Revisiting the Concept of Absurdity in Today’s Covid-Ridden World

What if you woke up as an insect? Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis is a reminder how the reality of today is grossly absurd.

“One morning, when Gregor Samsa woke from troubled dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into a horrible vermin.”

Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis opens with this absurdist line which eerily resonates with the times we have come to live in – filled with utter confusion, anxiety and a profound sense of meaninglessness. Over the last few months, we have consistently woken up to the news of death and devastation caused by a deadly, contagious virus which has managed to wreak havoc across the length and breadth of the globe.

Life, in all the ways we have known it, has come to what seems like an interminable standstill. Employment, education, trade, commerce and economic activities of various kinds have not had to face this magnitude of uncertainty at any point in the recent past. Our everyday lives are irrefutably intertwined with thoughts of potential sickness, misery and death.

There seems to be no way to fully comprehend what is happening around us, for every living moment is filled with fear, dread and unpredictability. The anchors we had relied on so far are unable to give us any definitive answers. Science, religion and even history is able to only suggest possibilities based on available evidence. There are no conclusive answers, but the questions are innumerable.

What is happening? Why is it happening? How did it all begin? Is there a way forward? If there is, what is that going to be like?

We have no idea because a lot of us, across generations, have never had to face anything of this sort. We have never had to navigate our way through a world filled this abundantly with danger, disease and incoherence. The situation we find ourselves in reminded me of Gregor Samsa, the travelling salesman who wakes up one morning to find that he has transformed into a grotesque, monstrous, insect-like creature in Kafka’s Metamorphosis. An action as ordinary and unremarkable as waking up turns Samsa’s life upside-down.

Samsa never finds out how and why he metamorphosed into a “horrible vermin”. Kafka also provides no explanation through the course of the novella. We as readers are only made to sense the absurd nature of Samsa’s life post the metamorphosis, and partake vicariously in the acutely unpleasant turns it takes. We are given no clarification or justification with regard to the nature of Samsa’s condition.

It just is what it is.


Also read: Coronavirus: Why Sisyphus Comes to Mind As I Struggle Everyday


In A Glossary of Literary Terms, M.H. Abrams and Geoffrey Harpham state that literature of the absurd,

“…reveals the meaninglessness of existence and the underlying abyss or void or nothingness on which any supposed security is conceived to be precariously suspended.”

If not life as a whole, the version of life that the coronavirus disease has introduced us to seems to be seeped in meaninglessness. We are at a stage where performing the most regular of life activities can put us and thousands of people around us in immediate danger. Who would have thought that there would come a time where venturing out without protective gear like masks and gloves would be an anomaly? It does not make much sense if one were to really think about it.

How did we get here? However, it is our reality, much like Samsa’s. It is grossly absurd but also real.

This is not to say that there is no scope for hope, because who says that hope is where certainty is? We may not know exactly what to expect next. We cannot be sure of where we will reach over the next few months. But, as Albert Camus once said,

“…Accepting the absurdity of everything around us is one step, a necessary experience: it should not become a dead end…”

Maybe we should not be looking for meaning at all. Maybe we should acknowledge the state of meaninglessness and absurdity around us, and make peace with it. Maybe that, is the only way forward.

Monica Rajgopal is a student of literature from Bangalore.

I Was Forced to Quit JNU After Being Denied Salary for Ten Months

Denying myself and one other faculty member our sole source of income was an administrative ploy to get us to leave the university.

The Delhi high court on November 27 instructed the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) administration to pay salaries to Rosina Nasir and myself, Kaustav Banerjee, faculty members at the Centre for the Study of Discrimination and Exclusion – now renamed as the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy.

The case (Kaustav Banerjee vs JNU) pertains to myself and Dr Nasir not having been paid our dues since October 2017.

The JNU administration stopped paying us salaries even as we continued to teach and supervise PhD and M.Phil students, besides executing our duties as hostel wardens.

Denying us our sole source of income was an administrative ploy to get the teachers to leave the university. In its petition to the court, however, the JNU administration argued they did not have the adequate funds.

The University Grants Commission (UGC), over the past decade, has provided grants-in-aid for the country’s social exclusion centres and commission’s lawyer said in court that lakhs were disbursed to the JNU administration in May to meet salary needs. Curiously, JNU’s financial decision makers ‘adjusted’ this grant to past debts.

The Delhi high court judge thus instructed JNU to clear the dues within four weeks, failing which the registrar was summoned to appear in person. The judge also instructed the UGC to release the grant – if not already done – within two weeks of the hearing date. The university was thereby stripped of the ingenious plea of not receiving UGC funds.

Kaustav Banerjee vs JNU court order by The Wire on Scribd

The judge remarked in passing that the JNU VC, also a committee member in the UGC, can mutually sort out the problem. But that the teachers must be paid.

The two of us started M.Phil/PhD programmes in the centre with two other colleagues in 2013. The centre now has 70 students working on various aspects of discrimination and exclusion. Almost 20 students have submitted their M.Phil and three their PhD dissertations under our supervision.

The urgency to suspend our salaries from October 2017 onwards seems to be connected to the administration hiring two new faculty members to fill permanent positions created in the School of Social Sciences.

The interviews for these posts, which were held in early October 2017 under the new dean, ran into serious controversy. The dean was accused of bypassing several senior faculty members and was instrumental in handpicking the new recruits. According to some newspaper reports, the fresh entrants faced allegations of plagiarism. It was also alleged that they lacked specific degrees required for the positions.

Similar allegations have surfaced in many fresh appointments. But this case is especially stark since two serving faculty members could lose their jobs to accommodate the new recruits.

The court has, however, righted one wrong and the due salaries will now possibly be paid.

Also read: Jawaharlal Nehru University – We are Dying, Mr. Vice-Chancellor

Even as the court intervention provided collective relief, I resigned under duress and moved to another university. Rosina Nasir continues to teach at JNU.

While this sordid saga might seem like an internal JNU matter, it actually has far wider implications. The UGC is indifferent to all 35 centres spread across the country. Even though it funds them, the centres are either monetarily starved or do not have regularised faculty. In the last five years, UGC has thrice tried to close down these centres, especially the one at JNU.

Last March, the UGC sent a letter to the centre ordering its closure. Later, the UGC clarified that the letter was forged and an investigation is underway to probe it.

Amid the furore last March, the centres were given a year-long extension.

However, the extension, formally notified only in July 2017, was pared down to six months, subject to a review by UGC. Not only did the staff at these centres suffer job-loss anxieties, but we were also not paid salaries for several months.

On two occasions in the past – first in 2013 and then in 2017 – the UGC withdrew its closure notices saying the centre’s work will be reviewed. Reviews, indeed, are useful for the government to formulate inclusive policies.

The centres were again sent a letter dated September 27, 2017, seeking details of the quantifiable outcomes. They were further requested to send within one week the details of the last five years’ work.

Even the Sangh mouthpiece, Panchajanya, targeting the centre, published an article titled ‘JNU – Daraar ka garh’ (loosely translated as JNU – the fortress fomenting division), where it framed the Centre for the Study of Discrimination and Exclusion and the North East India Study Program as part of a larger “conspiracy,” with “leftists and Christian missionaries” corrupting minds of the educated class.

Also read: Future of JNU Could Be at Stake as Teachers, VC Headed for a Battle

Failure to close down the centres led to the next option – undo the centre’s academic character: appoint unqualified candidates if only because of their loyalty to the present government.

My extension along with that of Dr Nasir was scheduled to end on September 30, 2017. The UGC, however, extended our tenure till March 2019 vide a notice dated October 17, 2017. The centre in the meantime held interviews for two permanent positions on October 13, 2017. Two new faculty members were hired. The only way the administration could have made us leave was by stripping us of our salaries.

Under duress, I finally resigned on July 31, after not being paid for ten months.

I teach at a university and not a gurukul system. I teach ekalavyas to not cut off their thumbs and tell them how to wield pens.

JNU taught me to doubt almost everything. From questioning one’s own disciplinary boundaries to the irreverent run-ins with authority, the university taught me to experiment with many truths.

Kaustav Banerjee is currently associate professor, Global Studies, Ambedkar University Delhi.

Jawaharlal Nehru University – We are Dying, Mr. Vice-Chancellor

We are now mere employees, not self-reflexive, autonomous, dignified teachers and researchers.

I have been teaching at Jawaharlal Nehru University since 1990. Possibly, the nilgais, trees, butterflies and even stray dogs that characterise the landscape of the university recognise me, and say ‘hello’ to me as I roam around the campus. However, the administration looks at the world somewhat differently. It suspects; it classifies; it disciplines. No wonder, recently, I was blocked twice by the security guard hired from a private agency. Fortunately, I was carrying my university identity card with me. He looked at it carefully; and then he observed me from top to bottom. Finally, he allowed me to enter the campus. I do not blame the security guard – possibly, a migrant from Bihar or Uttar Pradesh somehow surviving in this heartless city;  he has been instructed to do his ‘duty’. True, for some time I felt hurt; but then, as a ‘pragmatic’ citizen I told myself: “Come on. Don’t you allow every part of your body to be touched and scrutinised by the cops in the airport and the railway station? Don’t you realise that surveillance is desirable and normal for your safety, and the safety of the nation? Accept it. Cool down.” Yes, we are all learning to accept. Possibly, it is not far away when we will accept special dress code for us; we will accept CCTV cameras in our classrooms; and we will allow our lectures to be recorded by an ‘external agency’. We will prove ourselves as disciplined/loyal employees. And everything is for the glory of the nation!

A ‘saviour’ amid disempowered teachers

As a student, I joined this university in 1979. K.R. Narayanan was our vice-chancellor. Let me recall an incident. He was delivering a lecture on India’s foreign policy. After his brilliant speech, he invited young students and researchers to ask questions; and with absolute comfort he responded to their questions. The incident made me feel that a self-confident/dignified vice-chancellor is one who treats even young students as potential colleagues and intellectual partners. These days I am not very sure whether I can retain the similar expectation from the vice-chancellors of our universities.

Also read: How JNU VC Lost His Own Institution’s Trust

There are moments when in the absence of an environment conducive to a dignified communication, many of us do not get an opportunity to know our vice-chancellors. Well, I met my VC only once when he came to our Centre to chair a special meeting. Possibly, I too have to be blamed for this. I teach; I do not ‘socialise’ much. My ‘public relations’ skill, I suspect, are terrible. Moreover, in recent times there were two functions that I chose to boycott – the functions where the vice-chancellor, as the notification suggested, was supposed to be present. Let me state my reasons. I feel that Sadhguru – the ‘spiritual guru’ who sells the package of ‘inner engineering’ – was not the right person to be invited on the occasion of the Nehru Memorial Lecture, and initiate a constructed ‘real’ conversation on ‘youth and truth’ . Likewise, I was not very enthusiastic to be taught the lessons of bravery and patriotism by a noisy/hysteric retired Army General for celebrating the ‘Surgical Strike Day’.

At times, I see myself as a character that Franz Kafka would have loved to depict – a cog in a machine receiving only circulars and ‘show cause’ notices from the administrative ‘castle’. There is no communication, no dialogue in which two colleagues participate as equal partners and debate whether the autonomy of the course teacher – sustained through the fusion of horizons in the process of a dialogue with the colleagues in the respective centres – is sacred and important in the domain of advanced teaching and research, or whether without the bureaucratic practice of mandatory attendance it is still possible to evolve appropriate pedagogic practices to make both teachers and students perpetually alert, accountable and responsible. Instead, it is almost like an army command. Reflect on the kind of notices/circulars that invade our mental space almost everyday.

The Dean is requesting each faculty member of the school to provide the course outline and reading list, the mid semester question papers and term paper questions in soft copy for every paper being taught by him/her, to the Dean’s office, through the Chairperson by October 8, 2018.

***

As desired by the Dean, you (the chairperson) are requested to please provide the names of those faculty members who have not been taking students’s attendance in their lectures since January 2018, by 10 am of Monday October 8, 2018.

Also read: The Danger That Lies in Academic Bureaucrats Taking Over Our Universities

At times, what worries me is that the administration has eventually succeeded in its endeavour. Yes, fear is all-pervading. When you target 48 teachers (by issuing show cause notices) out of not less than 200 teachers who participated in a peaceful demonstration for articulating their concerns relating to academic/pedagogic issues, you try to nurture the psychology of fear. One begins to think: “Well, this time I am saved. But if tomorrow I participate in yet another protest march, they may target me. Hence, it is better to be careful.” Yes, fear is of different kinds – fear of salary cut, fear of service break, fear of not getting the sabbatical or even duty leave, fear of being evicted from the warden’s residence, fear of not being appointed as a  chairperson or a Dean. And this fear, I suspect, would be cancerous if the administration imposes the Central Civil Services Rules on us. As fear spreads, the administration succeeds in dividing – and dividing negatively – the teaching community. I tend to believe that as teachers we can classify ourselves into following categories:

‘Silent’ teachers – those who retain the pretence of professional ‘value-neutrality’, and express no opinion on the issues affecting us, be it the proposal of introducing the biometrics, or the seat cut for research programmes. This ‘silence’ can be forced or even diplomatic.

‘Well-adjusted’ teachers – those who think that as teachers we should not make noise; instead, we should adjust and continue to lead our ‘normal’ lives with our decent middle class comfort.

‘Strategic’ teacher – those who think that smartness is the need of the hour. The best strategy, they believe, is to wait till 2019. In case Rahul Gandhi comes to power, something might happen…. Meanwhile, they wait, and smartly separate their ‘Marxist/subalternist’ scholarship from everyday practice.

‘Loyal’ teachers – those who believe that it is always good to be friendly with those who are in power. The emperor, they think, can never be naked. They love to find themselves in all sorts of committees. They smell power and confuse its temporality with something eternal.

‘Mad/idealist’ teachers – those who, because of the burden of conscience, create problems, raise their dissenting voices, express their agony and pain, and without being diplomatic continue to dream of the idea of a dialogic university enriched by academic autonomy, enabling administration and symmetrical teacher-taught relationship based on trust, not surveillance.

File photo of JNU vice-chancellor M. Jagadeesh Kumar. Credit: PTI

Apart from this division, what further spreads poison is the changing nature of collegial relationship. It is forcing the chairperson to behave more like an administrator rather than a colleague representing the collective voice of the Centre; and the Dean too is required to exist just like a mediator between the administration and the chairpersons. It creates the culture of the sub-group of ‘like minded’ people; it destroys the element of basic trust among the colleagues; the psychology of whispering and gossiping causes a toxic social environment. Faculty Committee meetings become noisy; and Academic Council meetings lose the slightest trace of transparency. The irony is that even many of us who have been teaching here for quite some time tend to suspect ourselves. We want to believe that we are essentially irresponsible and hence the administration is right in thinking of the biometrics. We say that the essay type/subjective questions in the entrance test are faulty and hence we must immediately accept the online MCQ pattern of examination. We feel that we ought to be perpetually tutored by the Deans; and hence we must submit the course outline, reading list and even mid-semester/end-semester question papers to them for the final approval. With such chronic self-doubt many of us have begun to believe that everything that used to happen in this place was wrong, and hence the present vice-chancellor is a saviour: the best thing that has happened to this ‘troubled’ public university!

We are dying…. It becomes difficult to concentrate, read a book and think of the lecture because responding to the ever-expanding circulars is becoming our first priority. The other day a student of mine teaching at Mysore University invited me to deliver a talk in a seminar she would be organising in the month of November. I refused because I was not very sure whether I (already stigmatised through a show cause notice) would get the duty leave. Yes, we are broken. We are now mere employees, not self-reflexive, autonomous, dignified teachers and researchers. Mr. vice-chancellor, it seems, this is your victory. Celebrate it at the cost of the fall of an iconic institution.

Avijit Pathak is a Professor of Sociology at JNU.

‘Where They Burn Books, They Will Burn Men as Well’

Memories of the Nazi book burnings from 85 years ago have important lessons for us in India today.

It had been a balmy early-summer day in Berlin, but by late afternoon, storm clouds started gathering overhead. As evening fell, a slight drizzle set in, forcing many Berliners to stay indoors. Yet, groups of young women and men – more men than women – started converging on the Opernplatz, one of Berliners’ favourite rendezvous that stands by the side of the magnificent Unter den Linden, Berlin’s Champs- Elysees. More and more people came, till the plaza swarmed with a crowd of nearly 40,000.

It was not a holiday, but the mood of the crowd seemed festive – in a manner of speaking. There was chanting of slogans, singing of National Socialist songs, notably ‘Es zittern die morschen Knochen ‘(‘The rotten bones are trembling’), and beating of drums even as some young men on the microphone were urging the crowd to clear out from a circular space  in the plaza’s middle. Lights had come on all around the square and in the noble buildings that ringed it – the State Opera House and behind it the St Hedwig’s Cathedral, the Kronprinzenpalais, the Old Palace and the Old Library. Across the road, Humboldt University’s main campus still hummed with activity.

Clearly, the stage was being set for a special event right at the heart of central Berlin. It was May 10, 1933. A long and very dark night loomed ahead.

The Nazi students’ unions had announced a ‘cleansing’ drive all around Germany that day, a project for the ‘purification’ of the German nation’s ‘soul’. The launch of the grand project had necessarily to happen at the Third Reich’s star city, but all around the country, many university towns were also to celebrate the event at the same time.

Late in the evening, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister of propaganda (and after the Fuehrer’s death, Germany’s Supreme Leader for all of one day) arrived to a tumultuous welcome. The musicians piped up, crackers burst noisily, and the crowd cheered their leader lustily as Goebbels prepared to speak. He spoke as only he could, invoking the ‘great German spirit’ and calling upon Germany’s youth to rid their great country of all the evils that plagued it – the Jewry, communists, pacifists, ‘vagabonds’ and homosexuals.

Fiery but short, the speech ended to clenched-fist salutes and noisy ‘Heil Hitlers!’, and then the evening’s centrepiece was unveiled. In the clearing at the square’s middle, numerous sacks crammed with books were overturned and their contents tumbled out on to the cobblestones with some help from the ardent purifiers. These were carefully chosen ‘un-German’ books, 20,000 (25,000, according to some estimates) in number, plundered from public libraries, private bookshelves and academic collections.

Hitler Youth burning books on that fateful night in Berlin. Credit: World Archive/CC/Wikipedia

The ‘honours list’ was impressive: Stefan Zweig, Thomas and Heinrich Man, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Kafka, Eric Maria Remarque, August Bebel, Bertolt Brecht, Anna Seghers, Klaus Mann, Ernest Hemingway, Heinrich Heine, Upton Sinclair and Eric Kastner huddled together in that insane pile. For good measure, works of Friedrich Engels, Albert Einstein, Maxim Gorky, Victor Hugo, Henri Barbusse and Vladimir Lenin were also tossed in. Then the assembly intoned a solemn, dire pledge:  “Against decadence and moral decay! For discipline and decency in the family and the nation! I commit to the flames the writings of ….”

The bonfire was then lit, and a collective roar the like of which Germany had not heard since the Crusades rent the night air. There were bizarre scenes of jubilation as the tongues of fire, first blue, then greyish orange, and finally devilish red, leapt up towards the sky. Burning and crackling paper seemed to inebriate the crowd like the most potent Bavarian beer. People danced, sang, wept and hugged one another even as thick, billowing smoke swept over them. The scene was surreal. Goya’s Witches’ Sabbath, showing the moonlit silhouette of a giant he-goat towering over a coven of cavorting witches, comes close to capturing the spirit of that evening.

The great anti-war novelist Arnold Zweig, who happened to watch the proceedings from a distance, noted how “the crowd would have stared as happily into the flames if live humans were burning instead (of books)”. He made up his mind that very night to leave the country. Stephan Zweig fled a few days later, never to return. He killed himself, lonely and heartbroken, in far-away Rio de Janeiro in 1942. Einstein was away lecturing in California, and never again saw the sun rise over Germany. All three were Jewish, and pogroms against Jews had already started in the Reich by then, as Hitler consolidated his power and set about destroying all opposition.

The satirist and celebrated children’s story-teller Erich Kastner was not Jewish, but he also was ‘purged’ that fateful evening, presumably for his well-known pacifist views. In fact, this gentle soul was present at the conflagration when his novel Fabina was tossed into the fire. He was recognised, people jeered at him and threw him ugly taunts, but he quietly stood his ground. He continued to live in Berlin through its darkest years, faced every kind of humiliation, was stripped of his position on the Writers’ Guild, but said, memorably:

I am a German from Dresden in Saxony,

My homeland won’t let me go.

I am like a tree that, grown in Germany,

Will likely wither there also.

Kastner’s home was devastated in allied bombings in 1944, as was his native city, Dresden, somewhat later. After the war, he moved to Munich, probably unable to stand the sight of the ruins to which both Berlin and Dresden had been reduced.

The book-burning carnival was not as roaring a success everywhere as Germany’s purifiers had hoped – not  because there was not enough enthusiasm – or enough books to burn – but because rain played spoil-sport that night. In fact, even at Opernplatz the blaze had to be helpfully stoked by spraying gas over the pile – by fire-fighters, of all people – as the drizzle turned into a steady rain. But what mattered was that the message had been broadcast loud and clear: Nazism had conquered not merely political power but Germany’s cultural landscape as well, and one could demur only on pain of death. “(A) master from Germany death comes with eyes that are blue/with a bullet of lead he will hit the mark he will hit you”, in Paul Celan’s unforgettable words.

Opernplatz today is Bebelplatz, after the great German socialist-internationalist August Bebel (1840-1913), who fought tirelessly both for workers’ rights and against nationalistic  jingoism. It now hosts the Book Burning Memorial which, designed by the Israeli artist Micha Ullman, was unveiled in 1995. I had my first glimpse of the memorial on a late November day, when a stiff wind blew in my face and the sun played hide and seek with a high bank of clouds.

It is an unusual memorial and I must confess I did not find it easy to locate. In the middle of the cobble-stone plaza, you get to see a thick plate-glass lid over a yawning void drilled deep into the earth. Once your eyes adjust to the light reflected off the glass cover, you can make out rows upon rows of empty book-shelves standing mutely inside the pit in witness to the carnage of May 10, 1933.

The Book Burning Memorial in Bebelplatz Plaza in Berlin. Credit: Wikipedia

Those shelves were so crafted as to hold 20,000 books or more. And right next to this eloquent nothingness of a sunken, empty library, is a black granite tablet, lying face up, which reads, in white letterings in German, this:

That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn men as well.

The quote is from Heine’s tragedy Almansor, written in 1821. Heine, a Jew, figured prominently on the list of the ‘un-Germanic’ writers whose works were consigned to Nazi flames on that summer night. A more stunning prognosis of a catastrophe is hard to come by in all of recorded history. Hitler and his hordes are dead and gone, but Heinrich Heine stands tall still, right in the middle of the civilised world, to warn us all against the evils of bigotry and obscurantism.

It is three years since I looked into the abyss that Hitler’s young foot-soldiers had dug into the heart of Heine’s (and Goethe’s, and Beethoven’s) Germany. Sadly in these three years, Heine’s warning has assumed even greater urgency across the world. In Germany, as in Austria, Italy, the Netherlands and France – not to speak of Hungary, Poland and other former members of the now-defunct Red Block – hyper-nationalism and crass isolationism have in large measure managed to push the few surviving relics of the Enlightenment against the wall. Sabre-rattling is no longer the sole preserve of serving army generals, as Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have shown us. Putin’s Russia has relapsed into authoritarianism and religious orthodoxy. Every variety of fanaticism, of intolerance is at a premium, and the world of man seems to be hurtling towards barbarism at frightening speed.

And in India, we may very well be on the edge of a precipice. The rallying cry of the Hindutva brigades, who enjoy the ruling establishment’s covert, even overt, support seems to echo the sinister slogans raised by the Nazi student agitators in 1933: “ The state has been conquered, but not yet the universities. The intellectual paramilitary is coming in. Raise your flag!”

Over the past many years (and especially during the last four), the state has been encroaching upon academia and the world of culture, indeed upon every institution of democracy, relentlessly, remorselessly. Books have been banned, even burned, movie halls vandalised, and the media has painted itself into a corner, to cower there pitifully. The most disheartening aspect of this tragedy has been the fact that the country’s youth has been made the principal engine of coercion everywhere – be it in cow vigilantism, moral policing or strident anti-liberalism on university campuses.

With a shudder, one recognises the uncanny resemblances between our young, social media-savvy saffron hit-men who throng the WhatsApp universe, and the Nazi militants bristling with hate that night in Berlin. Erich Kastner remembers how he “stood in front of the university, wedged between students in SA (Brownshirts’) uniforms, in the prime of their lives, and saw our books fly into the quivering fire”.

Perhaps our home-grown Fascists have devised an even more ingenious method of destroying books: by re-writing them wholesale. And that macabre project is targeted at the potential book-burners of our unhappy country – India’s young. It is only by being aware of mankind’s collective past that we can hope to turn India away from the disastrous path on which Hitler’s Indian admirers have firmly set their sights. Our young women and men need to learn this lesson, and learn it well and fast.

Anjan Basu freelances as a literary critic, translator and commentator. He can be reached at basuanjan52@gmail.com

The Story of the Indian Bardo behind George Saunders’ Booker Winning ‘Lincoln in the Bardo’

Saunders’ experimental novel winning the prize opens up many new possibilities. Now, Indian Anglophone authors might finally think of adapting concepts from the vast philosophical traditions of the East.

Saunders’ experimental novel winning the prize opens up many new possibilities. Now, Indian Anglophone authors might finally think of adapting concepts from the vast philosophical traditions of the East.

An ethnic Tibetan woman walks behind prayer wheels at the Larung Wuming Buddhist Institute. Credit: Reuters

An ethnic Tibetan woman walks behind prayer wheels at the Larung Wuming Buddhist Institute. Credit: Reuters

‘Buddhist-inspired ghost story set during the American Civil War’. This is how Anthony Cummins described George Saunders’ Man Booker Prize Winning novel Lincoln in the Bardo – ‘the hotly anticipated and then rapturously received first novel from an American heavyweight who made his name over two decades with his comic, dystopian short stories.’

Saunders – who said the novel had been in his heart for 20 years and that he had previously tried writing it ‘a couple of times and it didn’t work’ – was the bookies favourite. The judges praised the ‘utterly original’ work and said it was ‘deeply moving’.

BBC’s arts correspondent Rebecca Jones commented:

‘This is initially a rather off-putting book – it’s got a rather strange title and when you read the first few pages, you don’t really know what’s going on.’

The ‘strange title’ is because of the word ‘bardo’. What is bardo, where did it come from and how did it enter our consciousness?

The Bardo Thodol

The Bardo Thodol is a classic work of Tibetan Buddhism. In Tibet it is known as ‘The Great Book of Natural Liberation Through Understanding in the Between’. The ‘in the between’, the intermediate state – after what we commonly understand as ‘death’ – is called the bardo.

In Sanskrit bardo is antarabhava – transitional state, in-between state and luminal state of the consciousness of the karmic souls after leaving a human body and before taking another form or getting liberated.

The Bardo Thodol is from a larger corpus of teachings which fall under Nyingma literature – the Profound Dharma of Self-Liberation through the Intention of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones – revealed by Karma Lingpa. I say revealed, because the Tibetans believe that the text was originally composed by Padma Sambhava and was revealed by Karma Lingpa (1326 –1386).

Padma Sambhava – whose status in Tibetan Buddhism is only next to Sakyamuni Buddha – is known to have left many ‘hidden treasures’/wisdom texts which are meant to be discovered and revealed by chosen people – the ‘tertons’ – when the time is right. The ‘hidden-treasures’ tradition is known as ‘Terma’ – a key concept in Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism.  There is a corpus of Tibetan texts which come under Terma teachings and they have been translated in multiple languages.

Going by the Tibetan tradition, one has to credit Padma Sambhava (‘Lotus-Born’) – also known as Guru Rinpoche – for introducing the word bardo into the vocabulary of humanity via Karma Lingpa.

Bardo Thodol

Bardo Thodol or The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Credit: Google ebook

Padma Sambhava – the founder of Vajrayana: an enigmatic school of the esoteric Tantric Buddhism – was the 8th century saint who came to be venerated as the ‘second Buddha’ – especially across Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and the Himalayan states of India.

So, bardo is a word coined by a Buddhist, that has entered the world via Tibet.

There are two kinds of history – real history and mythological history. The combination of both have led the scholars to locate the birth place of Padma Sambhava – the kingdom of Oddiyana – to swat valley (now in Pakistan) or the present Indian state of Odisha.

It is more probable that Padma Sambhava came from Eastern India, because Vajrayana Buddhism grew in Vanga – present day Bengal. The famous Buddhist masters Asita Dipankara, Tilopa and Naropa – associated with Nalanda University – came from Vanga: the ancient name of Bengal.

For over 700 years, till the early 20th century, the Bardo Thodol remained in Tibet.

Walter Evans-Wentz (1878-1965) was an American anthropologist and writer who pioneered the study of Tibetan Buddhism.

Evans-Wentz accidentally encountered Bardo Thodol in Tibet and was the first person to translate the text into English. He published the translation in 1927 – Bardo Thodol came to be known as The Tibetan Book of The Dead.

The cult status of The Tibetan Book of The Dead grew in the 1960s when Timothy Leary, Ralph Metzner and Richard Alpert co-authored a book called The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on The Tibetan Book of The Dead.

The Tibetan Book of The Dead has never been out of print ever since.

Now in 2017, the Man Booker Prize to Saunders’ Lincoln in the Bardo has brought the word bardo into greater focus.

I am yet to read Saunders’ novel that adapts the bardo to form his historical narrative based upon an intimate issue: the death of Abraham Lincoln’s child.

The prize to an experimental novel that taps into a ‘foreign’ cultural idea – of the bardo – opens up many new possibilities. Indian Anglophone authors might finally think of adapting ideas and concepts from the vast philosophical and spiritual traditions of the East, to frame their works in the future, and won’t wait for the Western Anglophone authors to show the way.

Till now, the overwhelming majority of the Anglophone Indian literary authors have avoided taking inspiration from the corpus of philosophical and spiritual literature of India. Primarily, the focus has been in the socio-political sphere, memoirs, immigration and history.

George Saunders, author of 'Lincoln in the Bardo', poses for photographers after winning the Man Booker Prize for Fiction 2017 in London, Britain, October 17, 2017. Credit: Reuters

George Saunders, author of ‘Lincoln in the Bardo’, poses for photographers after winning the Man Booker Prize for Fiction 2017 in London, Britain, October 17, 2017. Credit: Reuters

Jorge Luis Borges delved into Indian philosophical texts – especially Buddhism – and wove various ideas into his works. Carlos Fuentes based his magnum opus Terra Nostra on reincarnation. Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha told the story of the spiritual journey of a person during the time of Sakyamuni Buddha. Franz Kafka was influenced by Eastern spirituality – especially Taoism. T.S. Eliot employed allusions from Buddhism and Upanishads in The Wasteland. There are many such examples from Henry David Thoreau to W.H. Auden. But I cannot name a single well known Indian Anglophone author who has adapted ideas and concepts from Indian philosophy.

To paraphrase Amartya Sen, who once said that the tendency of the Anglophone Indians to ignore the philosophical works of India, is a ‘mistake’.

There is a political dimension to this as well. In the general absence of the liberal and the progressive intellectuals and authors delving into our tradition – in religion, science, philosophy and mysticism – the right wing is trying to fill the vacuum and making a hash of it.

To give an example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remark about Ganesha and plastic surgery is well known. I don’t know of anyone from the liberal and progressive circles who hasn’t made jokes out of that remark. But there was no one to point out that Sushruta Samhita is an ancient Sanskrit text on medicine and surgery that is a pioneering work of human civilisation. It includes chapters describing surgical training, instruments and procedures.

Sushruta is already acknowledged as the ‘father of plastic surgery’ and the contribution of India to that field can be rightfully highlighted.

Ideally, ignorance – stemming from fantastical exaggeration and also neglect – needs to be avoided.

We also cannot allow the right wing – that portrays itself as the defender of all things Hindu/Indian – to muddle truths with exaggerations, falsities and distortions to serve their political agenda.

There is an urgent need for the liberal and the progressives of the Indian Anglosphere to engage with our ‘knowledge heritage’ in the time of right wing theocratic nationalism.

I have two copies of the Bardo Thodol or The Tibetan Book of the Dead – the one translated by Evans-Wentz and a latter translation by Robert Thurman, that includes a foreword by Dalai Lama.

For those who are intrigued and interested, I can recommend the two translations, for a deeper understanding of the bardo.

Devdan Chaudhuri is the author of Anatomy of Life. He is one of the contributing editors of The Punch Magazine. He lives in Kolkata.

In Kazuo Ishiguro’s Writings, a Hauntingly Beautiful Simplicity of Prose

Beneath the ostensible simplicity in Kazuo Ishiguro’s words lies buried the contours of an emotional volcano waiting to burst open. But Ishiguro never makes that apparent.

When the Nobel Committee announced Kazuo Ishiguro as the recipient of the 2017 Nobel Prize for literature, the permanent member, Sara Danius, described Ishiguro as being a mix between Jane Austen and Franz Kafka, with Marcel Proust thrown in too. It seemed like an odd description. The latter two giants – Kafka and Proust – are, of course, plastered all over Ishiguro’s works and to any serious reader it isn’t difficult to discern these influences. But why Austen? Is it the texture of manners that are ostensibly draped over an Ishiguro character, like Mr Stevens from his The Remains of the Day? But you get this from Proust too – that quintessential chronicler of bourgeois life and sediment of memories, real and suppressed, which Proust seeks to uncover.

But then, after a moment’s reflection, I realised that there was some truth to the statement after all. In trying to find resonances of Austen within Ishiguro, and at least from Danius’s part, evoking Austen was a rather astute observation.

Firstly, as any new reader reading Ishiguro for the first time would vouch for, is the utter simplicity of his prose. Unlike his great contemporaries – Salman Rushdie, Julian Barnes, Martin Amis and John Banville – an Ishiguro novel doesn’t indulge in linguistic acrobatics, it doesn’t contain stunning and clever word play, or a sentence that arrests the reader’s attention by its very density. I’ll give an example. Sample the opening lines from John Banville’s Man Booker Prize winning novel, The Sea:

“They departed, the gods, on the day of the strange tide. All morning under a milky sky the waters in the bay had swelled and swelled, rising to unheard-of heights, the small waves creeping over parched sand that for years had known no wetting save for rain and lapping the very bases of the dunes.”

And here’s the opening line from Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go, the same book which was nominated alongside The Sea, for the Booker, that same year, in 2005:

“My name is Kathy H. I’m thirty-one years old, and I’ve been a carer now for over eleven years. That sounds long enough, I know, but actually they want me to go on for another eight months, until the end of this year. That’ll make it almost exactly twelve years. Now I know my being a carer so long isn’t necessarily because they think I’m fantastic at what I do. There are some really good carers who’ve been told to stop after just two or three years. And I can think of one carer at least who went on for all of fourteen years despite being a complete waste of space. So I’m not trying to boast. But then I do know for a fact they’ve been pleased with my work, and by and large, I have too.”

Both the writers grapple more or less with similar themes, like the fluidity of memories, and the hold those memories – reliable and unreliable – has over people, the myriad uncertain ways the suppressed past catches up, and the inability to ever reach a resolution. But Banville’s prose has a certain density that you characterise more with poetry than with prose. Ishiguro’s prose, on the other hand, is simple to the point of banality. His characters describe what they see, and as they see it. Banville’s prose demands the reader’s attention from the very first sentence. Ishiguro is more deceptive. Beneath this ostensible simplicity lies buried the contours of an emotional volcano waiting to burst open. But Ishiguro, the artist, never makes that apparent.

In many ways, this simplicity is also what you find in Austen’s works. Unlike Dickens, whose sentences are onward rolling, unrestrained, like a rolling car with faulty brakes, Austen’s sentences are like those used by a romantic interest on a first date; they charm you with their simplicity, wit and restraint. But long after the date is over, and you have returned to your lonely apartment, the conversation rushes back to you, and in that epiphany you realise the darker undercurrents concealed beneath.

You read Pride and Prejudice, for instance, with a slightly curved smile, as the wit and politeness of Austen’s sentences overtakes you. You revel in Elizabeth Bennett as she recovers from her initial prejudice and sees Darcy for what he is, sans his pride. You laugh over the caricature that is Mr Collins and rue over Charlotte Lucas’s choice. But then, after subsequent re-readings, you realise Lucas becomes a caricature precisely because Bennett and Darcy and their perfect marriage is constructed as a fantasy. There are no fairy tales in real life, there are only endless negotiations and compromise, without an eventual resolution.

Take Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, for example. Mr Stevens, at the outset, appears as we would imagine any British butler – polite, deferential and mannered. Mr Stevens tells us in the beginning that it’s likely he will “undertake the expedition that has been preoccupying my imagination now for some days.” What is this expedition? He wants to go visit his former colleague, Miss Kenton. Juggling in between exploring the relationship between Stevens and Miss Kenton, which is characterised by a certain degree of formality, but with strong undertones of mutual attraction, Ishiguro delves into the past and traces Stevens’s relationship also with his former master, Lord Darlington. That latter relationship is marked with an unshakeable loyalty that Stevens has towards Darlington. But Darlington is a German sympathiser and using these elements. Ishiguro maps the hidden cracks beneath Stevens’s composed, polite exterior demeanour: his stern loyalty towards his former master, vis-à-vis the post-war political reality, along with a love for Miss Kenton which he never articulated, allows Ishiguro the space to tease out subtle questions on the irrevocable nature of the past, the various ways regret casts its shadow on the present, the silences of our lives which we do not recognise, but which builds up eventually anyway.

This he revisits with a dreamlike force in his underappreciated masterpiece, The Unconsoled. The novel is about a certain pianist named Mr Ryder, who arrives in an unnamed European city for a concert. But as the novel progresses, we realise that this Mr Ryder is suffering from an unspecified memory loss. He learns things about himself as he prods his way through this phantasmagorical city. He meets a woman and a child in an elevator only to realise that they could just be his long lost wife and son. On one level, the novel is a frustrating read, as it goes on and on. A porter delivers a nearly five page monologue, and Ishiguro writes it in a way as if that monologue must have gone on for hours, when the contents of it could be dealt with within a few minutes.

As if, in slow motion. In many ways, the novel’s eerie quality reminds one of Kafka’s The Castle, where K goes on about his work, although no one knows what that is, and the town that is hostile, again for no specified reason. The sensorium of The Castle is claustrophobic, eerie to the point of being frustrating. Much like Kafka there, Ishiguro deals with inertia of both space and time, as we find the narrator locked up in a world he doesn’t understand, and a world which doesn’t understand him.

In many interviews of Ishiguro we find the writer talk fondly of his love of cinema, a love almost bordering on obsession. Maybe this could be the reason why his novels are what they are. The great American philosopher, Stanley Cavell, who has built his reputation reflecting on cinema, once pointed how the effect of movies is akin to that of a dream. When you awake from a dream, the dream doesn’t come back in full, but rather in unrelated fragments. Cinema is like that. Long after a movie is over, we don’t remember the movie chronologically from start to finish, but only through certain fragmented images.

Ishiguro’s novels are constructed like a movie, which in turn, works like a dream. Long after the book is over, we are haunted by images that make up the book. More than anything else, what we remember are not the plot or the character, but how those images made us feel. Much like a dream does. We are haunted by absences and silences. And that is the essence of an Ishiguro book.

The Nobel Committee, in giving him the 2017 Prize, described his novels as being of “great emotional force”, which “uncovered the abyss beneath our illusory sense of connection with the world”. There can be no greater encapsulation of this great and utterly original writer’s works. I am glad he finally got his due.

Arnav Das Sharma’s debut novel, Darklands, is being published by Penguin Random House and will be released later this year.