Community and Identity in Rohinton Mistry’s “Squatter”

In his short story “Squatter”, Rohinton Mistry uses the structure of a frame story to recite inspirational and cautionary tales by a single narrator named Nariman. Nariman tells these stories to a particular group of children in an apartment complex in Mumbai.

A frame story is a literary technique which binds one or more stories together with an overall unifying story. The purpose of a frame story in “Squatter” is to highlight the act of storytelling itself by Nariman, and how these stories act as a binding tool for this particular community. Nariman is known to be an insightful figure within the apartment complex, to whom children go to for stories that inspire and entertain them. Instead of Nariman insisting on starting the stories, the children themselves approach him by asking “how about a story Nariman Uncle?” (Mistry 146). The sustained return to Nariman as the narrator instils a sense of trust within him as a reliable storyteller both from the children’s perspective, and the readers’. The confined setting of the apartment complex acts as the boundary of the frame narrative within which multiple stories are told by Nariman to the children.

There is a level of continuity within the multiple stories because of the ongoing interactive nature of Nariman’s story telling. Nariman utilises a call and response method to engage the children during his story telling. He will ask questions a few times within the same story, such as “what do you think happened then boys?” to which the boys respond with “what happened Nariman Uncle, what happened?” (148). The call and response not only engage the children, but it also makes the audience an active participant in the development of the narrative instead of passive consumers by placing us in the position of the children.

Moreover, as Nariman transitions from one story to another, he asks the children to reflect on the previous story before he begins the new one. This added step in his storytelling ensures that the audience understands that there will be connections between the stories, and that there is moral intent behind the stories. Unlike other times when the children would approach Nariman about stories, he gathers them to tell them about Sarosh since a couple of them are considering studying abroad. Before he begins, he asks “But before we go on with today’s story, what did you learn about Savukshaw, from last week’s story?” (152). The explicit request for reflection and connection between the stories acts as a metaphorical rope binding the two stories together while simultaneously enhancing the engagement of the audience. This becomes a strengthening tactic of Nariman’s storytelling ability and in turn, reinforce the relevance of the frame story structure.

A strong sense of community is established within the apartment complex, in contrast to the lack of connections in Toronto for Sarosh. The children address Nariman as “Nariman Uncle”, creating a sense of intimacy that is close to familial connection. This enables the sense of trust and appreciation they have for him and creates a strong emotional connection within the community. Moreover, the community itself is very diverse and deeply connected, characters such as Rustomji that interrupt Nariman’s story are also part of his emotional connection as the interactions are quite informal and comfortable. Food is also used as a mechanism to create emotional bonds. Nariman describes how the aroma of the food cooking in his house and in other houses float across the apartment complex (151). The sensory effect of following a trail of aromas acts as another metaphorical rope binding all the people within the complex together.

In contrast, Sarosh’s experience in Toronto is denied this emotionally connected sense of community. The cultural difference is demonstrated humorously by focusing on one function, the toilet experience, where in India one is known to squat, and in Canada one sits. By explaining the discomfort, subtle prejudices, and shame Sarosh felt while trying to overcome this issue, Mistry demonstrates the subtle nuances and complexities that amalgamate during the process of immigration. This one simple process is usually not a subject of discussion, the reason for which is that it is a private matter, and there are norms surrounding it depending on where you are from. The fact that Sarosh could feel the judgement of locals in Toronto when he used public restrooms, shows that there is a lack of consideration and a level of ignorance about different cultural practices, which creates a barrier for developing connections and communicating (156). Furthermore, because this aspect is an extremely personal matter, he is unable to talk to his peers about it openly and has to conceal is problems, closing himself off from any chances of building a rich social network (157). Throughout the story of Sarosh in Toronto, there is no mention of any social groups that he has meaningful interactions with, because his purpose in Toronto becomes a mission to overcome this obstacle, and any networks formed are not considered important or relevant enough for this cautionary tale. This creates a cold outlook on life in Toronto. Lastly, even though Sarosh is unable to form a network in Toronto, his story being told by Nariman is a continued inclusion of him within the apartment community, reinforcing the emotional connections within the complex.

Sarosh would not be a cosmopolitan according to Ulf Hannerz’s essay “Cosmopolitans and Locals in the World Culture”, but rather an expatriate. Expatriates, according to him, are people who have chosen to live abroad for some period of time, such as for work or school, but can return home anytime they choose (Hannerz 243). A cosmopolitan on the other hand would be someone that has a certain competence or orientation that allows for a state of readiness and personal ability to engage with and participate in the foreign culture (239). Although Sarosh made it a point by the end of 10 years he will become fully immersed into the Canadian culture, this does not fit into the definition of a cosmopolitan because this approach is directed towards one particular place, for a temporary period, and not the globe as a whole.

Disclaimer: This work is original and the property of Aroni Sarkar. It is not authorised for any use, copies or dissemination.

Works Cited

Hannerz, Ulf. “Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture.” Theory Culture Society, vol 7, no. 2, 1990, DOI 10.1177/026327690007002014.

Mistry, Rohinton. “Squatter.” Tales from Firozsha Baag, FABER & FABER, 2006, pp. 145– 169.