The ugly snake raises its head again after a year long hiatus in the golden bubble. In fact it did come out once, during that month which definitely wasn’t My December, in the form of a few random rumblings.
Yes, ideally book reviews come out pretty shortly after a
book is released; but I couldn’t help the fact that The Great Indian Novel was
released only on my 2nd birthday.
So here I am, penning down my thoughts on our Minister Sahab’s concoction
of the Mahabharata and Indian politics.
To start with, The Mahabharata remains a personal favourite
of mine. The way multiple stories blend into the great battle of Kurukshetra,
makes the Mahabharata an enthralling experience everytime I come across a story
from the Great Epic. Dr. Tharoor weaves a story by mixing characters from The
Mahabharata and the Indian politics of the last 100 years. Not just the
characters, but he also co-relates a number of events from both time periods. Initially,
it does seem a bit weird to read a story from the early 19th century
with characters called Ved Vyas, Pandu, Vidur etc. But the story does start
settling in once the similarities between the characters are explained better.
Dr. Tharoor does a brilliant job giving subtle but strong hints to relate his
characters to each other. Not to forget, the modification in their names
depicts a lot about his personal views as well. For instance, Lahore being
called Laslut; Zulfikar Ali Bhutto being called Zaleel Singh Jhootha… never
knew Dr. Tharoor’s sarcastic views about the 66 year old offspring of our
country. For further details about the references, our good old friend works
best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Indian_Novel
A few favourite lines from the book:
1. There
is no point in trying to judge a mighty river by its source. (oh, someone kill
the caste based reservation system)
2. You
learn something about a man from the kind of stories people make up about him.
3. The
clash was as inevitable as its outcome was uncertain.
4. Not
every story is meant to end; often the essence of the tale lies in the telling.
5. In
life one must for ever choose between being one who tells stories and one about
who stories are told.
6. The
roots of division must be traced deep in the soil.
7. I
do not reject you; rather I measure the years that I have grown;
I worship your grey hairs father, But- I must
comb my own.
8. It
is always dangerous to mistake the enthusiasm of a select few for the support
of the broad mass.
9. No
great man ever achieved greatness by sincerity of purpose alone. Truth is
always individual.
10. I
am torn between the must and the ought.
11. You
should not give up your seat until you know how much standing room there is.
12. You
quote the letter of the Constitution while I cite its spirit.
13. In
India opinions are rarely founded on any sense of responsibility or any
realistic expectation of action. (precisely what the ARNABS are doing right
now)
14. You
cannot derive your cosmogony from a single birth.
15. Only
democrats presume to represent entire people, monarchs and oligarchs have no
such pretensions.
16. The
Kamasutra is the only Indian book to have been read by more foreigners than
Indians.
17. India
has too many Krishnas.
One analogy that I liked a lot was
the assassination of Jarasandh being compared to the 1971 War. The
assassination of Jarasandh by Bhim by splitting him into two into 2 opposite
directions is wonderfully compared to the splitting up of Pakistan and the
creation of Bangladesh. Not to forget, Bhim too was used to denote the Indian
Army.
What I missed in the book:
1. KRISHNA
!!!- Yes, Krishna does make an entry in the last phases of the book, but there
isn’t any analogy drawn with an Indian politician. Come on Dr. Tharoor .. Shri
Krishna was one of the most powerful and unarguably the most interesting character
from the Mahabharata; he did deserve a better deal. He being the kingmaker that
he was, an allusion could very well have been drawn to Mahatma Gandhi. Probably
Dr. Tharoor found Bhishma’s austerity, penance and hardships sustained more familiar
than Krishna’s political prowess and female company.
2. Sanjay
Gandhi- One of the most enigmatic characters from post Independence Indian
politics. Probably an analogy with child prodigy Abhimanyu could have added
more colour to the novel, or Dr. Tharoor would have found that to be too much
of a compliment for the first family’s dictator son.
3. Doordarshan-
The first TV channel from India that actually lifts its name from Sanjay’s gift
from Mahabharata, and goes without even a mention. Not done !!
4. A
better allusion to the Emergency- Dr. Tharoor takes imagination to an
altogether new level by drawing references as follows:
Yudhishtira as
Judiciary; Bhim as Army; Arjun as Media; Nakul as Civil Service and Sahdev as
Foreign Service. The part about Emergency could have actually mentioned Arjun
getting arrested as the media rights did get suppressed during the 21 month Indian exile.
Apart from the above, a few of Ved Vyas’s dream sequences
towards the end seem highly unnecessary and seem to be mentioned just because
Dr. Tharoor did not want them to be missed from his novel. The poetry is
brilliant, though seems to be too long in places. Throughout the novel, Shashi
Tharoor effectively communicates what his background is, convent educated, the
British connection does result into a mastery of the language and the use of
numerous words that sent me running after the Mr. Oxfords and Mr. Cambridges.
Dr. Tharoor also shows signs of suffering from the habit that most widely
acclaimed Indian authors suffer from- over emphasis on scene descriptions and
less focus on the narrative. It’s often forgotten that it is eventually a good
narrative that keeps the reader hooked on to the book.
Dr. Tharoor reserves his best for
the last. Towards the end, he changes the very end of Mahabharata and with it
the definition of Dharma. It reminds me a lot of Anurag Kashyap’s Dev D where
the protagonist doesn’t die in the end, unlike the previous Devdas movies, but
goes on to start a new life, depicting the modern day psychologies. Yudhishthira’s
following lines brilliantly showcase the essence of modern thinking:
“Accept doubt and diversity. Let
each man live by his own code of conduct, so long as he has one. Derive your
standards from the world around you and not from a heritage whose relevance
must be constantly tested. Admit that there is more than one Truth, more than
one Right, more than one DHARMA….”
To conclude, a highly recommended read.
Signing off with a hope that what is preached here surely gets practiced by our
author in power.
