Wednesday, December 25, 2013
On unpacking a carton of books - II
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Best of GAB
I'm busy writing, and haven't finished reading Empire of Illusion.
So, here's an end-of-the-year best of GAB. I've included some explanation to justify the selection.
Best wishes for the New Year.
December 08: Jesus, Jinnah & Atal Behari
(I wrote about my favourite history book Richard Tucker's Ranade and the Roots of Indian Nationalism. Later discovered, reading MJ Akbar's column, that Jinnah had changed his birthday from October 20 to December 25. October 20 is also an important date for me)
January 09: White Tiger
(Quite simply one of the best books I read this year. Also, my blog comes up in many searches when readers of the book Google the Great Socialist and White Tiger.)
February 09: Fun Home
(My first adult graphic novel. Amazingly sensitive and touching. I discovered a wonderful art form that economises on words but not on emotions.)
March 09: Running in the family
(I hadn't read Ondaatje before. This was a great introduction. Then, I read In the Skin of the Lion, the most definitive book on Toronto.)
April 09: It’s raining
(I always got drenched in the first rains in Mumbai. Tried doing that in Toronto and almost fell ill. Also wrote about Alexander Frater's Chasing the Monsoon. The book has Jawaharlal Nehru's quote about being disappointed with Bombay's monsoon. See the quote below.)
(Used photographs from Rahul Gandhi's website.)
May: Asian writers
(Met Jasmine D'Costa for the first time, and read her wonderful collection of short stories Curry is Thicker than Water.)
June : VS Naipaul
(Reading a master; awestruck.)
July: Writer as God
(This piece was a result of an intense internal turmoil.)
August: A Streetcar Named Desire
(Nick Noorani wrote back. I was surprised, overjoyed.)
September: Festival of South Asian Literature & Arts
(Met MG Vassanji for the first time.)
October: Princess of Serendip
(I met Dionne Brand a month later; she has a warm heart.)
November: Canadian Voices
(A marvelous collection of fiction and poetry by new voices in Canada)
December: Global Soul
(Realised that I'll always be an outsider anywhere I go.)
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Dionne Brand, VS Naipaul, the Indian and African Diaspora in the Caribbean

In her autobiography / memoir, A Map to the Door of No Return, Dionne Brand analyses VS Naipaul’s writing on India from the prism of Indian and African Diaspora.
Brand refers to Naipaul’s The Overcrowded Barracoon and other Articles and one of its essays “In the Middle of the Journey” published in 1962 in the Illustrated Weekly of India.
I have not read a better or more original interpretation of Naipaul’s writing; a better or more lucid explanation of his prejudices; a better or more empathetic attempt at understanding his anger and a complete identification with his angst.
Over to Brand:
"He (Naipaul) is determined, it seems at the outset, to conclude that India is wanting in some sociopathic way – the landscape is ‘monotonous,’ its ‘simplicity’ is ‘frightening,’ its people are Philistine and myopic...
"The essay is less interesting for what it may offer by way of any description of India than for Naipaul’s choice of words and emotions that indicate his state of mind. Of course India is overwhelming, of course it is vast, but that does not give one the sense of dread that Naipaul attaches to these words. This dread one suspects arrived with him. The stories he must have heard as a child of the Kala Pani, the black water of the journey of indentured labourers from India to the Caribbean, the experience of those workers for whom India might have been both a curse from which they left or a haven from which they were plucked. When Naipaul travels to India to send this report he is making the return trip across the Kala Pani...’Vast tracts which will never become familiar, which will sadden.’ They will never become familiar because two generations have missed their shape, more than one hundred years have passed since his family has been there. It exists only in memory, which is sometimes untrustworthy; it exists in the stories of his family passed down, each image dependent on the story-teller’s gift and skills.
"Many read Naipaul as spiteful...But in some ways I read Naipaul as spitefully sorrowful...Those vast tracts which will never become familiar are not merely description of a physical landscape but discourse on ancestral estrangement and filial longing. The dread he feels in the essay and the urge to escape are even more interesting. It is the dread of the unknown, the unfamiliar, the possibility of rejection...the possibility that in fact one is unwanted back home, perhaps hated, perhaps even forgotten. The wound of forced exile generations ago is made more acute by indifference, by forgetfulness. No one in India remembers him or the experience he represents. Yet he carries within him this particular accursed ancestral memory and this crushing dislocation of the self which the landscape did not solve. Instead he finds himself afraid and wishing to escape – to escape the “endless repetition of exhaustion and decay.” To anyone else this sound like merely “life” – the existential dilemma. To the descendants of the nineteenth-century Indian and African Diaspora, a nervous temporariness is our existential dilemma, our descent quicker, our decay faster, our existence far more tenuous; the routine of life is continuously upheaved by colonial troublings. We have no ancestry except the black water and the Door of No Return. They signify space and not land. A ‘vastness’ indeed ‘beyond imagination.’ It is not India which is beyond imagination; it is the black water. Fear is repeated so many times in his essay. Naipaul in fact admits that ‘the despair lies more with the observer than the people.'"
Image: http://www.library.utoronto.ca/canpoetry/brand/index.html
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Rivers and Masks
In this essay, I propose to discuss two themes that are common in VS Naipual’s A Bend in the River and Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things.
The first theme is the river. There is a definite centrality of the river to the novels. In both the novels, the presence of the river is almost as important as the characters. The river plays a pivotal role in shaping the stories and in reflecting – physically and metaphorically – the changes in the lives and fortunes of the characters.
The second theme is masks. Both the novels use the metaphor of masks to depict transition from colonialism to postcolonial society. In Naipaul’s novel, the reference is direct though subtle. In Roy’s novel, it is indirect but obvious.
River:
In Naipual’s novel, the unnamed river’s physicality is central to the novel. It is important because it provides the main link to the outside world for the town located on a bend in the river. For Salim, the river ultimately is the escape route to a different world. Not necessarily a better world, but one in which he will be able to live. Metaphorically, for Africa, the river reflects the changes in the composition and complexion of its leaders.
In Roy’s novel, the Meenachal reflects the changes that periodically come over the central characters of the story. The Meenachal is the cause of Sophie’s drowning, and I would even say Velutha’s death. The river often reflects the chaos and sometimes the ambiguity in the lives of the people who populate the novel.
There are several references to the river in Naipaul’s novel, which remains unnamed. The river manifests the changes that occur in the geography of the land.
I will focus on the last reference to the river, when Salim escapes from the town. It is in this reference that the ultimate relevance of the river to Naipaul novel (and his worldview) becomes clear.
“We left at about midday. The passenger barge was not towed behind these days – that was now considered a colonial practice. Instead, the barge was lashed to the forward part of the steamer. The town was soon past. But for some miles that bank, though overgrown, still showed where in colonial days people had laid out estates and built great houses.”
This is the physicality of the world that Salim is escaping. But there is a metaphorical dimension to the escape described later that is at once breathtaking and poignant.
“After the morning heat it had turned stormy, and in the silver storm light the overgrown, bushy bank was brilliant green against the black sky. Below this brilliant green the earth was bright red. The wind blew, and ruffled away reflections from the river surface near the bank. But the rain that followed didn’t last long; we sailed out of it. Soon we were moving through real forest...The sky hazed over, and the shrinking sun showed orange and was reflected in a broken golden line in the muddy water. Then we sailed into a golden glow...”
Similarly, the Meenachal in The God of Small Things shapes the destiny of the twins Rahel and Estha when it causes Sophie’s death by drowning. The river leads to the denouement in Velutha’s destiny, too. In Roy’s novel, the river reflects the changes in the characters.
As in Naipaul’s novel, in Roy’s novel there is the sheer physical dimension to the river.
“Now that he’d been re-Returned, Estha walked all over Ayemenem. Some days he walked along the banks of the river that smelled of shit and pesticides bought with World Bank loans. Most of the fish had died. The ones that survived suffered from fin-rot and had broken out in boils.”
Then, there is the metaphorical longing that reveals Roy’s true artistic preoccupation.
“Something bobs past in the water and the colors catch his eye. Mauve. Redbrown. Beach sand. It moves with the current, swiftly towards the sea. He sends out his bamboo pole to stop it and draw it towards him. It’s a wrinkled mermaid. A mer-child. A mere merchild. With redbrown hair. With an Imperial Entomologists’ nose, and, a silver thimble clenched for luck in her fist. He pulls her out of the water into his boat. He puts his thin cotton towel under her, she lies at the bottom of his boat with his silver haul of small fish. He rows home –Thaiy thaiy thakka thaiy tbaiy thome – thinking how wrong it is for a fisherman to believe that he knows his river well. No one knows the Meenachal. No one knows what it may snatch or suddenly yield. Or when. That is what makes fishermen pray.”
Masks:
In both the novels, masks are used to reflect the changes in the society. In Naipaul’s novel, the references are real. Naipaul uses the metaphor of the masks to depict the changes that gradually occur in the country. The subtlety with which Naipaul describes the changing ownership of masks – from European to African – indicates the true conflicts of the transition from colonialism to postcolonial era.
With Naipaul, the physical is also the metaphorical.
“Those faces of Africa! Those masks of child-like calm that had brought down the blows of the world, and of Africans as well...indifferent to notice, indifferent to compassion or contempt...there was, with the prisoners as well as with their active tormentors, a frenzy. But the frenzy of the prisoners was internal; it had taken them far beyond their cause or even knowledge of their cause, far beyond thought. They had prepared themselves for death not because they were martyrs; but because what they were and what they knew they were was all they had. They were people crazed with the idea of who they were. I never felt closer to them, or more far away.”
And, of course, the metaphorical has a cutting-edge physical quality to it.
“When Father Huismans first opened the door of that room for me, and I got the warm smell of grass and earth and old fat, and had a confused impression of masks lying in rows on slatted shelves, I thought: This is Zabeth’s world...in that dark, hot room, with the mask smell growing stronger, my own feeling of awe grew, my sense of what lay all around us outside. It was like being on the river at night. The bush was full of spirits; in the bush hovered all the protecting presences of a man’s ancestors; and in this room all the spirits of those dead masks, the powers they invoked, all the religious dread of simple men, seemed to have been concentrated...The masks and carvings looked old. They could have been any age, a hundred years old, a thousand years old...So old, so new. And out of this stupendous idea of his civilisation, his stupendous idea of the future, Father Huismans saw himself at the end of it all, the last, lucky witness.”
Roy uses the masks indirectly. With her, even when the reference is indirect, it is still never subtle. She elaborately describes the Kathalaki dance sequence.
“In Ayemenem they danced to jettison their humiliation in the Heart of Darkness. Their truncated swimming-pool performances. Their turning to tourism to stave off starvation. On their way back from the Heart of Darkness, they stopped at the temple to ask pardon of their gods. To apologize for corrupting their stories. For encashing their identities. Misappropriating their lives. On these occasions, a human audience was welcome, but entirely incidental.”
The changes in the postcolonial society that grapples with economic development, social equality, and political rights always give rise to conflict between that which refuses to die and that which is struggling to be born. Roy uses the Kathakali dancer to depict this change in Kerala. It’s simply masterful.
“The Kathakali Man is the most beautiful of men. Because his body is his soul. His only instrument. From the age of three it has been planed and polished, pared down, harnessed wholly to the task of storytelling. He has magic in him, this man within the painted mask and swirling skins...But these days he has become unviable. Unfeasible. Condemned goods. His children deride him. They long to be everything that he is not. He has watched them grow up to become clerks and bus conductors...But he himself, left dangling somewhere between heaven and earth, cannot do what they do...In despair, he turns to tourism. He enters the market. He hawks the only thing he owns. The stories that his body can tell...In the Heart of Darkness they mock him with their lolling nakedness and their imported attention spans. He checks his rage and dances for them. He collects his fee. He gets drunk. Or smokes a joint. Good Kerala grass. It makes him laugh. Then he stops by the Ayemenem Temple, he and the others with him, and they dance to ask pardon of the gods.”
In conclusion, I want to emphasise that these novels work at several levels and layers. They use many allusions and metaphors. I have focused on the river and the mask because I found them common to both the novels.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
We’re all Rushdie’s children
Recently, during a classroom discussion at Sheridan College on VS Naipaul’s A Bend in the River, I made a few observations about Naipaul that I wish to share here.
In Imagining Homelands by Bharati Mukherjee makes an observation about Naipaul that reflect my sentiments about the great writer.
Mukherjee writes, and I quote, “‘Damn him,’ I want to shout, damn his superior airs, damn his cold detachment, damn his vast talent, damn his crystalline sentences. I want him to manifest love, for just a paragraph or two, to cut loose.”
But she doesn’t end there. She adds, “This does not affect my respect for his work.”
A Bend in the River was first published in 1979.
A couple of years later – in 1981 – Salman Rushdie published his third novel – Midnight’s Children.
Rushdie unleashed a revolution.
His writing was different from the conventional style and structure of both the language and the genre.
Rushdie wrote for an international audience without bothering about language, grammar or even sensibilities.
Hundreds of others followed, and continue to follow. In a certain sense, I believe that we’re all Rushdie’s children.
The reason why I introduced this element of contrast was to highlight the different styles of writers who published their works just a year apart.
To me, Rushdie is far more accessible as a writer.
To read Rushdie is to see a popular Hindi film – he takes over all your senses and releases you at the end totally subsumed in his creation.
You can’t escape it even if you don’t like it.
Naipaul despite all his skills poses an intangible challenge.
To read Naipaul is to see a Fellini film. Even if you don’t relate to it you are spellbound by the craft.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Vidya Naipaul

It was with great reluctance that I began to read Sir Vidya Naipaul’s A Bend in the River. It stems from my perception of Naipaul as a political writer, even when he’s writing fiction.
I acknowledge that largely all writing is political. But Naipaul wears his politics on his sleeves.
A Bend in the River is also an example of Naipaul’s politics – a politics that is seemingly an apologia for colonialism. In recent years, especially in the 1990s, Naipaul suddenly rediscovered his Hindu roots – but not the religion’s innate tolerance.
His aversion to Islam became the focal point of his writing – evident in India: A Million Mutinies Now, and several other non-fiction commentaries periodically published in the Indian mainstream media. Naipaul eventually became an apologist for the Hindu fundamentalism.
It culminated in his being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2001 (a month or so after 9/11). Of course, the justification was couched in politically correct overtones and Naipaul was termed as Joseph Conrad’s true heir.
But there was no escaping Naipaul’s novel.
So, I started reading A Bend in the River. And I didn’t stop. I couldn’t.
Naipaul is a magician. Words are putty in his hands. He shapes them the way he wants. He shapes them to mean what he wants them to mean. Often, he shapes them to mean what they aren’t supposed to mean.
I assumed – erroneously, it turned out – that the novel (written in 1979) was about the experiences of Asians in Uganda under Idi Amin. However, a quick reference check on the Wikipedia informed me that the unnamed country likely resembles Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo).
I remembered that in the 1970s Mobutu and Zaire remained constantly in the news for several reasons – Muhammad Ali and George Foreman’s famous Rumble in the Jungle match. Mobutu helped organize this major media event in 1974 to publicize African nationalism and his country. The fight, in which Ali defeated Foreman, was an all-time classic. Norman Mailer wrote a book about the fight.
Naipaul’s novel depicts Mobutu as the Big Man, and Raymond, a white man who helped shape the Big Man’s mind, offers his (Mobutu’s) best defence. Salim, the protagonist, remains perpetually unsure and wary of the turn of events that culminates in the Europeans abandoning the land and the emergence of the new Africa.
Indar, Salim’s childhood friend and the one leads a far more fetching life than Salim, becomes a confused apologist for the colonial rulers – confused because he at once finds himself and alien and therefore unaccepted in the London society and at the same time an alien and unaccepted by India and Indians.
I don’t think anyone can come near Naipual in capturing the angst of the immigrant without sentimentality or anger. All that we get to know of Salim from Naipual is that his ancestors are from northwestern India and that he’s trying to escape from the clutches of both tradition and responsibility by moving inland from the port city to a town located at a bend in the river.
As Salim says, “When we had come no one could tell me. We were not that kind of people. We simply lived; we did what was expected of us, what we had seen the previous generation do. We never asked why; we never recorded. We felt in our bones that we were a very old people; but we seemed to have no means of gauging the passing of time. Neither my father nor my grandfather could put dates to their stories. Not because they had forgotten or were confused; the past was simply the past.”
(Though Naipaul doesn’t tell us, I presume Salim is an Ismaili Khoja, the Gujarati-speaking Muslims who emigrated from northwestern India. I believe Canadian novelist Moyez Gulamhussein (MG) Vassanji, too, has the same roots as Salim).
The novel’s fluidity is engaging. It moves lyrically and the describes the place, the people, the changing situations that constantly remain in a flux but never change so radically as to alter any reality substantially. These aspects – and Salim’s unassuming manner almost wanting to hide in the disorder of his own shop – make the novel languid and sonorous.
One cannot escape Naipaul’s politics and pettiness in his creations, and A Bend in the River is no exception to that. But the novel transcends the commonplace even as it stays firmly situated in it, and describes everything from the point of view of a man who doesn’t even make a difference to his life, leave aside making a difference to anyone else’s or to the world.
When you read a classic – and A Bend in the River is a classic –, it exhausts you emotionally, because the act of reading becomes cathartic.
Image: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/02/A_Writers_People_071102024807049_wideweb__300x476.jpg