'I loathe being sensational'
Initial reactions to God's Little Soldier have been very good. There are comments about the change of style though, the shift in language used. I know you have talked about a need to constantly reinvent yourself, so was this a conscious effort?
I have always maintained that the content would dictate my language. I don't want to look at style.
Let me explain. As a child, I once went to Kashmir with my school. It was partly a disaster because I fell ill. But, after I recovered and was walking alone to meet the rest of the group, I came across an incredible pool of water. It was supposed to be a bottomless pond, and you really thought you could see almost forever. That is my notion of transparency in writing -- the deeper the waters, the more transparent they are. That is why I don't go in for obfuscation at all.
If that transparency is a value, then the idea is however much you work on style, it never shows. If at all there is an intention here, it is to remove -- while being fully conscious that you cannot -- the author's presence. I am not saying 'Look at me, look at me.' I don't know whether you agree, but with Salman Rushdie, for instance, the language draws attention to the author, not the character.
It is interesting that you mention Rushdie's choice of language, considering both of you have a background in advertising.
That's true. I am a much earlier author than he is though. My first novel was published in 1974, but the first half was published in Marathi in 1967. I respect his work enormously, especially his earlier work, but we go very different routes -- that is all I am trying to say.
The lead protagonist in God's Little Soldier, Zia Khan, is willing to die for his beliefs. You have stuck to yours as strongly, for many years. There's something almost subversive about having a part of you reflected in a character that is essentially an Islamic fundamentalist...
I am glad you think I am a subversive author. Having said that, one of the things I personally try and do is take risks. I think most Indians are under the impression that if you show someone having an affair, you have done something special.
The reason I have always thought of you as subversive is because you're so funny. People who are funny are always the ones who manage to get away with a lot.
I would like to take credit for this subversive aspect here, but I dare not. And if you find contradictions in what I'm saying, I am perfectly willing to accept this. I have no problems being inconsistent. I know that is the essence of good writing, in a way. Inconsistency is what human nature is about.
I don't know if it has something to do with my environment. I really think I do a lot of things instinctively. I wonder whether the subversion is also instinctive.
When I wrote my first book, I was accused of trying to be sensational. Now, subversive I can understand, but 'sensational' is just out of my league. I loathe being sensational. There are authors I have met over the last few years who have a persona, and flaunt it. I am not in awe of them, but I wonder how they do it. I just can't manage it (laughs).
I can see that I'm being subversive, in the Kabir section of the book, for instance. My bhakti is subversive.
Kabir and Tukaram were subversive...
Absolutely. I take them one stage further. You're right about the humour being subversive. Kabir is subversive in the book because I let the humour take over. But I think Mirabai, in Cuckold, is also subversive. Some people found it intolerable that she was jealous of the other wife. I seem to think that they are just human beings. You can't be a saint all the time. So, if I am being subversive, that is also a bent of mind. I am always surprised by it. I think that comes from a habit of questioning and doubting.
There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy, or an internal mechanism, that doesn't even permit us to admit we can have horrendous thoughts. Which is why we do not admit that mothers and sons may not get along at all. They may hate each other in India as much as elsewhere. I don't want to go into the Oedipal thing here, because I think that is very convenient. This is a much more complex relationship and I would like to retain that complexity, if possible.