Q: I'm really sorry--
A: She's a professor here and she is known by young people, that doesn't make her such a great writer. She's written just one book and it's a collection of essays.
Q: What about influences? Who have they been and have they changed as your work has changed?
A: Most of my influences were basically formed between the ages of eleven and eighteen when I read nonstop. I didn't go to school and I didn't have much of another life.
Q: You didn't go to school?
A: As a child, I was very sick, so the doctors had advised my parents not to send me to school. Ironically, they said, "She's not going to become a professor. She's going to get married and have kids, so what's the point of burdening her?" As a result, I had a rather lonely childhood and so I sort of delved into the world of books--whatever I could lay my hands on. I first read Little Women and that gave me this sick taste for books and until I got married, I was reading constantly. I didn't read authors as such, but certain books influenced me. For example, Pickwick Papers. And Anna Karenina, Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn. You know, these things young people read. I must have read these books four or five times each, plus a whole lot of other things--Maupassant in English and Russian authors. You know, whoever I could lay my hands on. I think two books which I read later in my life which might have had an influence are Naipaul's House For Mr. Biswas and Catch-22 by Joseph Heller.
Q: What do you think of all these terms being thrown around--post-colonial literatures, commonwealth literatures, Anglo-Indian literature--are these distinctions helpful? Are they inadequate? Do you think your work can easily be placed into any of these categories?
A: Well, you know there is so much written. I have been taught in courses which are called post-colonial or world literature or comparative literature, so I don't care what category I am pigeonholed into as long as I am read and liked. And it's only in America, I think, that one is pigeonholed because there is just so much published. It's only at the university level. Secretaries, doctors, all types of people had read [Cracking India], not just people involved with the academic field. And that's how I'd like to be read. People who enjoy a good read, people belonging to book clubs. Ladies in book clubs have written to me and that sort of thing, you know. I would certainly not like to be viewed as a post-colonial novelist, that would be absurd. I hope that I write in a way which would be true to all times.
Q: Would you agree that there has been a burgeoning of interest in literature coming out of the subcontinent, especially with all of the hoopla that accompanied Vikram Seth's tome? Is there more of a market--
A: Yes, certainly. Let's put it this way, Latin America has been fashionable for a long time, and there's been very creative work coming out of there. Africa has also become fashionable, and there's a wide readership. These things have been dictated by the reading public. So you know Latin American writing is going to be very popular in America for a long time because there are a lot of people from that part of the world here who will be reading about it. And that doesn't mean it precludes a lot of other communities who enjoy that writing too. And I think slowly, India, too is gaining favor and popularity. It started perhaps with Rushdie and before Rushdie with Anita Desai before that with Narayan and Naipaul, Raja Rao, so there has been an interest because these have been great, great writers. So this is not something new. Vikram Seth has come out with a very bubbly, very effervescent novel and it's wonderful that people from the subcontinent are being read. And I am particularly pleased that he has written in this realistic, simple, easy, readable, entertaining style because then more people will read writers like us. For example, one of the best reviews was when somebody had written about The Crow Eaters, "It is a book you can whole-heartedly enjoy, rather than respectfully admire." I think Rushdie unfortunately falls into the category of `difficult to read, but respectfully admired.' But Vikram is much lighter and I think would be accessible to a lot more people. But I must clarify, when I say Indian literature is coming into its own, I mean Indian, I don't mean Pakistani. There's an Indian lobby and I'm out of that.
Q: How do you divide your time between the U.S. and Pakistan?
A: For the last ten years, we have sort of semi-moved. Right now, I am sitting pretty because I won a rather wonderful award, the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Writer's Award. They give $10,000 a year to get involved in some community activity which you feel passionately about. And what I do feel very passionately about are the problems in our part of the world and the antagonism between the subcontinental countries. My proposal is to set up a forums for subcontinental understanding through dialogue. I am planning to have about four writers a year, broad-minded people from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. I want to set up forums and debates and try to defuse these awful things which are happening in India at the moment after the Ayodhya issue. It has to be bridged because we are harming nobody but ourselves. I have already asked Anita and Shashi Tharoor and from Pakistan, Sara Suleri. They have agreed, so we will start these sessions soon. They will be held in Houston because that's where I want to place myself for the next three years.
Q: What do you think of Houston?
A: I love it. Houston is a comfortable city in terms of parking space and you don't have to stand in long queues to get into cinemas. But I loved New York also when I was there. They both have their own charm. I like a lot of things about America. I love Cambridge. I was in Cambridge for two years.
Q: What do you think of Cambridge, Harvard Square?
A: Well, you know, Brother Blue--I don't know if he still exists there. A lot of characters are from that area. I certainly enjoyed my stay there. I audited a lot of classes, I met a lot of wonderful people. I had a great time.