Book Review – Indian trilogy of V.S. Naipaul

To understand the Indian trilogy that V.S Naipaul wrote, we need to first understand some background of the author. This may not be true for all the novels or travelogues but it certainly is true for this particular one. His ancestors travelled from India to Trinidad for good – Some three generations ago. This makes him ethnically an Indian but disconnected geographically but somewhat connected through the vestiges of culture and customs that went into Trinidad along with this forbearers. But he is interested in India – not because he loves it or anything of that sort –but he wants to understand his ancestral land from which his grandfather and others migrated centuries ago. This quest of wanting to know led him to travel to India and he stayed in India for years and this trilogy is the fruit of the quest.

An area of Darkness 

The first among the three installments is a deeply depressing account of the author’s first encounter with India where he faces a sense of estrangement – culturally and otherwise. This is quite normal for any westerner who visits India for the first time even today, not to mention how it would have been in the 60s where things were even worse. They will experience a cultural shock, a kind of estrangement which most people cannot handle. India is much beyond that, India is much deeper than that. He concurs in the very introduction that India was never his country and never will be. But he can’t stop caring for it for whatever reason. There is an element of concern, in his observation and analysis.

He describes the squalor, poverty, corruption among other things that the country is mired in an objective way. As mentioned before, this is a depressing account. In the sense, India looks like a static and decayed society (true in a sense, whatever may be the reason) in Naipaul’s portrayal which is beyond any kind of redemption. If anyone doesn’t understand the intent of the author, it’s easy to lump this work among the others which deliberately show India in a bad light. But that’s not the case here.

India: A Wounded Civilization

This is written around the time of emergency, 1975. By his own admission, this is the shortest book he has ever wrote – 161 pages. Here he explores the country which was invaded multiple times and the lasting impact the invaders had and continue to have in the land, the average Indian psyche, the attitude with which Indians face any problem. 

He brings in many contemporary authors and their works to make his case, although he doesn’t take them at their face value, he uses them to penetrate into the Indian mind. Some of the contemporary writers, especially like that of R.K. Narayan have a very good insight into the Indian way of life and have depicted it so very well in their novels. The observation that impressed me was – how some Hindus interpret the philosophy of Karma in a fatalistic sense and use it as a way to escape from performing any action or taking any responsibility. Forget solving the problem, many times they don’t even acknowledge there is one. In comparison, this work is not as pessimistic as the previous one.

India: A Million Mutinies Now

The last in the Indian trilogy is also the longest one (of over 600 pages) and written in the year 1990. He visits the places he had visited 2 decades ago and meets the people he had met then. He sees the changes the country is subjected to in these two decades. He traverses across the country – from West Bengal to Tamil Nadu, meeting all kinds of people – the Naxals, the Dravidianists, the Dalits, the Brahmins, the Shias, the feminists etc. and tries to understand the nation through their own personal experiences, struggles – the result is a riveting story which slowly reveals the nation with its admixture of immense complexities and possibilities.

The past narratives meet the present challenges and dilemmas and how some of them correlate to the progress of India as a nation. Although there is negativity around, there is also a glimmer of hope in this book much unlike the previous works.

Conclusion

Let’s face it – India is an immensely complex country to understand – even for Indians, not to talk about an average Occidental. Naipaul is uniquely placed in this task. He is a Westerner for all practical purposes with long detached cultural root in this ancient land. Naipaul has tried to do this daunting task with his travels across the country, perspicacious observations, numerable interviews and he is successful in building a new narrative from the facts, stories and observations arising out of these. 

There is unabashed precision in his observation but there is also empathy and concern for the people and for the country. Naipaul is recognized in the world as one of the best writers of travelogues and novelists of our times. Reading this work will make you realize why it is so. 

Mind — Incessant Chatterbox

[This was in a draft from a long time. Just thought of redeeming it quickly]

One of my ways of escaping from the incessant chatter of thoughts is to bury myself in some good literature or shove my ears to the headphones and go with the crescendo. 

It seems how hard you may try, some thoughts refuse to go away. The pattern repeats and it goes all circular. There is no point in indulging in it, you know. But alas! you can't stop it. All those descriptions likening the mind to monkey make more sense to you now. I take refuge in music. For a brief time, I seem to be free. If I were an alcoholic, I would have taken refuge in alcohol. It would have calmed me down. Music does no less a job. 

These are but temporary solutions. The more I think about it the more these Buddhas's word makes sense to me - " It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell ". The toughest challenge you face is not someone, it's just yourself. It's perhaps true that if you have managed to successfully handle yourself, you can handle anything in the world.

Mother Teresa – Hollowed be thy name

Mohan Bhagavat, the RSS supremo while speaking in a conference made a reference to Mother Teresa (now Saint Teresa after the beatification). He said mother Teresa’s supposed service to the poor; the destitute was not without any motive. Her motive was conversion to ‘one true faith’. That was enough to ruffle many secular feathers. Many seculars, liberals came in unison against Bhagavat for commenting against a ‘noble’ soul. Many well-meaning people who are fed with the hallowed imagery of Teresa and of the missionary of charity came against Bhagavat strongly. [I remember studying a chapter on Mother Teresa in my middle school titled ‘Nirmala Hrudaya’ which translates into ‘Noble or Pure Heart’] Among others, the statement of Bhagavat did one good thing – It initiated a debate and more people got to know the real truth behind the supposed saint. But, did Bhagavat say anything wrong? Was he off the mark? When you try to investigate, you know the answer is no.

You may have your own misgivings on the RSS on various issues. But its service across the nation without motive can be seldom faulted. But can you say the same with respect to the Christian Missionaries? Not for a second, not once in a millennium. Charity is one of the important tools for proselytizing. They are pretty much open about it. Recently, the pope made the point amply clear. If the experience with the aftermath of the Tsunami disaster in South India is anything to go by, conversion is the pre-condition to get any kind of help from the missionaries. How low can these missionary hawks plumb? Nevermind. Now, coming to the issue on hand – Did Mother Teresa do the same? Yes, she did. It’s all well-documented by the first-hand accounts. It’s just that the Indian media is too lethargic and dishonest to dig out the truth.

Mother Teresa was a fundamentalist Christian. Like any fundamentalist of any religion, she minced no words about it and was pretty straightforward on the issue. In many of the interviews she stated her position as such. In one of her interviews, she was quoted saying "We are not nurses, we are not doctors, we are not teachers, we are not social workers. We are religious, we are religious, we are religious". She was against the use of contraception, against abortion and in fact in her Nobel Prize ceremony she proclaimed the greatest threat to world peace was abortion! Viola! Everyone was struggling to figure out the factor which was detrimental to world peace – This lady had an answer – abortion. Abrahamic religions especially Christianity exalts suffering as virtue. It springs from a fundamentalist belief – Man is a sinner. God sent his only son Jesus to earth to save us from sin and he suffered enormous pains in the process – all for us. So, if anyone is suffering, he is being closer to Jesus. This is one of the many other beliefs which shaped Mother Teresa’s psyche.

Money was never an issue for missionaries for charity as its PR machinery was very strong and millions of dollars kept pouring in. But, testimonies allude to the worst living conditions of the patients that were living there. Proper medication was not given even to the patients who were suffering from chronic diseases like cancer where pain was immense. Basic painkiller like morphine was also not given to many. When questioned, all was pushed under the carpet saying ‘love’ will substitute for all including necessary medications. It was a living hell. Christopher Hitchens called her ‘Hell’s angel’. Baptism was performed for the dying without anyone’s consent – as the process was altruistic because the motive was to ‘save’ the soul from eternal damnation.

No discussion on Mother Teresa would conclude without mentioning Christopher Hitchens’ name. He wrote a complete book on her with a provocative title – The missionary position. He along with Tariq Ali made a documentary for channel 4 – Hell’s Angel. Even before Hitchens, Dr. Aroup Chatterjee wrote a book on her - Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict, which challenged the popular perception of Teresa which we all had. In these works lists all the misdemeanors of Mother Teresa and her institution - misappropriation of money given for charity, hobnobbing with the worst of criminals and dictators and so on. Hitchens called her 'fraud, fanatic and a fundamentalist'.These are all very well documented. But the pusillanimous liberal media never dared a debate on it.

The fallen façade of the media – again!

Indian media as a rule treats the issues related to Christianity and Islam with kid gloves. This issue was no different. Forget getting deeper into the issue, the media did not have the guts to even take up the issue for the debate. Bhagavat had disturbed the hornet’s nest. Media treated Bhagavat like a man who had committed blasphemy for insulting their holy god. An honest or a neutral media would have ensured a debate in which there was a say for all the parties involved. But, that never happened. Only social media, blogs and a few online portals discussed the matter in depth. This is one of the outcomes of deification of any person. He becomes insulated from any criticisms or questions. The very act of questioning becomes a kind of blasphemous act. The way some media guys behaved as if it’s a crime to even question a revered figure like Teresa testifies the point. This just proves they lack two important qualities that are required for journalism – Intellectual rigor and honesty.

Mother Teresa was beatified in 2003. Beatification is the third step in the four-step canonization process. The main condition for a person to be beatified is that the person should have performed some miracles in others’ life which they should testify. This looks like classic case of superstition and sham. But as it is practiced by Christians, this will go unquestioned in most intellectual circles. The same media which doesn’t question this goes hammer and tongs whenever the issue is of Hindus. They question the authenticity of the Makar Jyoti in Sabarimala, they question the authenticity of Hindu gurus, and they question the rationale behind Hindu beliefs. Fair enough – As long as they question other faiths with same tenacity. That, they would never do. All in all, this entire incident was yet another naked display of pusillanimity and double-standards of our liberals and seculars.