It may sound absurd that the first e-novel author in India has also written the first modern retelling of the epic tale of the Ramayana. But Ashok K Banker, who nearly went bankrupt while retelling the tale (he wanted to change his name to Ashok K Bankrupt), believes he was chosen to write it. Like the brigand-turned-sage Valmiki, who first wrote the oral legend 3,000 years ago, Banker felt he was finding solace after a disturbing youth during which he had to drop out of college at 17 to care for his alcoholic mother and cut short his writing ambitions.

What is the difference between writing an e-novel and an epic tale like the Ramayana?
I have written all kinds of stories before. I even founded an Association of Urdu and English Writers in Mumbai with a Pakistani poet when I was 16. When I started retelling the Ramayana, I didn't take it as a religious thing. Instead, I found in the story of Ram that by going back in time and trying to understand one person, his story and his struggle, you could make some sense of it all. And I discovered that Valmiki wrote the Ramayana for much the same reasons.

Mistress of Spice To catch a star Jungle songs Lady with the Potter wand Straddling two worlds Bollywood calling We speak like that only Sing a song for literacy Looking back in wonder Perfect Balance His own Ramayanan

How did you prepare for the retelling?
I read all the available versions of the Ramayana. The Annotated Critical Edition of the Ramayana, which is available only at the Baroda University, the Tulsidas Ramayana and the 11th century Kamba Ramayana. If Valmiki wrote it in Sanskrit, the language of the people 3,000 years ago, Kamba wrote it in Tamil for his own people in the 11th century. Tulsidas, who wrote it in the 16th century, completely changed the story in his retelling to bring certain pride to the people of Awadh when two empires were threatening Indians. There have been many great writers who have taken this story and retold for their own times, in the idiom of their own age.

It must be a mammoth effort, to say the least.
There are 5,500 pages split into seven books. I have completed the equivalent of the first three books. In the next six-seven months, I will reach the end. It has been five years since I started the research and the writing.

How did the writing affect you personally?
When I was writing, I felt the tale was unfolding before me. All I had to do was to keep transferring it as I saw it. In the process, I began to realise that we can question too much, analyse too much and try to psycho-analyse too much, but sometimes the answer is to be found in the simplest of tales. It brought a certain solace, satisfaction and peace. Om Shanti Om !

Did you think about the growing fundamentalism in India?
I know that Om Shanti Om is chanted like a war-cry today. But there is an essence at its base which is beyond Hinduism and beyond religion. It is to do with humanity. There is a simple way of looking at it. Some say 'Ram is a God', some others say 'No, Ram is just a man'. Both are wrong. He was a man who dealt with superhuman obstacles. If overcoming superhuman obstacles and yet being human is god-like, then may be we all have such god-like qualities.

How do you respond to the controversy about the Ram temple?
It's very simple. I can't be called a Hindu activist by any standard of your imagination, nor am I having any kind of dialogue with the politicians. The Ramayana exists outside politics, it is beyond politics, beyond history, beyond all other human daily concerns. The controversy is about politics. The Ramayana itself is a story. And the story lives on. The story has lived for 3,000 years, it will live for 3,000 years more no matter which party is in power. I would be happy to see a government in power which is as mixed as I am. I would be happy to see a Muslim Prime Minister and a South Indian Prime Minister.

Did you face any trouble beginning the story straight from Ayodhya?
How can you write the Ramayana without writing about Ayodhya? If I wrote a book about Ayodhya at a time like this I am an idiot. If I had thought about the implication, I would probably have never sent the book to the publisher. When the agent contacted me, I would have instead given him the Mahabharata, which I am writing now. I don't take part in the controversy of whether a mandir or a masjid existed there.

What kind of narrative style have you adopted?
I chose a modern, colloquial style. There are as many Ramayanas as there are people living. This is the only way I could have told the story. Open it up, open it up completely from within, put you in the heart and soul and minds of the characters, under their skin, to understand what were they thinking and feeling. The style mixes both the ancient and the modern. If you find it jarring, if you find it pleasing, if you find it shocking, if you find it delightful, all those are your reactions. My desire was to tell the story.