Lose Your Clothes and run Naked

Between the two opening stories of “delhi noir,” I found “How I Lost my Clothes” to be ‘better’ than “Yesterday Man” in every aspect—from sheer entertainment value to quality of writing. Though I do suspect my enjoyment of “How I Lost my Clothes” may be, at least partially, due to its literal juxtaposition with “Yesterday Man,” which this I found to be a tedious, slow moving, somewhat predictable, story (I apologize to the readers who enjoyed it). Sorry for the digression. I’ll stop bashing the opening story and proceed by discussing “How I Lost My Clothes.”

From beginning to end, Jha constructs a consistently surreal, dreamlike, bizarre, hallucinatory (what have you) narrative. And the aesthetics of this narrative lie hand in hand with the content of the story—Jha matches “what he says” with “how he says” it. Accordingly, Jha’s writing affects readers in the same way the content of the story affects readers. Through the aesthetics of his writing, Jha enables readers to experience the same feelings that his doped-out, deranged perhaps, protagonist experiences.

But I do not find the story to be neatly resolved. If the protagonist’s dreamlike state of consciousness is the result of the heroin he’s ingested, I cannot find a way to rationally explain his lengthy state of intoxication. He only ‘fixes-up’ once, near the story’s opening, but the drug’s effects last over a day, until the story’s final paragraphs—surly he would be sober by then, and probably be experiencing withdrawal. He continues to wander around the city, naked, and his bizarre narrative never reaches any sober state of understanding until the story’s closing paragraphs, which make a chronological jump into the narrator’s future, and give his previous story the feeling of retrospection (especially with the final paragraph’s shift into the present tense).

The story ends: “And I wonder whether he ever realized the gift I’d given to him or whether he simply wrapped the dead man’s sheet around him…” Apparently, even in this latter state of sobriety, the man is still convinced of the authenticity of the meaning he’s derived from the preceding story, despite it being drug-induced. I find two ways to make sense of this. 1) for the readers who believe any ‘enlightened’ state of understanding, if drug induced, is inauthentic, then the story as whole becomes ‘drug-porn’ with no higher meaning, and the narrator’s retrospective interpretation of his story works only to prove his permanent insanity, or, 2) for the readers who believe meaning can be achieved—and perhaps augmented—by a state of hallucinatory intoxication, then the narrator’s insights are authentic. Either way, the story is emotive, compelling, artistic, etcetera. Well done, Jha.

The Passage

"Movement without purpose, an endless ebb and flow, from one world to another, journeys and passages, undertaken by cocoons not for rest or solace, but for ephemerals. The flux of the sea now seemed the only pattern, within and beyond the mind -- mirrored even in his encounters with the myriad faces, on some of which he had tried to impose an order by seeing them as mirror-images, facets of his own self, but now that longing, for repose through the mastering of chaos, itself seemed vain. Perhaps it was true that he had first to banish all yearning, and learn to accept the drift, perhaps it was true that all was clouded by desire, as fire by smoke, as a mirror by dust, as a unborn babe by its covering."

This passage deserves to be quoted in its entirety, so I have included it in this post.

To begin discussing this excerpt, I think it is best to start with the first sentence. There is movement in our lives, but the overwhelming concern of this novel is to point out that the movement is not valuable in the sense that we normally assign to travel or translocation. The voice of this novel finds the movement to be a need that we have as rational beings in a chaotic existence. The only way to deal with the chaos is to find some way to experience short bursts of life with endings in plain sight. Ephemerality is the only avenue that will not wring out all of an individual's vitality. I find it fascinating to examine the narration in this excerpt. The point of view so often seemed to be Agastya's, but in this excerpt it is clear that the point of view is third person omniscient. The narration has a very interesting, and dismantling, effect on my perception of the world as presented in the novel. Because the narrating voice is not Agastya, it takes on a separate vantage at times. However, even those times when the narration is moving away from the mind of Agastya the overwhelming sense of dislocation remains intact. I always feel like a "cocoon" looking for "rest or solace," but never realizing anything outside of Agastya's thoughts. Moving back to the beautifully tragic excerpt, the sea is used to signify the only pattern one will find in life. Ebb and flow. Ebb and flow. Agastya attempts to use this pattern in comparing the people he meets to himself, but his self absorbed rationale is incapable of locating anything that resembles itself. The passage ends with the consideration of ridding oneself of all desire. If yearning can be extinguished, maybe then a kind of happiness can be forged. But maybe not...

I absolutely love this passage, and there are times when I believe an extinguishing of desires might lead to sense of contentment. However, I enjoy the chaotic existence that I revolve within...at times.

Chipanthi: Protesting the Absurd

In one of the more eventful episodes of the novel, Agastya travels into the hinterland to the village of Chipanthi. He has come to the village with a Deputy Engineer after a conversation with a tribal woman who visited him in Jompanna to explain the extremity of Chipanthi's water dilemma. Upon arrival, Agastya immediately feels strange about the conditions of the village. He notices that there is an unsettling silence in the air that is unlike anything to which he is accustomed. There is no laughter, nor are there any conversations taking place. Agastya and his colleague make their way over to well to examine exactly how bad the water conditions are in the village. As the two of them are approaching the well, more and more villagers become aware of their presence.

The well is an awful sight. The tribal women are tying the children to ropes (this is where the children are) and lowering them down into the well so they can scoop buckets of "thin mud" from the bottom. Agastya is shocked. He demands that the Deputy Engineer have one of the water trucks sent to Chipanthi immediately. Before the Deputy Engineer has the time to finish making excuses about why it is impossible for a truck to come to Chipanthi, Agastya tells the man to take the jeep back to Jompanna while he (Agastya) stays in the village. I didn't this command upon first reading. Finally, I had a reason to like Agastya beyond his clever lies and love of marijuana. However, the reader later discovers that Agastya's reason for coming to Chipanthi in the first place was to escape the duties of his office. He stays in the village to expedite and assure that the Deputy Engineer will do exactly what Agastya has asked of him, but also to spend a bit more time with the beautiful women of the village. Not exactly a pure example of civil service, but in light of the rest of the novel, I'll take it.

After Agastya's colleague leaves, he is engaged in a conversation with a Naxalite. This man, Rao, begins explaining the reason for the Naxalite presence in Chipanthi. Rao continued to reel off injustices that needed to be addressed while Agastya slipped deeper into his own thoughts regarding Rao's appearance. The "conversation" is suddenly interrupted when one of the ropes unwinds around a child who is still hanging inside the well. The woman holding the rope gasps loudly and people begin to help her pull the child out of the well. At the sight of this, Agastya finds himself in a fit of irritation. The scene reads, "For a ghastly second he thought that they were putting on a show, intending to make him feel, yet again, absurd, or guilty." The narrator goes on to state that Agastya finds no adequate argument for the way the tribals live: "risking the lives of their children for half-buckets of mud." It makes no sense to him. Even after hearing the arguments of the Naxalites, Agastya feels that these people are subjecting themselves to the conditions that are so terribly difficult to witness as an outsider. For Agastya, it is simply absurd. This scene in the novel brings to the foreground the consideration, or lack thereof, of poverty in this book. The lifestyle of the tribals is presented from two opposing sides -- the Naxalites and Agastya. The Naxalites victimize the tribals inability to cope with the modern age by placing the blame on the government and their unwillingness to provide help. Contrastingly, Agastya feels that the tribals could better their lives in simple ways without needing the help of the government. In his eyes, all of us are at war with the ever-changing world, but some of us choose to cope while others hold on to the way things used to be. I think there is sound reason for each of the two arguments. Either way, I'm proud of Agastya for going to Chipanthi and taking a stand to help them, regardless of his reasoning.

A Final Thought Before The Finish

I've begun to notice that Chatterjee has changed the way in which Agastya is describing his surroundings. He employs more and more fragments from the perspective of Agastya as the character gives snapshots of the scenery he is passing. It's almost as if Agastya is familiarity with the things around him would stop him from taking notice, but because he is a part of a novel...the description simply must go on. Also, with the majority of the book resting in my left hand at this point, the anxious desire to leap to conclusions is coming on pretty strong. All of the untied strings of this book are beginning to swirl in my mind, searching for some sort of ending to knot themselves with. This started happening this morning while I reading the section bout Jompanna and I found myself thinking that John Avery was surely going to be attacked by a tiger because people continued to mention that no tiger had been seen in 12 years. I don't know if I wanted this to happen because it would be a deserving symbol for the Raj's place in Indian society, or if all I want is some sort of action beyond Agastya nabbing someone's keys. I had to set the book aside and convince myself that there is not going to be anything exciting that will happen, but instead I have to allow Chatterjee to finish the story that has somehow managed to capture my imagination. I am stuck in Madna just as Agastya. He needs to make a move or I think I am going to have to write an alternate ending to the book. Only kidding, but I do hope that some sort of wildly unexpected denouement comes about that is some way makes my graduation a bit less disheartening. A boy can dream, can't he?

To-Each-His-Own

Dependent upon the scenario, Agastya vacillates in his opinion regarding the idea of to-each-his-own. One of the more provocative instances where Agastya considers the implications of this statement of indifference/acceptance comes on page 221. Agastya has just entered one of his common moments of restless contemplation as he is bouncing through Madna in a jeep with John Avery and Sita. Given a different vantage of the town than he experiences daily, Agastya is sifting through the many considerations of the place and its people that he is prone to doing. He finds the town to be a hideous place, but if there is any reason for him to like Madna it is most likely for that very reason -- "greetings-from-a-cesspool-we're-all-in-it feeling." The people of the "other" Madna that Agastya rarely sees are planting their feces on or near the road like they always are in this book, and Agastya sees them as a "burgeoning" and "joyous cancer." These words can be taken in so many ways. The thought that people can be seen as a "joyous cancer" could just be a reflection of Agastya's view of humanity and our absurd existence in this world. The poverty, or even just the people of Madna as a whole, are considered a swiftly multiplying virus that for some reason or another finds happiness in their destructive relationship to the world. Crazy old Agastya. He then quotes Mahatma Gandhi about the lack of a sanitary virtue in India and ruminates on outsiders' confusion in regard to Nehru's progeny also being called Gandhis. I found this part to be especially humorous because it does always throw me off a bit. At the end of all this thinking, Agastya is reminded of the evening before when Sathe is talking about the Naxalites in Jompanna and he says that they are attempting to make the tribal people think. This thought makes him feel "that the to-each-his-own outlook was inadequate." He finds that the Naxalites are driven to intervene in the ways of others, such as the tribal people in this instance, just to remind them that they too have the ability to use their minds to change the way operate in the world. I find this consideration to come at a very odd moment. I suppose Agastya is juxtaposing this thought with his witnessing of the rural population of Madna defecating on the side of the road. With the people of Madna, he may feel that this is the way they live, and the only thing that they know (to-each-his-own). However, when he thinks about this argument in regard to the Naxalites and their attempt to change how the tribals think, he falls on the other side of the argument.

A Fetching Virtue

On the road to Gorapak, Agastya finds himself in a packed car full of his favorite people from Madna. The conversations that take place during the trip are all relatively enertaining (mainly because the reader has the liberty of knowing Agastya's true thoughts) but one in particular stands out. As the car is passing villages on the way to the picnic destination, Agastya becomes interested in the way the rural people live. He attempts to ask the people in the car questions about why the villagers gather around the roads instead of the earth. He doesn't receive an answer. He tries again, this time in a different fashion. The car remains silent. Then Agastya comes up with his own deduction about the cause of the villagers roadside gathering: the shade. This excites him, but only him. Everyone else in the car couldn't care less about the cause of Agastya's sudden burst of inquisitiveness. Agastya can no longer contain some of the questions he wants to ask about rural India. After spewing out a few more inquiries, Agastya finally provokes a response. Mohan's voice breaks the silence, "You make such a fetching virtue of the display of your ignorance." Agastya ceases the questioning. He knows nothing about rural India because of his upbringing. He has never experienced the side of his country that doesn't live in big beautiful houses full of the amenities that many Indians will never even see. His interest in the thoughts and purposes of rural India causes him to ask the other people from Madna questions, and this causes Mohan to point out his ignorance. Mohan refers to this display of ignorance as a "fetching virtue." I wonder if he is intending to make Agastya appear even more suited for the job of Assistant Collectorate because his extremely privileged past has provided him the "luxury" of never witnessing, or considering, the happenings of rural India and the poverty exists within it. Although, Mohan's aim could be to quiet down Agastya's questioning because it is an embarrassing showcase of his lack of knowledge about the majority of India. I find the former option to be more likely, but there are other angles that Mohan may have intended with his rebuke/praise of Agastya's questions. In any case, no one in the car cares to speak about the conditions of rural India. They would prefer to gaze through the frame of the car window and watch as the poverty streams by.

Privileged Upbringing

I have to wonder if Agastya's lack of motivation to progress into the working world as well as his lack of recognition for a healthy passion has a lot to do with growing up in a privileged environment. At times he seems to envy the tribals which is telling. Its not just about wanting a life that is radically different from your own, but wanting a life in which you have the responsibility of making your own life, having to struggle to maintain its existence. Agastya has been responsible for nothing, except perhaps school work, and simply drifts into a job that his father has set up for him. No wonder he feels like his life is not his own, he is simply going through the motions of what is expected for a man who was born into the life of the elite. In fact the pressure of these expectations is what prompts Agastya to escape a life that has been handed to him. One can sense the lack of identity that comes from a life that has not been crafted by ones own hands. Of course not all people who are privileged and get help from their parents to start a life feel as anchorless as Agastya. However, in his case he has majored in English Literature and goes into a job that has nothing to do with his former interests.

Quarter-Life Crisis

In English, August Agastya's character supports the belief that there is such a thing as a quarter-life crisis. As a 24-year-old, Agastya appears to be lost in the world. Sure, he has a government job his peers envy, but he is isn't happy. When we see him in Delhi with Dhrubo and Madan, we see 3 unhappy, mid-twenties men. They covet each other's positions because they are different. What is this happiness they are all searching for? Does it really exist?

To some Agastya's job would appear quite envious. He did not have to work hard to get it. I know many recent college graduates who are struggling to find anything more than a minimum wage job. He also has plenty of free time to smoke weed, exercise, and get drunk with friends. Yet, like millions of other people, his day-to-day life is unfulfilling. He appears to want to do something instead of wasting time but lacks the motivation to even try at his current job. In many ways I think he does not want to learn the ways of the government job because that would be accepting that life, the life of his father. I am curious to see whether or not he goes along with his training or refuses to conform.

Soul-Squashing Problems

On page 80, there is a passage that shed a bit of light on the marginal consideration of poverty in the opening chapters of the book: "Marcus immediately made [Agastya] feel better, because Marcus seemed to have more problems than anyone else -- not the soul-squashing problems of being poor, but the exhilarating abstract problems of one immersed wholly in his self." There are multiple points of interest in this excerpt. First and foremost, Agastya has begun reading Meditations because the other books he has brought with him to Madna, which are Bengali novels, are too "remote" to provide adequate entertainment. Yet again, Agastya is struggling to identify with particularities of his background. However, the aspect of this excerpt that most interests me is the portion concerning the reasoning for Agastya's satisfaction in reading about Marcus Aurelius's problems. There is undoubtedly part of Agastya that is capable of commiserating with Aurelius because of his position as a government official whose problems are completely self-centered. Agastya's perception of reality is very rarely concerned with anything that does not directly effect his ability to muster a wink of enjoyment from his calloused perceptions. His dislocation from the outside world produces a vacuum of thought that is only capable of finding enjoyment in another human's problems. The problems of Marcus Aurelius, in Agastya's head, can only be understood when contrasted with that of the "soul-squashing" problems of the poor. He finds the problems of the egocentric to be "exhilarating" and "abstract," allowing the mind to consider possible modes of resolution without leaving the soul dismantled, which problems like starvation and disease will inevitably do. I find this single sentence to be very well representative of Chatterjee's mindset when composing Agastya's reaction to the seldom glimpses of poverty in the novel.

An oasis of terror in a desert of boredom

This is my favorite book that we have read by far. It is just such a technically amazing feat to write a book were nothing happens. It remains unique for me yet it is strikingly like Henry Miller (though decidedly less arrogant). At times I felt as bored reading it as Agastya is in Manda. It shares Miller’s obsession with where the next meal is coming from, sex, and irreverence. None of these really “belong” in literature, maybe sex but not masturbation and unspoken oppressive sexual frustration. This whole story is marked by a down and out sense of drowning in a sea of boredom and an spiteful apathy that thinks swimming is useless. This book has an amazing ability to pull you into its affective movements.

If it was all ennui I would have stopped reading but it has two redeeming graces (if you can use that world in relation to such an amoral book). First the humor is so cutting almost surgically dark and oh so subtle. It isn’t cute but the intelligent and sustained wit of satire that blends jest with desperate sincerity. I think a good early example is Shanakar and Shiv relationship and Agastya’s notion that he had encountered a form of insanity precluded by extreme boredom (30). The absurd and satirical are still to close to the meaninglessness of the novel thought.

There is a second thing that makes the read worth all the boredom: the glimpse we get into Agastya’s innerworld. These flights of unrestrained imagination are like gems in the muck of Agastya’s attitude. It is not that they are always uplifting notion often they are wounding but they make you love Agastya. Such moments are rare in the beginning of the novel and mostly reside in the last ¼ but a few key example is the ideal of Agastya’s three separate lives especially the secret life (48). I also like the goal of being a male stray dog. Another gem, I can’t find the page though, is the remembrance of a line from English class. Agastya muses he “should have been the pair of ragged claws scuttling across the bottom of silent seas.” I looked it up and it is an Elliot quote from “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” There is another quote from Baudelaire, “An oasis of terror in a desert of boredom.” It isn't in the book up it sure sums up Agastya.

Srivastav and English's Degree of Awareness

Srivastav is the very model of the priggish official. He is totally utilitarian about language stating that “English should just be a vehicle of communication ”(59). How could it be anything else? It really is a question of how richly one wants to communicate. Srivastav also latter states that learning English gives confidence. This certainly isn’t the case for Agastya. This little rant of Srivastav must make him just wonder even more, “who the hell is this fool?”. I mean the guy is totally unreflective. The best example is that statement that it is inevitable that English will fade from India (or the administrative service) in three generation. It has been almost 4 generation since independence and no sign of English taking a back seat as the language of the elite. I mean the novel was written in the 1980s so it is not such an incredible statement maybe more reflective of a generational gap but still kind of an ignorant reparation of the party line.

I agree it disturbing that Agastya doesn’t argue back. However this gap between Agastya and Srivastav is more predictable and reasonable than the larger gap that Agastya seems to see between himself and the world. He seems more brilliant and observant than most anyone in the novel. The reality of this might be questionable but I feel pulled in by that lingering (adolescent) assumption most college kids pick up. However this assumption if not out rightly challenged becomes increasingly irrelevant for Agastya. This alienation seems fueled by Agastya lack of “the pride of the self-made man” that Srivastav possesses.

I got the ideal of bad faith wrong last class but I do think it is safe to say Agastya is in bad faith. He won’t make a choice and he lets Srivastav tell him he is “an unavoidable leftover”(60). Yet one gets the creeping feeling that this accusation is right on. And that one of the very few wise things Srivastav fills in the picture even further. In saying that the feeling ambivalence, shame, or anger about the past (or injustice) is much easier than doing the work to address it. Agastya allows feelings of ambivalence, shame, or anger that more often than not he obscurely realizes to paralyze him. And that is no better than Srivastav lack of reflection or even affect concerning the past.

Portraying Environmental Catastrophe

We have talked about the problematics of portraying poverty. One major concern is how a novel could commodify poverty. Perhaps descriptions of poverty could become a sort of set pieces stripping the poor of depth and humanity. Worse is a morbid fascination with the horrors of poverty either as titillation or producing a false catharsis. Another pitfall seems to be portraying poverty ahistorically as permanent human reality. This leads to a fatalism absolving the privileged reader of responsibility. I think a lot of these pitfalls are a two way street that relies on the readers attitude. Also it is a lot easier to find these flaws than write without them. However while reading “Animal’s People”, I had to wonder how these same patterns might exist in relation to portrayals environmental catastrophe. I have read a lot of speculative works about environmental collapse from T.C. Boyle’s “Friends of the Earth” to Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” to that movie Avatar. I think all of these works have some relationship to stale, indulgent, or fatalistic portrayals of environmental catastrophe. “Animal’s People” stands out because it isn’t far removed in some speculative world (or at least based on a real event). It also has a distinctly hyper or transhumanist message as we identify with “Animal”, a character that rejects the label of human. However that the novel never resolves its notion of nature in rebellion or “Mother Nature’s trying to take back the land”(31). The description of cobras and scorpions in the walls, the inside of the factory, even the forest that Animal hides in are morbidly grotesque and too brief. Most importantly the neatness of how the human problems are resolved while ignoring Animal’s experience in the woods redivorces us from any wider scope that considered life outside of human scope.

The Ever-Questionable English Degree

Let's not pretend that the scene in the novel involving the "irrelevancy" of Chaucer and Swift isn't something we need to discuss. As graduation is quickly approaching, I too find myself wondering about the significance of the education I have toiled with over the past four years. At no point have I ever considered the literature on my syllabi to be completely worthless, and I can honestly say that I never will. For this reason, I find it a bit frustrating that Agastya is so despondent throughout Srivastav's condemnation of an English education (pg. 70). However, Agastya's embarrassment is a characteristic sentiment of an individual whose position in an organization is marginalizing. This is just another point in the novel where Agastya's hybridity is causing him to shamefully consider his identity. At the very least, (if Agastya actually cares at all) he only wishes that his choice of studies "sounded as though one had to study for exams." "A useless subject," says Srivastav, "unless it helps you to master the language, which in most cases it doesn't." Now, I suppose I could explain why I advocate the thought process one will develop through the study of English literature, but all of us most likely feel similarly on this subject. The most likely reason for my disappointment in Agastya's reaction, or lack thereof, to Srivastav's comments is the timing at which we are reading this novel. I just feel so awfully for Agastya. His entire life there has been someone admonishing him for choosing English as a field of study. One would think that Agastya would just assume lie to Srivastav when asked about his education in order to savor any ounce of humor that might be latent in the conversation.

A First Pager...

So I have a comment about the first page of this novel. Immediately, I really enjoy the way Chatterjee uses the opening paragraph to set a dark and lethargic scene. By the end of the first paragraph, the reader has already been introduced to (what appears to be) a very important aspect of the story: marijuana. The drug and its effects may prove to signify nothing more than Agastya's coping mechanism with the world that he finds to be colorless (without, of course, a little self-improvement), but it is useful in creating the jaded tone that pervades the story's opening. Anyway, marijuana was not supposed to be the topic of this post. My interest in the first page is centered on the issue of language. I'm quickly learning that if you are going to enter into the Indo-Anglian writing tradition, discussing the complexities of linguistic meshing, straying, and translating in India is vital. On the bottom of the first page, Dhrubo and Agastya are laughingly discussing the phrase "hazaar fucked." Ddrubo throws out this assumption when wondering just how well Agastya is going to adjust to his new job in the hinterland town of Madna. Agastya jokes with Dhrubo about using the phrase "hazaar fucked." He muses at the ridiculous combination of Urdu and American dialects that Dhrubo employs. At this point in the narrative, the reader has yet to discover that Agastya has always been ridiculed for his "mother tongue, " or ability to speak English natively. Similar to that of Animal's People and The White Tiger, the concept of language use in Inida has already been placed in the foreground of this narrative.

Some funny stoner stuff

My initial thoughts of this novel are exactly what Snehal told us, "stoner novel." But surprisingly I am enjoying the novel so far. I usually think that these novels are full of cheesy jokes that would only appeal to a stoned reader, but it is not the case. There is a joke here and there, well placed, that make this novel enjoyable. Much like Sherman Alexie, the jokes are often simple and childish, but can be appreciated by an older crowd. The one part that sticks out as very funny was when August was in a Muslim-Hindi get-together and he was telling somebody a series of lies to avoid the disease infested food. He lies about his mom dying and that he was fasting to pay pennants because he killed her. Obviously this is quite inappropriate but the fact that the person couldnt hear him say that made me truly laugh. The kind of laugh that I like to call LQTM (Laugh Quietly to Myself), because honestly who actually laughs out loud to a novel?

1 Corinthians 15.8

A passage from Animal's People that I found to be interesting and that we discussed in class was when he was talking to the fetus in the jar. The reason I thought it was interesting was that I had just finished studying Paul's letters in the New Testament and there was a similar occasion.
Paul, if you are not familiar with The Bible, was a missionary for the Jesus movement in its very beginnings. He wrote letters to the very first Churches in the areas surrounding the Aegean Sea and those letters were collected and are now part of the New Testament. In one of his letters, 1st Corinthians, he described how Jesus appeared to the apostles after his death. Paul says, "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me (15.8)." He says that he was "one untimely born" which is translated by some to read "aborted fetus."
The comparison would be better if it was Jesus who was the fetus because in the novel the wise one is Kha. But it was still significant to me that there was people writing about talking to a fetus even back 2000 years ago. What then does the fetus represent? There has to be something that the fetus represents that is significant enough to be mentioned at various points in time. A fetus is not pleasant to look at, but when it is fully formed it can be beautiful. In the same way that Paul was transformed from his fetus phase to a promoter of Jesus, Kha in the Jar has potential to get out and be great. In Kha's case it can be read to represent Animal because he too deals with being stuck in a body that is aesthetically difficult to look at. He is deformed and because of that he is unable to accomplish many things, the most important and most simple of which is identifying as a human. A fetus is also difficult to look at, but it represents the beginning of something special and perhaps if Animal was able to accept the help of people in his life, like Paul accepted the help of Jesus, he could become something better than an Animal.

manimal

I'd like to address and expound upon A. Hope's about Animal's idea of perfection and why Animal "excludes" himself from his conception. I feel like the way Sinha wrote Animal's character was to convey a being who has been so hardened and tortured that he doesn't necessarily exclude himself from his idea of what is beautiful and human -- he is totally removed from his conception, true, but he's also a keen observer, and since he's completely alienated from his conception, he can choose to be a part of it, also. As opposed to appealing to "normal" people's sympathies, the way a drag bum might choose to do. Animal could choose to exploit his handicap, and though this would significantly screw up his sense of dignity, he would at least get the impression that people loved him. Or maybe he's too smart and clever to subscribe to that sort of false ideology.

Authenticity and will

I find Animal to be the perfect existential character in that he is authentic and makes his own meaning. Undoubtedly he suffers for this, but his triumph could not come about any other way. His conception of what it is to be beautiful and human, has excluded himself, and understandably so. He imagines a heaven where he does not become upright but is loved as he is. Though he is a free-being, it would seem the blame is on the rest of society. His true freedom will come about through himself however, as individual choice is the crux of any existential philosophy. Eventually through a cathartic rebirth experience, he undergoes his greatest transformation ("what am I but a complete miniature universe stumbling around inside this larger one") And later, through profound self and world affirming acceptance, creates his previously imagined paradise on earth.
Sinha's message, in part, is certainly the subjectivity in life and the extent to which we understand ourselves as sovereign beings. When Animal rejects all the religious and political ideologies that seem false(207), he sneaks in one of his own, as he debates plurality of religious doctrine: he says "suppose people talked of beauty in the same way, how foolish...". Yet, notions of beauty are no less unified than notions of God-he is victim to his conception of this, in which he excludes himself. Over and over again, he cynically rejects any words from friends about inner beauty, finding love etc. I think this is Sinha's brilliance, in shaping a trajectory of autonomy and transformation, and transcending suffering that had excluded him from full responsibility or in Sartre's view, possibility. In this, Sinha addresses the animal natures of all of us.
Interestingly, there is no locus for hell in the novel. Its very subjectivity, as Zafar says it is in us, Farouq says non-existent, the man-made hell of the explosion and lack of justice, also point to our freedom of will within creation. And all this against a backdrop of natural order, the tao in the universe, expressed as "sa" the "eternal and changeless" music "bent and twisted by this world" that anyone "can sing" or in this case, choose to harmonize with.

Struggle in Bhopal continues

Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmachari Sangh

Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush Sangarsh Morcha

Children Against Dow-Carbide

Bhopal Group for Information and Action.

13 April 2010

Press Statement

At a Press Conference today, four Bhopal based organizations representing people exposed to Union Carbide’s toxic chemicals and their children announced their indefinite protest in the capital calling for the establishment of an Empowered Commission on Bhopal for long term medical care and rehabilitation of the victims. “Our people will reach Delhi on 15^th and will stay as long as it takes the Prime Minister to fulfill his two year old promise to set up the Empowered Commission,” said Rashida Bee, President of Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmchari Sangh, who has been awarded Goldman Environmental Prize for her work in Bhopal.

The Bhopalis, including two survivors of the December 1984 disaster and two children exposed to toxic contamination from Union Carbide’s untreated chemical waste, presented a document read out on 29 May, 2008 by the then Minister of State for PMO, Prithviraj Chavan, in which he publicly declared the Government's “in-principle” agreement to set up an Empowered Commission on Bhopal. This was followed by a decision of the Group of Ministers on Bhopal, headed at that time by Arjun Singh, recommending the setting up of the Empowered Commission.

April 17^th marks the fourth anniversary of the Bhopalis' first meeting with Prime Minister Singh, where he assured them that the lingering issues of medical, environmental, economic rehabilitation in Bhopal would be taken care of.

“It wasn’t easy getting to meet the Prime Minister,” said Syed M Irfan, President of the Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush sangharsh Morcha. “We had to walk 800 kilometers and then we had to do another Bhopal to New Delhi Padyatra in 2008 for the Prime Minister to issue a written promise.” He said that the Empowered Commission is urgently needed to stop the ongoing disasters in Bhopal that are still killing, injuring and maiming the unborn.

“Despite the promises, 20,000 people are still drinking poisoned water; 10,000 gas victims who were promised jobs are jobless; medical treatment for the indigent victims remains elusive; the site and its surroundings are polluted, and the culprit – Dow Chemical – is freely doing business in India,” said Safreen Khan from Children against Dow-Carbide an organization of second generation victims.“What is the worth of the PM's word?” she asks.

According to Rachna Dhingra from the Bhopal group for Information and Action, since the first time that Prime Minister Singh promised action in 2006, nothing has moved in favour of the Bhopalis. Rather, 22 survivors have spent time in high security Tihar jail; 36 people including 12 children have been beaten in the Parliament Street police station; serious charges of assaulting police officers have been filed against a 16-year old Carbide victim and another 75-year old gas victim, and four Chennai-based supporters are facing charges in a Delhi court that could result in a maximum jail term of 5 years. All these people took action to remind the Government of its unkept promises.

Rashida Bee said that they already anticipate violence by Delhi police starting from April 15. She said that they have been told by the Parliament Street police station that out of state protestors, such as those from Bhopal, will not be allowed to camp in Jantar Mantar because of the Commonwealth Games.

“We are beaten and falsely charged just for peacefully reminding the Prime Minister of his unkept promise. If all non-violent and democratic means of articulating our frustration over 25 years of broken promises are prohibited, what does the government expect us to do? Go in to hiding? Take up guns?” asked Rashida Bee.

Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action said that the Prime Minister’s apathy toward the plight of the Bhopalis is in stark contrast to his commitment to keeping their promise to the US Congress and nuclear equipment suppliers. By actively moving the Nuclear Liability Bill even as Bhopalis are fighting for resolution of Dow Chemical and Union Carbide's liabilities 25 years after the disaster, the Prime Minister is busy indemnifying the likes of GE and Westinghouse Electric from future liabilities that may arise due to nuclear disasters.

Rashida Bee, Champa Devi Shukla Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Stationery Karmachari Sangh

Syed M Irfan, Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Purush Sangharsh Morcha

Rachna Dhingra, Satinath Sarangi, Bhopal Group for Information and Action 9582314869

Safreen Khan Children Against Dow Carbide

People are Cretins

Animal refuses to identify himself with humans because from what he has seen in Khaufpur, that the Kampani have made no effort to clean out the factory nor clean up the town nor compensate the people for all that they lost on that night, and also because of the way he has been treated because he does not walk upright like other people, he has decided that people are cretins. Therefore he runs scams on them because " it's all they deserve." However, we know that animal does not hate all humans because he feels that Ma Franci has been like a mother to him and loves her dearly even though her mental stability seems to be leaving her more each day. Thus, I believe it is more that he is so hurt by the conditions in this world, a world that would leave him looking in a way that incited ridicule or pity, that he identifies himself with the world of animals, his dog Jara has been his most loyal companion. However things begin to change for animal as soon as he meets Nisha, who refuses to pity him and welcomes him to her home refusing to buy his whole I'm an Animal bit. This human kindness is striking to animal for rarely does he see it, mostly because he refuses to because he has become so jaded, and so he does not take her offer most likely because he does not believe it is genuine. However, when Nisha comes hunting him down when he doesn't arrive and animal finally admits this time it was impossible for him to say no because "from the first she took me exactly as I was(22)." This is when Animal's transformation begins.

Talk on White Tiger (and conference on Hindi)

Hindi in Texas and Beyond

A symposium in honor of Herman van Olphen
Saturday, April 10, 2010
10 am - 4:30 pm
Meyerson Conference Room, WCH 4.118

In honor of UT Asian Studies professor Herman van Olphen and his long-serving career in Hindi pedagogy, the Hindi Urdu Flagship and the Department of Asian Studies will host a symposium entitled Hindi in Texas and Beyond on Saturday, April 10 in the Meyerson Conference Room,WCH 4.132. This day-long event will feature presentations from both Austin-based and national Hindi scholars. The program will begin at 10 am (with coffee and pastries served at 9:30) and conclude at 4:30pm. All presentations are free and open to the public. A full program is listed below:

9:30am - 10am
Reception with Coffee, Tea and Pastries

10am - 10:45am
Why Meter Matters: Reading 20th Century Hindi Poetry from the Perspective of Metrical Structure
Michael Shapiro, University of Washington

10:45am - 11:30am
Composite Culture and Cosmopolitanism in Ehtesham Manzoor's Sukha Bargad, Arvind Adiga'sWhite Tiger, and Slumdog Millionaire
Kathryn Hansen, University of Texas at Austin

11:30am - 11:45am
Coffee Break

11:45am - 12:30pm
The Rhetorical Energy of Old Hindi Verse Structures
Rupert Snell, University of Texas at Austin

12:30pm - 2:00pm
Lunch Break

2:00pm - 2:45pm
Mahadevi Varma: A Modern Mirabai?
Sarah Green, University of Texas at Austin

2:45pm - 3:30pm
Register and Dialect as Markers of Dalit Consciousness in Contemporary Hindi Fiction
Laura Brueck, University of Colorado

3:30pm - 3:45pm
Coffee Break

3:45pm - 4:30pm
The Language of a Saint: Colloquialisms and Philosophical Concepts
Jishnu Shankar, University of Texas at Austin

How can eyes hear tape recordings?

For the third time in this course we have encountered a novel that is a retelling of a character's life through his own eyes. In Q&A it was Ram having a conversation with a lawyer, in White Tiger it was Balram writing letters to the Premier of China, and in Animal's people it is Animal recording his memories on a tape recorder.
In Animal's people the audience is not a single person, like its two predecessors, it is to a collective audience that he calls "Eyes." I thought this was an interesting choice for the name of the audience since it is through the eyes that readers would encounter his story, but also because one of the main themes in the novel is the way people perceive Animal. Animal is disfigured and disabled because he is forced to walk on all four limbs and because of this he is considered more of an animal than a human, at least at the beginning of the novel.
As the novel continues, though, it is unclear if Animal thinks that people look at him like an animal or if he himself wants people to look at him that way in an effort to gain strength from the fact that he has come to identify himself as an animal. As the novel goes forward it is harder to associate Animal with an actual animal because he is self aware and has very human desires. He is vulgar and rude like a human and even pulls off scams like a human. It is taking this into account that I ask myself: Is Animal associating himself with an animal in efforts to take away the responsibility of his actions and therefore shift the Eyes from his internal motives to his superficial appearance? And in doing so does the message in this novel that having a disability makes people less than human in hopes to bring forth the humanist aspects of poverty in the process?

locus of value-what is inherently human?

Though I am not far along in the novel, our class discussion today shed light on what is going to come. The first passage, end of tape 1, Animal shouts "no one is as happy as they have a right to be." I think what is intended by this, has little (in one sense) to do with political rights as such, but is an inquiry into human nature. That we have an a priori right to happiness, the pursuit of our liberty and fulfillment as beings, and that because of what we have created, our laws redefining what is human (who to protect/why...our long brutal history) in the socially constructed sense, still do not provide for this innate right of realization. Beauty and functionality have also already been introduced into this, and reminded of the Platonic ideal and how we judge what is not beautiful or exemplary of perfection so cruelly, even as Animal judges himself as well as internalizes society's mistreatment/ostracization of him. We are always in conflict with an idea of that which is inherently good must reflect this, in some natural way, an upright, beautiful, strong exterior, manifesting an inner and outer harmony, that seldom correlates in reality with such simplistic ease.

Maneck-The End

I did not consider the last scene in A Fine Balance to be a positive or hopeful gathering. If anything, Dina’s return to her apartment and underground association with Om and Ishvar emphasized Maneck’s isolation and ultimate removal from the events. As a reader, I related most to Maneck’s middle-class, neutral (almost mute) tendencies. He entered the city with his parent’s guidance to study hard and remain true to an upbringing that taught him to accept everyone. In college, he became fast friends with Ashvar but never embraced either side (bully or activist) of the youth political movement. In Dina’s apartment, he was open in his friendships with Om and Ishvar while respectful to Dina. But his convictions remained tongue-tied outside of the apartment. At Nusswan’s he could only prompt the Nusswan’s rantings of eliminating the poverty problem and remained mute in developing a witty retort to Nusswan’s use of democratic eggs. Maneck continues to remain mute and increasingly depressed throughout the story. In fact, it’s a little odd to think Ishvar and Om are happier and more accepting of the constant setbacks; even Om lost a lot of his initial anger half-way through the book while Maneck continued to slide.
Maneck was the romantic, ideal character. By the end, his hopes and expectations (like mine as a reader) simply did not belong. His experiences in the city ruined his return home; life was no longer simple. And meeting Mr. Valmik again sealed Maneck’s fate for me. Once again, Valmik had adapted to the persuasive powers. He had moved from law, to publication, to politics, to religion. In each endeavor, Valmik’s “voice” was renewed. In contrast, Maneck’s ideals remained mute. The final scene after/during Maneck’s suicide was a continuation of the struggle Maneck never fully embraced.

Dina Dalali

Mistry develops a great deal of back-story in A Fine Balance but the story’s representation of poverty is an association with ignorance, disease, laziness, and criminal behavior; progress is inevitably followed by the encroachment of poverty. Dina Dalali is the most developed character to represent this mind-set. Her efforts to maintain her independence essentially force her to invite Om and Ishvar into her home. The majority of the first half is Dina equating caste prejudice against the impoverished untouchable with the stain of filth and deviant behavior. She locks them in when she leaves, sets aside an entire set of dishes for their personal use, chastises Maneck to maintain distance, and is always aware of their odor, which further emphasizes their nasty habits—smoking bedis and the urine smell in the bathroom reveals the poor diet. When explaining her actions to Maneck, she admits her private fear that they will quit or take her contracts. These fears are the underlying motives for her to treating them harshly and with suspicion.
Dina’s prejudice and underlying fears recalls the justification of civilians during the Holocaust in Germany and Poland. Without Maneck’s presence, Dina would be more like the rent collector, Ibrahim. She would have continued to act and conform to the current political climate in order to protect her own interests.