A River Sutra by Gita Mehta Essay Example

"sutra" referred to an Indian literary form, that Mehta described as "usually aphoristic (or axiomatic) in nature" or concise in simple meaning. An aphorism is a short statement that contains a general truth. In other words, "sutras" usually contain a moral or a message intended to enlighten the reader. The novel was positively responded by critics. A reviewer in Publisher's Weekly described how "this novel of India beautifully embodies the art and craft of storytelling as Mehta portrayed various lives touched by the river Narmada, a holy pilgrimage site 'worshiped as the daughter of the god Shiva. Mehta was further praised for "not avoiding the controversies of life in her homeland, including the caste system and political/religious rivalries, noting that "she willingly exposes its complexities. Rahul Jacob of the Los Angeles Times applauded how "every yarn begins the lazy circle again, another variation on the novel's central themes. Each story ends with a beguiling turn into the next one. The simplicity of Mehta's writing nicely complements the novel's profound concerns. " The form of A River Sutra was especially appreciated and how it tied into ancient storytelling traditions.

The India of the Mehta's novel is foreign, exotic, and unexpected. India was described by the author as that of ethnically, geographically, and religiously diverse. Aimed at exploring the various themes of the novel, Mehta translated the experiences of the characters and revealed the "sutra" or thread, that runs through their stories. The translation binded together people whose differences, historically, have split them apart. As a deviation from the tradition, C. N. Ramachandran examined how Mehta's novel diverted from the context of conventional Indian literature narrative

style and function.

A. G. Khan also examined the text with regard to Mehta's narrative style and functioning as they worked to frame the two categories of characters Khan sees, 'steadfast' and 'fugitive'. In the allegorical mode, this novel can be said to be roughly and one may wonder whether A River Sutra can be called a novel at all. Having the Western Don Quixote and the Indian Dasakumara Charitha as its models, the novel exploited the formal possibilities of the genre to the fullest. It is a framed narrative. It just put the various themes in a storytelling sort of a box.

The novel itself has several threads which lead to countless interpretations. The narrative technique, psychological insight in probing the unconscious/sub-conscious as well as the racial consciousness; sociological, archaeological, mythological were explored in a fascinating way. This goes the same way in its philosophy of music as enunciated in two separate tales. Narratively, the fifteen chapters flew from the origin to its final destination in a normal gush with frequent detours and turn-arounds to the main current which is quietly flowing placid sometimes but quite often with enthusiasm.

Boyd Tonkin regarded the novel as didactic and refreshing prose, part of an Indo- British wave of writers who confirmed that the "cultural passage between south Asia and the west can still yield fresh perspectives. " The stumbling nonentities who passed these days for cabinet ministers love to invoke the glories of the language. As if, with their ghastly off-the-peg cliches about village greens and warm beer, they had any right to act as its custodians. In fact, regular shots of alien

talent such as Irish, American, Carribean and Asian has rescued English as a literary medium.

Most of its present glory comes from authors who would fail the Tebbit "cricket test" with flying colours. Among them, the tribe of Indo-British writers conspicuously thrives. Other themes in the novel are the many diverse ethnic and religious groups that inhabit modern-day India and suggests that a common heritage and geography link them together despite their differences. Just like a string of short stories. Mehta loosely stitched each themes and each chapter end to end, by having a different character from one which continued into the next but no further.

It created a sense of interconnectedness while the author demonstrated the spectrum of class, culture and religion contained by the subcontinent. It was a literary fiction with imaginative lushness and narrative liveliness as Mehta provided a novel which combined Indian storytelling with thoroughly modern perceptions and conveyed it in a world that is spiritual, foreign, and entirely accessible. The motives or themes of the river and sorrow constituted and run through the novel as threads holding together the different stories told and adding meaning to the whole.

The river as an object is ever-present, with the various characters and their stories occurring along the river, because of the river, or in proximity to the river. Meanwhile, a sense of underlying sorrow helped defined the society and characterized the consequences of many of the tales told. The connection between sorrow and the river was evident as the narrator recalled one of the people he has met and experienced a sense of sorrow. Mehta depicted this in the

following: For some time the memory of the monk disturbs me.

When I sit on the terrace before sunrise with my face turned toward the source of the river, I find I cannot concentrate, seeing the monk's intense eyes above the white mask covering his mouth as clearly as if a photographic image is being projected onto the darkness (Mehta 42). The river as "the source" was referred to as the river of life because the river was the frame for every story in the book. It is common in fiction that the image of a river was a representation of life.

The movement of the water represented the passage of time, with the idea of a journey down the river as the journey of life, and with the reflux and flow of the river seemed like bringing life and death to those along its shore. Sorrow was presented as being a part of the human condition and in the novel it became a repeated motif that itself ran like a river. These themes are can be traced when the man adopted the boy in spite of the opposition of his wife and family and learned the meaning of sorrow first after finding out about the nature of his family as they treat and tormented the blind boy badly further making his life miserable.