my translation of the Russian-language transcript of the jury’s discussion of the first set of Lotus awards (Cairo, June 22, 1970), found in the Russian State Archive for Literature and the Arts f. 631, op. 27, ex. 767, l. 51–84.

Yusuf al-Sibai (Egypt, General Secretary of AAWA):
Let me start our meeting by summarizing the answers that I received from the members of the jury and then let those members speak themselves. Two members, which work on Arabic literatures, have proposed the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, while our Japanese member of the jury has proposed Alex La Guma, the South African writer.
The jury member from Algiers proposed on behalf of the French delegation the writer [blank space left in the transcript — RLD]. At an informal exchange of opinions between the members of the Afro-Asian Writers Bureau, we reached the conclusion that the list of candidates should include representatives of countries that are currently fighting against imperialism and colonialism. Such a candidate could be Augostinho Neto, the leader of the [Angolan] resistance.
It would be highly desirable if the Lotus Prizes are awarded during the [1970 Afro-Asian Writers] conference in Delhi personally by the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This will help raise the prestige of the conference and the prize.
Let me make one more proposal: As I mentioned earlier, the Lotus Prize was instituted two years ago, but has not been awarded yet. Maybe we can think about awarding it to three more writers for this year.
Let me develop this proposal. It seems to me desirable to award the Lotus Prize to a writer from India, as a country that has played a decisive role from the very beginning [of the Afro-Asian Writes Association] and continues to play such a role and which boasts such a number of famous writers, all well deserving of the Lotus Prize.
The second country — the Soviet Union, which also plays an enormous role in the Afro-Asian Writers movement and which similarly has a large number of writers who can claim the prize.
As our third candidate, maybe we could have a representative of another African country?
Yoshie Hotta (Japan, member of the Lotus jury):
When I was invited to serve as a member of the jury, I was most scared by the deluge of books that I would have to read. But I received from Cairo only four books, one of which was a collection of short stories by Enver Karim. The second was Alex La Guma’s And a Threefold Cord. As for poetry, I got a book by Benjamin Vias [a poorly known author, or more likely, poor transcription — RLD]. Thus, as a member of the jury, I have read only four books. I do not want to cause a scandal, but I can responsibly speak only for four books.
Of these, I can recommend Alex La Guma’s. Although I read French better than I read English, I did not receive any French books and would ask Mr. Mouloud Mammeri to speak about those.
Mouloud Mammeri (Algiers, member of the Lotus jury):
I have received two volumes of Prudencio’s poetry. It seems to me that his candidacy came about for geographical reasons. I understand that we would like to have an African writer next to the Arab ones, but I suggest that we do not act on such geographical considerations, which could result in awarding the prize to random writers rather those who really deserve it. Since our prize is annual, there will always be a case when we have a gap in some continent. It will be inevitably filled in the future.
Doudou Gueye (Senegal, member of AAWA’s Permanent Bureau):
I oppose the nominations of representatives from countries engaged in wars of independence without having studied their books. This will reduce the stature of the prize.
As a member of the jury, I received only a collection of poetry by Eastace Prudencio from Dagomea [present-day Benin]. It’s hard to decide on the prize if you receive only one book by one author. Other, more significant authors can remain beyond the purview of the committee. […]
Suhayl Idris (Lebanon, member of AAWA’s Permanent Bureau):
We are experiencing this mini-crisis because we were not able to distinguish between the proposals of the members of the [Association’s] Bureau and those of the Jury members. […]
al-Subai:
I don’t think my proposals ignore the literary side of the Lotus prize. One of the candidates for the prize, Mahmoud Darwish, was proposed by two of the members of the Bureau and we took into account the purely literary merits of his poetry.
Now I want to concretize two of my proposals [for a Soviet and an Indian writer].
I think we all agree about the literary merits of Zulfiya’s poetry. She is well known among us on the basis of her literary achievements. I would like to nominate her.
As far as India is concerned, I would like to nominate Harivansh Rai Bachchan.
The award is given not only for individual works but also for overall contribution to the Afro-Asian Writers Association.
We had no experience when we approved its by-laws. We can reconsider some of them on the basis of our practice.
One of the major difficulties that we are facing is the inadequacy of the nominated texts. We really had a very limited choice of texts. Maybe the problem was our poor advertising of the Lotus award. Many writers and poets did not know about it. Regrettably others such as Tawfiq al-Hakim and Tayeb Salih [Arab writers involved with the Afro-Asian Writers Association] felt too embarrassed to nominate themselves.
Thus, in response to the concerns raised by members of the Permanent Bureau, I suggest that we introduce to corrections to the by-laws of the prize. In the first place, I propose that we raise or waive the statute of limitations for nominated works [A Japanese delegate had complained that the stipulation that a nominated text should be no more than five years old is too restrictive for an award that relies so heavily on translation.]
Other issues we heard will be emerging every year. It would be difficult to constitute a jury able to read simultaneously works written in Arabic, French, and other languages.
It wouldn’t be a solution to our problem either to give the Lotus to those writers whose works have already received wide acclaim over the course of many years. That way we would not be able to offer the award to younger writers. This is why I think it would be great to establish within our movement sectors on literature in French, English, Arabic, and other languages so that each could names to the big jury, which could in turn make the decisions.
Anatoly Sofronov (USSR, member of the AAWA’s Permanent Bureau):
I would like to second the proposal of the chair of our jury. Zulfiya was the first Chair of the Soviet Committee for Relations with Afro-Asian Writers. Her poetry is wonderfully gentle in its structure. She is well known not only in Russia but in other countries as well. Her poem Mushaira was born during the First Conference [of the Afro-Asian Association in Tashkent] and has since received wide renown. Zulfiya represents the Soviet East, and we think we have proposed not only a major poet, but also, importantly, a female writer. […]
Gueye (Senegal):
I still regret that in the list of awardees there are no francophone writers.
al-Sibai (Egypt):
Ok, I would be happy to add a seventh prize, but do we have a proper seventh nomination?
Bhisham Sahni (India, member of AAWA’s Permanent Bureau):
I think this proposal of expanding the number of prizes to have one in all possible languages is not only wrong but also dangerous. If we want all the languages of our Association to receive awards, we have enough time in the future. As soon as a new prize is awarded to address the omission of one language, I would immediately propose another language. Thus, I propose that we limit ourselves to the number of prizes that we announced at the beginning of our meeting. As for all the languages, all the writers whom we mentioned this time but could not give a prize to, I propose that the Permanent Bureau takes note of them in nominating writers for the next set of awards. […]
al-Sibai:
I would very much like our Senegalese member to be satisfied with this reply. On my part, I promise that next time we would have a francophone African writer.
Gueye:
Let us not take up our time with meaningless debates. I would like the protocol to note my disappointment about the absence of a francophone writer. After all, it is my responsibility in the Bureau to conduct propaganda on behalf of francophone Africa.
[End]


During the two decades of its existence (1968–1988), the Lotus was the most significant literary prize given to writers from African and Asia. While some of its recipients have been long forgotten, the majority constitute a significant part of today’s postcolonial literary canon.
1969: Alex La Guma (South Africa), Mahmoud Darwish (Palestine), To Hoai (Vietnam)
1970: Augostinho Neto (Angola), Zulfia (Uzbek SSR), Harivansh Rai Bachchan (India)
1971: Sonomyn Udval (Mongolia), Sembène Ousmane (Senegal), Taha Hussein (Egypt)
1972: Hiroshi Noma (Japan), Mikhail Naimy (Lebanon), Marcelino dos Santos (Mozambique)
1973: Kateb Yacine (Algiers), Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o (Kenya), Thu Bon (Vietnam)
1974: Aziz Nesin (Turkey), Yusuf al-Sibai (Egypt), Anatoly Sofronov (Russia), Kamal Nasser (Palestine), Ghassan Kanafani (Palestine)
1975: Chinua Achebe (Nigeria), Faiz Ahmad Faiz (Pakistan), Muhammad Mahdi al-Jawahiri (Iraq), Kim Chi-ha (South Korea)
1976: Subhas Mukherjee (India), Tawfiq al-Hakim (Egypt), Mikhail Sholokhov (Russia)
1977–78: Meja Mwangi (Kenya), Nguyen Ngoc (Vietnam), Yoshie Hotta (Japan)
Kamil Yashen (Uzbek SSR), Abu Salma (Palestine), Sami al-Droubi (Syria)
1979–80: Muin Bseisu (Palestine), Antonio Jacinto (Angola), Bhisham Sahni (India)
Husayn Muruwwa (Lebanon), Gunasena Vithana (Shri Lanka), Atukwei Okai (Ghana), Choizhilyn Chimid (Mongolia)
1981–82: Georgii Markov (Russia), Assefa Gebremiriam (Ethiopia), Sulaiman al-Issa (Syria), Ataol Behramoğlu (Turkey)
1983: Sarvar Azimov (Uzbek SSR), Nguyen Dinh Thi (Vietnam), Jose Craveirinha (Mozambique), Kaifi Azmi (India), Mustapha Fersi (Tunis)
1984: Sulaiman Layeq (Afghanistan), Jeane-Fernand Brierre (Haiti-Senegal), Omar Azraj (Algiers), H. Karunatilake (Sri Lanka)
1985: Abdulaziz al-Maqaleh (Yemen), Rasul Gamzatov (Russia), Chon Se Bong (North Korea)
1986: Tahsin Saraç (Turkey)
1987: Makoto Oda (Japan)
1988: Chinghiz Aitmatov (Kirgiz SSR)
Source: Pisateli Azii i Afriki v bor’be za mir I sotsial’nyi progress (K 30-letiu I Tashkentskoj konferencii pisatelei Azii i Afriki,. edited by N. Ibragimov and U.M. Aripov (Tashkent: Izdatel’stvo Fan, 1990), 122–4.
