“And what invitations! Embossed, with old lettering, on cards stiff as wood. They were like spits in the eye of fate."
This quote is a description of the invitation the Shakil sisters sent out for the ball that they threw after their father's death. Chhunni depicts this vividly, as she remembers it with clear fondness. The various details of the invitation show the care that they put into their craft. The invitations are described as "spits in the eye of fate," as the sister chose to throw this lavish party despite recently learning that their father wasted all of their money. The invitations indicate how much they refused to accept their change in circumstances.
I think what I'm confessing is that, however I choose to write about over there, I am forced to reflect that world in fragments of broken mirrors, the way Farah Zoroaster saw her at the bollarded frontier. I must reconcile myself to the inevitability of the missing bits.
In this early passage, the narrator acknowledges the limitations of his ability to tell this story. He compares his attempts to render Peccavistan in a coherent narrative to a reflection in a broken mirror. When he says that he needs to "reconcile" himself "to the inevitability of the missing bits," he means that no version of the story he is writing will ever contain all of the information. He is indicating he is aware of what is absent from his narrative.
"Bariamma's mildly droning recital of the catalogue of family horrors had the effect of somehow defusing them, making them safe, embalming them in the mummifying fluid of her own incontrovertible respectability. The telling of the tales proved the family's ability to survive them, to retain, in spite of everything, its grip on its honour and its unswerving moral code."
This quote describes the way in which Bilquìs' grandmother would describe the many misfortunes and tragedies that had afflicted their family over the years. These two sentences follow a long list of these moments. What the narrator takes note of is the fact that her grandmother's goal seems to be "embalming" or "mummifying" these stories, as a means of making them more bearable. The narrator adds that by sharing them, she is demonstrating that the family "survived." In describing this habit of Bilquìs' grandmother, the narrator is depicting how her "cataloging" of terrible moments actually serves to lessen their impact, as the family has endured long enough to be able to tell them.
Roots, I sometimes think, are a conservative myth, designed to keep us in our places.
In this moment, the narrator is describing how he does not believe in the idea of "roots." This follows a paragraph in which he talks about his childhood and critiques people who talk about feeling rooted to a place. He says he occasionally thinks that roots are a "conservative myth" and that people just like the idea of having something to hold them in place. What he means when he says this is that he does not believe in the idea of a true home, that no one is inherently bound to a place, and that people who claim to be are merely perpetuating this "myth."
As for me: I, too, like all migrants, am a fantasist. I build imaginary countries and try to impose them on the ones that exist.
In this quote, the narrator is discussing the way in which his vision of Q. (and Peccavistan more generally) is somewhat fictional. He states that he builds "imaginary countries" and then attempts to "impose them" on real ones. What he means is that he creates a version of Peccavistan on the page that he tries to impose onto the actual country. This description also fits with the more "fantastical" elements of the story (Babar becoming an angel, Sufiya becoming a panther) as it uses supernatural elements to symbolize real aspects of his country. It is also noteworthy that he says he does this as a "migrant," because he writes about Peccavistan while living in London. This means that in order to write this version of Peccavistan, he must imagine it, as he no longer resides there and lacks the direct connection he used to have. He is forced to rely on memories and feelings as he writes.
Men who deny their pasts become incapable of thinking them real.
This quote follows a long passage about Omar befriending Iskander, despite the fact that Iskander was directly involved in murdering Omar's brother, Babar. The narrator says that while initially Omar hoped to avenge his brother, he eventually became friends with Iskander. Subsequently, Omar gave himself over to enjoying life as a member of the upper class, as he married Raza's daughter Sufiya. In this quote, the narrator is noting the danger that faces men like Omar. The narrator says that he believes Omar has become so detached from his past that he no longer believes it to be real. These words prove to be extremely important to the story, as Omar is later disowned by his mothers for not avenging his brother and then is killed by Sufiya at the end of the novel. The narrator reveals the error in his thinking, as his forgotten past becomes his undoing.
I had thought, before I began, that what I had on my hands was an almost excessively masculine tale... But the women seem to have taken over; they marched in from the peripheries of the story to demand the inclusion of their own tragedies, histories and comedies, obliging me to couch my narrative in all manner of sinuous complexities, to see my 'male' plot refracted, so to speak, through the prisms of its reverse and 'female' side.
In this passage, the narrator describes how the novel has deviated and changed from his original idea of it. He states that while he initially saw this as a "masculine" tale, the female characters have "demanded" that he give priority to their "tragedies," "histories," and "comedies." What he means is that while he originally planned to focus solely on the men in the story, it became immediately clear to him that the women could not be left in the "peripheries." The implication is also that he does not have complete control over this narrative, as its female characters have asserted themselves in a way that brought them into the spotlight. The narrator also comments that his original, more "male" plot took on new complexity, as he is able to see those events (Iskander's rise to power) from the perspective of the women beside, and often at justifiable odds with, them.
"Nobody can topple me," Isky's ghost tells the electronic shade of the Angrez journalist, "not the fat cats, not the Americans, not even you. Who am I? I am the incarnation of the people's love."
This quote from Iskander indicates the way in which he thinks of his rule over Peccavistan. Like his idol Chairman Mao, Iskander believes he is a champion of the people and that he is the "incarnation" of their "love." He also believes that his rule is only opposed by colonialists and wealthy "fat cats." This statement is unsettling because, as the narrator later describes, Iskander is a cruel and brutal leader who holds onto power through fear and violence. This statement shows the kind of circular logic that Iskander uses to justify all of his actions, much like Mao and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (the Pakistani president he is supposedly based on). If he is the "incarnation of the people's love," then no decision he makes can be questioned or objected to by those people.
The Beast has many faces. Some are always sad.
This short quote describes the beast inside of Sufiya. The narrator notes that it "has many faces," meaning that it has many different sides and takes on different shapes. This refers to the fact that it is driven by a variety of sources of shame and, later, will completely transform Sufiya into a mythic panther creature. When he adds that some of those faces "are always sad," he means that the shame that motivates this creature is frequently informed by a sense of tragedy, like Bilquìs' regrets about cheating on Raza.
This opposition—the epicure against the puritan—is, the play tells us, the true dialectic of history.
In this passage, the narrator describes what he believes the two sides of every historical conflict are. He discusses the opposition between Maximilien Robespierre and Georges Danton, two political leaders involved in the French Revolution. He says that Robespierre was severe and restrained, rarely showing enjoyment in things, whereas Danton was constantly enjoying things like expensive food. This eventually led to Danton's downfall, as he was criticized for indulging in these things and later executed. The narrator believes that Danton, the "epicure," was on the "shameless" side of history and took pleasure from many things and that Robespierre, the "puritan," was shaped by a sense of "shame." He says that the "puritans" frequently take power because they can take aim at the "epicures" for being too lax in their enjoyment of the world around them.
