Poetry from the Innermost Recesses of the Heart: An Interview with D.C. Chambial

Interview by Dr. Nilanshu Kumar Agarwal

D. C. Chambial, one of the significant contemporary poets from Himachal Pradesh, started writing poetry right from his school days. He has won the prestigious Michael Madhusudan Academy Award for his poetry. He has six books of poetry to his credit. A number of students have written their Ph.D. and M. Phil. dissertations on his works. His poems have been translated into Portuguese, Spanish, Danish, German, French, Greek and, Bengali languages. He also edits Poetcrit, a bi-annual journal of literary criticism and contemporary poetry. This poetic genius, who is called "a very promising poet" by Professor Shiv K. Kumar, engaged with Dr. Nilanshu Kumar Agarwal in an illuminating interview.

You are quite a prolific poet with six collections. In your poetic corpus, do you think all the poems are from the innermost recesses of your heart? Or, at some times, is head more dominant than the heart? What are your views about the origin of poetry in a poet? I think poetry is the bubbling of the excessive emotions in the poet's heart. But, if a poet is highly versatile, does every poetic creation come out of the heart? Is this process possible throughout the career of a poet? Or do you think at some moments, poetry is created by intellect and scientific reasoning of the poet? Your ideas, please.

Once again, you have also asked the same question which other interviewers have often asked. These collections have come out after I took to writing poetry about four decades ago. Then I was still in my high school. The poems which were included in our syllabus, their themes and music attracted me to compose my poems. Since then there has been no looking back.

Yes, I very much believe that the poems evolve from the deep recesses of one's heart. Absolutely, I agree with your observation that "poetry is the bubbling of excessive emotions." So is the case with me. All these poems have come up from the depths of my heart. I have often heard people saying that poems can be written at any time about anything. Some workshops are also organized by some people/universities, though little in India but very frequent overseas, about creative writing. In my case, some idea, word, or thought strikes my mind, and it sets into action, in association with my heart, and poems are born spontaneously. There have been moments when I tried to write without any emotion. The result has been futile. On the contrary, when supported by emotional back-up, I have composed even 3-4 poems within a very short span of time. The image/picture appears on the canvas of my mind, the hand moves on paper, and the result is a poem or poems. Whenever I have deferred composition, because of fatigue or ennui, for some later time, it has always completely disappeared from my mind, and I could never capture that idea/image with the same vigour again. When emotionally charged, I have composed about a dozen poems within a week: two to three at a time. There has been a non-fecund period ranging over several months. There is no bar to imagination, yet mostly the spring and summer months have been more fertile in my case. As the winter begins to fall, my creativity also becomes passive.

The creative process, in my case, has always been like a river flowing without any pause. No time to think anything besides concentrating on the images that flash upon my mind. This process is so continuous that sometimes the pen lags behind the movement of the mind, but once the image has been captured, the words can be taken care of after finishing the composition. Later on when I go through the poem the whole image reappears, and the missing word/words are given their due place.

Poetic creation, in my case, always comes out of the heart. It has happened with me to date. About the future, I can't say. However, I can say it with the potency of certitude that so far I have never composed any poem only with my head.

Intellect and scientific reasoning do play their role, but later on. When one sits to revise after composition in one's leisure, and if one also happens to be a critic, then one weighs the composition with intellectual and scientific parameters.

Why do you write poetry? Is it to reform the society or for self-pleasure? Or, is there no reason in the creation of poetry? I suppose, it comes quite naturally and spontaneously to a poetic heart. What do you think?

Why do I write poetry? (laughs) Have you ever asked any prospective mother/woman why does she give birth to her child? Poems are poets' children. The poet is the mother. A mother can't help giving birth to the child in her womb; likewise, a poet also feels restless unless he has delivered his poem, conceived by some image/spectacle/idea, matured in mind and nourished by heart. Since I started writing poetry, my idea about creative writing has been out-and-out procreative.

The creative process is spontaneous without any inkling of society. However, it is the pleasure that one gets while creating remains supreme. One forgets everything else, even one's own self. One merges with the thought, and the image and work of creation is the result. Social reform, though it is one endemic in the process, if the work aims at it, remains a subordinate objective. Reformation by poetry is one of its aims. Creation seen from the viewpoint of the artist gives joy/pleasure first to the artist, at the time of composition, and second, to the readers later on.

Yes, truthfully. Poetry, no, all works of art, come quite naturally and spontaneously to a poet/artist. Everything is poetic, provided we have that intuitive eye to see through the scheme of things in nature. Tragedy and comedy are the two sides of life: they, when viewed with a discerning eye, also manifest the inherent poetry in it. Poetry is not only a composition, metrical or based on its rhythm, but in its totality it brings within its compass the whole of creation, animate or inanimate.

Why do you release your poetic creations in the English language? Can an alien language express the native experience spontaneously? How will the natives of Himachal Pradesh — not well versed in the English language — comprehend the poetic upsurge of your heart? And how will the English-speaking people of an alien culture/other countries understand a poetry suffused with Indian mythological references? My point is that Indian poetry in English suffers from a terrible lack of readership. It can not be easily comprehended, both by the ordinary Indians and Englishmen. It is a poetry to be enjoyed, chiefly by the elite class of Indian metros. What do you say?

Why to write in English, an alien language? To me language does not belong to a particular place, confined within geographical boundaries; or to a specific group/community of people who have learned it in the lap of their mothers, but to those who can use it in their communicatio, whether oral or written. Good language is always learned, whether by native or alien speakers.

So far as the natives of Himachal Pradesh [or any part of our country] are concerned, a writer writes to give vent to his own emotions and ideology, without caring for whether the majority will understand or not. Even if the idea comes home to a handful of men and women, it is far better than to scatter it among the multitude who fail to grasp its quintessence. [So far as English, as a language, is concerned, there is mushrooming of English medium schools; every Tom, Dick and Harry wants his children to be educated in such schools.] When an artist paints something, does he care for how many of his neighbours or countrymen will be able to comprehend/appreciate it? So, it is a relative question. Those who know will appreciate. Similarly, those who can read, explore and interpret, (not paraphrase) a poem, will certainly appreciate it. People in Himachal, as elsewhere, do read, comprehend, and appreciate my poetry.

When it comes to English-speaking people of alien cultures of other countries, the basic tenets, the truths of life everywhere remain the same, from prehistoric times to the present, most technologically-advanced age; the technology is ever advancing. It makes little difference to an artist/poet/writer. How do we, in India, while reading/studying the poetry of British/American poets, comprehend them? Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Browning, Hardy, Whitman or Frost, I think, had never been to India, yet we study, explore and comprehend them as well as their countrymen do. Their works have British or American ethos and mythological references. Similarly, those Indian writers who are being studied in British or/and American universities, as a part of their curricula, are being comprehended. I construe that Indian ethos or mythological references do no stand in the way of understanding the works. My foreign friends understand my poems as well as the people of Himachal or India. Do you have any qualm?

Readership. Yes, readership is certainly less, but that does not hinder the imagination of a poet/artist. This idea for whom or how many one is creating/writing never enters the mind of the artist. One creates because one has to create. Nothing can impede creation. Here, I recall that all poems of Emily Dickinson were found in her box after her death. She did not tell anybody about them when she was alive. It is only after her poems and their worth came to be known that her poetry is being explored and enjoyed by the earnest students of literature, as well as the general reader alike.

Any work of art is understood and interpreted only by the elite class or by only a few. How many of the common men know or comprehend Greek, Roman, or Byzantine architecture; the works of Leonardo da Vinci, Van Gogh, or Raphael; Webster, Shaw, Ibsen, Eliot, Rimbaud, Patanjali, Bhartrihari,or Kalidas? It is always one's learning and interest that matter. A man of less academic qualification can be interested in the classics, while even a doctorate may be disinterested. … Interest and one's inclination are the foremost ingredients to enjoy any work of art. There have been writers/poets, like Kabir and Tulsidas, who never went to school; yet they are everyman's writers. While Eliot, Pound, Yeats and Sri Aurobindo are the centre of interest to only a few.

What is the significance of nature symbols in your poetry?

Symbols play significant role in poetry. In poetry, the poet does not state something directly in plain words; if one does so, it becomes flat. The poet uses economy of words and says what he wants to say, indirectly; then leaves it to the imagination of the reader to capture his point of view. It has often been noticed that various readers/critics interpret the same poem/work of art differently. This imparts kaleidoscopic beauty to the poem or work of art. Herein lies the beauty of any creation. Why is the diamond held to be so valuable? Certainly, for the quality of the dispersion of light seen differently from different angles.

Symbols, on the one hand, impart economy to the work, and, on the other, imbue it with plurisignation and ambiguity [Philip Wheelright & William Empson]; the charm of any poem lies in its mystery and/or ambiguity. The pains that one puts in, to demystify this riddle, give immense joy to the student/reader in unravelling that mystery or making sense of that ambiguity.

Human life is integral with nature. They complement each other. One is incomplete without the other. One cannot be severed from the other. Thus, nature symbols go down in my poetry as naturally as "leaves to a tree." I think it's hard to live in the absence of nature. I think poetry jejune without nature. I live in the lap of nature and cannot estrange myself from it. Do you remember Wordsworth used to wander in nature whenever he got time to be one with it, to enjoy it, to know it? While using nature symbols, I, in my consciousness, meld into nature and become one with it. Transcendental mysticism also teaches so. Animate and inanimate all are one in the Greater Consciousness.