Asian Books Blog is based in
Singapore. Lion City Lit explores what’s going on in the City-State, lit-wise.
Here, Verena Tay talks about the South Asia Literary Salon, organised by the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of
Singapore. It was chaired by Meira Chand and took place earlier this month.
Given the size and complexity of the
region, any discussion on South Asian identity is bound to be problematic,
raising more questions than supplying answers. And so it was with the Salon,
which was conceived as a means to explain South Asia using the lens of prose
and poetry. Ten writers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the USA, and two Singaporean writers were invited to share their views on the theme Modernity, identity and belonging. The
various candid panel discussions brought out issues that ranged from the
informative and engaging to the inconsequential.
The first panel, Life and times of a writer, moderated by
Shirley Chew, generated some insightful notions about history. Feminist
publisher Urvashi
Butalia
cautioned against the linear and chronological model of history; within the
South Asian context, history is more an unfolding mosaic as the perspective of
minorities are continually being revealed. In her writing, what concerns Githa Hariharan is the secret histories of ordinary
people who are not in the centre of big events that are deemed historical by
those in power. When writing fiction, Mohammed
Hanif is
quite clear that he is not a historian, preferring to explore: “stuff that is
written out of history”.
In response to Preeti Dawra’s query about whether the panellists felt they shaped society in any way through their writing, Manu Joseph made a facetious comment that proved to be quite contentious. He questioned the need for writers to be “moralistic” and “righteous” in their writing since, in his view, writers often did not live up to the moral standards they were upholding.
Further views on history emerged
during the third panel, Deconstructing
history: how do we arrive at who we are?, moderated by Prasenjit
K. Basu.
Despite the topic having been explored extensively, Nisid
Hajari still
regards the history of Partition as extremely rich territory for research. Romesh Gunesekera is fascinated with how colonialism was experienced
differently by diverse countries, thereby shaping unique post-colonial
perspectives. Nury
Vittachi “likes colonialism” for the clash of cultures
it produced and he revels in the resulting confusion when different cultures
associate dissimilar meanings to certain English words.
After lunch, Tishani Doshi gave a
gentle 15-minute recital of her poetry that was followed immediately by the fourth panel discussion: The Singapore story: the search for an identity, moderated by Meira Chand. Born
in Malaya, Suchen Christine Lim came to Singapore for her education and only became a
Singaporean citizen as an adult; hence for her, the concept of identity is
flexible and based on personal choice. By comparison, Claire Chang considers herself to be a daughter of Singapore; her
experience of growing up in a multicultural and multilingual environment
enables her to be versatile on the world stage and allows her to connect easily
with people from diverse countries.
Perhaps due to mid-afternoon malaise the fifth panel, Speaking truth to power: reflecting, interpreting and
shaping South Asia, with Mohammad Hanif, Manu Joseph and Romesh Gunesekara as
speakers, was a little unfocussed. But the
last panel of the day, The politics of gender: shaking the status quo,
moderated by Preeti Dawra, was impassioned and informative.
During this session, Urvashi Butalia
returned to the question of whether an author needs to be moralistic in his or
her writing - she said it was necessary for her to be moralistic, given her
commitment to the feminist ideal. To defend her rebuttal of Manu Joseph’s earlier
comment, she argued that much more must be done for women, given that
increasing urbanisation and the large numbers of women joining the workforce in
South Asia are creating unprecedented social and political pressures. Githa
Hariharan agreed and was adamant that any discussion
about gender politics must be carefully framed. Niaz Zaman wondered why the panel comprised only women and
stressed that the women’s movement cannot progress unless men actively
contribute too; she also shared examples of how women are gaining economic
independence and yet are facing multiple levels of social backlash in her
native Bangladesh. Moni Mohsin described Pakistan as a society in flux: as the
country becomes more urbanised, women must work and receive an education, but
they face increasing violence and discrimination.
A singing recital by Namita
Mehta helped
to end the Salon on an enjoyable high note.