Why political novels
are akin to gunshots in the midst of a concert!
Literature is a
powerful tool that helps writers plumb the depths of the human psyche and pluck
out the hidden dependencies and scars of a particular era. Although fiction
allows writers the latitude to create and imagine lives, most authors of
political novels tend to focus on capturing the emotional zeitgeist of the
times. Through an emphasis on the large movements of history, they seek to
understand the private moments of sadness and explore the sounds and flavours
of a forgotten era.
Partition has been
billed as a distressing phase in the subcontinent’s history. The tragedy and
turmoil that surrounded the birth of Pakistan has been likened to the
unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust. Many novelists from India and Pakistan
have provided scathing accounts of this period.
A majority of fiction
presents a darkened view of a historical moment that brought a tectonic shift
in priorities and redrew the map of the subcontinent. More often than not,
these works build narratives around political themes and motifs to recreate the
times and bring emotions to the fore.
The nineteenth century
French writer Stendhal would have viewed the growing emphasis on politics as
little more than a gunshot in the middle of concert. Orhan Pamuk firmly
believes such political novels must accomplish the unrealistic task of
understanding everyone to “construct the largest whole”. This method demands a
degree of objectivity that is seldom found in political novels about Partition
as it is difficult to achieve.
Most works about
Partition tend to emphasise the idea of communal violence without understanding
its essence. The focus on communalism becomes a tautological flaw in these
books as the violence stoked by religious differences becomes the cause and the
consequence of the conflict.
Bapsi Sidhwa’s
Cracking India is possibly the only novel that deviates from this communitarian
focus as the story is told from the perspective of an impartial observer. The
narrator not only belongs to the Parsi community, but is insulated from the
prejudices that are usually entrenched in the minds of adults. As a result, references
to Gandhi, Jinnah, Master Tara Singh and even Lord Mountbatten are laced with
objectivity. Sidhwa does not pin the blame on either community for the violence
that surrounded Partition. To the contrary, she presents the foibles of each
community in a nuanced manner.
On the other hand,
Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan falls into the trap of explaining the
hysteria and violence through the lens of communalism. Throughout the novel,
the emphasis remains on highlighting the violence orchestrated by Muslims and
portraying the atrocities of Sikhs as a reaction to this bloodshed.
Such biased
interpretations of a particular era serve to explain how and why political
novels are akin to gunshots in the midst of a concert.
However, if literature
is to achieve the rare distinction of exploring human sensibilities at a
particular stage in history, it must look beyond raw hostilities and put its
finger on the pulse of the common man. Fiction by Anita Desai has looked beyond
communalism and the blame game and explored the consequences of Partition. For
instance, In Custody puts the spotlight on the dwindling influence of Urdu in
India and a Hindi professor’s quest to revive his passion for a language he is
compelled to forget. In a similar vein, Sorayya Khan’s Five Queen’s Road
unravels the post-Partition world of a family without delving deeper into the
political realm.
Overall, it is
difficult to find an objective fictional account of Partition unless the author
fast-forwards his or her narrative to a time when the violence is a thing of
the past. This is predominantly because it is difficult to look beyond the
scars of communalism and develop a neutral stance.
OPEN PAGE, The Hindu
dt 10 January 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment