:

fi
()

 :
fi
()

Shikargah :
Sanjhe Sadmiyan Da Birtant
(Shikargah : Narrative of Collective Trauma)

Edited by:
Gurmukh Singh
Punjabi Deptt., Punjabi University, Patiala
ISBN: 978-81-7883-989-9
Rs. 350/2012
Printing and Bound In India

Published by:

Chetna Parkashan
PUNJABI BHAWAN, LUDHIANA (Pb.) INDIA
Ph. 0161-2413613, 2404928, Website: www.chetnaparkashan.com
E-mail: chetnaparkashan@sify.com, chetnaparkashan@gmail.com
Sub Off.: Qila Road, Opp. Bus Stand, KOTKAPURA (Pb.) INDIA
Ph.: 01635-222651
Printer : R.K. Offset, Delhi

*
All rights reserved

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or
otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior
written consent in any form of binding or cover other than in which it is published and without
a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser and
without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means (electronic, mechanical, photo copying, recording or otherwise), without the prior
written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book.

CF

-.

EC

-.

GC

-.

HE

-.

II

-.

AA@

-.

ABA

-.

ACD

fi

. ,

,

:

:

:

: ,
- -.

AE@

-.

AFI

-.

AIF

-.

B@F

-.

BAE

-.

BBA

-. z

BBI

-.

BCF

Book Review of Shikargah

-By Rajesh Kumar Sharma

244


-
/





()




-
fi


- /
/

,

/

: fi / I

, ,




,
,



fi

fi fi


,


- ,
-
fi ,

- ,
?
-
,
- -

, /

, ,
: fi / A@

 , ,

fi




-

/

, ,




,





- -

-

, Indian Public Culture
does not have space for others, instead it has an open, blurred
definition of the self which allows it to accommodate others with
which it might be in conflict.

, ,


fi

-
Slavenka Drakulic
: TNow I understand that it was nothing but this
otherness which has killed the Jews, and it began with them
being reduced to the other.U

- ; - ,
,
, fi
- -
fi fi
,

: fi / AA

: fi / AB


fi

//

,

/ /
,

,

/


,
/ fi





fi

/




/ -
/

,
fi

-

,
,

(AIIC) (AIIG)


, A@@@

,
fi (
)
fi








(Roberto Benigni)

: fi / AC

: fi / AD

 (Guido) ,





fi








,

//





fi,





-
- /fi

, /
,
, ,
-
/


-


,
,




,
, /
-

TTo be
rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need
of the human soul.U
/


, /
,
/
fi

: fi / AE

: fi / AF

 fi
/
fi fi
fi /
,
/ fi fi
fi /
- fi
/

, fi , fi
fi
fi fi



-


fi
/
/ ,


/
-

Beyond Narrative
Coherence

:
The Classical, Aristotelian, notion has been widely shared
among scholars who otherwise often disagree, often drastically,
from folklore and linguistics to philosophy, psychology and
narrativist theory of history. Once and again, the key function of
narrative is seen to be the creation of coherence. Recently, the
conception has faced increasing criticism both from the ranks of
narratology and in particular, from scholars who study naturally
occurring, oral narratives. The normative mission to find and
value coherence marginalizes many normative phenomena, omits
non-fitting narrators, encourages scholars to read narratives obsessively from the perspective of coherence, and poses ethically
questionable pressure upon narrators who have experienced
severe political or other trauma.

: fi / AG

: fi / AH

fi
/
/-

/
; fi/
/
fi


/





/-




-


-
-

fi , (-
)

fi

/
,


/
fi - - fi



-
, T... -

( )

,
, -, -
,
T
fi

- fi




. -
fi :
,


,






, , , ,


T

: fi / AI

: fi / B@

 ,
T



.

,
/
fi


,

fi
.

-
fi


, fi

T

fi
U ,
-
,

, ,

. -
fi ,

-, -
-
-



-
, ;
, , ,
-
-
,



-
,

-


?
?
? -

: fi / BA

: fi / BB






-
-


-
, :
-

fi fi

/ ,

,
, -
,
-
/ /
-
-



. , T
, , -

U
.


, ,
,
-


-

T,
, ,

U

.




. :

/
?
,
-

-

: fi / BC

: fi / BD


.

, -

-
,
, , ,

, ,

,


.








- ,



,

,

-
fi
- ,

T []

U
-

fi

T

...
,
-

, , U
: .
- .


,

: fi / BE

: fi / BF


/

-
. fi

-


, ,
,

.

-
- ,
-, .


T -
,
-
, , ,
-, -, -
...

U .
fi
T- /

, , fi

U . /


. - :
,

, T
,



- ,
, ,

U
-

fi

- fi
, ,
,
-




-
/
T

: fi / BG

: fi / BH

 , , ,

,
T
T
U

-
fi
,


: , - -



,
-


,
fi
,
/
,

,


fi

,
, -

,

,
- -
-




,
, ,

,



. :

,



,

--
-

: fi / BI

: fi / C@


fi
,
,
.


.
:

.
T
--
U
, T/
,
U


-
,
fi T

U

T

U

-
: .

fi


, ,



fi

T

;
T

,

.



fi ,




, .


, T

- ,

: fi / CA

: fi / CB

, ...

,

...
-



U
.

.
, .

-
.



.



-



,

,

. .



.
,
- ,





,
- ,

,

, , .
.

,

-
(
)

: fi / CC

: fi / CD

 /

,

,

-

-

,


fi

- -


,
, , ,
, ..., ,
-
, ( )

, AB
, E@

- ,
(- )

,

: fi / CE

: fi / CF

 , ,
-
-

, ,

,
- -





-
- -
- fi
, -




, ,
, ,


,


AIDG
AIFF

,
fi

, ,
,
,

,

, , ,
, , , , , ,

fi
:

: fi / CG

: fi / CH

,
?
...?
...?
-
, -
-
, -
-


-

-



,
,
,
fi




,
,
:
, fi


fi

fi

fi ,
/

fi
-


:
fi
...



, , , , ,


- -
-
-
- :

fi , , ,
, , , ,
, ,

,

, ,

,
,
, ,
,
,

-

: fi / CI

: fi / D@

 fi

fi
z

:
...

... fi
...
,
-
-
fi -
fi



?



-
:

,
.....

fi
fi fi
,
-
-, -
,



,
:
,
..
fi
,

,

:

...
fi ... fi
-

: fi / DA

: fi / DB

 fi
( )
()




z







:

,



...
,
fi ... ...
,

:




,

,

-



,

,


- ,

, ,

, ,

: fi / DC

: fi / DD

( )



fi

 , fi

,
: , , -, -

,
,
AIDG
-
-
- z
,

AIFF AIHD

( )

,
, , - -
,


,
,

, ,
,

: fi / DE

: fi / DF

/





-





,
-
/
,

- ,
:
?





,


,

,





, ,

, ,




,
z

,









:

,

,
, fi
,
, fi
()

: fi / DG

: fi / DH

...


, ,
...

fi

...
()
:

,
()



fi






,
, ,

: fi / DI

,

, fi
,




(fi )







fi fi

,
:
... ...
...



, , ,
: fi / E@

, , , ...


...
,


fi


fi




:







, ,

: fi / EA

,






(/ /fi
) z



z





fi

,
/

J

: fi / EB

T . . .
fi fi-
,

fi
:

: ,
U

-
(, ,
)

fi

- ,

fi
(
)
-

: :

,


:

: fi / EC

T ()

U
T.. ..

U
fi

DG -
-
,
?

,

, DG
?

,
: fi / ED

 , ,

DG

fi

/ -
,

- -

? fi

, (
)

, , , , , ,
- ,

fi fi

,
,

fi

fi

, - -/

?
,

: fi / EE

: fi / EF

T
,

,
fi

, DG ,

fi ?
U

fi , T

( ) :
T , ,

, ..U . . . , T

U
,

, ...U

,U ..

, T
U

,
..

;
T

U
(

; T
U

T fi

: fi / EG

: fi / EH

 , -

T
-

, ,

:
T

U?
,

, U

? , fi
,

,
,

T
U

(
),

T -
-

T ?U
T ..

,
,

fi U
T

(-, , )

-
:

: fi / EI

: fi / F@

 U
() ,

, (

( )

, -
fi

, ,
,

, -

?
/ / / / /

-
? ()

: T

()

U ,

, T
U

,
; , T

, ,

, , ,

: fi / FA

: fi / FB

, ,
,

), :
T ? ,

U,
T

()

/ ,

UU T ...
UT

U (

- /
-

)
- T

... ...U

? , ?

, /
? , ?

, ?
-

, ,

,
;

: T

,
,

:
T

: fi / FC

: fi / FD

fi

( )
, ,

() ,

,
:

T U

T ..
.. U

fi , fi

/
?

,
,

: fi / FE

: fi / FF

: T

fi ,

/ fi

, ,

fi

fi U

/
?

fi
, /

?
,

, T ,

U, -
, :

,
U

fi ,

: T

fi ,

: fi / FG

: fi / FH

,
, T

- ..
, , , -

, ,

,
U

T U fi
, T

,
-

, ,

, -

,
,

, T U

U
,

,
,

fi
,

fi
T U

T ?U
T!U

, /

T?... ... ... ...U

,

HD

T ...
.. ? ...

... fi ...
... fi T

: fi / FI

: fi / G@


T , -

, -
,

U T
..

, T

, ;
; T

T U U

fi

, -

: T

/ -

- ,

,

U

/
: T
: fi / GA

: fi / GB


-.
,

:
:
:

/
:






fi
/


, , ,
z




: fi / GC

,
, , z, , , ,
, ,
, , fi fi , ,
, , , , ,
, ,
, ,


, , fi

, fi



, , , , ,


, ,
,

,

, ,




, ,

: fi / GD


, , , ,
fi -
,
-


, , ,
-fi
,





, -
fi
I/AA


,








, ,

: ,
, ,

, fi



-
, ,
fi

,
,


,
:

,

,
-

( DH)
fi
fi



,

: fi / GE

: fi / GF








...
,


, ,

, ,
fi
,
,


,
,
fi
,
, ?
,
?
?


?

:
,
-,





, ,
fi

...


:



,



( AFC)


:

,

: fi / GG

: fi / GH



-


( AFF)



,

, ,
,

fi




fi

, ,

;







z

,


-


-
,


z


(Shoshana Felman)


-
fi


,

: fi / GI

: fi / H@


,

,






,
, ,
,
,




fi
,
fi


,

,
,

fi
z

:








fi






, ,









, , , ,
, ,

: fi / HA

: fi / HB


, ,



fi
,


-

-




-

fi




fi
, ,

,
-

,

,



fi
, fi fi


J

: fi / HC

: fi / HD

,
-.

,
- ,
-
fi ,
, ,
fi


-
z z

,



(A)

fi fi, ,
fi
.
A
fi, -
: fi / HE

z



,
z z -
?
.
; ,
, .....
z () B ,
. ,
- , - ,
zz


. C
- -z ,
-
z
fi
-
z



,
,
: fi / HF


, ,


, ,
-

(B)

- z
, ,
z zz
z


,
, -
,

z fi



,
()


D
: fi / HG

, ,
,
, ,

.
. .
,


,



,
z
; ... !
... ! .... !
... , ....
.. ...
-

, , , ,
,

...

....
;


(E)
fi , ,
, , , z
: fi / HH


fi


z
z
,
,
-- -


-
,



,
-

(C)
z
z , ,
,
-
--
fi -
( ) , ,


, ( )

: ,
,

,
- ,
, ,
-
- ,
-
fi , ,
z
,
fi ,

, ?
fi
,

,

fi ,



, , , ,
, , , , ,


, ,
z fi

: fi / HI

: fi / I@


, ,


z

: ,
z ,
, - z fi

z
,
,

-

- fi
....
...........................
...........................
-

-
F
, ,
, , , ,


: fi / IA

,

,

,
,


- z


fi
z


z
z


-
, ,

G
- ... ( ... )
...
fi fi
... , ,
?

...
H
- , , ,
: fi / IB

 , ,


I
-


A@

fi z ,

: , ,

( ) z (
)
,
, z


,
, , -




(D)
- z
;
fi
, ,

,

,

fi

fi
- ....
-
AA
-
... ... ...
,
.... ...
AB
, ,


z ,


, ,

,
-,

- I/AA

- -
,

: fi / IC

: fi / ID

 ,




z
,
;
.....
... fi
... AC

... .... ... ...
AD

-
,
,
, ,


z

, ,
, fi
-
-

: fi / IE

(E)
fi fi

-


z .

z

-
; ,
,





- z
,

, ,
,


- ;


, ,

: fi / IF


,
z

,
,

z
-


z ,
z



z
- z


, ,

-z
, -

,
fi



z z
fi

:
A. , , z,
, B@A@, G
B. .
C. .
D. , , AFC
E. , AGB
F. , BF
G. , ADH
H. , AEH
I. , AE@

(F)

z z
,
, ,
-
z
: fi / IG

A@. , AFE
AA. , B@I
AB. , BDD
AC. , EI
AD. , BDD

: fi / IH

 :
-. *

-


, z
,
fi z ,

, - - ,
z

BB ,

,
z
,
z z
: T ?U

,
-


,
: fi / II

,
,
( )
? , ,
, , ,
,

fi - ,
, fi
fi


,
-

, , , ,
, z ?
z ?
fi z


z



,

, T ,

: fi / A@@

U

,

z

z z




-

,
?
fi ,



, , ,
,
, z
,
-



fi z
,
,
:

T

U


:
T ,


U

-




()







z

z



, ,

: fi / A@A

: fi / A@B





z
,
, B-C
:
T

,
-
,

U
-

-
?
?
fi
-


z

:
T ... ...
,
U
fi

z fi

E , fi
z




,

, ,

,
, , ,
AD
B@
, , , ?


fi




fi
- ,




fi

: fi / A@C

: fi / A@D

 ,
, ?
, z


:
T ...
-
,
...
,
U
GE
B@-BB
?
,

:
T !
,
, ,
U








-

, T U


fi z ,
, ,


z z
- fi -
-

,
/
z
( )
.

-

: fi / A@E

: fi / A@F

 -
.. -
-


,
fi
-
:
T

,
U


-
T z, ,
,
-, - fi ,
fi ,
fi
, T -
fi U


:
T
... fi


-, , - U

: T
,
- /
, ,




,
:
T fi
- z

, -
-

U
fi /
/
z
,
z
,
z ? z




?
z

: fi / A@G

: fi / A@H

 ,
, ?
B@
z ,


z :
T ? U
T!U
T?... ... ... ... ..?
,

U
T ... ...
... ... fi U
fi
,
, ,
,

, , , z

/ //-
?
z ,
T ?U
z z

: fi / A@I






z

.
-
,



fi


,

fi

-
,
-

-


AE


fi












,
,

: fi / AA@

: fi / AAA

:
-.


fi fi

,









-
fi

? .
, - ,
fi ? fi
fi , fi
fi fi
fi

fi

z



fi



fi



,



,
fi
,
,

: fi / AAB

: fi / AAC



fi
- fi
- - fi

fi






, ,
, fi
?
!



-
fi z







fi

fi







:

: fi / AAD

: fi / AAE


?

?

!
...... .... (--)
?

?


!

,

?



- ()


( ADB)

?
fi
,


,

:



,


,






-

( ADH)

fi

: fi / AAF

: fi / AAG




!

fi

,
,
fi ,



















,

: fi / AAH

: fi / AAI

 ,
z



z

fi

,
,
z z
z
- fi

-


fi
fi


-
, , ,

,
,

J

: fi / AB@

:
-
-
? -
, , , , ,

fi
z
- / ,
,


F.R.Leavis
A reverent
openness before life and it must reveal an organic form1



-
-


, ,
,
, , fi
: fi / ABA

 , -,
, ,
- fi-fi
-
, fi
, , ,
,
/
z
-

z

z


, , , ,
,
,
,
z
, - ,
, , , , , ,
, , ,
,
,
, , , ,
, ,
z

, ,



,
/
,
-z, fi

, , ,
,

, , ,
, , fi, ,
, -

, , , ,

z / -
, , ,
- , -
-
z
fi
,

- ( ), () -

: fi / ABB

: fi / ABC


-,
-, ,
,
, ,

,
fi - ,
fi
Push Factors
fi
,
, ,

-
-A ,
, ,
, , ,
fi ,
,
, -
, , fi,




fi fi ,

,


--
, ,
,
, ,
, , -
-

,
/z
,


, ,



, ,
, fi

... ....
.... B

, fi , fi
, , -
,
- , -

: fi / ABD

: fi / ABE

, / ,
,
, -
- ,
, ,
,
, ,




,
, ,
- --
,


- -
,
, -
, ,


-

-

,
/ ,
, ,

, , ,
-





, ,

,
,
,
/ , -
- ,



,


, ,

z
, , , fi
-
-
,
, , ,


//

: fi / ABF

: fi / ABG

/


-
,

-
,
,
-
, , ,
, , , , , ,
, , -
-
-
,
- ,
, ,
-, -, -

- ,






,

fi
C
fi

-, fi,
, , -
,
,
-
,
B@


, ,



,
-
,
, -, -
,
fi,
,

, - fi

-, -

: fi / ABH

: fi / ABI

 ,
()

-



, (
)


, -





-
-
fi -

- - -
,
, ,



- -
fi z

-

, fi fi

-




-



, , -
fi
,
, - -
, - -
-


-

: fi / AC@

: fi / ACA

 -
-



, -
fi
,
-
- ,

, ,
,
-
, -, -
-, -,
-
,
-
/ ( )


, fi -

- -,
-, , -

, , , ,



-
: fi / ACB

:
A. Terry Eagleton, The English Novel :
F.R. Leavis defines a truly great novel in two chief ways : It
must display what he calls A reverent openness before life and it
must reveal an organic form. The trouble is that these two requirements are not easily compatible with each other, or rather, they
would only be truly compatible if life itself were to reveal an organic
form. The novel could then be reverently open to it without going
baggy. it could be both representational and formally univied. P-14.
B. , , BDD
C. , BAB

: fi / ACC






, ,

-


fi








:

,

A
fi

fi


--
fi


fi

- fi


,

:
,
,
,
... ....
,

,
, , , , ,
, , ,

fi
B
,

: fi / ACD

: fi / ACE

:

- (.)

 , ,


, , ,



-z
z z



,

,
,
-
-




,
fi fi



fi

...


fi

,

: fi / ACF

: fi / ACG

z fi

fi





fi



C



,


fi
, ,








fi
,

fi
, ,




fi


fi
fi ,
, ,

fi









...

,
,

: fi / ACH

: fi / ACI







fi



fi


fi

,

, z

fi
,


-

( )
,


fi

,

fi fi
, fi

,



?

fi
-


,



,



,

: fi / AD@

: fi / ADA


,

,
,








fi z
fi
z




-


z z
z



fi

fi

fi

:
, ,
,
fi ,
D
-







fi







z, , ,

-
z

z
-z
-z

: fi / ADB

: fi / ADC

 -z
fi


fi
fi
fi ,

:
, ,
, , ,

z, E

,




F


-


G

fi
,
H

, I



fi
:

A@



AA


fi fi
,


z
,







fi
:

: fi / ADD

: fi / ADE


AB
fi fi
,
, , ,
,


fi

fi

-

fi



fi


fi

fi
fi
,


- (
z
fi )

- -

,


,
fi


I/AA


fi fi


fi


,
AIHD

fi ,

, ,

,

,

fi

: fi / ADF

: fi / ADG

 :



... AC

z


z





fi z fi

z

fi

fi,
fi



z

z , , -

z


z



/ ,


z z
,

: fi / ADH

: fi / ADI

:
A. , , , ( ), ,
, B@A@, G
B. , , , ( ), ,
, B@A@, H-I
C. , , , ( ), ,
, B@A@, AI
D. , , , , B@A@, DI
E. , , , , B@A@, FC
F. , , , , B@A@, GH-GI
G. , , , , B@A@, AC@
H. , , , , B@A@, ADH
I. , , , , B@A@, CI
A@. , , , , B@A@, IF
AA. , , , , B@A@, ACF
AB. , , , , B@A@, ACB
AC. , , , , B@A@, FA

 : ,
-
- (.)

,

, fi
,
- /

/



,

A


fi/



,
, /

: fi / AE@

,










-
-
fi B



/
C

,

fi
,
fi ,


,
: fi / AEA


,


, /
,

,



,
, fi



/
/

fi
D


,
,
,





, (
; , )



() ,

, ,





fi

fi





-

-
,

: fi / AEB

: fi / AEC


, ,
, , ,
- (
) , (
)
,
E -

-


- -
-

-

- ,
-


,
,
, fi
/

,



/
( )

fi


,
-
- -

/
,



: fi / AED

: fi / AEE


,





,

/


, ,
,

-
fi
/
fi
/ fi


, T
,

fi U fi



-

: fi / AEF

,


-



-
( )
-

-

F
-

,
-

-

-


- fi
- fi




: fi / AEG





( )





G



fi ,








- ,

-

,



: fi / AEH

( )


H fi


,








fi
, ,

I
/

/

.

,


: fi / AEI


/
, ,
-












,





( )
A@ , /
, -



,

: fi / AF@

/
, ,

/

, ,









fi

/
-


AA
,



/


/
/ ,
: fi / AFA

 /



AB




,
/-

,





AC







, ,
AD
.. fi
,

: fi / AFB

,

,












AE







-

AF
- :



: fi / AFC

 , fi
,
,
,





, ,
,

:
A. It seems to me that trauma cannot be properly
grasped in a purely cognitive manner. The experience of fragmentation which traumatic suffering entails resists any approach which assumes that experience can be mastered
and known through discourse. Such a discourse, which is
fundamental for our conception of siceince, is based on the
assumption that the subject is capable of mastering existence through knowledge. Reason thus aims for a totality of
understanding in which the elements of a field are connected
through their mutual significance. Trauma, on the other hand,
fragments experience and prevents any totalization into a
whole., Stephen K. Levina, Trauma, Tragedy, Therapy : The
Arts and Human Suffering, Jessica Kingaley Publishers, London, 2009, p-17.

We must become conscious, accept the past, and find to

voice and feel the desolation it occasions. Coming to terms
with the causes of a past which keep haunting us, as it still
does in Northern Ireland, Albania, or Rwanda, depends upon
an imaginative act of witnessing sympathy as well as reorientation of subjectivity. While reading literature cannot take
the place of the work of mourning imposed by history, reading the art of trauma my engage the reader in dialougue
with the trauma which might open him or her up to begin to
acknowlege its hitherto repressed presnece. Thus literature
may help the reader to bracket formative identifications, and
generate a willingness to listen to the other. the work of mourning may, perhaps, follow., Christine Van Boheemen-Saaf,
Joyce, Derida, Lacan, And The Trauma Of History, Cambridge
University Press, 1999, P-11.
3. Literature bears testimony not just to duplicate or
to record events, But to make history available to the imaginative act whose historical unavailbility has prompted, and
made possible, a holocaust.
Shoshana Felman and DoriLaub, Testimony Quoted by
Chistine Van Boheemen-Saaf in Joyce, Derrida, Lacan, And The
Trauma Of History, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p-1

2 ...the wounds of the past will remain active and

spoil the present, unless we heal them through mourning.

4 Whithin the womens psyches, the forces of political or cultural sadomasochism do not converge with the dynamics of personal or psychological sadomasochism to the
extent that they inflict trauma. Crucially, the womens anger
directly targets the specific abusive men who, as agents of
patriarchy, are responsible for their subjugation., Deborah
M. Horvitz, Literary Trauma, State University of New York
Press, 2000, p-132.

: fi / AFD

: fi / AFE

E (A)
, , ,
, -HH

-EB

(B) :
,
, ,

fi
... ,

,
- -

- DI

H. -, -,
-

(C)
, ,
fi,
fi,
,
,

-

F. ...



-, -
...
: fi / AFF

G. ... ,
fi ... ACC

I.



,

,


A@. -
BAG

; fi



fi

AA. , fi


-BAA
AB. -ADA
: fi / AFG

AC. The Sexualization of violence... is caused by the

idenfification of women as symbols of culture, and the identification of a cultures strength or weakness with the ability
to protect its women. Sondra Hale, Rape as a Marker and
eraser of Difference : Darfur and the Nuba Mountains (Suda),
Laura Sjoberg and Sandra via (Eds.), Gender, War, And Militarism, ABC_SLIO, LLC, California,p-112
AD.

- AC@-ACA
AE. Genocide rape marks difference by attacking the
other but it also erases it by destroying or attacking the
ethnic purity of the other through forced pregnancy . Sexual
violence against women in ethnocide, then, both identifies
and destroys the otherness of the victom. Ibid, p-112.
AF.
,
ADA
J

: fi / AFH

:
-.
B@@@-AB

z
,
, (
), ( ), z (
), ( ), ,
, ( ), (
), ( ), ,
( ), ( ),
( ) fi



z z
-
-, -

,




: fi / AFI


-
z
z
, fi


,



z
fi

z
fi
z

( - )




-

( , z, ,
, , , )

,

z z,


D@-E@
- ,
z
-
-
,

, z

-
,
-
(
z )
-z



-

,
fi

z
z

: fi / AG@

: fi / AGA

 -
/


D@%
F@% z
-


-









z
-




, --
z, ,

(
)
z , z,

-
z, , ,
- -




z AIDG

fi z


- -
?
? ,
,


-
,
, ,
, ,

-
( ) (
)
--
-

: fi / AGB

: fi / AGC


, , ,

,
, ,

- -
fi
(
)
-


, z

,
, ,
, ,


z
fi (
)

fi

-
( fi ),
, ,
- fi

z
, fi
,

fi, -
fi , - fi , ,
- z , -
()

, fi,

fi z
, ( )


fi -



( -)
(
) -
,
- fi
, fi z

: fi / AGD

: fi / AGE




,

-

,
fi-

fi



z z

, ( )
z ?
fi-



( )
fi z



-
fi- ,

D@-E@

(
)
-
-
- GE
-
- -



( )


(
) ( )

: fi / AGF

: fi / AGG

 -





-
-
-
..

,








, , ,


( )



...

,
-
z


-
z ,
, ,
-


,
,
z , ,
fi ,
, -




,

- -

fi
- --...

: fi / AGH

: fi / AGI


z




(
-z )
,





-, -, -, ,
, , - z


z
z z
fi
,

z z


,

z
.. , ,
fi
,
- ,
-
,
z


z

, z

, , , ,
, , -, , ,
()

, .. DG, ..
EF, , ...
, ,
... , , ,

,

z
( - , ,
) , ,

: fi / AH@

: fi / AHA

- z
,

z
, -
, z, , ,

, .. DG, .. EF
, , ,
- ? - ,
,
, ,
, ,

, ,
,
, fi, ,
-
- ,
, fi , fi

z ,


. fi
, ,
fi

-, , -

-
fi
z
,
, ,
, ,

-

( )
z


,

?


z, z
- z, z


z
( )

fi
z


-

: fi / AHB

: fi / AHC


,

... -

z
?
,
fi


-
-
z
(
) z- ?
(
)
,
z z
z ,

( )
z, z


,
,
, , ,

,


, ,




, ,
,
fi ---


(
)

, - ,

,



C@-CE z

: fi / AHD

: fi / AHE


, ,
, , , -,


, , z
...
,
z
,
-- z
-
z

,
,

z ,

-fi z z ,
, ,



fi


-
z -
-z, , ,

- z


, -
z
, , ,
- (
)


- -fi ,





(
- )
...
, fi
... z,
,
-
-
...
z fi ,
- (

: fi / AHF

: fi / AHG

 ) - , fi-


,
,
,
,
- , fi, -
-
, , , fi

-
-z

, - fi -

-


-
,
fi (
, )
,
- -
... ...
, ...
fi ...

- -

,
z



fi
( )
( )
( , ) fi
(
,
)
,
,
, ,
-
-
,

z
,


z
z fi
z -
z ,
,

: fi / AHH

: fi / AHI



-

z
-z
z


z


fi,
fi fi ,



, ,
z






z ( )

fi
,
,
(-, -, - )

z.
fi ,


fi


,


fi


fi fi
z
,





,






-

z

: fi / AI@

: fi / AIA

 - ,
-
fi
z ,
fi -
() z

z , -
z
- , , -
-
, - - fi
,
z

,
, fi

z ,


fi , -


- fi

-
fi ,


z z

,
z
z
z,



-, , , -


fi

fi
fi
, ,
- ,
,
, -fi-,

z ,
,
z

z ( z
, z ) ,

-
( )
,

: fi / AIB

: fi / AIC

 , ?
,
-
-
-, -, - (
) fi fi


fi
--
z zz
( , , , - )
z ,
- ,
,
fi , ,
z fi

z
,

, , -,

z fi
z


-, - -
-

- fi




? fi ,
... z ,
z
?


?
?

-
, z ,

,
,
,



J

: fi / AID

: fi / AIE

 :
-.






,


,


, , ,
- fi


,

.


fi
,

: fi / AIF

--
:




fi


,

fi





...

,


fi ,


,
, , , ,


: fi / AIG

 fi


,
, ,


, , ,
, , , ,
, ,
,
,
,

fi

,
fi fi
- fi,



,


,
,
,
,

/ / ,

fi




,
fi, , ,
,




:
( ) fi



-

: fi / AIH

: fi / AII



,
, ,

,






:
, ,






, ,
,

, ,

:

,

, fi



?... ... ... ...
,



,

...





fi
...

: fi / B@@

: fi / B@A





z

, ,





fi

:
?
...?
...


, , , ,




fi




fi

fi

fi
fi fi
fi




, fi
,

.. ,
,
, ,







fi ,

: fi / B@B

: fi / B@C



-
:
...
... ... ...
...


,
,

, fi



, z



-






:

fi



, z
,

,






J

: fi / B@D

: fi / B@E

 :
- (.)



,
z

/ /
-








, /
, , ,


, , ,
z , , ,

: fi / B@F

,
, ,
,


--
,

, fi ,
,


: ?

z -
-
-



?


, ,
, , ,



,
? fi ?
: fi / B@G



,





,

,
, -
,
...

...
....
... ...
, ,
, ...

...
( DA)
-
z /
fi
- fi,




-

,
-, , ,




, ,


;
-

...
...

fi ...
( CH)
? ()
?
... ,
...
...
( B@H)

B@-BB



fi
fi

: fi / B@H

: fi / B@I

 ,
(, )
fi fi
fi fi , fi fi fi



,



-, fi -



...

-, -

...
( ABB)
...


( AED)

, ,

,

,

...
( AG@)






,








-

: fi / BA@

: fi / BAA

...

...
( E@)
... ?

!
?... ... ... ...
... ... ...


( BAA)





-
..
...
,
( BAE)



?
?
fi
...

, ,

...

...
( AII)


-


,

,


/
,
fi

..., , ,

( DI)
...
, , ,
- - ,

...
( ABI)

- -

: fi / BAB

: fi / BAC





( B@A)






fi
, -, -, -




, -






; ,
J

-

/
fi
,
z
,
, ,
z ,
,

-

-
()

-
-
-

A
-

: fi / BAD

: fi / BAE


z
,
-



, - -
-
-
-

-
-


,
, -
fi
- ,

-


fi
z


z -

-
(Govern the Governers of egypt)
-


...

z





fi


z
-
-

z
z


?

: fi / BAF

: fi / BAG




-

fi

...

:-

-

-

()
-
z
z

z fi
z z

z





()
() ()
()
, ,





-




...




z
-



z

: fi / BAH

: fi / BAI

... ...
...
B



-
z z



fi
z , ,
fi fi
...
fi
- ...
; ;
fi
fi /


C
z -
- /-

, -
z
z

:A.
B.
C.

, , z, , , B@A@,
-BG.
, - AGB.
Homi K. Bhaba, Nation and Narration, London, Routledge, 1990,
: fi / BB@

-.

-


, ,
-
-
, fi

,
;
-
,
, , ,

,
,

fi
-

,

- ,

: fi / BBA

, -
, ,


,
,

, ,

,
-
, , -, fi, ,
,
, fi
fi-fi

-




fi
fi





, , - fi
, - fi

-

,



-
fi -
, fi fi -
z

-
fi
,
,
,
HD ,
,
, -
, HD

- ,
-
B@A@ -

: fi / BBB

: fi / BBC

 ?
?
?


-

-


,
,
,





,
-
-


,
fi
fi-fi
,

,
, -

,

- ,



-
- /fi
,
fi ,

-
- ,
fi
,
-
..,



, -



,


-

, -

: fi / BBD

: fi / BBE

 , ,
,
-
,





,
,


,



, -


-
-

,
,
-
-fi

, -

,
,
-


,
, , ,
, , ,
-, ,
-, -,
-

-, - -
, ,

fi
,

,
z , , , ,
,
, - -,
,

, fi
fi

-
,

: fi / BBF

: fi / BBG


, , ,

J

:
-. z


z ( )

- (-) fi z






z :

,


fi

z - -

z
,

: fi / BBH

: fi / BBI



z z
,

z
,
,
z
-





- -
-






fi
z :



...
(-ABI)
AIDG ,
AIFF

(-ADA)


...

(...)

( )

: fi / BC@

: fi / BCA

- ? - :

-

(-ACC)
- -

-
,
,
, -
:



- :


,
-
(-AFC)


-
-
- :


(-AFG)
-



z
- fi





-z

:
: fi / BCB

,


(-D@)

z z
-

- (-)


-
, :
,

(-CH)

-
z

-
- z
:

?
?
?
...?
(-CI)
: fi / BCC


z
-


-
-

-
-
-z
fi -
z
z

-

, - -
:

-

(-IE)

( ) ,
,

-
,

,

fi
(-)


-fi


-


J

: fi / BCD

: fi / BCE


-.
,

- -
-
- ,


-
, ,
,


fi ,




,
-

: fi / BCF

(
)




B@ , B@A@


fi
,
fi
,
fi fi ,




fi
fi

,


.





: fi / BCG







-
fi


fi , fi , FBFC ,
,
,

,
HD
- -

fi
,
, -
,




- ,
,
...

,



(
) ,
-





-

,




fi fi

plural
society




,


fi

: fi / BCH

: fi / BCI


,


fi -
fi ,
,
, fi fi

fi

,



, -
,


, ,
;
, fi
,


fi
,
,

fi
,


fi




;
-

,




fi





fi

-
... ,
,
- -

: fi / BD@

: fi / BDA



fl


fi


,
fi






;





,
;

-
- fi
-

,





-
fi


fi -






,
..
I , B@AA

: fi / BDB

: fi / BDC

:
I , B@AA
,
,
,


..
I.C.B@AA
J

ships blighted by all too human considerations such as those of

politics and religions.

Book Review of Shikargah

A novel in Punjabi By Surinder Neer

Neer could have been more attentive to the tempo of the novel
in its totality. The earlier part is over-paced: a good deal happen,
without being allowed to sink in and find its space in the text. There
are moments when the narrative demands to enter stillness, to turn
inward and step into reflection. But these moments are squandered
in the writers race to reach the next post.

Published by Chetna Parkashan, Ludhiana, 2010

Price : 300
By Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Surinder Neers maiden novel Shikargah shows she is a gifted

story-teller. I choose the word gifted to indicate her ability to tell
her story engagingly and without straining herself. Besides, she has
a profuse invention: she does not run out of absorbing situations and
manages to sustain the readers interest in most of them. She has
as much strength to dwell on sorrow and death as the sensibility to
register the magic of everyday life. Dying and loneliness do not
scare her, which is no small virtue in a writer in these days of profitdriven cultural production.
Romantic situations are not her forte: the conversations between lovers are generally stilted and unexciting, and the colours of
passion are faint and borrowed. But she is at her best in handling
encounters across the generations, even when these take place
only in memory. Among the most memorable of her characters are
the lonely figures struggling to hold the moldering ruins of memories. Relying on their power and human vulnerability, she weaves a
tragic epic, albeit somewhat unconsummated, of human relation : fi / BDD

This, however, probably suggests that Neer stands on the edge

of another order of artistic reality. She has to listen to the story her
story-telling tells. If she knocks, the doors may open. And yet, she
may just never knock. Many do not, only to wither and fade away
on the threshold, unaware where they happen to be standing. For
example, the hasty and somewhat evasive treatment of sexuality,
class and war points to the political unconscious of the novels text
which could have been unconcealed in its concealment with some
more art. Instead of touching sexuality (including lesbianism) and
running away horrified, she could have allowed her ambivalence to
work itself into the texture of the novel. Likewise when class forces
itself into the landscape of the text, she tries to pull a cover it with
the promptness of an embarrassed housewife:
Muslim men and women worked day and night in the fields.
The landownership of the Sikhs depended on these Muslim wageearners

So these diktats did not work and the cultural and economic
sharing between Sikhs and Muslims continued the way it had been
going on for centuries.
Similarly, when it comes to dealing war, Neer is in an unwriterly
: fi / BDE

haste. The Kargil episode is disposed of in less than two pages. In

fact, she writes more than once that no one knew how this all
(political turmoil and violence) had come to happen. The novel would
have been better if she had tried to figure this out and not evaded
an encounter with history.
With a kind of run-the-mill treatment of some sequences, the
novel as a fictional artifact appears to have succumbed to the cinematic spectacle: a point of contact between the fictional and the
cinematic which could have been turned to better creative advantage by bringing out the simulated nature of reality itself in these
times. Who says life isnt filmy at all these days? Why shouldnt
fiction, too, be such then? But yes, on its own terms consciously,
artistically, politically.
Neer has earned the gratitude of lovers of Punjabi fiction by
extending its canvas in terms of both its thematic-political concerns
and its language. Kashmir and Kashmiri deserve a greater presence on the Punjabi literary scene. If she has not been able to do
greater justice to the long, complex and rich history of her subject
matter, the fault lies equally with the Punjabi academic culture.
How adequate is Punjabi language in resources on Kashmir? We
cannot reasonably except the writers to read in all languages except our own yet write in no language except our onw.

Comments:

strength, and the areas of experience where might in the future

give herself more freedom and latitude.

S. Malhans Said
Dear Rajesh ji
As you will recall, Id the opportunity to briefly comment on
your review of The Sikh Memory.
I would begin by reiterating what I had said then: You do not
introduce the text you mean to evaluate, often harshly. In consequence, the reader is unable to judge whether or not your criticism
is fair and legitimate.
You will agree that any particular detail in a fictional or nonfictional narrative needs to be grasped in relation to its structural
logic. Therefore, one would first like to ask what the structure of
Shikargah is. Does your essay answer this question at any level or
at any stage. No.
Take one example about the presence of lesbianism in girls
hostel at Srinagar. In what manner is the reaction of a traditional
village girl to what she had seen inappropriate? Now, relate her
response to the later observation in the text that probably Rashmi
the helpless Pandit girl was a victim of the ill-reputed Naheed and
you have the exposure of terrorism in all its brutality and grotesqueness.

Badri Raina said

She must take this fine review as a thoughtful input to her next
one, since she clearly has the concern and the stamina to represent
significant issues and contradictions.
The review underlines with empathy both her promise and
: fi / BDF

Your comment on lesbianism makes no senesce at all. So do

many of your other observations, e.g., Romantic situations are not
her forte! This is a gratuitous if not altogether absurd observation,
given the way Nikky-Raj relationship is delicately handled and described.
: fi / BDG

I ask you an all-important methodological question: why should

the reader accept your interpretation of the novel as objective, accurate or plausible? Why must not he dismiss it as subjective, impressionist and dilettantish? I am not passing a judgement but posing a question to someone adept in literary theory.
Your writing often reveals a good grasp of western theory, in
particular deconstruction, but not equally impressive applications of
it.
S. Malhans.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma said
Dear S. Malhans,
I take your observations with gratitude. You have obviously
spent a good deal of time and care to comment on my short review.
I will try to respond one by one to the points you have raised.
My ideal reader is not a lazy person. I do not write for those
who would expect me to summarise the text for them. Moreover, I do not see how a reviewers summary can be treated as
objective and hence relied on by a reader to arrive at a fair assessment of the review.
I do not deny the uses of structural logic but I would like to
be alert to its own logic. The search for structural logic may, in
some cases, arise from a deeply insecure conservative impulse.
Structural logic can function as the Great Secret Validator: to explain away and justify everything. Indeed I do not think that in the
name of structural logic we can even condone a writers poor handling of dialogue and lack of homework. The writer as an artist and
thinker is answerable to her readers by virtue of her decision to
publish; she cannot hide behind any structural logic.
: fi / BDH

But I would like to ask: by what logic can the structural logic
of a text exclude its unconscious and subconscious?
Your comments suggest that you treat the reviewers introducing/summarizing the text and explaining its structural logic as
the essential components of any review. This is, in my opinion, a
rather narrow view of the review as a form of critical analysis.
As for your remark about sexuality, it seems you missed my
point by a wide margin. I am not commenting on the appropriateness or otherwise of a village girls reaction to her encounter with
lesbians, but on the writers reluctance to engage with sexuality in
this instance and others. And please remember that I have traced a
triptych of sexuality, class and war. See them together as I argue,
and then you may see what I mean.
Your related (un-relatable by me, to speak the truth) admiration of the exposure of terrorism is something on I cannot go
with you. You may disagree but I am of the considered opinion that
only a nave reader would be impressed by such an exposure.
Similarly, what you think is a [delicate handling and description]
of a romantic situation is to me a pedestrian and stock treatment.
(It could be a matter of taste, mine being rather perverse).
You ask why my reader should accept my interpretation as
objective [and] accurate. I shall only say, with all solemnity,
that Id be guilty of a grave logical error if I expected an interpretation to be objective and accurate; an interpretation can only be an
interpretation, and cannot claim to be more.
Now to return to where you begin. To state on the basis of
only two reviews you have read and commented on that my evaluations are often harsh is not a very rigorous way of judging a
reviewer. In the present instance, you somehow ignore the several

: fi / BDI

good things I have said about the book. Critical integrity and forthrightness should not be perceived as harshness. If these are, so
be it. Criticism is not the craft of making pleasant noises but the art
of a patient and sympathetic surgery.
Thanks

5 comments:
Badri Raina Said
Your jejoinder to S. Malhan makes explicit what his text might
be: here is where I agree with you:
Interpretations are all we have (cf. The Poltics of Interpretation, ed. Mitchel, Chicago, 1983-subject to correction); one is better
than the other to the extent that it is more comprehensive, intelligent, and unsparing without the alloy of the interpreters supervening ego being allowed to be a factor; yours was not so allowed; or
the instinct to falsely please the writer permitted any space;
No review is any good if it does not unravel the interstices of
any creative text that bear potential for future work in their insufficient but promising rawness of invention and execution); I believe
you did this excellently;
S. Malhans said
Thanks for your detailed response to my comments on your
review of Shikargah. Now, if I am inclined to continue this dialogue,
this is obviously because I am not satisfied with some of your arguments. Also please allow me to say that I find Mr. Badri Rainas
intervention rather gratuitous and pointless.
It will be appropriate if I clarify that my criticism was directed
against the nature and style of your reviewing; it was not intended
: fi / BE@

as a defense of Shikargah. The novel is good and, for someone like

me, enlightening but it has its shortcomings. One interesting lesson
of the story, though, is that the fate of an individual or a family
cannot be immune from the historical conjuncture the tragic social and political situation in which they are embedded.
Be that as it may, I am unable to accept your view that, as a
reviewer, you are not supposed to first introduce the author and her
text before, as you say, performing surgery that is, vivisecting it in
the true positivist fashion. The second major drawback in your
review(s) is that you dish out abstractions without linking them to
concrete details. It will be a good idea, for example, if you elaborate on Neers evasive approach to sexuality by citing details from
the novel. It will help the reader appreciate and judge how you
approach and read texts.
What makes your reading strategy suspect is your clearly
flawed understanding of what I called the structural logic of the
text. I know of no sensible method of analysis, which can proceed
without determining the deep, unconscious structure of the text. It
is quite possible that a text undermines its own structure and therefore displays incoherences and contradictions. This may always be
the case, but how does one know without first attempting the structural exercise? Levi-Strauss structure, Althussers problematique,
Foucaults episteme or Thomas Kuhns paradigm are homologous
notions, which have been applied in both synchronic and diachronic
analyses with great success. In what sense is problematique immanent in one or more texts conservative or born insecurity? How
did paradigm prevent Kuhn from studying scientific revolutions?
Even the notion of dialectic, according to Bert Ollman, implies structure+ history.
I think the notion of hermeneutic circle may illustrate better
: fi / BEA

what I had in mind when I mentioned structural logic. One has to

move dialectically from whole to the parts and vice versa to achieve
a rounded view or interpretation of a text. The meaning of a text is
inexhaustible (Gadamer) and so is the possibility of diverse interpretations. However, to assert that interpretations cannot be judged
as rich or poor, accurate or inaccurate, etc.
Will be too nave.
Thanks and regards
Malhans
Rajesh Kumar Sharma said
Let the dialogue continue, as you say in your forwarding letter.
But can it really, when you choose to dismiss a reasoned intervention such as Badri Rainas without giving any reasons? To dismiss his intervention with the mere words gratuitous and pointless
does not indicate a will to dialogue. You could ask yourself why
your response takes this form, and maybe give a better account of
your disagreement.
Allow me to add that you have not really answered my points
in your response; Id entreat you to read my submissions a little
more openly and receptively though certainly not uncritically.
I do not suggest that you defend the novel, and that if you do
you are erring. My response is to your response to my reviewing of
the novel, if you would look carefully.
Shall I (I am honestly seeking your assent) understand that
your deriving a lesson from the novel and deriving that particular
lesson is an instance of structuralist reading? If it is, it is something that requires no application of mind. And it is banal, to boot.
: fi / BEB

An art of patient and compassionate surgery is not the same

as vivisecting it in the true positivist fashion. Do attend to the
sahridayata implied in compassionate. And also do not pass too
quickly over patient either, if you think (as you said earlier) that
Derrinda is a legitimate authority to evoke in this case.
The quest for the deep, unconscious structure of the text is
no longer, and rightly so, treated with the awe that it once upon a
time was treated with. You would agree that among the lesson of
post- structuralism is that we need to discard our misguided search
for a structure outside, above and under the structure there. You
man know of no sensible method of analysis which can proceed
without determining the deep, unconscious structure of the text
(and I respect your conviction_, but I think that it does one good to
know things about and other a given method.
You once held me guilty of verbosity and jargon. I shall not
throw those words back at you. Yet I wish you would consider
what the catalogue of names in the latter part of your response
does.
I never claim to be using the structuralist methods, nor do I
obviously possess your training in the use of those methods (I wish
you would demonstrate your skills for the benefits of others, including myself, by undertaking a structuralist review of Shikargah). But
I may have a point not a big one in taking the position that the
strucuralist method is not the sole one possible or available.
Finally, did I say interpretations cannot be judged as rich or
poor, accurate or inaccurate? That is what the practice of structuralism, grown into a habit and constraining vision can do; it can
make us see things that may not be there.
Derrida bemoaned precisely this, didnt he?

: fi / BEC

S. Malhans said
Dear Rajesh Sharma,
Ill turn away from irrelevancies and focus on the two issues
that stand out in our exchange, namely, structuralism and shikargah.
As for Badri Rainas intervention, it was gratuitous because it was
intended merely to express agreement with your rejoinder and extol your excellence - something he had already done in his first
laudatory comment on your review.
My point about structuralism was that structural analysis is a
necessary step in any interpretative or explanatory exercise, be it in
literature, anthropology, archeaeology of discursive formations or
history of science. What you regard as the catalogue of names was
meant to emphasize this very fact: That whether it is structuralism
proper or materialist dialectics or hermeneutics, the validity of the
notion of structure or structural analysis stands. I wonder where
does the question of verbosity or jargon arise in all this. There is
certainly no substitute lexicon for homology, diachrony and synchrony. The uses of technical vocabulary in certain contexts need
not be discounted.
Turning to post-structuralism, it is neither anti-structuralism nor
pre-structuralism. Post-structuralism carries forward- dialectically
if you like aspects of structuralism in the same way as
postmodernism carries forward aspects of modernism (Callinicos).
It is well-known that Derrida radicalized the implications of
Saussurian structural linguistics (language as a system of differences) and conjoined the latter with Heideggers destruction of
metaphysics- the metaphysics of presence to produce
deconstruction. Initially, deconstruction too was labeled
grammatological structuralism. As I view it, deconstruction is a
variety of structural analysis, which is predicated on a necessary
: fi / BED

tension between structure and anti-structuralist kind, which eschews

rigorous textual analysis of any kind, masquerades as deconstructive
or postmodernist analysis. Please do not take it as a reference to
your work.
As for Shikargah, what had Nikky or Lal Haveli (or others like
them) done to deserve the tragic fate they meet. Where does the
thread lead us? To the present historical conjuncture? To Partition?
To British imperialism? Where do we stop? This aspect of the novel
disturbed me above all and thats why I mentioned it. To ask if this
is structuralism or structural analysis is plain sophistry, to say the
least. Would you like me to supply you with another catalogue, this
time of books and articals, showing what structural analysis is like,
what it amounts to?
By the way there are few Punjabi novels that similarly connect the fate of the individual and the family to larger historical or
political forces. The tensions between the family or the civil society
and the state is not a banal framework if Hegels commentary on
Antigone is any instance. We know how it impressed Goethe.
And that is all, Mr. Sharma. I must take leave of you and
attend to my classes at IIT, New Delhi. I have said what I wanted
to. Thank you. Have the last laugh!
Malhans.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma said
No, I renounce that privilege. You had the first laugh. Youll
have the last.
I fully endorse your understanding of post-structuralism. What
I could not agree to, and still am unable to, is a tendency to separate
the text from a deeper truth with reference to which alone the
: fi / BEE

text can be read. I felt that tendency lurked in your approach (maybe
it was a delusion on my part). The kind of reader I am I just cannot
bring myself to ignoring issues of style, focus, visibility/non-visibility
etc. in a literary text. Perhaps history and society do not constitute
the exclusive or privileged context in my readings, through I would
not throw them out.
May I request you to send the list of some recent important
structuralist studies for my benefit?
Thanks for the exchange. I appreciate your efforts. And hope
you are not signing off permanently.
JJJ

: fi / BEF

: fi / BEG