Mallika Sengupta and the Poetry of Feminist Conviction

January 18, 2006 Q: You are a sociologist by profession. Why and when did you start writing poetry?

A: I started writing poetry when I was studying for my M.A. degree. I fell in love with a poet who is incidentally my husband now. So poetry came with passionate love in my life. From the very beginning, Subodh inspired me to write. His presence in my life was the turning point, I suppose.

Q: Who are the writers who have influenced you most?

A: I am influenced by myths, epics, histories and contemporary issues. I feel inspired by Adrienne Rich and Kate Millet. Often I use sociology and anthropology as my source material. Obviously I am indebted to the whole tradition of Bengali literature.

Q: As a married woman poet, what are some of the gender-specific problems you have faced in pursuing your career?

A: Fortunately, I have a household favourable to my career. But certainly I have some gender-specific problems, primarily motherhood. I feel I could have written more if I were the father of the child. I have a strong desire to live in tribal or ethnic communities and write about them as a participant-observer. But I cannot do this because of my little son. I can fight against any bondage other than motherhood.

Q: Would you describe yourself as a feminist poet?

A: Why not?

Q: What, in your opinion, are some of the advantages and limitations of being a woman poet writing in Bengal?

A: A woman writing poems is always regarded as a ‘woman poet’ and never as a ‘poet’. She is always compared with other women. Readers have some specific expectations about what a woman should write and what she should not write. Often I fail to fulfil their expectations because I do not write lyrical love poems or soft nature poems. I always face questions like, why do you write such ‘strong’ poems? Why do you write only on women’s issues? Some complain: these days you are becoming more a feminist and less a poet. I do not find any special advantage in being a woman writer.

Q: Should poetry be didactic? Does the scope of poetry become restricted if the poet is an ideologue?

A: Ideology ruins poetry, but not always. Rather every poet has to face this challenge at some period of her life. From ancient times, poets have been regarded as profound observers commenting on social issues. Almost all good poets try to convey their convictions and ideologies through poetry. I think a good poet can always insert ideology into poetry without destroying aesthetic conditions. This is how a good poet is tested, at least in my opinion.

Q:What are your views regarding contemporary Bengali women’s poetry?

A: More and more women are coming into the field of Bengali poetry. This is a positive sign. They have come forward to reveal women’s untold experiences with courage and sensibility. Many women are writing good poems.

Q: Do you think translation of poetry is necessary? How far can a translated poem replicate the original?

A: Yes, that depends. But translation is essential. Especially contemporary Bengali poetry needs to be translated much more.

Q: T.S. Eliot defines poetry as “excellent words in excellent arrangement and excellent metre”. How would you define your own poetry?

A: My poetry possesses neither excellent words nor excellent arrangement, nor excellent metre. This definition does not go with today’s conception of poetry. I would like to use everyday language used by common people. I do write in metrical form as well, but there are many good poets who do not bother about metre either. An anti-metre poetry movement is found all over the world.

Q: What about your work in progress and future plans?

A: I am writing a novel about sexual harassment and its aftermath. I have a plan to combine strong women’s issues with rhythm, metre and lyric. This would be an experiment.


The following part of the interview was conducted in August, 2004, specially for the PIW.
Q: Do you think you are writing much more prose now, as poetry seems inadequate in conveying certain ideas?

A: Poetry is subtle and symbolic in expressing ideas, and it has a limited readership. For the last ten years, I have felt that I need to express my views on certain issues, especially on gender discrimination and violence, and that I should communicate this to a bigger readership. Therefore, I started writing prose. My first book of gender essays was published in 1994, and is the first Bengali book from India on gender. Now I write poems with passion, and prose with a combination of passion and rationality.

Q: Why do you think publishers advise poets to write fiction? And why do readers of poetry form such a minority group?

A: It is believed that poets can write better prose because they have a better sense of expression and greater insight. It could be a prejudice, but still people believe that when poets write prose, it is likely to be of finer quality and get a larger readership. Therefore, sometimes publishers advise poets to write prose. Poetry always caters to a minority readership because the majority lacks the training to appreciate subtlety. Poetry is probably happy with its committed and motivated minority ‘we’ group of readers.

Q: Is it possible to write poetry that will be as reader-friendly as fiction? Your own poetry communicates very lucidly. Do you consciously write in such a communicative mode?

A: There was a time when all writing was in verse. Epics and shlokas written in ancient times have charmed people though the ages. I don’t believe in writing a mystical, complex, inaccessible, elitist, synthetic kind of poetry, but that does not mean poetry should be as lucid as prose. Poetry has its own language. For some, my poems are lucid and communicative, but for some others, it seems to be Greek. The first group is that ‘we’ group and the latter is the ‘other’. I don’t need the ‘other’ for my poetry, as I write enough prose for them.

Q: Tell me about your latest publications. Which among them has pleased you the most?

A: In the last five years (from 1999 to 2004), I have published four books of poems, one book on gender and a thin collection of my poems in English translation. I have also edited an anthology of women’s poetry from two parts of Bengal. It is very difficult for me to answer the second part of your question, as I am never pleased with my works, and perhaps should not be either. Still, maybe I am a little confident about my 1200-line ballad poem, ‘Kathamanabi’. In this poem, Kathamanabi, the narrator, tells her story through eight personae, as Ganga, Draupadi, Medha Patkar, Shah Bano, Razia Sultana, Khana, Madhabi (an epic character) and Malati Mudi (a rape victim and tribal woman of rural Bengal). While writing, I felt I was mingling with my characters, becoming Kathamanabi. It was a unique experience.

Q: A final question. Bengali creative writing and the Bangla language are experiencing a sense of neglect, like most other regional literatures and languages. Do you envisage a bright future for contemporary Bangla literature in the present global scenario?

A: On the one hand, we Indians are combating the globalisation of culture, and on the other, allowing regional literature and culture to be oppressed and marginalized. Bangla is doubly cornered because it has no crusaders for the language, nor does it occupy the power position in the present Indian scenario. Bangla literature can be compared with any quality literature, but we Bengalis are too self-confined to reach out worldwide. I can’t envisage any bright future for Bangla literature in the global scenario unless we are all set for ‘globalisation’ through translation. Sanjukta, only people like you can bridge the gap between the global and the local Bangla.


Part of this interview first appeared in Kavya Bharati, 2000, Number 12