Rohinton Mistry is the author of a collection of
short stories,
Tales from Firozsha Baag (1987), and three
internationally acclaimed novels,
Such a Long Journey
(1991),
A Fine Balance (1995), and
Family Matters
(2002). His fiction has won many prestigious international awards,
including The Giller Prize, the Commonwealth Writers Prize for Best
Book, the Governor General's Award, the Canada-Australia Literary
Prize, the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Fiction, The Royal
Society of Literature's Winifred Holtby Award, and the Kiriyama
Pacific Rim Book Prize for Fiction.
A Fine Balance was
also an Oprah's Book Club® selection.
Born in Bombay in 1952, Rohinton Mistry came to Canada in
1975.
From the Hardcover edition.
1. Why has Mistry chosen not to name the Prime
Minister or the City by the Sea, when they are easily recognizable?
Does recognition of these elements make any difference in your
attitude toward the story?
2. Is Nusswan presented entirely as a villain, or does he have
redeeming features? What are his real feelings toward Dina?
3. How does Dina''s position within her family reflect the
position of women in her culture and social class? Is the status of
Om''s sisters the same as Dina''s, or different? What sorts of
comparisons can you make between the roles and functions of women
in India (as represented in this novel) and in America?
4. Post-Independence India has seen much
religious and ethnic violence: for instance, the mutual slaughter
of Hindus and Muslims after Partition (1947), during which Ishvar
and Narayan saved Ashraf and his family, and the hunting down and
killing of Sikhs after the Prime Minister''s murder, witnessed by
Maneck. How does the behavior of the characters in the novel,
ordinary Hindus, Parsis, and Muslims, contrast with the hatred that
inspired these terrible acts? How much of this hatred seems to be
fomented by political leaders? Dukhi observes bitterly "that at
least his Muslim friend treated him better than his Hindu brothers"
[p. 115]. What does this say about ethnic and religious loyalties,
as opposed to personal ones?
5. After Rustom''s death, Dina''s primary goal
is self-reliance. But as the novel progresses and she makes new
friends, she begins to change her ideas. "We''ll see how
independent you are when the goondas come back and break your head
open," Dina says to Maneck [p. 433]. Does she find in the end that
real self-reliance is possible, or even desirable? Does she change
her definition of self-reliance?
6. Most people seem indifferent or hostile to the Prime Minister
and her Emergency policies, but a few characters, like Mrs. Gupta
and Nusswan, support her. What does the endorsement of such people
indicate about the Prime Minister? Can you compare the Prime
Minister and her supporters with other political leaders and
parties in today''s world?
7. Why does Avinash''s chess set become so important to Maneck,
who comes to see chess as the game of life? "The rules should
always allow someone to win," says Om, while Maneck replies,
"Sometimes, no one wins" [p. 410]. How do the events of the novel
resemble the various moves and positions in chess?
8. Dina distances herself from the political ferment of the
period: "Government problemsÑgames played by people in power," she
tells Ishvar. "It doesn''t affect ordinary people like us" [p. 75].
But in the end it does affect all of them, drastically. Why do
some, like Dina and Maneck, refuse to involve themselves in
politics while others, like Narayan and Avinash, eagerly do so?
Which position is the better or wiser one?
9. When Ishvar and Om are incarcerated in the labor camp, Ishvar
asks what crime they have committed. "It''s not a question of crime
and punishment-it''s problem and solution," says the foreman [p.
338]. If it is true that there is a problem-the vast number of
homeless people and beggars on city streetsÑwhat would a proper and
humane solution be?
10. People at the bottom of the economic heap frequently blame
so-called middlemen: people like Dina, who makes her living through
other people''s labor, or like Ibrahim the rent collector. Do such
middlemen strike you as making money immorally? Who are the real
villains?
11. How would you sum up Beggarmaster: Is he ruthless, kind, or
a bit of both? Does he redeem himself by his thoughtful acts, the
seriousness with which he takes his responsibilities toward his
dependents? In a world this cruel, are such simple categories as
"good" and "bad" even applicable?
12. When Beggarmaster draws Shankar, Shankar''s mother, and
himself, he represents himself as a freak just like the other two.
What does this vision he has of himself tell us about him?
13. The government''s birth control program is enforced with
violence and cruelty, with sterilization quotas and forced
vasectomies. But is birth control policy in itself a bad thing?
Dina tells Om, for example, "Two children only. At the most, three.
Haven''t you been listening to the family planning people?" [p.
466]. How might family planning be implemented in a humane
fashion?
14. After Dina''s father dies, her family life is blighted until
she marries Rustom. In later years, she chooses to withdraw from
her natural family; it is not until her year with the tailors and
Maneck that she again comes to know what a family might be. What
constitutes a family? What other examples of unconventional
"families" do you find in the novel?
15. Why do Ishvar, Om, and Dina survive, in their diminished
ways, while Maneck finally gives up? Is it due to something in
their pasts, their childhoods, their families, their
characters?
16. "People forget how vulnerable they are despite their shirts
and shoes and briefcases," says Beggarmaster, "how this hungry and
cruel world could strip them, put them in the same position as my
beggars" [p. 493]. Does A Fine Balance show people''s
vulnerability, or their fortitude?
17. What effect is achieved by the novel''s mildly comic ending,
with Om and Ishvar clowning around at Dina''s door? Is the ending
appropriate, or off-balance?
18. The novel gives us a vivid picture of life for members of
the untouchable caste in remote villages. Why might such an
apparently anachronistic system have survived into the late
twentieth century? Does it resemble any other social systems with
which you are acquainted? Why do so few of its victims fight the
system, as Narayan does? Why do so few leave the village: is it
from necessity, social conservatism, respect for tradition?
Discussion questions provided courtesy of Vintage Books, a division
of Random House, Inc., New York. All rights reserved.