Monday, November 2, 2009

Anjum Hasan

(A shorter, annoyingly truncated version of the following piece appeared in Tehelka a few weeks ago.)

Almost every reviewer calls Anjum Hasan’s novels ‘quiet and well-written’. This is currently a phrase in our literary world that veers between praise, parody and put-down. It is also a description that does disservice to at least one aspect of Anjum Hasan’s books — their rich vein of comedy. Book critic Chandrahas Choudhury, for instance, remembers Lunatic in My Head as a very serious work. “She is someone who cares for language, for the beauty of sentences, for getting the basic units of prose right. Tender and empathetic, but funny?” asks an amused Choudhary. From the broad shock of Firdaus Ansari, the elegant lecturer in Hasan’s 2007 novel Lunatic in My Head, getting bitten in the nose by her colleague to the comic unravellings of several characters’ obsessions in her new book Neti Neti, Hasan’s novels are full of warm humour. So why have reviewers' approval been awash in such seriousness?

The reputation of an author (or lack) has a way of shaping the reception of her books. The ‘serious’ reviews of Hasan’s work have partly grown out of the sense that Hasan is a writer whose career is to be followed with interest (long before Neti Neti was longlisted for the Man Asian). Partly it is because Hasan the Sahitya Akademi published poet with her self-confessed admiration of gravitas and meticulous control of language can be intimidatingly stern in person. There is Hasan’s explicit and implicit self-assurance in her writing — her choice of publishers has been guided by her desire for as little editorial intervention as possible. This does not come from some unseasonable arrogance. Anita Roy of Zubaan books who edited Lunatic says she has seen few books which needed such light and minimal editing.

Hasan’s books have important insights into the Indian urban experience. So it would be a pity if her books are under-read because of rumours of slowness. Hasan’s strength does lie in her ability in the contemplative but as book critic Jai Arjun Singh says the acceleration of pace from Lunatic to Neti Neti — matched by the city each is set in — is huge. When Sophie Das, one of the three major characters of Lunatic moves from Shillong to Bengaluru in Neti Neti, she also steps into a narrative filled with every manner of incident including a casually conducted murder.

Perhaps readers are miscued because of Hasan’s underexploited potential in her dramatic sequences. Where a David Lodge would have run riot with Neti Neti’s fantastic episode of a Meghalaya election hanging on the arrival of Bob Dylan, Hasan moves her action off-stage. “No, this was not deliberate,” says Hasan smiling a little at the thought of having to ring the bells harder than it is to her taste.

However there is a way in which blurbs will always find it difficult to capture the subversivesness of Hasan’s work. Her standard issue family recurring in both novels — Sophie, Mr and Mrs Das, Mukulika — is a thumbed nose simultaneously at the three-generation family saga and the rootless urban angst. Hasan’s twin books imply that no one is as incapacitated by leaving home as some genres would have you believe. Nor are you as rootless as others genres would like you to think. With her two novels Hasan talks about an almost unexplored but hugely important phenomena – Indians moving within the country to towns far from their homes. This has been the story of Hasan’s family — a Punjabi Hindu woman who fell in love with an east UP Muslim and moved fecklessly to Shillong about which they knew nothing. Bengaluru, its violence and anger and slow growing class rage has been home since she was 26 --- the first time she left Shillong. Hasan and her four siblings (including writer and fellow Man Asia longlister Daisy Hasan) have since moved around a lot. With husband Swedish novelist Zac O’Yeah (one of his crime fiction novels features a futuristic Sweden taken over by Indian bureaucrats) Hasan continues to travel. “Europe is addictive. I could never live there but there it is – antiseptic and clean and quiet…,” Hasan trails off acknowledging the seduction of order with a dreamy grin.

Hasan’s characters are memorably awkward. And almost of them are dreamers escaping boredom and non-careers and their own awkwardness through a fully formed fantasy life. Romantic love is only one of the victims of this fantasy life: “Like Aman who thinks if the girl he is in love with likes Pink Floyd, everything will be okay,” says Hasan. Their awkwardness, they themselves may imagine for a while, comes from being an outsider — North Indian or Manipuri in Shillong, Shillong girl in Bengaluru. But the reader eventually realises that the oddballness is inherent.

But Hasan is deeply respectful of place and the successful evocation of landscape, envies Kiran Desai’s capture of Darjeeling. Lunatic is marked by its incredible ability to conjure up Shillong’s rainy, up-hill-down-hill streets, a Flaubertian attention to detail. Neti Neti is just as strongly marked by its absence of description of Bengaluru. Hasan talks of her second home’s proliferation of sameness, its inability to offer epiphany. This inability of the city to feed the imagination is reflected in a cast of characters who are otherwise kind and thoughtful but do not have the intellectual resources – fed by books or music or arts – for reflection. Hasan’s uses various minor crutches in this regard by attributing of a few interests — Aman’s Pink Floyd, Sophie’s Madame Bovary, Mr Das’ Hamlet — to her characters. But the characters’ understanding of these objects are so wonderfully flawed that Hasan does not have too easy a time. As skilfully as David Lodge uses the sentimental tripe of pop singer Jennifer Rush to track romance in Small World does Hasan. And this is where Hasan’s greatest success and bravery is --- to write about the inner lives of those deeply culturally impoverished.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Curious Incidents


THERE ARE urban legends about people who fall in love with inanimate objects, like buildings and cars. You may not be the lunatic who wanted to marry the Eiffel tower but Manjunath Kamath knows about your secret relationship with objects. Kamath’s art is attracted to everyday and mythic objects like a magnet tugs iron filings.

Thirty-seven-year-old Manjunath Kamath came to Delhi over a decade ago with a BFA from Chamarajendra Academy of Visual Arts, Mysore, under his belt and absolutely no prescience of an art market that was about to explode. He was and still is part of the chummy, slightly-uncomfortable-withfame circle of contemporary artists that include Subodh Gupta, Chintan Upadhayay and NS Harsha.

Kamath works out of a mostly bare yet warm studio in Hauz Khas village in Delhi. The air is full of softly-spoken English, Hindi, Malayalam, Kannada, Tulu and Oriya. Kamath is vivacious and his two assistants intense. Between them they have endless stories that roam from the Delhi art scene to the politics of his home state Karnataka or anecdotes about his two little daughters.

Kamath is best known for his witty, plot-packed paintings that constantly surprise with their endless invocation and variation of familiar objects. An object invested with menace in one work mutates into comedy elsewhere. Tiger jaws grin here, but there a tiger skin lies tamely waiting to be smoothed on an ironing board. This grinning donkey could be Bhupen Kakkar’s or from Aesop’s Fables or from a Mullah Naseeruddin tale. You pause to understand your sense of déjà vu. Have you seen this story before?

Perhaps you have, just not in this way. Kamath talks of going with his father as a child to watch Yakshaganas — a dance drama form from Karnataka —the energetic story-telling of which is an intrinsic part of him. Just as important though, he says, is “the sight of the empty fairground the morning after the performance”. As much as Kamath’s work swarms with lively harlequins and banana peels, it is also full of quiet spaces for the viewer to fill. These reflective pauses came a few years ago when he began emptying his frames, placing fewer and fewer objects in them. The resulting flat watercolours are like Kay Ryan poems and James Thurber cartoons: startling for their simplicity and frightening suggestability. Kamath’s almost wince-makingly bright backgrounds inspire infinite stories.

Marriage in May, for instance, has a formally seated bride and groom lonely in a frame who must suffer in the heat of their finery. The guests are present only in a row of casual footwear at a corner of the canvas. Somewhere else in the canvas lies a swimming pool, the blue coolness of which could be relief from the heat, background to a hotel wedding or simply escape. Delhi-based Art critic Johny ML says of Kamath’s work: “the objects in his work seem to be trying to displace and dislocate each other in order to find a place on the pictorial surface.”


(Not for Kamath, the laziness of many artists’ Untitled 1, Untitled 2 unto infinity. He gives sharp titles to paintings, which at first seem like easy threads to the narratives. But the titles abandon you in a koan-like quest.)

This shift to a lush minimalism he marks with his falling in love with lines from a poem by Kannada scholar Gopalkrishna Adiga — ‘Do something brother/anything, anything brother’ — which rejects the need for thoughtless, compulsive action, such as the modernisation committees of his hometown Mangalore who appall Kamath by replacing lovely temples with cement monstrosities.

Kamath may paint his teenaged cousin sprawling aside his ram-rod straight grandfather but their ambiguous relationship on the painted surface rejects sentiment and nostalgia. “At one point the sign of a south Indian art school product were all painting boats without knowing why,” he guffaws. Kamath seems to know what he is doing. An easy clue to his lineage and love for stories lies in the massive Bengali patta chitra that hangs on his studio walls. With its cozy rounded lines and familiar palette you may miss for a few seconds that it is in fact a seven-foot rendition of 9/11 and the panel-breaking protagonist is Osama Bin Laden. Around Kamath you think past grim, pompous gallery notes and feel lucky to be in such a playful period of contemporary Indian art when even a melancholic Atul Dodiya will pop grinning into one of his watercolour Gandhis or rib SH Raza with his Bindu Re Bindu.

THE DAY BEFORE the interview, Subodh Gupta had been at Kamath’s studio chatting into the early hours of the morning, sharing notes on the difficulty of saying sensible things to the press. Unlike Gupta’s Icarus-like rise, Kamath himself has been on a quiet and steady climb into the public eye for works ranging from sculpture and video art, multi-media installations and of course paintings.

Kamath is not a household name yet but may easily become so. His recent crop of limited graphic prints (an orgy of kitsch and dangerously self-parodying) has proved hugely popular. Museums abroad have begun acquiring him. The art market works in wondrous ways. During the boom, Kamath, never a Sotheby darling, was selling for anywhere between Rs 5 and Rs 9 lakh but the downturn has not affected him at all. He continues to sell steadily. Nidhi Jain, director of Gallery Ragini talks of how likeable he is, saying outrightly that she is glad he was not one of those artists ‘who during the boom were almost producing like a factory, art by the yardage’.

“I am amazed he is not more famous than he already is. He is accessible, playful and his technical skills are superlative. Unlike many graphic artists he can actually draw,” says Mumbai-based art critic and author of the forthcoming The Painter: A Life of Ravi Varma, Deepanjana Pal. Far from the penury of his first few years in Delhi or even the worry of becoming a hobbyist while he worked for a newspaper, Kamath (represented for years by Renu Modi of Gallery Espace) now has the leisure for scaling up (like his large sculptures) or scaling down (postcard-sized miniatures). He finds it a little funny that his buyers are sometimes the lucre-loving, seemingly thoughtless people he makes fun of in his work. Not all, he hastens to add. His first buyer all those years ago in a self-financed solo show was the far-seeing Delhi-based collector Ebrahim Alkazi.

Kamath’s reappearing donkey, in case you wondered, was a response to Bhupen Kakkar’s work, You can’t please all. But Kamath the person and artist has the gift of being universally pleasing. You just have to bump into him.

Monday, September 28, 2009

The Lifestyle reporter’s Guide to Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi on his secret visit to Uttar Pradesh may have annoyed Chief Minister Mayawati but we cool-hunters got an unexpected new style icon this week in the form of our favourite incognito prince. A memo to all lifestyle brethren for the future coverage of the Sabyasachi Mukherjee of the political world.

  1. You may know that millions of people in this country bathe in the open but don’t let your reader catch on that you know. Punctuation is key to this process of exoticising. Please enclose the phrase handpump bath within quotation marks so that the bathroom fixture stores across the country are thronged with those seeking handpumps and ‘vardiwallas’ to operate it.
  1. Regardless of the wordcount allotted to you remember to work into your front page copy that Gandhi is fair and wore a white towel. Sub-editors will be amazed at your prescience when (like when Clark Gable showed his undershirt in It Happened One Night) the sales of white towels shoot through the roof.
  1. If one day you hope to write two page essays on Vietnamese-French sushi in Goa you must learn to today invest with élan all your prose about familiar food. Don’t skip lightly over the meals you know Gandhi consumed in dismal surroundngs. Detail out that he ate ‘pooris’ with a vegetable dish or that he had a cup of tea and biscuits. Extra points if you can work in the condiments used and if they require italics.
  1. As a lifestyle reporter it must be your job to create and anticipate trends. You should have been able to spot that after the UP trip, the Kashmiri Gujjars would offer to feed Gandhi ‘'makki ki roti' (corn flour bread), 'mirchi' (chillies), 'makhan' (butter) and other specialities’. If you are a rookie and you have failed in this task, quickly make a few calls to far-flung ethnic communities and ask them what they would feed Gandhi if he visited their ‘sleepy village’ or ‘remote hamlet’.
  1. England is full of noble homes whose sole claim to fame is that that they once housed Bonnie Prince Charlie or Queen Elizabeth for a night or even an afternoon. If you value your future, map and photograph the charpoy and the hut that Gandhi slept in. It has the additional advantage of making you useful to your political correspondent colleagues who want to find out who is the next unlikely political candidate after Kalavati.
  1. If you are afraid of your political colleagues’ contempt of Rahul Gandhi, publicly join them in their mockery of the austerity drive. But in your hearts remember what Gilbert and Sullivan wrote about Oscar Wilde in the libretto PatienceThough the Philistines may jostle, you will rank as an apostle in the high aesthetic band…If he's content with a vegetable love/which would certainly not suit me/Why, what a most particularly pure young man/this pure young man must be!"

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Why I wear a Hijab

The last encounter in this search for hijabis was the stuff of journalistic cliché. The meeting with naqaab-clad Tabassum in a seedy Old Delhi teashop where we are the only women could be the opening chapter of a book called Lipstick Hijabi or some such easy juxtaposition. Tabassum is shopping for Eid gifts in the glittery all-night markets and will happily play along in such a narrative. She is 26, works in an NGO and travels often. The daughter of a clerk and a tailor, Tabassum is a wickedly funny raconteur, who claims to have begun wearing the black naqaab (that covers her face, hair and torso) because of acne. She calls herself a behrupiya, one who can take on any avatar, who can walk demurely or laugh raucously on the streets, who can keep her eyes down or meet boys and spend hours in the evil cybercafé chatting with strangers. But she is also aware her hijab is a constant prompt for seekers of explanations.

But Tabassum has no easy explanations. She and a new generation of Muslim women are a challenge to old notions of the hijab as merely a coercive tool of male imprisonment. For them, it is an intensely personal and voluntary act. Yet, instead of asking for their opinions, hijab wars are now raging across the world on their behalf — from France, where zealous liberals have banned it, to Mangalore, where zealous bigots want to ban it.

In India, a country constantly bemoaning the loss of feminine modesty, one would assume the hijab would be admired. Instead, it is almost universally reviled. It is a slap to those who have grown up equating individual freedom with western modernity and secularism with atheism. It is violence upon the gaze accustomed to the Hindu face.

But for many Muslim women, the wearing or shedding of the hijab is a complex set of moves in a chess game of emancipation. Tabassum, for instance, feels no need to wear the hijab outside Delhi. In Delhi, regardless of the entreaties of her mother – you are so beautiful, why would you hide it — she refuses to take it off. Older male relatives had pushed her for years to adopt it, but she started wearing it only after they had given up. She also has male relatives who are embarrassed to be seen with hijabi wives outside of their Muslim neighbourhood – loath to be seen as oppressors by strangers. Tabassum laughs at both sets of men. She is not the only one.

Mehreen Ahmed, 24, a dental student in Hyderabad and the daughter of a doctor-engineer couple, has only recently convinced her brother that the ever-vigilant public will not attack her for wearing a hijab. It is a measure of the distances they have travelled that, for months, Tabassum played the old hijab game in reverse, putting it on only when out of sight of her disapproving mother.

But while many Muslim women may have mastered the art of skilful subversion, the hijab is certainly not voluntary for everyone. A Hyderabad- based professor (who asked not to be named) describes changes in the Urdu-medium women’s college he teaches in. From the 1980s, he has seen the hijabi change from a rarity—usually a poor girl, hiding her sparse wardrobe—to a rigid norm. As much a norm as the brother waiting at the gate at day’s end. Like Tabassum, these students may use their hijab with finesse, gaily swapping expensive coloured hijabs between them and slipping out to see movies or meet boys. But that this is not an act of choice became evident during a public-speaking contest in college. When asked what they’d do if they were men, all the participants replied, “We’d stop wearing hijabs.”

Such stories are ammunition for both rightwing Hindu groups organising provocative bans against the hijab as well as the progressive wishing to liberate our Muslim sisters through calls to ‘reform from within’ or anti-poverty measures.

But what is one to make of the new hijabis? Tabassum is only one voice in a wide and unnoticed thought revolution taking place, where many Muslim women are adopting the hijab as a voluntary embrace, as something they have ‘grown into’. These new hijabis are often urban, well-heeled, highly educated and the first woman in generations to wear the hijab. If one interprets emancipation and modernity as the freedom to make conscious, individual choices — not coerced by society — these women pose a tricky challenge. In our zeal to create free societies, what space are we leaving for the culturally rooted, even culturally conservative?

Over years of introspection and reading, these women have arrived at an understanding of the hijab as an attitude of modesty they are comfortable adopting. Their choices may seem inhibiting, but it is voluntary. They understand personal freedom not merely as the right to wear less, but to wear what they please — in this case, the right to wear more. Can one deny them this right?

Yet, not everything they say is easy to hear. The Quran tells you to be modest, not to wear purdah, says a hijabi. It tells you to cover your hair, ears and lower your gaze, says another. A third says the hijab prevents rapes; when she uses Old Testament words like ‘carnal attention’, you sweat a little. The saviour of Muslim womanhood inevitably sees new windmills to tilt at.

But why should this garment offend, ask these hijabis. For many of the Indian women who began wearing it post 9/11 – in the wake of the sweeping hostility against Muslims that enveloped even India — the prying gaze is not behind the twitching curtains of neighbours. It is a panopticon. And it is the hostility that turned many women — doctors, artists, writers — to the Quran for answers. Did Islam really tell a 17-year-old to bomb a building? Instead these women came away with an understanding of Islam as a compassionate, well-ordered way of life and with a decision to wear the hijab.

Almost universally, they speak of this decision as hugely empowering. Liberating. The world expanded. Public transportation suddenly became free of groping hands. “I didn’t feel like people were checking me out all the time. Boys saw me as someone who knew her mind,” says Sabbah Haji, 27, who adopted the hijab while in college in Bengaluru. She now lives in Jammu, runs her family’s educational trust and finds great peace in the choices she’s made.These decisions pose a feisty challenge to another byproduct of modernity: consumerism. The new hijabi sees consumerism and its coercive, insidious culture of the body as an imprisonment. The hijab represents a freedom from that. Farah Saleem, 24, a psychology student and daughter of NRI parents, says, “Now people don’t judge me on whether I’m wearing the jewellery I wore yesterday.” In a world devoted to the careful curating of consumption and appearances, such decisions ask us to make our fixed notions of “freedom” wider and more accommodative.

It takes Tabassum to bring back a frisson of what Neetu Singh brought to Amar Akbar Anthony when she lifted her veil — one of the last times we saw the hijab discussed in popular culture with joy or irreverence. “I have nice eyes,” Tabassum says, “Men must be intrigued when they imagine my face.”

Muslim women are constantly asked to prove they are not slaves, so no statistics will end the worry that the new hijabis too have been brainwashed. Nudged about this, Tabassum lapses into passion. “Sometimes even close friends ask about ‘pressure’. I tell them: Think of how joyfully you ask your mother to put a teeka on your forehead. You’ve to believe that I have a mind.”

It’s easy to tell the story of the new hijab as if it is the story of the old hijab — a piece of cloth and a woman within to be freed or protected as is your inclination. But the new hijab is as politically loaded as khadi must have once been. Film critic Roger Ebert once said that some melodramatic films depend on every character being an idiot, not telling each other the necessary truth. In our old country with new problems, we may never understand each other. We may feel stuck in an idiot plot but it does not have to lead to paranoia.

First published here.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

As Planned

*Why does Frank O'Hara slay me so?*

After the first glass of vodka
you can accept just about anything
of life even your own mysteriousness
you think it is nice that a box
of matches is purple and brown and is called
La Petite and comes from Sweden
for they are words that you know and that
is all you know words not their feelings
or what they mean and you write because
you know them not because you understand them
because you don't you are stupid and lazy
and will never be great but you do
what you know because what else is there?

Frank O'Hara

Older Posts