Showing posts with label Tabish Khair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tabish Khair. Show all posts

Poems by Tabish Khair

Tabish Khair

RUMI AND THE REED

Listen to the song of the reed flute:
It sings of separation.
Torn from the leaf-layered, wind-voiced
Banks of the pond,
It is joined to sorrow and joy
By a slender sound.
Who, asked Rumi, can understand
The reed’s longing to return?
                     Let its raw lips rest then;
                     Let all words be brief then.

And I, O Believers, cried Rum
   (Having lost the man he loved),
I who am not of the East
Nor of the West, un-Christian,
 Not Muslim or Jew, neither
Born of Adam nor Eve,
What can I love but the world itself,
What can I kiss but flesh?
                     Let my raw lips rest then.
                     Let all words be brief.

(From WHERE PARALLEL LINES MEET)

AMMA

Down the stairs of this house where plaster flakes and falls,
Through the intimate emptiness of its rooms and hall,
I hear your slow footsteps, grandmother, echo or pause

As they used to through long summer afternoons spent within
The watered down four-walls of khus  and fragile drinks
Of ice, mango or lemon, the circle of water-melon crescents.

Slowly you shuffle examining each new tear in the curtains
Which will have to be mended when the first monsoon rain
Provides a respite from sun, curtails the need for shade.

Slowly on arthritic joints you move from room to room
Marking the damage of the years, evaluating how soon
The past will collapse or how long the present last.

You never need glasses to mark the contours of your house
Though you can’t see grandsons at a distance, once wore a blouse
Inside out. Nothing has changed, grandmother, no, not yet;

Though your collected steps never turn the corner into you
In a starched and white sari, the fragrance of soap around you.
And all the curtains have long been taken down.

(From WHERE PARALLEL LINES MEET)

THE BIRDS OF NORTH EUROPE

Twenty four years in different European cities and he had not lost
His surprise at how birds stopped at the threshold
Of their houses. Never

Flying into rooms, to be decapitated by fan-blades or carefully
Herded through open windows to another life, never
Building on the lampshade

Or on some forgotten, cool corner-beam where droppings and straw
Would be tolerated until the fateful day hatched
And the world was fragile

Shell, feathers, a conspiratorial rustle of wings above and of
An intrigued girl below. Even the birds in their neat towns
Knew their place. They

Did not intrude into private spheres, demanding to be overlooked
Or worshipped. They did not consider houses simply
Exotic trees or hollowed

Hills. Not being particularly learned he did not know the thread
Of fear that knots the wild to the willed; not
Being well-read he

Did not remember the history behind their old and geometrical
Gardens, could not recall a time when the English
Parliament had killed a bill,

Shocked by a jackdaw’s flight across the room. He simply marked
The absence of uncaged birds in their homes. He thought
It was strange.

(From WHERE PARALLEL LINES MEET)

MONSTERS

Theirs the city of the sayable. Hers its suburbs,
Filling with the screamed obscenities of graffiti, gestures
At coherent articulation, the word within that world
Of splashed red, aerosoled blue, skulls and crossbones,
Crashing cars, rose out of a gun barrel, space monsters, all
Unable to utter a sound that will count as speech.

It is in such a moment of sheer scream, unsayable,
That Shakuntala looks in the mirror and is surprised
To see fangs and fire, a gaping mouth like Kali’s,
Goddess culled from the anger of colonisation:
It is a vision that lasts only a second, but in it
Are contained the silent stories of her history.

Her lineage is monstrous. Scylax said so:
Daughter of the dog-faced and blanket-eared.
Such many-armed, hydra-headed ancestors
Shocked the evangelising white man, puzzled
The aesthetes of Europe in later centuries:
Truth and beauty have long been denied her.

Did her mothers know what she has forgotten:
The choice was between mirror and monster?

How to keep their devdasis from turning nuns

In Danse des servantes ou esclaves des dieux,
They loosened their limbs in the cosmic dance
Of the oppressed – fingers, arms, heads flew off

Leonardo da Vinci’s symmetrical bodies
And the mirror of that white gaze shattered
On develish formes and uglie shapes. Adam
Stood speechless before monstrous Ada,
Which hath foure hands with clawes
The better to rip you with, coloniser?

Faced with humanity, they could not look
Into those eyes and fail to be struck blind
By the injustice of it all, their own greed:
Monsters filled their mirrors. It was safer
To lose in that adytum of demons the truth
Of bodies with blackened teeth, minds on fire.


(From MAN OF GLASS, 2010)

Setu Award for Excellence 2016

Tabish Khair and Usha Kishore: Writers that have electrified us by their sheer energy and monumental presence. 

 Setu, USA, is honored in honoring these two distinct diasporic signatures acting as a crucial Setu (bridge) between different nations and cultures through their unifying visions of humanism and liberalism in these toxic times. These are comforting voices. Setu awards for excellence, 2016 are being awarded to both the artists. The citations are being shared by the editorial board. Congrats to the writers that have always supported good cause, literary journalism, little press and journals. We, indeed, are lucky and celebrating at Setu, the global community of artists, this great event. 


Next month, Setu awards for excellence in Hindi will be announced. 

Our commitment to serve the society and culture via the e-zine Setu continues in humble way. You are welcome to be part of the caravan.

~ Setu Editorial Board

Table of Contents, November 2016

A State of Niceness by Tabish Khair

Tabish Khair
The wipers made a slight sucking noise that Syed felt at the back of his head. Maybe they made the noise only in his head. Surely that was the case: how could he possibly hear the sound of wipers brushing away the relentless autumn drizzle in a car that was hermetically sealed against the outside? It is something he had to get used to: these sealed cars; windows up, always. No draught except the smooth artificial airflow of the air-conditioner. Just warm enough. A smell as that in a room closed for too long, like a prison room, a smell of staleness which had been deodoranted to a nicety. But it persisted. Syed smelled it in all such cars, Fords, Mercedes, Chryslers, cars so different from the Fiats and Ambassadors – those days even Marutis had been rare – that he had driven, windows down, wind ruffling his hair, in India.
The car smelled of stale niceness. Or did it? He could see his parents-in-law, both engineers, both extremely nice people, sitting up front. His father-in-law, reasonable, sane, reddish-brown hair gone a steely grey, was driving. His mother-in-law, reasonable, sane, dark blond hair still kept blond with the help of various lotions and dyes, was leafing through a sales catalogue. They obviously could not smell the stale niceness that pervaded the car. Syed wished he could lower the windows, or get out for a quick breath. But it was drizzling outside, and cold. It would be strange if he lowered the window. It wouldn’t sound nice if he said he wanted to get out and breathe. He had been conscripted into niceness by his decision to move to this country, his decision to marry here.
¤¤¤

He closed his eyes and imagined his wife cycling to meet them. She was returning from engineering college. Her parents, who lived in another town, were passing through this city and had invited them out for dinner. Dinner at six. That is another of the things Syed had to get used to in the initial months.
In his mind, he could see her cycling, wearing her smart brown raincoat, focussed – as always – on what she was doing. She had been less focussed when Syed had met her. She had not started studying engineering yet. She had spent a couple of years dabbling in the humanities, a relationship to time and degrees that Syed, coming from a country where careers were aborted by a single lost month, could only envy. At that time, Syed already had a career as a journalist in India. After initial hesitation, which had lasted for almost two years, he had quit his job and moved to this country. He had started off, like any other immigrant in West Europe, by doing odd jobs, mostly menial work which could be performed by those who did not speak the language. Having picked up the language, he had obtained a scholarship to do a PhD in Social Anthropology. But he was not so focussed on it. He felt he had drifted into something to which he was largely superfluous. This lifestyle, this car, this marriage, this orderly state of niceness all around him, his own inability to be rude.
¤¤¤

They must have sms-ed or synchronised their watches. They had just parked the car and walked to the entrance of the restaurant when Karen, his wife, cycled up and joined them. The restaurant was in a dour, late-19th century building, grey and solid. It looked more like an office building than a restaurant. But it was, Syed knew, an expensive place, the sort of place frequented only by those who were in the know. Not a pizzeria or a kebab place or a McDonald’s.
Past the flanking columns of the door, engraved into half-pillars, there was suddenly a darkly red-carpeted, sumptuous world. There were rows of coats, overcoats and jackets. A low, diffuse light burned overhead. To the right was the door to the hall of the restaurant, up three small steps. It exuded warmth.
Syed could not follow his in-laws and Karen through the door into the restaurant because he was the last one in the row, and when he hung up his jacket first Karen’s jacket and then her mother’s coat fell off the hooks on which they had been precariously and hurriedly placed. By the time Syed had hung the jacket and the coat back on the pegs, Karen and her parents had entered the restaurant and disappeared in the artificial candle-lit gloaming inside.
Inside, at the reception counter, Syed was stopped by a very Scandinavian looking waiter – tall, broad, blond, even teeth cared for by state-subsidised dentistry from kindergarten onwards – who looked at him with some surprise. When Syed’s eyes got used to the gloom and began to register the other guests (almost all tables appeared to be occupied), he could understand the surprise in the waiter’s eyes: Syed was perhaps the only dark person in the hall. I am meeting friends here, Syed told the waiter and walked in. The waiter did not look convinced and might have intercepted Syed, but at that moment some elderly ladies congesting a table beckoned for attention. The waiter moved in their direction with a dubious glance at Syed.
Syed was in a hall of wooden panelling and rich dark furniture. There were plain white tablecloths, thin elegant candle-stands, maroon or dark green curtains. Everything was subdued and affluent, with the affluence of those who do not have to demonstrate their wealth or taste. It did not appear to be a particularly large hall to Syed, but even then he could not spot Karen or her parents. They appeared to have disappeared, swallowed into this Alladdin’s cave of affluence and taste.
¤¤¤

Walking about in the murky light, Syed felt odd. He felt he stood out: was it due to his consciousness of the difference of his skin or the difference of his activity in this place? He was the only person who appeared to be looking, and people who look around always seem a trifle lost. All the others were firmly ensconced in place; they looked like they belonged there and when they moved they always had a definite goal, the toilet, the door, the counter. The waiters moved about with just as much assurance and certainty. Syed wavered in their midst, talking a half-step in one direction and a step in another, looking.
Then suddenly he caught sight of Karen. The room appeared to have changed. It had opened up. It was more cavernous and much larger than it had appeared at first. Actually, for the first time Syed realised that he could not tell where the hall ended. It stretched in front of him, rows and rows of polished tables, ironed tablecloths, people pouring wine, consuming dishes, conversing in low tones, politely.
There was something like a huge bowl further up, with ramps leading up to it from four directions. The bowl appeared at least a storey tall to Syed. He realised, with no sense of shock, that it was a salad bowl, with other small bowls ranged around it: great cornucopias full of fruit and salad, he thought. He had glimpsed Karen walking towards it, along one of the ramps.
He needed to get out of the shadows of the section where he was standing. He needed to catch her attention, though she was not looking around for him. She never looked around these days.
Syed realised that the section where he stood was a raised platform. The stairs were some way off. He could not reach them without losing sight of Karen. So he braved himself, knowing it would draw eyes to him, and jumped down from the platform to a lower level, a hop of three feet or less. All the diners around him turned and looked, precisely but briefly, perhaps even more briefly when they realised who he was, as if that explained his lack of etiquette, his jump.
But the jolt of the jump and the eyes turning to him had momentarily disoriented Syed, and when he looked up, he could not spot Karen again. He stopped a passing waiter to enquire, but the waiter gave him a blank looked and passed.
¤¤¤

Syed was reminded of the lack that had crept into his marriage over the years. Or perhaps it had always been there; he had just become more sensitive to it in recent months. He missed ordinary gestures: the easy knowledge of each other’s presence, the shared joke, the need not to ask. Perhaps that was so because he craved ordinary things.
This craving for ordinary things: the potted flower, the striped curtain, the pot simmering in the kitchen, the novel spread on the sofa, the smell of toast. How easily Karen could extend these to him, how unthinkingly withdraw them too. For she took the ordinariness for granted. She had not had to gather up fragments of the ordinary, the daily, in a new setting.
It was like that with almost all of them, despite their concern, despite the niceness. And it was buttressed by a belief that, after all, they lived in the best of worlds – and any of his losses were amply compensated. The losses had to be acknowledged at times, but only at a human, personal level, never as a matter of the world, a flaw that increasingly appeared structural to him. It was simply taken for granted that coming from where he did, being what he was – westernised, professional, irreligious – it was normal for him to be here. And, as such, he felt, it was always him seeking the ordinary (and often not finding it); it was always him who had to move around, make space, look, ask.
¤¤¤

Tired of asking and looking around in a place that seemed without end to him, Syed gravitated back towards the section near the entrance, the exit. He stood next to a table lined with national newspapers, worrying about the state of the world and making polite noises of criticism about the treatment of refugees in the country, and tabloids full of lurid scandals and crimes, the latter often pointing a vague finger at immigrants and refugees. He did not necessarily disagree with all the newspapers and they did not always agree with each other, but Syed found their assurance, whether it was about Nigeria or Denmark or USA, difficult to stomach. It was this commonality of tone that made all the news sound like a repeat of what Syed had read for weeks, months, years. But just as he could not walk away from the restaurant – it would have been rude of him, surely – he could not resist reading such headlines day after day.  They were in different ways (mostly well-meaning, mostly nice) so oblivious of him, and yet he had to keep looking at them, for them, these printed words he knew by heart even before they were printed each night.
He stood there browsing through the newspapers for five minutes or so. It was then that he noticed a corridor leading to a quiet and empty section.
The corridor had surprisingly cheap wooden panelling. The section it led to was empty, and unlike the rest of the restaurant, it had chairs piled up on the tables. The chairs and tables were of the spindly kind used in cafes. This section was probably used during earlier hours to serve customers who wanted a coffee and cake rather than a meal. Syed walked into it listlessly, noticing the chairs and round wooden tables, the empty beer counter, the pattern on the floor.
He was looking at the floor when he almost bumped into someone. It was a waiter, not a local this time, but someone from the Middle East or Turkey. Can I help you, sir? the man said, in English. A surprising feeling of gratitude flooded Syed. Syed noticed that the man did not wear the uniform of waiters. He was probably a cleaner from the kitchens below, sent up to fetch the tray of dirtied utensils that he was carrying. Syed explained his search to the man.
Have you looked in the reserved sections? asked the man. Seeing the look of incomprehension on Syed’s face, the man pointed at the cheap wooden panelling along one side of the corridor: there are rooms behind those panels. They are usually used by special guests. Your family might have been placed there.
¤¤¤

Syed slid one of the panels open, and was met with garish light. The room inside contrasted with the main hall of the restaurant through which he had been walking until now. The main hall was dimly lit; the guests were dressed in conservative greys, blue and black, the tables arranged at polite distance from each other all over the floor. But this hidden room was like a wedding shamiana in a small town in India or Pakistan. It was garishly lit: the men talking confidently, the women speaking in low tones or keeping quiet. There was a buffet table in the middle of the room, piled with dishes, while the chairs were ranged along the four walls.
Syed realised with a shock that almost all the people sitting in the room, the women dressed in gorgeous colours, were South Asians: Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankan. The women mostly sat on the chairs along the walls, holding plates of food in their hands or laps, sometimes feeding a child. The men, more conservatively dressed, stood conversing desultorily in groups all over this secret room in the panelling. They were attired like aspiring businessmen or government functionaries on a rare trip abroad. Some of the groups were mixed, but mostly the men stood together.
A thickset middle-aged man spotted Syed and sauntered over to him. You live here? he asked in a heavy Haryanvi or Punjabi accent. Syed nodded in affirmation. The man’s slightly florid features lit up with a smile and a smirk of recognition: South Asian to South Asian, Indian to Indian, man to man. So, where are the fun spots of this famous city? he asked again, with a wink. You know, he repeated, the fun places.
It took Syed a second before he understood the question. Then the words sank in, illustrated by the sly look in the man’s eyes. Syed looked at him for another second. Then he did something incredibly rude: he turned on his heels and started to walk towards the exit.



The Art of Conversation by Tabish Khair

Tabish Khair
On 28 November 2015, I had a reading and panel discussion at M├йdiath├иque Andr├й Malraux, a library and media centre in Strasbourg, the main city of the Alsace region of France, adjoining Germany, traditionally one of the Christmas capitals of the continent and currently the site of the European Parliament. As I was told that my hotel was just a 20 minute walk from M├йdiath├иque Andr├й Malraux – refreshed and armed with a map – I declined the transport offered and decided to walk to the venue. It had been raining earlier, but now cotton-wool wisps of cloud floated in a washed blue sky. The sun was out again. As I strolled, I couldn’t help noticing that there were fewer pedestrians and cyclists than I recalled from earlier visits to other French towns. This surprised me, because towns in France – or Spain or Italy – have a more vibrant culture of going out than in the North, where I have lived for close to two decades now.

            After my event, my French publisher and the two hosts took me out to dinner in a Tunisian restaurant. As we walked to the restaurant, the earlier feeling came back to me – there were too few people on the streets. It looked more like a town in northern Europe than in southern Europe. Was it because Strasbourg is on the northern side of France? I put the question to my hosts, even though I suspected I knew the answer. No, my hosts replied, confirming my suspicion, it is because of the ISIS-attacks in Paris. People are not eating out or going out in the evenings as often as they were, I was told. Some are afraid; many are merely sad.

            We walked on to the Tunisian restaurant, where my hosts were known and the Tunisian waiters kept coming to our table to say hello. Half the tables of the small restaurant were occupied. When we left two hours later, I saw a long table on one side of the restaurant that seemed to contain at least three generations – maybe four – of a French family. There was a bearded grandfather, who bore a striking resemblance to a white-haired Karl Marx, at one end, teenagers at another end, and family members of various ages in between. They were engrossed in conversation, as were my hosts and publishers, now taking their time bidding goodbye to the owner/cook and two waiters.
* * *

When I was younger, I read Amartya Sen’s The Argumentative Indian with a large degree of agreement. I still believe in the need for the articulation and acceptance of difference that the book championed. And yet, with the years, I have come to wonder if the only paradigm available to us is that of the argument, with its possibility of a negotiated settlement that is, at best, a tactical compromise on all sides. How about another paradigm? How about the paradigm of the conversation?

The argument, and any negotiated agreement that it may lead to, is based on a resistance to the other. The conversation, on the other hand, suggests openness to the other. In a conversation, you need not agree, but you have agreed not to argue in such a way that the conversation breaks. You have agreed to step into the other person’s shoes, and the other person has agreed to step into yours. A degree of civility is presumed in the conversation. The agreement you reach at the end of a conversation is neither tactical, nor begrudging. It enfolds all the parties equally: the conversation goes on. As the great 19th century Delhi poet, Ghalib put it in a lighter, amorous context, “Har ek baat par kahte ho tum ki tu kya hai / Tumhi kaho yeh andaaz-e-guftagu kya hai.” [On every issue you say, ‘You’re nothing in my estimation,’ / Tell me truly, is this a style of conversation?] What he suggests is that even in a domestic or amorous setting, the dismissive argument – ‘tu kya hai’ – impedes any true conversation.

What the ISIS terrorists did in Paris – what Islamic fundamentalists do every day when they insist on their particular interpretation of Islam – is deny the possibility of conversation. Many Hindutva supporters do something similar, as do some extreme leftists. Perhaps the very nature of the Internet impedes the art of conversation too. A conversation assumes a setting, the civility of sitting down and listening, waiting for your turn to speak, or considering the other person’s position and not dismissing it outright (tu kya hai), maintaining a civil space of free enunciation, no matter what the differences. The Internet with its isolated networking makes it easier to argue than to converse because the civil space demanded for conversation is not fully available when you face only a computer screen.  I think we are losing the art of conversation, an art that was never too fully developed in some societies in any case. Apolitical as this may sound, one of the solutions to many of our political problems is exactly this – we need to cultivate the art of conversation, domestically, locally, regionally, nationally, and globally.

I increasingly see conversation as the backbone of civilisation. I use civilisation in a large sense: many hunting-gathering tribes, for instance, had elaborate rituals of conversation. The ‘pow-wow’ of Indian American tribes is the one that has seeped – in caricatured form – into popular global culture, but there were similar traditions among the Santhals in India, the Maoris in New Zealand, the Australian aborigines, and many other peoples. These traditions were spatially and temporally limited: they usually frayed when faced with rapid change across time or a totally different cultural context.

But there are more culturally complex examples too. It is customary – and not incorrect – to consider a degree of bullying and xenophobia to be at the core of all modern nations. And yet, one can argue that the extent to which a nation succeeds depends on its ability to cultivate and sustain a national conversation – across tribal, ethnic, linguistic and other divides. This, inevitably, cannot be done on the basis on the bullying of one or more dominant segment of the nation. What one needs is not an argument about beef, pork, chicken and cabbage, but a conversation – in which everyone can speak freely and with consideration. The conversation is always a public unitary act which works only when personal differences are fully accepted. I would argue that many European nations have managed to do this better than almost all Third World countries, and even frayed rich nations like United States. Europe has managed something else at a larger level. At its best, despite the xenophobes, Europe has created space for a larger European conversation. European Christian sects do not fight each other despite major doctrinal differences – a process that is the result of a tentative conversation first attempted, after centuries of conflict, in the 17th century. Similarly, European nations – after the Second World War – have managed not only to avoid fighting one another but also to avoid arguing in ways that lead to the end of the conversation.
* * *

Later that night, as I left my hotel room for a stroll around the centre of Strasbourg, I thought of this. Some cafes were still open. I could see couples or groups, sitting over their glasses and plates, talking. I thought of other places in the world where this is not possible – or at least subject to greater pressures. I was sure there would not be similar groups in Syria or Iraq. I doubt that a real conversation could take place even in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, for only some things can be said there. I even thought of places in India or Bangladesh where some conversations could be easily frayed and dissolve into shouting. I thought of the Internet, with its legions of abusive trolls.

            I was grateful to this space of Strasbourg where conversation was still possible. Conversation depends on civility, not capital or power, and it is from civility that any civilisation grows. The personal act of conversation – a free, courteous exchange – is the most politically enabling action you can perform or demand.

            This is something that fundamentalists of all ilk cannot see. They are deafened by their anger, hatred, conviction, ideology, book. They can only shout, not even really talk, because they are afraid to listen. They cannot converse, and they do not want us to converse. Light a candle against this trend now. Shut your laptop, go to a caf├й or dhabba with friends, address a friendly stranger, listen, talk, listen. Learn to have a family dinner – as the French very often do even today – without the TV on. Don’t let arguments end your conversations: say, with Ghalib, in that case, ‘Tumhi kaho yeh andaaz-e-guftagu kya hai?’


We will be saved not by our arguments but by our conversations.