Akshaya Mukul – “Your job as a biographer is to dig and document, not to judge”

When your work gets recognized by such a prestigious prize, it is an occasion to celebrate. I had expected people who read Hindi literature to take an interest in my book but I am pleasantly surprised to see a positive response from readers of diverse backgrounds. I suppose this is because my book is not only a biography of Agyeya as a writer but also a history of the times he lived in. That covers the colonial period when India was under British rule, the first and the second World War, the Partition of the subcontinent, Independence, also the high point and the decline of the Nehruvian era.

You have made a lot of revelations about Agyeya’s personal life in this book. Might this affect how readers see his work? Or do you believe that people are able to separate the art from the artist?

Frankly, I don’t know where one ends and the other begins especially in the case of a man like Agyeya. His life and his literature are so deeply enmeshed! I have tried to dispel many myths about him, based on my archival research, but we must stay open to the possibility that other researchers might unearth new material in future and write an even better book on Agyeya. My objective was to humanize him, and I hope his books continue to sell a lot and find new readers.

Are there any plans to have the biography translated into Hindi?

Yes, Abhishek Srivastav is translating the book from English to Hindi. Penguin India will publish it sometime this year.

In the book, you write about an intriguing publishing model that Agyeya used while editing Tar Saptak, the anthology credited with ushering in the Nayi Kavita movement in Hindi literature. All the contributors were expected to contribute funds towards publication. Was this common in those times, or was he experimenting?

It was a troubled time for writers, so Agyeya wanted to try out this new model. He faced some resistance at first but it worked out eventually. I am glad you asked me this because the Hindi publishing industry has a larger crisis that needs to be fixed. Publishers are known for being oppressive. This is not a thing of the distant past. Two years ago, even a veteran author like Vinod Kumar Shukla had to put out a video and go public with his grievances because he was shortchanged and taken for a ride by his publishers.

You point out that, prior to Tar Saptak, most Hindi poets were influenced by the oral tradition so they wrote poetry that was meant to be heard and not read. Were the new poets writing differently because of what they were reading? Any other reasons?

Five of the seven poets included in Tar Saptak were Marxists. They were highly political. Their concerns were different from poets of previous generations. They were reading literature from all over the world. They were not interested in singing the glories of the past. They wrote about contemporary issues and crises that they wanted to address. Agyeya’s own reading, by the time he was 20, was remarkably eclectic. He read British, Russian and German writers.

What drew Agyeya to TS Eliot’s writing?

Agyeya was interested in Eliot’s poems as well as long essays. He was also fascinated with Eliot’s attempts to understand Eastern and Western philosophical traditions.

What made Agyeya turn to Sigmund Freud’s work and engage with it?

Agyeya wanted to probe into the inner worlds of his characters, and there were autobiographical aspects in some of the fiction that Agyeya wrote – certainly his novel Shekhar: Ek Jivani. This made Freud’s work with psychoanalysis very exciting for him. Agyeya admitted to being influenced.

Why did critics of Agyeya’s work try to get Tar Saptak banned?

People who hated his guts for being experimental had grudges against him, so they wrote biased reviews. Some of the poems in the collection were called obscene. The criticism was not focused on literary merit. It was moral policing. They were jealous because they thought he was an outsider and they could not handle his success. Though there were attempts to ban the book, it did not get banned thanks to wiser voices who came to Agyeya’s rescue. It is still sold, read and taught. It has stood the test of time.

In a letter that you have quoted in the biography, MN Roy, founder of the Communist Party of India, tells Agyeya: “I am afraid you keep too much to yourself and even inside yourself. That often puts one in blues. You ought to be less esoteric.” What do you think of Roy’s assessment of Agyeya? Why did he struggle to open up?

MN Roy was not the only one who thought that Agyeya was reclusive. A lot of people had this complaint with Agyeya. He spoke little, sometimes just a few words or sentences, even if someone sat with him for a whole hour. This was interpreted as a sign of arrogance. He preferred to listen. He was not fond of small talk. He was well-read and widely travelled, had a cosmopolitan education, and his father was an archaeologist. Agyeya was very different from other Hindi writers of his generation. They used to consider him elitist but he was often misunderstood. If you read his correspondence with the younger writers he mentored, you get to see his funny and compassionate side. He was quite good with children too. He liked playing with them, and was also keen to write books for children.

Tell us about Agyeya’s relationship with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. According to your research, Agyeya worked on a hagiographic volume to mark Nehru’s 60th birthday, and a lot of people turned down the invitation to write about Nehru. How did Agyeya get this assignment in the first place?

Nehru was Agyeya’s personal hero. Knowing about this deep fondness, I think Agyeya must have jumped at the opportunity. It was a pretty well-brought-out volume, in terms of writing quality and production quality, even though many people gave Agyeya a really hard time when he approached them to write. They came up with excuses, or rejected him outright since they didn’t like Nehru. Agyeya was committed to the project. He was constantly looking for work, and this volume must have kept him busy for at least a year. He had a long history of abandoning things that he had taken up but he didn’t give up on this, perhaps because of Nehru. By the way, Nehru wrote a rather glowing and indulgent foreword to Agyeya’s first English book of poems. Of course, Agyeya was chuffed.

How did your approach towards Agyeya evolve while researching and writing?

My work with archival material showed me that Agyeya has been a victim of those who love him and have turned him into a god-like being, and those who hate him and have turned him into the biggest villain ever. The archives helped me get past these extremes of reverence and vilification. I was able to appreciate the fact that he was a great writer and also a petty person in some of his relationships. At times, he could get so carried away by his ambition that he didn’t think twice before walking over other people. But he was also generous in his role as a mentor to some younger writers. Working on this biography gave me a chance to see him in his best and worst moments. And I have attempted to humanize him in the light of facts.

What advice would you give someone who is venturing out to write a biography?

Maintain a healthy distance from your subject. Write chronologically if you can. Don’t brush anything under the carpet. State the facts even if they are unpalatable. The truth won’t take away from the greatness of your subject. It will ground your work in reality. Your job as a biographer is to dig and document, not to judge. Having some degree of fascination with your subject might help but don’t make the mistake of falling in love.

To what extent did your training as a journalist help you follow these guidelines?

Having worked in journalism for 20 years was the best training that I could have got. I knew that it was important to verify details, and not go by hearsay. I could see gaps easily when I reminded myself to ask the five Ws (what, where, who, when, why) and one H – How? It is hard to go wrong if you follow these fundamentals of journalism.

Chintan Girish Modi is a freelance writer, journalist and book reviewer.

How does it feel to win this prize? What kind of reception were you hoping for while writing the book?

When your work gets recognized by such a prestigious prize, it is an occasion to celebrate. I had expected people who read Hindi literature to take an interest in my book but I am pleasantly surprised to see a positive response from readers of diverse backgrounds. I suppose this is because my book is not only a biography of Agyeya as a writer but also a history of the times he lived in. That covers the colonial period when India was under British rule, the first and the second World War, the Partition of the subcontinent, Independence, also the high point and the decline of the Nehruvian era.

You have made a lot of revelations about Agyeya’s personal life in this book. Might this affect how readers see his work? Or do you believe that people are able to separate the art from the artist?

Frankly, I don’t know where one ends and the other begins especially in the case of a man like Agyeya. His life and his literature are so deeply enmeshed! I have tried to dispel many myths about him, based on my archival research, but we must stay open to the possibility that other researchers might unearth new material in future and write an even better book on Agyeya. My objective was to humanize him, and I hope his books continue to sell a lot and find new readers.

Are there any plans to have the biography translated into Hindi?

Yes, Abhishek Srivastav is translating the book from English to Hindi. Penguin India will publish it sometime this year.

In the book, you write about an intriguing publishing model that Agyeya used while editing Tar Saptak, the anthology credited with ushering in the Nayi Kavita movement in Hindi literature. All the contributors were expected to contribute funds towards publication. Was this common in those times, or was he experimenting?

It was a troubled time for writers, so Agyeya wanted to try out this new model. He faced some resistance at first but it worked out eventually. I am glad you asked me this because the Hindi publishing industry has a larger crisis that needs to be fixed. Publishers are known for being oppressive. This is not a thing of the distant past. Two years ago, even a veteran author like Vinod Kumar Shukla had to put out a video and go public with his grievances because he was shortchanged and taken for a ride by his publishers.

You point out that, prior to Tar Saptak, most Hindi poets were influenced by the oral tradition so they wrote poetry that was meant to be heard and not read. Were the new poets writing differently because of what they were reading? Any other reasons?

Five of the seven poets included in Tar Saptak were Marxists. They were highly political. Their concerns were different from poets of previous generations. They were reading literature from all over the world. They were not interested in singing the glories of the past. They wrote about contemporary issues and crises that they wanted to address. Agyeya’s own reading, by the time he was 20, was remarkably eclectic. He read British, Russian and German writers.

What drew Agyeya to TS Eliot’s writing?

Agyeya was interested in Eliot’s poems as well as long essays. He was also fascinated with Eliot’s attempts to understand Eastern and Western philosophical traditions.

What made Agyeya turn to Sigmund Freud’s work and engage with it?

Agyeya wanted to probe into the inner worlds of his characters, and there were autobiographical aspects in some of the fiction that Agyeya wrote – certainly his novel Shekhar: Ek Jivani. This made Freud’s work with psychoanalysis very exciting for him. Agyeya admitted to being influenced.

Why did critics of Agyeya’s work try to get Tar Saptak banned?

People who hated his guts for being experimental had grudges against him, so they wrote biased reviews. Some of the poems in the collection were called obscene. The criticism was not focused on literary merit. It was moral policing. They were jealous because they thought he was an outsider and they could not handle his success. Though there were attempts to ban the book, it did not get banned thanks to wiser voices who came to Agyeya’s rescue. It is still sold, read and taught. It has stood the test of time.

In a letter that you have quoted in the biography, MN Roy, founder of the Communist Party of India, tells Agyeya: “I am afraid you keep too much to yourself and even inside yourself. That often puts one in blues. You ought to be less esoteric.” What do you think of Roy’s assessment of Agyeya? Why did he struggle to open up?

MN Roy was not the only one who thought that Agyeya was reclusive. A lot of people had this complaint with Agyeya. He spoke little, sometimes just a few words or sentences, even if someone sat with him for a whole hour. This was interpreted as a sign of arrogance. He preferred to listen. He was not fond of small talk. He was well-read and widely travelled, had a cosmopolitan education, and his father was an archaeologist. Agyeya was very different from other Hindi writers of his generation. They used to consider him elitist but he was often misunderstood. If you read his correspondence with the younger writers he mentored, you get to see his funny and compassionate side. He was quite good with children too. He liked playing with them, and was also keen to write books for children.

Tell us about Agyeya’s relationship with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. According to your research, Agyeya worked on a hagiographic volume to mark Nehru’s 60th birthday, and a lot of people turned down the invitation to write about Nehru. How did Agyeya get this assignment in the first place?

Nehru was Agyeya’s personal hero. Knowing about this deep fondness, I think Agyeya must have jumped at the opportunity. It was a pretty well-brought-out volume, in terms of writing quality and production quality, even though many people gave Agyeya a really hard time when he approached them to write. They came up with excuses, or rejected him outright since they didn’t like Nehru. Agyeya was committed to the project. He was constantly looking for work, and this volume must have kept him busy for at least a year. He had a long history of abandoning things that he had taken up but he didn’t give up on this, perhaps because of Nehru. By the way, Nehru wrote a rather glowing and indulgent foreword to Agyeya’s first English book of poems. Of course, Agyeya was chuffed.

How did your approach towards Agyeya evolve while researching and writing?

My work with archival material showed me that Agyeya has been a victim of those who love him and have turned him into a god-like being, and those who hate him and have turned him into the biggest villain ever. The archives helped me get past these extremes of reverence and vilification. I was able to appreciate the fact that he was a great writer and also a petty person in some of his relationships. At times, he could get so carried away by his ambition that he didn’t think twice before walking over other people. But he was also generous in his role as a mentor to some younger writers. Working on this biography gave me a chance to see him in his best and worst moments. And I have attempted to humanize him in the light of facts.

What advice would you give someone who is venturing out to write a biography?

Maintain a healthy distance from your subject. Write chronologically if you can. Don’t brush anything under the carpet. State the facts even if they are unpalatable. The truth won’t take away from the greatness of your subject. It will ground your work in reality. Your job as a biographer is to dig and document, not to judge. Having some degree of fascination with your subject might help but don’t make the mistake of falling in love.

To what extent did your training as a journalist help you follow these guidelines?

Having worked in journalism for 20 years was the best training that I could have got. I knew that it was important to verify details, and not go by hearsay. I could see gaps easily when I reminded myself to ask the five Ws (what, where, who, when, why) and one H – How? It is hard to go wrong if you follow these fundamentals of journalism.

Chintan Girish Modi is a freelance writer, journalist and book reviewer.