Either I’m Nobody, or I’m a Nation

Chapter One:

Mulk Raj Anand, Salman Rushdie, and Aravind Adiga are each prominent Indian-English novelists who express a concern for the means by which individuals in Indian society react to and reconcile with their nation. In each author’s fiction, we find a sincere grappling with this issue. This concern most often manifests through the specific political and social circumstances of each author’s respective time, thereby spanning the period before independence through to the modern economic boom of the new millennium. These novels, from very different periods in India’s history, each demonstrate an awareness of and a desire to engage with the problem of nation. By examining Anand, Rushdie, and Adiga in relation to each other, the true scope of the burden of nation is revealed. While presenting a different portrait of India, each novel engages with issues of national identity and allegory and offers a distinct perspective on the impact of the nation on the individual. It is my contention that a pattern will emerge through an examination of each of these novels: due to the way in which the nation is created, each character is unable to live in the way they desire; as a result, each character is forced to go outside of his nation by creating a world of his own. The path for each author involves some method of allegory, using the novel and the specific construction of language in the text, as a means of exploring the relationship between the subject and his nation. Through the act of writing and the process of creation, each narrative imagines a nation contained within itself, one that is not held to the rigidity and exclusion experienced by those outside its confines.

Before beginning my analysis of the work of Mulk Raj Anand, Salman Rushdie, and Aravind Adiga, it is important to work through the critical frameworks and considerations that will be examined and employed for this thesis. I will first use Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth to demonstrate the inherent connection between the colonized writer and the nation, thus fusing the concept of nation and the treatment of national allegory through Fanon’s examination of the formations of nations after colonial rule and the manner in which they develop. I will then examine the difficult and fabricated construct of the nation and how it acts to juxtapose the individual with society, especially focusing on the work of Benedict Anderson and his work with “imagined communities.” Following this, I will consider the issue of national allegory, especially as it is employed and considered in postcolonial literature and criticism. I will draw upon the work of Fredric Jameson, Imre Szeman, and Aijaz Ahmad in order to demonstrate the inherent difficulties in employing national allegories. Finally, I will consider the struggle for “authenticity” that plagues each of the authors considered for this thesis. The problem of authenticity helps us to understand how the focus on the “real” challenges the voice of the author and the voice of the novel in order, propagating the dominant narrative of the nation. For this section, I will consider the work of Vikram Chandra, a contemporary Indian-English novelist, and Meenakshi Mukherjee. These critics concern themselves with the role that the individual occupies within the nation, and how these divergent identities influence and react to each other. I will be using their work to demonstrate how the factors of national identity, allegory, and authenticity present themselves in Mulk Raj Anand’s Untouchable, Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, and Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger.

After the Colonizers Leave Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, first published in 1961, is an examination of the political realities and psychological effects of colonialism. For my purposes, I will focus on two chapters from this influential text, namely “The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness” and “On National Culture,” each of which provide a strong link between the theoretical grounds continued in the work of Benedict Anderson (and others) and the practical concerns of the postcolonial nation.

Fanon’s discussion of national consciousness considers the human element of colonialism. As such, Fanon’s work takes a critical tone occupied with a sense of immediacy. He offers the perspective of a man engaged with the postcolonial struggles of nation on a personal level. Fanon’s writing is infused with an intensity that would only result from being within the kind of struggle he is writing about.

Fanon begins by describing his interpretation of national consciousness, stating that, Instead of being the coordinated crystallization of the people’s uttermost aspirations, instead of being the most tangible, immediate product of popular mobilization, national consciousness is nothing but a crude, empty, fragile shell. The cracks in it explain how easy it is for young independent countries to switch back from nation to ethnic For Fanon, there is great potential in national identity, but it is almost inevitably thwarted. National identity has the ability to move people to action against colonial forces, but does little in the way of practically bringing them toward a productive system of governance in the aftermath of success. Fanon’s assertion that the center of national consciousness is a “crude, empty, fragile shell” explains the way in which Anand, Rushdie, and Adiga have their characters operate. Each text uses allegorical strategies to highlight the emptiness of national identity, offering an acknowledgement of its limitations and the opportunity for an alternative.

Fanon also discusses the role of national parties and the bourgeoisie. National parties, he contends, “mobilize the people with the slogan of independence, and anything else is left in the future” (99). Thus, the nationalist movement and the functioning body of the nation are left separate. Fanon also contends that the “leader” should not be individualized in order to foster a sense of community. As Fanon asserts, “If the leader drives me I want him to know that at the same time I am driving him. The nation should not be an affair run by a big boss” (127). He calls for a collaborative system that operates in conjunction with the individual. This desire to be included in the national system will run throughout Anand, Rushdie, and Adiga.

Finally, in “The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness,” we will consider Fanon’s discussion of colonial mimicry. Fanon discusses the extent to which the national bourgeoisie come to imitate and represent their colonial oppressors, saying that, “At the core of the national bourgeoisie of the colonial countries a hedonistic mentality prevails—because on a psychological level it identifies with the Western bourgeoisie from which it has slurped every lesson” (101). Fanon demonstrates how completely colonial influence comes to dominate a culture. The work of Homi K. Bhabha, specifically the chapter “of Mimicry and Man” from his book The Location of Culture, explores the issue of colonial mimicry as well. In both Fanon and Bhabha, we see a concern for the extent to which a postcolonial culture is manipulated by its colonial past. From Bakha’s attempts at “fashun,” to Saleem’s experiences at Methwold’s estate, to Balram’s literal and figurative pursuit to replace his master, each novel involves a character engaging in colonial mimicry. Each character will evolve beyond these imitations, but each will take a much different path. These divergent paths reflect the different circumstances and possibilities afforded to each character. Using Fanon’s and Bhabha’s work as a foundation, we will consider how the colonial past informs and implicates the Indian nation, causing each character to feel a pressure that is both cultural and political.

Fanon discusses the three stages of the colonized writer in “On National Culture.” He considers how the writer functions and reacts to a colonial presence (and subsequent removal) in “On National Culture.” For Fanon, the writer is a figure of power and influence that can infuse a colonial people with the ideas necessary to carry them forward toward national consciousness. In this section, he outlines the path that colonized writers tend to take in their writing, which consists of: (1) assimilating the colonizer’s culture, (2) having his convictions shaken, and finally (3) entering into a “combat stage” to “rouse the people” (158-59). His model of the colonized writer will serve the important function of demonstrating the extent to which each of the authors’ works present and use the colonial past of the nation in order to construct a new or alternate vision of the future. As Fanon remarks, “When the colonized intellectual writing for his people uses the past, he must do so with the intention of opening up the future, of spurring them into action and fostering hope.” Anand, Rushdie, and Adiga each draw on the past of their nation, either to inspire, to criticize, or to satirize. Fanon’s model for the colonized writer becomes a useful means of analysis for the way in which each author uses India’s colonial past in his novel.