|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
Recently the New York Review of Books published the following two articles by V.S. Naipaul: http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19990218013F and "The Writer and India" on
March 4, 1999 A chance remark by Chandra made Arindam read the articles. Obviously Arin did not like the ideas expressed in the article, and so wrote back to Chandra explaining why. Chandra who admires Naipaul, the writer, tried to defend Naipaul, trying to read in between the lines as to why he wrote what he wrote! This resulted in some spirited dialogue between Arin and Chandra via email. At the end, Chandra felt that it is a pity to dump such interesting emails into the trash can, and decided to save the emails and the ideas expressed therein on this website! The
e-mail dialogue is published in the order they were
written. Quotations in "blue" refer to statements made by Naipaul in his articles. |
|
Date: Thu, 4 Mar
1999 14:58:53 EST Chandra: I just read the article (both parts). There are a few observations that I wanted to make. My first question, if I had the opportunity to ask Naipaul would be, why did he extrapolate his personal experience in West Indies to Indian authors? In particular, as he indicated, in his formative years, he didn't read as prominent an Indian author as Munshi Premchand. From this article, it appears that he is unfamiliar with names of Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay, Or Tarashankar or Sharadindu Banerjee - authors in Bengali language who did a lot of work in historical fiction and exploring the life of people in ancient India. Mahapandit Rahula Sankrittayana, for example, wrote a nice little fictional work titled "Volga se Ganga" - that chronicled the history of India from a very different perspective. In addition, there were works like "Vaishali ke nagar badhu" (I forgot the name of the author and I read the English translation done by the translators at National Book Trust, India), where tales of an ancient India was alive and vibrant. Then there are Todd's "Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan", another wonderful account (though Todd was not Indian, per se). Based on those tales, we had Abanindranath Tagore (Rabindranath's nephew) write his "Rajkahini". Second of all, he wrote, (in part 2), "It wasn't Kipling's India, or E.M. Forster's, or Somerset Maugham's; and it was far from the somewhat stylish India of Nehru and Tagore. .." It was not clear what he meant by "stylish" India. Since he clubbed Tagore and Nehru in the same group, I guess by "stylish India", he indicated elite Indians and an urban India. If that assumption is correct (and please correct me if I am not getting him right), I think it is not fair to club Rabindranath Tagore with Kipling, Forster, Maughm or even Nehru for that matter, when it came to portrayal of India and Indians. Tagore was different in his approach altogether. His world of people in his short stories like "Kshudhita Pashan" (The hungry stones), or Gora, or his plays were mostly dealt with common folks, or how common people related to the realities of their lives. Besides, Tagore wrote hundreds of poems on Indian history and the life of common folks. It is not fair to ignore them. It's amazing how knowledgable Tagore was about Sikh history, and on the Sikh Gurus. Third, he wrote: "The independence struggle, the movement against the British, had obscured the calamities of India before the British. Evidence of those calamities lay on every side. But the independence movement was like religion; it didn't see what it didn't want to see. ...." Not correct. The two Nation theory and the basis of the formation of Pakistan was based on the idea that _historically_, the Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist in India; Muslims demanded a separate homeland and they got it. And unfortunately, even at that, we had a fierce, and bloody partition. <<"....They had established kingdoms and empires and fought with one another. They had obliterated the temples of the local religions in the north; they had penetrated deep into the south and desecrated temples there. ...">> But they also integrated themselves into the India, forming the warf and woof of the Indian culture. They didn't rule from Turkey, Afghanisthan, or Mongolia, unlike the British Colonial masters or rulers who used to remote control the colonies in West Indies (as he wrote in the first part of his nice autobiography). They were not even like the English masters who never blended with the Indian population. The English were distinct from the people they ruled. There can be debates about the dialectics of their comingling, but to dub the Muslim rulers of India as only invaders and destroyers of Hindus and all, is not fair. Dara Shukoh, for example, translated Upanishadas into Farsi, the language Urdu was born, Taj Mahal and Red Fort as evidences of fusion architectures, and we had seers like Kabir, and Baba Farid, Satya Pir and Lalan Fakir in Bengal, Bauls, and Sufis. The truth is far more complex than the way Naipaul looks at the situation. The music found a new expression, so were the dresses, and the food habits. These all affected common people's lives in Northern India in a major way. <<....The experience I had had was particular to me. To do a novel about it, it would have been necessary to create someone like myself, someone of my ancestry and background,.....>> Welcome, Mr. Biswas.... <<"..Forty to fifty years ago, when Indian writers were not so well considered,.....">> By whom? Rabindranath Tagore won Nobel Prize, Sri Aurobindo's works were nominated for Nobel for 1950 (unfortunately the year he passed away), Sarojini Naidu earns here title of "Nightingale", and Graham Greene discovered the power and poetry in R.K. Narayan. Indian writing started making its presence known way before the 1940s, actually. <<....In this view (from one of the more mystical of Narayan's books) the fire and sword of defeat are like abstractions. There is no true suffering, and rebirth is almost magical. These small people of Narayan's books, earning petty sums from petty jobs, and comforted and ruled by ritual,...... ...... They go to ancient temples; but they do not have the confidence of those ancient builders; they themselves can build nothing that will last. But the land is sacred, and it has a past. A character in that same mystical novel is granted a simple vision of that Indian past, and it comes in simple tableaux. ..etc..">> When Narayan wrote about Malgudi, he wrote about the stories of small time people with their own little trials and tribulations of life. He didn't write an epic. You cannot compare Malgudi Days with Sri Aurobindo's "Savitri". Malgudi is the name of a place, it could be anywhere. The stories are ethereal, the characters are true to where they belong. Is it necessary for Malgudi to dig its past? Why? When we go to a temple for puja, how many people of the origin of the mantras before reciting the mantras? Not that it is useless to ponder about the origin of the mantras, but the flow of life is so mundane, you don't do it. R.K. Narayan paints our daily existence so deftly, why didn't Naipaul comment a single line on it? While, previously he was lamenting that he didn't know an India that was not a "stylish" India or something. <<...In Narayan's books, when the history is known, there is less the life of a wise and enduring Hindu India than a celebration of the redeeming British peace. ...>> I am surprised that Naipaul is writing this. Eveytime I read Narayan, I rediscover India and her people. Often, it may appear that Swami is just playing cricket with his friends, and that's all to it. But if you look at the surrounding words, you cannot escape the feel of a timeless place that he draws. If that "timelessness" and sense of eternity is not a sign of wise and enduring Hindu India, then what is? I agree that Narayan does not overtly state it all the time, you got to find it. But that's why you read fiction critically, ain't it? <<......And I have to wonder now whether the talent that once went into imaginative literature didn't in this century go into the first fifty years of the glorious cinema. ...>> Is it true? What happened to De Sica's Bicycle Thief? Or Roshomon by Kurosawa? Or Renoir's River? Thanks for giving me an opportunity to read this well written article. I do not agree with all that he has to say, but I think both articles together give a clearer picture of Naipaul. Arin |
|
Date: Fri, 05
Mar 1999 00:12:17 +0100 Arin I would not have been able to sleep peacefully if I had postponed writing this message! The work for tomorrow is done, the house is quiet, hopefully the rattling of the keyboard does not disturb the others. I wish you would get an opportunity to ask Naipaul your first question. Not knowing how he would answer, let me reverse the question: Why shouldn't he extrapolate his personal experience? Aren't we all doing it all the time? Aren't you doing it when you mention names of authors in Bengali language, many of whom, even I, a very Indian person, did not know till now? I cannot imagine that I am an exception. These authors could well have been very important in Bengal, and each region would have had writers like them, but they would not be known beyond their regions. If in India, I did not become aware of these writers you mention, how would he know them in Trinidad? Apart from that every person can understand another culture, another society, another idea only from the place where he is stands. He has to construct a bridge which hopefully spans over the gap between his own reality and the reality of the other place. So, I do not see that it was wrong that VSN's education lacked many things. It was a pity it was like that. I like his honesty in saying how it was. And the second sentence which bothered you was
"It wasn't Kipling's India, or E.M.
Forster's, or Somerset Maugham's; and it was far from the
somewhat stylish India of Nehru and Tagore. .." Actually what you ask is what does Naipaul mean by the word "stylish", and why does he club Nehru and Tagore together? You are right, when you say that Tagore's works did not deal only with elite Indians. But based on their life style, I would not hesitate using the word stylish in association with Tagore. The big house he lived, the many servants he describes, the fact that he did not even see his parents often, the journals they published at home, the dramas they staged, does it not all suggest a stylish life? A different style compared to Nehru's life, but also different from the life the kind of Indians, who were Naipaul's ancestors, led. I can imagine that VSN used the word in this limited sense, and was not making a comment on the quality of the lit. works of Tagore. Then you comment: "The two Nation
theory and the basis of the formation of Pakistan was based
on the idea that _historically_, the Hindus and Muslims
cannot coexist in India;" When Naipaul talks of "....They had established kingdoms and empires and fought with one another. They had obliterated the temples of the local religions in the north; they had penetrated deep into the south and desecrated temples there. ..." he is seeing part of the picture. He is not hearing the Hindustani music, but he is seeing the ruins of Hampi, the idols of Halebeedu and Belur whose limbs have been fractured. He wrote about his feelings on Hampi in "An area of darkness". What he wrote is true. And then you also did not like his saying:
"..Forty to fifty years ago, when
Indian writers were not so well considered,....." And finally about what he wrote about Narayan. To me it
is obvious that VSN loves Narayan but feels at the same time
betrayed, because "He wrote about
people in a small town in South India: small people, big
talk, small doings. That was where he began; that was where
he was fifty years later. " You said: " I am surprised that Naipaul is writing this. Eveytime I read Narayan, I rediscover India and her people. Often, it may appear that Swami is just playing cricket with his friends, and that's all to it. But if you look at the surrounding words, you cannot escape the feel of a timeless place that he draws. If that "timelssness" and sense of eternity is not a sign of wise and enduring Hindu India, then what is? I agree that Narayan does not overtly state it all the time, you got to find it. But that's why you read fiction critically, ain't it?" Agreed, but what role do these books play as chronicles of the 20th century? These stories could have been written 100 years ago, or hundred years later. Naipaul is not looking for the eternal India like we do, which we find so soothing. He is looking for something else, perhaps for answers which bring light to his area of darkness. At the very end you wrote " I do not agree with all that he has to say, but I think both articles together give a clearer picture of Naipaul." But, oh, I feel that that picture is not a beautiful picture. I had hoped for the opposite effect :-( Finally, Naipaul sees part of the picture, different from what you, I and others see. I am ready to accept that his part is also essential to understand India. Are you? Chandra |
|
Date: Thu, 4 Mar
1999 21:21:34 EST Chandra, you said, "Why shouldn't he (...Naipaul)
extrapolate his personal experience? Aren't we all doing it
all the time? Aren't you doing it when you mention names of
authors in Bengali language, many of whom, even I, a very
Indian person, did not know till now? I cannot imagine that
I am an exception..." "...Naipaul was looking for
explanations to the India of poverty, of poor peasants, of
people who went to the colonies as "labourers/slaves". Who
has written of these Indians? None of these writers whom he
mentions. It is possible that there is some literature from
Gujarat or Madras which deals with this part of Indian
history. If it exists, I do not know of them. In Kannada
only Shivarama Karanth has written about the life of the
very poor people of the western ghats. But these books are
not translated into English...." ".... Then you comment: "The two
Nation theory and the basis of the formation of Pakistan was
based on the idea that _historically_, the Hindus and
Muslims cannot coexist in India;" Whose idea was this?
Jinnah's? Mountbatten's? Ordinary Hindus? Muslims?.." "..Of course, the Moghul era left
an undelible mark on India, Indian culture, food, music,
dance, language, etc..." "...he is seeing part of the
picture. He is not hearing the Hindustani music, but he is
seeing the ruins of Hampi, the idols of Halebeedu and Belur
whose limbs have been fractured. He wrote about his feelings
on Hampi in "An area of darkness". What he wrote is
true..." "...Yes, Tagore got Nobel prize.
What was the general reaction in the west to that? Graham
Greene recommended Narayan. But what about the other
hundreds of writers India had produced? Who knew of them?
Who cared, outside India? Outside their regions?..." "....Agreed, but what role do these
books play as chronicles of the 20th century? These stories
could have been written 100 years ago, or hundred years
later..." "..Finally, Naipaul sees part of
the picture, different from what you, I and others see. I am
ready to accept that his part is also essential to
understand India. Are you?..." Arin |
|
Date: Fri, 05
Mar 1999 15:11:05 +0100 Arin, You wrote, " He is imputing his
experience (unfortunate no doubt) of the apparent lack of
historical research in West Indies onto India and laments
that there is hardly any literature that he knows of in
English or Indian languages that chronicles the historical
time periods. This is not only factually incorrect but
unbecoming of an author who is invited to write in the New
York Times review of books. And that, after realizing that
authors like Premchand are worth reading but whom he never
had an opportunity to systematically read during his
formative years." You quoted many Bengali writers who wrote about historical events, did they really have access to the facts? Or were they writing fictional nonfiction :-) ? According to my experience, there is so much of history not known about the pastof India. We have invented legends and accept these as the true representation of facts. I can only speak based on what I know from Karnataka. We do that with moghul emperors, with smaller kings, with musicians, with our saints in Karnataka. What do we know about Purandaradasa, the father of carnatic music, excepts legends which were beautiful to hear as a child but impossible to accept as an adult. Do you know these legends? We breathe legends day in and day out that we have lost the ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Or think of the beautiful Hoysala temples of Helebeedu. It is not known definitely whether the king Vishnuvardhana had two important wives: Shantala and Lakshmi or was Shantala the only main wife. There is a very good historical novel called "Shantala" in Kannada, about this royal family, in which Shantala and Lakshmi play important roles. For years I had believed that these were real persons. Last time I was in Halebeedu, the guide said that it is not certain at all whether there was a queen called Lakshmi. It was another betrayal. What do you believe? What do you not believe? The explanation I had all these days is that Indians do not care for their history because seeped in the belief of many births, it hardly matters to know who sculpted the majestic Gommateshwara of Sravanabelagola, who painted many of the exquisite miniature paintings. It is so with art, it is so with history, as far as I know. Next you said, "Fair enough, but
then again, if I were Naipaul, I'd restrain myself from
commenting that Indian literature does not reflect the
plight of poor people." I can only say to your comment, "Of
course, the Moghul era left an undelible mark on India,
Indian culture, food, music, dance, language, etc... Right,
but don't tell me you got this impression from Naipaul's
writing in that column. Nor, for that matter, from his
recent book, Beyond Belief." But when you
wrote, "...he is seeing part of
the picture. He is not hearing the Hindustani music, but he
is seeing the ruins of Hampi, the idols of Halebeedu and
Belur whose limbs have been fractured. He wrote about his
feelings on Hampi in "An area of darkness". What he wrote is
true..." That exactly is my question. Why is this selective
forgetfulness?? Today's India is a composite culture of
Hindus and Muslims. You cannot imagine Indian culture by
taking out the Islamic element out of it. Islam in India has
its own very own typical practices. Through riots and what
not, Hindus and Muslims have come to live by each others'
side. The poorest of the poor people do not distinguish
between Hindus and Muslims, they do not care for who burnt
how many Musjids, or temples. Do you care if you have a
Muslim colleague sharing your office with you? It hurts me
to see that a stalwart author like Naipaul, whom everyone
will listen with respect, resorts to such carefully veiled
racist remarks." " Perhaps. But that's the magic of R.K.Narayan. If he were to write a hundred years from now, he will devise the plot and the storyline accordingly. Yet the story will remain timeless when you read it. The beauty is in the idle painiting of the way we live. It's so difficult to do. Just try it sometimes." Okay, will try it sometime! It depends on the intention with which you read a book, whether you accept it for what it is or are disappointed because it does not satisfy some question you had. I think that Naipaul was looking for something in Narayan's books, something Narayan had no intention of answering. This gives rise to another thought in me. I read Narayan when I want to relax. I read, I smile, I chuckle, and feel that I have spent a nice hour. I read Naipaul when I want to be woken up, when I want to be goaded into thinking. I hardly smile, perhaps feel glad, secretly, that I am not one of the characters I am reading about, do not keep the book down with a feeling of having spent a happy, relaxing hour, but rather with a feeling of bewilderment, sense of loss, sense of having been blind. "..Finally, Naipaul sees part of
the picture, different from what you, I and others see. I am
ready to accept that his part is also essential to
understand India. Are you?..." Interesting, yes; important?
yes. Essential? no. Because he makes way too many
assumptions and blanket comments. That looses the relevance.
But I agree with you that it is important to look at his
aspects too." Chandra |
|
Date: Fri, 5 Mar
1999 21:07:58 EST Chandra, I accept that it is a major limitation because as Indians, we are fascinated with abstractions of life. So, our Vedas have to be "apaurusheya", not to be written down by anyone, it has to be recited, our literary writings were all preserved in palm leaves which underwent destruction easily in a warm climate, and we never systematically chronicled our own history. Thanks to Ashoka the Great, we have some edicts to share with the world...:). We had court poets but not historians. Kalhan, who wrote Rajtarangini (Kashmir's history) wrote it because he was appointed as a court poet to eulogise the king. But we were lucky because we were chronicled elsewhere in the world. So, our identity came from Megasthenes, Ptolemy, Aristotle, Pliny, Herodotus, Nikitin, Ibn Batuta, Sir Thomas Rowe and so on. Then came the archaeologists. Mohenjodaro went lying for centuries. We didn't systematically destroy it, but we didn't pay attention to it either. So, I think as such, we never had lack of historical elements in India, but we never paid attention to it. The British initiated that process. We were good storytellers. In our stories, you have every element of history. They were not just fictions. Shankaracharya's travel from Kaladi to the Himalayas was not fictional tale of a hero, it was a historical journey that was told in our tales, and fables. The work was to extricate the details. Seek the chaff from the grain, like they sift the rice before cooking. I think in our folklores, in our saga of the heroes, there is enough material that can be used to recreate our history. Melas and congregations are other sources. What you define as nonfictional fiction, I would take the term for a spin, and rewrite as nonfiction in the form of fiction (fictional nonfiction?). Take Mohenjodaro for example. The local folks called it, "The city of the dead". It was a city, ask any archeologist. It was a dead city as well. No one lived there anymore. To find out the exact date will require skills that are specifically for historians (or archaeologists). But people preserved the history in their own way. This didn't happen in case of VSN in West Indies. He was lamenting this absence of a pre-Spaniard past in West Indies and then extrapolated it to India. That's where I lost him. And so although our storytellers can not be sure of the historical past as we know from Carbon dating, we have such a rich treasure of folklores that by the law of averages, much is historical _and_ true. Call it chance, call it what you will. As you so well noted, our painters were lost, but the story remained. We focused on the story. Who remembers who carved the beautiful murals in the opening arches of the temples all over South India or in Orissa? Or the Terra Cotta murals in West Bengal? What is history is the story etched in the walls. We are a bunch of self negating abstract people, we Indians. Pardon me saying this, but that's what I realized. And that tradition is carried on till today, I can bet on it. "...I read Narayan when I want to relax. I read, I smile, I chuckle, and feel that I have spent a nice hour. I read Naipaul when I want to be woken up, when I want to be goaded into thinking. I hardly smile, perhaps feel glad, secretly, that I am not one of the characters I am reading about, do not keep the book down with a feeling of having spent a happy, relaxing hour, but rather with a feeling of bewilderment, sense of loss, sense of having been blind..." I can understand now why you wrote about VSN when you wrote them. Unlike the systematic manner in which you read various authors, my readings are very erratic and not so well organized. One week I may go on reading Naipaul, on others I may delve in Narayan, to give you an example. So, I tend to take each author as it comes. For example, I read R. K. Narayan for the first time on an allnight bus journey from Trichy to Madurai. It was a totally different experience. Ever since, I am hooked to R.K.Narayan's works. He is the best in my opinion. I can read R.K. Narayan anwhere, anytime. ".. Finally, the way one reacts to Naipaul, I think, depends on at what stage of one's life one starts reading him, with which book one starts. The first impression carries a lot of weight...." Agreed. In fact, the same book may carry altogether different connotations if you read it at different time points. I read a "House for Mr. Biswas" when I was in high school. I really liked it when I first read him. And then, due to other works and pressures of my career and life, didn't have an opportunity to read him in India (and frankly, when I was working in India, I couldn't afford to buy foreign fiction books. Hence, visits to British Council to read, or to Max Mueller Bhavan to listen to music recordings, you know how it goes.One thing leads to another, and I picked up my little german like this....). If I had the money to buy books then, I'd perhaps be much the wiser. I think you are right on when you write that it all depends on when and how a person first reads a particular writer. Absolutely. Arindam (This was the last part of the dialogue!) |