Politics and man’s history are two sides of a coin. It also a well-known fact that all political programmes have their own place in the lives of the citizens of a nation. Writers’ are also affected by the political moves of the government and they respond to all those political programmes who affected the society the most. That is why Stephen Spender states, “the writer who refuses to recognize the political nature of the age must to some extent be refusing to deal with an experience in which he himself is involved.”54 All these considerations prove that one way or the other. The writer and politics are intertwined with one another in their interaction with the public, without being emphatic or dogmatic about commitments and thus the genre of political novel has come into existence. Many theorists have tried to define political novel but Irwing Howe’s and Gordon Milne’s definition are very useful to understand political novel. According to Irwing Howe, “…. by Political Novel I mean a novel in which ideas play a dominant role or in which political milieu are the dominant setting.” Gordon Milne opines in his book The American Political Novel (1966) that, “novels illustrating a conflict between two ideologies such as communism and democracy or novels examining the connection between the political figure and the body politic, indicating the degree to which he is independent of; and yet apart of this body. One might also demonstrably include fiction with the political scene as background and books that offer accounts of politicians and political careers.”25
The history of fiction in all countries shows the same route and direction. Indian fiction in English specially, is no exception to this tendency. It picks up the strands necessary for its needs from the contexts of the available socio-political history and movements of its times for creative expression either in the urgency of their origin or in retrospect. The Indian political novel in English took its roots only with the upsurge of nationalism and revolt against the foreign rule. Gandhian ideas and ideals became the major source of inspiration for majority of the writers from the very beginning of the appearance of Gandhi on the political scene of Indian freedom movement. Gandhian ideology led the writers to portray Indian culture in their writing. The way European writers Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and Leo Tolstoy propagated the societal value of a common man in their writings and all their contemporary writers were forced to present man as a social animal, an individual with his responses and reactions. Gandhi did the same in order to create a national identity through literature. In this way the rich tradition of Indian culture was rejuvenated. Thus an environment of social awareness was created among the readers.
One can easily see the Gandhian concern for the lowly and the lost in Kamala Markandaya’s Nector in the Sieve, and A Handful of Rice. In Nayantara Sahgal’s A Time to be Happy Gandhian values are more omnipresent. Manohar Mangaonkar’s A Bend in the Ganges paradoxically presents the Hindu-Muslim unity – a societal virtue – which was very close to Gandhi. Chaman Nahal’s Azadi also explores the theme of communal harmony and presents Gandhi as a martyr of Hindu-Muslim unity. In the Crown and The Lion Cloth Nahal fictionalizes the life of Gandhi from 1915 to 1922. Gandhi appears as a character in Anand’s The Sword and the Sickle and Untouchable. R. K. Narayan’s Waiting for The Mahatma, K. A. Abbas’s Inquilab, K. S. Venkat Ramani’s Kundan The Patriot present the first phase of the Indian freedom movement under the leadership of Gandhi and thus we won independence.
Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel is a commentary on contemporary socio – political – cultural situation of India. To present his views on Indian polity Tharoor exploits the Mahabharata, a legend which deals with politics of the Vedic times. To capture the pastness of the present and the presentness of past, Tharoor makes use of Eliotion notion of time as observed by T. S. Eliot in his poem "Four Quartets":
"Time present and time past
Are both perhaps contained in time future,
and time future contained in time past".
Eliotian notion of time provides him a great deal of help in simultaneous handling of Mahabharata myth and history of modern India. Tharoor used the broader base of fiction merely as a stepping stone to unite the two genres of fiction and epic. Tharoor fictionalized the traditional epic and synthesizes it with politics. Tharoor's attempt is an imaginative and creative union of the two genres pulled as under by earlier writers. By doing so he is assuredly contributing to the blurring of the genre theory one of the characteristics of postmodernism. The history of modern India that Tharoor retells in The Great Indian Novel covers a time–span that approximately begins with the emergence of Gangaji (Gandhiji) on the political scenario during the British Raj and comes to an end with the fall of Janata Government and re-election of Indira Gandhi (Priya Duryodhani) in 1982.
Tharoor presents Ganjaji / Gandhiji, Dhristrashtra / Nehru, Vidur / Sardar Patel, Karna / Jinnah, Pandu / Bose in such a way that the time frame which is so vast becomes very narrow in the novel. Readers do not take the characters as they are presented but question the established notion of mythic past imbued in the Indian psyche. Tharoor invokes our anxiety to know and question the established myths in our society. Gandhiji – an advocate of truth and non-violence – took every step in the freedom struggle very calculative against the British. Tharoor retells all the major steps of Gandhi in The Great Indian Novel in order to prove whatever he did was not a chance but a strategic move. This is coincided with Gandhiji's life in the depiction of The Mango March. Thus, Tharoor leads us to revaluate our perception about Gandhiji as well as Gangaji. Tharoor has merged numerous characters from the Mahabharata and 20th century Indian political history to tell his tale. But I have analyzed only Ganjaji / Gandhiji, Dhristrashtra / Nehru in my article.
Gandhi is represented through Bhishma, also termed as Ganga Datta. (Gangaji) The novel gives greater significance to the character of Gandhi. The novel presents a solid and rounded portrait of the father of the nation. The narrative depicts the unique manner in which Gandhi mobilises the Indian masses to fight against colonialism by perfecting the master weapons of non-violence, civil disobedience and truth. It records how he used the weapon of ‘fasting’ not only as a means of bringing his principles to life but also as a potent power to resist injustice. As an excellent instance of Gandhi’s triumph, the novel documents his magnetism in Motihari; where he forced the British to see his point of view. The rareness and competence of his concept of truth which entails taking punishment willingly for the strength of one’s convictions is methodically approved: “Truth was his cardinal principle, the standard by which he tested every action and utterance. No dictionary imbues the word with the depth of meaning Gangaji gave it. His truth emerged from his convictions: it meant not only what was accurate but what was just and therefore right. Truth could not be obtained by ‘untruthful’ or unjust or violent means.” (p. 48) Gandhi’s concept of non-violent struggle is praised not only for being worthy in itself, but also as a timely and effective method to fight against the British.
Because of his deep rooted grounding in the Hindu tradition, Gandhi consistently exploited Hindu symbols for exciting people against the British; this made the leaders of other communities conscious of the rising tide of Hindu influence to their identity. It is true that, at nowhere the narrative suggests that, Gandhi caused disaffection among the minorities, but it makes it amply clear that, it led to the alienation of political leaders like Jinnah. This eventually sharpened the conflict between the Hindus and Muslims which led to the division of the country.
Tharoor’s narrative unequivocally criticizes Gandhi for breaking his grip over the Congress Party around the time of India’s independence, when it was needed most. He thinks that Gandhi was wrong in letting the question of partition be decided by his lieutenants. That is why; the scene of Gandhi’s death in Tharoor’s account is important where the mythic charge is at the strongest. He lets Gandhi’s assassin Shikhandin (Nathuram Godase) criticize him for his recklessness of duty and also for neglecting the issue of leadership of the party. His words clearly declare him a failure. “You make me sick, Bhishma. Your life has been a waste, unproductive, barren. You are nothing but an impotent old walrus sucking other reptile’s eggs, an infertile old fool...a man who is less than a woman. The tragedy of this country springs from you... “(p. 232)
In a bitter tone, the narrator says, “Gangaji was the kind of person it is more convenient to forget ...while he was alive, he was impossible to ignore; once he had gone, he was impossible to imitate.” (p.47) Thus, throughout the novel, Gandhi matches his idealism with strong and practical commonsense. He acquires the status of Mahaguru and stands as an uncrowned king of thousands of throbbing hearts. His character is delineated with great care. Emphasasing his greatness, Tharoor’s narrator says, “Ganga seemed to be holding the forces of nature in his hands, recalling the fertile strength of the Indian soil from which had sprung the Indian soul, reaffirming the fullness of the nation’s past and the seed of the people’s future.” (p.123)
In The Mahabharata, Dhritrashtra and Pandu both had a right to the throne of Hastinapur after Bhishma but Bhishma chose Dhritrashtra as the king of Hastinapur and decided to work as a chief mentor to Dhritrashtra. In The Great Indian Novel Gangaji (Gandhi) promoted Nehru to lead Indian polity and decided to work as a guide of Nehru and thus sidelined Subhash. Thus Tharoor equates Dhritrashtra with Nehru, and Pandu with Subhash. As the novel proceeds, Gangaji's bias against Pandu becomes evident, and so does his preference for Dhritrashtra. It was because of Gangaji's favors towards him that Dhritrashtra was able to create a place for himself in the country's political arena, while Pandu had to pay heavily for Gangaji's indifference towards him.
Tharoor retells a series of non-violent protests to gain independence from the British Raj. Gangaji was quite adamant for his ideals of Satyagraha, based on truth and non-violence. When the young generation of freedom fighters suggested to use violence to throw away the British Raj and thus to end colonialism in India but Gangaji denied to use violence at all. Gangaji firmly believed, “To see the universal and all pervading spirit of Truth, face to face, one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself.” Gangaji successfully applied these principles to politics. "For him the means were as much important as the end. India's independence was a much noble cause and therefore, no ignoble means could be employed to win it." Truth as Tharoor too states in the novel, could not be obtained by immoral means. This principle of Truth further strengthens the bond that Tharoor has endeavored to establish in The Great Indian Novel – the bond between Bhishma and Ganga or Gandhi. Both stood for truth, both believed in truth and both fought for truth. And despite their unflinching faith in truth and righteousness, both failed to prevent bloodshed, one at Kurukshetra and the other during partition.
In The Great Indian Novel itself, Tharoor brilliantly showcases the ironies of life of this frail little Mahatma. Although the leader of the struggle for independence, Gangaji was the only one who was the most unhappy person on the 15th August, 1947. It was so because this sweet fruit of freedom was accompanied by the sourness of the amputation of the motherland. After about three decades of perseverance and persistence, Gangaji witnessed a dismemberment of his goals and principles, various pieces of which seemed irrecoverable, in the face of a partitioned and independent India. No doubt rewarded with his much aspired for freedom, Gangaji's success was ironically undermined and presented to him as nectar served in a sieve.
Tharoor holds that, after taking the charge of the affairs of independent India, Nehru bungled the Kashmir issue and showed extreme shortsightedness in taking it to the United Nations: “He is also charged with the master technique of ‘self-perpetuation’ by issuing periodic threats of resignation.” (p.261) Tharoor also attacks his major policies. Nehru’s emphasis on setting up big and heavy industries in the country is, ill conceived at the literary hands of Tharoor since he ignored the unpleasant reality that eighty per cent of people were without basic amenities of life such as, drinking water, shelter and electricity. It is wrong to concentrate too much on building institutions of higher education, because they were openly turned out products for the international market and ignored the huge forests of illiteracy covering vast regions of the country. The setting up of huge centralised and cumbersome machinery of parliamentary democracy proved ineffective because parliament passed laws that a few implemented and many ignored. Tharoor’s key complaint against Nehru is that at the cost of neglecting the needs of his country, he directed his energies to gain recognition in international flora.
The only credit Nehru gets at the hands of Tharoor is that he is not guilty of meanness and villainy. The portrait of Nehru presented in the novel is not at all a flattering one. It seems to balance account of Nehru’s role in the country’s politics given by official hagiographers of the Congress Party and government. The basic idea of his role is derived from that of blind Dhritarashtra. This metaphorical blindness, together with his immense ego and cryptic ambition, makes him an appropriate Indo-nostalgic prototype of Dhritarashtra. The narrative clearly suggests, “he gained significance in the party hierarchy because of Gandhi’s blessings. Tharoor traces his mistakes to his shortsightedness: Dhritarashtra was guilty only of the insincerity of the blind.” (p. 295) The only credit Tharoor gives to India’s first Prime Minister is that he was, despite his limitations and drawbacks, a true Indian democrat.
Meenakshi Mukherjee in her book The Twice Born fiction states that, “...the conscious use of myth for enhancing the effect of a contemporary situation is a device that the Indian novelist has emulated from the West but has naturalized it to the Indian soil. A world view is required to make literature meaningful in terms of shared human experience and the Indian epics offer the basis of such a common background which permeates the collective unconsciousness of the whole nation. Characters from the Ramanaya and the Mahabharata are perennial contemporaries for Indians who admit the continuing influence of the two national epics.” Tharoor follows what Meenakshi Mukherjee has suggested above and has fused the epic and the contemporary history and has presented characters and events from the Mahabharata as contemporaneous with the present age.
In his article "The Role of a Writer in a New Nation", Chinua Achebe defines the writer's purpose thus, “self–respect and reaffirmation of their own past culture as well as dignity.” Another critic M. F. Salat also observes in his essay ‘Making the Past Present: Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel’, “the unendingness of history of India provides multiple meanings to the tale, moreover each re-telling opens out a new possibilities of meaning.” Thus, when a post-colonical writer merges political history with the ancient past it is not that he is recollecting his past but he is recovering the indigenous socio–cultural heritage and also an adequate sense of pride in India's cultural and political history. Shashi Tharoor's The Great Indian Novel too is no exception in this regard.
Works Cited: