Indians writing in English
The Cult of Authenticity
What does it mean to be an Indian writing in English? Is it a loss of identity and nativity? Vikram Chandra's essay is a good read.
posted by GSat @ 12:44 PM
10 comments
Omnium Gatherum
A one-stop web destination for those of us who found things only in the last place we looked for them.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
What does it mean to be an Indian writing in English? Is it a loss of identity and nativity? Vikram Chandra's essay is a good read.
10 Comments:
Interesting stuff. I think Mukherjee has a point though. Has anyone seen Agni-Varsha (hindi movie written/directed by Girish Karnad) ? Trite, stylistically self conscious and almost content-free.
Write in English or in any bloomin' language you want but don't give me that koyal coo-oo stuff unless you got something fresh to say.
I think that there is a genuine issue here. But Mukherjee is obviously getting too personal with VC - she diluted her own argument by carping too much on VC's story titles. He obviously might have had his own reasons. That put VC immediately on the defensive with all his rhetoric backed by a foregone conclusion.
Here's another viewpoint. I read the article and couldn't help but think that the author had read VC's article though there are no references to either VC or his written works in it. She first puts forth the claims of the other party (like VC) and in a paragraph that begins with "And yet, and yet.", she puts down her own views (very much like VC).
I think VC is a very good writer. His book, "Red Earth and Pouring Rain" definitely deserves to be more widely read than it is.
But authors like him and Rushdie are in the post-modern novel business where style overshadows the content of the book. When a book is all about the style of expression and writing - given the Indian sensibilities, where any bit of pomposity (including verbal) is frowned upon - Indian readers will definitely find narratives that are somewhat pretentious. It is also partly because thse writers have a global english reading audience at the back of their mind. My guess is that, their works would be a trifle sober if they are aimed at just an Indian audience. There is definiely an element of "exotification" of content when the audience is more global.
Unfortunately, this debate is taking an ugly turn with either sides forming their own camps - not just because there is a real issue.
The Indian writers could have given the issue a miss if their own vernacular works were more widely read. IWE minting money in the market has only riled them into making this debate public.
The IWE ofcourse know that the dual "strengths" of English and Emigration can depict an Indian experience that is only skindeep. This guilt forces them too into the debate. Salman Rushdie once wrote an essay (it can be found in his "step across the line" collection) claiming that the Indian Literature in English had accomplished more than the whole of Indian Literature in Indian languages since Independence. He backs it up with seemingly good evidence but the key is "since Independence".
The real issue iself can be resolved a lot more amicably resulting in something more constructive if either parties show genuine respect for the other and not blindly stick to their camps.
That brings us to a good question. What is the true Indian post-modern novel? I would have definitely picked "Midnight's Children" sometime ( a year or so) back. Now, I'm not so sure. That is a good question - what is the true Indian postmodern novel in English worth studying in a University course?
Vikram Chandra's rhetoric is not convincing, though he had his share of words. A few points:
There are three kinds of people here: First, the Indian English authors abroad who are clearly Mukherjee's target. Second, Indian English writers living in Indian urbana, like Chandra. And finally, the U.R. Ananthamurthy's and Bendre's (sorry, unfamiliar with vernacular literature outside Karnataka).
While Chandra tries to makes a case that the Indian authors in urban Indian settings are as isolated from true-India i.e. Bommanahalli's and Chapra Jilla's, he barely addresses the original question -- Are these authors truly the socio-cultural emissaries of India or are they their own ambassadors? Currently it seems like these authors are serving the following people at best -- themselves (I am inclined to repeat this thrice -- no seriously, if anything, some of them have dextrously carved out a large piece of the global literature pie) and the NRI crowd that wants a Gurinder Chadha-esque depiction of India so they are not viewed as just another immigrant community von third world -- please, definitely not with India's rich maharaja culture!
A major issue with Indian English authors has been ignored by the article: the English itself. While everyone knows how pervasive English is in Indian societies, it is completely a different language than one spoken in Britain or the US. The profound influences of the colonial usages combined with vernacular turns of phrases make it a language like nothing the Western world has heard. Read the blogs written by current IITians IITian blog links and it is clear that this dialect is thriving and evolving in all sections of society. Hardly any Indian English author has tried to capture this, save, perhaps, Desani and his Hatterr (that was in the 40's though!). Indian authors in English grow up on a wealth of Western literature and the styles are often imitative and in someone else's language. Any writer makes a commitment to a style and, more often than not, Indian writers make that commitment to one that is alien to even urban Indians.
Going back to the mainstay of Chandra's argument, on a very practical level, Indian authors sitting even in South Bombay are clearly more in touch with Indian happenings than ones in NY and London. A truly good writer, while smoking his cigars with socialites by night, clearly, cannot miss the walk down the street or the occasional drive down to interior Maharashtra. In a nutshell, he is literally much closer! Readers will associate with the difference between visiting their hometowns once or twice a year from abroad to living in their hometowns. For the same reason that people take vacations, the interface the country offers you is simply different when you are an NRI. Moreover, the writings of NRI's cut off from India for a decade speak for themselves -- dated, retrograde and, at best, nostalgic. Case in point: Rushdie's musings on Sonia Gandhi post-election.
There's no doubt that the thought that haunts you by the end of the article is, in fact, Mukherjee's point about koel's and tamarind trees. That is what the mediocre ones are doing for western audiences anyway. As for the celebrated literateurs, their literary contributions are far more important than their socio-cultural representation of India.
I've 'gone vainpress' with my comment
I want to make a point about R.K. Narayan though -- no comments on his literary input, but his depiction of South India from the days our parents' childhoods is accurate.
Which brings forth the point that Shankar Nag's "Malgudi days" and "Swami and friends" brought his humanist theatre experience to the national screen. Even today, just the thought of Narayan plots such as 'Vendor of Sweets' brings back images of the poignant Anant Nag in the role of the father. What amazes me most however, is that Hindi in a true-blue south Indian setting does not appear jarring even for a moment!
I absolutely agree about R.K. Narayan - that's authentic Indian writing.
I will just add that the problem of authenticity exists even in vernacular literatures - I am of course speaking only from my limited experience with writers in Hindi - the fundamental issue here is not language or even style but sensibility.
I agree that english itself isn't a real barrier here. I strongly recommend you to check out suketu Mehta's Maximum City. Its a piece of non-fiction written by an NRI in english but is easily the bst ever I've read on Bombay.
About, the Desi English, Hatterr was the pioneer but most desi english authors have very much experiemnted with it. Rushdie is a prime example. In fact there are many others. Its definitely an element that is being overdone in all the books these days not under-explored as SpaceK notes.
With regards to C.Jillas post - I think the issue of sensibilities is closely related to the audience the writer is subconciously targeting. If you are a vernacular writer largely aiming at a desi audience - the kind of narratives, tone and devices you finally employ will be a lot closer to the "authentic" thing. I think...
I guess a good way of testing this hypothesis is to look up a book in english largely targeted at desis in India. That's where we come to a deadend.
Or wait... maybe that's when we run into R.K.Narayan!
From the article...
SUCH WAS MY JOURNEY into the wilderness, from which I was delivered by the laughter of Borges-bhai.Borges-bhai? I know Borges is a fantastic writer and has a great sense of humour. But isn't that the exact kind of phrases that Mukherjee threatens to puke at?
Seriously, what _is_ the "sensibility" behind the juxtaposition of those two words?
Back in time, when Indian cricket team was in trouble, my neighbours used to count on "Azhar-bhai" to salvage the proceedings. At least in Hyd, the '-bhai' suffix has a total stereotypical usage. Every muslim character in a telugu movie adresses others as 'bhai'. As in -
"Verma-bhai neeki dushman naaki dushman".
The fellow gults should note the stereotypical "neeki-naaki" usage (only in movies though!) that I've thrown in.
VC's article, on a second read, is very unconvincing and convictionless.
Post a Comment
<< Home