The Malekian Arbitration in the Deyhimi–Nashr-e Goman Dispute

Following Khashayar Deyhimi’s public complaint about Mostafa Malekian’s delay in arbitrating his financial dealings with Nashr-e Goman, Mostafa Malekian has at last issued his arbitration, and Khashayar Deyhimi has published the text of the arbitration together with his own observations. Below you can see the text of Malekian’s ruling and Deyhimi’s observations…

 How it began:

Khashayar Deyhimi’s Facebook – 5 December 2017:

I am in no state to talk. But when honour is at stake, silence is impermissible. A friend has sent me Malekian’s remarks about Camus. This Malekian has no right to speak of Camus. This man has proven to me time and again that he is a stranger to honour and knows nothing but his own self-interest. He lectures on moral philosophy and is a stranger to morality. In due course I will expose this man’s dishonour in every single instance. He even made Camus’s body tremble in its grave. Please, if you believe I do not speak idly, share this post. Also, please do not link this writing to my bereavement. Do not offer condolences. If you think I speak idly, object. Malekian is a disgrace to this ethical intellectualism. It was my duty to speak. Anything else you say will only embarrass me. That is all.

First clarification

Malekian did not say anything bad about Camus. What enrages me is the contradiction between intellectuals’ personal conduct and their claims and the moral philosophy they teach. Honour, in my view, is the congruence of word and deed, and anything short of that is dishonour. More clarifications to follow.

Second clarification

Try contacting Malekian about a matter for which he has assumed responsibility and ask for an explanation. If you manage to find him and ask and get an explanation about a responsibility he has personally undertaken and which could endanger people’s lives, then you will understand the issue of honour and moral commitment. More clarifications to follow, when I will give specific examples of such cases.

Third clarification

When I wrote against the pillars of the regime, everyone rose to support me. But in my own view, there was no courage in that. Writing about those whose misdeeds are already exposed requires no courage or honour. What matters is writing about the real pain. Writing about those who claim honour and courage and deceive the people. Writing about intellectuals who have turned honour and courage into a plaything. That is my real pain. Curse me, accuse me, you self-alienated ones, beholden to a few empty words. I have paid the price and will continue to pay it, but I will not abandon my principles in the face of any self-alienation and dishonour. Give and take. I will not enter your game. More clarification to follow.

Fourth clarification

An example from the latest affair. I had a contract with Nashr-e Goman. Twenty-two volumes of these books have been published, and you have probably seen them all. I have not delivered the required number of books (36 volumes outstanding). Nashr-e Goman has reprinted these twenty-two volumes several times and, according to its report, owes me 80 million. Mr. Malekian is our arbitrator, chosen by both sides. Three months ago, in a face-to-face meeting, he promised to settle the matter within a week, whether in favour of the publisher or in my favour. Twenty people are working on this project. Since then, he has been in hiding. Yet he mounts the pulpit to speak of Camus’s honour. Please ask him to explain why he does not answer any calls? Are we his playthings? I am open to any logical explanation. That is, if a breath emerges from him other than in verbal praise of honour. More clarification to follow.

Fifth clarification

Alas, they demand reasons. And then, as soon as you offer the first reason, they say it is personal! Is not treachery, in the first instance, a personal matter? If a friend stabs you in the back and claims honour, friendship and affection, and then goes up to the pulpit to speak of honour, what has happened? I am astonished. I will mention other cases as well. They are all personal. Is betrayal only political?

Sixth clarification

If I had written that the media court judge committed this injustice against me (which he did), would any of you have objected? And is Malekian’s standing not higher than that of a media court judge, that you become so agitated? Let us see our real pains. Otherwise, I have escaped such traps many times. By God, I am thinking of our society and our youth. Believe it or not. Deyhimi, in old age.

 

The End of the Matter:

Khashayar Deyhimi's Facebook – 24 December 2017:

I am still not in a state of mind to write. But duty compels me once again to inform you of the continuation of what has been raised in the public sphere. Malekian finally arbitrated. My intention is by no means to seek redress, for according to my commitment in the final clause of my contract with Nashr-e Goman, which deemed the arbitrator's ruling binding, I submitted unconditionally to Malekian's arbitration, regardless of its right or wrong. Both Malekian has obliged me to publish his ruling publicly, and I myself, so that you may be informed of its ins and outs, publish it with enthusiasm. First, I will place the exact text of the ruling here, and afterward, I will write only and solely the documentation concerning each clause of the ruling. Publishing all the documentation here is not possible, as it amounts to more than fifty pages. But the exact documents are preserved by me, and should any person or media outlet wish, I can provide them with exact copies. Apologies that even this much is lengthy and time-consuming to read. The rest is up to you to judge.

The Full Text of the Arbitration Ruling:

Whereas, in the contract concluded between Nashr-e Goman and Mr. Khashayar Deyhimi for the publication of the "Experience and Art of Living" series, I, Mostafa Malekian, have been designated as the mutually agreed-upon arbitrator, I hereby announce my ruling regarding the dispute that the aforementioned parties have found with one another:

1- Nashr-e Goman has the right not to return the 22 book titles it has published so far from this series to Mr. Khashayar Deyhimi, and to publish them itself, and to pay the fees of the respected translators and other respected contributors to their publication, as before. This payment, according to the translator's wish, may be made through the mediation of Mr. Deyhimi or directly and without his mediation. Naturally, the publishing contracts for these 22 books will be concluded between Nashr-e Goman and the translators themselves, unless a translator prefers to contract with Mr. Deyhimi rather than directly.

2- Nashr-e Goman's payment of 80 million Tomans at the very beginning of the work was made to Mr. Deyhimi solely to facilitate the production of 36 book titles in one year, and therefore, the damages resulting from Mr. Deyhimi's delay in delivering the works are his responsibility. Considering that the staff of Nashr-e Goman, following Mr. Deyhimi's breaches of promise, on three occasions and according to three agreements, to their own detriment and to Mr. Deyhimi's benefit, waived the demand for 36 book titles in one year—which was the content of one of the clauses of the written contract—and greatly reduced the scope of their demand, Nashr-e Goman has the right, if it does not claim all the damages resulting from its capital being tied up from April 2013 until now, to claim at least half of it, which amounts to 32 million Tomans, from Mr. Deyhimi. Had it not been for Nashr-e Goman's own concessions, this publisher would have had the right to claim all the damages. It is necessary to emphasize that instead of delivering 36 books in one year, Mr. Deyhimi delivered 18 books in the first three years, whereas Nashr-e Goman's payments in the first three years were all made almost on time.

3- Nashr-e Goman has the right to terminate its contract with Mr. Deyhimi for the continuation of the “Experience and Art of Living” series, and in that case, Mr. Deyhimi may publish this series (with the exception of the 22 titles published by Nashr-e Goman) under the imprint of another publisher. However, if Nashr-e Goman does not wish to exercise this right and Mr. Deyhimi insists on entrusting the publication of this series to another publisher, Nashr-e Goman may claim from Mr. Deyhimi the loss it incurs as a result of this transfer, since the reputation this series has gained among cultured readers, in addition to the efforts of Mr. Deyhimi and his translator colleagues, is also indebted to the efforts of the staff of Nashr-e Goman. It should be noted that Nashr-e Goman has also incurred costs for the exclusive publishing rights of this series, including paying 12 million tomans to Mr. Deyhimi under the title of “idea rights,” which, considering the time of payment, which was 5 years ago, now amounts to approximately 23 million tomans.

4- Mr. Deyhimi has the right to claim and receive whatever remains of his eighty-some million toman claim from Nashr-e Goman, after deducting what was stated in clauses 2 and 3, immediately upon the implementation of clauses 1, 2, 3, and 5.

5- Since Mr. Deyhimi’s oral statements over these past few years have caused disrepute and diminished the credibility of Nashr-e Goman among cultured readers, the contents of the agreement must be publicly announced so that everyone becomes aware of what has transpired and may judge for themselves.

6- The arbitrator, for the delay he has caused in the arbitration, of which Mr. Deyhimi does not have the slightest inkling of the reason, shall pay him 5 million tomans. “Let us not speak ill, nor incline toward falsehood; let us not blacken anyone’s garment, nor make our own cloak azure.”

Mostafa Malekian

And now:

1) In clause 1 of the arbitration, the right to publish subsequent editions of the 22 published book titles has been entrusted to Nashr-e Goman and is entirely out of my control; the only condition mentioned is that the fees of the translators and other contributors be paid as before. Two points are noteworthy: first, according to Nashr-e Goman’s own report, since May 2015 these fees have never been paid in full and on time, and I have personally paid these fees to the translators, a point that has not been considered at all in the arbitration. Secondly, no condition has been stipulated regarding the translators’ consent to continue working with Nashr-e Goman, whereas the overwhelming majority of translators are not willing to continue this work with Nashr-e Goman, and this is contrary to the Law on the Protection of Authors’ and Composers’ Rights.

2) In clause 2 of the arbitration, it is stated that Nashr-e Goman paid me 80 million tomans at the very beginning of the work. According to the existing contract, Nashr-e Goman’s payment to me was in three installments of 5 million, 27 million, and fifty million tomans by 31/3/92 [June 21, 2013], of which 12 million tomans was for idea rights, which the contract emphasizes is non-refundable even in the event of its termination midway and is not considered part of the book publishing contract amount; therefore, the remaining amount is 70 million. This clause claims that 80 million of Nashr-e Goman’s capital has been idle since Farvardin! 92 [March/April 2013] and therefore, until Azar 96 [November/December 2017], an amount equivalent to 32 million in damages accrues to this capital, which I must pay. According to Nashr-e Goman’s report and existing documents, at the end of 2014 my share from the publication of the books was 92 million, and in Shahrivar 94 [August/September 2015], 170 million tomans. I do not understand the concept of capital being idle here, for which I must pay 32 million in damages. Furthermore, according to Nashr-e Goman’s report, since May 2015 my share has never been paid in full.

3) In clause 3 of the arbitration, it is stated that Nashr-e Goman paid me 12 million tomans under the title of “idea rights.” I previously explained in clause 2 that this amount was calculated once in the total payment and a penalty was also stipulated for it, and I mentioned that according to the contract, even if termination occurs, this amount was not part of the contract and is non-refundable. Now, after the publication of 22 titles from these books, which have collectively reached 75 printings, according to the arbitrator’s ruling, I must also pay 23 million in damages for this! (Even in the final calculations, this 12 million has once again been deducted from my claims in advance. That is, returning the principal plus twice the damages equal to the principal!)

4) Clause 4 makes a reference to the manner of receiving my eighty-million-toman claim from Nashr-e Goman. (With the conditions stipulated therein, it is clear how much of it remains). But it is interesting that this eighty-million-toman claim of mine (which is 20 percent of the cover price of the books multiplied by the print run) is the result of the publisher's capital being tied up and, presumably, a loss the publisher has incurred from publishing these books. Now, where this eighty million came from and how it accumulated in this way is unclear.

5) In clause 5 of the arbitration, it is claimed that I have caused the defamation of Nashr-e Goman. Presumably, the sales and multiple printings of the books and receiving the award for Best New Publisher in this very year of 1396 (2017) stemmed from this very defamation I created.

6) And this clause 6 is merely a source of regret. Instead of apologizing for a fault, in exchange for their ill-mannered behavior towards me, they offer money (and have presumably assumed that I would trade ethics for money!). Alas.

And may the rest of your lives be long.

My dear friends. All these details and multiplications and divisions aside, which truly trouble me as well. The totality of the matter, in my view, is that for a fledgling publisher, with the help of sympathetic companions, I produced twenty-two volumes of books, from start to finish, and the books went through multiple printings, and naturally, the publisher profited from their publication and gained prestige. Now, must I, by the ruling of this arbitrator, not only not receive my rights but also pay damages? The financial matter aside, which, as I said, I have moved past, but my unspoken words are still many, and its moral tale remains.