Interviews

Inheritances of a Khichdi Family: Seema Chishti on the India that once was

Seema Chishti’s Sumitra and Anees is a timely service to the syncretic and vibrant history of India, and employs food as a vehicle to impress its message of multicultural amity. The book is a testament to how the food that we consume and produce in our personal kitchens – much like the cultural artefacts and monuments of time that we inherit – is a potpourri of influences. Within the food that we consume is embedded the history of our families, and by extension, the nation itself.

Written as a bequest to her own daughter, the book is an intergenerational bridge between the past and the future. Strikingly, and as Vir Sanghvi’s brilliant afterword impresses: the food that we consume is a concoction of our cultural interactions – we borrow and integrate ideas and ingredients to make our own versions. In effect, through documenting the recipes inherited from her parents, Chishti also creates inroads for the readers to perform their own experiments over them.

Essentially, Chishti points out in the book as well as in this insightful conversation with us, adaptability to change is the element that drives a civilization forward. The idea, seemingly, is tracing, acknowledging and accepting the presence of palimpsests within ourselves – that indeed we are a product of layers of cultural inscriptions.

Read our conversation with the author below, in which she talks about her book that celebrates her parents’ interfaith marriage and her own multifaceted upbringing; food history as world history; the sociopolitical reality of India today, and more.

Q. Within the first few pages of the book, you have nailed the history of India’s gastro-political retrogression over the years. How do you think the personal and political correlate with each other, and within their contiguities – if there are any – how do we regulate or straddle the two as a society?

A. In a fairly straightforward way, the personal has always been political. In my view, what one lives, thinks, experiences and how one behaves or has been conditioned, decides your politics. Conversely, politics affects the personal directly. The politics you choose, either constrains you or liberates you. As we see now, it can even kill you, or your neighbour.

But of late, attacking fellow-citizens or coming up with a theory of citizenship based on their personal matters or choices, which god they pray to, what language they speak, and what they eat followed by ‘action’ is considered okay. This has been leading to people losing their lives because a mob attacked their home refrigerator for assumed cow-meat as in the case of Dadri’s Akhlaq in 2015. Lynchings are all too common now, cross so many lines of personal and political and are criminal acts. Newspapers do not even report lynchings on page one as unacceptable and egregious acts  — there is a desperate attempt to normalize them as small squiggles in the law-and-order sheet. People so far had been known to practice what they did in their homes, but there was a separation between that and their behaviour outside. If each person was to enact his/her biases out and attack others, you can only imagine what this would lead to.

No regulation or straddling the two worlds is possible until the approval of such ideas is firmly put down by those in power. Instead, we see the worst societal impulses getting official approval. We have seen how those holding high office behave at times, in statements they issue, and as we saw starkly in the case of a union minister garlanding people accused of lynching. For any course-correction, the way the prosecution handles the cases of those accused of lynching others on suspicion of food they are carrying, how these matters are handled by the powers at the top needs to change drastically. The messaging right now does not suggest that a desire to reverse what is happening is on its way.

Q. In the Introduction, you mention how the previously celebratory syncretism of the subcontinent is presently claimed to be a national threat. Various scholars have written how the majority defines itself in contrast with the minority, often by labelling the latter as the Other and perpetuating a wide range of stereotypes. How do you view this Otherization clutching India today, and while you cover this in your book, how is it affecting our intercultural, interfaith relationships with each other?

A. A basic conflict about who is Indian – is it to be defined as the Indian constitution does or by which faith you practice – has been encouraged and fanned as we see most evidently in election campaigns, but it is way beyond that. The making of India in the image of a Hindu nation versus the idea of composite nationhood is behind how a ‘majority’ is sought to be created now. Democracies are alive because the majority must alter each time – sometimes over price rise, over how the country is run, jobs got, other policies, but if a permanent majority is sought to be drawn to make those in power immune to performance in office, you will get the fracture we have in India.

This is having a very serious effect on interpersonal relationships and how we relate to the other. Indians had multiple identities and each was a dimension of its own – cherished and welcomed – invoking curiosity mostly, and a desire to know more. Pluralism was something India was proud of and it added strength to us as a people. If we stop recognizing that Indians can be of many sizes, shapes, colours, faiths, dimensions and thoughts, it will go down as it has in our neighbourhood, in Pakistan or Sri Lanka, a quest for purity pushes societies in just one dark alley – I fear we are preparing to go that way. What is of concern is that a large part of India is a young demographic, so these ideas of Indians being ‘two nations’ if it gets entrenched again as it did in the forties, will last much longer; and will be that much harder to reverse. India’s genuine civilizational resilience is facing a severe test.

Q. Talking about Otherization, lately a Coke Studio song by Ali Sethi and Shae Gill, ‘Pasoori’ is being hailed as a herald of change and a beacon of hope for bringing two nations together. In your book, you mention how your childhood was influenced by an active and extensive media consumption. And what do you think about the gradual takeover of propagandist cinema and media in India?

A. Propagandist media – which is now the majority of the news or in culture, music or cinema – is how separatist ideas find their homes in the heart of the people. This has the power of altering the common-sense of the nation. In the early years – cinema in Bombay or Madras or Calcutta – mainstream, popular cinema, by the themes it tackled, the language it used to communicate them and the heroes it put out went a long way in fleshing out the ideas of composite nationhood and that too in the background of the bloody Partition of the country. By the way, three of us wrote a book four years ago on tracking the story of independent India through Hindi film music (Note by Note: The India Story 1947-2017; HarperCollins India, 2018) and in the course of that research, delved deeper into how films, music and popular stars being who they were, contributed towards creating a national consciousness. . Now, as cinema and music play to a different tune, the canvas has shrunk literally, either because people are fearful or there is censorship or fear of a crackdown if they portray certain characters – it is having an impact on public consciousness. Forget Jodhaa Akbar or Bombay being made today, even talking of peace as a social good, having characters with Muslim or Christian names doing things that are ‘regular’, i.e. not only doing things that villains, terrorists or drunks do, may be deemed unpatriotic. Only War films, or films with a distorted take on the national freedom movement like RRR are seen as ‘nationalist’.

But then there are also films like Jai Bheem and here we must commend cinema from South India mainly, that are tackling thorny social issues head-on and in a way that is not pandering to the entrenched narrative. The web-series, The Guilty Minds is fabulous. There was another Bangla film I saw, Meghnadbadh Rahasya, which was a popular thriller,  and raised some serious questions, and not about the sarkari narrative alone. But yes, nothing like the 1970s renaissance in Indian cinema is in the making. A perverse ‘angry young man’ is back and not necessarily angry with stuff that is wrong in society. On news media, the less said the better. Not just television, for reasons that are economic, ideological, convenient and others, they are fully serving a divisive and damaging agenda. Where will this end? I don’t know. I hope there is some disruption to this too. Independent websites and small digital operations are doing a terrific job but the volume churned out by corporate media is massive and relentless. Hope it gets derailed by India and good sense.

Q. In your book, you write, ‘[Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020] formulated supposedly as a response to the so-called ‘Love Jihad’ bogey, allows control over personal choices of women, claiming to protect them, while in reality further circumscribing their worlds.’ In all socio-political rifts, women are often the first victims to lose their liberty of choice and action, as the messianic men compete against each other for power. How do you perceive the fragility of gender relations in marriages today? And how relevant do you feel is the equality of choice and action for a successful marriage and family unit? (In context of Sumitra and Anees)

A. There is a strong sense of gender inequity underlying the new anti-conversion laws. It is sad to see such laws in 2022 India, which are about controlling a woman’s body and her choices. This is backed by years and decades of propaganda and belief about guarding the woman’s womb and who she gives birth to. Also, the belief (and rightly so) is that once women fly the coop, both, religious conservatism and patriarchy are doomed. Women hold the double-key as it were, and it is very important to control them. It is being done through fuelling insecurity in them and pandering to the worst notions about ‘getting girls married’ that the majority of Indians subscribe to. Harishankar Parsai remarks harshly but accurately on the state of affairs when he says, one can imagine the plight of the country where half the energies of the population are expended on getting girls married Instead of social reform, India is in the throes of deep regress, where ideas of family, controlling a woman’s choices over who she marries, loves or how she conducts herself are fanned by new laws and encouraged culturally as well. This process has been on and visible in popular culture as well for some time – saas-bahu serials and other regression, now it openly chimes with the ideology of those in power. The abysmal participation of Indian women in the labour force is part of this and it adds to the regressive ideas of women as homemakers alone.

Surely, a woman being free, independent and defining herself on her own terms  is the key to a happy and enduring companionship. It has not always been easy. New versions of older prejudices are always being sprung back into circulation. It is believed that women should be educated, but not too much (maybe just right would mean, to be able to be a school teacher, get a salary home) else her assertion is assumed to break homes. But, in the context of Sumitra and Anees, the fact of Sumitra breaking so many stereotypes was so important for the relationship to be the way it was. Of course, Anees was evolved to be a part of that growth and also, in the process enhanced his own freedoms, as he broke free from stereotypes imposed on men. Any shared and equal partnership to endure, be meaningful and grow with time must have two equal partners, no? The success of a unit cannot be the premised on the subjugation of one half of that unit. Women hold up half the sky – and half the sun – so are responsible for half the sunlight at least.

Q. You mention how ‘unconventional’ couples always have to be on the lookout, fearing for their safety in a politically hostile environment. They struggle with finding accommodation and often have to sacrifice their culture and identities to ‘fit in’ with society. This issue condenses itself furthermore in same-sex relationships. Ironically, our idea of interpersonal intimacy is treatable to a public license. What are your thoughts on this idea of intimacy?

A. Intimacy, who you pick to love, must be a matter of joy, choice, heart and left solely to the individuals concerned. Any evolved and modern society will demonstrate how this agency encourages people to be their best, function optimally and eventually contribute to society. The fact that we are having to say all this now reflects how far India has regressed. That India could have a Special Marriages Act in 1954, will not be possible now. In the spirit of that Act, we should be extending the provisions to all same-sex couples, allowing them to come out and get recognition as married couples, if they so desire. But far from that, India does not even recognize same-sex married people of other countries as married! So policing bodies, women and ideas of family are central to keeping the worst social practices alive and making them even more dominant. Some of the worst practices, subjugating women, keeping caste and religious prejudices alive, happens through ideas of the traditional family unit.

Earlier, after the 1950s, in India, maybe the immediate and near family and some neighbours would oppose your unconventional intimacy choices, but now, the State through new laws is aligning itself with some of the worst social practices and impulses in the name of safeguarding tradition and faith – that is severely damaging India. Intimacy and other personal choices are immediate casualties – they have been dragged out of homes, backyards and bedrooms and are subjected to the worst and most restrictive norms – with State sanction now. Earlier, the State was a bulwark and something that wanted to help modernize, liberate – no longer.

Q. Your book assesses how food is essentially the grammar of culture, and how this grammar holds together the entire lexical and semantic system of our society in place. Vir Sanghvi’s afterword examines this idea impeccably, as he demystifies the nominative prejudices of certain foods – just because certain dishes sound Muslim, they have been antagonized, others mislabeled as Hindu, like khichdi, have been relegated as ideal foods for the nation. What do you think about this politics of naming, re-naming, labels and mislabels in contemporary India?

A. I am so grateful to Vir Sanghvi for candidly writing what he did and taking the issue head-on about how food is the shorthand of world history and how diversity is not some pie in the sky but a lived, daily reality, so many things we think are pucaa Indian are anything but – chillies, potatoes, tomatoes, cauliflower, tea – practically everything. So what is foreign and not, the bogey of indigenous is busted with the first morning cup of chai or coffee we all sip.

The naming, renaming and mislabels, as you term them, is part of the much larger project of actually erasing the fact of such things existing and making it about mono-culture that is left behind as all else is wiped away. The grave of Wali Daccani, meant to be among the foremost exponents of Urdu, during Gujarat violence in 2002 was mowed over and had a road built over it. The equivalent of that is sought to be done these days when you rename all roads, foods, people, things, places. The idea is to actually pretend those people, their foods, their contribution, their lives, just did not exist, ergo, are foreign. A very sinister project has gripped what was a vibrant Zoo. Just one kind of animal would do now – even an animal farm would be too diverse.

Q. It is often said how smell is the last memory to go. While compiling the recipes in your book, were there any emotional breakthroughs that you gained by revisiting the memories of these dishes, served in a household that defied social expectations by brewing not food, but India in its kitchen?

A. The entire process of writing the book was difficult and often led to my abandoning the project for weeks. I am the type that likes getting things done but this had many breaks. Yes, smells. The bayleaf in hot oil, when it reaches the right stage, the smell of sambhar and hot ghee when it is dropped in – are all heavenly smells and bring everything back in ways that sights and sounds just can’t. No wonder that Arabian perfumers concluded that the smell of first rain on dry earth is the smell to bottle and led us to what they called gil or the French renamed petrichor.

Q. One of my favourite segments from the book is when you describe the food that we eat as a ‘potpourri of influences’. Would you like to share some of your favourite eateries in Delhi/any other city in India that are emblematic of India’s rich simmering pot of gastronomic variety?

A. So many eateries that bring the joys of India alive and exist together and I am not talking about fancy Indian fusion food that retails for thousands of rupees. For me, gastronomic variety is not necessarily everything thrown in together but the fact that various kinds of cuisines and types of food exist and co-exist. There is a chaat shop – ex (old) Delhi wala shop, now in south Delhi – which is my go-to place for chaat, even when the world is falling apart. There are paan shops, qorma places and biryani places, all cheek by jowl with shops serving a million kinds of food – which can make even the worst-tempered smile. Puchka outlets in Kolkata alongside Kabab places. I will not risk naming any. I can never forget when I was on assignment for BBC Radio in Karnataka – 1998 – and made the mistake of asking a small newsroom where I could find the best coffee – near fisticuffs broke out on which shack offered the best coffee. The next day, on the road to Kerala, I visited both shops which had raised tempers, and called both fellow journalists and told them how good the coffee was (which it was).

There is so much variety – still – in our country – as I say in the book, the dish and the brew is actually called India. It is sad that it is no longer trite to say that. I am waiting for a time when all this that I have said is yawn-inducing, as boring as we thought those ‘Amar Akbar Anthony’ type figures in NCERT textbooks were, to make a point about unity in diversity. But until it all becomes boring again, I will have to keep saying it, I think.

Interviewed by Kartik Chauhan for HarperBroadcast

harperbroadcast

Recent Posts

Read an Excerpt from ‘The Keeper of Desolation’

Surreal yet gritty, violent yet poetic – such is the world of Chandan Pandey’s fiction.…

8 months ago

Mitali Mukherjee’s Favourite Books

From books on financial frauds to a graphic novel based in Gaza, Mitali Mukherjee reading…

8 months ago

Between the Lines with Mitali Mukherjee

Mitali Mukherjee's chilling and unputdownable new book Crypto Crimes traces the murky underbelly of the…

8 months ago

Mastering Money: Essential Reads in Finance and Business Books

Hey there readers! For today’s blog we have brought you a collection of finance and…

8 months ago

Explore The World of YA Novels Perfect for Teens

Hi readers! In this week’s blog we have some Young Adult recommendations perfect for teens.…

8 months ago

India’s #1 crime writer S. Hussain Zaidi is back with a riveting thriller – The Black Orphan

is proud to announce the release of THE BLACK ORPHAN   Inspired by true events,…

8 months ago