Bookless in Baghdad: Reflections on Writing and Writers (2 page)

For colonialism gave us a literature that did not spring from our own environment, and whose characters, concerns, and situations bore no relation to our own lives. This didn't bother us in the slightest: a Bombay child read Blyton the same way a Calcutta kindergartner sang “Jingle Bells” without ever having seen snow or sleigh. If the stories were alien, we weren't alienated; they were to be read and enjoyed, not mined for relevance.

Indeed, the most popular British children's books other than Enid Blyton's were the ones that didn't take themselves too seriously. My own favorites were the “William” books of Richmal Crompton, minor masterpieces of brilliantly plotted hilarity involving the escapades of an irrepressible schoolboy (all tousled hair, grubby face, and cheeks bulging with licorice allsorts) who was forever tumbling into ditches, pulling off outrageous schemes, and messing up his elder sister's love life. A close second came the Billy Bunter series by Frank Richards, whose stories under half a dozen pseudonyms earned him attention in George Orwell's famous essay on schoolboy fiction. Richards created an uproarious world of British public-school characters, from the eponymous Bunter (“a fat, frabjous frump”) to his doughty Yorkshire classmate John Bull. There was even a dusky Indian princeling, improbably named Hurree Jamset Ram Singh, who played cricket magnificently, mixed his metaphors in a series of sage howlers, and answered to the name of “Inky.” I suppose that, reading the books in independent India half
a century after they were written, I ought to have been offended; but I was merely amused, for Frank Richards never wrote a dull word in his long and productive career.

Another hardy perennial was Capt. W. E. Johns, whose hero Biggles made his literary debut as a World War I flying ace and agelessly fought through World War II and the Cold War before his creator finally — in the RAF jargon he made so familiar to us — “went West.” (Biggles's adventures inspired my own first work of published fiction at age ten — a credulity-stretching saga of an Anglo-Indian fighter pilot, “Operation Bellows” — but that is another story.)

Blyton, Bunter, Biggles: that insidious imperialist Macaulay had done his work too well, his policies spawning a breed of Indians the language of whose education made them a captive market for the British imagination. What about Indian books? Sadly, I suffered a major handicap: my parents’ peripatetic life (I was born in London, grew up in Bombay, and would move to Calcutta before I turned thirteen) cut me off from the literature of my mother tongue, Malayalam. As with other children of migratory Indians, English became the language not only of my schoolbooks but of my private life: I played with my friends in English, quarreled with my sisters in English, wrote to my relatives in English — and read for pleasure in English.

The colonial inheritance made this a common predicament among urban, English-educated Indians. But where more proficiently bilingual children like my former wife, growing up in Calcutta, also read nonsense verse and fairy tales in vivid Bengali, I had to make do with Lear and Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen in English. There
were few good Indian children's books available in English in a market still dominated by the British. The one area where Indian publishers could hold their own was in retelling the Indian classics. I remember several versions of the traditional tales I'd heard from my grandmother — episodes from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (which later inspired my first novel), and the fables of the ancient Jatakas and the Panchatantra. Many of the fables had become familiar in the West through their retelling by Aesop, and thanks to the colonial legacy, we had the European versions too.

The other Indian stories I remember enjoying as a child were clever short tales about Birbal and Tenaliraman, two wise and witty men from opposite corners of the country who resolved problems in what were essentially extended anecdotes. The government-sponsored Children's Book Trust began publishing subsidized books for Indian children during the 1960s, but their quality was erratic and could not match the allure of their imported competitors. Today, their list features Indian equivalents of Enid Blyton, including a series devised explicitly to counter gender stereotypes. Indian kids today also have an indigenous answer to America's famous Classics Illustrated, the Amar Chitra Katha series, which retells myths, legends, and historical stories in attractive comics — and has Indianized the sensibilities of its readers in a manner unavailable to me when I was growing up in India.

But English did give me access to a broader world. Before I was thirteen I had read English translations, and competent abridgments, of Camus, Chekhov, Dostoyevsky, Hermann Hesse, and Tolstoy. Mark Twain and Melville's
Moby-Dick,
also adapted for younger readers, brought America to us, but in our daily reading the United States didn't fare as well as the former colonial power. Of course we had access to the Bobbsey Twins and the Hardy Boys, but there seemed to be something faintly brash and spurious about them: British books, we were brought up to believe, set the real standard.

The classroom, with its British-inspired curriculum, was a rich source of inspiration. At the age of nine I was reading Lamb's
Tales from Shakespeare,
at ten Charles Dickens's
Oliver Twist
(both unabridged); and the Bard himself, mildly expurgated, made an appearance on the syllabus when I was eleven. In the same year, an otherwise detestable teacher dictated a passage from P. G. Wodehouse as a spelling test, and launched me on the first great passion of my life.

It took me some seven years to find and finish all ninety-five of the master's books, but the pleasure he gave will last a lifetime. When, a month short of my twelfth birthday, my father — then thirty-eight — was taken to the hospital after a massive heart attack, the only thing that could console me, keep me whole and sane, as my father battled for his life in intensive care, was the compelling magic of a Wodehouse novel. To be transported to his idyllic world of erudite butlers and eccentric baronets, with its overfed pigs, bellowing aunts, and harebrained attempts to pinch police-men's helmets, offered what every stressed-out child needs, an alternative to reality. (Wodehouse's farcically elaborate plotting, drolly literate style, and sidesplitting humor were, of course, their own rewards.) Dad pulled through, and I
have remained eternally grateful. India is still the only country where Wodehouse has both a mass and a cult following, if the word
mass
can be applied at all to the tiny minority who read English; he is, after all, as widely read in India as, say, Agatha Christie.

Childhood is also, of course, a time for comics, and here American ones were greatly preferred to British. To an Indian child, the world portrayed in
Archie
or
Richie Rich
seemed infinitely more desirable than that of
Beano.
(Comics also made us aware of changing U.S. sensibilities. I still remember the first time black faces appeared on the Main Streets of comic strips, and what that taught me about the state of race relations in America.) The Classics Illustrated series was a sort of children's Reader's Digest Condensed Books, offering colorful capsule versions of more demanding literature, from
Huckleberry Finn
to
Around the World in Eighty Days.
But my favorite comics were the Belgian
Tintin
stories, brilliantly translated by the British team of Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge. Hergé’s perfectly sketched adventures of the boy reporter, his dog Snowy, and his sailor friend Captain Haddock (whose salty tongue produced delightfully polysyllabic invective — “bashi-bazouk!” “troglodyte!” “cercopithecus!”) are classics of their kind. As clever, if not quite as thrilling, was the
Asterix
series, featuring an indomitable Gaulish village resisting Julius Caesar's Romans (who all bore appropriately Latinate names, from Marcus Ginantonicus to Crismus Bonus).

So mine was, all in all, an eclectic literary childhood. It is, I suppose, a uniquely Indian experience to embrace both Biggles and Birbal, Jeeves and the Jatakas,
Tintin and Tenaliraman, in your reading. Growing up as a reader in India left me with a vivid sense of books devoured as sources of entertainment, learning, escape — and vicarious experience.

The most difficult moments of my childhood came on one day every year, the holy day of Saraswati Puja. Hindus dedicated the day to the goddess of learning through prayer and ritual and, paradoxically, by denying themselves the joys of reading or writing. Despite the most strenuous efforts, I could never master the required degree of self-denial. If I successfully pushed my books aside, I would find myself reading the fine print on the toiletries in the bathroom or the fragments of old newspaper that lined my clothes drawers. But I think the goddess forgave me these transgressions. For I continued to read and to learn from books; and now she has even allowed me to write a few of them.

E
VERY WRITER NURTURES AN IDLE FANTASY
(some more than one!), a project they toss around from time to time in their minds but never actually get around to putting down on paper. In my case I have long wanted to exact a sort of postcolonial revenge on that archimperial literary figure, Rudyard Kipling, by subverting his overpraised novel
Kim.
Kipling's tale of the nineteenth-century British boy who grows up for some years as an Indian, wanders the streets picking up the languages, the habits, and the insights of the land, is restored to Englishness, and then returns years later as a British officer uniquely equipped to play the “Great Game” on behalf of the Raj seemed to me ripe for reversal. How about a novel, I mused, about an Indian boy — let us call him Mik — who, as a result of an albino birth or advanced leucoderma, is pale enough to pass off as a member of the melanin-deficient race that ruled us for two centuries? Mik might grow up in a British cantonment, be trained to rule at some British institution like Haileybury or Camberley,
imbibe the ideas and attitudes (and understand the weaknesses) of the colonials, and then come back to India, rediscover his family and his roots, and turn his intimate knowledge of the oppressors against them as a fiery nationalist. I played with the notion for a while, but never got around to writing it.

But Mik came back to mind the other day when a literary controversy erupted in America over the proposed publication of a novel called
The Wind Done Gone,
which would seek to do to
Gone with the Wind
what I had wanted to do to
Kim.
The estate of Margaret Mitchell, whose only novel,
Gone with the Wind,
remains one of the most successful books (and movies) of all time, sued to prevent the publication of
The Wind Done Gone,
in which the same events are narrated from the point of view of a slave, the illegitimate half sister of Scarlett O'Hara. The author of
The Wind Done Gone,
Alice Randall, consciously sought to counter Mitchell's romanticized white-plantation South with an account from the perspective of the enslaved blacks who made the planters’ prosperity possible. The Mitchell estate succeeded only briefly in getting a federal court to block publication of
The Wind Done Gone,
but the issue the case raises is an intriguing one. To the extent that literature captures our imagination with a version of experience that privileges a particular point of view, isn't it desirable, even essential, that others give voice to those who were voiceless, silent, marginal, even absent, in the original narrative?

Tom Stoppard, the brilliantly inventive British playwright, did precisely this in his early play
Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern Are Dead,
in which he took two minor characters from
Hamlet
and, in effect, rewrote Shakespeare by imagining the scenes the Bard left out, from the confused viewpoint of two hangers-on at Elsinore. Others, more recently, have done similar things. John Updike also reinvented
Hamlet
in his recent novel
Gertrude and Claudius.
In
Mary Reilly,
Valerie Martin retold Robert Louis Stevenson's
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
from the point of view of the transformational doctor's maid. Herman Melville's classic
Moby-Dick,
with the obsessive Captain Ahab relentlessly pursuing the great white whale, underwent a feminist retelling in Sena Jeter Naslund's
Ahab's Wife.

Shakespeare, Melville, and Stevenson are not merely safely dead, but gone so long that copyright on their stories has expired, which, alas for poor Ms. Randall, is not yet the case with
Gone with the Wind.
Indeed, a hugely controversial Italian novel by Pia Pera called
Lo's Diary
— which reimagines the tale of Vladimir Nabokov's
Lolita
from the point of view of the fourteen-year-old nymphet rather than that of the older man, Humbert, who was Nabokov's principal protagonist — is impossible to find in English. An attempted American edition was successfully killed off by the Nabokov estate, which went to court before the book was released commercially and had every copy pulped before it could be sold. The literary executors of authors usually claim to be acting to preserve the artistic integrity of the original work, which is certainly fair from a writer's point of view. But in the Mitchell case the argument is more legal than literary. It seems the Mitchell estate wants to assert its exclusive right
to market spin-offs of the well-known characters, and might not be averse to licensing its own version of
Gone with the Wind
retold from a slave's point of view. It just doesn't want someone else cashing in on the idea.

The lethargy of our own courts aside, India strikes one at first glance as fertile soil for such reimaginings. When I took the liberty of reinventing the Mahabharata as a twentieth-century political satire in
The Great Indian Novel,
I rapidly learned of the many impeccable works in Indian languages that have already recast the epic, notably those that tell the tale from Draupadi's point of view rather than through the male gaze of the Pandavas. The Ramayana from Sita's perspective might tremble on the brink of sacrilege to some, and certainly one from Ravana's would bring the Bajrang Dal onto the streets, but how about more recent classics? That is where one stops short. So much of great Indian literature was already written to subvert the established order, to challenge the ruling narrative, that such an exercise seems otiose. The Kipling view of India was already countered in the 1930s by Mulk Raj Anand's
Coolie
and
Untouchable
and by Raja Rao's immortal
Kanthapura,
not to mention a host of works in Indian languages by Rabindranath Tagore, Munshi Premchand, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Subramania Bharati, and others too numerous to list, who used their writings explicitly to give a voice to those who had been marginalized by the imperial narrative. India's is already a literature of subversion, with the added distinction that the stories our great writers have told were entirely their own — they did not need to borrow from the canon to
subvert it. We do not need to retell John Masters from the point of view of Mangal Pandey. We have already done better than John Masters ever could.