'South Africa: Clash of the Booker titans' diff viewer (1/2)

This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on May 23, 2013 14:12 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/23/salman-rushdie-nadine-gordimer-jm-coetzee

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 2 3 Next version

Previous version 1 2 3 Next version

Version 1	Version 2
South Africa: Clash of the Booker titans	South Africa: Clash of the Booker titans
2013-05-23 14:50:32 UTC	2013-05-29 07:39:44 UTC (6 days later)
It started on a Thursday midday, when the organiser of the Weekly Mail Book Week put the phone down, walked across the newsroom and interrupted me and my co-editor. "I think we might have a problem," she said. It was October 1988 and the "problem" was Salman Rushdie, due to arrive a week later to headline the event. "He says his book has been banned in India, he is getting death threats," she said. "I asked him what he wrote about and he said, 'I ripped into the Qur'an'."	It started on a Thursday midday, when the organiser of the Weekly Mail Book Week put the phone down, walked across the newsroom and interrupted me and my co-editor. "I think we might have a problem," she said. It was October 1988 and the "problem" was Salman Rushdie, due to arrive a week later to headline the event. "He says his book has been banned in India, he is getting death threats," she said. "I asked him what he wrote about and he said, 'I ripped into the Qur'an'."
Ours was a small, anti-apartheid newspaper, the Weekly Mail. Gail Berhmann was an artist who was organising our annual literary event, with Rushdie billed as this year's star guest.	Ours was a small, anti-apartheid newspaper, the Weekly Mail. Gail Berhmann was an artist who was organising our annual literary event, with Rushdie billed as this year's star guest.
We had other problems too. A few months earlier, we had received a five-page letter from the government warning that we would be closed down under State of Emergency regulations if we continued to muster support for revolutionary organisations and foment feelings of hatred for the security forces. Shortly after that they closed another "alternative" newspaper, the New Nation, for 13 weeks, and we thumbed our noses at them by running articles New Nation had intended to publish under the front page headline "What New Nation Would Have Said".	We had other problems too. A few months earlier, we had received a five-page letter from the government warning that we would be closed down under State of Emergency regulations if we continued to muster support for revolutionary organisations and foment feelings of hatred for the security forces. Shortly after that they closed another "alternative" newspaper, the New Nation, for 13 weeks, and we thumbed our noses at them by running articles New Nation had intended to publish under the front page headline "What New Nation Would Have Said".
We were young and cheeky and enjoying a time of rebellion and defiance of what was still a formidable apartheid machinery. Two weeks later, a special Government Gazette was published giving us a formal warning to desist or face closure.	We were young and cheeky and enjoying a time of rebellion and defiance of what was still a formidable apartheid machinery. Two weeks later, a special Government Gazette was published giving us a formal warning to desist or face closure.
Another warning arrived in April and the government closed another paper, South. There was little doubt that we were next. The only question was for how long they would shut us down. We could survive a couple of months without any income, but after that we would have to find jobs. We threw everything we had into a campaign to get the government to limit the closure, if not to stop it.	Another warning arrived in April and the government closed another paper, South. There was little doubt that we were next. The only question was for how long they would shut us down. We could survive a couple of months without any income, but after that we would have to find jobs. We threw everything we had into a campaign to get the government to limit the closure, if not to stop it.
We had every Fleet Street editor sign a letter to the South African government. We visited three embassies a day in Pretoria to urge them to protest. The formidable British Ambassador, Sir Robin Renwick, organised a European Community démarche. US Ambassador Edward Perkins issued an unusual statement of support. Stephen Spender of Index on Censorship organised an advert which appeared across the country with the names of 500 journalists and prominent figures protesting against the threat.	We had every Fleet Street editor sign a letter to the South African government. We visited three embassies a day in Pretoria to urge them to protest. The formidable British Ambassador, Sir Robin Renwick, organised a European Community démarche. US Ambassador Edward Perkins issued an unusual statement of support. Stephen Spender of Index on Censorship organised an advert which appeared across the country with the names of 500 journalists and prominent figures protesting against the threat.
We were consumed with this campaign, tapping the power of local and international solidarity. At the same time, we were putting out our weekly newspaper with a small and nervous staff trying to cover the popular uprising that was spreading across the country at that time. And the Book Week was upon us.	We were consumed with this campaign, tapping the power of local and international solidarity. At the same time, we were putting out our weekly newspaper with a small and nervous staff trying to cover the popular uprising that was spreading across the country at that time. And the Book Week was upon us.
The festival was themed "Censorship under the State of Emergency" and the programme headlined the Heinrich Heine quote, "Wherever they burn books, they will also in the end burn people." It was apposite to our situation, and it would certainly become appropriate to Rushdie's. Also, we had been through months of difficult negotiations to secure agreement from the broad anti-apartheid movement to allow for Rushdie's visit, and did not want to relinquish the breakthrough this represented.	The festival was themed "Censorship under the State of Emergency" and the programme headlined the Heinrich Heine quote, "Wherever they burn books, they will also in the end burn people." It was apposite to our situation, and it would certainly become appropriate to Rushdie's. Also, we had been through months of difficult negotiations to secure agreement from the broad anti-apartheid movement to allow for Rushdie's visit, and did not want to relinquish the breakthrough this represented.
For two decades there had been a sport, arms, cultural and growing economic boycott of apartheid South Africa, and at the Weekly Mail we broadly backed it (within the limitations of a law which prevented active support). But there had been long debate about contradictions in the cultural boycott and the fact that, because conservatives easily flouted it, it sometimes affected anti-apartheid organisations more than others. The previous year, Oliver Tambo, the leader of the exiled ANC, which championed the sanctions, had cautiously and tentatively announced that they would try a selective boycott: they would allow progressive artists, writers and academics to be hosted by non-racial, anti-apartheid organisations, under the right circumstances.	For two decades there had been a sport, arms, cultural and growing economic boycott of apartheid South Africa, and at the Weekly Mail we broadly backed it (within the limitations of a law which prevented active support). But there had been long debate about contradictions in the cultural boycott and the fact that, because conservatives easily flouted it, it sometimes affected anti-apartheid organisations more than others. The previous year, Oliver Tambo, the leader of the exiled ANC, which championed the sanctions, had cautiously and tentatively announced that they would try a selective boycott: they would allow progressive artists, writers and academics to be hosted by non-racial, anti-apartheid organisations, under the right circumstances.
Approval came just a few weeks before the event, and with the anti-apartheid writers' union, Cosaw, we sent a joint invitation to Rushdie. We announced the event in our paper, with Booker Prize Winners Speak, which would bring Rushdie together with Gordimer and JM Coetzee, as a highlight. You could not hope for a better combination of literary stars and it sold out quickly. In Johannesburg, Rushdie would deliver a keynote on censorship, read from his latest work and take part in a panel discussion.	Approval came just a few weeks before the event, and with the anti-apartheid writers' union, Cosaw, we sent a joint invitation to Rushdie. We announced the event in our paper, with Booker Prize Winners Speak, which would bring Rushdie together with Gordimer and JM Coetzee, as a highlight. You could not hope for a better combination of literary stars and it sold out quickly. In Johannesburg, Rushdie would deliver a keynote on censorship, read from his latest work and take part in a panel discussion.
I was particularly thrilled. I had consumed and loved Rushdie's two early masterpieces, Midnight's Children and Shame. There could be no better candidate to speak about colonialism, literature, censorship and freedom. Besides, the Booker Prize was being announced a few days before our event, and the Whitbread while he was here, and his latest book was tipped for both.	I was particularly thrilled. I had consumed and loved Rushdie's two early masterpieces, Midnight's Children and Shame. There could be no better candidate to speak about colonialism, literature, censorship and freedom. Besides, the Booker Prize was being announced a few days before our event, and the Whitbread while he was here, and his latest book was tipped for both.
Then came the Thursday call which alerted us to "a problem".	Then came the Thursday call which alerted us to "a problem".
I got hold of a copy of the book and gave it to a Muslim friend, Ghaleb Cachalia, asking him to read it and tell me how serious the problem was. He opened it up, read a few lines and gasped; read a few more and frowned. It seemed to be critical of the Qur'an on almost every page, he said. He took it home and called in the morning to say he had been up all night reading it, and it was brilliant and provocative. It was bound to cause trouble.	I got hold of a copy of the book and gave it to a Muslim friend, Ghaleb Cachalia, asking him to read it and tell me how serious the problem was. He opened it up, read a few lines and gasped; read a few more and frowned. It seemed to be critical of the Qur'an on almost every page, he said. He took it home and called in the morning to say he had been up all night reading it, and it was brilliant and provocative. It was bound to cause trouble.
On the Friday, as the mosques emptied, we began to receive angry calls and threats of violence, at the office and at some of our homes. The Africa Muslim Agency called for the book to be banned, the invitation withdrawn and apologies offered. The Islamic Missionary Society said that "there was every likelihood that he [Rushdie] would be assaulted and that blood will flow. There are secret Muslim hit squads who have vowed to avenge the honour of the Holy Prophet Muhammed." The Islamic Council said Rushdie had to face the "justifiable wrath and anger" of hundreds of millions of Muslims. "His presence in South Africa is most unwelcome and it will only aggravate the injury has inflicted on the Muslims. Those who associate with him in South Africa will be judged accordingly."	On the Friday, as the mosques emptied, we began to receive angry calls and threats of violence, at the office and at some of our homes. The Africa Muslim Agency called for the book to be banned, the invitation withdrawn and apologies offered. The Islamic Missionary Society said that "there was every likelihood that he [Rushdie] would be assaulted and that blood will flow. There are secret Muslim hit squads who have vowed to avenge the honour of the Holy Prophet Muhammed." The Islamic Council said Rushdie had to face the "justifiable wrath and anger" of hundreds of millions of Muslims. "His presence in South Africa is most unwelcome and it will only aggravate the injury has inflicted on the Muslims. Those who associate with him in South Africa will be judged accordingly."
We issued a statement: "We are most perturbed to learn that Mr Rushdie's book has caused religious controversy. We had no intention of offending anybody's religious sensibility. However, we have invited him to highlight the issue of censorship and the situation in this country – and that need remains stronger than ever."	We issued a statement: "We are most perturbed to learn that Mr Rushdie's book has caused religious controversy. We had no intention of offending anybody's religious sensibility. However, we have invited him to highlight the issue of censorship and the situation in this country – and that need remains stronger than ever."
Then Rushdie phoned to say he had a cold and was pulling out. He had just returned from an abortive trip to Toronto where he faced massive protests. "I fell ill. I began to doubt the wisdom of going halfway across the world to have a fight I was already having at home," he wrote later.	Then Rushdie phoned to say he had a cold and was pulling out. He had just returned from an abortive trip to Toronto where he faced massive protests. "I fell ill. I began to doubt the wisdom of going halfway across the world to have a fight I was already having at home," he wrote later.
I called him and said in no uncertain terms that many people had stuck their necks out for him and he could not let us down. He agreed to come. A delegation of about a dozen Muslim leaders came to our offices to try and hammer out a solution, along with Gordimer and Cosaw representatives. Among them were prominent Muslims who were sympathetic to our plight, but fearful of what would happen if Rushdie came. They were eager to find a compromise, but were outnumbered by the militants.	I called him and said in no uncertain terms that many people had stuck their necks out for him and he could not let us down. He agreed to come. A delegation of about a dozen Muslim leaders came to our offices to try and hammer out a solution, along with Gordimer and Cosaw representatives. Among them were prominent Muslims who were sympathetic to our plight, but fearful of what would happen if Rushdie came. They were eager to find a compromise, but were outnumbered by the militants.
The meeting went on for six hours. Gordimer later said that there was understanding that their faith had been offended; but so had ours: "Freedom of speech was as much an article of faith for us as Islam was for you," she said. It was an unexpected challenge: could we hold up a secular article of faith against a mainstream religious one? Was our allegiance to free expression one of "faith"?	The meeting went on for six hours. Gordimer later said that there was understanding that their faith had been offended; but so had ours: "Freedom of speech was as much an article of faith for us as Islam was for you," she said. It was an unexpected challenge: could we hold up a secular article of faith against a mainstream religious one? Was our allegiance to free expression one of "faith"?
I was called out early on because a sheriff of the court had arrived with a letter from the minister: "The production and publishing, during the period from the date of publishing of this order up to and including 28 November 1988, of all further issues of the periodical Weekly Mail is hereby totally prohibited." It was the blow we had feared, but it was also a victory. The ban was for only a month, and we knew we could survive that.	I was called out early on because a sheriff of the court had arrived with a letter from the minister: "The production and publishing, during the period from the date of publishing of this order up to and including 28 November 1988, of all further issues of the periodical Weekly Mail is hereby totally prohibited." It was the blow we had feared, but it was also a victory. The ban was for only a month, and we knew we could survive that.
Meanwhile, the meeting with the Muslim leadership broke up without a resolution. The next day Cosaw withdrew their support for Rushdie's visit "with regret".	Meanwhile, the meeting with the Muslim leadership broke up without a resolution. The next day Cosaw withdrew their support for Rushdie's visit "with regret".
Gordimer phoned London to convey the view that, to avoid violence and division within the liberation movement, he should not come. We issued a statement: "This decision will bring shame and disrepute upon the progressive movement in this country, and we condemn it in the strongest terms. It is a victory for intolerance." It was quite a moment to criticise our friends, but we were angry and upset.	Gordimer phoned London to convey the view that, to avoid violence and division within the liberation movement, he should not come. We issued a statement: "This decision will bring shame and disrepute upon the progressive movement in this country, and we condemn it in the strongest terms. It is a victory for intolerance." It was quite a moment to criticise our friends, but we were angry and upset.
There was a suggestion that Rushdie address the Cape Town book week via telephone, but the publishers and bookstores which backed the event opposed it, fearing the repercussions. Mongane Wally Serote, one of our best-known writers in exile and head of the ANC cultural desk, did so instead. Again, a small victory in the face of defeat: getting a banned exile's voice was some compensation for Rushdie's absence, a lesser but not insignificant show of anti-censorship defiance.	There was a suggestion that Rushdie address the Cape Town book week via telephone, but the publishers and bookstores which backed the event opposed it, fearing the repercussions. Mongane Wally Serote, one of our best-known writers in exile and head of the ANC cultural desk, did so instead. Again, a small victory in the face of defeat: getting a banned exile's voice was some compensation for Rushdie's absence, a lesser but not insignificant show of anti-censorship defiance.
But there was a deep sense of discomfort, and it was the inscrutable and unpredictable JM Coetzee, in his quiet, soft voice, who provided the fireworks which ignited one of the most electric encounters in literary South Africa. "We have been overtaken by the politics of writing in an ugly, violent and unexpected form," he told the Cape Town gathering. The "disinviting" of Rushdie left the Weekly Mail organisers "more than a little embarrassed" and "the South African intellectual community, among which I count myself, comes out of the affair looking pretty stupid", he said. He asked how we had ever got ourselves into the position where the writers' union had a veto over our event.	But there was a deep sense of discomfort, and it was the inscrutable and unpredictable JM Coetzee, in his quiet, soft voice, who provided the fireworks which ignited one of the most electric encounters in literary South Africa. "We have been overtaken by the politics of writing in an ugly, violent and unexpected form," he told the Cape Town gathering. The "disinviting" of Rushdie left the Weekly Mail organisers "more than a little embarrassed" and "the South African intellectual community, among which I count myself, comes out of the affair looking pretty stupid", he said. He asked how we had ever got ourselves into the position where the writers' union had a veto over our event.
"I believe and will continue to believe until I am otherwise convinced that some kind of trade-off took place in the smoke-filled room, some kind of calling-in of debts, some kind of compromise or bargain or settlement in which the Rushdie visit was given up for the sake of the unity of the anti-apartheid alliance and for the sake of not making life too difficult for Muslims in the alliance," he said.	"I believe and will continue to believe until I am otherwise convinced that some kind of trade-off took place in the smoke-filled room, some kind of calling-in of debts, some kind of compromise or bargain or settlement in which the Rushdie visit was given up for the sake of the unity of the anti-apartheid alliance and for the sake of not making life too difficult for Muslims in the alliance," he said.
With the freedom of a non-aligned writer unlikely to have ever joined a body like Cosaw, sitting alongside the firmly-aligned Gordimer, he lambasted everyone involved: the Weekly Mail, "which stands by the principal of free speech, but finds that it can live with the fact of free speech for selected persons only"; the booksellers who opposed the telephone link with Rushdie; Cosaw "which is dedicated to freedom of expression, as long as it does not threaten the unity of the struggle"; and by implication Gordimer.	With the freedom of a non-aligned writer unlikely to have ever joined a body like Cosaw, sitting alongside the firmly-aligned Gordimer, he lambasted everyone involved: the Weekly Mail, "which stands by the principal of free speech, but finds that it can live with the fact of free speech for selected persons only"; the booksellers who opposed the telephone link with Rushdie; Cosaw "which is dedicated to freedom of expression, as long as it does not threaten the unity of the struggle"; and by implication Gordimer.
Why, he asked, did he still involve himself in this "sorry spectacle"? It was to register his protests against the silencing of Rushdie, and to say certain things about fundamentalism.	Why, he asked, did he still involve himself in this "sorry spectacle"? It was to register his protests against the silencing of Rushdie, and to say certain things about fundamentalism.
What followed started quite plainly and mildly but gathered pace into what must be one of the most eloquent and devastating denunciations in literary record: "Islamic fundamentalism in its activist manifestation is bad news. Religious fundamentalism in general is bad news. We know about religious fundamentalism in South Africa. Calvinist fundamentalism has been an unmitigated force of benightedness in our history.	What followed started quite plainly and mildly but gathered pace into what must be one of the most eloquent and devastating denunciations in literary record: "Islamic fundamentalism in its activist manifestation is bad news. Religious fundamentalism in general is bad news. We know about religious fundamentalism in South Africa. Calvinist fundamentalism has been an unmitigated force of benightedness in our history.
"Lebanon, Israel, Ireland, South Africa, wherever there is a bleeding sore on the body of the world, the same hard-eyed narrow-minded fanatics are busy, indifferent to life, in love with death. Behind them always come the mullahs, the rabbis, the predikante (ministers), giving their blessings."	"Lebanon, Israel, Ireland, South Africa, wherever there is a bleeding sore on the body of the world, the same hard-eyed narrow-minded fanatics are busy, indifferent to life, in love with death. Behind them always come the mullahs, the rabbis, the predikante (ministers), giving their blessings."
And then he turned on the writers' union, represented that evening by Gordimer, who was looking shell-shocked. "These words are addressed particularly to Cosaw. Don't get involved with such people, don't get into alliances to them. There is nothing more inimical to writing than the spirit of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism abhors the play of signs, the endlessness of writing. Fundamentalism means nothing more or less than going back to an origin and staying there. It stands for one founding book and thereafter no more books.	And then he turned on the writers' union, represented that evening by Gordimer, who was looking shell-shocked. "These words are addressed particularly to Cosaw. Don't get involved with such people, don't get into alliances to them. There is nothing more inimical to writing than the spirit of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism abhors the play of signs, the endlessness of writing. Fundamentalism means nothing more or less than going back to an origin and staying there. It stands for one founding book and thereafter no more books.
"As the various books of the various fundamentalisms, each claiming to be the one true book, fantasise themselves to be signed in fire or engraved in stone, so they aspire to strike dead every rival book, petrifying the sinuous, protean, forward-gliding life of the letters on their pages, turning them into physical objects to be anathematised, things of horror not to be touched, not to be looked upon. This is what Rushdie wrote about in Satanic Verses and why the fundamentalists of Islam want him dead. Rushdie presents the prophet not as prophet but as writer.	"As the various books of the various fundamentalisms, each claiming to be the one true book, fantasise themselves to be signed in fire or engraved in stone, so they aspire to strike dead every rival book, petrifying the sinuous, protean, forward-gliding life of the letters on their pages, turning them into physical objects to be anathematised, things of horror not to be touched, not to be looked upon. This is what Rushdie wrote about in Satanic Verses and why the fundamentalists of Islam want him dead. Rushdie presents the prophet not as prophet but as writer.
"Cosaw ought to decide where it stands on the central question: on the right of Mr Rushdie to write against authority, and ought then to act according to its decision."	"Cosaw ought to decide where it stands on the central question: on the right of Mr Rushdie to write against authority, and ought then to act according to its decision."
He ended with a powerful questioning of the values of the liberation struggle, one which resonates powerfully today when – 25 years later, living in democracy and freedom – the ANC government threatens freedom of expression. "I am here with my tail between my legs like the rest of the participants, like the organisers too. That loose and fragile alliance of people, those who believe in freedom of expression and those who believe in freedom of expression for some people, we have suffered a crushing defeat.	He ended with a powerful questioning of the values of the liberation struggle, one which resonates powerfully today when – 25 years later, living in democracy and freedom – the ANC government threatens freedom of expression. "I am here with my tail between my legs like the rest of the participants, like the organisers too. That loose and fragile alliance of people, those who believe in freedom of expression and those who believe in freedom of expression for some people, we have suffered a crushing defeat.
"There are smiles in the mosques, there are chuckles in the corridors of Pretoria, where they issued Rushdie with an entry visa and then watched as we proceeded to self-destruct. We are so demoralised, afraid to pick up a phone and dial Mr Rushdie's London number for fear someone will throw a bomb at us, that we have no sense of whether the Rushdie affair will in a year's time will have vanished from peoples' memories or in a year's time will go down in history as the moment after which people simply got tired of pretending there was any place for the liberal shibboleths like freedom of expression in the anti-apartheid struggle."	"There are smiles in the mosques, there are chuckles in the corridors of Pretoria, where they issued Rushdie with an entry visa and then watched as we proceeded to self-destruct. We are so demoralised, afraid to pick up a phone and dial Mr Rushdie's London number for fear someone will throw a bomb at us, that we have no sense of whether the Rushdie affair will in a year's time will have vanished from peoples' memories or in a year's time will go down in history as the moment after which people simply got tired of pretending there was any place for the liberal shibboleths like freedom of expression in the anti-apartheid struggle."
There was long and extended applause. Gordimer's small frame and hard-bitten face was frozen solid.	There was long and extended applause. Gordimer's small frame and hard-bitten face was frozen solid.
She took the microphone and said she was "surprised, shocked and distressed" that, having come to speak out about the treatment of Rushdie, she now needed to defend Cosaw. "I think that it is very surprising to me that my friend and colleague John Coetzee, without really discussing it with me or anyone in Cosaw, has sprung this public attack upon us. But that is a democratic right and that is what we are here to defend."	She took the microphone and said she was "surprised, shocked and distressed" that, having come to speak out about the treatment of Rushdie, she now needed to defend Cosaw. "I think that it is very surprising to me that my friend and colleague John Coetzee, without really discussing it with me or anyone in Cosaw, has sprung this public attack upon us. But that is a democratic right and that is what we are here to defend."
She said that his and the audiences views were based on incomplete facts, partly as a result of the Weekly Mail being banned and unable to relay the details of what happened. She described how Cosaw had stood firm in the meeting with the Muslim leadership and sought a compromise which did not prevent Rushdie's from coming; how they had attempted to at least get assurances that he would not be harmed. But the threats were real and the violence imminent. "What would you have done?" she asked. "Do you think Cosaw has the right to bring a man here to risk his life and safety for our principles?	She said that his and the audiences views were based on incomplete facts, partly as a result of the Weekly Mail being banned and unable to relay the details of what happened. She described how Cosaw had stood firm in the meeting with the Muslim leadership and sought a compromise which did not prevent Rushdie's from coming; how they had attempted to at least get assurances that he would not be harmed. But the threats were real and the violence imminent. "What would you have done?" she asked. "Do you think Cosaw has the right to bring a man here to risk his life and safety for our principles?
"We did not think so and neither did the majority of people in the Weekly Mail." She was speaking for us, though we had distanced ourselves from the rude dis-invitation. In any case, our presence at the meeting had been disrupted by the simultaneous state attack on us.	"We did not think so and neither did the majority of people in the Weekly Mail." She was speaking for us, though we had distanced ourselves from the rude dis-invitation. In any case, our presence at the meeting had been disrupted by the simultaneous state attack on us.
She challenged Coetzee's argument that the final question of whether to risk the violence should have been left with Rushdie, rather than to actively disinvite him. "What a copout? How was he to judge? He had not met these people, he had not seen the threats, the dangerous harassments, the notes under the door ... We could not agree to thrust the decision upon him and go out of it with clean hands."	She challenged Coetzee's argument that the final question of whether to risk the violence should have been left with Rushdie, rather than to actively disinvite him. "What a copout? How was he to judge? He had not met these people, he had not seen the threats, the dangerous harassments, the notes under the door ... We could not agree to thrust the decision upon him and go out of it with clean hands."