
Why RK Narayan's Malgudi Days still feels like a slice of real India
On a warm afternoon in the 1930s, a young man in Madras sealed a letter to his friend in Oxford. Inside was a manuscript he believed had little chance. He even joked that it could be tossed into the Thames.But destiny, as it often does in good stories, had other plans.That manuscript became Swami and Friends, and it gave birth to Malgudi, one of India's most beloved fictional towns.advertisement
With this book, RK Narayan built a universe that would live in the hearts of millions of Indians for decades to come.Set somewhere between Madras and Mysore, Malgudi wasn't a real town. But to readers, it might as well have been. You could almost smell the hot pakoras by the roadside, hear the chatter from the Board High School, and spot Swaminathan loitering with his friends under the shade of a tamarind tree.
(Photo: thefamouspeople.com)
Narayan introduced Malgudi in his first novel, Swami and Friends (1935), published thanks to the help of his friend and legendary author Graham Greene, who recommended it to a publisher in London.advertisementIt was the kind of world that didn't rely on political drama or larger-than-life heroes. Malgudi was about ordinary people -- rickshaw pullers, shopkeepers, schoolboys, astrologers -- and their quietly moving lives. It was a microcosm of Indian life.BORN TO TELL STORIESRasipuram Krishnaswami Iyer Narayanaswami was born on October 10, 1906, in Madras. His father was a school headmaster, facing frequent job transfers. Narayan spent much of his childhood with his grandmother, learning early lessons in mythology, music, and storytelling.
RK Narayan with his family in the 1920s. RK Laxman is around 4 years old here (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
After a rather unremarkable time at school, and he even failed the university entrance exam on his first attempt. However, he eventually graduated from Maharaja's College in Mysore with a degree in arts.He began working as a journalist and teacher, but his heart was set on writing. After multiple rejections, his first big break came with Swami and Friends, and it set the tone for the rest of his career.CHARACTERS WHO FELT LIKE NEIGHBOURSadvertisementNarayan's books never screamed for attention -- they quietly tapped on your shoulder. And once you opened the door, they pulled you in.Swami was just a schoolboy, but in him, generations of readers saw their own childhood mischief and innocence.In The Guide, Raju the tourist guide transforms into a reluctant spiritual leader -- a journey filled with irony, humour, and reflection.Then there was Jagan in The Vendor of Sweets, an old-fashioned father trying to understand his westernised son. Each of these stories carried a strong emotional undercurrent, without ever becoming sentimental.These characters were less like characters, and more like people you knew.
WHEN MALGUDI CAME TO TVIn 1986, Malgudi Days hit Indian television screens -- and a new generation fell in love.Directed by Kannada actor-director Shankar Nag, and with iconic sketches by Narayan's brother RK Laxman, the series was filmed in Agumbe, Karnataka, a sleepy town that looked like it had stepped straight out of the pages of the book.advertisementEach episode adapted a different short story, from 'A Hero' to 'The Missing Mail', and the theme music by L Vaidyanathan still rings nostalgic in the ears of Indian millennials.The series aired on Doordarshan, but its magic has lasted for decades -- reruns, YouTube uploads, and even an Amazon Prime listing continue to draw in viewers.PERSONAL LOSS, WRITTEN QUIETLYIn 1933, Narayan married Rajam, a happy union that ended in heartbreak when she died of typhoid in 1939. He was devastated, and it deeply affected him and influenced his writing.
RK Narayan with his wife, Rajam (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Out of that pain came The English Teacher, a novel that captured his grief with unflinching honesty. The book reads like a conversation with his lost love. It was raw, beautiful, and deeply human.He remained devoted to their daughter, Hema, and never remarried. Narayan's philosophy emphasised the importance of simplicity and authenticity, both in life and literature.A LEGACY BUILT ON SIMPLICITYOver the decades, Narayan wrote 14 novels, countless short stories, essays, and even memoirs like My Days. His writing was never flamboyant. There were no fireworks in his prose, just a steady flame that kept readers warm.advertisementHe was often called 'India's answer to Chekhov' -- though Narayan himself was modest about such comparisons. He once said he simply wanted to 'write about ordinary people going about their lives'.AWARDS, HONOURS, AND A SEAT IN PARLIAMENTRecognition came, slowly but surely.
Lyle Blair of Michigan State University Press (Narayan's U.S. publisher), RK Narayan and Anthony West of The New Yorker (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Narayan was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1964 and the Padma Vibhushan in 2000. In 1986, he was nominated to the Rajya Sabha, where he voiced concerns about education, especially the burden of heavy schoolbags on children -- a classic Narayan concern.He received honorary doctorates from multiple universities and was shortlisted for the Nobel Prize, though he never won it.A QUIET GOODBYERK Narayan passed away on May 13, 2001, at the age of 94. But Malgudi didn't die with him.advertisementIt lives on -- in dusty old paperbacks passed down in families, in nostalgic TV reruns, and in new readers discovering Swami, Raju, and Jagan for the first time. It feels more real than many places on the map.Malgudi wasn't just a setting. It was a feeling. And through it, Narayan gave us the rarest of gifts: stories that felt like home.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
How much money does a superstar need?
Remember Leo Tolstoy's famous short story where a greedy peasant could claim all the land he could walk in a day? Spoiler alert: his ambition wrote checks his body couldn't cash, and he collapsed at sunset—leaving him with just enough earth for his grave. If Tolstoy were alive today and writing about Indian cinema, his fable might ask: how much money does a superstar need? And it might go something like this: Once upon a time in Bollywood, a talented, struggling actor finally hits the jackpot. After years of eating instant noodles and taking the bus to auditions, he becomes box office gold. Suddenly, producers are throwing money at him, and as if to make up for all the struggles, he starts demanding more and more, sometimes accounting for even 80% of the film budget. "But I'm worth it!" he insists. "People come to see ME!" The desperate producer, seeing visions of houseful boards across theatres in the country, reluctantly agrees. What choice does he have, he thinks: in a star-obsessed industry, you need them to guarantee screen numbers and opening weekend earnings. But what happens next would make even Tolstoy rub his pearly white beard in thought. When Stars Eat The Sky: The remaining 20% of the budget now has to become elastic and stretch to cover everything else: the supporting cast (told to think of the "exposure"), the crew (promised future projects), action sequences (downgraded now), and visual effects meant to transport audiences to another world now looking worse than an audition reel. And I almost forgot: this 20% also has to budget for a star's vanity… I mean, vanity van, or vans, and the entourage that comes with the man, which can be a dozen or more people. The film releases. The audience, who apparently didn't get the WhatsApp forward that they should be amazed by star power alone regardless of film quality, collectively shrugs. "Meh," says social media. The producer loses his shirt, his pants, and possibly his beach house in Alibaug. Meanwhile, our star has already moved on to his next victim—I mean, project—leaving behind a path of cinematic destruction Godzilla could take notes from. The Steering Wheel Syndrome: Let's get real for a minute. A star claiming sole credit for a film's success is like a steering wheel, thinking it's the entire car. "Look at me, turning left and right! I am THE vehicle!" Sorry, dude, but without the engine, tyres, chassis, and thousands of nuts and bolts holding everything together, you're just a circular ornament. For proof, conduct this thought experiment: imagine your favourite megastar, leave them alone in a room with an iPhone and let them act their heart out for two hours. Release this 'masterpiece' in theatres nationwide. Would you pay 300 rupees to watch that? Would anyone? If your answer is "no," then perhaps we need to reconsider the notion that stars single-handedly "carry" films, that often by their stubborn insistence on more everything, they bury the films prospect. So what does a fair system of compensation look like? Hollywood's Money Math: Hollywood has figured out a more equitable formula. A-list Hollywood actors typically receive a base salary of 10-20% of a film's budget. For a $100 million blockbuster, that comes to $10-20 million—enough to buy a few islands, yet have change enough for a Ferrari ki sawari. But here's where Hollywood scores an ace: they've created a concept called "gross points," which is the percentage of a film's total revenue paid to participants, such as a star, director, or producer, from the very first dollar earned. In contrast, there is the concept of 'net points,' which is prevalent in Bollywood, where one waits for the film to reach profitability before doling out cash. Stars typically negotiate between 5-15% of the gross points on top of their fee, which can be substantial earnings if the film performs well. This creates what business types call "alignment of interests", which mere mortals like us call win-win. When a film succeeds, the producers pop champagne, the studio executives buy another flat, and the star buys another farmhouse in Beverly Hills. The Bigger Pie Philosophy: Think about it this way: should a star rather have 80% of a small, sad, underfunded pie or 20% of a spectacular, crowd-pleasing, critics-adoring, award-winning pie that keeps growing bigger with every box office record it smashes? Some stars have done the math and, guess what, have chosen Door Number Two. Take Aamir Khan, for instance—Bollywood's very own Professor of Economics. He says he doesn't charge upfront fees for his films. Instead, he takes a percentage of the gross revenue. When "Dangal" conquered China faster than the Brits could, Khan's bank account experienced escape velocity. He made significantly more than any fixed fee he'd have taken–by some estimates close to ₹300 crores–while ensuring the production itself had enough resources to tell its story properly. Marvel initially doubted casting Robert Downey Jr. Naturally, they were unwilling to pay him a substantial upfront fee. Instead, they spent time creating quality films in which stories became the main draw. Yet, by the time "Avengers: Endgame" finally rolled around, Downey Jr.–who dies in the film–reportedly made up to $600 million for his roles in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies. His 'gross points' compensation didn't prevent the movie from having spectacular effects, an ensemble cast, and enough marketing to make sure even a Rohtak grandmother knew who Thanos was. Beyond Megastars–The Forgotten Film Family: There's a cinematic family tree that gets overshadowed when just one branch takes all the sunlight. There's the screenwriter fighting monsters in her head to craft the story that'll become the blockbuster; a salt and pepper, bearded director who keeps the vision together; a sunburnt director of photography turning ordinary locations into visual poetry; a costume designer with the magic to turn dull cloth into fairy tales; music composers blessed by the muse to create tunes that'll stay stuck in peoples whistles for decades; the stuntmen and stuntwomen who literally break their back so the stars don't have to; and let's not forget the humble spot boys running around in the scorching heat to make sure everyone stays hydrated. These aren't just "film crew"—they're artists, craftspeople, who've spent years and decades honing their craft and how to keep the beating heart of cinema alive. When a star's paycheck devours a film's budget, these essential contributors get the financial equivalent of table scraps. Over my 15 years of active work in the industry, I've seen many talented professionals leave the industry altogether, frustrated, because, you know, they have this weird desire to pay rent and feed their families. The irony in all this? When stars insist on astronomical fees that handicap the production quality of their own films, they're ultimately shooting themselves right in their foot under the expensive sneaker. A string of mediocre films damages their brand. Audiences naturally wise up, eventually, and the very stardom they're cashing in on begins to fade. Finding the Sweet Spot: No one's suggesting stars should work for peanuts, even if their acting chops remind us of monkeys. If you can command audiences, create cultural moments, and make people forget their troubles even for a few hours in a dark theatre, you deserve substantial rewards. But perhaps there's a sweeter spot: a system where the star shines brightly without eclipsing everyone else. Where the grip, the gaffer, the costume designer, and the composer can all earn dignified livings. Where there is enough budget to actually realise the filmmaker's vision. In Tolstoy's tale, the greedy peasant ends up with just six feet of earth—exactly what we all ultimately need, regardless of our Instagram follower count or how many times our face has appeared on a movie poster. However, the question of "How much money does a superstar need?" is one each performer must answer personally. But perhaps the wisest stars understand that their legacy will be measured by the quality of stories they help tell, not by what they leave behind for their children. And if they want to leave something for their children, they must remember that every paisa wrongfully earned will be squandered by their children or grandchildren. There is no other way. It is the Circe of life. Yes, Circe, not circle, the sorceress from Greek mythology who turns men into swine. Six feet; that's how much land a man needs. How much money does a superstar need? Perhaps this nursery rhyme can answer. Twinkle Twinkle Greedy Star, Bleeding budgets near and far, Up above Tinsel Town, so bright, Dimming others' creative light.


Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
For the first time since divorce from Hardik Pandya, ex-wife Natasa Stankovic opens up about silent struggle with an inspiring message
A Candid Note That Resonates Reflecting on a Challenging Year Moving Beyond the Headlines The Story Behind the Split Months after her much-publicized divorce from Indian cricket star Hardik Pandya Natasa Stankovic is stepping into the spotlight with a fresh and inspiring perspective. On June 1, 2025, the actress and model shared a candid Instagram post reflecting her journey of resilience . Her message about perseverance and self-love has struck a chord with fans, showcasing a new, empowered version of posted a raw, makeup-free mirror selfie, flaunting her toned physique and natural glow. But it was her heartfelt caption that truly captured attention:'This version of me didn't come from luck. She came from showing up, again and again – even when it was hard, even when no one noticed. And if you're doing the same? I see you. Keep going.'This message, emphasizing grit and silent strength, has been widely praised, with thousands of fans applauding her honesty and quickly flooded Natasa's comment section with love and admiration, applauding her strength and glow-up. Messages like 'Slaying forever, My Sunshine,' and 'Keep shining, Queen,' reflected the deep connection fans felt with her journey. Many hailed her as a source of inspiration, with one follower writing, 'You're doing amazing, please keep going,' while another simply affirmed, 'You are inspiring.'The past year was a turbulent one for Natasa. Following her separation from Hardik Pandya in 2024, with whom she shares a five-year-old son, Agastya, she has quietly rebuilt her life. In a recent interview with ETimes, she reflected on the hardships and growth, emphasizing the wisdom gained through experience rather than age. Natasa remains optimistic about the future, openly welcoming new opportunities and even the possibility of has consciously chosen to let go of bitterness and public scrutiny. She shared a thoughtful perspective on coping with setbacks: 'Life doesn't always go as planned, but how you respond to challenges defines your growth. Don't try to prove anyone wrong because it will only cost you peace. Just forgive and move on.' This maturity is resonating with many who have faced similar Pandya and Natasa's relationship was once a media favorite. From their chance meeting in 2018 to a grand wedding in 2023, their journey seemed filled with promise. They share a son and continue to co-parent amicably. While the reasons for their divorce remain private, both have maintained respect and cordiality in Natasa turns a new page in her life, her recent social media post signals a strong comeback built on self-awareness and inner strength. Her message encourages anyone facing hardship to keep persevering, reinforcing that growth often happens in silence.


India Today
35 minutes ago
- India Today
Comedian Gaurav Gupta's banter with Pak fan at US show: Chalo Hanuman chalisa padho
Comedian Gaurav Gupta took a jibe at the ongoing Indo-Pak tensions as he engaged with a Pakistani audience member during his US show. Gaurav's hilarious banter with the Pakistani fan left the audiences in while performing on Sunday, as part of his US-Canada comedy tour, interacted with an audience member. When he said he was from Pakistan, a few people from the crowd started shouting 'Sindoor' (reference to 'Operation Sindoor' by Indian defence forces). The comedian then asked everyone not to then jokingly told the Pakistani audience member, "Brother, you have a lot of guts coming to the show. He thought artistes were banned, but audience members are still allowed." "Chalo tum Hanuman Chalisa padho ab (Go on, recite the Hanuman Chalisa now)," he comedian then asked the Pakistani fan if he understood his jokes. He then subtly made a reference to Kashmir and said, "Toh tumhe samajh nahi aata, nahi milega tumhe? Itne saalon se keh rahe hain nahi milega, nahi milega, phir aa jaate ho tum (So you don't understand? You won't get it. We've been saying it for years – still, you keep coming)." While reacting to the video, a fan commented, "Nahi Milega was brilliant ('You would not get' was brilliant)." Another fan wrote, "Sahi tha ye hanuman chalisa sunao was best ('Chant Hanuman Chalisa' was best)."advertisementA fan also commented, "He was hesitating while roasting him. But he still did it gracefully." Another user wrote, "So disappointed. He could have used this opportunity to celebrate in a positive way. What he did was use back-handed comedy. Disappointed." A user also commented, "Big disappointment from an artist like you."Gaurav started his US-Canada tour on May 30 with a show in Atlanta. It was followed by another show in tensions between India and Pakistan started escalating after the April 22 attack in Pahalgam by Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, which claimed 26 innocent lives. The social media accounts of several Pakistani artistes were banned in India as a mark of Khan-Vaani Kapoor's romantic drama 'Abir Gulaal' was banned in both India and from Indian film industry backed the Indian defence forces for their precision strikes against terror camps in Pakistan and (PoK) Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as part of Operation actors featured in film posters have also been removed as a symbol of boycotting any collaboration with the neighbouring Reel