Comparative Literature

 Hello friends 

I am Bhavna Sosa, from department of English MK Bhavnagar University. This task is assigned by Prof. Dr. Dilip Barad sir. This thinking activity about  Comparative Literature.

What is comparative literature?

Comparative literature is an academic field dealing with the study of literature and cultural expression across linguistic, national, geographic, and disciplinary boundaries. Comparative literature performs a role similar to that of the study of international relations but works with languages and artistic traditions, so as to understand cultures from the inside.While most frequently practised with works of different languages, comparative literature may also be performed on works of the same language if the works originate from different nations or cultures in which that language is spoken.

First article: Why Comparative  Indian Literature?

Abstract :

Since the beginning of this century a group of scholars have been trying to project the idea of Indian literature, empha- sizing the underlying unity of themes and forms and attitudes among the various literatures produced in different Indian languages during the last three thousand years or so. This is partly a manifestation of the Indian intellectual's anxiousness to dis- cover the essential threads of unity in our multilingual and multi religious culture. Its impact on our literary studies, still fragmented into smaller linguistic units, is extremely limited, and certainly the idea of an Indian literature as conceived by Sri Aurobindo and others has failed to provide us with a criti- cal framework to study Indian literatures together, except in viewing Indian literatures as expressions of a common heritage. Nevertheless, it has encouraged some of our scholars to identify certain themes and ideas and to see their ramifications in differ- ent literatures of India. Though these attempts are in discovering the basic unity of the Indian creative mind, they are made at the risk of ignoring the plurality of expressions in our creative life.

Key points :

The term Comparative Indian Literature, like comparative literature, is not self- explanatory, and it is necessary not only to define the term 'Indian literature' but also to defend the necessity of the qualifier. If Indian literature means the sum total of literature written in Indian languages, then it can hardly serve as a significant literary category. In order to make it a significant category, Indian literature must be taken as a complex of literary relations and any study of Indian literature must reflect that. It is not an inquiry into their unity alone, but also a study in their diversity which enables one to understand the nature of literary facts.

But it is not the precision of the nomenclature alone which demands our attention. We must try to find out the exact nature of the relation between comparative literature and comparative Indian literature. We must also try to see if there is an express necessity to study Indian literary relations within a comparative framework. Or, in other words, can an area of enquiry clearly demarcated by linguistic and political boundaries serve the basic demands of comparative literature? One can further ask, does not the area identified as Indian literature impose certain restrictions on the investigator and precondition him? Does it not, for example, make it obligatory for him to look for certain things because of an imposed expectancy of parallels and analogies? And, finally, why should a scholar of literature prefer Indian literature to comparative literature, which promises a greater scope and a wider perspective?

Comparative literature emerged as a new discipline to counteract the notion of the autonomy of national literatures. The minimum requisite of a comparative study is to start with at least two literatures, but this binary concern is hardly sufficient to meet the full demands of comparative literature, which views literatures produced in all languages and in all countries as an indivisible whole. A comparator has to extend the area of investigation not only beyond one language and literature, but to as many as possible. The main dilemma of the comparatist, then, is to reconcile his idea of literature as a single universe of verbal expression with his ability to study it in its totality. Whatever  be his professed aim, he has to make compromises and to delimit his area of investigation  according  to his ability. 

A comparatist is hardly in a position to exercise any aesthetic judgement in choosing the best works in all the languages of the world. He is concerned mainly with the relationships, the resemblances and differences between national literatures; with their convergences and divergences.But at the same time he wants to arrive at a certain general understanding of literary activities of man and to help create a universal poetics. Goethe wanted the common reader to come out of the narrow confines of his language and geography and to enjoy the finest achievements of man. The comparatist knows that comparative literature is a method of investigation,  while world literature,  as Goethe meant,  is a  body of valuable literary works.

The comparatist also wants to come out of the confines of language and geography, but not so much to identify the best in all literatures as to understand the relationships between literatures in their totality. His goal too is "world literature', not in the sense that Goethe or Rabindranath Tagore had used it, but in the sense of all literary traditions. 

Comparative literature differs from the study of single literatures not in method, but in matter, attitude and perspective. One can argue that comparative Western literature is the study of different national literatures, while comparative Indian literature is the study of literatures of one nation, or, according to some, of one national literature written in many languages.  Is not comparative Indian literature, then, a retrograde step so far as the basic premise of comparative literature is concerned?

The and the Americans use the same language but they have different national literatures. Yet no comparatist would regard a study of British literature and American literature as comparative literature proper. Do French writings in Belgium, Switzerland and Canada form a part of French literature? Are Indian English writings a part of English literature? What will be our criterion, language or nationality? There is hardly any dependable criterion.

The binary dimensions of comparative literature will be determined at times in terms of nationality and culture, and at other times in terms of linguistic history. Political boundaries are flexible and are redrawn quite often.Multilingualism is a fact of Indian society and of Indian literature. This multilingualism appears bewildering to the foreign students of India, and certainly occasions a grave concern in our politicians. But the literary history of India is a history of multilingual literary activity. Not only have different languages interacted with each other, giving rise to new literary styles, such as manipravalam, but they have also given birth to a new language and literature, such as Urdu. There is  hardly any other society we know of where languages belonging to so many families have operated side by side and interacted with each other for so many centuries.

Conclusion:

In a recent article, 'Towards Comparative Indian Literature', Amiya Dev said, 'Comparison is the right reason for us be- cause, one, we are multilingual, and two, we are Third World.'s The fact of multilingualism is now more or less appreciated by Indian scholars. The Third World situation that lends Indian comparative literature a greater validity may need further comments. Professor Dev points out in this paper that the tools of Western comparison are hardly adequate to deal with our literary situation. For example, the categories 'influence' and 'imitation' and 'reception' and 'survival' need serious modification to suit the Third World literary situation. 'Influence' in our case is not confined to two authors or two texts, but is of entire literature upon each other, and involves larger questions of socio-political implications. In order to make literary studies free from these psychological restrictions, we need to look at our literature from within, so that we can also respond to the literature of other parts of the world without any inhibition or prejudice. Our idea of comparative literature will emerge only when we take into account the historical situation in which we are placed. Our journey is not from comparative literature to comparative Indian literature, but from comparative Indian literature to comparative literature.

Second article:  Comparative Literature and Culture 

Abstract 

In his article, "Comparative Literature in India," Amiya Dev bases his discussion on the fact that India has many languages and literatures thus representing an a priori situation and conditions of diversity. He therefore argues that to speak of an Indian literature in the singular is problematic. Nonetheless, Dev also observes that to speak of Indian literature in the plural is equally problematic. Such a characterization, he urges, either overlooks or obscures manifest interrelations and affinities. His article compares the unity and the diversity thesis, and identifies the relationship between Indian commonality and differences as the prime site of comparative literature in India. He surveys the current scholarly and intellectual positions on unity and diversity and looks into the post-structuralist doubt of homogenization of differences in the name of unity. Dev also examines the search for common denominators and a possible pattern of togetherness and Dev underlines location and located inter-Indian reception as an aspect of inter literariness. It is there Dev perceives Indian literature, that is, not as a fixed or determinate entity but as an ongoing and interliterary process: Indian language and literature ever in the re/making. 

Key points 

In this article, he discussed an a priori location of comparative literature with regard to aspects of diversity and unity in India, a country of immense linguistic diversity and, thus, a country of many literatures. Based on history, ideology, and often on politics, scholars of literature argue either for a unity of Indian literature or for a diversity and distinctness of the literatures of India. Instead of this binary approach, his proposal involves a particular view of the discipline of comparative literature, because he argues that in the case of India the study of literature should involve the notion of the interliterary process and a dialectical view of literary interaction. He starts with a brief account of linguistic diversity. We are all aware that the so-called major Indian literatures are ancient - two of them - Sanskrit and Tamil ancient in the sense of Antiquity while the rest of an average age of eight to nine hundred years except one recent arrival in the nineteenth century as an outcome of the colonial Western impact Indian English. We also know that although some of these literatures are more substantial than others and contain greater complexities, no further gradation into major and minor major ones is usually made.

Gurbhagat Singh who has been discussing the notion of "differential multilogue". He does not accept the idea of Indian literature as such but opts for the designation of literatures produced in India. Singh, comparative literature is thus an exercise in differential multilogue. His insistence on the plurality of logoi is particularly interesting because it takes us beyond the notion of dialogue, a notion that comparative literature is still confined to. 

Jaidev, criticising the fad of existentialist aestheticism in some contemporary Indian fiction, develops an argument for this cultural differential approach. However, and importantly, Jaidev's notion of an Indian sensus communis is not that routine Indianness which we often encounter from our cultural ambassadors or in the West, that is, those instances of "national" and racial image formations which suggest homogeneity and result in cultural stereotyping. The concept of an Indian sensus communis in the context of Singh's differential multilogue or Jaidev's differential approach brings me to the question of situs and theory. That is, the "site" or "location" of theory and of the theorist are important factors here. Commonality and the ones he is suggesting here as a primary situs of the Indian theorist and theory is not exactly the cultural commonality Jaidev  had in mind in his critique of cultural pastiche.Jaidev's concept of oneness provides an ambience for particular concerns with regard to cultural and artistic expression such as the case of language overlaps, the bi- and multilinguality of authors and their readership, openness to different genres, the sharing of themes based in similar social and historical experiences, emphasis on the oral and performing modes of cultural and artistic transmission, and the ease of inter-translatability. On the other hand, these characteristics of Indian cultural commonalities Jaidev suggests in turn are rooted in a situs of the premodern age of Indian literatures that is, in periods prior to the advent of print. Where Jaidev's structure is applicable, instead, is our contemporary literature in India because it is here that the danger of a oneness construction -- the process of nation-state construction -- looms.

The notion of an "English" archive of Indian literature came about two decades ago by the suggestion of V.K. Gokak and Sujit Mukherjee who were speaking of an Indo-English corpus of literature that was created out of English translations of major texts from major Indian languages. Gokak and Mukherjee suggested the canonization of their proposal by inserting the Indo-English corpus into university curricula. It was along these lines of ideology and political economy that a decade ago recommendations were made by a government committee to institute a Master's program in Indian literature following an undergraduate degree in any single Indian literature. Ahmad's concern is with the hegemony of English, although he does not suggest its abolition in a way which would be close to Ngugi's arguments.

 On the other hand, Gokak, Mukherjee, and Motilal Jotwani who was a committee member for drafting, the above circular suggested to implement English as a function, owing to the ever-growing corpus of translations from the various Indian literatures into English, thus making this new corpus of Indo-English literature available to all. In turn, this new corpus would suggest an Indian community resulting in a more or less homogeneous Indian literature. In addition to the argument against this construction of a national literature advanced by Ahmad, there are other problems with the notion and its implementation. It is true that the ideal of one language in India has been made real by now by ideological and political mechanisms. The official national language is Hindi and if literary texts from the other languages could be translated into Hindi, we could possibly arrive at a national Indian literature. 

There are many other similar literary and cultural textualities in India whose nature, while manifest in different other systems of a similar nature, are based primarily on themes or genres, forms and structures observable in historiography. It is possible, in other words, to think of a series of such sub-systems in which the individual literatures of India have been interrelated with one another over the ages.

Conclusion 

Finally, Obviously, the problems of unity and diversity are not unique to India. However, in keeping with Dev's proposal that the status of both theorist and theory is an important issue, he demonstrates here the application of the proposal. If he had discussed, for instance, Canadian diversity, it would have been from the outside, that is, from an Indian situs. He is not suggesting extreme relativism, but Comparative Literature has taught us not to take comparison literally and it also taught us that theory formation in literary history is not universally tenable. He is suggesting that we should first look at ourselves and try to understand our own situations as thoroughly as possible. Let us first give full shape to our own comparative literature and then we will formulate a comparative literature of diversity in general.

Third  article : Comparative Literature in India: An Overview  of its History 

Abstract  : 

The essay gives an outline of the trajectory Comparative Literature in India, focusing mostly on the department at Jadavpur University, where it all began, and to a lesser extent, the department of Comparative Literature at the University of Delhi. Modern Indian Languages and Literary Studies at Delhi University, where it afterwards received a new name Its connection with Indian literatures is the starting point.The tradition began with the department in Jadavpur. With a modern poet-translator as its originator, it is based on Rabindranath Tagore's lecture on World Literature. While there were early attempts to decolonize and an overall desire to enhance and foster creativity, there were also subtle efforts to decolonize and an overall endeavour to promote and nurture creativity. Indian literature, along with literature from the southern hemisphere, gradually gained significance. In comparative literary studies, paradigms of techniques evolved from impact and analogue research to cross-cultural literary interactions, with an emphasis on reception and transformation. In Comparative Literature has taken on new perspectives in recent years, connecting with various areas of culture  and knowledge.

1. The beginnings
2. Indian Literature as Comparative Literature
3. Centres of Comparative Literature Studies
4. Reconfiguration of areas of comparison
5. Research directions
6. Interface with Translation Studies and Cultural Studies
7. Non-hierarchical connectivity

1) The beginnings :

There were texts focusing on comparative aspects of literature in India long before Comparative Literature was established as a discipline, both from the perspective of its relation to litera- tures from other parts of the world-particularly Persian, Arabic, and English-and from the perspective of inter-Indian literary studies, the multilingual context facilitating a seamless journey from and to India. between works of literature created in several languages."Relationships of joy," Satyendranath Dutta wrote in 1904. (Dutta 124).Rabindranath Tagore's address to the National Council of Education in 1907, titled "Visvasahitya" (meaning "global literature"), provided as a pretext for the formation of the Comparative Literature department at Jadavpur University in 1956, the same year the university began operations.Although it is impossible to speak of the epistemology of comparison with reference to a diverse group of individuals, the emerging contours of the discipline did reveal certain prerogatives. In the early stages it was a matter of recognizing new aesthetic systems, new visions of the sublime and new ethical imperatives – the Greek drama and the Indian nataka - and then it was a question of linking social and historical structures with aesthetics in order to reveal the dialectic between them. The he Jadavpur Journal of Comparative Literature, which went on to become an important journal in literary studies in the country, came out in 1961.

2) Indian Literature as Comparative Literature :

In this part,It wasn't until the 1970s that fresh pedagogical views began to enter the subject of Comparative Literature at Jadavpur. Indian literature has made a significant impact on the curriculum.However, not in terms of establishing national identity.of Comparative Literature studies in the country was around this nodal component of Indian literar themes and forms, a focal point of engagement of the Modern Indian Languages department established in 1962 in Delhi University. In 1974, the department of Modern Indian Languages started a post-MA course entitled “Comparative Indian Literature”. A national seminar on Comparative Literature was held in Delhi University organized by Nagendra, a writer-critic who taught in the Hindi department of Delhi University and a volume entitled Comparative Literature was published in 1977. However, it was only in 1994 that an MA course in Comparative Indian Literature began in the department. As stated earlier the juxtaposition of different canons had led to the questioning of universalist canons right from the beginning of comparative studies in India and now with the focus shifting to Indian literature, and in some instances to literatures from the Southern part of the globe, one moved further away from subscribing to a priori questions related canon-formation. T.S. Satyanath developed the theory of a scripto-centric, body-centric and phono-centric study of texts in the medieval period leading a number of researchers in the department to look for continuities and interventions in the tradition that would again lead to pluralist epistemologies in the study of Indian literature and culture.

3) Centres of Comparative Literature Studies :

In the 1970s and 1980s, Comparative Literature was taught in a number of South Indian universities and departments, including Trivandrum, Madurai Kamaraj University, Bharati Dasam University, Kottayam, and Pondicherry. Despite the fact that Comparative Literature classes were conducted often, In Madurai Kamaraj University's School of Tamil Studies, a full-fledged Comparative Literary Studies department was formed alongside English literature. K. Ayappa is a well-known poet, novelist, and critic. When discussing the south, Paniker, a Kerala native, must be acknowledged for his work in the field, particularly his work on literary theory similarities and his book on India's storytelling traditions.

4) Reconfiguration of areas of comparison :

At Jadavpur University, revisions and reconfigurations of comparison areas occurred once more in the 1980s. Along with Indian literatures, Gabriel Garcia Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude was added to the syllabus in the late 1970s, along with a few other works from Latin American literatures, and eventually African literatures were included. These aspects of the syllabus were typically structured around concerns of solidarity and a desire to understand resistance to oppression, as well as bigger problems of epistemological changes and efforts to bridge gaps in history caused by colonial interventions.In the late eighties, with Comparative Literature moving out in different directions, it was felt that more structured approach to the subject was necessary. At Jadavpur, under the guidance of Amiya Dev, who was instrumental in the spread of Comparative Literature in different parts of India in the early years and for giving a direction to the discipline, a Master’s syllabus was designed that had genres, themes and literary historiography as its core area and this model was more or l followed in many new department of comparative literature that would come up later.

5) Research directions :

 Many single literature departments were given grants under the programme to pursue studies in a comparative perspective. The English department of Calcutta University for instance, received assistance to pursue research on literary relations between Europe and India in the nineteenth century. Several books and translations emerged out of the project. The department of English and Comparative Literary Studies at Saurashtra University, Rajkot, took up the theme of Indian Renaissance and translated several Indian authors into English, studied early travelogues from Western India to England and in general published collections of theoretical discourse from the nineteenth century.

The department at Jadavpur University was upgraded under the programme to the status of Centre of Advanced Studies in 2005, and research in Comparative Literature took a completely new turn. The need to foreground the relevance of studying literature was becoming more and more urgent in the face of a society that was all in favour of technology and the sciences and with decision-makers in the realm of funding for higher education turning away from the humanities in general.Efforts towards this end led to an International Conference on South-South dialogue with a large number of participants from Asian and European countries. An anthology of critical essays on tracing socio-cultural and literary transactions between India and Southeast Asia was published.

6)Interface with Translation Studies and Cultural Studies :

It must be mentioned at this point that Comparative Literature in the country in the 21st century engaged with two other related fields of study, one was Translation Studies and the other Cultural Studies.Comparative Literature’s relationship with Translation Studies was not a new phenomenon for one or two departments or centres, such as the one in Hyderabad University, which was involved in doing translation studies for a considerable period.It must be mentioned though that despite tendencies towards greater interdisciplinary approaches, literature continues to occupy the central space in Comparative Literature and it is believed that intermedial studies may be integrated into the literary space.

7) Non-hierarchical connectivity :

It is evident that Comparative Literature in the country today has multifaceted goals and visions in accordance with historical needs, both local and planetary. Several University departments today offer Comparative Literature separately at the M Phil level, while many others have courses in the discipline along with single kinds of literature.

Thank you !

Paper 205 Assignment

 Name : Bhavna Sosa 

M.A. Sem : 3

Roll no. : 2

Batch : 2021 - 23 

bhavnasosa211@gmail.com 

Paper Name : 205 Cultural Studies 

Topic : Four Goals of Cultural Studies 

Submitted to: Smt. S.B.Gardi Department of English MKBU

Introduction :

Cultural studies is a field of theoretically, politically, and empirically engaged cultural analysis that concentrates upon the political dynamics of contemporary culture, its historical foundations, defining traits, conflicts, and contingencies.So here we see what is the meaning of Cultural Studies and four goals of Cultural Studies.

Cultural studies is the exploration of "culture," what Raymond Williams calls nothing less than "one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language." Cultural studies analyzes the artistic, social, political, and historical texts and objects that help construct our contemporary lives, and it assumes that such objects go well beyond "mere entertainment" and affect deeply how we perceive class, race, gender, and other markers of identity. As an introduction to the theory and practice of cultural studies, this course will familiarize students with some of the most important thinkers and methodologies in the field and will allow students to use some of the tools of critical analysis to analyze different forms of cultural production, including literature, popular culture, and print and electronic media.

What is Cultural Studies ?

Culture is anthropology, encompassing the range of human phenomena that cannot be directly attributed to genetic inheritance. The term culture in American anthropology had two meanings-

(I) evolved to classify and represent experiences with symbols and to act imaginatively and creatively.

(ii) the distinct ways that people live, differently, classified and represent their experiences and acted creatively.

 Culture is central to the way we view, experience and engage with all aspects of our lives and the world around us. Even our definitions are shaped by the historical, political, social and cultural contexts in which we live. Culture is the mode of generating meanings and ideas. This mode of negotiation under which meanings are generated by power relations. Culture is a social phenomena which tends to regularate the mindset and behaviour of people which is set on ancient rules and regularities and experiences. Culture is the identity of particular society and it is the mirror of the society. Culture in a simple way can be said as a particular way of life. Tradition, customs, rules and regulations, norms, artifacts (signs), religions, communities, material things, journey of 'Man' from caves to present day civilization are also culture. opposite of nature is culture. Nature is outside and the moment Man enters, it becomes culture.

Four Goals of Cultural Studies :

1 ) Cultural studies transcended the confines of particular discipline such as literary criticism.

2) Cultural studies are politically engaged.

3) Cultural studies deny the separation of “high” and “low” or elite and popular culture.

4) Cultural studies analyze not only the cultural work, but the means of production.

1) Cultural studies transcends the confines of particular disciple such as literary criticism or history :

Cultural studies involves scrutinizing the cultural phenomenon of a text- for example, Italian Opera, a Latino telenovela, the architectural styles of prisons, body piercing- and drawing conclusions about the changes in textual phenomena over time.Cultural studies transcend the confine of a particular discipline such as literary criticism or history. “practiced in such journal as critical inquiry , representations, and boundary 2 , cultural studies involves scrutinizing the cultural phenomenon of a text – for example Italian opera, a Latino telenovela, the architectural styles of prisons, body piercing and drawing conclusion about the change in textual phenomena over time.

 Cultural studies are not necessarily about literature in the traditional sense or even about “art”. In their introduction to cultural studies , editors Lawrence grossberg,cary nelson , and Paula trencher emphasize that the intellectual promise of cultural studies lies in the attempts to “ cut across diverse social and political interests and address many of the struggles within the current scene.”

Cultural studies is not necessarily about literature in the traditional sense or even about "art". Intellectual works are not limited by their own "borders" as single texts, historical problems or even disciplines, and the critic's own personal connections to what is being analysed may also be described. Henry Giroux and others write in their Dalhousie Review manifesto that cultural studies practitioner are "resisting intellectuals", who see what they do as "an emancipatory project" because it erodes the traditional disciplinary divisions in most institutions of higher education. But this kind of criticism, like feminism, is an engaged rather than a detached activity.

2) Cultural studies is politically engaged:

Cultural critics see themselves as "oppositional", not only within their own disciplines but to many of the power structures of the society at large. They question inequalities within power structures and seek to discover models for restructuring relationships among dominant and "minority" or "subaltern" discourses. Because meaning and individual subjectivity are culturally constructed, thus they can be reconstructed. Such a notion, taken to a philosophical extreme, denies the autonomy of the individual, whether an actual person or a character in literature, a rebuttal of the traditional humanistic "Great Man" or "Great Book" theory, and a relocation of aesthetics and culture from the ideal realms of test and sensibility into the arena of a whole society's everyday life as it is constructed.

3) Cultural studies denies the separation of “High” and “ Low “or elite and popular culture:

                           “Cultural studies deny the separation of high and low or elite and popular culture.” I might hear someone remark at the symphony or art museum: “I came here to get a little culture”.

       Being a “cultured” person used to mean being acquainted with “highbrow” art and intellectual pursuits. But isn’t culture also to be found with a pair of tickets to a rock concert?

       Cultural critic’s today work to transfer the term culture today work to transfer the term culture to include mass culture, whether popular, folk, or urban. The Following theorists Jean Baudrillard and Andreas huyssen of the cultural critics argue that after world war ii the distinctions among high , low and mass culture collapsed , and they cite other theorists such as Pierre Boundiry and Dick Hedbige on how “good taste” only reflects prevailing social, economic and political power bases. For example , the images of india that were circulated during the colonical rule of the british raj by writes like by Rudyard kipling seem innocent , but reveal an entrenched imperialist argument for white superiority and worldwide domination of other races, especially Asians. But race along was not the issue for the British raj, money was also a deciding factor But drawing also upon the ideas of french historian michel de certeau, cultural critics examine.Rather than determining which are the "best" works produced, cultural critics describe what is produced and how various productions relate to one another. They aim to reveal the political, economic reasons why a certain cultural product is more valued at certain times than others. "The Birth of Captain Jack Sparrow: An Analysis" and " Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)" are some famous works and movies.

4) Cultural studies analyses not only the cultural work, but also means of production : 

Marxist critics have long recognized the importance of such para literary questions as these: who supports a given artist? A well known analysis of literary production is Janice Radway's Study of the American romance novel and its readers, Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature, which demonstrates the textual effects of the publishing industry's decisions about books that will minimize its financial risks. Reading in America, edited by Cathy N. Davidson, which includes essay on literacy and gender in Colonial New England; urban magazine audiences in Eighteenth Century New York city; the impact upon reading of technical innovations as cheaper eyeglasses, electric lights, and trains; the Book-of -the-Month Club; and how writers and texts go through fluctuations of popularity and canonicity. These studies help us recognise that literature does not occur in a space separate from other concerns of our lives.

Cultural studies thus joins subjectivity that is, culture in relation to individual lives- with engagement, a direct approach to attacking social ills. Though cultural studies practitioners deny "humanism" or "the humanities" as universal categories, they strive for what they might call "social reason" which often (closely) resembles the goals and values of humanistic and democratic ideals.Cultural studies analyzes not only the cultural work but also the means of production.

Conclusion :

Cultural studies has evolved through the confluence of various disciplines—anthropology, media studies, communication studies, Literary Studies, education, geography, philosophy, sociology, politics, and others.Cultural Studies criticizes the traditional view of the passive consumer, particularly by underlining the different ways people read, receive and interpret cultural texts, or appropriate other kinds of cultural products, or otherwise participate in the production and circulation of meanings.A key concern for cultural studies practitioners is the examination of the forces within and through which socially organized people conduct and participate in the construction of their everyday lives.

Word : 1,506

Paper 204 Assignment

 Name : Bhavna Sosa 

M.A. Sem : 3

Roll no. : 2

Batch : 2021 - 23 

bhavnasosa211@gmail.com 

Paper Name : Contemporary Western Theories and Film Studies 

Topic : Queer Theory 

Submitted to: Smt. S.B.Gardi Department of English MKBU

Queer Theory :

Queer theory offers a significant avenue through which to deconstruct and then reconstruct established IR concepts and theories. Stemming from various fields that transcend a narrow view of IR, queer research applies an interdisciplinary outlook to advance new critical perspectives on sexualities, gender and beyond. A single viewpoint in a field as diverse as IT would unnecessarily limit the range of scholarly viewpoints. It would also preclude a nuanced debate about the contents and forms of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) perspectives, queer scholarship and queer scholarly politics in IR. Due to these themes, and because of its diversity, it is difficult to define queer theory precisely. Indeed, a narrow definition of it would not be in line with queer theoretical tenets. Queer theory is not just confined to sexualities or sexual rights. It also questions established social, economic and political power relations – and critically interrogates notions of security.

The basics of queer theory :

Queer theory’s origins are in LGBT studies – which focus on sexuality and gender. It soon distanced itself from those approaches due to disagreements with the stable identities that LGBT studies suggest. Queer theory emphasises the fluid and humanly performed nature of sexuality – or better, sexualities. It questions socially established norms and dualistic categories with a special focus on challenging sexual (heterosexual/homosexual), gender (male/female), class (rich/poor), racial (white/non-white) classifications. It goes beyond these so-called ‘binaries’ to contest general political (private/public) as well as international binary orders (democratic/ authoritarian). These are viewed as over-generalising theoretical constructs that produce an either/or mode of analysis that hides more than it clarifies and is unable to detect nuanced differences and contradictions. But queer theory also analyses and critiques societal and political norms in particular as they relate to the experience of sexuality and gender. These are not viewed as private affairs. Just as feminists perceive of gender as a socially constructed public and political affair, so queer theorists argue with regards to sexuality and gender expression.

As the word ‘queer’ was used to describe homosexuals in the nineteenth century, queer theory traces its lineage from the study of sexuality in its private and public forms. A commonplace meaning attributed to the term revolves around being non-conforming in terms of sexuality and gender, thus adding an ambiguous notion to being or acting queer. Hence a queer approach towards sexual equality complicates identity-based LGBT advocacy, as queer thinking expresses a more challenging, fluid perspective. This split has become even more pronounced as the international politics of sexual orientation and gender identity receives an ever-increasing degree of public attention. Some states have implemented substantial equality provisions in order to prove that they are ‘modern’ or ‘Western’ enough, while others have responded with pushback in the form of homophobic legislation and persecution. Sexual orientation and gender identity rights, which themselves are questioned by queer theorists as overly reliant on Western liberal norms of human rights and democracy, have become points of political contention, eliciting domestic culture wars as well.

Consider the debate in the United States over whether transgender individuals should be free to use the toilet of their personal choice. The status of sexuality and gender politics in IR has clearly been elevated via cases such as this which can quickly transcend domestic politics and enter the international realm. In addition, it has also impacted apparently unrelated policies such as defence policies, health care and labour market regulations and thus created new avenues for the re-construction of conventional IR concepts. As a result, new perspectives are needed to explain this inherent part of the social and political world. Queer theory does not assume a uniform access to reality, but rather acknowledges that subjective knowledge(s) about sexuality, gender and other social aspects are constructed rather than pre- existent, fluid rather than stable, and not always in line with societal norms. In this sense, queer theory has moved beyond focusing simply on the experience of sexuality and gender.

Sexuality politics and the queer scholarship connected to it arrived late on the theoretical scene in part because sexuality and gender initially were anchored in the private, rather than the public, spheres. Scholars advanced critical and feminist viewpoints emerging from the writings of Michel Foucault (1976), Judith Butler (1990) and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (1990) among others. Foucault’s groundbreaking linking of sexuality and knowledge to political power, and Butler’s rejection of stable sexual orientation and gender identities in favour of everyday performed ones remain foundational notions. Kosofsky Sedgwick’s calling attention to the discursive definition of homo/ heterosexuality in society further defined queer thinking. These scholarly statements were hardly accepted in mainstream political science because they rejected objectivity and highlighted the conditional and unstable human nature of social and political orders, including IR questions of security and governance. Hence queer theory evolved largely in literature, philosophy, sociology and queer studies programmes without making substantial inroads into IR theorising.

Despite the distinct emergence of queer theory from these wider origins, some questions remain. One of the major issues is to what extent ‘queer’ should be adopted as a label for transgressive (socially unacceptable) forms of thinking and acting – as this would in turn create a queer/mainstream binary. This is something that queer scholars argue against. Another issue lies in the vague definition of queer theoretical tenets and terms, leading to uncertainty about how a queer theoretical lens can best be deployed in various disciplines by a wide range of individuals. In its application to IR, queer theory challenges many assumptions about world politics unrelated to sexuality and gender. It aims to deconstruct established simplistic binaries – such as insecurity/security or war/peace – and recognises the inherent instability of political and social orders. Instead, it embraces the fluid, performative and ambiguous aspects of world politics. Hence, it criticises those approaches to politics and society that assume natural and moral hierarchies. It problematises, for instance, the way in which non-traditional sexualities have become normalised according to ‘hetero-normative’ standards, including the aspiration towards marriage and child rearing. Queer theorists argue that this results in a societal integration of sexual minorities into mainstream consumer society – making them less willing (or able) to contest deeper political inequalities.

Queer theory perceives sexuality and gender as social constructs that shape the way sexual orientation and gender identity are displayed in public – and thereby often reduced to black-and-white issues that can be manipulated or distorted. With regard to more classical IR topics, it critically assesses the assumption that all societies find themselves at different points along a linear path of political and economic development or adhere to a universal set of norms. Hence it embraces ambiguity, failure and conflict as a counterpoint to a dominant progressive thinking evident in many foreign or development policies. As a scholarly undertaking, queer theory research constitutes of ‘any form of research positioned within conceptual frameworks that highlight the instability of taken-for-granted meanings and resulting power relations’ (Nash and Browne 2012, 4).

Weber (2014) highlights a lack of attention to queer theory by decrying the closed-mindedness of standard IR theories, arguing that queer scholarship in IR exists but is not recognised. The invisibility of queer theory is slowly changing, with case-study work on state homophobia (Weiss and Bosia 2013) or collective identity politics (Ayoub and Paternotte 2014) and the increasing relevance of transnational LGBT rights discourses for IR scholarship. But if empirical work in this area concentrates mainly on the agency of groups in their surrounding political structure, what is ‘queer’ about LGBT advocacy perspectives? These works offer comparative case studies from regional, cultural and theoretical peripheries to identify new ways of theorising the political subject by questioning the role of the state as we have come to accept it. They add to IR by broadening the knowledge about previously under-recognised perspectives that critically examine IR’s apparently obvious core concepts (or ‘myths’, as Weber calls them) such as sovereignty, power, security and nationalism. They do so from the vantage point of the outsider and infuse these well-worn IR concepts with critical considerations and interpretations. Importantly, they contest existing dualistic binaries in mainstream IR – such as state/system, modern liberalism/premodern homo- phobia, and West/Rest. Queer IR scholars look for the contribution queer analysis can provide for re-imagining the political individual, as well as the international structure in which people are embedded.

Reflecting on the possible futures of queer theory, there are various important aspects to consider. Progress in LGBT politics is mainly limited to the Global West and North and evokes culture wars about how hetero-normative such advocacy should be. And, it elicits international (homo)colonialist contentions about the culturally intrusive manner by which LGBT rights are promoted. This becomes clear when powerful transnational groups, governments or international organisations propose to make foreign aid disbursement conditional on equality reforms in certain countries. At the same time, they do not sufficiently recognise that their explicit LGBT support increases the marginalisation of minorities in certain states. It has to be mentioned though, that many LGBT organisations have a better understanding of local contexts and often act with the cooperation of local activists, though typically in a weaker position than the intergovernmental institutions they are allied with. LGBT politics and queer IR research can inspire and parallel each other as long as sexual advocacy politics does not fall prey to overly liberal, patronising politics. No matter if in the domestic or international arenas a number of problematic issues remain with the alleged progress of LGBT politics: if predominantly gay and lesbian rights such as marriage and adoption equality are aimed for, can one speak of true equality while transgender individuals still lack healthcare access or protection from hate crimes? And if the normalisation of Western LGBT individuals into consuming, depoliticised populations leads to a weakening of solidarity with foreign LGBT activists and appreciation of their difference, what effects does this have on global LGBT emancipation? Queer theory is an important tool for helping to better appreciate the complexity of these debates.

Queer theory and sexual equality in Europe :

Globalisation has equipped queer theorists and activists with an expanded terrain for intervention. With reference to LGBT advocacy politics, the emergence of numerous Western-organised non-governmental organisations but also local LGBT movements with the significant publicity they generate – be it positive or negative – expands transnational politics to a previously unknown degree. Both chip away at the centrality of the state in regulating and protecting its citizens. A key place this can be detected is within debates in the European Union (EU), which is an international organisation with supranational (law-making) powers over its member states.

The inclusion of LGBT individuals not as abject minorities but as human rights carriers with inherent dignity and individual rights of expression may transform the relationship between a marginalised citizenry and governmental authority – both at the state and EU level. But queer theory does not always align comfortably with the predominant political strategies advanced through transnational LGBT rights advocacy in Europe. It disputes many existing socio-political institutions such as neoliberal capitalism or regulatory citizenship that form the bedrocks of European politics. LGBT advocacy is, at times, viewed by queer theory as conforming, heteronormative, stereotyping and even (homo)nationalistic in its particular value-laden Western overtones. This is because it assumes that striving for Western standards of equality and inclusion is universally applicable and leads to liberation and inclusion. These become evident in the pressuring of more conservative European states to adopt certain policies, which often produce counter-productive tensions and expose vulnerable minorities. LGBT advocacy is aimed at inclusion within existing forms of representation rather than the appreciation of difference that queer theory strives at. Thus, LGBT organisations often appear ‘de-queered’ for political purposes to gain approval by the rest of society, which often leads to internal debates about their representation and goals.

Tensions between mainstream advocacy and radical queer approaches signify the need to rethink simplistic IR analytical approaches. Political tensions in the ‘real’ world prompt the queer IR theorist to question generally accepted, established conceptions of international governance. In doing so, queer theorists use existing literature or audio-visual material such as movies or even performances to go beyond the apparently obvious to deconstruct and then reconstruct IR events and processes. They often exhibit a critical perspective towards naturally assumed conditions of space and time that tend to conceal and flatten differences among actors and interpretations of international events. For example, Cynthia Weber (2016) uses Hillary Clinton’s sexual rights speech at the United Nations in 2011 and contrasts it with Conchita Wurst’s winning performance at the Eurovision song contest in 2014 to highlight a ‘queer logic of statecraft’ that contests traditional, gendered and binary approaches to governance. Weber highlights how despite transforming the notion of the homosexual from deviant into normal rights-holder in her speech, Clinton still produced an international binary of progressive versus intolerant states. On the other hand, Conchita Wurst – a character created by Thomas Neuwirth – challenged accepted notions of what is considered normal or perverse by performing in drag with a beard. In the course of this, Wurst destabilised racial, sexual, gendered and geo- political notions of what it means to be a European. Taken together, both cases show how seemingly stable ideas in international relations are far from natural. Instead, they are intentionally created, normalised, challenged and reconfigured.ĺ

Looking deeper at issues within Europe, the EU’s justification of sexual non- discrimination on neoliberal market policies highlights the ambiguous positioning of the EU when it advocates limited equality provisions (Thiel 2015). This anti-discrimination policy is being implemented in the EU’s complex multi-level governance system that includes EU institutions as rights ‘givers’, member states as not always compliant ‘takers’, and LGBT groups somewhere in the middle. In addition to this potentially problematic setting, the EU’s anti-discrimination policy package applies only to employment- related discrimination. But Europe’s largest LGBT advocacy group, the International Lesbian, Gay, Trans, Bisexual and Intersex Association (ILGA Europe), together with many other groups has been pressing the case for a broader anti-discrimination law covering all areas of life. This is complicated by the fact that a few powerful states do not want to broaden the existing market-based law and by EU hesitancy to reach beyond its focus on economic rights and freedoms.

It becomes evident that the dominance of neoliberalism as the EU’s main rationale limits the rights attainment of LGBT individuals because it restricts alternative critical views. Given the EU’s orientation, non-governmental organisations are pressured to prioritise market-principles such as labour participation, while becoming more dependent on governmental or EU funding. At the same time, this increase in non-governmental advocacy coincides with a retreat of governments in social and welfare sectors. This diminishes the potential for contesting existing policies and potentially their legitimacy, as groups have to link anti-discrimination activities with more societal and labour market inclusion if they want to retain funding from the EU. Such reorientation around neoliberal EU objectives produces a hierarchy of rights which risks putting social inclusion and a wider sense of equality at the bottom.

This case study thus questions the cooperation of non-governmental advocacy organisations with a supranational governance system that is at least partly responsible for constraining national welfare policies. Moreover, the EU’s valuation of rights is problematic because inalienable rights are being made an object of economic value and output. Yet it cannot be criticised in a system in which EU policy planning is protected by its supposed non-political regulatory, expert-led nature – reminding us of Foucault’s knowledge–power linkage. It also implies that a reflection of norms is needed, in the way neoliberal heteronormativity is desired by political actors in the EU policy process and accordingly (re)produced or challenged by gender/sex-based rights groups. The feminist contribution to IR highlights uneven gendered power relations, but a critical political economy perspective that merges concerns about structural injustice with the thoughtful critique of queer theory’s view on civil society inclusion adds profound insights into the politics of sexual rights recognition. This is most relevant here when considering queer theory’s theoretical tenets such as taking seriously the distinct positions of political actors and the often troubling content of public policy.

Conclusion :

The development of queer theory in IR suggests that more rigorous questions of the impact of LGBT issues in international politics have begun to be successfully answered. It highlights the valuable contribution to analysing IR through until now unrecognised perspectives on sexual and gender expression. Queer theory has also proven to be theoretically inclusive in ways that LGBT and feminist scholarship sometimes has not. A question that remains is whether queer theorists can recognise – and perhaps transcend – their own racial, class and Western-centric orientations. Such broadening would also make it easier to find common cause with other affected minorities – not least to move from a purely critical or deconstructive mode to a more transformative and productive one. Precisely because queer theory is able to transcend the focus on sexuality and gender through general analytical principles, it lends itself to interrogating a wide range of IR phenomena. In a time when IR is often accused of being parochial, queer theory is a necessary corrective to powerful myths and narratives of international order.

Word : 2,863

Paper 203 Assignment

 Name : Bhavna Sosa 

M.A. Sem : 3

Roll no. : 2

Batch : 2021 - 23 

Bhavnasosa211@gmail.com 

Paper Name : The Postcolonial Studies 

Topic : Examining the Dynamics of Decolonisation in Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth 

Submitted to Smt. S.B.Gardi Department of English MKBU

“How they’re as good as they are now is a mystery to me, after a hundred years of systematic denial that they’re human.” 

                                                      (Lee, 2015: 252)

Introduction:

Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist who played an active role in the Algerian war of independence from French colonial rule, remains a key thinker on decolonisation and Third World independence struggles. The Wretched of the Earth deeply influenced African and African American social movements and has been widely praised, but it is most certainly not a work free of controversy (Fairchild, 1994: 191). Fanon’s view of the necessity of violence as part of the anticolonial struggle has been a particular topic of contention for critics, commonly leading to accusations of ‘barbarism and terrorism’ (Smith, 1973: 32). The aim of this essay is to engage in careful examination of The Wretched of the Earth, in order to analyse and clarify Fanon’s key theses on decolonisation. This analysis will focus on Fanon’s conceptions of the internal contradictions and Manichean character of colonial society, the role of rural peasants, the urban working class and political leadership in the anticolonial struggle, and, importantly, the role of violence as a necessary part of decolonisation and the construction of a postcolonial national culture and identity. This essay will ultimately argue that despite the centrality of violence to Fanon’s theses on decolonisation, he does not advocate arbitrary violence, but rather recognises the dangers, physical and psychological, of violence without a cause. Fanon’s theses on decolonisation, while not entirely free of limitations and ambiguities, continue to provide valuable insights into the psychological and political effects of oppression and dehumanisation, still relevant to considerations of Western involvement around the world today.

Examining the Dynamics of Decolonisation in Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth :

According to Fanon, the colonial world can be understood as the encounter between two forces, those of the colonial settler and the native population, defined and sustained by violence (2001: 28). Colonial rule is imposed by European states in order to exploit the resources of the colonised area, and indeed, for Fanon, ‘Europe is literally the creation of the Third World’ (Ibid.: 81). Unlike in developed capitalist societies, where the economic exploitation of the masses is veiled by a hegemonic superstructure upheld by institutions such as organised religion and the education system, exploitation in the colonies is naked and thus necessarily upheld by violent means of oppression, constructing a Manichean world based on an immediately clear distinction between coloniser and colonised. A central aspect of the oppression of the native people is their dehumanisation and the attempt to destroy their national culture (Fairchild, 1994: 192). This is achieved by the use of language that degrades the natives to the status of animals, the application of racist ‘scientific’ theories of the inferiority of the native population, and concentrated attacks on indigenous cultural practice (Fanon, 2001: 32-33, 244; 2004: 43). The colonisers are thus ‘committed to destroying the people’s originality’ by presenting cultural practices, which are ‘in fact the assertion of a distinct identity, concern with keeping intact a few shreds of national existence’, as ‘religious, magical, fanatical behaviour’ (Fanon, 2004: 43-44, 46). The dehumanisation of the native serves a dual purpose. First, it allows the colonisers to escape the apparent contradictions between Western values of democracy and equality on the one hand, and the undemocratic and extremely violent oppression of the native population on the other (Rabaka, 2010: 115). Second, the internalisation of dehumanising and violent colonial relations destroys the natives’ ‘sense of selfhood’ (Gibson, 2003: 107) allowing for continued colonial exploitation due to ‘a belief in fatality [which] removes all blame from the oppressor’ (Fanon, 2001: 42). However, despite the myriad tools used to dehumanise the natives, they are never fully convinced of their inferiority, ‘and it is precisely at the moment the native]realizes his humanity that he begins to sharpen the weapons with which he will secure the native population victory’ (Ibid.: 33). In other words, the necessarily violent imposition and sustenance of colonial rule simultaneously sow the seeds of its own destruct the unifying national identity of the native population becomes defined in complete contradistinction to the colonial settlers, and the use of anticolonial violence leads to the immediate identification of its perpetrator as part of the national struggle: ‘the process of identification is automatic’ (Fanon, 2001: 54). A further implication of this dialectic of violence, which serves as a tool in the construction of the national identity, is that escalating colonial violence in reaction to native uprisings only serves to strengthen, not disrupt, the unity of the native people (Ibid.: 56). It becomes clear that, according to Fanon, whereas colonial violence is oppressive and self-perpetuating in that it seeks to maintain the oppressive structures of colonialism, anticolonial violence is constructive and valuable as it seeks to remove those oppressive structures, aiming for the emancipation of the people as well as the construction of a new national identity (Gibson, 2003: 115). Nevertheless, some natives subscribe to Engels’ view that ‘violence depends upon the production of armaments’ (as quoted in Fanon, 2001: 50), and adopt a fatalistic stance in the face of the massive military power of the colonisers. However, Fanon argues that the escalation of colonial violence is constrained by the economic considerations of the colonisers, who can afford to neither slaughter the entire native population nor uphold the extremely oppressive colonial system in the face of constantly increasing native resistance (Martin, 1970: 392). Furthermore, the international context of decolonisation in other countries may also restrict the colonists' response to the natives’ national struggle (Fanon, 2001: 55). Violent anticolonial resistance thus retains its viability and therefore its value in unifying a people against the properly identified enemy, namely the settler, and ‘liberat[ing] the native from despair and inaction’ (Gibson, 2003: 118). This is not to say that violence, for Fanon, should be an end in itself, or indeed that violence alone is enough to construct a truly independent national culture. In fact, Fanon was acutely aware of the dangers and limitations of the unconstrained and arbitrary use of violence.

Indeed, Fanon’s description of the adverse psychological effects of violence on some of his patients in Algeria makes it abundantly clear that he ‘abhors violence even while recognizing it as a necessary evil in some cases’ (Martin, 1970: 383). Violence only has value as part of the anticolonial struggle in paving the way to self-realisation, and even in that context violence is psychologically taxing. For Fanon, ‘all killing is by definition de-humanizing’ (Caute: 1970: 87). It follows that in the long run, violence without a cause is psychologically unsustainable, and must thus always be a means to higher ends, not an end in itself. In the absence of such clear objectives, the native population will become discouraged in their struggle against colonial oppression, and more likely to accept petty concessions from the colonial settlers, given out only in return for continued violent subjugation of the native people (Fanon, 2001: 112). In order for the native population to persist in their struggle, the ‘people must know where they are going, and why’ (Ibid.: 156). Furthermore, anticolonial violence alone can only construct a national identity defined in contradistinction to the colonial settlers, and therefore fails to prove the truly independent existence of the natives from the colonial system (Gibson, 2003: 123).

What is needed, then, is a truly independent national identity and culture, in the construction of which the intellectuals and political leaders of the anticolonial movement play a crucial role. Such a national identity and culture is constructed, firstly, by looking to the past and reclaiming the native’s history from the immobility to which it is condemned by the colonial system, and, second, by looking to the future in order to find a new and independent path to development (Fanon, 2001: 40, 252-255). For Fanon, the new identity and culture must be national, not, for instance, racial or continental, in order to be useful and sustainable (Ibid.: 174-176). It is important to note, furthermore, that instead of rejecting any and all European values outright, this new independent national identity should attempt to incorporate positive insights without forgetting ‘Europe’s crimes’ or seeking to emulate the European experience (Ibid.: 254; Rabaka, 2010: 200-201).

Fanon’s vision of the new independent national culture is clearly problematic. For instance, in his insistence on the construction of a national, not regional or racial, identity, Fanon seems to overlook the fact that African nations were largely the somewhat arbitrary product of European colonisation, often internally divided tribally and linguistically (Caute, 1970: 80-81). Furthermore, perhaps due to his own intimate involvement in the Algerian struggle for independence, it is often unclear whether Fanon is describing how decolonisation actually works, or how it ought to (Ibid.: 68; Perinbam, 1973: 441, 444). Fanon has also been accused of overlooking the importance of structural and economic constraints and ‘consequently [overrating] the possibilities of change’ (Burke, 1976: 128). This became perhaps even more apparent with the neoliberal turn after the 1970s, during which newly independent countries were seemingly unable to escape ‘neocolonial structures of commercial exploitation’ (Harvey, 2005: 56). However, despite these limitations the value of Fanon’s theses on decolonisation is clear. Indeed, even those who criticise the accuracy of his analysis recognise the value of its inspirational rhetoric (Burke, 1976: 127). Fanon’sanalysis of the role and effects of violence in a colonial setting proves especially insightful, and continues to be relevant in considerations of Western involvement in areas such as the Middle East, where indeed there seems to be a relationship between perceived Western domination of the native population and their organised, violent resistance (Sidanius et al., 2015: 3, 12).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, it becomes clear that Fanon’s key theses on decolonisation, while not entirely unproblematic, included various insights that retain their value today. Far from an ‘apologia for violence’ (Coser, 1967: 211), Fanon describes violence within a colonial setting in a dialectical fashion, certainly not advocating wanton violence. Rather, he acknowledges the use of anticolonial violence as a necessary evil and important component in the native population’s quest towards self-realisation and the construction of a national identity truly free from colonial influence. It is Fanon’s insights into this dialectic of violence, and his warnings of the dangers of replacing one system of exploitation by another, that we should keep in mind when evaluating contemporary Western involvement around the world and the extent to which formerly colonial countries are truly independent even after formal decolonisation.

Woord : 2,596

Paper 202 Assignment

Name : Bhavna Sosa 

Sem  : 3

Roll No. 02

Batch : 2021-2023

Paper Name : 202 Indian English Literature Post-Indepenc 

bhavnasosa211@gmail.com 

Topic Name: Problem of Communal Divide and Communal Tension in Mahesh Dattani’s Final Solutions

Submitted to  : Smt. S.B.Gardi Department of English MKBU

Introduction :-

Mahesh Dattani’s Final Solutions focuses on the problem of communal disharmony between the Hindus and Muslims in India, especially during the period of the post- partition riots. The psychosis that prevails among the Hindus as well as Muslims in India, after the event of the partition of the country, causes a chain of neurotic reactions to even the most inconsequential of happenings. The play moves from the partition to the present day communal riots; probes into the religious bigotry by examining the attitudes of three generations of a middle-class Gujarati business family, Hardika the grandmother, Ramnik her son and Sumita her granddaughter. Revolving around three generations, the events in the play unfold at a swift pace, weaving the post-independence partition riots, with the communal riots of today in a common strand. Memory plays an important role in the play as reminiscences of the characters develop the plot. In the play, the mob is a symbol of communal hatred. It deals with the burning issues of Hindu-Muslim hatred; the mind set of suspicion towards each other and tries to suggest that attributes of prejudice and misperception have much to do in escalating such problems. It is obvious that communal unrest arises from highlighting the differences between these two religious groups. Once they are made to acknowledge their identity as human beings first and then Hindus or Muslims, there will be no problems. Therefore one of the solutions is that religion is only something superficial as a mask and can be donned or taken off at will.

Problem of communal tension in Mahesh Dattani's Final Solution

Mahesh Dattani is a leading dramatist in Indian Drama in English. He is the first Indian playwright in English who has been awarded the ‘Sahitya Akademi’ award for his contribution to world drama. He was born on August 7, 1958 in Bangalore. His parents originally belonged to Gujarat but they came to Bangalore for business purposes and settled there. After completing his school and college education at Bangalore, he joined with his father in his business activities. He has an intrinsic attachment to dance and theatre too. He watched many Gujarati plays and Kannada plays, which gave him the idea of theatre. He has a keen interest not only in theatre but also in dancing. He started his career as an actor in dramas and played many lead roles in various Indian English plays and British plays. He founded ‘Playpen’, a theatre company in 1984 to perform the plays particularly the Indian plays. After this, he devoted himself to directing plays. He first directed the play, God in 1986. He directed almost all of his plays. Later on, he moved towards writing plays and the result is Where There’s a Will. In this play, he also worked as an actor. Thus he started his career as an actor, he moved to direct and then to write plays. His important plays are God, Where There’s a Will, Dance Like A Man, Tara, Bravely Fought The Queen, Final Solutions, On A Muggy Night In Mumbai, etc. In his plays, Dattani deals with the fringe issues and marginalized people within the society and his themes extend from child abuse, homosexuality and hijra communities to the other taboo subjects and social riots. His themes and the characters are chosen from Indian society but he raises them to the universal level.

and anxieties of the two communities can be traced to the partition. There is Muslim sensitivity to music being played near a mosque. There is Hindu sensitivity in matters of general Muslim food habits that go against vegetarianism. There are fears of contamination. Politicians exploit most of these things and hire goons to help them. Sooner voices like Bobby’s are drowned, ignored and brushed aside. Pent up feelings take a violent shape. Dattani exposes the fundamentalists and orthodox persons who use religion as a cover to realize their selfish interest. Religion is a mere ploy in their hands to further their interest in life and cherish their desired goal. Identity politics underlying the Hindu-Muslim tension in India has to be clearly grasped to explain the causes of communal riots as well as large scale killings that have taken place in recent years. There is a serious socio-political problem plaguing our nation today is the communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims. Dattani, in this play, deals with the recurring rhetoric of hatred, aggression, the monetary and political exploitation of communal riots, the chauvinism and patriarchal mindset of the fundamentalist, in the context of India in the 1940s interspersed with contemporary India.

This time it wasn’t the people with the sticks and stones. It was those two boys running away who frightened me. Those two who were begging for their lives. Tomorrow they will hate us for it. They will hate us for protecting them. Asking for help makes them feel they are lower than us. I know! All those memories came back when I saw the pride in their eyes! I know their wretched pride! It had destroyed me before and I was afraid it would destroy my family again. They don’t want equality. They want to be superior. (P.172)

In Final Solutions, Dattani shows how the seed of riot is sowed and some vested groups reap its fruit. He also discusses the role of politicians, police and public at the time of communal riot. The common people who live together for years, at the moment of riot, suddenly cease to recognize one another and become enemies on the ground of religion. They never realize that they are losers and politicians snatch the opportunity to gain power. This special community utilizes the opportunity to make a profit. Dattani demonstrates that the major cause of difference endangered by the two leading communities in our country is their sense of superiority. The Hindus always think that they are superior to the Muslims and the Muslims think the same. This causes a big chasm in their relationship. The scarcity of religious tolerance is the leading factor for generating a breach in the society. The sentiment of two different groups can be traced in the chorus of the play Final Solutions:

Chorus 1 : The procession has passed through these lanes every year. For

forty years!

Chorus 2, 3 : How dare they ?

Chorus 1,2,3 : For forty years our chariot has moved through their mohallas.

Chorus 4,5 : Why did they ? Why did they today ?

Chorus 1 : How dare they?

Chorus 2,3 : They broke our Rath. They broke our chariot and felled our

Gods!

Chorus 1,2,3 : This is our land! How dare they ?

Chorus 1 : It is in their blood!

Chorus 2,3 :It is in their blood to destroy!

Chorus 4 : Why should they?

Chorus 5 : It could have been an accident.

Chorus 2 : The stone that hit our God was no accident!

Chorus 3 : The knife that slit the poojari’s stomach was no accident.

(P.168)

In Final Solutions, communal riot breaks due to disturbance of procession. In most of the cases the matter of dispute is very simple. But due to involvement of some unsocial elements, it takes the shape of communalism and later on it is distorted and the ultimate result is communal violence. During communal riots, mankind undergoes tremendous spiritual losses, during and after riots. Respect for life, dignity of humanity, love for truth and justice, fellow feeling and brotherhood are mercilessly butchered in riot. The propaganda, based on falsehood, has its heyday during riots. People lose not only their bodies but also their souls. It is a great catastrophe to humanity. As Bobby says:

A minor incident changed all that… We were playing cricket on our street… The postman… was in a hurry and asked Javed to hand the letter over to the owner. Javed took the letter… and opened the gate… a voice boomed, ‘What do you want?’ Javed holding out the letter… his usual firmness vanishing in a second. ‘Save it on the wall’, the voice ordered. Javed backed away, really frightened… the man came out with a cloth… wiped the letter before picking it up, he then wiped the spot on the wall the letter was lying on and he wiped the gate! We all heard a prayer bell, ringing continuously. Not loud. But distinct … We’d heard the bell so often every day of our life that it didn’t mean anything… but at the moment… we all heard only the bell… The next day… I found… Someone had dropped pieces of meat and bones into his backyard. (P.200)

So it is not necessary that communal riot begins only when a group remarks badly on another group. But the way of working can also infuriate the other community. If any problem arises between different communities, it can be sorted out by talk. But still, some people fan the objectionable remarks on their community and its result is communal riot. The first stage of communalism lies in the ideology that the people of the same religion have the same ideology and the same interest. The vested people involve themselves in spreading such ideology and divide the society on the basis of religion. Such a feeling compels the other community to do the same and thus the cactus of communalism comes on the ground. The ill-treatment of Javed by a man hurts Bobby and he also becomes angry and expresses his anger before Ramnik :

Ramnik : …you didn’t throw meat into your neighbour’s backyard.

Bobby : That’s because I was ashamed of being myself. He wasn’t.

Ramnik : Ashamed ?

Bobby : Yes. Like being apologetic. For being who I was. And pretending that I

was not a part of my community. For thinking that I could become

superior by not belonging… I chose to be called Bobby. (P.201)

Daksha hates Muslims because her father was killed in a communal riot, and because her overtures of friendship to Zarine, a young Muslim girl, were rejected after other communal riots that razed Zarine’s father’s shop, and which incidentally, was bought by Daksha’s father-in-law. Javed, the young Muslim fundamentalist and member of a ‘gang’ has long nursed a resentment against the world because of the ‘otherness’ and the demonisation of his community and religious identity by the dominant community. Ramnik Gandhi, Daksha’s son is trying to atone for the sins committed by his father and grandfather, and therefore becomes a conscious ‘secularist’. Daksha tells us about the riots in which her father was killed, how she and her mother took refuge from the flying stones in the pooja room, and how her faith in God, represented by the idol of Krishna, was suddenly gone, never to return. These things have not changed that much after forty years too, as the play has opened in the midst of another riot, and a curfew is on in the small town of Amargaon where the Gandhis live. Daksha’s diary has the usual retellings of communal hatred and desecration of religious signifiers.

Daksha’s last visit to Zarine’s place is an example of hospitality that asks names. She went to see her friend without knowing that her husband and father-in-law had secretly planned to overtake their business and reduced their shop to ashes. Zarine commits violence by inviting Daksha to their dining table, knowing full well that the sight and smell of beef would injure her. Daksha throws up and is helped by her domestic servant who surmises that she has eaten beef : domestic violence and captivity follows. In all her life she never got to know of the secret deal that changed her life forever. Daksha and Hardika become one in their resentment of the other:

Daksha : (banging on the door) I promise! I won’t do it again!

Hardika : Confined. Never let out of the house. Like a dog that had gone mad!

Daksha : (hysterically) Let me out!

Hardika : I hate the way you look! I hate the way you dress! I hate the way you

eat! (P.223)

Final Solutions is a problem play, for it deals with the communal tension of our society. The violence perpetuated by the communal people in our society affects family life and that is dramatized in the characters of Smita, Ramnik Gandhi, Aruna, Bobby and Javed. The same character Daksha with two names (Daksha and Hardika) shows how the attitude of the same person to communal tension has changed over the years. Two Muslim boys, Bobby and Javed take shelter in Ramnik’s house during communal violence in the town. The dialogue between these two boys with the members of Ramnik’s family reveals the deep-rooted distrust between two communities. Aruna, Ramnik’s wife argues with her husband and daughter, Smita against giving them shelter in their house when Aruna forbids Bobby and Javed to touch the water with which she bathes the Gods. It shows the attitude of Aruna to her religion. The relationship among the members of Ramnik’s family is affected by the communal feelings prevalent in our society. But Dattani works out a solution by making people understand the evil inherent in such kind of communal hatred between two major communities in our country.

Final Solutions has a powerful contemporary resonance as the central issue of communalism is of the utmost concerns of our society. Presenting different shades of communalist attitudes prevalent among Hindus and Muslims, the play attempts to underline the stereotypes influencing the collective sensibility of one community against another. Moving from partition to the present day communal riots, Final Solutions examines the attitudes of three generations of a Gujrati business family. The events in the play unfold at a swift pace, weaving the post-independence partition riots, with the communal riots of today in a common strand.

In the context of the play, the fears and anxieties of the two communities are largely an aftermath of the partition, but in conservative Hindu homes there has always been a tacit dislike for and disapproval of everything associated with Muslims to the extent that everything touched by the latter is considered to be contaminated. Muslims too, are conscious of the antipodal position they assume in a Hindu community and are equally averse to the Hindu. This mutual aversion of the two communities for each other in India is not overplayed but is depicted with a rare fidelity which spells absolute conviction. Dattani’s great contribution to Indian English drama can be depicted in the play, Final Solutions. It is a very significant play by Dattani especially in the present scenario of India and critics have suggested that this play should be translated into every Indian language and performed throughout the country.

 Works Cited

Agarwal, Dipti. The Plays of Mahesh Dattani – A Study In Thematic Diversity And Dramatic Technique. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 2013.

Das, Bijay Kumar. Form and Meaning in Mahesh Dattani’s Plays. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2012.

Dattani, Mahesh. Collected Plays. New Delhi: Penguin Books of India, 2000.

Joshipura, Pranav. A Critical Study Of Mahesh Dattani’s Plays. New Delhi: Sarup Book Publishers, 2009.

Mukherjee, Tutun. The Plays Of Mahesh Dattani – An Anthology Of Recent Criticism. New Delhi: Pencraft International, 2012.

Multani, Angelie. Mahesh Dattani’s Plays – Critical Perspectives. New Delhi: Pencraft International, 2007.

Singh, Pramod Kumar. Social Maladies In The Works Of Mahesh Dattani. New Delhi: Sarup Book Publishers, 2012.

Words: 3,678