‘Delhi’s shabby gentility is missing’: Novelist traces the city’s transformation

Karan Mahajan feels Delhi’s character has changed, especially post the 1990s. Pic/Shadab Khan

He admits, "No one has asked me this question," before replying, "After the 1990s, there was a clear demarcation. There was a sense of inertia across India as it was still a mixed economy. The [Delhi's] attractive, shabby gentility of the 1950s and '60s is missing. It became mildewed and unattractive in the 1980s. You expected things to change but it didn't - that was the period of inertia. But by the 1990s, the city's skyline had transformed. It is certainly less green. Now, the flyovers are barricaded so you can't even see the city." By the end of the interview, there is full disclosure, "I hate to say this as a Dilliwallah but I used to be more pro-Delhi. I definitely love Mumbai as a place to be in." There. Finally.

These sidelights offer context to Delhi's political and societal hubbub in a fast-changing India that Mahajan lays bare with surgical-like precision in this generational opus based on the dramatic and disturbing lives of the Chopra clan.

Excerpts from the interview.

The actual writing of this manuscript took a while. Tell us about the time when you jumped into it.
It was meant to be a destabilising author's note. ‘Did this all really happen?' Without giving away too much, I'd say much more of it is made up than not. Essentially, the process of writing for me was that a draft was produced in 2020. I had to figure out how to narrow it down. Shocking, because it's still a 400-word book! So, I didn't tweak it that much (smiles).

Since you possessed sensitive information; a legacy, so to speak, did you feel overwhelmed to approach it?
Absolutely. The subject matter that the novel covers is dark and difficult. It had to be presented realistically, and not sensationalised. If there is political, marital or sexual violence, it had to appear the way it would in real life. My writing had to be sensitive to the characters, especially the survivors. I had to be thoughtful about [portraying] society at large. A novel without such characters would have taken me less time to research. I had to research such subjects to gauge how people respond in such scenarios.

The plot spans decades and generations. It can be intimidating for a writer to take a storied plot forward, and deftly, as you did…
Thank you! That's why the novel took so long to write (laughs). I grew up in Delhi in the 1980s and '90s. I have some understanding of how that time felt but I've forgotten a lot since then, be it the car models or the TV shows. I returned [to Delhi] and chatted with many people who had participated in events from those times that appear in the book. For example, I interacted with some people who were part of the anti-reservation Mandal Commission protests. It was interesting to hear them reflect on it. It offers psychological insight to use as a writer.

Similarly, I also realised I had to research the lives of Indian immigrants to the USA in the 1970s. I have lived there so I know what it feels like to be an Indian, but it was different then - there were fewer Indians. For example, one couldn't easily make phone calls back home. Those details emerged from my interactions.

I followed three layers of research: History, newspaper reports [to reveal incidents that were closer to that period], and thirdly, speaking to people.

You had to rely on relevant, factually-correct information. But it's also about observations…
Excellent point. Generally, when I talk to people, it's not the big stuff that I take home. Often, it's an off-hand remark, detail, or anecdote and that gives you enough. That is the liberty of fiction - you can play with the instability between fact and fiction. You cannot take those liberties with non-fiction.

Did you revisit chapters after the structure had emerged?
I write instinctively. I take a thread and weave around it. It diverts, digresses, and eventually comes back. Plenty of information was in the form of details that aren't in the book. That's why it took years (laughs).

I can be maximalist in description but I am precise in other ways. I wanted the book to move, especially since it's extremely complicated, with many people. The architecture took a while, not the actual writing.

The most difficult part to figure out was Gita's response to what happened to her in Delhi. It is a sensitive subject; I wanted it to feel true to life, and not offer an easy solution. I also knew that writing about a woman who had experienced sexual assault in the 1980s in such a family was a challenge. She wasn't going to have the recourse that women might have today, despite her professional status [Gita is a senior editor].

The novel plays with the sad irony that while parts of people's lives are modern, there are other parts that are submerged within the family structure. So, Gita cannot imagine telling people. If she mentions it, she would be blamed. I was clear I didn't want the novel to pause at her like a victim. If she cannot tell people, justice won't be served - that dilemma took a while to craft.

Without disclosing much, could you share which character was the toughest to create?
You'll be surprised… It was Sachin, because he knows himself the least. He is repressed and out of touch with himself. So, how do you make him interesting on the page? How do you show that marriage with such a person works? He is not a terrible person, or a terrible husband. He is just okay.

I wanted him to be different from other men in his family - He was supportive and comfortable about the infertility issue, about telling his wife to get a job, though not out of monetary compulsion.

His character doesn't have the emotional wherewithal to communicate with her. That is the crux of the novel, and also the sadness of it. Gita and Sachin are symptomatic of it. They are the only people in the end, to make it happen, but it takes years. I also wanted to understand his relationship with India, the family and what would happen if things didn't go well with Gita.

What was your biggest takeaway from the book?
I wanted to realistically depict different kinds of love and affection. The novel doesn't have a real love story. What it has with Gita and Sachin coming to a mutual understanding after years of being together, which I think, is harder to capture. I was pleased that they could carve a space on their own terms in a tough world - be it about having a kid, or dealing with patriarchy. Theirs was an interesting arc.

AVAILABLE Leading bookstores and e-stores