A Conversation with P. V. Laxmiprasad

Dr Mahammad Ghouse Shaik: Tell us about your literary journey.

P.V. Laxmiprasad: It is a journey of many experiences and challenges. In fact, I still learn new things. My great-grandfather, late Puram Ranga Rao, was a Telugu writer. From him, I drew inspiration. He was a scholar with many milestones to his credit. I think I have inherited his genes into my blood. As for the books, I can say that the number of books is not enough. It is quality and merit that finally speak about the writer. I have published 45 books as of today. It has been a journey, but not a destination. It has been fulfilling and rewarding.

Q: Dr Mahammad Ghouse Shaik: Your book on Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan revisits him not merely as a philosopher but as a cultural thinker. What prompted this approach?

P. V. Laxmiprasad: Radhakrishnan has often been reduced to a ceremonial philosopher or a political figure. My book attempts to restore him as a thinker who bridged Indian metaphysics and Western philosophy. I read him as an interpreter of Indian thought for a global audience, someone who believed that philosophy must illuminate life rather than remain confined to abstraction.

Q. Dr MD Ghouse: How do you assess Radhakrishnan’s relevance in contemporary India?

P.V. Laxmiprasad:  Radhakrishnan is profoundly relevant today because he insisted on spiritual humanism. At a time of polarisation, his writings remind us that religion without ethics becomes dogma and politics without philosophy becomes dangerous. My book highlights his insistence on dialogue, tolerance, and intellectual responsibility—values India urgently needs.

Q. Dr Md Ghouse: Turning to Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet, what fascinated you enough to engage with this widely read yet often misunderstood text?

Laxmiprasad: The Prophet is frequently read sentimentally, but rarely critically. What fascinated me was Gibran’s ability to blend mysticism, poetry, and philosophy in deceptively simple language. In my reading, I show how The Prophet speaks across cultures, echoing Eastern spirituality while addressing modern existential anxieties.

Q. Dr MD Ghouse: Do you see The Prophet as a spiritual text or a literary one?

P.V. Laxmiprasad: It is both. That is its strength. My book argues that The Prophet resists categorisation—it is philosophical prose-poetry. Gibran’s language invites reflection rather than instruction. He does not preach; he persuades gently. This literary spirituality makes the text enduring and universally resonant.

 Q. Dr MD Ghouse:  Your engagement with Rumi’s collected works reflects a deep sensitivity to mysticism. How do you approach a poet so steeped in spiritual symbolism?

P.V. Laxmiprasad: Rumi cannot be read hurriedly. In my book on Rumi’s works, I approach him as a poet of transformation. His metaphors—wine, love, fire, the beloved—are not ornamental; they are vehicles of spiritual awakening. I focus on how Rumi dissolves boundaries between the sacred and the secular.

Q. Dr MD Ghouse: Many readers encounter Rumi through translations. Does this affect interpretation?

 P.V. Laxmiprasad: Certainly. Translation shapes Rumi’s global image. In my analysis, I caution against romanticising him as merely a poet of love. Rumi is radical, unsettling, and deeply philosophical. A sensitive translation must retain his intellectual intensity along with his lyrical beauty.

Q. Dr MD Ghouse: Is there a common philosophical thread connecting Radhakrishnan, Gibran, and Rumi in your books?

P.V. Laxmiprasad: The common thread is the search for unity—between reason and faith, self and society, human and divine. Radhakrishnan articulates it philosophically, Gibran poetically, and Rumi mystically. My books attempt to show how these thinkers, across cultures and centuries, converge on the idea that knowledge without compassion is incomplete.

Q. Dr MD Ghouse: Your style balances scholarship and readability. How important is accessibility in philosophical writing?

P.V. Laxmiprasad: Accessibility is ethical. Philosophy should not alienate readers. In my books, I consciously avoid intellectual intimidation. If thinkers like Rumi and Gibran could speak to ordinary people, contemporary criticism has no excuse for obscurity. Clarity, to me, is a form of respect for the reader.

Q. Dr MD Ghouse: What do these books collectively contribute to Indian English literary criticism?

P.V. Laxmiprasad: They expand their scope. Indian English criticism need not confine itself to novels and poetry alone. By engaging with philosophy, mysticism, and cross-cultural texts, my books argue for a more inclusive literary discourse—one that recognises wisdom traditions as part of literature.

Q. Dr MD Ghouse: What should readers ultimately take away from your interpretations of these thinkers?

P.V. Laxmiprasad: I hope readers come away with humility and curiosity. These thinkers do not offer final answers; they provoke deeper questions. If my books encourage readers to read slowly, think deeply, and live ethically, then my engagement with Radhakrishnan, Gibran, and Rumi has served its purpose.