Categories
Stories

Her Hyderabad

By Mohul Bhowmick

Hyderabad was not meant to be consumed only on Sundays. Especially when the Bibi-ka-Alam proceeded towards Masjid-e-Ilahi in Chaderghat, with mourners of all hues lamenting their inability to wage war alongside the pious. The elephant on which the howdah was placed murmured its assent before being offered cups of frothy Irani chai. The sidelong glances at the youth besmirched with the blood of a sacrifice heretofore unknown in their lives — and therefore easily bypassed — could not be missed.

She could not grasp, at first, why the chai had to be sweetened with such copious quantities of sugar. Nor could she understand why the students of the fine arts college in Masab Tank had to wrestle with their lives — and a passerby’s conscience — when getting off bus number 49M. She was told much later that they were forced to read The Fountainhead before they could even dream of touching their coursework. Their professor of drawing was no fan of Francisco D’Anconia, lesser still of Dagny Taggart — for reasons he credited to his deficient childhood in the treeless expanses of Rayalaseema — and, quite understandably, Atlas Shrugged was passed over.

She had bumped into an architect of renown, whose primary skill consisted of knowing someone who knew someone who had erected a brutalist coffee shop in west Hyderabad, and who had not heard either of Howard Roark or Ayn Rand. He called himself a modernist and displayed an unnatural interest in Balinese architecture. Spring had come late that year, and she had often found herself wondering what the brutalist coffee shop architect was called, and if she would be able to tell upon seeing it without being told. She seldom questioned her inability to see past charades those days.

But she had questioned her inability to separate facts from fiction, and one warm afternoon, upon finding herself in an auto-rickshaw on the national highway connecting Bowenpally to Suchitra, she had wondered at her own resilience. A fictional flyover, proposed to ease the misery of motorists, seemed comfortable in adding on more to it, and she had struggled to be a mere spectator in such a carnage of dust. Coughing seemed to be an act of participation, and she had denied herself the pleasure. Seamus Heaney often came to her those days — not least because of the parallels she could draw between the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland and those in her life — and she was reminded of the anguish of being an innocent bystander.

*

Turning south, her attention was taken up largely by the passion with which the Bibi-ka-Alam journeyed past Purani Haveli, and with a stab of recollection, she was reminded of why the city was home. Such brushes with epiphanies confined her to the immediate past, and whatever largesse Mir Mahbub Ali Khan or Mir Osman Ali Khan had bestowed upon the land, she could not look past the perverse stains of neglect on the walls of the Chowmahalla. The Khilwat Mubarak often wept these days, for want of heirs who truly knew the Deccan, and she had shied away from taking photographs of its compromised state.

She hardly ever turned east except to see Hyderabad play in the Ranji Trophy at the new stadium constructed at enormous expense to the taxpayer. She could not forget the Fateh Maidan as quickly as the newfound bourgeoisie that lived in Sainikpuri had, and it was also why, for sentiments she would not voice out of a fear she could not understand, the IPL[1] had passed her by. Her forebears spoke of ML Jaisimha and Abbas Ali Baig in the same breath (and deemed MAK Pataudi a mere passenger), and she had come to the Gymkhana expecting to see suave men in white. Cricket not played in its true colours had not appealed to her.

But one rainy evening, not long after the murderous summer had drifted away, a friend had spoken wistfully of the bric-a-brac one could conjure on the jumbling avenues of Dilsukh Nagar, and she had not known how to refuse. Soon afterwards, having been caressed by a sickly downpour, they found themselves in Kanchan Bagh (where a vision, as if from a previous life, had roused her to action) and a meal at Hotel Sohail in Malakpet — with the feasible attraction of Barkas and the debonair Chandrayan Gutta, warts and all, lurking close by — had seemed too cheery an enticement to pass up.

*

She had not truly known the city before journeying past the necropolis that was Golkonda. Her grandfather had often sung her lullabies about the ancient riverbed of the ferocious Musi. In moments of unguarded alacrity, she had found herself wishing to see it. Having lost everything but herself in the mêlée that the city had become, she had found enough strength in her lungs to bargain and hail an autorickshaw off the ranks at Basheer Bagh. Thankfully, it had not rained, but she could carefully envision the fresh petrichor wafting north from the exhibition grounds in Nampally.

The driver had turned and twisted, driven on the wrong side of the road and gone past Moazzam Jahi market without paying obeisance, and she could feel the clock tower warning her to steer clear of exigencies to come. The courteous guide, with salt and pepper in his hair and dressed immaculately in a brown kurta at the Salar Jung Museum — where she had detoured after glimpsing the sickly Musi at Naya Pul — had spoken highly of his regard for women, and addressed her throughout as aapa. Of course, she had not gone close enough to smell the liquor under his breath, nor fathom his inexplicable urge to indulge in his favourite pastimes of beating his wife every night and collecting lithographs from the Asaf Jahi era.

Whatever was left of Hyderabad in her veins promised to wash away in the floods that had in the past reminded the Musi of its penurious state in 1908, or the spate it had reached in 1578, when Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah had worried endlessly about the well-being of Bhagmati. Such a Hyderabad did not exist for her anymore, and in her dreams, she recounted only the rapine and the arson and the pillage that Julius Caesar had expressly forbidden, and of which Raja Singh and Akbaruddin Owaisi were proud inheritors. Just like Rome, Hyderabad had been an idea, an idea worth fighting for, but she found herself disabused of any such notions on her midnight rambles to Gachibowli.

The thought of the Cyber Towers existing in a city where the Arts College proliferated disgusted her; where men such as those who had erected the Deloitte Towers (and Trump Avenue) existed, she could not. Her views on perfection were not mixed — she wanted the best or nothing at all — and to breathe in the same air where the dead architects of the Paigah Tombs and the Falaknuma shared space with real estate barons from Kokapet seemed sinful.

The government was involved too, hoping to pocket large parcels of Raidurg, and by then, she did not find it difficult to contemplate suicide on her way home. Only a hot cup of frothy Irani chai from Café Green Corner — going to Café Niloufer may have been the final straw — could calm her down before she mustered the courage to knock on her door, and open it to come face-to-face with herself. Did she need to protect Hyderabad from men, or did men need to be protected from Hyderabad? No. The answer was simple. She had to forget Hyderabad.

*

When she could afford the luxury of thinking about Hyderabad at all these days, she imagined herself turning west and staring at the last Hyderabadi across the Pacific, daring him to blink.

[1] Indian Premier league – cricket

Mohul Bhowmick is a national-level cricketer, sports journalist, poet, essayist and travel writer from Hyderabad, India. He has published five collections of poems and one travelogue so far. His latest book, The Past Is Another Country, came out in 2025. More of his work can be discovered on his website: www.mohulbhowmick.com.

.

PLEASE NOTE: ARTICLES CAN ONLY BE REPRODUCED IN OTHER SITES WITH DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BORDERLESS JOURNAL

Click here to access the Borderless anthology, Monalisa No Longer Smiles

Click here to access Monalisa No Longer Smiles on Kindle Amazon International

Categories
Musings

My Forest or Your City Park?

By G Venkatesh

The tussle between the neoclassical economist [that stubborn, unyielding breed] and the ecological economist [the rebellious change-seeking breed] has been going on for several decades now, and now has reached a climax. As per the former – Robert Solow, Joseph Stiglitz and John Hartwick[1] among them –capital has to be interpreted as an aggregate of the natural and manmade varieties and as long as this sum total is constant, we are good. A decrease in the former can be made up for, by an increase in the latter – it is as simple as that, according to the neo-classicists.

Stress-free thinking? Just move on doing what you will, and the Universe will keep caring for you and protecting you. In fact, that is how a large majority of Homo Sapiens have been conducting their lives and livelihoods over the years, short-changing the conscientious ones in the process. Now this presents a disintegrated view – the adjective being important here. Disintegrated, ironically, even though the neo-classicists claim that what was not created by man can be balanced out by anthropogenic[2] assets, and one could claim that the total utility and happiness and welfare will remain unchanged.  

Let me tell you a story – fiction, yes, but may well have happened somewhere in the world, or maybe in many places in the world, on several occasions. Say there was a forest yonder a few kilometres out of the city. A forest my grandpa used to take me to, for a stroll on weekends, when I was a school-goer. Communion with Mother Nature. Feet on the soil. Glimpses of songbirds, rabbits, squirrels, gurgling streams. Shady trees under which, I and my grandpa would sit and play Ludo. He would tell me stories from the Aesop Fables and I would visualise those animals in that very forest. He would sing for me in his mellifluous singing voice and I would be enthralled and that would develop in me an interest for singing and expressing my locked-up emotions in my adulthood to vent out my grief. We would sit there, and he would teach me how to sketch the elements of Nature. I would grow up to develop an abiding interest in drawing, sketching and painting. Grandpa is no more. But thanks to those strolls, I now think I am a well-diversified individual with multiple tastes and abilities, and also a leaning towards industrial ecology, ecological economics and the like.

That was then. Now, I am a city planner in the very same city I grew up in. I have forgotten those lessons from childhood, even though I retain the said abilities – sing, sketch etc. Grandpa watching from the astral plane is surely sad. But I decide not to care. I veer towards the neoclassical, as I come under pressure from the others I am working with. I cannot stand my ground like Howard Roark did in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (1943). I give my consent to the idea that miners be allowed to prospect for gold in the same forest I used to go for strolls with my grandpa in the past. I visualise a stream of royalties and taxes for the city, which could be used to set up many parks. As the neoclassical theory goes, I would be convincing city-dwellers that I am creating easily-accessible capital for them right at their doorsteps!

The city parks styled as mini-forests, come up in due course of time [money loaned out by banks, which will be repaid thanks to the said royalties and taxes which are anticipated, as the miners have struck gold, literally]. I take my sons out to the park, and while telling them about how they came about and boasting about my planning skills, I slip into memories of the past and tell them how I enjoyed my strolls with their great grandfather long ago in those natural forests yonder. My younger son looks up at me and asks, “Why have not you taken us there? We wish to see where you used to go with your grandpa.” I am dumbfounded. An epiphany!

I have stolen from them what I enjoyed as a little boy. I have deprived them of what Mother Nature had bestowed upon all of us. Surely, people of my grandpa’s generation also used to visit the forest when they were young? And possibly their own ancestors too? Obviously, that is how grandpa knew of the value of the forest for holistic development? My sons have since joined the Greta Thunberg gang and they do not spare me in their criticism. I am proud of them while I am ashamed of myself, if at all these two feelings can arise in the human heart at the very same time. But what I have done, cannot be undone.

Well, the parks and the forests can surely co-exist, so that the aggregated capital can increase a bit and then saturate, instead of having to remain constant. After all, a conscientious city planner should realise that every inhabitant in the city may not have the time, energy or the wherewithal to go to the forest a few kilometres away [especially if he/she does not own a car and there is no public transportation out to the forest]. For such people [who may perhaps account for a sizable percentage of the city population], the city parks are indeed worthwhile investments the municipality can make. A poor substitute, yes, but something good better than nothing.

We came from the forests, right? Those of you who believe that God created Adam and Eve and we all trace our lineage back to a ‘poisoned apple in the Garden of Eden’ (now was that a park or a forest?) may take a hard left. But when you have already read through the article, maybe you have no choice but to pause and ponder. Then, head to the park for a quiet walk, or if there is a forest nearby, you could go there as well for some introspection.

[1] Robert Solow, Joseph Stiglitz and John Hartwick are economists known for their theory on economic growth

[2] of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature

G Venkatesh is a ‘global citizen’, currently serving at The Energy and Resources Institute’s School of Advanced Studies (New Delhi, India). Prior to this, he was Associate Professor at the Karlstad University in Sweden. has published a memoir, four volumes of poetry, four e-textbooks, numerous scientific publications, crosswords, and magazine articles over time.  He is a ‘sustainabilist’ who sketches in his spare time, likes singing, and is a sports enthusiast, cricket in particular.

PLEASE NOTE: ARTICLES CAN ONLY BE REPRODUCED IN OTHER SITES WITH DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BORDERLESS JOURNAL

Click here to access the Borderless anthology, Monalisa No Longer Smiles

Click here to access Monalisa No Longer Smiles on Amazon International

Categories
Essay Musings Slices from Life

Stray Musings – ‘Love at the time of corona’, as it were!

By Debraj Mookerjee

Those familiar with the cult author Ayn Rand (she of The Fountainhead fame) will possibly remember her somewhat sobering thoughts on love: “After a point, YOUR LOVE for a person becomes more important than the object of love” (Capitalisation mine). What is love, or the easier poser: What do we make of the idea of love? That love is a compelling emotion, which is perfectly democratic and non-discriminating in affecting the bright and the otherwise, the poor and the rich, the old and the young and so on is an incontrovertible fact. Its universality does, ipso facto, predicate on some common streak that runs through humanity. Is it the innate desire, an almost mammalian need, to copulate and propagate that stirs us into “loving” another, as a prelude as it were to pairing, and therefore mating and procreating and so on? Or is it some deep insecurity within, of a feeling of incompleteness till we have loved or are loved? Or is it just a reflection of the great human propensity to possess; more precisely to call things our own, to be comfortable only when what we desire, that is what we consider of worth, is ours for keeps, like the valuables we stash in our bank lockers?

To begin with, we ought to take a look at the popular rhetoric encountered in our representational sphere of reference to understand how love, though imagined as something special, is as much a commodity as anything else. Why do we say, for example, things like “he (or she) belongs to me”, “I wish to belong to her”, “I could not belong to anyone”, “I want her bad”, “Gosh, I can’t live if I can’t have her”, and so on and so forth? If love were so noble, or even selfless as it is often made out to be, why should it make us want to own the object of love unless it be to serve as a perpetual reminder of the great feeling of love that we have experienced for that object? It is as though our love would crumble to dust should the one we love not be ours forever. And we thought love was an abstract idea!

So let’s test the proposition with a hypothetical (though perfectly credible) situation. You say you love somebody. Now that somebody loves you well, after a manner, you know; loves you but is not in love with you, whatever. Here the balance is delicate. You can’t stop loving that person because you know her (or his) love could grow with time. Unless you keep professing your love, how can you fuel whatever spark she (or he) has for you, right?

Over a period in time, she may not progress beyond her incipient leanings. At some critical juncture, you have to take the decision on whether to let go of your love for her (or him) or push just that little bit more. What is this game, ask yourself? If this is love, fine, so it is, but let’s not pretend and suggest it is some elevated concept that can only be experienced at a heightened level of consciousness. The processes that it goes through is no different from the ones you adopt before deciding to buy a pair of pyjamas – is it good, is it worth the price, how much can I beat the price down to, and of course, how long will it last?

Love therefore, is not an abstract idea. QED. It is an idea though because we don’t know what it is. Probably it is nothing really, at least nothing tangible. But that does not make it abstract. The only way to know it is to register all the things we build around it and what we do with it. It is somewhat like the honour pupils earn in a boy’s school for pissing highest against a wall. The honour means little. It does not guarantee against urinary problems in later life, no does it confirm sexual prowess, but the effort to earn that honour is tangible.

To return to Ayn Rand, and the big question: Is most of what has to do with love merely a role? An assertion of what we can or must or should do to express our love. And what do you think would remain imprinted on the mind – our efforts or the object of love? Come on be honest; of course, we’d value our love more than the loved one.

But all these theories pertain to love that has to do with the desire to own. Love that does not demand, love that is not fixated on one person, love that is not possessive or centred on one’s singular desires comprise another kettle of fish. This is the sort of love that you can shower on so many people at the same time. Where you remain a free agent, and so does the person you love. And each of these loves can have sanctity. Because there is no sense of possession tied to such love it seldom unwinds, unlike the other type that tends to come apart when the tangible grounds for its existence seem to come unstuck.

The Czechoslovak writer Milan Kundera once spoke of two types of love – lyrical and epical – with reference to men. In the former, you see all women in one woman, and in the latter, you see one woman in all women. One liked the concept when one was young (that’s why the quote is remembered). Not anymore. Real love is ‘topical’ love, as it were, where you see all women (or men really) in every woman (or man). Anyway, the more you love, the more love there is that goes around. Philosophically, that sounds better than ‘winning’ somebody in love, as though the person were some prize catch!

And no, this piece has nothing to do with the virus. Of course, it’s possible that thoughts of mortality urge the mind to come clean on vexed conundrums, none more twisted than the subject of love. It circles the context of the writer’s consciousness because everybody is thinking corona, but it does not (in his opinion) contaminate his thoughts. Except to the extent that he could not help adding it to the title, unapologetically, and admittedly gratuitously!

Debraj Mookerjee has taught in Ramjas College at the University of Delhi for close to three decades, with specialised interests in Literary Theory, cultural studies, and popular fiction, especially SF. He is also a columnist, writing on culture politics and society, apart from food history. Mookerjee likes to travel and curate life and its myriad complexities. He is deeply interested in  exploring alternative pedagogies, because he feels higher education should unleash academic creativity and not constrain scholarship through enforced regimentation.