#Binge Reviewing my previous Reads # of Calcutta
There is a bizarre, almost tidal rhythm in how Calcutta reveals itself to readers through its chroniclers. On the one hand, P. Thankappan Nair writes like an archivist, patient and unhurried, combing through ledgers, rare maps, court records, shipping lists, and old European diaries to reconstruct a city in embryo, long before it had a name that rang across empires. His *Calcutta in the 17th Century* feels like watching the Hooghly river at dawn: the slow mist lifting, details emerging from obscurity — settlements of fishermen and salt traders, Portuguese and Armenian merchants setting up tentative warehouses, English factors bargaining for land with local zamindars.
Nair’s approach is an act of excavation; his sentences often feel like they are carrying mud and pottery shards from a dig. In contrast, Kushanava Choudhury’s *The Epic City: The World on the Streets of Calcutta* is not an excavation but a return, a homecoming. It is written from the vantage of a modern journalist who left the city for the United States and then came back to live and work in its chaotic present. Choudhury’s prose thrums with immediacy, with the smells of frying telebhaja at a street corner, the rattle of buses that look older than the passengers they carry, the swarming lanes of College Street and the bittersweet nostalgia of a city that refuses to die but also resists being reborn.
Reading Nair and Choudhury side by side is like reading two different languages of time. Nair gives you the city as a project of European and Indian entanglement, before there were pavements or tramlines, when the English East India Company was still improvising and dependent on Mughal whims. His book is filled with the micro-histories of obscure men whose decisions shaped the geography we take for granted: who bought which strip of marshland, who built the first wharf, how villages like Sutanuti, Gobindapur and Kalikata slowly fused into a single urban entity. Choudhury, by contrast, gives you the city after three centuries of being lived in, after empire has come and gone, after capital and capitalists have migrated to Delhi, Mumbai, Dubai, New Jersey. His narrative pulses with the disillusionment of educated youth, the grey zones of crumbling institutions, the humour and stubbornness of ordinary Calcuttans who survive amidst dysfunction. Where Nair’s pages smell of archives and brittle paper, Choudhury’s smell of rain on tram tracks and the tang of politics in roadside addas.
The two books are also in conversation about memory. Nair’s memory is institutional — he is not from Calcutta originally, and perhaps that distance gives him a kind of monkish objectivity. He catalogues the city’s past the way a botanist might catalogue flora. The effect is sometimes dry but always reliable; one emerges from his book with a clear mental map of 17th-century Calcutta and its cosmopolitan cast. Choudhury’s memory is embodied. He left Calcutta as a child, grew up in New Jersey, returned as an adult reporter for The Statesman. His Calcutta is not an object of study but a subject of longing and irritation, a city that both nurtured and betrayed him. When he walks its streets, he hears ghosts, not of Job Charnock or Nabakrishna Deb but of his own family, of college friends, of newspaper colleagues who still fight daily battles against poverty, bureaucracy and inertia. In Choudhury’s hands, the city is alive and argumentative, capable of breaking your heart precisely because it was once home.
Another striking difference lies in narrative tempo. *Calcutta in the 17th Century* is a slow-burn; one cannot read it like a thriller. It demands you pause over footnotes, check maps, imagine topographies now lost under flyovers. It is a work of reconstruction, not sensation. Nair writes to record, not to entertain. In contrast, *The Epic City* is structured like a sequence of essays or vignettes. Choudhury moves fluidly from street to street, mood to mood, past to present. One chapter might describe the daily grind of a Statesman newsroom, the next the ghost of colonial grandeur in North Calcutta mansions, the next a meditation on political rallies that clog Esplanade. The prose has a journalist’s crispness but also a memoirist’s vulnerability. It is possible to read the book in a single sitting because its texture is conversational rather than academic. Yet the two books complement each other; Nair provides the skeleton, Choudhury the flesh and heartbeat.
Both writers also share a subtle sense of irony about the city’s destiny. Nair’s narrative implicitly undercuts the myth that Calcutta was “founded” by Job Charnock in 1690, showing instead a gradual, negotiated emergence, shaped by Indian agency as much as European initiative. His footnotes reveal layers of myth-making and legal wrangling, a reminder that even the city’s birth certificate is contested. Choudhury, writing in the 21st century, undercuts a different myth — that Calcutta is a “dying city.” He shows instead a city that has endured economic decline but refuses erasure, where art, theatre, and everyday resilience continue. Both books are acts of demystification, though at opposite ends of the timeline.
What makes the comparison richer is how each author handles the question of belonging. Nair is a meticulous outsider, a Malayali who made Calcutta his home but approached it as a subject for life-long research rather than confession. He writes the city into historical consciousness. Choudhury is a prodigal son, a Bengali who left and came back to test whether the city of his childhood could still be his future. He writes the city into emotional consciousness. Between them, we get a stereoscopic view: one eye on the slow forces of geography, trade and empire; the other on the quick pulses of nostalgia, frustration and affection. Reading both back-to-back is like walking down Chitpur Road and then suddenly seeing a 17th-century map of the same path — the bends and crossings, the names and houses, the ghosts of what came before.
Stylistically, the two books are studies in contrast. Nair’s prose is functional, careful, almost Victorian in its reserve. It is the prose of someone who believes the facts should speak louder than the narrator should. Choudhury’s prose is alive with metaphor, anecdote, and sensory detail. He quotes taxi drivers and poets with equal ease. His voice is recognisably that of a generation who came of age between continents, toggling between nostalgia and cosmopolitanism. Yet both achieve a kind of intimacy: Nair through his persistence, Choudhury through his presence. You can trust Nair’s dates and footnotes; you can trust Choudhury’s smells and silences.
There’s also a generational dimension. *Calcutta in the 17th Century* came out at a time when academic urban history of Indian cities was still taking shape; Nair virtually invented a subfield, producing dozens of books on the city’s street names, communities, and institutions. His work forms a backbone for anyone trying to understand how Calcutta’s colonial infrastructure was layered onto an existing social landscape. *The Epic City*, published in 2017, belongs to a different publishing ecology — one of global memoirs and narrative nonfiction where the personal and the political blur. It speaks to readers who may never have been to Calcutta but who are curious about how cities shape identity. It is as much about the author’s own coming-of-age as about the city’s. Together, they reveal how Calcutta itself has shifted from being a node of empire to being a symbol of memory.
Ultimately, what binds these two works is an ethic of attention. Nair pays attention to documents no one else bothered to index. Choudhury pays attention to street corners no one else bothers to describe with such tenderness. Both refuse the easy cliché — whether of “Job Charnock the founder” or “Calcutta the dying city.” Instead they offer a more complex, layered truth: that cities are processes, not monuments; that their past and present coexist like the old tramlines embedded in new asphalt. After finishing both books, one carries away a double vision: the marshy villages slowly becoming an imperial hub, and the imperial hub slowly becoming a city of resistance, humour, and survival.
If one were to imagine these books as two halves of a single narrative, Nair gives you the prologue — the city’s improbable birth amid trade, diplomacy and empire. Choudhury gives you an interlude — the city’s restless middle age, after greatness but before whatever comes next. Neither pretends to offer closure. Nair stops at the threshold of the 18th century; Choudhury ends without a neat moral, leaving us with an image of a city still breathing, still arguing with itself. Together they teach the reader not just about Calcutta but about how to read cities: with patience for archives and love for streets, with respect for both maps and memories.
This is why a comparative reading of *Calcutta in the 17th Century* and *The Epic City* feels more than academic. It feels necessary. One book equips you with the scaffolding of history, the other with the pulse of lived experience. One book shows you where the streets came from, the other shows you how they are walked today.
Between them, they map not only a city but an idea: that Calcutta, in all its contradictions, cannot be contained by a single narrative voice. It demands both the chronicler and the wanderer, the historian and the homecomer. And by reading both, we become, however briefly, both.
Give it a go, by all means.