In the sweltering heat of an April afternoon in 2009, I first encountered Upamanyu Chatterjee’s The Mammaries of the Welfare State sprawled on a bench in the National Library of Kolkata.
I had never read 'English August', the novel to which Mammaries is a sequel, but a friend had narrated enough of its absurdities for me to feel equipped. What followed was not a mere reading—it was a full-blown intellectual confrontation with one of the most corrosively sidesplitting portrayals of the Indian state I had ever encountered.
If The Last Burden was about familial rot, Mammaries was about institutional entropy—the endgame of a postcolonial democracy that promised welfare and delivered grotesque dysfunction.
Chatterjee’s 2000 novel is many things—a satire, a tragicomedy, a bureaucratic horror story, a postcolonial lamentation—but above all, it is a deeply uncomfortable mirror held up to the state. In its pages, Agastya Sen—now older, wearier, less stoned—floats through the slime-ridden corridors of India’s government machinery, a machinery that is neither oiled nor moving but somehow always in motion, always generating paperwork and failure.
What makes The Mammaries of the Welfare State so uniquely powerful is Chatterjee’s signature style: a prose dense with irony, deeply cynical, and sharply intelligent.
His sentences move like overloaded trains, rambling through stations of satire, irony, grotesquerie, and bitter truth. Unlike the hopeful political novels of the Nehruvian era, this one knows that the centre cannot hold—and doesn't care if it does.
To situate Mammaries in the bigger literary landscape, let’s consider five companion texts that echo, challenge, or parallel its themes. Each of these comparative readings allows us to see Chatterjee’s novel not only as a unique product of Indian English fiction but also as a participant in the broader conversation about power, decay, and the absurdity of systems:
1. The Mammaries of the Welfare State vs Rag Darbari (Shrilal Shukla): Both novels are satires of the Indian state, but they target different geographies and cultural milieus. Rag Darbari explores rural governance, while Mammaries satirises the urban, post-liberalisation bureaucracy. Shukla’s prose is colloquial and witty; Chatterjee’s is elevated and corrosive. Yet both authors show how democracy in India becomes a façade, a game of manipulation, a system that eats its young. Where Shukla uses rustic idioms to deconstruct the mythology of Gandhian idealism, Chatterjee employs English irony to dismantle the dreams of Nehruvian socialism. One laughs in recognition, the other in exhaustion.
2. The Mammaries of the Welfare State vs Animal Farm (George Orwell): Chatterjee and Orwell are spiritual cousins in cynicism. While Orwell wraps his critique in allegory, Chatterjee does it in grotesque realism. Animal Farm is mournful, disappointed in the betrayal of revolution. Mammaries doesn’t believe in revolution at all. There’s no Snowball here, no hope of rebuilding the windmill. The welfare state, in Chatterjee’s hands, is a lactating mother whose milk is corrupted and who cannot be weaned. Both novels mock the language of governance—how slogans and directives mask inaction and decay. But Orwell is didactic, while Chatterjee is gleefully nihilistic.
3. The Mammaries of the Welfare State vs Catch-22 (Joseph Heller): This is perhaps the most apt international parallel. Like Heller’s Catch-22, Mammaries is about systems designed to be irrational. Both Agastya Sen and Yossarian are caught in endless bureaucratic loops. In Catch-22, war has become a game of survival through absurd logic. In Mammaries, governance is war by other means—confusing, demoralising, and endless. Both books portray institutional insanity. The difference is cultural: Heller’s madness is mechanised and Western; Chatterjee’s is sprawling and subcontinental, layered with caste, corruption, nepotism, and fake secularism.
4. The Mammaries of the Welfare State vs A Fine Balance (Rohinton Mistry): While Mistry’s novel is realist and deeply empathetic, Mammaries is ironic and scathing. But both are, at their core, postcolonial novels about state failure. In A Fine Balance, individuals are crushed under the wheels of political change. In Mammaries, individuals become the wheels—complicit in their own degradation, bureaucrats of their own despair. Mistry’s India is filled with characters trying to preserve dignity. Chatterjee’s India is peopled by characters who have stopped pretending to care. The tragedy in Mistry is human; in Chatterjee, it is institutional.
5. The Mammaries of the Welfare State vs White Teeth (Zadie Smith): Zadie Smith’s novel is more multicultural, concerned with identity and migration. But it shares with Mammaries a sharp postcolonial tongue. Both authors examine the absurdity of national narratives: Smith in the UK, Chatterjee in India. What unites them is their use of satire to expose the limits of post-imperial liberalism. But while Smith’s characters wrestle with identity in a multicultural metropolis, Chatterjee’s are suffocating in the heat of Delhi’s civil service offices. If Smith is writing about the failures of the British Empire’s afterlife, Chatterjee is writing about the failure of India to live up to its independence.
The welfare state in Chatterjee’s vision is not a mechanism of care—it’s an exhausted cow, milked to death by corrupt politicians, overpaid officials, and NGOs with hidden agendas. It is no longer about the redistribution of wealth but about the perpetuation of inefficiency.
The Nehruvian state is reduced to an empty shell—its files yellowing, its officers cynical, and its healthcare system a joke. Unlike earlier generations of Indian fiction that saw hope in reform, Chatterjee offers none. This is a fully post-idealistic novel. There is no Gandhian purity, no Nehruvian vision, only bureaucratic stagnation and moral rot.
Chatterjee’s India is a zombie nation: the form of a state exists, but the soul is missing. The postcolonial promise has decayed into a parody of governance. Elections are held, files are filed, reports are written—but nothing changes.
Chatterjee’s use of English is surgical and excessive. He mimics bureaucratic jargon to mock it, stretching sentences until they break under the weight of their own meaninglessness. It’s a kind of linguistic terrorism—bombing the reader with detail until numbness sets in.
Reading Mammaries in 2009 felt oddly prophetic. India was halfway through the UPA era, corruption scandals were brewing, and the middle class was oscillating between apathy and outrage. The book captured that moment perfectly, as if Chatterjee had bottled the national mood a decade earlier. I remember laughing aloud in the reading room, then catching myself—because the laughter hurt.
It was the same hurt I had felt reading The Last Burden, but magnified and politicised. Where Burden made me confront familial hypocrisy, Mammaries made me question the very scaffolding of the nation-state. It didn’t just mock bureaucrats; it made me suspect that I, too, was part of the farce—one of the many suckling at the mammaries, even if just ideologically.
I didn’t return to English, August until years later. But Mammaries never left me. Its grotesque imagery—the bloated patients in collapsing hospitals, the meaningless policy meetings, the inertia disguised as governance—stayed lodged in my consciousness. It made me look at every government form, every “circular,” every Lok Sabha debate with a new lens of horror.
The Mammaries of the Welfare State is perhaps the most acerbic political novel India has produced. It is the Catch-22 of postcolonial governance, the Animal Farm of the Indian civil service, the Rag Darbari for a globalized, decaying republic. It doesn’t mourn the death of idealism—it performs its autopsy.
What makes it unforgettable is not just its satire but its moral stance: it refuses to pretend that anything will get better. It offers no redemption arc, no catharsis. Just dark, intelligent laughter in the face of national entropy.
In a world where every election promises “good governance,” Mammaries reminds us that governance itself might be the problem. And that, perhaps, is its most radical insight.