bounceInLeft

 

INDIA: A MILLION MUTINIES NOW - 1990

India: A Million Mutinies Now has received its own individual share of attention outside of the three books that have come to be known as the Indian trilogy. Eleanor Zelliot finds the book still ill-informed about real India and its real problems: “He [Naipaul] has no Indian language and this makes some of the interviews suspect; he cannot be bothered to check names, dates, facts or geography; and he still sees India as filled with disorder, irrationality, excesses and death.” Jeffrey Meyers agrees: “His latest book on India, despite his attempts at regenerative optimism, reveals an ever-changing, corrupt, corrupt, and still deeply wounded civilization.” Akeel Bilgrami argues that though Naipaul captures “strong feelings and ill-understood issues [that] are being channeled in a political and social direction,” Naipaul’s own “contempt for India has been withdrawn, but his indifference to explanation remains.”  Jo McGowan reviews the book positively: “The faceless, swarming masses which alarmed him so on previous trips have been reduced to manageably small groups.” Rob Nixon feels: “In the realm of the senses, his [Naipaul’s] ear has dethroned his imperious eye.” Dipesh Chakrabarty in his review contrasts “the Indian indifference to notions of 'private' and 'public' in their use of open space contrasted with the immaculate 'order' of the European quarters” (541). Vishnupriya Sengupta notes: “The mutinies were helping to define the strength of the general intellectual life, and the wholeness and humanism of the values to which all Indians now felt they could appeal. They were part of the beginning of a new way for many millions, part of India’s growth, part of its restoration.” Dennis Walder sees a development in Naipaul’s oeuvre as “the religious and sectarian excesses which would have brought down the thundering denunciations of the earlier Naipaul are now understood as the ‘million mutinies’ in India, and so can become part of its ‘restoration’.” Tarun Tejpal in recounting his long relationship with Naipaul and his writings remarks: “His relationship with India - resulting in three non-fictional works - has gone from ancestral dependency to trenchant criticism to grudging affection, but in it all he has remained scrupulously honest to the witnessing eye.”