Vikram Chandra, the author of Sacred Games, in conversation with Jai Arjun Singh, tells the following story:

Many of the supposedly bad people I met were actively religious, thoughtful about their lives and like anyone else they want to have a structured existence. There was this hitman, for instance, a highly rated shooter, who was a yoga-doing vegetarian. And he said to me, “Agar main meat khaata hoon, dimag garam ho jaata hai jabki thanda rahna chahiye.” (”When I eat meat, my mind gets hot, it doesn’t stay cool like it should.”) He also kept saying to us, “Why are you writing a book on the underworld? You should investigate life’s big problems, the big issues facing us all.”

And so we asked him: “Listen, it’s obvious that you think about all these big things, so how can you justify taking money from someone and putting a bullet through the head of someone you don’t even know?” And he replied: “Woh kya hai, upar wale ne uski maut likhi hai aur mera role hai usko maut dena. Main toh natak mein apna role ada kar raha hoon.” (”God has decided he has to die and my role is to bring him Death. So I’m just playing my part in the grand scheme.”)

Essentially, you see, he’s taking the Arjuna position, which is very clever.

I began reading the book today and was immediately struck by the reportorial or observed quality of the writing. (In fact, shades of Suketu Mehta there.) It is detailed and feels real. That is the meat. The sauce comes from the narrative charm, though kick is more like it, the steady desire to keep the reader interested in what is happening on every single page. (Will it last the remaining 850 pages?)

P.S. I also enjoyed reading this interview with Chandra on the Tehelka website. (Tehelka stories are available online once again! Either they have come into money, or they just weren’t getting any.) One of the points that Chandra has been making in his interviews is that there are deep or abstract narrative structures that exercise a particular hold on us. Perhaps. Another question also needs to be asked: is it only the form of the narrative or is it also the cast of the character? I have in mind the hit-man. How come he has emerged as our philosopher of choice? This is more than simply a question of whether he should or he shouldn’t. It can’t be only about the recycling of the noir aesthetic. I believe it has more to do with the fact that a part of us believes that thought or morality has made us impotent. We are passive. We are confused. The hit-man isn’t. His words are as direct as a bullet.

vikram-chandra-jai-arjun-singh