Salman Rushdie A Postmodern A

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.
The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
I unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
i
I
| Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
| sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and
i
' continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/321-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S A L M A N R USHDIE: A POSTMODERN APPROACH
A Dissertation
P r e s e n t e d to
the G r a d u a t e F a c u l t y of the D e p a r t m e n t o f E n g l i s h
U n i v e r s i t y of H o u s t o n
In P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t
of the Requirements for the Degree
D o c t o r of P h i l o s o p h y
by
Sabrina Hassumani
D e c e m b e r 1997
UMI Number: 9815414
Copyright 1997 by
Hassumani, Sabrina
A ll rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9815414

Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
C o p y r i g h t by
S a b r i n a Hassu m a n i
1997
S A L M A N RUSHDIE: A POSTMODERN APPROACH
by
Sabrina Hassumani
Approved
Chair
Se Reaaer
Third Reader
F o u r t h Rea<
Fifth R e a d e r
<L
Dean, C o l ^ g e of H u m a n i t i e s , Fine
A r t s and C o m m u n i c a t i o n
iii
FOREWORD
I w i s h to a c k n o w l e d g e m y dire c t o r , P r o f e s s o r W. L a w r e n c e
Hogue without whose knowledge, guidance, and support this
d i s s e r t a t i o n w o u l d n e v e r h a v e mat e r i a l i z e d . In s p i t e of an
extremely demanding schedule, Professor Hogue gave most
g e n e r o u s l y o f his t ime a n d e n e r g y ; for the h u n d r e d s o f h o u r s
s pent in discussion and debate, I am most grateful. For
i n t r o d u c i n g m e to theory, I a m e t e r n a l l y in his debt, because
life h a s s i m p l y not b e e n t h e s a m e since.
This dissertation was not written in a social vacuum:
there are others I must a c k n o w l e d g e -- m y parents, Aqila and
Anver Hassumani, because th e i r lives taught m e the va l u e of
i n t e r mingling long before I s t umbled upon Salman Rushdie; my
husband, B i l l Carter, w h o s e l o v e has always s h o w n m e the w a y
and who understands my open palm of desire; my daughter,
N i c o l e H a s s u m a n i - C a r t e r , m y b i g g e s t supporter, w h o u n d e r s t o o d
the need for a quiet house and was always willing to play
elsewhere.
iv
S A L M A N RUSH D I E : A POSTMODERN A P P R O A C H
A n A b s t r a c t of a D i s s e r t a t i o n
P r e s e n t e d to
the G r a d u a t e F a c u l t y of the D e p a r t m e n t o f E n g l i s h
U n i v e r s i t y of H o u s t o n
In P a r t i a l F ulfillment
of the R e q u i r e m e n t s for the D e g r e e
D o c t o r of P h i l o s o p h y
by
S a b r i n a H assumani
D e c e m b e r 1997
After reading Rushdie's m a j o r works, it may be s tated
that he is a post-colonial writer in the sense that his
impulse is to always deconstruct the colonizer/colonized
binary. In d o i n g so, he att e m p t s to c l e a r a n e w space, "the
t h i r d p r i n c i p l e , " w h e r e as A l b e r t M e m m i s t a t e s o n e c a n b e g i n
to put "new order in oneself" (147) . Unlike s ome other
postcolonial writers who simply reverse t he
colonizer/colonized binary and end up in a nativist,
nationalist, or religious fundamentalist space, Rushdie
rejects those c a t e g o r i e s b e c a u s e he r e c o g n i z e s the v i o l e n c e
inherent in their hierarchical c omposition. Instead, he
appropriates English, the l anguage of the c olonizer, a n d in
M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n r e t e l l s the h i s t o r y o f the subcontinent
fr o m a n Indian p e r s p e c t i v e . Rushd i e ' s e m p h a s i s o n h i s t o r y as
a c o n s t r u c t c o n n e c t s h i m to p o s t s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n d p o s t m o d e r n
theory according to which as Gayatri Spivak states in The
P o s t - C o l o n i a l C r i t i c , the n o t i o n of t e x t u a l i t y is r e l a t e d to
the notion of "the worlding of a world on a supposedly
u n i n s c r i b e d territory" (1) . Rushdie is a w a r e of t h e m a n n e r in
w h i c h th e s u b c o n t i n e n t has b e e n "worlded" b y the B r i t i s h a n d
his response is to offer his o wn "flawed" t ext as an
a l t e r n a t i v e v e r s i o n o f history. In d o i n g so he d e m o n s t r a t e s
that h i s t o r y is p r o d u c e d in language.
Shame, too, deals w i t h the c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d binary,
vi
but in this novel the b i n a r y is m e r e l y flipped rather than
deconstructed. Here, the characters' extreme approaches to
h i s t o r y in t h e N i e t z s c h i a n s e n s e
( a n tiquarian/cr i t i c a l / m o n u m e n t a l ) l e a d t o one-sided, "pure,"
c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of "real i t y " w h i c h in t u r n
l e a d to violence.
In T h e S a t a n i c V e r s e s , the c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d b i n a r y is
deconstructed and the protagonist, Salahuddin Chamchawalla
survives in Bombay which is representative of the "third
principle", a space Rushdie constructs as a counter-myth in
t h e B a r t h i a n sense, to e x p o s e o t h e r n a t u r a l i z e d m yths s u c h as
"Islam" a n d the d o m i n a n t B r i t i s h d i s c o u r s e .
H a r o u n a n d the S e a of Stories is a f a i r y - t a l e r e n d i t i o n
of the political and social ev e n t s t h a t succeeded the
p u b l i c a t i o n of SV. T h i s n o v e l e xposes t h e b i n a r y s y s t e m to be
a c u l t u r a l c o n s t r u c t w h i c h i n e v i t a b l y l e a d s to violence. The
alternative s pa c e in Haroun is the Ocean, a site of
heterogeneity and intermingling, w h e r e "traces" in the
D e r r i d i a n sense of t he w o r d combine to f o r m e v e r - n e w v e r s i o n s
of stories.
The Moor's Last Sigh reads very differently from the
novels mentioned above partly because it is a d i d a c t i c w o r k
th a t ultimately establishes a fundamentalist/secular binary
which is n e v e r r e v e r s e d o r unravelled. Moraes Zogoiby, its
vii
pr o t a g o n i s t , is c o l o n i z e d b y e v e r y o n e a r o u n d h i m a n d rem a i n s
a v i c t i m to the end.
In the final analysis, what Rushdie attempts to
f o r e g r o u n d in his w o r k s is the i d e a of melange, hotch-potch,
and impurity as it ties into reality-making and the
construction of i dentity. He h as been critiqued for not
always acknowledging his own subjective investment in the
n a r r a t i v e he pr o d u c e s , a n d to b o r r o w a p h r a s e f r o m Spivak, for
not unlearning his privilege. Yet, he does succeed in
c r e a t i n g a f i c t i o n t h a t r e c o g n i z e s t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of a b i n a r y
system, a n d w h i c h a t t e m p t s a g e s t u r e of d e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
viii
CONTENTS
Page
F O R E W O R D ........................................................iv
I. I N T R O D U C T I O N ......................................... 1
II. M I D N I G H T 'S C H I L D R E N ............................... 46
III. S H A M E ................................................ 75
IV. THE S A T A N I C V E R S E S ............................... Ill
V. H A R O U N A N D T H E S E A OF S T O R I E S .................. 160
VI. THE M O O R ' S L A S T S I G H ............................. 193
VII. C O N C L U S I O N .........................................230
W O R K S C I T E D ................................................... 236
W O R K S C O N S U L T E D .............................................. 240
ix
I. INTRODUCTION
When I "discovered" Salman Rushdie twelve years ago, I
k n e w I w o u l d one d a y w r i t e about him. B a c k then, however, he
was a f a i r l y o b s c u r e a u t h o r in s p i t e of his B o o k e r P r i z e for
M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n . Later, as a graduate stu d e n t working
t o w a r d m y dissertation, I was fairly confident th a t I would
have something to contribute in the field of Rushdie
criticism, especially since "the field" wa s so slim.
K h o m e n i ' s fatwa, however, i n t r o d u c e d R u s h d i e to th e w o r l d at
large a n d all o f a sudden, a w r i t e r I h a d always b e l i e v e d wa s
m y p r i v a t e property, went public. Now, a great m a n y people
ha v e rather a lot to sa y about M r . Rushdie. In concrete
terms, this t ran s l a t e s into 260 M L A e n t r i e s o n the s u b j e c t of
Rushdie, a n d at least te n full-length books in the library
stacks. A r e v i e w of the boo k s a n d j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s reveals
postcolonial criticism, works focussing exclusively on the
p o l i t i c a l / s o c i a l c o nsequences o f the f a t w a . a n a p p r o p r i a t i o n
b y the p r o p o n e n t s of mag i c a l realism, books labeling Rushdie
as a traitor and an "Uncle Tom, " and Western writers
c e l e b r a t i n g w h a t t h e y p e r c e i v e o f as R u s h d i e ' s "reason" v e r s u s
the f a n a t i c i s m of Islam.
2
I am i nte r e s t e d in reading Rushdie as a contemporary
author w r i t i n g in a m o m e n t o f post m o d e r n i t y . This is not to
infer that Rushdie's novels are p o s t m o d e r n (only M i d n i g h t '.<=;
C h i l d r e n m a y b e d e s c r i b e d that way) , however, if MC, Shame.
and The Satanic Verses are read as a trilogy, a definite
p o s t m o d e r n impulse is t r a c e a b l e in these w o r k s . Haroun and
the Se a o f S t o r i e s , a p l a y f u l r e - t e l l i n g o f R u s h d i e ' s post-
f a t w a experience, d e m o n s t r a t e s p o s t m o d e r n t e n d e n c i e s as well.
All of Rushdie's works push beyond the boundaries of the
modern novel and although he does n ot always end up in a
p o s t m o d e r n space, he d o e s s u c c e e d in p o s i t i n g a n a l t e r n a t i v e
myth of "hybridity" through which he hopes to demystify
essentialist myths such as "identity, " "nationalism," and
"religion."
Since the term "postmodern" means different things to
d i f f e r e n t people, it is n e c e s s a r y to d e l i n e a t e m y p a r t i c u l a r
appr o a c h . M y sense o f p o s t m o d e r n f i c t i o n has evolved from
discussions with Professor Lawrence Hogue, and readings of
poststructuralist a n d p o s t m o d e r n theo r i s t s s u c h as Barthes,
Derrida, a n d Lyotard.
Gayatri Sp i v a k begins her "Translator's Preface" to
D e r r i d a ' s Of G r a m m a t o l o a v b y c o n s i d e r i n g "the q u e s t i o n of the
preface" (ix) itself. She n o t e s Hegel's o b j e c t i o n to p r e f a c e s
by quoting from H e g e l ' s P h e n o m e n o l o g y of the M i n d : 11. .
3
Don't t ake a preface seriously. The preface announces a
pr o j e c t a n d a p r o j e c t is n o t h i n g u n t i l it is realized" (x) .
A c c o r d i n g to Spi v a k , Hegel's o b j e c t i o n to p r e f a c e s reflects
the foll o w i n g s t r u c t u r e :
p r e f a c e /text = a b s t r a c t g e n e r a l i t y / s e l f - m o t i v a t i n g a c t i v i t y o r
si g n i f i e r / s i g n i f i e d . The name of the "= ” is the Hegelian
Aufhebunq. "A u f h e b u n g is a relationship between two terms
wh e r e the s e c o n d a t o n c e a n n u l s the f i r s t a n d lifts it up i n t o
a hig h e r sphere of e xistence; it is a hierarchial concept
g e n e r a l l y t r a n s l a t e d 'sublation'. . . " o r "sublimation" (xi) .
Spivak g oes on to explain that according to this logic, a
successful p r e f a c e is a u f a e h o b e n i n t o the t e x t it p r e c e d e s ,
just as a w o r d is a u f a e h o b e n into its m e a n i n g . It is as if
the son (preface) or seed (word) caused b y or engendered by
the father (text o r meaning) is r e c o v e r e d b y the f a t h e r a n d
thus "justified" (xi) . Derrida, of course, re-works this
structural metaphor (son/seed) , and his cry is ".
'dissemination, ' the seed that neither inseminates nor is
r e c o v e r e d b y the father, but is s c a t t e r e d ab r o a d " (xi) . Thus,
D e r r i d a m a k e s r o o m f o r the p r e f a t o r y g e s t u r e i n quite a n o t h e r
way:
Th e preface is a necessary gesture of homage and
parric i d e , f o r the b o o k (the father) makes a c l a i m
of authority or origin which is both true and
false. . . . Humankind's common desire is for a
s tabl e center, and f o r the a s s u r a n c e o f m a s t e r y - -
th r o u g h knowing o r p ossessing. And a book, with
its p o n d e r a b l e s h a p e a n d its beginning, middle, and
end, stands to satisfy that desire. But what
so v e r e i g n s u b j e c t is t h e o r i g i n of t h e b o o k ? . . .
W h a t is the b o o k ' s i dentity? Ferdinand de Saussure
had remarked that the "same" phoneme pronounced
twice or b y two d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e is n o t identical
with itself. Its only identity is in its
di f f e r e n c e f r o m all o t h e r p h o n e m e s . So do t h e two
re adin g s of the 'same' book show an i d e n t i t y that

i
i
; ca n o n l y be d e f i n e d as a difference. T h e b o o k is
not repea t a b l e i n its 'identity.' E a c h r e a d i n g of
th e book produces a simulacrum of an 'o r i g i n a l '
that is itself the m a r k of a s h i f t i n g a n d u n s t a b l e
subject. . . . Any preface commemorates that
d i f f e r e n c e in i d e n t i t y b y i n s e r t i n g i t s e l f b e t w e e n
two readings, (xi-xii)
Spivak reads this to mean that t he preface, by daring to
repeat the book and reconstitute it in another register,
merely enacts w hat is already the case: "the book's
repetitions ar e always other than the book. There is, in
fact, no 'book' o t h e r t h a n t h e s e e v e r - d i f f e r e n t repetitions:
.1
5
the 'book' . . . is a l w a y s a l r e a d y a 'text,' constituted by
the p l a y of i d e n t i t y a n d difference" (xii) . Thus, according
to Spivak, in D e r r i d a ' s "reworking" of H e g e l ' s i d e a r e g a r d i n g
the preface, the s t r u c t u r e p r e f a c e - t e x t b e c o m e s o p e n at b o t h
ends. She states: "The text has no stable identity, no
sta b l e origin, n o s t a b l e end. E a c h act o f r e a d i n g the 'text'
is a preface to the next. The r e a d i n g of a self-professed
preface is no exception to this rule" (xii) . S p i v a k asks:
"Why must we w o r r y o v e r so simple a t h i n g as p r e f a c e - m a k i n g ? "
(xiii) . She answers, b e c a u s e D e r r i d a h a s r e m i n d e d us that a
c e r t a i n v i e w of t h e world, of c onsciousness, a n d of language
has been accepted as the correct one, and, if the minute
particulars of that view are examined, a rather d ifferent
picture (that is a l s o a no-picture) emerges. That examination
involves an e n q u i r y into t he "operation" of o u r m o s t f a m i l i a r
gestures (x i i i ) .
Spivak goes o n to n o t e that D e r r i d a p o i n t s us to M a r t i n
H e i d e g g e r as the "authority" for the s t r a t e g i c a l l y important
p r a c t i c e of w r i t i n g sous r a t u r e . "Being" is the m a s t e r - w o r d
t hat H e i d e g g e r p u t s " u n d e r erasure". D e r r i d a d o e s not reject
this. But his word is "trace," a word that cannot be a
master-word, t ha t p r e s e n t s itself as the m a r k of an a n t e r i o r
presence, origin, master. For "trace" one can subst i t u t e
"archewriting" or "differance, " a w o r d D e r r i d a "invents" to
6
m e a n "to d i f f e r " a n d "to defer" simultaneously (xv) .
A s S p i v a k explains, D e r r i d a s h o w s n o n o s t a l g i a f o r a lost
presence. H e sees in the t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c e p t of "the s i g n " a
heterogeneity. T he sign m arks a p l a c e of difference. This
insight is p o w e r f u l e n o u g h to d e c o n s t r u c t the t r a n s c e n d e n t a l
s i g n i f i e d a n d d i s p l a y that the sign, b o t h p h o n i c a n d g r a p h i c ,
is a s t r u c t u r e of difference. W h a t o p e n s the p o s s i b i l i t y of
th o ught is not merely the question of being, but also the
never-annulled difference f rom "the completely other." As
such, the s t r u c t u r e of the sign is d e t e r m i n e d b y the t r a c e of
that "other" w h i c h is forever a b s e n t (xvii).
Thus, D e r r i d a is a s k i n g us to change certain habits of
mind: th e a u t h o r i t y of the text is pr o v i s i o n a l , the o r i g i n is
a trace, we must l e a r n to use a n d e r a s e o u r l a n g u a g e a t the
same time.
Spivak notes that there is some similarity between
Derrida's concept of writing sous rature and Levi-Strauss'
n o t i o n of b r i c q l a g e . One d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the two is that
Levi-Strauss' anthropologist seems free to pick his tool;
D e r r i d a ' s p h i l o s o p h e r knows that there is no tool that d oes
not b e l o n g to the m e t a p h y s i c a l box, a n d p r o c e e d s f r o m there.
Another important d ifference is that Levi-Strauss contrasts
the b r i c o l e u r to the engineer. T h e d i s c o u r s e of a n t h r o p o l o g y
and the other sciences of man must be bricolacre: the
discourses of formal logic, and the pure sciences, one
presumes, can be those of engineering. For Derrida,
" e ngineering" is a n i m p o s s i b l e d r e a m o f p lenitude. The reason
for b r i c o l a g e is that there is n o t h i n g else. N o e n g i n e e r c a n
make the sign and the m e a n i n g b e c o m e self-identical. Sign
will always lead to sign, one substituting the other,
playfully, as s i g n i f i e r a n d s i g n i f i e d in turn. T h e n o t i o n of
"play" therefore becomes important here, and "knowl e d g e "
rather than representing the systematic tracking down of a
t r u t h t hat is h i d d e n but m a y be found, becomes the f i e l d of
"freeplay" (xix).
Spivak notes that for Derrida, then, the concept of
"engineer" " q u e s t i o n i n g the u n i v e r s e " is, like H e g e l ' s fa t h e r -
text encompassing the so n - p r e f a c e , or Heidegger's Being as
t r a n s c e n d e n t a l signified, "a t h e o l o g i c a l i d e a , " a n i d e a that
we need to fulfill o ur d e s i r e for plenitude and authority.
According to Derrida, Levi-Strauss, like Heidegger, is
a f f l i c t e d w i t h nostalgia, an ethic of nostalgia for origins
(xix) . D e rrida, however, d o e s n o t o f f e r the o b v e r s e o f this
nostalgia: he does not see in t h e m e t h o d of the so-called
exact sciences an epistemological model of exactitude.
A c c o r d i n g t o Derrida, "all k n o w l e d g e is b r i c o l a g e , with its
eye o n the m y t h o f 'engineering'" (xx) . Thus D e r r i d a d o e s not
a l l o w the p o s s i b i l i t y of s e e i n g b r i c o l a g e as a cru d e r , p re-
s c i e n t i f i c m e t h o d of inve s t i g a t i o n , l ow on the e v o l u t i o n a r y
scale (xx).
S p i v a k points out the fact that Derrida's acknowledged
"precursors" include N i e t z s c h e , Freud, Heidegger, a n d H u s s e r l .
Of these, she n otes that t he first three are "proto-
g r a m m a t o l o g u e s 11: Nietzsche, a philosopher who cut a w a y the
g r o u n d s of knowing; Freud, a psychologist, w h o p u t the p s y c h e
in question; Heidegger, an ontologist who put Being under
erasure. "It was for Derrida," says Spivak, "to 'produce'
t h e i r intrinsic p o w e r a n d 'discover' grammatology, the s c i e n c e
of the 'sous rature'" (1).
In d i s c u s s i n g D e r r i d a ' s relationship to structuralism,
S p i v a k notes that D e r r i d a ' s c r i t i c i s m of structuralism, even
as h e inhabits it, w o u l d b e a s w e e p i n g one. "It w o u l d r e l a t e
to t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a g e n e r a l law. T h e law of d i f f e r a n c e is
that any law is constituted by postponement and self-
di f f erence " (1vi i ) .
Spivak goes on to state that D errida would also
p r o b l e m a t i z e the p o s s i b i l i t y of objec t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n . She
q u o t e s from Barthes' Critical Essavs:
A structuralist statement of structuralist
object i v e s b a s e s itself o n the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n
subject and object. S t r u c t uralist c o n c l u s i o n s a re
the object i l l u m i n a t e d b y the subject. .. .Structure
is th e r e f o r e actually a simulacrum of t h e object,
but a directed interested simulacrum, sin c e the
imita t e d object makes something appear which
r e mai n e d invisible or, .. . u n i n t e l l i g i b l e in the
natural object, (lvii)
F o r Derrida, however, a text, w h e t h e r "literary, " " p s y c h i c , "
"anthropological, " o r other w i s e , is a p l a y o f presence an d
absence, a pla c e of effaced trace. As Spivak notes,
t e x t u a l i t y is not o n l y t r u e of the 'object' o f s t u d y but also
true of the 'subject' that studies. It effaces the neat
distinction between subject and object. Derrida finds the
c o n c e p t of the b i n a r y s i g n itself, in its r o l e a s t h e guide of
this o b j e c t i v e enterprise, c o m m i t t e d to a s c i e n c e o f presence.
Ye t the structure of th e g r a m m e is the s i g n u n d e r eras u r e —
b o t h c o n s e r v i n g a n d e r a s i n g the sign, D e r r i d a m u s t m a k e use of
the concept of the sign. Thus Spiv a k notes that his
r e l a t i o n s h i p to s t r u c t u r a l i s m is there f o r e i n t i m a t e . Derr i d a
points out that Saussure's binary concept of the sign
questioning the separable primacy of meaning--the
t r a n s c e n d e n t a l s i g n i f i e d - - p o i n t e d a wa y out of t h e m e t a p h y s i c s
of presence. But S a u s s u r e was no t a g r a m m a t o l o g i s t because
h a v i n g l a u n c h e d the b i n a r y sign, he did not p r o c e e d to put it
lander erasure. The s t r u c t u r e of b i n a r y o p p o s i t i o n s in general
is q u e s t i o n e d by g r a m m a t o l o g y . D i f f e r a n c e i n v i t e s u s to undo
i
j
10
the need for balanced equations. It is therefore not too
extravagant to say that "writing" or "differance" is the
s t r u c t u r e t h a t w o u l d d e c o n s t r u c t s t r u c t u r a l i s m - - a s i n d e e d it
w o u l d d e c o n s t r u c t all texts (lvii-lix) .
Spivak sta t e s that the solution to the structuralist
p r o b l e m is n o t m e r e l y to s a y "I s h a l l no t objectify."
It is r a t h e r to r e c o g n i z e at o n c e that the r e is no
other language bu t that of 'objectification' and
t h a t a n y d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n 'subject if ication' a n d
'objectification' is as provisional as the u s e of
a n y set of h i e r a r c h i z e d oppositions, (lix)
As Spivak explains, the launching of the structural
m e t h o d m e a n t a n "inflation of the s i g n 'language' . . . n o t of
the graphic, bu t of the phonic sign, of the ro l e of t he
element of sound in the p r o d u c t i o n o f meaning, language as
speech" (lxii) . S a u s s u r e p r e s c r i b e d l i n g u i s t i c s to b e a s t u d y
of speech alone, rather tha n speech and writing. In the
G r a m m a to 1 ocry. D e r r i d a suggests t h a t this r e j e c t i o n of w r i t i n g
as a n appendage, a m e r e technique, a n d ye t a me n a c e b u i l t int o
s p e e c h - - i n effect, a s c a p e g o a t - - i s a s y m p t o m of a m u c h b r o a d e r
tendency. H e r e l a t e s this p h o n o c e n t r i s m to locroc e n t r i s m : "--
the b e l i e f t h a t the first an d last t h i n g s are Logos, the Word,
the Divine Mind, the infinite understanding of God, an
i n f i n i t e l y c r e a t i v e subjectivity, a n d . . . the s e l f - p r e s e n c e
s
i
11
of ful l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s n (lxviii) . In the G r a m m a t o l o o v and
e l s e w h e r e , D e r r i d a a r g u e s that the e vidence f o r t h i s o r i g i n a r y
and teleologic presence has customarily been found in the
voice, the p h o n e .
T h e f o r e g r o u n d i n g o f the p h o n e m e as t h e m o s t " ideal" of
s i g n s s u ggests t hat t h i s p h o n o c e n t r i s m - l o g o c e n t r i s m r e l a t e s to
centrism itself - - t h e human desire to posit a "central"
presence at b e g i n n i n g and end. According to Derrida, "The
n o t i o n of the s i g n . . . r e m a i n s w i t h i n t h e h e r i t a g e o f that
logocentrism which is also a phonocentrism: absolute
proximity of voice and being, of voice and the meaning of
being, of v o i c e a n d t h e i d e a l i t y of meaning" (11-12) . It is
this longing for a center that spawns hierarchized
oppositions. Th e s u p e r i o r t e r m b elongs to p r e s e n c e , a n d the
logos; the infe r i o r s e r v e s to d e f i n e its status and mark a
f all (lxix). S p i v a k s tates:
T h e o p p o s i t i o n s b e t w e e n i n t e l l i g i b l e a n d sensible,
soul a n d b o d y s e e m to h a v e l a s t e d out 't h e h i s t o r y
of W e s t e r n p h i l o s o p h y , ' b e q u e a t h i n g t h e i r b u r d e n to
m o d e r n lin g u i s t i c s ' opposition b e t w e e n m e a n i n g and
word. The opposition between writing and speech
takes its p l a c e w i t h i n this pattern, (lxix)
In Derrida's work, the name "writing" is given to an
e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e of i n v e s t i g a t i o n , not m e r e l y to " w r i t i n g " in
12
the n a r r o w sense. A n d as S p i v a k notes, Of Grammatolocrv is not
a s i mple valorization of writing over speech, a simple
r e v e r s a l o f hie r a r c h y . S p e e c h too, within the s t r u c t u r e of
s p e a k e r -listene r , w i t h i n the general context o f language, a n d
the possibility of the absence of the spe a k e r - l i s t e n e r , is
structured as writing and in this gene r a l sense, there is
" w r i t i n g in s p e e c h " (lxx).
Spivak offers the following " d efinition" of
d e c o n s t r u c t i o n in a n u t s h e l l :
To l o c a t e the p r o m i s i n g m a r g i n a l text, to d i s c l o s e
the undecidable moment, to p r y it loose with the
positive lever of the signifier; to reverse the
resident hierarchy, only to displace it; to
dismantle in o r d e r to r e c o n s t i t u t e w h a t is alw a y s
a l r e a d y inscribed, (lxxvii)
W h y s h o u l d w e u n d o a n d redo a text at a l l ? B e c a u s e we
c a n n o t assu m e that w o r d s a n d the a u t h o r "mean w h a t t h e y say. "
Language is not t r a n s p a r e n t a n d innocent. Every "truth" we
r e c e i v e from a tex t is the p r o d u c t of a strategy, of a will to
truth. Or as Barthes states, there is no "Truth" because
every time we access "reality" we interpret it through
l a n g u a g e a n d t h e r e b y c r e a t e a myth. A n d m y t h is n o t innocent.
Just as Derrida's n o t i o n of g r a m m a t o l o g y allows us to
make an enquiry into the operation of our most familiar
13
gestures, Rol a n d Barthes' concept of "myth" mandates an
interrogation of the o bvious. Barthes' Mythologies is
comprised of fifty-four short journalistic articles on a
v a r i e t y of "everyday" subjects i n c l u d i n g w restling, cinema,
toys, automobiles, wine, soap-powders, and margarine. In
these articles, Barthes interrogates the meanings of the
cultural artefacts and practices that surround us. His
p r o j e c t is to challenge t h e "innocence" a n d " n a t u r a l n e s s " of
cultural texts and p r a c t i c e s w h i c h are c a p a b l e of p r o d u c i n g
all sorts of su p p l e m e n t a r y meanings or connotations. His
point is that although objects, gestures, and practices may
h a v e a c e r t a i n u t i l i t a r i a n function, this does not e x e m p t t h e m
f r o m t h e imposition of "meaning." For example, a B M W and a
C i t r o e n s hare the same f u n c t i o n a l utility, but t h e y c o n n o t e
d i f f e r e n t things about t h e i r owners. One i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is:
wealthy, upward l y - m o b i l e e x e c u t i v e versus poorer, e c o l o g i c a l l y
s o u n d individual. B arthes u n c o v e r s such "s e c o n d a r y m e a n i n g s "
in M y t h o l o g i e s . in a n e f f o r t to n ot take things for granted
a n d to focus o n h ow t h e y f u n c t i o n as "signs." In a p r e f a c e to
the 1970 e d i t i o n of M y t h o l o g i e s . Barthes states that h i s b o o k
has a d o u b l e theoretical f ramework: o n the one hand, it is a n
i d e o l o g i c a l critique "be a r i n g o n t h e language of the s o - c a l l e d
mass-culture; on the other, a first attempt to analyze
s e m i o l o g i c a l l y the m e c h a n i c s o f language" (9) . F o r Barthes,
14
an "essential enemy" remains "the b o u r g e o i s norm" (9) as he
observes its manifestation in the myths comprising French
daily life. In his p r e f a c e to the A n n e t t e Lavers' English
translation, Barthes states that the starting point of his
r e f l e c t i o n s was u s u a l l y
a feeling of impatience at the sight of the
'naturalness' w i t h w h i c h newspapers, art a n d c o m m o n
sense constantly d ress up a reality which, even
though it is the one we live in, is undoubtedly
determined b y history. In short, in the account
g i v e n of o u r c o n t e m p o r a r y circumstances, I resented
s ee i n g N a t u r e a n d H i s t o r y c o n f u s e d at e v e r y turn,
and I wanted to track down, in the decorative
d i s p l a y of w h a t -goes -w i t h o u t - s a v i n g . the i d e o l o g i c a l
abuse which, in m y view, is h i d d e n there. (11)
I n "Myth T o d a y , " the c o n c l u d i n g critical e s s a y in M y t h o l o g i e s .
Barthes defines "myth" as a "type of speech," "a s y s t e m of
communication," as a "message." F o r Barthes, "myth cannot
p o s s i b l y be an object, a concept, or an idea; it is a m o d e of
signification, a form. " A n d since m y t h is a t y p e of speech,
"everything ca n be a myth provided it is conveyed by a
d i s c o u r s e ." A c c o r d i n g to B a r t h e s ,
every object in the w o r l d can p ass from a closed,
silent existence to an oral state, open to
I
I
15
a p p r o p r i a t i o n b y society. . . . A tree is a tree.
But a t ree e x p r e s s e d b y M i n o u D r o u e t is no longer
quite a tree, it is a tree which is d ecorated,
adapted to a certain type of consumption, laden
with l i t e r a r y s elf-indulgence, revolt, images, in
s h o r t w i t h a type of s ocial u s a g e w h i c h is a d d e d t o
p u r e matter. (109)
Barthes takes language, discourse, speech, etc. to m e a n "any
s i g n i f i c a n t u n i t o r synthesis, w h e t h e r v e r b a l or v i s u a l . " A
p h o t o g r a p h w i l l b e a k i n d of s p e e c h f o r us i n the same w a y as
a newspaper article. E v e n o bjects will become speech, "if
they m e a n something" (111) . Thus, f o r B arthes, myth belongs
to the province of a general science, "coexte n s i v e with
linguistics, which is semiology" (111). Referring to
Saussure, Barthes states that in a language, the sign is
arbitrary:
n o t h i n g c o m p e l s the a c o u s t i c i m a g e tree 'naturally'
to mean t he concept tree: the sign, here is
unmotivated. ...the m y t h i c a l signification, o n the
o t h e r hand, is n e v e r arbit r a r y ; it is always i n p a r t
mo t i v a t e d , and unavoidably contains some analogy.
. . . t h e r e is no m y t h w i t h o u t m o t i v a t e d form. (126)
A c c o r d i n g t o Barthes, m o t i v a t i o n is u n a v o i d a b l e , ". . . it is
not 'natural': it is h i s t o r y w h i c h s u p p l i e s anal o g i e s to the
16
form" (127) . M y t h transforms "history" into "nature" (129) .
F o r Barthes, t h e "best weapon" a g a i n s t m y t h is to "myth i f y " it
i n its turn, and, in th e role o f a "mythologist" r a t h e r t h a n
as a "consumer" of myths, to produce an "artificial myth"
w h i c h c a n s e r v e to d e m y s t i f y the e a r l i e r m y t h (135) .
In his forward to Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition,
F r e d e r i c J a m e s o n s t a t e s that p o s t m o d e r n i s m , as it is g e n e r a l l y
understood, i n v o l v e s a radi c a l b r e a k w i t h a d o m i n a n t c u l t u r e
and aesthetic. Postmodernism is a new social and economic
m o m e n t w h i c h h a s b e e n c a l l e d m e d i a society, the s o c i e t y o f th e
spectacle, c o n s u m e r society, o r p o s t i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y (vii).
Jameson calls postmodernism the "cultural logic of late
capita l i s m " where transnational corporations globalize
production, t h e r e b y c a u s i n g t h e m to b e c o m e d e v o i d of l o y a l t y
to n a t i o n s of origin. Lyotard, in T h e P o s t m o d e r n C o n d i t i o n ,
a t t r i b u t e s t h e e m e r g e n c e of p o s t m o d e r n i s m to the b r e a k u p of
m a s t e r n a r r a t i v e s s u c h as those of the E nlightenment, M a r x i s m ,
and the Spirit. Th e decline of master narratives, argues
Lyotard, is d u e to the ren e w a l of t he s p i r i t of c a p i t a l i s m ' s
free enterprise, a l o n g w i t h the g r o w t h o f cert a i n t e c h n i q u e s
and technologies in science (xxiv). Without master
narratives, man is lef t without external principles of
authority. In thi s sense, a p o s t m o d e r n a r t i s t o r w r i t e r is in
the p o s i t i o n o f a philos o p h e r : the text he writes, the w o r k
17
he p r o d u c e s are not in p r i n c i p l e g o v e r n e d b y p r e e s t a b l i s h e d
rules, an d t h e y cannot be j u d g e d a c c o r d i n g to a d e t e r m i n i n g
judgement, b y a p p l y i n g f a m i l i a r c a t e g o r i e s to the t e x t o r to
the work. T h o s e rules a n d c a t e g o r i e s a re what t h e w o r k of art
is itself l o o k i n g for. The a r t i s t a n d the writer, then, are
w o r k i n g w i t h o u t rules in o r d e r to f o r m u l a t e the rules o f w hat
"will have been done." Postmodernism would have to be
u n d e r s t o o d a c c o r d i n g to the p a r a d o x of the f uture a nterior.
L y o t a r d ends his b o o k b y s t a t i n g that is not o u r b u s i n e s s "to
supply reality" but to invent allusions to the conceivable
w h i c h cannot be presented. We have p aid a high e n o u g h price
for th e n o s t a l g i a of the whole a n d the one. U n d e r the g e n e r a l
d e m a n d for "slackening" and for appeasement, w e c a n h e a r the
mutterings of the desire for a return of terror, for the
r e a l i z a t i o n of the fan t a s y to s e i z e reality. Lyotard's answer
is: let us w age a w a r o n totality; let us be w i t n e s s e s to the
unpr e s e n t a b l e ; let us act i v a t e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s . . . . (81-82)
In Representations of the Intellectual. Edward Said
cr i t i q u e s Lyotard and "his followers" b ecause according to
S a i d t h e y ar e a d m i t t i n g their o w n l a z y incapacities, perhaps
e v e n indifference, r a t h e r than g i v i n g a correct a s s e s s m e n t of
w hat remains for the int e l l e c t u a l a truly vast array of
opportunities, despite p o s t m o dernism. F o r in fact. S a i d says,
governments still manifestly oppress people, grave
18
m i s c a r r i a g e s of j ustice still occur, a n d the c o - o p t a t i o n and
inclusion of intellectuals by power can still effectively
q u i e t e n t h e i r vo i c e s (17-18). A p o s t m o d e r n r e s p o n s e to this
criticism may be that the oppression that Said refers to
exists precisely because "the differences" have not been
activated. However, Said's other major criticism that
contemporary crit i c a l theory has avoided the major,
determining p ol i t i c a l horizon of modern Western culture,
n a m e l y imperialism, is w e l l taken.
S p i v a k makes a s i m i l a r p o i n t in h e r c r i t i q u e of F o u c a u l t
and Deleuze. In "Can t h e S u b a l t e r n Speak?", she critiques
W e s t e r n efforts to p r o b l e m a t i z e the subject a n d t h e n d i s c u s s e s
t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h the t h i r d - w o r l d s ubject continues to be
o t h e r i z e d w i t h i n W e s t e r n discourse. Spivak suggests that a
far more radical d e c e n t e r i n g of the subject is implicit in
Marx and Derrida. And, she argues, Western intellectual
p r o d u c t i o n is, in m a n y ways, c omplicit w i t h W e s t e r n e c o n o m i c
interests. He r c r i t i q u e o f F o u c a u l t a nd D e l e u z e is t h a t their
t h e o r i e s of p l u r a l i z e d "subject-effects" g i v e a n i l l u s i o n of
u n d e r m i n i n g subject s o v e r e i g n t y w h i l e o f t e n p r o v i d i n g a c o v e r
f o r this subject of k nowledge. A l t h o u g h the h i s t o r y of E u r o p e
as S u b j e c t is n a r r a t i v i z e d b y the law, p o l i t i c a l economy, a nd
i d e o l o g y of the West, this c o n c e a l e d Sub j e c t p r e t e n d s it has
no geo-political d e t e r m inations. In this way, a c c o r d i n g to
19
Spivak, t h e m u c h - p u b l i c i z e d c r i t i q u e of t h e s o v e r e i g n s u b j e c t
a c t u a l l y i n a u g u r a t e s a S u b j e c t (M a r x i s m a n d the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f C u l t u r e . 271-280).
It is useful to keep th e above theories in m i n d when
a p p r o a c h i n g p o s t m o d e r n fiction. Poststructuralist/postmodern
t h e o r y is a g o o d e n t r e e into the r e a l m o f p o s t m o d e r n f i c t i o n
because the writers of postmodern fiction attempt to
illustrate, h ig h l i g h t , expand upon ide a s which are closely
l i n k e d to theory. I do no t m e a n t o i m p l y that one m u s t k n o w
theory in o r d e r to read postmodern fiction, or in o r d e r to
p r o d u c e it, b u t t h e o r y does p r o v i d e a n i n t e r e s t i n g s p r i n g b o a r d
w i t h w h i c h to b e g i n a d i s c u s s i o n o f p o s t m o d e r n fiction.
U n l i k e m a n y m o d e r n narratives, a p o s t m o d e r n text r e j e c t s
th e idea o f p ro g r e s s , unity, and coherence. In p o s t m o d e r n
fiction, t h e r e is n o p r o m i s e of a u t o p i a n future. Instead, we
receive new styles of registering th e world. Binaries are
exposed as being inherently hierarchical an d therefore
violent, and they are exploded. The linear narrative is
r e p l a c e d b y the c o n c e p t of a n o p e n text. "Truth" is r e j e c t e d
as a n i m p o s s i b i l i t y as p o s t m o d e r n f i c t i o n c o n s c i o u s l y e x p o s e s
t h e p r o c e s s w h i c h l e a d s to a m e t a n a r r a t i v e . Th e n o t i o n of t h e
i n d i v i d u a l as a c e n t e r e d subject, a n "I," is d e c o n s t r u c t e d a n d
w e e n d up i n s t e a d w i t h a d e - c e n t e r e d subject, o r a s u b j e c t w h o
is s i m p l y a n e t w o r k of desires (which m a y b e conflicting) , o r
20
a p o s t m o d e r n sub j e c t w h o is a s e r i e s of subjec t iv e p o s i t i o n s .
H i e r a r c h i e s ar e l e v e l e d (or a t l e a s t a n a t t e m p t is made) and
w e e n d u p w i t h r e l a t i v e "truths."
And so we r e t u r n to D e r r i d a , B a r t h e s , R u s h d i e , e t al:
d i r e c t k n o w l e d g e of the w o r l d is impossible. All we ca n know
is w h a t w e s a y about the w orld. Language. Texts. T h e r e is
n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n l a n g u a g e i n the s e n s e that it is o u r o n l y
way to access "reality." In Imaginary Homelands. Rushdie
s t a t e s that r e a l i t y is an artifact, a n d that a n i n d i v i d u a l w h o
u n d e r s t a n d s th e artif i c i a l n a t u r e o f r e a l i t y is m o r e o r less
obliged to e n t e r the p r o c e s s of making it. We live in our
ideas, our pictures. Based on the above, my personal
definition of what constitutes postmodern fiction is as
follows: p o s t m o d e r n f i c t i o n is a l w a y s a ware of i t s e l f as a n
"arti f i c i a l " c on s t r u c t w h i c h a c t i v e l y seeks to e x p l o d e m e t a
narratives . It is most successful when it consciously
attempts to be non-essentialist (or practices "strategic
e s s e n t i a l i s m . ") It is important to note that there are
different s t r a i n s of p o s t m o d e r n fiction: a writer like Don
Dellilo, fo r example, r e p r e s e n t s a v e r s i o n w h i c h is n o s t a l g i c
for the past a n d fearful of the p r e sent. Nawal el Saadawi
e x p l o d e s the m a l e m a s t e r - n a r r a t i v e o f p o w e r a n d control, but
b e c a u s e she p o s i t s f e m i n i s m as a n a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h o u t l o o k i n g
over her shoulder, her deconstructive move is only half
I
&
21
successful. Feminism, a f t e r all, has its o w n h i e r a r c h y and
p o w e r position, b ut S a a d a w i does not ex p o s e it as she does the
patriarchy.
Reading Rushdie in the context of his project to
p r o b l e m a t i z e e s s e n t i a l i s t m y t h s of " i d e n t i t y , " " n a t i o n a l i s m , "
"religion," etc., places him squarely in a postmodern
tradition. But, as S p i v a k reminds us in "Can the S u b a l t e r n
S p e a k ? ," the s p i n n e r s o f p o s t m o d e r n theory, i n c l u d i n g wr i t e r s
l i k e Rushdie, are n ot t r a n s p a r e n t and t h e i r o w n i m p l i c a t i o n in
i n t e l l e c t u a l an d e c o n o m i c h i s t o r y cannot be ignored. Rushdie,
it must theref o r e be remembered, is a migrant from the
subcontinent, a s u b c o n t i n e n t w i t h a h i s t o r y a n d context that
is l a r g e r tha n what w e r e c e i v e in M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n o r The
Satanic Verses. And although Rus h d i e attempts to insert
himself into this larger context, he d oes not necessarily
succeed. Since his m i g r a n t context is so strong, critics t e n d
to w r i t e him into o n l y a e u r o c e n t r i c tradition. And although
Rushdie is eurocentric, it is important to r e m e m b e r that he
comes from a broader context. In reading his works it is
useful, therefore, to e x a m i n e b o t h his m i g r a n t a n d t he l arger
s u b c o n t i n e n t context as well.
Rush d i e ' s novels a re about subcontinent history and
pol i t i c s , e s p e c i a l l y p e r t a i n i n g to the i n d e p e n d e n c e of India
a n d the partitio n s o f P a k i s t a n and Bangladesh. In o r d e r to
22
g a i n a f u l l e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of his work, w e must recall not
o n l y the h i s t o r i c a l / p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t of t h e partitions, but
a larger p i c t u r e of the p r e - B r i t i s h s u b c o n t i n e n t as w e l l .
For those rea d e r s w ho may not be familiar with the
h i s t o r y of the subcontinent, I o f f e r the f o l l o w i n g v e r s i o n o f
a synopsis:
Historical Background India is named for the Indus
River, along whose banks civilization flourished more than
f our t h o u s a n d y e a r s ago. The p r e h i s t o r i c c i v i l i z a t i o n of t h e
Indus Valley in t he excavated cities of Harappa and
Mohenjodaro dates from about 2500 B.C. As Mark Naidis
e x plains in his book, India, some of t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r o f
t h e Indus c i v i l i z a t i o n m a y be g l e a n e d f r o m t h e p h y s i c a l la y o u t
of the cities, which w ere built in checkerboard grids
m e a s u r i n g a b o u t 100 b y 200 yards. There were indications of
b r o a d roads and methodically drained streets and b u i l d i n g s .
T h e two cities w e r e m o r e than three m i l e s around. Both were
dominated by what ap p e a r s to have been a citadel built up
f o r t y or f i f t y feet a b o v e the plain. O n this s tr u c t u r e w e r e
r it u a l b u i l d i n g s a n d p l a c e s of assembly. A t M o h en jodaro, the
fortress a lso contained the state granary, probably t he
e c o n o m i c focus o f the r e g i m e .
Harappa a n d M o h e n j o d a r o are four h u n d r e d m i l e s apart, y e t
each overlooks an area which would have been a natural
i
I
23
geographic province. It is p o s s i b l e tha t the Indus people
d e v e l o p e d a n e m p i r e simi l a r to t h a t o f th e M u s l i m Mu g h a l s w h o
in v a d e d I n d i a i n 1526; if so, t h e I n d u s c i v i l i z a t i o n was t h e
mo s t e x t e n s i v e p o l i t i c a l e x p e r i m e n t o f t h e t y p e p r i o r to t h e
Roman empire (Naidis 6) . Before this civilization was
destroyed, a g r i c u l t u r e an d c o m m e r c e f l o u r i s h e d a m o n g t h e m f o r
many centuries.
A r o u n d 1500 B.C. invad i n g A r y a n s c o n q u e r e d a n d d e s t r o y e d
the Indus c i t i e s a n d over time e s t a b l i s h e d t h e m s e l v e s in t h e
r e g i o n b e t w e e n t h e Sutlej a n d J u m n a r i v e r s (Naidis 10) . The
Aryans were semi-nomadic " b a r b a r i a n s " w h o c a m e from a r e g i o n
b e t w e e n the C a s p i a n a n d the B l a c k S e a s . A l t h o u g h the r e is n o
archeological evidence for the first centuries of India's
A r y a n age, a p i c t u r e can be p i e c e d t o g e t h e r f r o m the A r y a n ' s
reli g i o u s "Boo k s of Knowledge" o r Veda s , w h i c h was preserved
by the b a r d s of e a c h tribe through rigorous oral tradition
(Wolpert 24-25) . Unlike the u r b a n peoples of Harappa, th e
Aryans lived in tribal villages with their migr a n t herds.
Each tri b e was ruled by an autocratic male raja, and each
family was controlled by its father (Wolpert 28) . Four
traditional classes -- priests ( B r a h m a n s ) , w a r r i o r -r u l e r s ,
artisans, a n d c u l t i v a t o r s a p p e a r i n t h i s society.
O v e r s e v e r a l centuries, the A r y a n s c r e a t e d a n e w k i n d o f
c u l t u r e in I n d i a b y tramp l i n g m a n y i s o l a t e d grou p s into o n e
24
m o r e o r less h o m o g e n e o u s s o c i e t y (Naidis 10) .
In t h e y e a r 327 B.C. A l e x a n d e r t h e Great l e d a n a r m y of
about fifty thousand over the m o u n t a i n s of the Hindu Kush.
Alexander's a m b i t i o n was u nlimited, but facing a m u t i n y of
hi s troops, h e r e l u c t a n t l y c a l l e d a h a l t to his i nvasion. His
d e a t h i n 323 B.C. p r e v e n t e d a n y e f f e c t i v e attempt to retain
G r e e k c o n t r o l o v e r the c o u n t r y e a s t o f the I n d u s . According
to N a i dis, too m u c h has b e e n m a d e o f A l e x a n d e r ' s r a i d s i n c e he
had little chance of permanent success a g ai n s t immense
logistical problems (Naidis 17) .
India's first imperial unification occurred under the
leadership of Chandragupta Maurya who reigned from 324-301
B.C. In 3 01 B.C. he a b d i c a t e d h i s throne to b e c o m e a Jain
monk in South India, w h e r e he fasted until his de a t h . His
son, B i n d u s a r a , t o o k c ontrol a n d r u l e d f o r 32 years. H i s son,
Ashoka, r e i g n e d f r o m 269 to 232 B.C. W e h a v e a c l e a r e r i mage
of t h e p o l i c i e s a n d p e r s o n a l i t y of A s h o k a than of a n y o t h e r
monarch of ancient India, t hanks to t h e edicts he h a d c a r v e d
o n t o t h e g r e a t r o c k s a n d p o l i s h e d p i l l a r s of sands t o n e t h a t he
e r e c t e d t h r o u g h o u t the limits of h i s e n o r m o u s empire. Before
th e end of his reign, Mauryan rule claimed revenue from
Kashmir to Mysore, from Bangladesh to the heart of
Afghanistan. O n l y t hree D r a v i d i a n "kingdoms" (Kerala, Chola,
a n d Pandya) r e m a i n e d i ndependent to its south, as d i d Ceylon.
25
Mauryan India m a i n t a i n e d diplomatic relations with all its
n e i g h b o r s incl u d i n g Syria, Egypt, a n d Macedonia. A s h o k a was
hailed as the first true universal emperor of India. To
m a i n t a i n internal co n t r o l o v e r his empire, he a p p o i n t e d m a n y
special "overseers of the law" to tour the empire as his
e m i s s a r i e s to local governments, supervising local officials
in the performance of their duties, which given the great
distances i n v ol v e d and the equally v ast differences in
customs, laws, and l a n g u a g e s among India's d i v e r s e regions,
m u s t h a v e b e e n a n i m p o s s i b l e task. It was, nonetheless, the
beginning of an at t e m p t to enforce central bureaucratic
control over what had hitherto been fiercely autonomous a r e a s .
T h e M a u r y a n s r u l e d India for 140 years, r o u g h l y as l o n g as the
B r i t i s h w o u l d 2000 years later. A f t e r A s h o k a ' s d e a t h i n 232
B.C., his empire lost much of its vitality, falling into
economic as wel l as s p i r i t u a l d e c l i n e (Wolpert 62-69).
For five centuries following, India was fragmented
politically. A series of C e n t r a l A s i a n i n v a s i o n s coincided
with the growth of new regional monar c h i e s in the south.
Throughout this era of disunity, however, India enjoyed
lucrative profits from g r e a t l y e x p a n d e d o v e r s e a s trade with
the Roman and C hinese empires. Intellectually and
artistically, this was also a time of important growth and
cultural syncretism (Wolpert 70) .
26
The reunif ication of North India under the imperial
Guptas (A.D. 320-550) a n d the reign of H a r s h a V a r d h a n a (606-
47) of Kanauj m a y be s t u d i e d as c l a s s i c a l p r o t o t y p e s o f the
H i n d u state, t h e i r e r a c o m p r i s i n g India's c l a s s i c a l age. New
p o p u l a r f o r m s of H i n d u i s m e m e r g e d at t his time, t o g e t h e r w ith
m o n u m e n t s o f t e m p l e art a n d S anskrit l i t e r a t u r e (Wolpert 88) .
Another kind of art which flourished with t he Gupta was
mathematics. The concept of "zero" was " invented" by the
Indians. A r y a b h a t a was a prominent m a t h e m a t i c i a n w h o w o r k e d
out the v a l u e of pi, a n d was the first Indian scientist to
d i s c o v e r t h a t the e a r t h rotates on its a xis (Naidis 41) .
T h e H i n d u c l a s s i c a l age ended a r o u n d A.D. 700 a n d India
was invaded once again, this time from the West, by the
Muslims. I n d i a h a d a n o n - g o i n g trade w i t h h e r A r a b neighbors,
a n d it w a s th e p l u n d e r i n g of a r i c h l y l a d e n A r a b ship as it
p a s s e d t h e m o u t h of the Indus that led t he U m m a y a d g o v e r n o r of
Iraq to l a u n c h a n i n v a s i o n of six t h o u s a n d S y r i a n h o r s e s and
a n equal n u m b e r of camels against the rajas o f Sind. T h e Arab
force q u i c k l y c a p t u r e d Brahmanabad.
M o r e s e r i o u s a n d far r eaching M u s l i m i n v a s i o n s b e g a n w i t h
M a h m u d o f G h a z n i w h o d e s c e n d e d onto the P u n j a b p l a i n s in 997
f rom G h a z n i i n Afg h a n i s t a n . Mahmud's a n c e s t r y w a s of T u r k i s h
noma d i c d e scent. T he G haznavids were but the first in a
series of Turko-Afghan Muslims to in v a d e North India and
s h a t t e r a u t o n o m o u s H i n d u power. B y 1519, the f o u n d e r o f the
Mughal dynasty, Babar, appeared on the scene. He was a
C h a g a t a i T u r k w h o c l a i m e d des c e n t f r o m G e n g h i s K h a n a n d T i m u r
the Lame. 1519 w a s t h e date of h i s f i r s t of f o u r raids. T he
last wa s a n i n v a s i o n w h i c h b e g a n in 1525. In 1526 h e s e c u r e d
D e l h i b y d e f e a t i n g a n A f g h a n a r m y a n d t h e n p a s s e d o n to Agra,
which he entered on May 10, 1526. This date marks the
beginning of the Mughal period which lasted until 1707.
Babar's grandson , Akbar, succeeded and within twenty years
extended his authority across North India and Afghanistan.
T h e R a j p u t p r i n c e s w h o h a d b e e n t he m o s t f o r m i d a b l e e n e m i e s of
his p r e d e c e s s o r s were, w i t h a s i n g l e exception, c o n v e r t e d to
loyal lieutenants. Akbar added three Deccan provinces to
Mughal t erritory . A k b a r was s u c c e e d e d b y his son Jehangir.
A f t e r J e h a n g i r ' s d e a t h S h a h J a h a n p r o c l a i m e d h i m s e l f e mperor.
Hi s reign was a finan c i a l disaster. He had inherited a
so l vent treasury, but de s p i t e the growth of foreign trade,
bankruptcy threatened the government due to the unbridled
extravagance of the bureaucracy and the enormous expense
e n t a i l e d b y the s p l e n d i d a r c h i t e c t u r a l m o n u m e n t s p u t u p b y the
r e g i m e (Naidis 77) . S h a h Jahan's son, A u r a n g z e b s u c c e e d e d h i m
a n d r u l e d u n t i l 1707. W i t h his death, t h e M u g h a l d y n a s t y c a m e
to an end.
Among those who squabbled over a disintegrating Mughal
I
*•
1
I
28
Empire were Indians a n d E u r o p e a n s w h o h a d b e e n t r a d i n g w i t h
India- P o r t u g a l an d H o l l a n d at first, f o l l o w e d b y B r i t a i n an d
France, all i n s i s t e d o n a share. The quarrel b e t w e e n Britain
and France in India wa s a loc a l manifestation of their
w o r l d w i d e rivalry, w h e t h e r i n Europe, o n th e h i g h seas, o r in
N o r t h Am e r i c a . Ironically, m o r e o v e r , the I n d i a t h a t w a s l a t e r
to become the jewel in Q u e e n V i c t o r i a ' s imperial crown was
initially seen by the British as very much a second-best
t r a d i n g v e nture. W h a t t h e y r e a l l y wanted, an d what the Dutch
prevented t h e m fro m accessing, were the i s l a n d s of th e East
Indies, or present-day Indonesia. Thus it was that the
B r i t i s h n e e d to sec u r e t h e i r t r a d i n g rights in a p o l i t i c a l l y
u n s t a b l e I n d i a l e d to the o n l y i n v a s i o n in I n d i a n h i s t o r y fro m
the s e a ( Harris o n 14) .
In 1 751 R o b e r t Clive, d i s g r u n t l e d clerk t u r n e d s o l d i e r in
the e m p l o y o f th e B r i t i s h E a s t I n d i a Company, w o n his first
v i c t o r y a g a i n s t the F r e n c h a n d l a u n c h e d hi s m e t e o r i c m i l i t a r y
a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e career. B y 1818, the B r i t i s h h a d e n s u r e d
their control over India either through direct rule or
t r e a t i e s w i t h in d e p e n d e n t states. B y the m i d - 1 9 4 0 s t w o w o r l d
wars had greatly sapped Britain's ability and resolve to
maintain control over a worldwide empire. The surprise
v i c t o r y of t h e L a b o u r p a r t y i n the 1944 e l e c t i o n a l s o w e n t a
long way in saving Britain and India fr o m the kind of war
29
France fought to postpone the inevitable in Indochina and
Algeria (Harrison 15).
B u t even p r i o r to B r i t a i n ' s r e c o g n i t i o n that it w o u l d be
i m p o s s i b l e to st a y o n i n India, n a t i v e r e b e l l i o n s h a d b e g u n as
e a r l y as the m u t i n y of 1857. Curzon's p a r t i t i o n of B e n g a l in
1905 g a v e rise to a v i o l e n t o p p o s i t i o n w h i c h s p r e a d l a t e r to
t h e U n i t e d Prov i n c e s a n d th e Punjab.
T h e n a t i o n a l i s t r e v o l u t i o n in India w a s l e d a m o n g others,
b y M u h a m m a d A l i Jinnah, Moha n d a s Gandhi, a n d J a w a h a r l a l Nehru.
In A u g u s t 1947, the B r i t i s h t r a n s f e r r e d p o w e r in Ind i a to two
separate entities: India and Pakistan. As Ayesha Jalal
states in her book, The Sole Spokesman, when the British
established dominion over India, the political map of the
s u b c o n t i n e n t d i d n o t r e f l e c t the r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n s of its
peoples. But b y th e t i m e of the B r i t i s h w i t h d r a w a l , rivalries
between Hindus and Muslims had come to dominate Indian
politics. In the m a k i n g of Pakistan, r e l i g i o n a p p e a r s to have
b e e n t h e d e t e r m i n a n t of nationality. T h e B r i t i s h Raj came to
its e n d amidst g r e a t v i o l e n c e in w h i c h Hindus, Muslims, and
S i k h s s l a u g h t e r e d o n e another. A c c o r d i n g to Jalal, this was
t h e w o r s t holocaust of t h e s u b c o n t i n e n t , e v e n g i v e n its b l o o d
stained past. Within less than a year, around seventeen
m i l l i o n refugees h a d m o v e d b o t h ways b e t w e e n the two w i n g s of
Pakistan and India, th e largest transfer of populations in
30
recorded, history.
A s J a l a l describes, the r e h a v e b e e n v a r i o u s t h e o r i e s to
e x p l a i n t h e s e c a t a c l y s m i c events. Th e mo s t c o m m o n a r g u m e n t is
that I n d i a n M u s l i m s w e r e a l w a y s a s e p a r a t e c o m m u n i t y a n d n e v e r
integrated into the existing culture of t he subcontinent.
Another theory emphasizes th e role imperialism played in
dividing two communities which history and tradition had
jo i n e d o v e r the y e a r s . According to J a l a l , the s e theories
raise m o r e q u e s t i o n s t h a n t h e y a n s w e r (Jalal, S p o k e s m a n 1) .
In d i s c u s s i n g the i d e o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n of the c o l o n i a l
legacy in Ind i a a n d Pakistan, Jalal s t a t e s that o s t e n s i b l y ,
the secularism of the Cong r e s s and the communalism of the
Muslim League are the main ideological legacies of the
c o l o n i a l era. But, she warns, "it is o n l y b y s c a l i n g t h e ga p
between rhetoric an d r e a l i t y that the i d e o l o g i c a l impact of
c o l o n i a l i s m i n the s u b c o n t i n e n t c a n b e m e a n i n g f u l l y a s s e s s e d "
(Jalal, D e m o c r a c y a n d A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m 25) . Both creeds were
f o r m u l a t e d as a r e s p o n s e to c o l o n i a l i s m in a b i d to w i n the
a l l e g i a n c e o f large segments o f I n d i a n society. In a c tuality,
instead of representing two sharply divergent world views,
secularism and communalism in th e subcontinental context
turned out to be alternative strategies of political
mobilization. Just as the Congress's secularism was
f r e q u e n t l y o v e r w r o u g h t w i t h e v o c a t i o n s of H i n d u symbolism, the
31
L e a g u e ' s c o m m u n a l i s m was s h o t t h r o u g h w i t h c o n c e r n s t h a t we r e
other than purely religious (Jalal, Democracy an d
A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m 27) .
T h u s the do m i n a n t i d i o m s of n a t ionalism, secularism, and
c o m m u n a l i s m of the late c o l o n i a l e r a left c o n f u s i n g legacies.
It was the Western colonial ideology of an indivisible
s o v e r e i g n t y as u n d e r w r i t t e n b y a c e n t r a l i z e d s t a t e s t r u c t u r e
that held the most attraction for the managers of post-
colonial India. Thi s was an ideology of sovereignty that
s u r v i v e d t h e p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n of the s u b c o n t i n e n t a n d was
sought to b e r e p l i c a t e d at the central apexes of India and
Pakistan. A c c o r d i n g to Jalal, th i s ideological inheritance
has h a d a p o w e r f u l b e a r i n g o n th e c e n t e r - r e g i o n d i a l e c t i c a n d
the authoritarian stra i n s within sta t e structures in pos t -
colonial South Asia. Analyzed in interaction with the
contrasting institutional legacies of the colonial state it
p r o v i d e s a c r i t i c a l i n g r e d i e n t to a c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y of the
r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n sta t e s t r u c t u r e s a n d p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s e s
in p o s t - i n d e p e n d e n c e India a n d Pakistan.
Rushdie's fict i o n is, in part, a re-telling of the
h i s t o r y of t h e s u b c o n t i n e n t f r o m a p o s t m o d e r n p e r s p e c t i v e in
which heterogeneity and difference are foregrounded. The
p o i n t h e a l w a y s seems to b e m a k i n g is that t h e s u b c o n t i n e n t a l
i n d i v i d u a l e m e r g e s f r o m a h o t c h - p o t c h of relig i o n s , cultures,
32
and. histo r i e s , a n d that exclusionary, identity politics are
the result of a n a c t i v e m y t h m a k i n g in the B a r t h i a n sense in
w h i c h r e a l i t y is t u r n e d i n s i d e out, e m p t i e d of hist o r y , and
f i l l e d w i t h "nature" (Barthes, 142) . R u s h d i e is n o t a l o n e in
this perspective. M a j o r s u b c o n t i n e n t w r i t e r s of the 1 9 5 0 s a n d
'60s c r i t i q u e d the id e a o f n a t i o n a l i s m a n d w r o t e o n t h e issue
of p a r t i t i o n : Manto, Bedi, I n t e z a r Hussein, Qurrat ul Ain,
Khadija Mastoor, Abdullah Hussein. And as Ayesha Jalal
states, m a n y contemporary postcolonial historians are coming
to q u e s t i o n the i n c l u s i o n a r y a n d e x c l u s i o n a r y c l a i m s of b o t h
Indian and Muslim nationalisms and, more guardedly, the
appropriateness of the concept of the "nation-state" in
subcontinental conditions. T h e idea h e r e see m s to b e tha t
. a conceptualization of contemporary South
Asia cannot be so transfigured by ideas of
nationalism, the nation-state and territorial
sovereignty as to obscure a fi v e - m i l l e n n i a - o l d
history in w h i c h processes of s o c i a l and cultural
fusion s v i e d w i t h a n d f r e q u e n t l y o v e r l a i d t h o s e of
p o l i t i c a l f issions. (Jalal, D e m o c . & A u t h . in S .A .
1- 2)
In h e r book, Cultural I m p e r i a l i s m a n d th e Indo-Enalish
Novel, Fawzia Afzal-Khan compares the manner in which fou r
contemporary subcontinent authors (who write in English)
33
r e s p o n d to the p o s t c o l o n i a l m o m e n t o n the s u b c o n t i n e n t : R. K.
Narayan, Anita D e s a i , K a m a l a M a r k a n d a y a , a n d S a l m a n Rushdie.
T h e argument she m a k e s in h e r b o o k is that " d e s p i t e r e f l e c t i n g
c o m p e t i n g and s o m e t i m e s contradictory ideological tensions,
the wor k s of these writers all demonstrate the use of
ideology, ultimately as a 'liberating' rather than as a
'containing' strategy (Afzal-Khan 1). T h e t e r m "containing"
refers to F rede r i c Jameson's The Political Unconscious in
which he states that ideology consists of " st r a t e g i e s of
c o n t a i n m e n t ."
The writer, by unconsciously (or, often,
consciously) a t t e m p t i n g to v a l i d a t e h i m s e l f a n d his
group in the fac e of wha t he perceives as an
a n t a g o n i s t i c other, ends up c o n f i n i n g h i m s e l f to the
limited, a n d limiting, econ o m i c a n d s o c i o p o l i t i c a l
interests of h is class or group. In a similar
fashion, he confines the o t h e r to an antagonistic
value system. (Afzal-Khan 2)
A f z a l - K h a n points o u t th a t this has b e e n t h e cas e w i t h m a n y
h e g e m o n i c Wester n writers, lik e E. M. Forster, w h o h a v e tri e d
to c o n t a i n the c o l o n i z e d o t h e r in their n a r r a t i v e s in o r d e r to
j u s t i f y their o w n (and t h e i r group's) imperialist activities
(2) . Writers s u c h as S a l m a n Rushdie, she states, r e f u s e to
a c c e p t this c o n t a i n e d i m a g e a n d answ e r b y p r o d u c i n g l i t e r a t u r e
t
t
i
j
34
that foreground s an ideology of liberation. Thus these
w r i t e r s t r a n s f o r m t h e i r past, their culture, a n d t h e i r people,
from being determinate o bjects to b e c o m i n g living s ubjects
(5) .
Fo r Afzal-Khan, a p o s t c o l o n i a l w r i t e r s u c h as N a i p a u l ' s
u s e of m y t h is not a s t r a t e g y of l i b e r a t i o n (as it is in the
c ase o f R u s hdie w h o d e b u n k s the g enre itself) , r a t h e r he u ses
myth to contain the colonized as other. His treatment of
Africa an d India reinforces the fiction of Orientalism in
which these geographical areas are depicted as dark,
mysterious, supe r s titious, and rigidly traditional (9-10).
According to Afzal-Khan, Naipaul buys into the image of
p o s t c o l o n i a l p e o p l e s a n d cultures as "other" a n d this leads to
a literature of " self-hatred" (13) .
Desai, Narayan, Markandaya, and Rush d i e , however,
c o n s c i o u s l y cho o s e to t r a n s f o r m s uch a n i d e o l o g y into o ne of
liberation and thereby refute the orientalist ideology of
containment (13). Their ideological motives re s i s t binary
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s into g e n r e s such as "myth" v e r s u s "realism."
In d i s c u s s i n g D e s a i ' s In C u s t o d y . A f z a l - K h a n s t a t e s that for
Desai, the call of realism, of the present, c a n n o t be i g n o r e d
in f a v o r of a ret r e a t f r o m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e present, into
a m y t h i c i z e d past. O n the o t h e r hand, t h e p a s t a n d all that
is v a l u a b l e in it c a n n o t be rejected. In D e s a i ' s book, it is
N u r ' s p o e t r y a n d Urdu l i t e r a t u r e in g e n e r a l w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s
t h e p a s t a n d b o t h are in d a n g e r o f b e i n g f o r g o t t e n o r w i p e d
out in p o s t - i n d e p e n d e n c e India (87). Af zal-Khan's p o i n t is
that f o r Desai, the p ast c a n o n l y b e p r e s e r v e d if o n e takes
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for it, a n d if m y t h is g i v e n its r i g h t f u l p l a c e
within the critical re a l i s t mode. Ultimately, she states,
A n i t a D e s a i is cle a r l y o n the s i d e o f r e a l i s m a n d s u b o r d i n a t e s
or at least balances myth within the critical realist
perspective (96).
Rushdie, ac c o r d i n g to A f z a l - K h a n , is t he m o s t " m o d e r n " of
the four contemporary Indian novelists she d i s c u s s e s in her
book. He u ses the genre of myth both as a "strategy of
li b e r a t i o n " a n d as an i d e o l o g i c a l f o r m that avoids h i s t o r i c a l
petrification, s omething t h a t the o t h e r t hree n o v e l i s t s are
u n a b l e to do since all three e n l i s t the help of the g e n r e of
realism to off s e t the petrifying ef f e c t s of myth (143).
Although Rushdie uses many genres besides myth (realism,
comic, epic, science fiction, etc.) his a i m is not t o s t r i v e
f o r a w h o l e n e s s b o r n of a c o m m i n g l i n g of g e n r e s as it is "to
mirror the stat e of confusion and alienation that defines
p o s t c o l o n i a l societies a n d i n d i v i d u a l s " (143) . But, a c c o r d i n g
to Afz a l - K h a n , because of his inability to mythologize
history, Rushdie ultimately fails to construct a viable
a l t e r n a t i v e i d e o l o g y for h i m s e l f o r for p o s t c o l o n i a l society
36
in g e n e r a l .
A c c o r d i n g to m y r e a d i n g of Rushdie, A f z a l - K h a n is right
on target w h e n she states that for R u s h d i e none of t he o l d
forms or genres are capable of sustaining ideology in
p o s t c o l o n i a l societies, s i n c e there is no i d e o l o g y u n t a i n t e d
b y a M a n i c h e a n s u b j e c t - o b j e c t dialectic. M y dis agr eem ent with
A f z a l - K h a n has to do w i t h h e r v i e w that R u s h d i e "is u n a b l e to
q u i t e f u l l y r e h a b i l i t a t e t h e g e n r e of m y t h i n a f a s h i o n that
could p r o vide a viable solution to the historicity of the
c o l o n i a l impasse" (175). A f z a l - K h a n c o n c l u d e s h e r c h a p t e r on
R u s h d i e b y stating t h a t p e r h a p s some n e w g e n r e w i l l emerge,
a f t e r the d e a t h of all t h e o l d forms a n d i d e o l o g i e s t h a t will
b e a b l e to b e a r a n d e x p r e s s t h e b u r d e n of a "new" h i s t o r y . In
m y opinion, Rush d i e e x p l o d e s t h e b i n a r y c a t e g o r i e s o f c u l t u r a l
classification such as U s/Them, East/West, Self/O t h e r ,
M a r g i n / C e n t e r b y s u c c e s s f u l l y d e p l o y i n g p o s t m o d e r n strategies,
including deconstruction. In MC, his s y s t e m a t i c u n d e r c u t t i n g
of all the genres he uses to tell his tale not only draws
a t t e n t i o n to his n o v e l and i ts ideas as c o n s t r u c t s , it also
prevents the p r i v i l e g i n g o f a n y one s p a c e o v e r a n o t h e r . If
a n y t h i n g is privileged, it is a n o t i o n of " i n c l u s i v e n e s s " and
"hybridity" -- R u s h d i e ' s " t h i r d p rinciple" w h i c h is m e a n t to
be a an alternative myth, constructed in an effort to
demystify e x ist i n g reigning myths such as "business,"
37
"patriotism," "religion," a n d "identity."
R u s h d i e ' s r e s p o n s e to i d e n t i t y politics, w h i c h leads to
nativism, which in t u r n leads to nationalism is to emb r a c e
difference and cultivate "hybridity." In r e f e r r i n g to Indian
w riters w h o h a v e m i g r a t e d to England, he c e l e b r a t e s t h e fact
that this involves a "translation" from which much can be
gained. T o b e a n I n d i a n w r i t e r in w e s t e r n s o c i e t y is to face
e v e r y day, p r o b l e m s o f definition.
W h a t d o e s it m e a n to b e 'Indian' o u t s i d e India? How
c a n c u l t u r e b e p r e s e r v e d w i t h o u t b e c o m i n g ossi f i e d ?
How should we discuss the need for change within
o u r s e l v e s a n d o u r c o m m u n i t y w i t h o u t s e e m i n g to p l a y
into t h e h a n d s of o u r ra c i a l e n e m i e s ? W h a t a r e the
conseq u e n c e s , both spiritual and practical, of
r e f u s i n g to m a k e a n y c o n c e s s i o n s to W e s t e r n ideas
and practices? . . .How a r e we to live i n the world?
(Rushdie, IH 17-18)
The answer l ies in being able to discover new ways of
d e s c r i b i n g oneself, n e w w a y s of b e i n g human. F o r R ushdie, the
figure of the m i g r a n t is s u p r e m e l y impo r t a n t b e c a u s e roots,
language, a n d s o c i a l n o r m s h a v e b e e n three of the m o s t crucial
p a r t s of th e d e f i n i t i o n of w h a t it is to b e a h u m a n being.
T h e migrant is d e n i e d all three a n d must invent a n e w w a y of
d e f i n i n g the "self" (Rushdie, IH 278) . W e all c r o s s f rontiers
4
1
*
j
38
even if t hey are not g e o g r a p h i c , says Rushdie, and in that
sense, w e are all m i g r a n t p eoples. R u s h d i e ' s n o t i o n o f the
m i g r a n t is p o s t m o d e r n b e c a u s e it reveals " identity" as b e i n g
a c onstruct. As K w a m e A n t h o n y A p p i a h states i n r e f e r e n c e to
Africa and the West in his book entitled, In Mv Father's
House,
if there is a lesson in the broad shape of this
c ircu l a t i o n of cultures, it is s u r e l y t h a t w e are
all a l r e a d y c o n t a m i n a t e d b y e a c h other, t h a t there
is no longer a fully autochthonous echt -African
culture awaiting salvage by o u r artists (just as
there is, of course, no American culture without
A f r i c a n roots) . A n d t h e r e is a c l e a r s e n s e i n some
p o s tco l o n i a l writing that the population of a
unitary Africa over against a monolithic West--the
binarism of Self and Other - - i s the last of the
shibboleths of the m o d e r n i z e r s that we m u s t l e a r n to
live without. (155)
In MC, SV, and Haroun and the Sea of Stories. Rushdie
deconstructs just s u c h a " b i n a r i s m of S elf a n d O t h e r " as it
p e r t a i n s to India a n d t h e West, a n d reveals i d e n t i t y a n d race
to b e c u ltural c o n s t r u c t s .
In this dissertation, I w i l l discuss the m a n n e r i n w h i c h
R u s h d i e responds to the c o n t e m p o r a r y s u b c o n t i n e n t m o m e n t from
his p o s t m o d e r n ang l e of vision. Included in my discussion
w i l l b e a comment on t h e s i l e n c e s in R u s h d i e ' s fiction, n a m e l y
the subaltern. When historians re-tell the story of
p artition, the subaltern is no t featured even though they
p l a y e d an important r o l e in the s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e British.
Similarly, R u s h d i e too, fo r t h e m o s t part, h a s n o t h i n g to s a y
a b o u t the individuals w h o li v e in e x t r e m e p o v e r t y , a b o u t the
u n o r g a n i z e d laborers, o n the frin g e s of the o u t e r - m o s t fringe,
w h o d o not have a p l a c e o n the social, e conomic, or political
register. Rushd i e ' s a p p r o a c h is e l i t i s t w h e n v i e w e d f r o m this
perspective. Spivak critiques Rushdie for leaving out the
subaltern, and in Outside in the Teaching Machine she
s p e c i f i c a l l y n o t e s his inability to successfully write woman
into the n arrati v e of history. C o m m e n t i n g o n SV, s h e states
that the text is w r i t t e n o n the r e g i s t e r of m a l e b o n d i n g an d
unbonding. G i br e e l F a r i s h t a a n d S a l a d i n C h a m c h a ". . . are
tortured by obsession with women, go through them, even
d e s t r o y them, w i t h i n a g e n d e r cod e that is n e v e r o p e n e d up,
n e v e r questioned, in t h i s b o o k w h e r e so m u c h is c a l l e d into
question, so m u c h r e i n s c r i b e d 11 (223) . S p i v a k c a l l s this "an
h o n o r a b l e f a i l u r e , " b u t it is a fail u r e n o n e t h e l e s s .
C h a p t e r II d i s c u s s e s M i d n i g h t ' s Children a s a n o v e l about
the e n a b l i n g p o w e r of h y b r i d i t y . T he m a n n e r i n w h i c h we get
to h y b r i d i t y is t h r o u g h the f i l t e r of memory. S a l e e m Sinai
j
40
r e t e l l s the h i s t o r y o f his f amily a n d i n so d o i n g p r o v i d e s a n
i n d i v i d u a l i z e d h i s t o r y of the I n d i a n s u b c o n t i n e n t itself. The
act o f recalling, a n d h e n c e of h i s t o r i c i z i n g , it b e c o m e s c l e a r
e a r l y on, is n o t a n e x a c t science; r a t h e r it is o n l y t h r o u g h
distorted fragments t hat we r e m e m b e r a n d then re-create the
past. Fol d e d into the above is R u s h d i e ' s implication that
t h e r e are no a b s o l u t e v e r s i o n s of h i s t o r y and, in fact, all
t h e v e r s i o n s a r e c onstructs.
R ush d i e ' s t r e a t m e n t o f h i s t o r y m a y b e u s e f u l l y d i s c u s s e d
in terms of Roland Barthe's notion of the manner in which
cultures and individuals generate myths. Barthes
distinguishes between myth-consumers and mythologists.
R u s h d i e makes the s a m e d i s t i n c t i o n in M C i n h i s p o r t r a y a l of
c h a r a c t e r s s u c h as the W i d o w a n d S a l e e m ' s "son," Aadam. The
former exists in the essentialized space of a " naturalized"
myth, w h e reas the latter, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e " t h i r d principle, "
flourishes in the hybrid space of a new, " artificial,"
c o u n t e r - m y t h w h i c h has the p o t e n t i a l to d e m y s t i f y the f a i l e d
m y t h s of India s u c h as "religion" a n d " b u s i n e s s . "
Chapter III discusses Shame and focuses on what I
consider is its major theme: "nega t i v e " mi g r a t i o n s . For
R u shdie, mi g r a n t s u s u a l l y share the p r i v i l e g e o f a special,
stereoscopic, i n s i d e / o u t s i d e v i s i o n w h i c h a l l o w s t h e m to w o r k
the mainstream from the margins. The mohajirs in Shame.
41
however, seem to have experienced "negative" migrations.
S h a k i l flees fr o m his past a n d d e n i e s his family. Isky sheds
h i s p l a y b o y s k i n like a cobra. B i l q u i s c o m e s to P a k i s t a n a n d
b e c o m e s modest. R a z a becomes a s e r v a n t of God. Babar becomes
a g o l d e n angel. T h e p r o b l e m w i t h a l l t h e s e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s is
that t h e y l a c k a m e m o r y of the p a s t . O r th e past is s i m p l y
r e - w r i t t e n t o m a k e it fit (violently) into t he present. This
treatment of the past prevents an heterogeneous existence.
All these migrants reject hybridity and fail to grasp the
p o s i t i v e n e s s of t h e i r translation. "Men w h o d e n y t h e i r p a s t s
b e c o m e i n c a p a b l e of thinking the m real" (Rushdie, S h a m e 157).
P a k i s t a n i t s e l f suffers from a s i m i l a r p r o b l e m b e c a u s e a
p a l i m p s e s t o b s c u r e s what lies beneath. To b u i l d P a k i s t a n it
was necessary to cover up Indian history. The past was
r e w r i t t e n b y mohaj irs in two i m p o r t e d t o n g u e s : English and
Urdu (Rushdie, Sha m e 92) . The mohaj irs imposed their
n a r r a t i v e o n t o a n exis t i n g on e a n d t h e r e b y a t t e m p t e d to b l o t
out the p a s t . E v e r y story one c h o o s e s to tell is a k i n d o f
censorship because it prevents the telling of other tales
(72) . R u s h d i e ' s ultimate p o i n t in t h i s n o v e l seems to b e t h a t
P a k i s t a n is a translation (a miracle) gone wrong because it
w a s n ' t m a d e w i t h e n o u g h imagination.
Having taken note of Rushdie's perspective, it is
important to note that his view of Pakistan is p r o b l e m a t i c
42
b e c a u s e it is one-sided. In Shame, R u s h d i e seems to b e g u i l t y
of t h e v e r y la c k of f l e x i b i l i t y f o r w h i c h he faults Paki s t a n .
Pakistan, like his version of India, is teeming,
heterogeneous, and varied. And along-side the corrupt
politicos and fundame n t a l i s t maulvis there exist ordinary
people who sha r e a fa r more fluid vision of th e world.
Rushdie, however, does no t g i v e u s t h e i r voic e s i n S h a m e . I
b e l i e v e this is a genu i n e b l i n d - s p o t in his v i s i o n a n d m u s t be
d i s c u s s e d as such. However, th e a n g e r i n Shame is i m p o r t a n t
b e c a u s e it represents S u f i y a Z i n o b i a ' s a b i l i t y to b r e a k out of
her "victim" status a n d to annihilate th e existing m y t h of
r e p r e s s i o n as r e p r e s e n t e d b y h e r p a r e n t s an d h e r husb a n d .
Chapter IV deals with SV which asks a question of
identity/philosophy: What kind o f idea are you?
Are you the kind that compromises, does deals,
accommodates itself to society, aims to find a
niche, to survive; o r a r e y o u cussed, b l o o d y - m i n d e d ,
ramr o d - b a c k e d type of damnfool notion that would
r a t h e r bre a k t h a n s w a y w i t h the breeze? (335)
T h e t w o m a j o r characters in the novel, Farishta and Chamcha
both undergo iden t i t y crises attempting to answer this
q uestion. The on e who surv i v e s d o e s so beca u s e of his a b i l i t y
to bend, to commingle, a n d to incorporate. Fo r Rushdie, the
flexibility versus rigidity choice plugs into a broader
philosophy which addresses the notion of reality as an
artifact created by the power of language. The earlier
question then, put another way, becomes: "What kind of
r e a l i t y do y o u choose t o create?" In t h i s c h a p t e r I di s c u s s
G i b r e e l 's spiritual crisis and the nature of his
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w h i c h m o v e s h i m into rigidity, a space s h a r p l y
c r i t i q u e d in SV. In d o i n g so I ex p l o r e t h e a r e a of the text
which deals most overtly with the idea of reality as a
construct, namely the Gibreel sec t i o n s and a ttempt to
d e m o n s t r a t e the m a n n e r in w h i c h Rushdie exposes Islam as a
myth constructed by a male patriarchy which ultimately
transforms Gibreel into an avenging angel d ue to his
absolutism. I go on to discuss Salahuddin Chamchawalla as
Rushdie's preferred alternative since he is presented as a
m u c h m o r e f l u i d c h a r a c t e r w h o survives d u e to his a b i l i t y to
r e c o n s t r u c t his "identity" f rom a more e c l e c t i c perspective,
and since he ends up i n Bombay, which is representative of
Rushdie's "third princi p l e . "
C h a p t e r V d iscusses H a r o u n . Rush d i e ' s f i r s t b o o k w r i t t e n
in h i d i n g a n d d e d i c a t e d to his son, Zafar. It focuses o n the
iss u e s raised in this n o v e l h a v i n g to do with the p o w e r of
language to create, t he value of fiction, the politics of
control/power, a n d the b e n e f i t s of i n t e r m i n g l i n g (speech and
silence, light and dark, r e a l i t y a n d fiction, etc.).
44
C h a p t e r V I d i s c u s s e s The M o o r ' s L a s t S i g h . In h i s m o s t
r e c e n t work, R u s h d i e attempts to w r i t e the u l t i m a t e n o v e l of
h y b r i d i t y a n d hi s m a i n character, M o r a e s Zagoiby, is a " c r o s s
b r eed" w h o s e h e r i t a g e goes b a c k to V a s c o de Gama. T h e novel,
however, is a failure primarily because it appears to be
l o n g i n g for a n "ideal" space tha t o s t e n s i b l y e x i s t e d o n c e in
India, but is now vanishing du e to contemporary communal
politics.
In a c o n c l u d i n g note I consolidate t he m a j o r a r g u m e n t s
presented in th e preceding chapters and reiterate my point
r e g a r d i n g the fact tha t R u s h d i e ' s n o v e l s a re of a p o s t m o d e r n
bent. U n l i k e o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y s u b c o n t i n e n t aut h o r s w r i t i n g
i n English, h e n o t o n l y breaks ou t o f the c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d
binary, he goes one step further and actually attempts to
" r ewrite the center." As Lawrence Hogue argues in a
forthcoming article, once the victimizer/victim binary is
exploded (rather t h a n sim p l y i n v e r t e d ) , th e following, truly
radical gesture is one in which the center is actually
rewritten, not just r e p r o d u c e d in t h e i m a g e of what e x i s t e d
before. This "new" p o s t m o d e r n s p a c e is w h a t R u s h d i e a t t e m p t s
to crea t e in hi s novels. Rushdie recognizes that identity
politics leads to nativism and nationalism, a n d he rejects
those spaces b e c a u s e they merely invert the binary, leaving
v i o l e n t h i e r a r c h i e s intact. Hi s i m p u l s e is to d e c o n s t r u c t t h e
45
binary in an att e m p t to clear a space which foregrounds
i m purity, hotch-potch, melange, hybridity.
II. MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN
As w i t h his o t h e r w o r k s , R u s h d i e 's M i d n i g h t 's C h i I d r ^ n
is a novel about the e n a b l i n g p o w e r o f hybridity. The m a n n e r
in w h i c h w e ge t to h y b r i d i t y is t h r o u g h the filter of m emory.
The protagonist, Saleem Sinai, re-tells the h i s t o r y of his
f a m i l y a n d in so d o i n g p rovides an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d h i s t o r y o f
the Indian s u b - c o n t i n e n t itself. T h e s t o r y we receive c o v e r s
approximately sixty years of India's pre- and postcolonial
twentieth-century history. Saleem, who is b o r n d u r i n g the
first h our o f i n d e p e n d e n c e from the B r i t i s h (midnight, A u g u s t
17, 1947) , a c t u a l l y begins his narrative thirty-two years
b e f o r e his b i r t h b y t e l l i n g us a b o u t his grandfather, Aadam
Aziz. The us e of t his s t r a t e g y helps s e t the stage for a n o n
going blurring of time- b o u n d a r i e s throughout the n o v e l . It
a lso gives R u s h d i e the o p p o r t u n i t y to i n s e r t a n arr a t i v e v o i c e
into the text that is other than Saleem's first person
perspective. Thus, e v e n t h o u g h S a l e e m t e l l s us that his q u e s t
throu g h o u t the n o v e l is for "Centrality" a n d "Meaning, " a n o n
going, alternative narrative voice in the text reveals
"identity" to be a const r u c t and "meaning" to be available
only in versions. As the s t o r y progre s s e s , we learn t hat
46
47
Saleem is not really Aadam Aziz's grandson: Saleem is
switched at birth (by the nurse Mary Pereira) with Aziz's
biological grandson, Shiva. Saleem, it turns out is the
i l l e g i t i m a t e o f f s p r i n g of Vanita, the w i f e of a poor, Hindu
accordionist, a n d Methwold, a colonial Britisher who leaves
Ind i a at the e n d of the Raj . A s S a l e e m n a r r a t e s his history,
w e o b s e r v e the lives of three g e n e r a t i o n s , ending with Saleem
at thirty-one, working in Mary Pereira's pickle factory.
While at the factory, Saleem writes out his life story and
r e a d s it o u t l o u d to his f r i e n d a n d co-worker, Padma, who is
illiterate. Thus the s t o r y w e r e c e i v e is o s t e n s i b l y the o n e
S a l e e m has b e e n r e c a l l i n g a n d r e -telling.
The act of recalling, it b e c o m e s c l e a r e a r l y on, is n o t
an exact science, rat h e r it is only through distorted
fragments that one remembers and then re-creates the past.
Saleem compares memory (or the act of remembering) to
pickling, w h i c h a c c o r d i n g to h i m is a n "impure" act of l o v e
(549) . P i c k l i n g m ak e s things n e w a g a i n a n d this is e x t r e m e l y
i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e one dies w i t h o u t n e w n e s s . Th e i m p l i c a t i o n
h e r e is that we a r e alive b e c a u s e of o u r c o n s t a n t acts of r e
i n v e n t i n g / r e - c r e a t i n g the w o r l d ("reality") as we r e m e m b e r it
a n d as we e x p e r i e n c e it. A n d t h a t this act of r e - i n v e n t i n g o r
representation is an "impure" act, tha t is, as history is
" c h u t n i f i e d " , th e r e are i n e v i t a b l e d i s t o r t i o n s that a r i s e in
48
the process. "To pickle is to give immortality . . . a
c e r t a i n a l t e r ati o n , a s light i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of t a s t e . . ."
(549) . "The art is to c h a n g e the f l a v o u r in degree, b u t not
in kind; a n d a b o v e all . . . to g i v e it shape a n d f o r m - - t h a t
is to say, me a n i n g " (550). Rushdie celebrates this "impure"
act of recalling and retelling history and Saleem tells us
e a r l y i n t h e t e x t that he w i l l p r o v i d e us w i t h t h e "unhalal",
the bloody version of his family's history (64) . In this
chapter, I s ha l l discuss the manner in which M i d n i g h t 's
C h i l d r e n p r e s e n t s us w i t h a h y b r i d v e r s i o n of h i s t o r y i n wh i c h
it is c l e a r l y i m p o s s i b l e to l a b e l "totality" s i n c e h i s t o r y can
o n l y be a c c e s s e d imperfectly, t h r o u g h a n u n r e l i a b l e me m o r y , in
b its a n d p i e ces, in fragments, in versions. I s h a l l g o o n to
s tate t h a t S a l e e m Sin a i ' s i n a b i l i t y to survive is t i e d to his
i n s e p a r a b l e a n d e x c l u s i v e c o n n e c t i o n to the past, a n d c o n c l u d e
b y p r e s e n t i n g D u r g a a n d A a d a m S i n a i as sites of " n e w n e s s " and
h ope in t h i s t e x t .
In o r d e r to f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e R u s h d i e ' s c o n c e p t o f h o w we
a ccess "history" it is useful to turn to Roland Barthes'
Mythologies. In the c h a p t e r entitled, "Myth Today, " B a r t h e s
states that "...myth is constituted by the loss of the
h i s t o r i c a l q u a l i t y of things: in it, things lose t h e m e m o r y
that they once were made." Reality is turned inside out,
e m p t i e d o f history, a n d f i l l e d w i t h "nature" (142) . In myth,
49
we get "essences" and th i n g s appear to mean something by
themselves. Myth deprives t he o bject of w h i c h it speaks of
all History. In myth, a l l h i s t o r y e v a p o r a t e s a n d all y o u e n d
up w i t h is a "beau t i f u l object" a n d y o u n e v e r w o n d e r where it
comes from (151) . B arthes' s o l u t i o n to this p r o b l e m is to
take on the role of "my t h o l o g i s t " a n d to p r o d u c e a counter,
"artificial myth" (135) . "The p o w e r of the second myth is
t h a t it g i v e s the first its b a s i s as a n a i v e t y w h i c h is looked
at" (136). I take this to m e a n that since t h e s e c o n d m y t h is
a c o n s c i o u s construction, it p o s s e s s e s the p o t e n t i a l to expose
the " n aturalize d " myth which precedes it. Even so, the
m y t h o l o g i s t , a c c o r d i n g to Barthes, is f o r b i d d e n f r o m i m a g i n i n g
what the world w ill concretely be like when the immediate
object of his criticism has disappeared. "Utopia is an
i m p o s s i b l e l u x u r y for him: he g r e a t l y d o u b t s that tomorrow's
truths will be the exact reverse of today's lies. History
never ensures the t r i u m p h p u r e a n d s i m p l e o f something over
its o p p o s i t e . . . ." T h e m ythologist, then, h a s a s ubjective
grasp of h i s t o r y in w h i c h the potent seed of the future is
n o t h i n g b u t the m o s t p r o f o u n d a p o c a l y p s e of t h e p r e s e n t (157) .
R u s h d i e 's treatment of history in M i d n i g h t ' s Chil d r e n
p l u g s i n t o Barthes' n o t i o n of the m a n n e r in w h i c h w e gen e r a t e
myths. In R u s h d i e ' s text, S a l e e m ' s v e r s i o n o f the h i s t o r y of
the s u b - c o n t i n e n t is a "myth" (in the B a r t h i a n sense) just as
50
al l the o t h e r v e r s i o n s presented b y characters such as the
Widow, o r A a d a m Aziz, o r Tai, o r the P a k i s t a n i politicians.
In S a l eem's case, ironically, it is t he l a p i s - i n l a i d s p i t t o o n
(his p a s t ) h i t t i n g h i m in the h e a d w h i c h ca u s e s h i m to b e c o m e
"emptied of histo r y . " This erasure of his p ast is an
extremely negative moment in the text because it leads to
"submission," d o i n g o n l y what is "required," and ultimately
b e c o m i n g a c i t i z e n of P a k i s t a n (419). It is o n l y a f t e r S a l e e m
is p l u n g e d "memoryless" into an a d u l t h o o d (414) that he dons
the m y t h of P a k i s t a n a n d becomes a t r a c k e r f o r the army. It
becomes clear that Pakistan, along w i t h the Wid o w ' s India,
business, and religion are all "naturalized" myths, w h i c h h a v e
b ee n created b y c a n c e l i n g out history. A s a result, ". . .
t r u t h is what it is i n s t r u c t e d to be, r e a l i t y q u i t e l i t e r a l l y
ceases to exist, s o that everything becomes possible ex c e p t
what we are t ol d is the case . . ." (3 89) . Politicians,
r e l i g i o u s leaders, businessmen, a n d all o t h e r u n s e l f c o n s c i o u s
myth-makers exist in essentialized spaces which foreground
their narrow philosophies at the e x p e n s e of a m u l t i - f a c e t e d
"history." In other words, reality or history is
multivarious, an d it is only by erasing it that o n e can
achieve singularity. B e c a u s e h i s t o r y is h o w life (reality)
happened. A n d life is n o t singular. T h e "naive" m y t h - m a k e r s
in M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n . however, attempt to organize it by
51
imposing Meaning on it. The obv i o u s problem with this
e x e r c i s e is that a lot gets left out. Saleem attempts various
Meanings (myths) in this text: patriotism/nationalism/Jamila
Singer; bringing meaning to history (reality) by making
himself its protagonist and center; the p o l y v o c a l midnight
dialogue regarding meaning, form, ideas. In the end, he
r e a l i z e s that l u s t i n g a f t e r M e a n i n g is as b a d as l o s i n g o n e ' s
m e m o r y a n d that the o n l y w a y o u t o f this q u a n d a r y is to i n v e n t
a new, alternative myth. But like Barthes' mythologists,
R u s h d i e recogn i z e s the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of Utopia, a n d h e n c e we
get hi s annihilating whirlpool "conclusion." But the
p o s s i b i l i t y of a n e w c o u n t e r - m y t h is f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n the
i n t r o d u c t i o n of charac t e r s s u c h as D u r g a a n d Aadam. A n d like
the other myth-makers in this text, they too seem to be
"e m p t i e d of history" at the s a m e time that t h e y a re h a n d c u f f e d
to it. As I read this, Rushdie's point seems to be that
a l t h o u g h we are all c h a i n e d to r e ality/history, we are also
all m y t h - m a k e r s b e c a u s e i n t e r p r e t i n g o u r h i s t o r y is t h e o n l y
way we have of accessing it. And the moment we begin to
interpret, w e b e g i n to o f f e r up o u r v e r s i o n of reality. Thus,
the n e w space w h i c h D u r g a a n d A a d a m r e p r e s e n t is a l s o a myth,
al b e i t a n e w one of h y b r i d i t y w h i c h m a y serve the f u n c t i o n of
demystifying earlier m y t h s .
As s t a t e d earlier, a g r e a t d e a l is m a d e of the m a n n e r in
I
52
which memory is u s e d to a c c e s s history/reality. Memory, in
this novel, is fragmented. A n d fragmentation, in general, is
celebrated. F o r example, th e m a n n e r in w h i c h A a d a m A z i z falls
in l o v e , b i t b y b i t , w i t h N a s e e m t h r o u g h the p e r f o r a t e d s h e e t .
O n c e t h e s h e e t is removed, however, a n d "the w h o l e " N a s e e m is
available, their relationship declines. The message here
seems to be tha t it is n o t possible to love "the whole" or
know "the w h o l e " -- o n l y f r a g m e n t s of the who l e. T h i s sto r y
is r e p e a t e d w h e n A m i n a f o c u s e s o n p a r t s of A h m e d ' s b o d y a n d
tries to fall in love w i t h him. She, too, is successful in
l o v i n g o n l y p a r t s of his body. L i f a f a Das' a t t e m p t to encl o s e
the w h o l e o f Ind i a into his p e e p s h o w is a n o t h e r e x a m p l e of
R u s h d i e ' s t a k e o n "knowing" reality: it is i m p o s s i b l e to k n o w
anything in its entirety. The best on e can do is access
reality in p i e c e s .
Memory, too, is a v a i l a b l e o n l y in d i s t o r t e d f r a g m e n t s a nd
as Saleem reconstructs his family/subcontinent history we
r e a l i z e t h a t m a n y of his "facts" a re f l a w e d o r incor r e c t . As
Rushdie himself points out in Imaginary Homelands. Lata
Mangeshkar could not have been heard singing on All-India
R a d i o as e a r l y as 1946, it w a s J a g j i t S i n g h A r o r a r a t h e r than
G e n e r a l S a m M a n e k s h a w wh o a c c e p t e d T i g e r N i a z i ' s d e f e a t at the
e n d of t h e B a n g l a d e s h War, concrete tetrapods have n e v e r been
used in B o m b a y as part of any land reclamation scheme, but
53
o n l y to shore up and protect the sea w a l l along the Marine
Drive promenade, a n d it w a s f i f t y In d i a n t r o o p s r a ther than
fifty white troops who entered Jallianwala Bagh and fired upon
the crowds at t h e d i r e c t i o n of Dyer. B u t as S a l e e m r e m i n d s
us, what he is presenting us w i t h is "memory's truth" and
t h e r e f o r e his v e r s i o n of w h a t happened. A n d he goes on to
add, o n l y a m a d m a n w o u l d p r e f e r som e o n e e l s e ' s v e r s i o n t o his
own (MC 253) a n d that m e m o r y creates its o w n reality. Saleem,
it is o b v i o u s f r o m t h e start, is a n " u n r e l i a b l e n a r r a t o r , " but
unlike conventional unreliable narrators, he is "neither
particularly stupid, nor particularly unaware of what's
h appening" (IH 23) . Rushdie's point in creating a flawed
narrative via an unreliable Saleem is to highlight that
"H i s t o r y is a l w a y s ambiguous• Facts a r e h a r d to e s t a b l i s h ,
a n d c a p a b l e o f b e i n g g i v e n m a n y m eanings" (IH 25) . Thus it
t urns out that r e a l i t y is a q u e s t i o n of p e r s p e c t i v e (MC 197) .
In d i s c u s s i n g h o w w e access history, S a l e e m states, "The
f u r t h e r y o u g e t f r o m the past, the m o r e c o n c r e t e a n d p l a u s i b l e
it s e e m s but as y o u a p p r o a c h the p resent, it i n e v i t a b l y
seems m ore a n d m o r e i n c r e dible." Ultimately, it b e c o m e s c l e a r
that "the i l l u s i o n i t s e l f is. reality" (197) . Saleem's uncle
w h o w orks in a w o r l d of illusions, H a n i f Aziz, t ries t o sell
m o v i e s that ar e m o r e "realistic" t han the fantastic, s o n g and
dance films t h a t a r e c h u r n e d out b y India's commercial film
54
industry (292) . But no one is i n t e r e s t e d in his w o r k b e c a u s e
it d oes n o t p o s s e s s enough of a n i l l u s o r y quality. As Keith
W i l s o n n o t e s in a n article entitled, "M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r p n and
R e a d e r R e s p o n s i b i l i t y , " this n o v e l is
centrally concerned with the imperfection of any
narrative act, the compromises which govern the
r e l a t i o n s h i p of a w r i t e r w i t h a re a d e r w h o is h u n g r y
f o r linearity, a n d t he i m p o s s i b i l i t y of r e n d e r i n g a
reality--however much concerned with public history-
-that is not petrified into false and subjective
form at the point at which an artist attempts to
r e n d e r it. It is a n o v e l that d e l i b e r a t e l y i nvites
a q u e s t i o n i n g of the c r e d e n t i a l s of the n o v e l i s t and
of the illusory sur f a c e objectivity of the novel
form. Indeed, it uses t h a t o t h e r most b e g u i l i n g l y
q u a s i - o b j e c t i v e art form, the cinema, as a r u n n i n g
m e t a p h o r for the d e c e i v i n g c l a r i t i e s of r e a l i s t a r t .
(30)
Thus, Hanif's "realistic," linear documentaries are
"unr e a l i s a b l e " b e c a u s e he is the t y p e o f artist w h o b e l i e v e s
he can attempt "full and independent mastery over his
materials" (Wilson 25). As W i l s o n notes,
H a n i f ' s m a i n a mbition is to m a k e a film a b o u t 'the
O r d i n a r y Life of a P i c k l e F a c t o r y ' , w h i c h p r e s a g e s
55
the p i c k l e factory, b o t h l i t e r a l a n d metaphorical,
that S a l e e m e v e n t u a l l y w o r k s u p as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of
his s u c c e s s f u l c o m p r o m i s e w i t h a r t a n d life. (25)
Hanif, however, refuses to compr o m i s e h i s objective realist
vision, and since he pu r s u e s "comprehensiveness, pure
sequence, an d m a n i p u l a t i v e control" (Wilson 26), his a t t e m p t
at art is a failure. The public, it appears, is more
interested in fiction, rather than in "reality." And as
S a l e e m states earlier, t h e r e comes a p o i n t w h e n the i l l u s i o n
it s e l f becomes r eality. The re-telling of history, or the
past, fiction a l i z e s it and it therefore becomes easier to
b e l i e v e in its "reality. "
Combining "fiction" with "facts" is another strategy
R u s h d i e uses to e m p h a s i z e the a m b i g u o u s n a t u r e of " h i s t o r y . "
History, it turns out, dep e n d s a g reat d e a l o n w h o r e m e m b e r s
it, how it is re-told, and upon the teller's
p o l i t i c a l / p e r s o n a l s t a k e in it. S a l e e m h a s a v e s t e d inte r e s t
i n the events he n a r r a t e s a n d he uses t h e p a s t for his own,
p e r s o n a l ends: he c uts up and r e-tells h i s t o r y in a m a n n e r
t h a t allows h i m to b e its central p r o t a g o n i s t . Since he fears
a b s u r d i t y the most (4) , he re-orga n i z e s h i s t o r y a r o u n d h i m s e l f
a n d his family, a n d t h e r e b y imposes M e a n i n g o n t o ambiguity.
F r o m the beginning, it is obvious that S a l e e m has not b e e n a n
e y e - w i t n e s s to all o f the h i s t o r y he narrates, a n d that he is
56
w i l l i n g to p r o v i d e us with, his o w n i m a g i n e d v e r s i o n of w h a t
m u s t have o c c u r r e d : "Most of w h a t m a t t e r s in o u r lives takes
p l a c e in o u r a b s e n c e " (14) , he tells u s s e v e r a l times in th e
text. But this is no t a problem for Saleem because he h a s
found "the trick of filling in the gaps" of his knowledge
(15) . This s y s t e m of m a k i n g it u p as he goes is o b v i o u s l y
flawed, but even when he acknowledges errors like the
assassination date of Mahatma Gandhi, he goes on to ask:
"Does one error invalidate the entire fabr i c ? " (198) . The
a n s w e r to this q uestion, from S a l e e m ' s p e r s p e ct i v e , is "no."
The fact t h a t S a l e e m ' s n a r r a t i o n is n o t "pure" history,
"pure" facts, p o i n t s out the d i f f i c u l t y i n v o l v e d i n l a b e l i n g
"history" as " factual" to begin with. History, Rushdie
demonstrates, is a l w a y s a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h d e p e n d s o n t h e
s u b j e c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e of the i n t e r p r e t e r . Thus, the "fact"
is that B r i g a d i e r D y e r o r d e r e d his troops to o p e n fire o n a
p o l i t i c a l d e m o n s t r a t i o n in J a l l i a n w a l a B a g h a n d t h o u s a n d s of
Indians we r e k i l l e d . The colon i z e r s v i e w e d this as p u t t i n g
order to chaos; the colonized viewed it as a cold-blooded
m a s s a c r e of i n n o c e n t victims. As A a d a m A z i z w i t n e s s e s w h a t h e
cons i d e r s to b e th e u n p r o v o k e d k i l l i n g o f "one t h o u s a n d a n d
five hundred a n d sixteen" individuals, Dyer tells his men:
"We have d o n e a j o l l y g o o d thing" (35) . Later, in 1947, t he
"fictional" b o a t m a n Tai, infuriated b y India and Pakistan's
57
s t r u g g l e o v e r h i s Valley, Kashmir, w a l k s to C h h a m b " w i t h the
express purpose of s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n t h e o p p o s i n g f o r c e s and
g i v i n g t h e m a p i e c e of his mind. K a s h m i r i for the K a s h m i r i s :
that w a s his line" (3 6). Tai, of course, is shot to death.
T h e n a r r a t o r t e l l s us that the e v e n t o f his d e a t h is o p e n to
varying interpretations: "Os k a r hubin would probably have
approved of his r hetorical gesture; R. E. Dyer might have
c o m m e n d e d h i s murderers' rif l e skills" (36).
In t h i s text, Tai's "naturalized" m y t h r e g a r d i n g t h e n e e d
to k e e p K a s h m i r "pure" of a n y f o r e i g n i n f l u e n c e s (British or
Indian) ties into an ove r a l l notion of identity politics
according to which India should be further partitioned by
e t h n i c i t y as it is d e f i n e d b y language. T h e n a r r a t o r t e l l s us
that i n 1956, Mr. N e h r u implemented a States Reorganization
Committee recommendation by dividing India into fourteen
states and six centrally-administered territories.
B u t t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e s e s t a t e s w e r e no t f o r m e d
b y rivers, or mountains . . . t h e y were, instead,
walls of w o r d s . Language divided u s : Kerala fo r
s p e a k e r s of M a l a y a l a m . . . , in Karnataka y o u were
s u p p o s e d to spe a k K ana r e s e ; a n d t h e a m p u t a t e d s t a t e
of M a d r a s - - k n o w n t o d a y as T a m i l N a d u - - e n c l o s e d the
a f i c i o n a d o s of Tamil. (225)
The narrator implies that this sense of separatism is a
58
continuation and expansion of the earlier, larger sense of
d i v i s i o n w h i c h led to s p l i t t i n g Ind i a into two c o u n t r i e s : one
for the Hindus, and the other for the Muslims. Clearly,
Saleem's interpretation of th e Parti t i o n is extremely
negative, a n d he never f o r g i v e s h i s family for m i g r a t i n g f r o m
what he views as the colorful, teeming city of his birth,
Bombay, to the sterile, insipid c i t y of Karachi. Saleem,
after all, rea d s Bombay as a hybrid space, and because he
r ea d s Pakistan simply as "the land of the Pure, " he is
o f f e n d e d b y its lack of h e t e r o g e n e i t y . In this text, P a k i s t a n
represents a closed, "pure, " and repressed space tha t is
s h a r p l y c r i t i q u e d and in fact otherized. E v e r y t h i n g t h a t the
d r i e d u p a n d colorless c i t y o f K a r a c h i is, B o m b a y is not:
Saleem's parents said, 'We must all become new
people' ; in th e l a n d of the pure, p u r i t y b e c a m e o u r
ideal. But Saleem wa s forever tainted with
Bombayness, his head was full of all sorts of
reli g i o n s apart from Allah's (like India's fir s t
Muslims, the m e r c a n t i l e Moplas of Malabar, I had
l i v e d in a c o u n t r y w h o s e p o p u l a t i o n of d e i t i e s
rivalled the numbers of people, so that, in
u n c o n s c i o u s revolt a g a i n s t the c l a u s t r o p h o b i c t h r o n g
of deities, my family had espou s e d the ethics of
business, not faith) ; a n d his b o d y was to show a
59
m a r k e d p r e f e r e n c e for the impure. (371)
As I read this, Rushdie's implication is t h a t a t t e m p t i n g to
"purify" anything, countries, religions, langu a g e s , peoples,
is a n act of i d e n t i t y p o l i t i c s w h i c h o n l y l e a d s to separatism,
a n d eventually, c o m m u n a l violence.
Yet, S a l e e m h i m s e l f is a v i c t i m of a v e r s i o n of i d e n t i t y
politics: he has c o n s t r u c t e d his i d e n t i t y a r o u n d a c h i l d h o o d
v e r s i o n of "Bombay" w h i c h preve n t s hi m (as it doe s Saladin
Chamcha) from making an adult acquaintance with t he city.
When he r e turns to Bombay with his so n Aad a m , he cheers,
"Back-to-Bom!" on the bus, but he finds that the c i t y has
altered greatly over th e years: Bellasis Road, t he Tardeo
roundabout, the cardboard effigies of wrestlers above the
entr a n c e s to Vallabhbhai Patel Stadium, Mahalaxmi temple,
Warden Road, and B r each C a n d y Swimming B a t h s ar e a ll still
there, but the n a m e s o f the shops have changed:
Where was Reader's Paradise with its stacks of
Superman comics? Where, the B a n d B o x L a u n d r y and
Bombelli's, w i t h t h e i r One Y a r d of C h o c o l a t e s ? And,
m y God, look, a t o p a two-story h i l l o c k w h e r e once
the p a l a c e s of W i l l i a m M e t h w o l d s t o o d w r e a t h e d in
b o u g a i n v i l l a e a a n d stared p r o u d l y o u t to s e a . . .
look at it, a g r e a t pi n k m o n s t e r o f a building, the
r o seat e s k y s c r a p e r obe l i s k of the N a r l i k a r women,
60
standing over and obliterating the circusring of
childh o o d . . . . (539)
"' . . . the c i t y h a s b e e n changed' ", S a l e e m tells P i c t u r e j i
(540). U l t i mat e l y , it is Saleem's i n a b i l i t y to i n c o r p o r a t e
the present, th e contemporary version of " B o m b a y ” into his
e a r l i e r c h i l d h o o d v e r s i o n that p r e v e n t s h i m from getting on
with his life. Earlier, Durga tells him that he will die
u n l e s s he is a b l e to b e c o m e i n t e r e s t e d i n n e w things, ideas,
people. But Saleem cannot co-mingle the present pink
skyscraper with his memo r i e s of the past, and therefore he
can n o t survive. H e r e m a i n s a v i c t i m t o h i s m y t h of the past,
just as later, G i b r e e l remains a v i c t i m to h i s m y t h of purity.
S a l e e m l i t e r a l l y d e v e l o p s fissures in h i s b o d y w h i c h c r a c k h i m
apart, u ntil he explodes like "the bomb in Bombay" (552) .
Earlier, his m a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r A a d a m A z i z s u f f e r e d f r o m a
s i m i l a r condition, e x c e p t his " c r a c k i n g ap a r t " b e g a n w i t h h i s
i n a b i l i t y to b e l i e v e in God. During the forty-day mourning
p e r i o d for his son, Hanif, Aadam Aziz's
sk i n h a d b e g u n to split a n d f l a k e a n d peel . . . .
But a c r a c k - d e a t h c a n be slow, a n d it was a l o n g
time b e f o r e w e k n e w a b o u t the o t h e r cracks, about
the disease which was nibbling at his bones, so
that f i n a l l y h is skel e t o n d i s i n t e g r a t e d into p o w d e r
ins i d e t h e w e a t h e r b e a t e n s a c k of h i s skin. (330)
61
S a l e e m ' s c o n d i t i o n is b r o u g h t on b y the fact t h a t he is
s u f f u s e d w i t h "too m u c h h i s t o r y , " that is, he is b a t t e r e d an d
b u f f e t e d b y a p a s t to the e x c l u s i o n of the c o n t e m p o r a r y m o m e n t
which represents newness, and therefore in the Rushdie
lex i c o n , hope. Although Saleem recognizes his disease for
what it is, he is too t i r e d to take any imaginative action
against it and ultimately allows himself to succumb to it.
Later, in SV, Chamcha undergoes a similar identity crisis
(except h i s p r o b l e m is the r e v e r s e : he c a n n o t c o m e t o ter m s
with his past a n d exi s t s o n l y i n the present) , a n d h i s skin
c r a c k s as well; however, u n l i k e Saleem, he is ab l e to c o n t i n u e
the process of transformation and eme r g e as a re-invented
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a b l e of i n c o r p o r a t i n g the p a s t int o t h e p r e s e n t .
F o r S a leem, w h a t b e g i n s as a n i n i t i a t i o n ri t e i n t o a d u l t h o o d
i n t h e Sundarba n s , remains a n unfinished gesture e v e n though
he recognizes the importance of the past by regaining his
m e m o r y a n d re c l a i m s his " . . . lost histories, all t h e m y r i a d
complex processes that go to make a man" (436-37) . Even
though he recognizes tha t he and his companions become
transparent in the r a i n f o r e s t b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e b e e n t r i c k e d
by the jungle into "using u p t h e i r dreams" (43 9) , a n d that
what has been drained out of him during his involuntary
v a s e c t o m y b y the W i d o w is "hope, " a n d e v e n t h o u g h h e is "born
again" in the g h e t t o of the m a g i c i a n s (462) b e c a u s e h e f i n a l l y
62
re-retnembers his past and disc o v e r s anger (456) , since he
c a n n o t deal w i t h "newness, " he e v e n t u a l l y l o s e s his e n e r g y for
life, be c o m e s "disconnected, unplugged, with only epitaphs
left to write" (546).
But b e f o r e h e c o m e s to his f r a g m e n t e d end, R u s h d i e has
Saleem re-tell his story, and through memory, recreate a
v e r s i o n of h i s t o r y th a t p r i v i l e g e s c o m p l e x i t y a n d ambiguity.
The techniques Rushdie uses (giving us " e r r o n e o us " histo r i c a l
information, telling the sto r y in f ragments, exposing the
process of remembering and re-telling) result in expo s i n g
"history" as a hybrid construct. An important part of
S a l e e m ' s h i s t o r y h a s to do w i t h the c o n s t r u c t of th e Midnight
Children's Club (MCC) which he organizes and attempts to
"lead." T h e M C C is c o m p r i s e d of "monsters" a n d evil-doers, as
well as g i f t e d and t a l e n t e d children. " My v o i c e s , " Sal e e m
t e l l s us, "far f r o m b e i n g sacred, t u r n e d o u t to b e as profane,
a n d as m u l t i t u d i n o u s as dust" (200) . T he "voices" that S a l e e m
originally interprets as "angelic" turn out to be "impure."
A little later, thi s "impurity" is l i n k e d t o th e i d e a of "the
third principle," a spa c e that Saleem briefly attem p t s to
p o s i t as a n i m a g i n e d a l t e r n a t i v e to h is rival, Shiva's binary
perspective on life. When Saleem realizes tha t parental
infl u e n c e is b i a s i n g m i d n i g h t ' s children, h e pleads:
"Don't let this happen! D o not p e r m i t the endless
63
d u a l i t y of m a s s e s - a n d - c l a s s e s , c a p i t a l - a n d - l a b o u r ,
them-and-us to co m e b e t w e e n us! We ... m u s t be a
t h i r d principle, we m u s t b e the force w h i c h d r i v e s
b e t w e e n the horns of t h e dilemma; for o n l y b y b e i n g
other, b y b e i n g new, c a n w e fulfil the p r o m i s e of
o u r birth! (3 0 6)
Shiva, o n t h e o t h e r hand, b e l i e v e s o n l y i n b i n a r i e s a n d c l a i m s
t h e r e is no t h i r d principle: "No, lit t l e r i c h boy; t h e r e is
no t h i r d p rincip l e , there is o n l y m o n e y - a n d - p o v e r t y , a n d hav e -
and-lack, a n d right-and-left; there is o n l y m e - a g a i n s t - t h e -
world!" (307). Ultimately, Saleem is unable to "fight"
Sh i v a ' s p e r s p ect i v e , an d as the n o v e l progresses, his a b i l i t y
to e n g a g e w i t h a "new" space, th e t h i r d principle, d i m i n i s h e s ,
until, in t h e end, he rejects t h e p r e s e n t (and the future) for
his v e r s i o n o f the p a s t . However, R u s h d i e makes it c l e a r that
in spite of the fact that Saleem cannot inha b i t this
alternative spa c e of hybridity, his i d e n t i t y is in fact an
"i m p u r e " c o n s t r u c t .
As S a l e e m re-t e l l s h o w he d i s c o v e r e d his "true identity, "
it b e c o m e s c l e a r that he is a m u l t i t u d i n o u s character. His
p a r e n t a g e i n c l u d e s not o n l y V a n i t a a n d Methwold, but A m i n a a n d
A h m e d as w e l l . S c h a a p s t e k e r als o b e c o m e s a l i f e - g i v e r w h e n he
saves S a l e e m f r o m d y i n g of typhoid. Later, Picture S i n g h g i v e s
him a new l e as e on life by hiding him from the Indian
G4
authorities. Thus, from the very beginning of his life,
Saleem is a mixture of colors, races, religions, and value
systems. H e is a f f e c t e d b y e v e r y o n e a r o u n d h i m a n d u l t i m a t e l y
is the sum tot a l of his experiences. He tells Padma, his
f r i e n d a n d c o - w o r k e r in the p i c k l e factory, "things even
people h a v e a w a y o f l e a k i n g into e a c h o t h e r . . . like
f l a v o u r s w h e n y o u c o o k . . . the p a s t has d r i p p e d i n t o m e ...
so w e c a n ' t ign o r e it" (38) . In a n a r t i c l e entitled, "Leading
H i s t o r y b y the Nose: T h e T u r n to the E i g h t e e n t h C e n t u r y in
M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n . " C l e m e n t H a w e s discusses the m a n n e r in
w h i c h M C d e c o n s t r u c t s the m o d e r n n o t i o n of "origins." Hawes
sta t e s t hat R u s h d i e ' s m e t h o d of " de-totalizing" h i s t o r y m o v e s
b e y o n d w h a t L i n d a H u t c h e o n h a s c a t e g o r i z e d as "Eas t e r n " v e r s u s
"Western" modes of tho u g h t in her discussion of MC in The
Politics of Postmodernism. A c c o r d i n g to Hawes, MC " enacts a
c u l t u r a l p o l i t i c s that e x p l o r e s the r e t r o s p e c t i v e f a b r i c a t i o n
of origins. This involves, above all, the u n m a s k i n g o f the
trope of metale p s i s , by which effects are retrospectively
c o n s t i t u t e d as or i g i n s a n d c auses" (148). H a w e s s t a t e s that
Rushdie reappropriates his European past for t he emerging
political and cultural project of p o s t c o l o n i a l i t y (148) and
demystifies retrospectively constructed origins. "Ori g i n s " in
Saleem's life are the secondary effects, rather than the
causes of his history (152) . "An ancestor, for S a l e e m , is
65
something one openly chooses; a usable past, necessarily
selective and arbitrary, is something one self-consciously
invents” (153).
S a l e e m ' s i d e n t i t y is i n fact r e v e a l e d to b e a c o n s t r u c t
c o m p o s e d o f a h o t c h - p o t c h o f social, p o l i t i c a l , and personal
in f l u ences. In "Alpha a n d O m e g a ” his b i o l o g i c a l i d e n t i t y is
put in question by his blood type, but blood is only o ne
e l e m e n t o f his o v e r a l l i dentity, a n d in the f i n a l analysis, it
is d e e m e d o f n o i m p o r t a n c e b y h i s f a m i l y w h o c o n t i n u e to love
him in spite of Mary's revelation that he was switched at
birth. T h e narrator, in a n a t t e m p t to w a r n t he y o u n g S a l e e m
of w h a t is to come, states:
... a h u m a n being, i n s i d e himself, is a n y t h i n g but
a whole, anything but homogeneous; all kinds of
e v e r y w h i c h t h i n g a r e j u m b l e d up i n s i d e him, a n d he is
o n e p e r s o n one m i n u t e a n d a n o t h e r t h e next. (283)
Identity, in o t h e r words, is a fluid, shifting construction,
r a t h e r t h a n a r i g i d entity, a n d it is m a d e u p of f r a g m e n t s of
history. Later, in SV, Gibreel Farishta wrestles with the
n o t i o n tha t his i d e n t i t y m a y b e a m i x t u r e o f g o o d a n d evil,
God and th e devil, but in the end, he believes he is a
h o m o g e n e o u s being, a p u r e a n g e l , a n d remains a n 11u n t r a n s l a t e d ”
man. Saleem, o n the o t h e r hand, u n d e r s t a n d s full w e l l t hat he
is "impure” because he is a conglomeration of experiences,
66
ideas, philosophies, and individuals. He b e g i n s his li f e in
search of Pure Meaning. In fact, th e nov e l opens with an
a d m i s s i o n that above al l things, h e fears a b s u r d i t y th e most
(4) . By the time he reaches the end of his narrative, he
r e a l i z e s that the o n l y m e a n i n g a v a i l a b l e to h i m is t h a t w h i c h
he superimposes onto "reality" and that this "mea n i n g " or
interpretation of reality is flawed and impure because the
p r o c e s s of r e m e m b e r i n g o r p i c k l i n g is o p e n to d i s t o r t i o n s . In
w r i t i n g d o w n the c h a p t e r s of hi s h i s t o r y he has p r e s e r v e d it,
b u t i n a n imperfect a n d i m p u r e m a n n e r a n d Saleem, w e ar e told,
is n o l o n g e r ob s e s s e d w i t h p u r i t y (549) . But in s p i t e o f his
r e c o g n i t i o n of the fact that he is a c onstruct of history,
Saleem is ultimately unable to go on because he remains a
victim of his pas t a n d is unable to engage with the
c o n t e m p o r a r y moment. ". . . i n hi s mind, the p a s t g r e w d a i l y
more v i v i d whil e the present . . . seemed c o lourless,
confused, a thi n g of no c o n s e q u e n c e " (531) . Thus, b y the en d
of the novel, even though Saleem is able to recognize the
h y b r i d i t y inherent in his i d e n t i t y a n d ther e f o r e i n history,
b e c a u s e h e remains c o m m i t t e d to h i s b o y h o o d m e m o r y o f B o m b a y
(the past) to the e x c l u s i o n of th e c o n t e m p o r a r y m o m e n t , h e is
unable to inhabit the "new, " a l t e r n a t i v e space of
h e t e r o g e n e i t y as r e p r e s e n t e d b y A a d a m a n d Durga. This idea
t h a t t h e r e is grave d a n g e r i n f o r e g r o u n d i n g the past, present,
67
o r fut u r e in a n e x c l u s i o n a r y m a n n e r is m o r e f u l l y d e v e l o p e d in
R u s h d i e ' s n e x t novel, Shame.
A l t h o u g h MC ends b y m i d n i g h t 's c h i l d r e n b e i n g s u c k e d into
the annihilating whirlpool of the m u l t i tudes, what is left
behind is the p rocess of remembering and pickling which is
a l s o the p r o c e s s of life. M i d n i g h t ' s c h i l d r e n disappear, but
the multitudes survive. And the m u l t i tudes, it must be
remembered, include thousands of children fathered by Shiva
who is h i m s e l f a c h i l d o f midnight. At the Widow's Palace,
when Saleem learns that Shiva has undergone a voluntary
vasectomy, he begins to laugh " w holeheartedly, without
stinting" (524) b e c a u s e h e remem b e r s the s t o r i e s t o l d to h i m
by Parv a t i about "the legions of bastards swelling in the
unectomied bellies of great ladies and whores" (525). He
l a u g h s b e c a u s e Shiva, d e s t r o y e r of the m i d n i g h t c h i l d r e n has
also fulfilled the other role l urking in his name, the
f u n c t i o n of Shivalingam, of S h i v a - t h e - p r o c r e a t o r , "so that at
th i s v e r y moment, in the b o u d o i r s a nd ho v e l s of t he nation, a
new generation of children, begotten by midnight's darkest
child, (is) being raised towards the future" (525) . This
"tribe of fearsomely potent kiddies . . . (are) growing
w a i t i n g listening, r e h e a r s i n g the moment w h e n the w o r l d (will)
b e c o m e t h e i r plaything" (535) .
Th e o t h e r i mportant s u r v i v o r is of c o u r s e A a d a m Sinai.
68
A a d a m w h o is b o m into the Emerg e n c y , as S a l e e m was b o m into
Independence, is al s o h a n d c u f f e d to h i s t o r y (500) bu t w e are
t o l d he r e p r e s e n t s the s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n of m a g i c a l c h i l d r e n
who wi l l grow up far tougher than the first a n d i n s t e a d of
looking for their fate in p r o p h e s y o r th e stars, they will
forge it in the implacable furnaces of their wil l s (534) .
W h e r e a s Saleem, in the past, had "s u b j u g a t e d his w i l l t o the
joint t y r a n n i e s of f a m i l y a n d fate", a n d remained "from ayah
to W i d o w . . . th e sort of p e r s o n to w h o m things . . . (are)
done . . . S a l e e m Sinai, p e r e n n i a l v i c t i m ..." (285) , A a d a m
(fights) ferociously, r e f u s i n g to y i e l d e v e n to the c o e r c i o n
of green powder (507) concocted by Parvati to cure his
tuberculosis. A f t e r the g r e e n p o w d e r episode, S a l e e m t e l l s us
that "we realized we we r e in th e presence of one of the
ea r t h ' s m o s t i m p l a c a b l e wills. . . . A f t e r that, n o b o d y e v e r
t r i e d to m a k e A a d a m Sinai do a n y t h i n g h e d i d not w i s h to do"
(505) . A n d it is this will that s h a l l e n a b l e A a d a m to p e r f o r m
miracles w h i c h S a l e e m will not see (547) . Eve n as a baby,
Saleem tells us that Aadam is more cautious tha n he wa s
himself, but that w h e n A a d a m acts, h e w i l l be i m p o s s i b l e to
r e s i s t b e c a u s e he is "stronger, harder, m o r e resolute" than
S a l e e m a n d he d o e s no t s u r r e n d e r to d r e a m s (507).
In o t h e r words, A a d a m does n o t h a v e t h e same p r o b l e m s as
S a l e e m did, a n d as a "synthesis" (507) of S h i v a a n d Saleem, he
69
promises to be a more p r a g m a t i c s p i n n e r of a n e w m y t h . And
new myths are needed in India since th e existing myths of
"freedom", "religion", and "money" h a v e all failed. In th e
last c h a p t e r of his book, S a l e e m once again mentions the need
for a third principle b y st a t i n g that "ne w m y t h s a r e n e e d e d "
(546) . But Sale e m who has been buffeted, battered, and
s u f f u s e d w i t h too m u c h h i s t o r y is n o w e x h a u s t e d a n d r e a d y to
t a k e a b a c k seat to his son: h e t e l l s us that at t h i s stage,
n ew myths a r e none of his b u s i n e s s (546) . It b e c o m e s clear
that it is this i n a b i l i t y to eng a g e w i t h newness w h i c h will
lead to his dispersal in t o specks of voiceless dust (552) .
Durga, w h o is on e of A a d a m ' s m o t h e r s t e l l s h i m th a t "'when a
m a n loses i ntere s t in n e w m a t t e r s , h e is o p e n i n g t h e d o o r f o r
the B l a c k A n g e l ' " (533). D u r g a r e p r e s e n t s newness, a n d u n l i k e
Saleem, she is not b e s i e g e d b y h i s t o r y . She is a p o s i t i v e ,
l i f e - g i v i n g forc e in that sh e e m b o d i e s b o u n d l e s s e n e r g y , she
c u r e s A a d a m of tuberculosis, and nurses him with an unending
s u p p l y o f milk. In fact, s he is so fertile, she is r u m o r e d as
hav i n g two w o m b s . D u r g a a w a s h e r w o m a n w h o bea t s c l o t h e s into
c l e a n l i n e s s a n d t h e r e b y t h r a s h e s p o w e r o u t of the w e l l - t o - d o
(535) , is the oppo s i t e of Sale e m , w h o it s h o u l d b e r e c a l l e d ,
used the dirty laundry hamper as h is refuge from the
d i f f i c u l t i e s of his c h i l d h o o d w o r l d . It is b e c a u s e D u r g a h as
n o o s t e n s i b l e ties to the p a s t t h a t s h e m a k e s S a l e e m e x t r e m e l y
70
nervous. He c a l l s her a "monster" and a "succubus" because
she forgets e a c h d a y the moment it e n d s . H e r nam e has th e
smell of n e w things; she represents "novelty, beginnings, t he
a d v e n t of n e w s t o r i e s e v e n t s c o m p l e x i t i e s " (532), b u t S a l e e m
is no l o n g e r i n t e r e s t e d in anyt h i n g new. U l timately, the o n l y
thing he finds i n t e r e s t i n g about D u r g a ' s p e r s o n a l i t y is the
fact that she reminds him of Reverend Mother in h e r later
years, that is, h i s past. But Durga, it appears, is b e v o n d
the past, on the other side of repression, violence, and
nostalgia. Her "newness" is a n a l t e r n a t i v e to Saleem's, by
now, d e a d l y c o n n e c t i o n to the past, b u t he is s i m p l y i n c a p a b l e
of t a k i n g her on.
Clearly, D u r g a a n d A a d a m b e l o n g to a n o t h e r space. This
"new" space is on e which foregrounds novelty, chance, and
h ybridity. Aadam's first word is "a b r a c a d a b r a . " It is
relevant that this is a n o n -Indian w o r d which conn o t e s the
Basilidan gnostics whose philosophy combined greek and
oriental ideas. The t r a c e of this e a s t w e s t fusion hearkens
b a c k to Saleem's (and Aadam's) e a s t w e s t i dentity. Both Saleem
a n d A a d a m are a c o n g l o m e r a t i o n of th e h i s t o r y of the Indian
sub-continent which incl u d e s the Hindus, the Arabs, the
colonials, as well as contemporary India. The difference
between Saleem and Aadam is the implication that Aadam is
aware of his hybridity from the very beginning and is not
going to g o after M e a n i n g i n the s ame w a y that Saleem did.
Saleem's en t i r e quest has b e e n t o w a r d M e a n i n g a n d Identity.
He has "cut up" h i s t o r y to s u i t h i s "nefarious" p u r p o s e s . He
ha s l o n g e d for centrality. H e h a s w a n t e d to be a p r o t a g o n i s t
(311) . It is not until m u c h l a t e r in his n a r r a t i v e t h a t he
g i v e s u p o n the idea of a n "I" a n d f u l l y e m b r a c e s t h e n o t i o n
of m a r g i n a l i t y and the fact that he is the s u m t o t a l of his
m u l t i p l e experiences. He a l s o c o m e s to the c o n c l u s i o n that
lusting after meaning is as bad as losing one's memory.
A a d a m ' s first word, o n the o t h e r hand, intimates t h a t he w i l l
no t be plagued by a quest for Meaning because among other
things, "Abracadabra" is any cabalistic word or formula
infused w i t h magic powers; hence, unmeaning lang u a g e . For
Aad a m , there will be no transcendental Meaning, rather, he
will participate in a variety of mea n i n g s and identities.
E a r l i e r c r o s s - cu l t u r a l t e n d e n c i e s w h i c h left a h o l e i n A a d a m
Aziz th e siz e of a m e l o n (18) , a n d t u r n e d the R a n i of C o o c h
N a h e e n white, will not be p r o b l e m a t i c for A a d a m ' s g e n e r a t i o n
be c ause, l ike Durga, t h e y r e p r e s e n t the t h i r d p r i n c i p l e .
In spite of this promise of a new space, however,
R u s h d i e 's c o n c l u d i n g words a r e i n e s c a p a b l e :
it is the privilege and the curse of
midni g h t ' s c h i l d r e n to b e b o t h m a s t e r s a n d v i c t i m s
of their times, to forsake privacy and be sucked
72
into the a n n i h i l a t i n g w h i r l p o o l of t h e multitudes,
an d be u n a b l e to live o r die in p eace. (552)
W h y t h e n does the n o v e l as a w h o l e feel so h o p e f u l ? Partly,
the hope this reader experiences springs from the form the
n o v e l takes. R u s h d i e i n t r o d u c e s m a n y d i f f e r e n t g e n r e s in this
t e x t a n d then, rather systematically, he u n d e r c u t s e a c h one.
B y no t p r i v i l e g i n g a n y o n e g e n r e (tragic/comic/epic/etc.) o v e r
t h e other, he does not a l l o w a n y "pure" s p a c e t o e x i s t in this
novel. E v e r y space is s u s p e c t and every space is therefore
undermined. The result is a fluid, open text that defies
closure. In her b o o k entitled, Cultural I m p e r i a l i s m a n d the
I n d o - E n a l i s h N o v e l . F a w z i a A f z a l - K h a n reads M C as "a m i s h m a s h
of conflicting g enres and modes, a narrative in which the
c o m i c a n d the tragic, the real, the surreal, a n d the mythic
all 'defuse' one another, so no one g e n r e c a n p r e d o m i n a t e a n d
'unify' the others." She calls this defusing of genres "a
strategy of liberation" and quotes from Fredric Jameson's
" M a g i c a l Narratives": "the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n g e n r e s may
itself play a significant and f unctional role within the
i n d i v i d u a l work itself . . . (thus) one m o d e c a n b e u s e d to
d e - f u s e the o ther for an e x p l i c i t l y i d e o l o g i c a l p u r p o s e " (154-
55) . Afzal-Khan states that "just as n o 'wholeness' seems
possible for the characters of fiction, neither does there
s e e m to b e a p o s s i b i l i t y i n the r e a l m of f i c t i o n for a 'whole'
73
construct of narrative realism--one that can 'contain' a
unified 'reality'" (154) . According to Afzal-Khan, in M C ,
e a c h g e n r e d e f u s e s th e other, and
the m y t h i c / r o m a n c e m o d e d e f u s e s o r d e b u n k s itself.
Rushdie's use of myth liberates his people from
W e s t e r n h e g e m o n i c s t r a t e g i e s o f c o n t a i n m e n t at t h e
same time, b y u s i n g the c o m i c / s u r r e a l m o d e to d e f u s e
myth, Rushdie is ab l e to avoid historical
petrification. (159-60)
A d d i n g to this is the m a n n e r in w h i c h we receive this
story: the ch a p t e r s w e r e a d are l i t e r a l l y b e i n g w r i t t e n as w e
read them. In this way, we a re always in the narrator's
pre s e n t . W h e n it com e s t i m e to w r i t e t h e "final" p a g e s o f t h e
"concluding" chapter, w e are g i v e n a s e r i e s o f o p t i o n s w h i c h
t h e n a r r a t o r r e v i e w s as p o s s i b l e endings. "Ho w to end?" a s k s
Saleem: happily, in m e l a n c h o l y , w i t h t h e m a g i c children, w i t h
t h e d i s i n t e g r a t i n g e f f e c t s of drainage, o r w i t h questions, or
with dreams (550)? R u s h d i e draws a t t e n t i o n to the fact t h a t
"endings" are c o n t r i v e d a n d that t r a d i t i o n a l n o v e l s n a t u r a l i z e
e n d i n g s w h i c h ar e in f a c t c o n s c i o u s c h o i c e s m a d e m y the a u t h o r
of the text. In this novel, writing the future becomes a
d i f f i c u l t b usine s s b e c a u s e "the futu r e c a n n o t b e p r e s e r v e d i n
a jar; o n e jar m u s t r e m a i n empty" (550) . A n d what cannot be
p i c k l e d because it has no t yet t a k e n p l a c e is t o l d to us in
74
the future t e n s e : it will be I n d e p e n d e n c e day, I will h a v e
train-tickets in m y pocket, I wi l l b e s e p a r a t e d from Padma,
t h e y w i l l t r a m p l e m e underfoot, a n d t h e y w i l l trample m y s o n
(551-52).
T h u s , Rushdie leaves us with an ending which is not
r e a l l y a n e n d i n g b e c a u s e it has ye t to occur. In doi n g so, he
s u b v e r t s c l o s u r e w h i c h is the h a l l m a r k o f the m o d e r n novel a n d
i n s t e a d gives us a n o p e n t e x t . This o p e n - e n d e d finale f u r t h e r
h i g h l i g h t s the i d e a of hybridity: b y n o t g i v i n g us a d e f i n i t e
ending, Rushdie leaves the door open for multiple
alternatives. A n d just as he r e f u s e s to e s s e n t i a l i z e a n y o n e
g e n r e i n this text, he refuses to e s s e n t i a l i z e the e n d i n g as
well. Ultimate l y , M e a n i n g is not a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l s i g n i f i e d
in t h i s text. I n a d d i t i o n to Saleem's, t h e r e are m a n y o t h e r
meanings w h i c h a r e possible. On page 323 we are to l d that
t h e r e a r e as m a n y v e r s i o n s of India as t h e r e ar e I n d i a n s . Th e
i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t t h e r e are no a b s o l u t e v e r s i o n s and that,
in fact, all the v e r s i o n s are constr u c t s . "India" is r e v e a l e d
to b e a m y t h a l o n g w i t h the o t h e r p o p u l a r m y t h s of the day:
"money" a n d "god" (129).
III. SHAME
Shame signifies a rupture in Rushdie's oeuvre; whereas
his other novels attempt to i llustrate th e enabling
possibilities of "hybridity" a n d melange, Shame is a novel
w h i c h dea l s almost e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h r e p r e s s i o n a n d anger. In
this novel, Rush d i e re-te l l s t h e h i s t o r y of P a k i s t a n s i n c e its
independence from India in 1947. Th e story covers three
g e n e r a t i o n s and focuses o n th e liv e s a n d families of two men:
R a z a Hyder, a ce l e b r a t e d g e n e r a l in the military, a n d I s k a n d e r
(Isky) Harappa, a millionaire-playboy-turned-politician.
Rushdie bases these characters on "real-life" Pakistanis:
former P r esiden t Zia-ul-Haq, and former Prime Minister,
Z u l f i k a r A l i Bhutto. In "real- l i f e , " Bhutto wa s d e p o s e d b y
Zi a i n a m i l i t a r y c oup in 1977 a n d u l t i m a t e l y executed, and a
military dic t a t o r s h i p ensued. The novel is, in part, the
s t o r y o f S u f i y a Zinobia, R a z a a n d Bilquis' daughter, a n d l a t e r
O m a r K h a y y a m Shakil's wife. H e r c h a r a c t e r is also b a s e d o n a
historical figure; Zia's daughter, wh o was born "mentally
r e t a r d e d ." As in M C and SV, thi s novel comments upon the
c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d relationship, o n l y here, the colonizers
are t h e all-powerful, corr u p t p o l i t i c o s such as R a z a a n d Isky,
75
76
as w e l l as chara c t e r s r e p r e s s e d themselves i n t h e p a s t s uch as
the Shakil sisters and Bilquis Hyder. The colonized are,
a m o n g others, "the m a s s e s " and, of course, S u f i y a Zinobia.
T h e r e p r e s s i o n in S h a m e arises f r o m a l o n g i n g f o r purity,
a space sharply critiqued in both MC and SV. In Shame,
Pakistani is c r e a t e d to b e "the land o f the p u r e " a n d m o h a j i r s
l ike B i l q u i s a c t i v e l y r e w r i t e their p a s t s in o r d e r to fit into
this new myth of purity. Such re-writings result in
transformations, but u n l i k e Chamcha's p o s i t i v e m e t a m o r p h o s i s
in SV, t hese cha n g e s are neg a t i v e because they reject
h y b r i d i t y for purity, a teeming, h e t e r o g e n e o u s p a s t f o r a o n e
sided, r i g i d present. T h e p o i n t Rushdie a t t e m p t s to m ake in
b o t h S V a n d Shame is t h a t the pu r i t y - d r e a m is a n i m p o s s i b i l i t y
because it leaves too m u c h out. Reality, h i s t or y , is n e v e r
"pure" and any attempt to j a m it into that space results in
oppression which eventually leads to anger, violence, and
d estr u c t i o n . In this chapter I will d i s c u s s the m a n n e r in
which Rushdie rev e a l s the m echanics of oppression and
r e p r e s s i o n in Shame a n d m a k e the point that i n this novel, the
major problem has to do with the characters' ex t r e m e
approaches to history. In this context, I will make a
c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the ideas p r e s e n t e d in N i e t z s c h e ' s essay
entitled, "The Use and Abuse of History," and Rushdie's
perspective on how one-sided historical views can lead to
77
v iol e n c e . M y focus w i l l be o n B ilquis, O m a r K h a y y a m Shakil,
a n d th e Shakil sisters, all of w h o m b e c o m e v i c t i m i z e r s b e c a u s e
of t h e i r o n e - s i d e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s t o r y . I will c o n c l u d e
w i t h a discussion of Sufiya Zinobia and make t he p o i n t that
although she succeeds in reversing t he victimizer/victim
b i n a r y t h r o u g h a n g e r a n d violence, t h e b i n a r y itself r e m a i n s
i n t a c t a n d is n o t d e c o n s t r u c t e d to m a k e r o o m f o r a n e w space.
Be f o r e b e g i n n i n g m y analysis of t h e novel, however, it is
i m p o r t a n t to t a k e n o t e o f the fact t h a t S h a m e has not r e c e i v e d
th e cr i t i c a l acclaim enjoyed by MC or even S V because most
s c h o l a r s b e l i e v e that in this novel, R u s h d i e is g u i l t y of the
v e r y o p p r e s s i o n h e h o p e s to expose. I n h e r book. The R h e t o r i c
o f E n g l i s h I n d i a . S a r a Suleri d e v o t e s a c h a p t e r to R u s h d i e a n d
c r i t i q u e s h i m f o r l e a v i n g too m u c h o u t in Shame. She s t a t e s
that by reading Bhutto's career as a trope for Pakistani
history, he d e m o n s t r a t e s the p o l a r i z a t i o n b e t w e e n the u r g e to
Westernization (Isky) and a will to fundamentalism (Raza),
h owever, "such a m a p p i n g is n e r v o u s l y conscious of its own
omissions, of its u n w i l l i n g n e s s to a d d r e s s the m o s t i n t r i g u i n g
p l o t o f all, w h i c h a r e the f l a b b e r g a s t i n g i n c o n g r u i t i e s t h a t
s u r r o u n d the i n c e p t i o n of Pakistan" (182). S u l e r i ' s p o i n t is
t h a t R u s h d i e ign o r e s t h e nuances in t h e B h u t t o p l o t as w e l l as
its f i l i a t i o n w i t h the J i n n a h myth, o r e v e n to a s k
the o b v i o u s question: w h y d i d t wo s u c h p o w e r f u l l y
78
secular figures exert considerable influence over
their Muslim constituencies? (183) What must the
tex t omit, in o r d e r that it m a y r e p r e s e n t omis s i o n .
(175)
Obviously, from Suleri's perspective, by establishing the
I s k y / R a z a d i c h o t o m y to the e x c l u s i o n of other, m o r e i n c l u s i v e
voices, S h a m e omits too much.
One such crucial omission in R u s h d i e ' s reading of the
partition has to do with his fa i l u r e to give adequate
r e c o g n i t i o n to the fact that f r o m Jinnah's p e r s p e c t i v e , the
g e n e s i s o f P a k i s t a n h a d l i t t l e to do w i t h relig i o u s f e r v o r a n d
e v e r y t h i n g to do w i t h b u i l d i n g a s e n s e of n a t i o n h o o d f o r the
Muslims in India. In her autobiographical book, Meatless
Days, S u l e r i qu o t e s J i n n a h as he s p o k e to cr o w d s of h u n d r e d s
of thousands wh o gathered in the open field next to the
Badshahi Mosque on March 23, 1940 in Lahore, the day the
M u s l i m L e a g u e d r a f t e d the P a k i s t a n Declaration. Earl i e r , to
Gandhi's stat e m e n t that to him, Hindus, Muslims, Parsis,
H a r i j a n s w e r e all alike, Jinnah had pragmatically responded,
"... t h e only difference is t h i s ...that brother Gandhi has
t h r e e v o t e s a n d I have o n l y o n e vote" (114) . O n M a r c h 23, he
stated:
It has always been taken for granted that the
M u s s a l m a n s are a minority, a n d we h a v e g o t u s e d to
79
it for s u c h a long time t h a t t h e s e set t l e d n o t i o n s
s ome t i m e s are very difficult to remove. The
M u s s a l m a n s are not a mino r i t y . T h e M u s s a l m a n s are
a n a t i o n b y a n y definition. (114)
In S h a m e . Rushdie does not give us t his positive sense of
"nationhood" w h i c h i n s p i r e d mil l i o n s o f M u s l i m s to fight for
i n d e p e n d e n c e from t he B r i t i s h a n d t h e n m i g r a t e from India to
Pakistan. For him, the idea of Pakistan always lacks
imagination, re m a i n s a mistake, is t h e w r o n g m iracle (92) .
But e v e n g i v e n the limitations o f t h i s novel, it is an
i m portant w o r k in t h e R ushdie o e u v r e b e c a u s e it allows h i m an
o p p o r t u n i t y to w o r k t h r o u g h the a n g e r a n d h o s t i l i t y he feels
toward a critical moment in his his t o r y : the creation of
Pakistan. Although I agree that he approaches this m o m e n t
with an enormous blind spot, approach it he does, and as
Suleri points out, the reader is forced to reconsider "why
p o s t c o l o n i a l n a r r a t i v e should be so a m e n a b l e to shame" (175).
In m y opinion, the nov e l ' s w o r t h lies i n its a b i l i t y to take
the inter n a l i z e d s h a m e of a N a i p u l e s q u e n a r r a t i v e and t urn it
o n its head: here, the mon s t e r of s h a m e is e x t e r n a l i z e d a n d
t u r n e d loose u p o n its v e r y oppressors. Here, the m o n s t e r of
s h a m e has the will a n d the strength to in v e r t the b i n a r y a n d
fight v i olence w i t h violence. T he n o v e l ' s s h o r t c o m i n g is that
th e act of deconstruction begun by the violence is never
80
c o m p l e t e d a n d the cen t e r is not r e - w r i t t e n from an a l t e r n a t i v e
perspective. The novel's strength, however, lies in its
a b i l i t y to e x p o s e the m e c h a n i c s of o p p r e s s i o n a n d r e p r e s s i o n ,
e v e n as it is itself g u i l t y of a l a c k of h e t e r o g e n e i t y i n its
p o i n t o f view.
T h e m e c h a n i c s of o p p r e s s i o n a n d r e p r e s s i o n that R u s h d i e
s u c c e s s f u l l y bri n g s to light in Shame have to do with the
m a n n e r i n w h i c h his c h a r a c t e r s m a n i p u l a t e history. Bilquis,
w h o is e a g e r to b e g i n a n e w life, b e l i e v e s she c a n do so o n l y
b y r e j e c t i n g h e r past. T h e S h a k i l sisters, on the o t h e r hand,
are a p p a l l e d b y the p r e s e n t a n d t h e r e f o r e retreat into t h e i r
memory of the past. According to Rushdie, both of these
approaches to history are extreme and counter-productive
because t h e y are not c o n d u c i v e to new, alternative ideas or
philosophies. Instead, he belie v e s , what is needed is an
a p p r o a c h that is able to c o m b i n e p a s t a n d p re s e n t in a m a n n e r
that R a n i H a r r a p p a atte m p t s b y e m b r o i d e r i n g he r m e m o r i e s of
Isky o n t o h e r e i g h t e e n s h a w l s .
R u s h d i e ' s n o t i o n of c o m m i n g l i n g the past a n d p r e s e n t is
closely linked to Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas regarding
history. It is t herefore helpful to approach the p r o b l e m s
articulated in Shame via Nietzsche's "The Use and Abuse of
History" w h i c h is c o n c e r n e d w i t h the dynamics of r e m e m b e r i n g
and forgetting. Man, according to Nietzsche, lives
81
historically, a n d his a b i l i t y to act hing e s u p o n h i s a b i l i t y
to forget. As Hayden White sums up in his chapter on
N i e t z s c h e i n M e t a h i s t o r y , "the p r o b l e m for the c r e a t i v e m a n is
to l e a r n to forcret . . . no t t o d e n y the past, b u t to forget
i t " (348) . W h e n m a n ' s a b i l i t y t o r e m e m b e r is " o v e r d e v e l o p e d , "
it b e c o m e s a th r e a t to life itself. The issue t h e n b e c o m e s
not to d e s t r o y history, b ut to l e a r n w h e n on e is j u s t i f i e d in
f o r g e t t i n g it (348) . A c c o r d i n g to Nietzsche, r e m e m b e r i n g is
not a g e n e r a l i z e d activity, rather, it is a n act of will, w i t h
a purpose or aim. Further, one chooses to remember in a
particular manner, and the way one chooses to remember
d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r one's a t t i t u d e to o n e s e l f is d e s t r u c t i v e o r
constructive. Thus, "historical s t u d y is o n l y f r u i t f u l for
the future if it follows a powerful life-giving i n f l u e n c e --
only, therefore if it is guided and dominated b y a higher
force, and does not itself guide and dominate" (349) . In
o t h e r words, life does need the s e r v i c e of history, but an
ex cess o f h i s t o r y hurts life. I n th e final a nalysis, w h a t is
n e e d e d is " c r i t i c a l history" w h i c h ari s e s in the impulse to
"break up the past, and apply it, too, in order to live"
(350) . H owever , N i e t z s c h e warns, the Critical spirit, too,
has its d e s t r u c t i v e side, which, w h e n c a r r i e d too far, e n d s in
a d e i f i c a t i o n of the present. Hayden White concludes that
a c c o r d i n g to Nietzsche,
82
the dangers of historical consciousness are to be
f o und in th e e x c e s s e s of A n t i q u a r i a n , Critical, and
Monumental history: archaicism, presentism, and
futurism, respectively. What is needed is some
synthesis of all three ways of reading th e past,
not an e s c a p e f r o m t h e past, f or t h e p a s t c a n n o t be
escaped. (351)
Nietzsche's proposed antidote for the three forms of
historical consciousness in their extreme aspects is
historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s o p e r a t i n g in the m o d e of Metaphor.
A s H a y d e n W h i t e states, "his n o t i o n of h i s t o r y as a f o r m of
art is a n o t i o n of h i s t o r y as a tragic a r t . . . " and "history
conceived in the M e t a p h o r i c a l m o d e is r e a l l y w h a t is b e h i n d
his d e f e n s e of . . . th e 'sup e r h i s t o r i c a l ' a n d 'u n h i s t o r i c a l '
p o i n t s o f view" (351-52) . A c c o r d i n g to N i e t z s c h e , h i s t o r y can
s e r v e l i f e b y b e c o m i n g a f o r m o f art (352) . In h i s words, the
"unhistorical" is "the power of art, of forgetting and of
d r a w i n g a l i m i t e d h o r i z o n a r o u n d oneself" (355) .
Just as N i e t z s c h e points to the d a n g e r s of historical
c o n s c i o u s n e s s in the e x c e s s e s o f archaicism, presentism, and
futurism, in Shame, negative migrations occur because
c h a r a c t e r s e i t h e r b e l i e v e t h e y c a n era s e t h e i r p a s t o r their
present and neither extreme is a viable opti o n . In this
novel, t h e o n l y g l i m m e r of a m i d d l e g r o u n d e x i s t s in Rani's
83
embroidery, but she h e r s e l f remains a p r i s o n e r of one sort o r
another throughout the text, and her wisdom falls on deaf
ears. It is not u n t i l S V that R u s h d i e is c a p a b l e of c r e a t i n g
a c h a r a c t e r like C h a m c h a w h o is able to " b r e a k up his p a s t ” in
the Nietzschian sense and use it to re-write his present
moment, t h e r e b y c r e a t i n g a new, alternative reality. Shame
explores the extremes of histor i c a l consciousness and
d e l i n e a t e s the v i o l e n t e nds w h i c h a re an i n e v i t a b l e result of
s u c h one-sidedness. W h a t is m i s s i n g in the e x t r e m e appro a c h e s
of Bilquis and the Shakil sisters is heterogeneity,
inclusiveness, a n d a c o n s c i o u s n e s s that t h e i r c h o s e n space is
a c o n s t r u c t of t h e i r o w n making. In the end, in Shame as in
th e N i e t z s c h i a n narrative, h o w one chooses to r e m e m b e r (or not
remember) d e f i n e s t h e r e a l i t y one ends u p in.
R o u g h l y a t h i r d of the w a y into the novel, the n a r r a t o r
s t a t e s that w h a t b e g a n as a m a s c u l i n e saga has b e c o m e a s t o r y
about wom e n .
the women seem to have taken over; they
m a r c h e d i n f r o m the p e r i p h e r i e s ... to d e m a n d the
inclusion of their own tragedies, histories and
comedies. . . . t h e i r stories explain, a nd e v e n
subsume, the men's. Repression is a seamless
garment; a society which is authoritarian in its
social and se x u a l codes, which cr u s h e s its women
84
beneath the intolerable burd e n s of honour an d
propriety, breeds repressions of other kinds as
well. Co n t r a r i w i s e : dictators ar e a l w a y s - - o r at
least in public, on other people's behalf--
purita n i c a l . So it tur n s out that my 'male' an d
'female' p l o t s ar e t h e s a m e s t o r y a f t e r all. (189)
In S h a m e . r e p r e s s i o n b r e e d s r e p r e s s i o n so that w o m e n w h o are
kept d o w n b y m e n l e a r n h o w to d o m i n a t e others in t h e i r turn,
a n d so on. A w o m a n c a n be a v i c t i m a n d a v i c t i m i z e r at the
same time. But even tho s e who succ e e d in flipping the
v i c t i m i z e r / v i c t i m b i n a r y do n o t e n d up in a n e w space. Their
acts of o p p r e s s i o n a n d r e p r e s s i o n s i m p l y c o n t i n u e the c y c l e of
violence begun by their victi m i z e r s . A n i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e of
this s c e n a r i o is Bilquis Hyder.
B i l q u i s beg i n s h e r life in India, w h e r e she l i v e s w i t h
her father, Mahmoud. M a h m o u d owns and operates the Empire
Talkies, a c i n e m a w h e r e i l l u s i o n s f e e d illusions (61) . A s in
o t h e r R u s h d i e novels, this c i n e m a t h e a t e r r e p r e s e n t s a f l u i d
space w h e r e o n e e a s i l y c r o s s e s a n d re-cr o s s e s the b o u n d a r i e s
between i l l u s i o n a n d reality, fact a n d fiction. Bilquis is
c o m p l e t e l y at home in this s p a c e a n d carries h e r s e l f 11 . . .with
the grandeur befitting a dream-empress, " and takes as
compliments the taunts of th e street-urchins who call her
K h a n s i - k i - R a n i - - q u e e n of coughs, "that is to s a y of e x p e l l e d
85
air, of s i c k n e s s an d hot w i n d " (61). Unlike her f a t h e r who
realizes he is not an "absolute monarch" in hi s Empire and
t h e r e f o r e c h e e r f u l l y t o l e r a t e s h i s n o i s y c u s t o m e r s a n d war n s
his daughter abo u t the changing times, Bilquis us e s the
"shimmering illus i o n s of p r i n c e s s e s " sh e s e e s o n th e scre e n
"to i n vent a se c r e t self f a r m o r e imperious t h a n h e r fath e r
the e m p e r o r " (61).
M a h m o u d ' s downfall, w e a r e told, is h i s tolerance. When
h e d e c i d e s t o r i s e above "all thi s p a r t i t i o n f o o l i s h n e s s " (62)
a n d b o o k s a d o u b l e bill, R a n d o l p h Scott a n d G a i - W a l l a h , a n g r y
crowds t o r c h hi s theater. M a h m o u d is k i l l e d a n d B i l q u i s is
propelled in t o her future w i t h Raza Hyder i n Pakistan. In
essence, Bilquis becomes a migrant. But lik e all other
m i g r a t i o n s i n S h a m e . hers is a n e g a t i v e o n e b e c a u s e s he pushes
h e r h e t e r o g e n e o u s past o u t of view, as if it n e v e r existed.
L i k e S a l e e m S i n a i in the S u n d a r b a n s , she b e c o m e s " e m p t i e d of
history." In this state, s he attempts to repress h e r past
which includes a n open-minded, loving father (who loses his
life due to his p h i l o s o p h y of tolerance) , a n d a n a b i l i t y to
n e g o t i a t e e a s i l y b e t w e e n the r e a l m s of "fantasy" a n d "reality"
as demonstrated by he r belief that she is a movie dream-
empress. In l a t e r years, w e a re told, h e r p a s t c o m e s to visit
h e r f r o m t i m e to time, bu t B i l q u i s is " s u s p i c i o u s of history"
and rebuffs it as one do e s poor cousins when they come to
86
borrow money (65). It is in this w a y t h a t s h e is a b l e to fit
i n t o R a za's " p u r e , ” "Muslim" n a r r a t i v e t h a t ha s n o r o o m i n it
f o r low-brow, f i l m y types.
O n c e B i l q u i s m o v e s to Pakistan, she acquires a "disease
o f fixity" (70) a n d d e s i r e s p e r m a n e n c e a b o v e e v erything. Th e
loo, a strong, h o t w i n d w h i c h flows f i e r c e l y ou t of h e r p a s t
f r i g h t e n s h e r t e r r i b l y b e c a u s e for h e r it r e p r e s e n t s f l u i d i t y
and change. So she wraps herself in certainties (69) and
d e v e l o p s a h o r r o r of move m e n t . Bilquis, w e a r e told, "placed
an e m bargo on the relocation of even the most trivial of
household items. Chairs, ashtrays, flowerpots took root
r e n d e r e d i m m o b i l e b y th e force of h e r f e a r f u l will" (70).
This n e e d f o r f i x i t y is al s o r e v e a l e d as a trait of h e r
husband's family. An important family t r a d i t i o n h as to do
with re-telling stories about the pasts of f a m i l y members.
"'The r e c o u n t i n g of histories,' R a z a t o l d h i s wife, 'is f o r us
a rite of b l o o d ' " (79). It is, in fact, th e g l u e that b i n d s
the generations toget h e r . Bilquis' s t o r y is a l s o told, re
told, a n d a l t e r e d a l o n g the way, "but f i n a l l y it s e t t l e d down,
and after that nobody, neither teller nor listener, would
t o l e r a t e a n y d e v i a t i o n f r o m th e hallowed, sacred text. This
was when Bilquis knew that she had become a member of th e
family; in the sanctification of her tale lay initiation,
kinship, blood" (79) . Pa s t h o r r o r s ar e d e f u s e d a n d m a d e saf e
87
in their re-telling, and individuals ensure a sense of
rootedness by reinventing the past. It is important, of
course, that the stories finally settle into a permanent,
u n c h a n g i n g form, rat h e r t h a n r e m a i n i n g f l e x i b l e a n d fluid.
Along w i t h this notion of fixity, Bilquis buys into a
corresponding and equally dangerous idea of pur i t y . Sufiya
Z i n o b i a is s p u r n e d at b i r t h b e c a u s e of h e r gender, bu t later
she is tortured by her mother beca u s e she is impure,
imperfect, not quite right. H e r men t a l r e t a r d a t i o n is a flaw
that cancels out a n y s y m p a t h y w h i c h m a y have been garnered
f r o m h e r beauty, o r h e r a b i l i t y to love. B i l q u i s c a n n o t abide
by her d a ughter because she does not fit into her ima g e of
perfection.
T h u s Bilquis' desire to m a r r y Raza a n d m i g r a t e to a new
h o m e o b l i g e s h e r to dump h e r past, develop a s e n s e of m o d e s t y
w h i c h m a t c h e s h e r husband's n o t i o n of m u s l i m h o o d a n d purity,
and inculcates within her a need for rootedness and
permanence. H e r n e w c o u n t r y a n d fam i l y d e m a n d that she cut
h e r t i e s to a n h e t erogeneous p a s t a n d be cast i n the r o l e of
"victim." It is Raza, a f t e r all, w h o rescues a n d p r o t e c t s her
honor, a n d it is his f a m i l y t h a t insists she fit i n t o a fixed,
m o d e s t y n arrativ e . H e r first, m a l e chi l d is b o r n dead, and
some time elapses before her next pregnancy. During this
waiting period, Bilquis is taunted by her in-laws and told
88
t hat she brings shame to them all by remaining barren. A
" p a r t i c u l a r l y v i c i o u s " cousin, D u n i y a z a d Begum, hi s s e s i nsults
at h e r one night, w h i c h leads to a p h y s i c a l f ight b e t w e e n the
t wo women. D u n i y a z a d a ccuses Bilquis of b e i n g "a f u g i t i v e
from that godless country over there" (88) . When Bilquis
d e m a n d s that R a z a t a k e h e r a w a y f r o m t h i s j o i n t - f a m i l y set-up,
B a r i a m m a i n s ults h e r b y c a l l i n g h e r "mohajir," a n immigrant.
"'Pack u p d o u b l e - q u i c k a n d be off to w h a t g u t t e r y o u choose'"
sh e tells h e r (89) . From Bariamma's perspective, "mohajir" is
the worst, most humiliating label she can affix to B i l q u i s
b e c a u s e it c o n n o t e s b e i n g b o r n e across, tr a n s l a t i o n , impurity.
To b e a n i m m i g r a n t m e a n s one is a n o u t s i d e r w h o does not fit
i nto an e s t a b l i s h e d c o m m u n i t y of traditions a n d customs; it
m e a n s one is n o t a n original. Bariamma, o f course, is not a
m o h a j i r b e c a u s e h e r f a m i l y has a lways l i v e d in the c o u n t r y n o w
labelled "Pakistan." In her sp h e r e of influence, being
indige n o u s to t h e a r e a y i e l d s a g r e a t d e a l of cult u r a l ca p i t a l
w h i c h Bilquis o b v i o u s l y l a c k s .
B y the tim e S u f i y a Zin o b i a is born, B i l q u i s is a c h a n g e d
w o m a n who lives o n l y in the p r e s e n t a n d is so i n t o l e r a n t that
sh e is inca p a b l e of f o r g i v i n g h e r d a u g h t e r f o r b e i n g b o r n the
wrong gender. Her earlier questioning of Raza's family
traditions is now completely silenced and her response to
S u f i y a Z i n obia is i d e n t i c a l to that of D u n i y a z a d : they both
89
view her as a monster. In this way, Bilquis-the-victim
b e comes Bilquis-the-victimizer. She reads her daughter's
b r a i n f e v e r as a "judgement" a n d c a l l s h e r "my shame" (107) .
In a n a r t i c l e entitled, " S a l m a n Rushd i e : Marginality,
Women, and Sham e , " Inderpal Grewal discusses Rushdie's
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f P a k i s t a n i w o m e n a n d s t a t e s that h i s v e r s i o n
"is so p r o b l e m a t i c th a t it is itself a p a l i m p s e t that r e q u i r e s
di s c l o s u r e " (25). Grewal acknowledges that Rushdie's attempt
to include women in his "history" is his attempt to e s c a p e
writing a traditional, patriarchal narrative which always
e x cludes women. But, she go e s o n to n o t e tha t u l timately, the
authoritative stance of the w r i t e r suggested in the novel,
breaks d o w n the "coalition" R u s h d i e a t t e m p t s to b u i l d b e t w e e n
hi mself as a marginalized exile and women. According to
Grewal, t h e n a r r a t o r ' s voice, a m a l e one, is the o n l y v o i c e
that is heard. W o m e n ' s voices, o n th e o t h e r hand, are always
r e f r a c t e d t h r o u g h the narrator. Rather than being presented
as equ a l partners with the n arrator, the women are
" d i s e m p o w e r e d " , "voiceless beings" w h o a r e o n l y p e r m i t t e d to
speak t h r o u g h t h e writer. As a result, t h e w o m e n ar e s e e n as
"other," "as mysterious, as capable of viole n c e , as those
which must be feared" (26) . In the end, Grewal states,
R ush d i e ' s c a r e f u l l y c o n s t r u c t e d " c oalition" breaks down w h e n
the n a r r a t i v e r e v e a l s
th a t the w r i t e r has p o w e r s a n d abilities that the
w o m e n do no t p o s s e s s . T h e r e is s h o w n to b e a g r e a t
d i f f e r e n c e in the s p e a k i n g o u t of the n o v e l i s t a n d
of the women; Rushdie the novelist/narrator does
make himself heard, whereas none of the female
c h a r a c t e r s m a n a g e to do so. (29)
In an article entitled, "'Being Bor n e Across:
T r a n s l a t i o n a n d S a l m a n R u s h d i e ' s T h e S a t a n i c V e r s e s ." H a r v e e n
S a c h d e v a M a n n n o t e s that S V m a y m a r k a n a d v a n c e (particularly
over S h a m e ) in its depiction of w omen in the characters of
Z e e n y V a k i l a n d M i s h a l Sufiyan; yet, w o m e n r e m a i n s e c o n d a r y to
the m a l e plot. Th e w o m e n in this text a r e cast in
sexually overdetermined imagery: Zeeny the
' b e a u t i f u l vampire,' th e 'siren,' 'tempts' Chamcha
back (to India) .... Ayesha, the butterfly-eating,
naked prophetess, draws men into he r retinue
because of her erotic appeal; Tavleen, the
hi g h j a c k e r , desirous in her nudity, nestles the
grenades 'like extra b r e a s t s ... in her cleavage';
a n d Hind, the demonized, s e x u a l l y voracious grande
dame of Jahilia, devours men both metaphorically
a n d literally. (296)
All of these female c haracters are represented as sexual
beings a n d therefore
91
overwhelmingly re-enact stereotypical male
typologies of women. Thus it is in w r i t i n g ag a i n s t
t h e o r t h o d o x I s l a m i c c o n c e r n w i t h f e m a l e chastity,
Ru s hd i e goes too far in the opposite direction,
ca s t i n g his f e m a l e c h a r a c t e r s as e r o t i c i z e d b o d i e s
and yet, as in t he prescriptive core of I slamic
discourses, c o n f e r r i n g u p o n t h e m a p e r i p h e r a l role
in a lar g e l y m a l e - c e n t e r e d n arrative. (296)
A l t h o u g h I agree with Grewal and Mann's assessment regarding
Rushdie's inability to successfully write "woman" into his
text, Ib e l i e v e his e f f o r t to do so is w o r t h noting. It is
a l s o w o r t h n o t i n g that in S h a m e . the "monstrous" characters,
both male and female, are not completely otherized in the
s e n s e t h a t M a i n d u c k is in t h e l a t e r M o o r . F o r example, while
B i l q u i s is p r e s e n t e d as an unloving, cruel, a b u s i v e mother, as
far a s h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h S u f i y a Z i n o b i a is concer n e d , she
is a l s o c a p a b l e of l o v i n g a n d s u p p o r t i n g h e r o t h e r daughter,
Na v e e d . And for all of h e r e f f o r t to m a k e h e r s e l f fit into
her hu s b a n d , Raza's, restricted, "Muslim" family, she
p o s s e s s e s e n o u g h in d e p e n d e n c e o f spirit to h ave a n a f f a i r w i t h
S i n d b a d w e l l into h e r m a r r i a g e w i t h Raza. It is e v e n h i n t e d
that N a v e e d is the result o f this e x t r a - m a r i t a l affair.
J u s t as Bilquis' n o t i o n of p e r f e c t i o n p r e v e n t s h e r f r o m
s e e i n g S u f i y a Zinobia's humanity, R a z a H y d e r ' s s e n s e of p u r i t y
92
does no t allow him to acknowledge his daughter's
" b e a s t liness." A B e a s t j i lurks inside B e a u t y Bibi, in fact,
B e a u t y h e r s e l f is a l s o the Beast. B u t this type of r a d i c a l
i n t e r m i n g l i n g is too m u c h for R a z a w h o b e l i e v e s that d a u g h t e r s
are supposed to b e sweet, pure, beast-free. Even after he
falls in fatherly love and stops seeing her through h is
earlier veil of disappointment, he cannot deal with the
reality of S u f i y a Z i n o b i a ' s beastliness. Therefore, she is
m a i n t a i n e d a n d c o n t a i n e d in a c o m a - - n e i t h e r alive n o r dead.
"There is n o p l a c e f o r m o n s t e r s in c i v i l i z e d society" (219) .
It is i m p o s s i b l e f or R a z a to accept t h e fact t hat s a v a g e r y c a n
lie c o n c e a l e d b e n e a t h d e c e n c y ' s w e l l - p r e s s e d shirt a n d t hat
barbarism can grow in cultured soil. To comprehend Sufiya
Zinobia would be to sh a t t e r these characters' sense of
t h e m s e l v e s a n d therefore, "the m o r e p o w e r f u l the Beast became,
the g r e a t e r g r e w t he efforts to d e n y its v e r y b e i n g . . . "
(220) . The only way to deal with the Beast is as an
abstraction "because w e k n o w (but do not say) that the m e r e
l i k e l i h o o d o f s u c h b e i n g s exis t e n c e w o u l d u t t e r l y s u b v e r t the
laws b y w h i c h w e live, the p r o c e s s e s b y w h i c h we u n d e r s t a n d
the world" (217). T h u s Bi l q u i s and R a z a ' s a f f l i c t i o n turns
out to be one and the same: as far as Sufiya Zinobia is
concerned, t h e y b o t h l o n g for a "pure" daughter, u n t a i n t e d b y
impurities s u c h as m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n o r b e a s t l i n e s s . For a
93
b rief moment, Raza does acknowledge the reality of his
murderous daughter, but his s o l u t i o n is s i m p l y to k i l l her.
It is O m a r K h a y y a m Shakil w h o d e c i d e s to "treat" h e r instead.
L i k e Bilqui s , O m a r K h a y y a m S h a k i l is a m i g r a n t as well.
He too, a t t e m p t s to leave his p a s t behind, but e v e n t u a l l y , of
course, it c a t c h e s up to him, bec a u s e , w e are told, n o o n e cam.
escape f rom the past permanently. His willed severance from
N i s h a p u r m i n g l e s w i t h his i n s o m n i a c n i g h t s a n d as a r e s u l t he
be c o m e s a n "ethi c a l zombie" (137) . H i s m i g r a t i o n is f r o m t he
frontier to th e city. It is interesting to note that the
frontier represents not only the oppression of the Shakil
sisters at Nishapur, it also r e p r e s e n t s a b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n a
real a n d a n u n r e a l world, b e t w e e n w a k i n g a n d sleep, between
d r e a m a n d realit y . Just as Bil q u i s ' p a s t includes t h e E m p i r e
th e a t e r w h i c h p r o m o t e s a s ense o f f a n t a s y and illusion, O m a r ' s
h i s t o r y i n c l u d e s the f e e l i n g of v e r t i g o he e x p e r i e n c e s b e i n g
close t o "the edge." Later, in SV, Gibreel Farishta engages
in a more f ull blown stru g g l e between fantasy and f iction.
On c e again, R u s h d i e ' s p o i n t is t h a t t h e r e is n o s u c h t h i n g as
pure "fact" versus pure "fiction." The "reality" h is
c h a r a c t e r s e x p e r i e n c e is shot t h r o u g h w i t h i n c r e d i b l e d e t a i l s
b e c a u s e i n t h e R u s h d i e l e x i c o n "life" o r "history" is n a r r a t e d
as a h o t c h - p o t c h of fact a n d fiction, i l l u s i o n a n d rea l i t y .
The unsuccessful migrants in this novel, however, either
94
reject s u c h i n t e r m i n g l i n g as a p o s i t i v e o p t i o n a n d s p e n d all
t h e i r t i m e r e i n f o r c i n g t h e i r p u r i t y myth, o r t h e y p r e t e n d that
the impurity simply doesn't exist. Omar, u n l i k e Raza, does
a c c e p t S u f i y a Zino b i a ' s m o n s t r o s i t y , but he v i e w s t h i s a spect
of h e r as a d i s e a s e to b e cured. He is a m e d i c a l d o c t o r and
S u f i y a Z i n o b i a is a c h a l l e n g i n g c a s e study. B y administering
t h e r i g h t m e d i c a t i o n a n d c o n d u c t i n g hypn o s i s a p p r o p r i a t e l y , he
b e l i e v e s he c a n save her. T h u s S u f i y a Z i n o b i a is o t h e r i z e d b y
her parents as well as her husband and translated into a
victim. T h i s status, howe v e r , is temporary.
In part, what O m a r K h a y y a m S hakil a t t e m p t s to e s c a p e from
are his three m o t h e r s . T h e S h a k i l sisters w h o w e r e i m p r i s o n e d
i n t h e z e n a n a w i n g of N i s h a p u r d u r i n g t h e i r f a t h e r ' s lifetime,
in turn, imprison both O m a r K h a y y a m Shakil and Ba b a r . Old
Shakil, who loathed b oth the indigenous colonized populations
a n d t h e Angrez, and w h o t u r n e d i n w a r d a n d l i v e d h i d d e n a w a y in
his f o r t r e s s - l i k e home, h o l d s his daug h t e r s c a p t i v e a n d does
n o t a l l o w t h e m to marry. A f t e r h i s death, r a t h e r t h a n emerge
from their prison-home, they withdraw into it even more
completely, this time f r o m choice. What t h e y h o p e to e s c a p e
is t h e outside, everyday world. T h e y live e x c l u s i v e l y i n the
p a s t s u r r o u n d e d b y o l d a n d m o l d e r i n g objects w h i c h t h e i r sons
find oppressive. Like their father before them, the Shakil
sisters turn inward. They are interchangeable given their
95
identical appearance and strong bond of intimacy. It is
impossible to tell which of th e m a c t u a l l y g e t s pregnant or
giv e s b i r t h as t h e y all p a r t i c i p a t e in t he p r o c e s s as equal
partners. But t h e i r a b i l i t y to i n t e r c h a n g e i d e n t i t i e s is not
p r e s e n t e d in t h e l i g h t h e a r t e d m a n n e r of N o r a a n d D o r a c h a n g i n g
p e r s o n a l i t i e s s i m p l y b y e x c h a n g i n g p e r f u m e s i n A n g e l a Carter's
Wise Children. In Shame. the three sisters'
i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b i l i t y is d e s c r i b e d as a h y b r i d monstrosity:
In t h e c h a o s of their r e g e n e r a t i o n t h e w r o n g heads
had e nded up on the w r o n g b o d i e s ; th e y became
p s y c h o l o g i c a l centaurs, f i s h - w o m e n , hybrids; a n d of
course this conf u s e d s e p a r a t i o n of personalities
carried with it the i m p l i c a t i o n that they wer e
still n ot genuinely discrete, because they cou l d
only be c o m p r e h e n d e d if y o u t o o k t h e m as a whole.
(36)
Ju s t as the m o h a j irs in this text represent nega t i v e
migrations, the Shakil sisters interchangeability is a
hybridity gone wrong. This i n t e r m i n g l i n g , rather than
c r e a t i n g s o m e t h i n g new, leads to a n inces t u o u s , interbreeding
of ideas a n d p h i l o s o p h i e s . U n l i k e B i l q u i s w h o e r a s e s h e r past
to fit h e rself i n t o a n e w present, the S h a k i l s i s t e r s reject
the future a n d c l i n g to a m o t h b a l l e d p a s t m a d e u p o f "fading
m i a s m a s of d i s c a r d e d ideas and f o r g o t t o n d r e a m s " (25). Both
96
extremes are flipsides of the sam e coi n and equally
debilitating in the fin a l analysis. Chhunni, Munnee, and
B u n n y 's attempt to k e e p t he past u n t a i n t e d fr o m the p r e s e n t is
the sa m e as B a b a r ' s a t t e m p t to b u r n u p w h a t he c o n s i d e r s is
his atrophied past. Babar lea v e s Nishapur to become a
s e p a r a t i s t guer r i l l a b e c a u s e he b e l i e v e s he is g o o d e n o u g h to
e s c a p e f r o m the c l u t c h e s of hell (140). T h e Shakil sisters,
then, w h o were once o p p r e s s e d b y t h e i r father, tur n ou t t o be
just as controlling an d repressed when it is t h e i r turn to
r a i s e children. In the end, the y t u r n ou t to be as v i o l e n t as
R a z a a n d Isky. T h e y a v e n g e Baba r ' s m u r d e r b y k i l l i n g R a z a as
b r u t a l l y as he k i l l e d S i n d b a d (also f o r revenge) and o t h e r s .
T h e i r p h i l o s o p h y turns out to b e the flip side of the male
perspective. Lik e o t h e r m i g r a n t s in this novel, the S h a k i l
sisters, too, cross a boundary, except theirs is from the
p r e s e n t into the past. T h e problem, of course, lies in t h e i r
e x c l u s i o n a r y po l i t i c s (as it does with the o t h e r m o h a j irs)
w h i c h p r e v e n t the m f r o m c o - m i n g l i n g the p r e s e n t w i t h the p a s t
to create a new moment in time. Thus Shame illustrates th e
m a n n e r in w h i c h its m a j o r c h a r a c t e r s p e r c e i v e an d m a n i p u l a t e
hi s t o r y . In Nietzschian terms Bilquis is guilty of th e
excesses associated with "p r e s e n t i s m , " t he Shakil sisters,
" a r c h a i c i s m , " an d O m a r K h a y y a m Shakil, "futurism.” None of
these characters are capable of reading history from
97
N i e t z s c h e ' s p r e f e r r e d "crit i c a l " perspective, a n d therefore,
f o r them, h i s t o r y is not a p o s i t i v e , "life- g i v i ng i n f l u e n c e . "
According to Neitzsche, what is called for is some kind of
"s y n t h e s i s " of all thr e e w a y s of reading histo r y ; howe v e r ,
n e i t h e r Bilquis, no r the S h a k i l sisters, a n d O m a r a r e a b l e to
c o n s t r u c t s u c h a synthesis b e c a u s e the i r impu l s e is a l w a y s to
compartmentalize history into "pure" categories of past,
pr e s e n t , a n d future.
But f o r all of the s e m o h a j i r s ' longings for p u r i t y and
permanence, R u s h d i e mak e s it clear that there is plenty of
impurity and intermingling all a r o u n d them. The fact that
t h e y c h o o s e to ignore it o r a t t e m p t to "purify" it d o e s n o t
m e a n t h a t it doe s not exist. Time, identity, a n d m e m o r y a re
t h r e e i m p o r t a n t sites of h o t c h - p o t c h the o n e - s i d e d c h a r a c t e r s
a t t e m p t to p u r i f y in this n o v e l .
But, "Time cannot b e h o m o g e n i z e d as e a s i l y as m i l k " (6)
we a r e t o l d at the v e r y b e g i n n i n g of the novel. B y u s i n g the
H e g i r a n c a l e n d a r t h roughout t h i s book, Rush d i e d r a w s a t t e n t i o n
to the fact that even tim e is relative an d heterogeneous.
W h a t is the four t e e n t h c e n t u r y in Q. is the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y
in another country or city. It all depends on one's
perspective. O n e can c h o o s e to g a u g e time v i a t he b i r t h a n d
death of Jesus Christ, o r o n e c a n stop the c l o c k a l t o g e t h e r
a n d b e g i n h i s t o r y anew at the m o m e n t o f the pr o p h e t M u h a m m a d ' s
98
migration from Mecca to Medina. And yet the Hegiran and
C h r i s t i a n c a l e n d a r c o - e x i s t as t i m e i tself is r e p r e s e n t e d as
i n t e r m i n g l e d in a h o t c h - p o t c h v e r s i o n of t h e e t e r n a l pre s e n t .
It is not, c o n t r a r y to t h e b e l i e f of the l i k e s o f t he S h a k i l
sisters, a n y one, u n d i l u t e d thing.
Time's fluidity is made even more apparent via Omar
Khayyam S h a k i l 's dreams. At the end of the novel, this
character loses a battle h e b e g a n e a r l y i n life. F r o m t he
b e g i n n i n g his s ense o f v e r t i g o s c a r e d him, a n d to k e e p from
s l i p p i n g b e y o n d the b o u n d a r i e s of his w a k i n g r e a l i t y i n t o the
w o r l d of dreams, he t r i e d to get b y w i t h as little s l e e p as
possible. But w h e n he returns to N i s h a p u r and contracts a
fever, his "eyelids w e r e n o d e f e n c e anymore, they were just
doors int o other places . . ." (306), and he dreams the
future:
During recessions in the fever he remembered
dreaming things that he could n o t have known were
true, visions of the future, of w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n
after the end. Quarrels between three Generals.
Continued public disturbances. Great powers
s h i f t i n g t h e i r g round, d e c i d i n g the A r m y h a d b e c o m e
unstable. A n d at last A r j u m a n d a n d H a r o u n set free,
r e b o r n into p o w e r . . . . The fall o f God, a n d in
his place the myth of the Martyr I skander. And
I
99
after that arrests, retribution, trials, hangings,
blood, a new cycle of shamelessness and shame.
(306)
In this passage, the present and th e future literally
intermingle. Th e result, however, is n o t a n e w h y b r i d space
as w e s e e later in SV, r a t h e r the future s i m p l y c o n t i n u e s the
c y c l e of r e p r e s s i o n b e g u n in t he past. It is i n t e r e s t i n g to
note that Rushd i e w r o t e Shame i n 1983. At th e time of its
publication, Z i a - u l - H a q w as sti l l in p o w e r i n Pakistan. The
vision of the future w h i c h Rushdie has Omar Khayyam Shakil
d r e a m t u r n s out to be a n a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n o f wha t a c t u a l l y
t r a n s p i r e d in Pa k i s t a n som e y e a r s later.
A l o n g w i t h time, R u s h d i e p r e s e n t s t h e i s s u e of i d e n t i t y
as a constantly shifting, fluid experience as well. For
example, w e n e v e r k n o w w h o S h a k i l or B a b a r ' s fat h e r s are, nor
do we k n o w w h i c h of the thr e e sisters are their biological
mothers. It is h i n t e d tha t O m a r K h a y y a m S h a k i l ' s f a t h e r m a y
h a v e b e e n a colonial, a n Angrez, but we a r e n e v e r sure. Om a r
K h a y y a m Shakil l a t e r c h o o s e s E d u a r d o as h i s father. Eduardo,
we are told, is an outsider lik e O m a r K h a y y a m S h a k i l . The
f a c t t h a t the S h a k i l s i s t e r s r a i s e t h e i r s o n as an outsider,
a p e r i p h e r a l m a n is an i n t e r e s t i n g det a i l as w e l l . F o r all of
t h e i r d e s i r e to e x i s t in a n u n c h a n g i n g past, t h e i r d e c i s i o n to
l e a v e t h e i r son u n c ircumcised, u n w h i s p e r e d to, and unbarbered
100
messes with his already fluid identity even further. By
d e n y i n g h i m the m o s t b a s i c of r e l i g i o u s r i t e s th a t w o u l d b e g i n
h i s li f e as a "Muslim, " t h e y d e n y h i m y e t a n o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t y
for rootedness.
Biological beginnings ar e questionable for other
characters as well. Naveed, it is hinted, m a y be Sindbad's
daughter rath e r than Raza's. The communal sleeping
a r r a n g e m e n t s at B a r i a m m a ' s r e p r e s e n t m o r e f a m i l y hotch-potch.
I n the darkness,
. . . w h o w o u l d k n o w if h e r r e a l h u s b a n d h a d come
to her? And who would complain? I tell you,
Billoo, these married men and ladies are h a v i n g a
pretty good ti m e in this joint f a m i l y set-up. I
swear, maybe uncl e s with nieces, br o t h e r s with
their brothers' wives, we'll never know who the
c h i l d r e n ' s d a d d i e s r e a l l y are! (75)
A l o n g w i t h time a n d identity, another important instance
of i n t e r m i n g l i n g in this text is R a n i ' s memory. Rani is an
e x c e p t i o n to the r u l e in a nov e l w h e r e characters insist o n
s a n i t i z i n g the past. S h e n o t o n l y r e f u s e s to r e - w r i t e Isky's
h istory, she p r e s e n t s h e r v e r s i o n of it to her daughter on
e i g h t e e n e m b r o i d e r e d shawls. Arjumand, of course, idolizes
h e r f a t h e r b o t h d u r i n g his life a n d a f t e r h i s death. She buy s
i n t o h i s c o b r a - l i k e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f r o m f l a m b o y a n t p l a y b o y to
101
r e s p o n s i b l e party-chair, a n d s n a p s at h e r mother: Allah,
mother, all y o u c a n do is b i t c h a b o u t the Chairman. If h e d i d
not love you, y o u must h a v e d o n e s o m e t h i n g to d e s e r v e it.'"
To this, R a n i o n l y shrugs a n d replies,
'Chairman Isk a n d e r Harappa, your father, whom I
always l oved . . . was world champion of
shamel essness; he was international rogue and
b a s t a r d n u m b e r one. Y o u see, daughter, I remember
t h o s e days, I r e m e m b e r R a z a H y d e r w h e n he w a s n o t a
devil w i t h horns a n d a tail, a n d also Isky before
he b e c a m e a saint.' (115)
But R ani a n d A r j u m a n d have i n c o m p a t i b l e m e m o r i e s of I s k y a n d
this fac t o r a l o n e is e n o u g h to k e e p t h e m a p a r t . R ani is a l o n e
in h e r a b i l i t y to see t h r o u g h the n e g a t i v e m i g r a t i o n s o f b o t h
R a z a a n d Isky. She alone u n d e r s t a n d s the v a l u e of r e m e m b e r i n g
the p a s t a n d i n c o r p o r a t i n g it into the future. Therefore, her
e i g h t e e n sha w l s s a y u n s p e a k a b l e t h i n g s w h i c h n o b o d y w a n t s to
hear. One of the shawls d e p i c t s Iskander, the a s s a s s i n of
possibility, crushing a young girl in his fist. For her
model. Rani u s e s S u f i y a Zinobia.
S uf i y a Zinobia, is of course, the m o s t o b v i o u s e x a m p l e of
a n i n t e r m i n g l i n g e v e r y o n e tries to i g n o r e in this t e x t . Like
Pakistan, th e n a r r a t o r tells us, she is "the w r o n g m i r a c l e "
(93) , s h a m e d even at birth because she is born the wrong
102
g e nder. B i l q u i s calls h e r "my sham e " a n d the h a k i m i m e d i c i n e
supposedly given to he r to m a k e h e r better, only serves to
retard the process of ti m e within her. Unlike the later
M o r a e s Z o g o i b y in The M o o r ' s L a s t S i g h w h o e x p e r i e n c e s l i f e at
a f u r i o u s l y a c c e l e r a t e d pace, S u f i y a Z i n o b i a ' s m i n d s l o w s d o w n
and she remains a child forev e r . Ultim a t e l y , it remains
u n c l e a r w h e t h e r she is r e n d e r e d a n idiot b e c a u s e o f a brain
fever, or as a result of repeated blows to her head
a d m i n i s t e r e d b y her mother.
A l l the while, Sufi y a Z i n o b i a b l u s h e s f o r th e w o r l d . She
is t o o e a s i l y shamed, we ar e told. In this way, she is the
opposite of Omar Khayyam Shakil who has been raised to be
shameless. This, along w i t h o t h e r d e t a i l s we receive about
her, set h e r a s i d e from th e o t h e r charac t e r s . F o r example,
she, unlike Bilquis, loves to move furniture around. She
r e a r r a n g e s tables, chairs, l a m p s w h e n e v e r no o n e is w a t c h i n g .
It is like a "secret game" she plays with "frighteningly
stubborn gravity." "'God k n o w s w h a t y o u ' l l change w i t h all
t h i s s h i f t i n g shifting'" h e r h u s b a n d tells her. T h e l o o that
so frightens her mother is hinted at as being a potential
catalyst in her process of transformation. During her
tranquil moments, she loves to play with th e dozens of
c h i l d r e n b i r t h e d b y N a v e e d w h o a r e i g n o r e d b y e v e r y o n e else.
S u r r o u n d e d b y characters w h o a r e c o r r u p t a n d tainted, Sufiya
103
Z i n o b i a is d e s c r i b e d as "pure." The n a r r a t o r tells us she is
p u r e b e c a u s e she is a n idiot and p r o c e e d s to d e s c r i b e h e r as
" c l e a n ” in a "dirty" world:
See how, growing, she c a r e s s e s a p e b b l e in h e r hand,
u n a b l e to s a y w h y goodness s e e m s to lie w i t h i n this
s m o o t h flat stone; h ow she g l o w s w i t h p l e a s u r e w h e n
she h e a r s l o v i n g words, e v e n t h o u g h t h e y are a lmost
always m e a n t f o r someone else. (13 0)
But, Bilquis, we are told, pours all h e r l o v e into Naveed, a nd
S u f i y a Z inobia's sp i r i t remains p a r c h e d f o r l a c k of affection,
nevertheless, she m a n a g e s "when l ove w a s i n h e r vicinity, to
glow happily just to be n e a r the p r e c i o u s thing" (130). A
little further, t he narrator tells us that Sufiya Zinobia
b l u s h e s u n c o n t r o l l a b l y w h e n e v e r h e r p r e s e n c e in the w o r l d is
n o t i c e d b y others. But she also b l u s h e s f o r t he world: "the
b r a i n - f e v e r that m a d e S u f i y a Zinobia p r e t e r n a t u r a l l y r e c e p t i v e
t o all sorts of th i n g s t hat float a r o u n d in the e t h e r e n a b l e d
her to absorb, like a sponge, a host of unfelt feelings"
(131) . T h e s e "unfelt feelings" are, o f course, e m o t i o n s that
c h a r a c t e r s a r o u n d Su f i y a Zin o b i a are t o o s h a m e l e s s or rut h l e s s
t o feel w h i c h she s iphons off into h erself, thereby cleaning
u p a b i t of the m e s s m a d e b y others i n h e r world.
W h e n she is t w e l v e y e a r s old, S u f i y a Z i n o b i a o b s e r v e s her
mother's jealousy and subsequent anger regarding Isky's
104
discarded, mistress, Pin k i e A ura n z e b , who R a z a was o n c e d e e p l y
attracted to. Bilquis tel l s Raza to take action against
P i n k i e ' s n o i s y turkeys, a n d w h e n h e does nothing, sh e p l a c e s
h e r h a n d s o n h e r hips a n d yells: "' O , a fine d a y f o r m e I Now
you humiliate me w i t h birds' " (146) . In response, Sufiya
Zinobia who is present, begins to blush "beca u s e it wa s
evident that the gobbling turkeys did indeed represent on e
m o r e v i c t o r y for Pinkie A u r a n z e b o v e r the o t h e r m e n ' s wives,
t h e last su c h victory, of w h i c h th e v i c t o r was w h o l l y u n a w a r e "
(146) . B u t this time, the e p i s o d e d o e s not c o n c l u d e w i t h m e r e
blushing. This time, Sufiya Zinobia sleepwalks over to
P i n k i e ' s y a r d in a t r a n c e - l i k e sta t e a n d kil l s all 218 t u r k e y s
b y t e a r i n g off t h e i r heads a n d t h e n r e a c h i n g d o w n i n t o t h e i r
bodies to dr a w t h e i r guts up through t h e i r nec k s "with her
t i n y w e a p o n l e s s hands" (15 0). Bilquis, w h o is u n a b l e to see
the possibility of loyalty or love behind this violence,
punishes S u fiya Zinobia by cutting he r hair so tha t her
daughter's head looks like "a c o r n f i e l d a f t e r a fire: sad,
b l a c k stubble, a catastrophic desolation wrought b y maternal
rag e " (151).
S u f i y a Zinobia's p o w e r f u l act p r e f i g u r e s h e r l a t e r a t t a c k
o n h e r s i s t e r N a v e e d ' s husband, T a l v a r Ulhaq, w h o s e h e a d she
a t t e m p t s to rip o f f o n his w e d d i n g d a y (186) . Having absorbed
the c o l l e c t i v e shame of th e w e d d i n g g u e s t s who ar e appalled
105
that Naveed has refused her arranged match for a love
marriage, Sufiya Zinobia's "beast" emerges and attempts to
kill Talvar. L a t e r in the t e x t w e l e a r n that N a v e e d ' s love
match is not what she expected it to be since Talvar is
literally only interested in colonizing her body by
c o n t i n u o u s l y i m p r e g n a t i n g h e r w i t h m u l t i p l e children. Naveed
u l t i m a t e l y b e c o m e s t e r r i f i e d of t h e e v e r - p r o g r e s s i n g n u m b e r of
c h i l d r e n she is forced to b e a r a n d c o m m i t s suicide. Although
the narrator does not explicitly connect Sufiya Zinobia's
e a r l y a t t a c k o n T a l v a r w i t h N a v e e d ' s l a t e r suicide, I r e a d the
attempted murder as a demonstration of Sufiya Zinobia's
i n t u i t i o n r e g a r d i n g the v i o l e n c e T a l v a r w i l l inflict on her
s i s t e r in the future. As in t he e a r l i e r t u r k e y epis o d e , her
i m p u l s e is to prot e c t tho s e she l o v e s .
While she fails to kill Talvar, Sufiya Zinobia does
s u c c e e d in c o m m i t t i n g a ser i e s of m u r d e r s b e g i n n i n g w i t h the
f o u r m a l e adoles c e n t s w h o s e h e a d s she w r e n c h e s off f r o m t h e i r
shoul d e r s , a f t e r she has s e x w i t h them. T h e impetus f o r this
m u l t i p l e act of viol e n c e is h e r ayah, S h a h b a n o u ' s p r e g n a n c y b y
S u f i y a Z i n o b i a ' s husband, O m a r K h a y y a m Shakil. S h a h b a n o u has
g i v e n h e r b o d y to O m a r K h a y y a m S h a k i l so he will n o t m o l e s t
Sufiya Zinobia, and because of this Sufiya Zinobia is
" p o s s e s s e d b y fault and shame" (241). Shahbanou loved Sufiya
Zinobia a n d s acr i f i c e d h e r s e l f for the child. In t h e sex-
106
murders, "what S h a h b a n o u t o o k u p o n h e r s e l f is f i n a l l y d o n e to
Sufiya" (242) . T h e f o u r "husbands," h owever, are killed by a
" beast" that unl i k e S h a h b a n o u refuses to l e a v e w i t h o u t a word,
w i t h o u t a t t e m p t i n g to a p p o r t i o n blame.
U n l i k e Bilquis, o r the Shakil sisters, or Omar Khayyam
S hakil, all of w h o m a r e v i c t i m s of o p p r e s s i o n a t s o m e p o i n t in
t h e i r lives, Su f i y a Z i n o b i a e x t e r n a l i z e s h e r a n g e r a n d s h a m e
a t b e i n g v i c t i m i z e d a n d e v e n t u a l l y goes a f t e r h e r o p p r e s s o r s .
H e r h u s b a n d believes h e c a n co n t r o l h e r v i o l e n t o u t b u r s t s b y
k e e p i n g h e r d r u g g e d a n d t h e r e f o r e keeps h e r in a c o m a for two
years.
. . . b u t t h e m o n s t e r inside h e r n e v e r slept, the
v i olen c e w h i c h h a d b e e n b o m o f shame, b u t w h i c h b y
n o w li v e d its o w n life b e n e a t h h e r skin; it fought
the n a r c o l e p t i c fluids, it t o o k i t s time, spreading
slowly t h r o u g h h e r b o d y u n t i l it h a d o c c u p i e d e v e r y
cell, until s h e h a d b e c o m e the v i o l e n c e , w h i c h no
longer n e e d e d a n y t h i n g to set it o f f . . . . And
in the e n d it d e f e a t e d the drug, it l i f t e d its b o d y
up and b r o k e t h e r e s t r a i n i n g cha i n s . (268)
The imp o r t a n t detail to keep in mind regarding Sufiya
Z i n o b i a ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n into the B east o f s h a m e is t h a t it is
brought on by anger and that it is w i l l e d . She chooses to
create the Beast out of her imagination. "The rampages of
107
Sufiya Zinobia were the results of a fancy that ran wild"
(269) . It is h e r w ill a n d i m a g i n a t i o n that a l l o w h e r to break
out of the e x t e r n a l l y i m p o s e d status of "victim. " H e r hu s b a n d
dreams she is proud, free, and in control. But alt h o u g h
Sufiya Z i n o b i a s u c c e e d s in b r e a k i n g free of v i c t i m h o o d , rather
than b r e a k i n g t h e c y c l e of v i o l e n c e b e g u n b y h e r oppressors,
she b e c o m e s t h e v i c t i m i z e r i nstead a n d e n d s u p k i l l i n g O m a r
Khayyam S h a k i l .
On the day that Raza Hyder orders Isky's execution,
Sufiya Zinobia escapes from her attic-prison by bursting
th r ough its w a l l a n d b e g i n s to r oam the c o u n t r y s i d e freely.
In her wake, s h e leaves a trail of d e s t r u c t i o n a n d murder, and
w i t h e a c h s u b s e q u e n t attack, h e r m o n s t e r i m a g e is e n h a n c e d b y
the v i l l a g e r s a n d s l u m - d w e l l e r s who tell of h e r a c t i o n s . She
is described a l t e r n a t i v e l y as a "fabulous animal, " a white
panther, "Time's ghost," a n d "the future s t a l k i n g the forests
of the past" (278-79) . In some versions of t h i s monster-myth,
she ca n fly, dematerialize, o r g r o w larger t h a n a tree (281) .
Both Raza and Omar intuit that it is o n l y a m a t t e r of time
bef o r e she c o m e s a f t e r t h e m to avenge the p a i n a n d h u m i l i a t i o n
she has s u f f e r e d at t h e i r hands. R a z a r e c o g n i z e s h e r as his
"nemesis" t h a t has b e e n s t a l k i n g him t h r o u g h o u t his four- y e a r
re i g n as preside n t , " p e r m i t t i n g h im to rise h i g h e r a n d higher
so that his f al l might be greater" (285) . He imagines her
108
"moving slowly inwards, spiralling inexorably in to the
centre" (285), to the a t t i c room w h e r e he p a c e s n e r v o u s l y a n d
w h e r e his accomplice, O m a r K h a y y a m Shakil, sits s t a r i n g out
t h r o u g h the w i n d o w into the m e n a c i n g night.
Raza ' s fall as a p o l i t i c i a n o c c u r s w h e n c o n n e c t i o n s are
made between Pinkie's turkeys, Naveed's wedding day fiasco,
and theories about dead boys in slums. A crowd gathers
o u t s i d e Raza's h o u s e a n d chants, shouts, jeers. Omar Khayyam
S h akil w o n d e r s if S u f i y a Zin o b i a w i l l a r r i v e at this h i g h l y
c h a r g e d m o m e n t a n d w h e t h e r the c r o w d w i l l a l l o w h e r t h r o u g h to
do t h e i r d i r t y w o r k (289-290). S u f i y a Zinobia, however, w a i t s
for a m o ment in the future, after h e r husband, father, and
m o t h e r e s c a p e to Q.
Sin c e the S h a k i l s i s t e r s kill Raza, a n d B i l q u i s d i e s fro m
a fever, the o n l y v i c t i m i z e r left to S u f i y a Zinobia is h e r
husband. She c a p t u r e s h i m in her h y p n o t i c gaze, and although
he struggles a g a i n s t it, she is too s t r o n g f o r him:
His body was falling away from her, a headless
trunk, a n d a f t e r that the B e a s t f a d e d in h e r o n c e
again, she s t o o d there b l i n k i n g stupidly, unsteady
on her feet, as if she didn't know that al l the
s t orie s h a d to e n d together, that t h e fire w a s just
gathering its strength, that on the day of
r e c k o n i n g the judges are not e x e m p t f r o m judgement,
109
a n d tha t the p o w e r of the Bea s t of s h a m e c a n n o t be
held for long within any o n e frame of flesh an d
blood, b e c a u s e it grows, it feeds a n d swel l s , until
the v e s s e l bursts. (317)
S u f i y a Z i n o b i a w h o has b e e n v i c t i m i z e d b y h e r f a m i l y a n d h e r
husband refuses to remain passive and, instead, allows the
r a g e w i t h i n h e r to b u i l d up u n t i l she is f i n a l l y a b l e to w i l l
h e r s e l f into a Beast in whose form she is strong, active,
vengeful. Rather than being subsumed by the system of
o p p r e s s i o n w i t h i n w h i c h she is trapped, she r i s e s u p a g a i n s t
it a n d b e c o m e s a "judge", a v i c t i m i z e r herself. Ultimately,
through her act s of v iolence, she succeeds in n e u t r a l i z i n g
Raza's dictatorship and silencing her husband forever.
The novel's fireball conclusion is similar to MC' s
a n n i h i l a t i n g w h i r l p o o l e n d i n g i n the s t r e n g t h o f its v i o l e n c e .
Unlike MC, it does n ot imagine a space of "hybridity;"
instead, it focu s e s on the mechanics of oppression and
repression as illustrated in its m a j o r c h aracters. In the
end, although Sufiya Zinobia's anger rele a s e s her from the
"victim" category in which her family and husband have
a t t e m p t e d to i m p r i s o n h e r all h e r life, the v i o l e n c e b e g u n b y
the others is continued by her, and it is hinted that
subsequent "beasts of shame" w i l l f o l l o w in S u f i y a Z i n o b i a ' s
footsteps. Thus, the n o v e l e n d s as it begins: with violence
110
and shame; the colonizer/colonized binary is not
deconstructed, r a t h e r it is m e r e l y flipped.
IV. THE S A T A N I C V E R S E S
Th e Satanic Verses asks two major questions, both of
w h i c h h a v e to d o w i t h identity: "What k i n d of idea are y o u ? "
Are you the kind that compromises, does deals,
accommodates itself to society, aims to find a
niche, to survive; or are you cussed, bloody-
minded, r a m r o d - b a c k e d type of d a m n f o o l n o t i o n t h a t
would rather break than sway with the breeze?
(335)
And, "How do you behave once you win?" (369). Rushdie's
response to the issue of identity is to reveal it as a
c o n s t r u c t r a t h e r t h a n as a n essence. In M i d n i g h t 's Chi 1rfrsn.
he reveals the protagonist Saleem Sinai to be a social,
political, and cultural construct; similarly, in SV, he
exposes the protagonist Chamcha's pre-devil and devil
c h a r a c t e r to b e c o n s t r u c t e d b y the d o m i n a n t B r i t i s h culture,
and his later, transformed "identity" into Salahuddin
Chamchawalla to have been shaped by alternative influences
such as the independent, strong, intelligent daughter of
I n d i a n immigrants, Mishal, his I n d i a n friend, Zeeny, a n d his
father, C h a n g e z . K e y elem e n t s in C h a m c h a ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a r e
111
112
his will and anger that allow him to break out of the
r e s t r i c t i v e "victim" c a t e g o r y into w h i c h he has b e e n t h r u s t b y
the dominant British discourse. Unlike Sufiya Zinobia in
Shame. he no t only succeeds in overturning the
victimizer/victim binary, he actually completes the
d e c o n s t r u c t ive gesture by surviving in a space th a t is
eclectic, hybrid, and h e t e rogeneous, a space that includes
colonizer and colonized, fundamentalism and s e cularism,
"fantasy" and "reality." S a l a h u d d i n C h a m c h a w a l l a r e f u s e s to
r e m a i n a v i c t i m a n d is ab l e t o "humanize" h i m s e l f t h r o u g h his
anger; his counterpart, the fam o u s Indian a c t o r of t h e o l o g i c a l
films, G i b r e e l Farishta, o n t h e o t h e r hand, never develops a
w i l l of h i s o w n a n d r ema i n s a t the m e r c y of o t h e r s t h r o u g h o u t
the text. Ultimately, G i b r e e l ' s i n a b i l i t y to b e f l e x i b l e a n d
"impure" l e a d s to his death.
F o r R ushdie , the f l e x i b i l i t y ver s u s r i g i d i t y c h o i c e p l u g s
into a broader philosophy which addresses th e notion of
r e a l i t y as a n a r t i f a c t c r e a t e d b y the p o w e r of lang u a g e . The
e a r l i e r questi o n s , then, p u t a n o t h e r way, become: "What k i n d
of r e a l i t y d o y o u choose to create?" In this c h a p t e r I shall
e x p l o r e the a r e a of the text w h i c h dea l s most o v e r t l y w i t h the
idea of r e a l i t y as a construct, n a m e l y the G i b r e e l sections,
a n d a t t e m p t to d e m o n s t r a t e t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h R u s h d i e e x p o s e s
"Islam" as a m a l e - c o n s t r u c t e d m y t h w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y t r a n s f o r m s
113
G i b r e e l into a n a v e n g i n g a n g e l d u e to its a b s o l utism. I will
go on to discuss Salahuddin Chamchawalla as Rushdie's
preferred alternative since he is p r e s e n t e d as a much more
fluid character who survives due to his ability to re
construct his "identity” from a more o p e n - ended, eclectic
perspective, and since he ends up in Bombay, which is
representative of the "third principle," a space Rushdie
c o n s t r u c t s as a c o u n t e r m y t h in t h e B a r t h i a n sense, to e x p o s e
other naturalized myths such as "Islam" and the dominant
B r i t i s h discourse, myths that construct "reality" through a
s y s t e m of binaries. In the v e r s i o n of "Islam" p r e s e n t e d in
SV, the binaries break out into good versus evil, reality
v e r s u s fantasy, a n d G o d v e r s u s the Devil; the d o m i n a n t B r i t i s h
discourse is c o m p o s e d of a system of w h i t e versus colored,
rich versus poor, colonizer versus colonized. The idea of
"Bombay" as constructed by Changez, Zeeny, and her fr i e n d s
s e e k s to d i s rupt the b i n a r y a n d o f f e r an a l t e r n a t i v e s p a c e of
hybridity.
Reality is an artifact, Rushdie tells us in Imaginary
H o m e l a n d s . and an individual who understands the artificial
n a t u r e of r e a l i t y is m o r e o r less o b l i g e d to e n t e r t h e p r o c e s s
o f m a k i n g it (IH 281) . W e live in o u r ideas, o u r p i c t u r e s (IH
378) . R u s h d i e i mplies t h a t p e r h a p s m i g r a n t s are m o r e a w a r e of
this process of reality-making because of their triple
114
d i s r u p t i o n of r e a l i t y ( r o o t s / l a n g u a g e / s o c i a l norms) a n d that
m i g r a t i o n e n t a i l s the c r o s s i n g of a frontier, e i t h e r l iteral
or fi g u r a t i v e . Finally, to s e e t h i n g s clearly, y o u h a v e to
cross a frontier (IH 125) . T h e s e ideas r e g a r d i n g a m i g r a n t ' s
r o l e in r e a l i t y - m a k i n g s e r v e a s a u s e f u l e n t r e i n t o S V .
Gibreel Farishta's migration is spiri t u al in that he
leaves India a f t e r he loses his a b i l i t y to b e l i e v e i n God.
This spiritual crisis leads to h is dreams which ultimately
cross into reality and he ends up becoming the Archangel
Gibreel, a n d later, the a v e n g i n g a n g e l Azraeel. This is a n
u n s u c c e s s f u l m e t a m o r p h o s i s for F a r i s h t a bec a u s e he c a n n o t come
to t e r m s w i t h t h e "unreality" o f i t . W h e n he r e a l i z e s he will
n e v e r b e a b l e to c o n t r o l the d r e a m s (the fiction) , h e b e l i e v e s
h e has g o n e insane. In o t h e r w o r d s , he cannot l i v e w i t h the
i d e a t hat hi s r e a l i t y h as b e c o m e (is) a n a r t i f a c t o f h i s own
c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e o t h e r m a j o r p r o b l e m w i t h his t r a n s f o r m a t i o n
in t o th e avenging angel Azraeel is that it occurs as a
r e s p o n s e t o a rigid, " p u r e , " i n f l e x i b l e v e r s i o n of I s l a m and
t h e r e f o r e t h e "reality" that is c r e a t e d as a re s u l t is e q u a l l y
harsh, one-sided, and unbending. Farishta buys into this
c o n s t r i c t i v e m y t h a n d a l l o w s it to d e f i n e his i d e n t i t y w h i c h
ends up being unaccommodating, and in the final analysis,
p r e v e n t s h i s a b i l i t y to survive. B e c a u s e G i b r e e l ' s v e r s i o n of
"Islam" insists on maintaining a binary perspective that
115
a t t e m p t s to d i v i d e r e a l i t y into airtight c o m p a r t m e n t s s u c h as
g o o d v e r s u s bad, a n d r e a l i t y v e r s u s fantasy, a n y b l u r r i n g of
separate boundaries is perceived as a threat to survival.
T herefore, G i b r e e l ' s i m p u l s e is always to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n
s u c h c a t e g o r i e s in o r d e r t h a t t h e i r " e s s e n c e ” m a y b e r e t a i n e d
intact. W h e n h e is no l o n g e r able to m a i n t a i n a d i s t i n c t i o n
b e t w e e n th e m a j o r c a t e g o r i e s o f his hierarchy, a n d h i s dreams
cross o v e r i nto reality, h e com m i t s suicide.
The dreams that Farishta dreams have to do with the
o r i g i n s a n d im p l i c a t i o n s o f I s l a m a n d since t h e y p r o g r e s s i v e l y
reveal th e "artificial" n a t u r e o f its construct, G i b r e e l fears
them. Gibreel-transformed-into-Azraeel believes in a
f u n d a m e n t a l i s t v e r s i o n of I s l a m that takes the Q u r a n to be the
act u a l word of God, and that separates the w o r l d into g o o d
versus evil. His dreams, however, represent a counter
narrative according to which the idea of One God is
p r o b l e m a t i z e d a n d M a h o u n d is r e v e a l e d to be the a c t u a l a u t h o r
of the Quran. Each of Gibreel's three Islam dreams
( M a hound/the Imam/Ayesha) are e x p o s e d to b e rigid, man-made
c o n s t r u c t s r a t h e r them, d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n s of Al- L a h , a n d the
c a t e g o r i e s o f g o o d v e r s u s e v i l are not as a i r t i g h t as G i b r e e l
w o u l d p r e f e r t h e m to be. T h i s e x p o s e of "Islam" o c c u r s p a r t l y
through constant questioning about the categories of good
v e r s u s evil, r i g i d i t y v e r s u s flexibility, a n d r e a l i t y ve r s u s
116
fantasy.
As part of the Islam expose, Rushdie messes with
traditionally "pure" categories such as "the p rophet."
Mahound's i d e n t i t y as a "good" p r o p h e t is t u r n e d o n its h e a d
from the very beginning. He ha s adopted a name which is
synonymous with the Devil in o r d e r to t u r n a n ins u l t into a
strength, but on another level, his ability to wil l is
portrayed as a d e v i l i s h trait b e c a u s e angels, we are told,
h a v e n o will. Indeed, F a r i s h t a w h o is s u p p o s e d to b e a "good"
archangel is c o n t r o l l e d t h r o u g h o u t the t e x t b y o t h e r wills,
first by Mahound's and later b y Ayesha's and therefore his
"goodness" is q u e s t i o n a b l e as well. E v e n t h e Quran, it turns
out, is not a d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n b e c a u s e w h a t M a h o u n d bri n g s
down fr o m the ca v e o n M o u n t Con e a r e his o w n w o r d s w h i c h he
has successfully pu t into Gibreel's mouth. Similarly,
G i breel, r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g a conduit for God, is a r e l u c t a n t
a n g e l w h o does no t h a v e a n y answers fo r M a h o u n d . He is in the
m i d d l e of a d r e a m a n d is a l a r m e d at the p r o s p e c t of h a v i n g to
choose between monotheist and henotheist a l t e r n a t i v e s :
". . . Who asks the bloody audience of a 't h e o l o g i c a l ' to
s o l v e the b l o o d y p l o t ? " (108). B ut the d r e a m s h i f t s Gibreel
f r o m b e i n g a mer e s p e c t a t o r to the c e n t r a l a c t o r a n d he finds
h i m s e l f p l a y i n g not just th e a r c h a n g e l b u t the M e s s e n g e r as
well, until it b e c o m e s impossible to tell w h i c h of them is
117
dreaming the other. As th e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n G i b r e e l and
M a h o u n d is blurred, the c a t e g o r i e s of r e a l i t y a n d f a n t a s y ar e
m u d d i e d e v e n further, u n t i l it b e c o m e s i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t
to d e c i p h e r w h o o r what is a c t u a l l y in control. A c c o r d i n g to
the myth that Mahound is weaving, of course, the one in
ultimate control is always Allah. Bu t the v a l i d i t y of this
c l a i m is u n d e r c u t b y the e p i s o d e o f the S a t a n i c vers e s , and
Mahound emerges as a rigid, inflexible i n d i vi d u a l who is
u n w i l l i n g to c o m p r o m i s e o r m a k e a n y d e a l s .
There is a m o m e n t i n the te x t w h i c h is p r e s e n t e d as an
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r M a h o u n d to b e f l e x i b l e a b o u t the n e w r e l i g i o n
he is a t t e m p t i n g to p r opagate: since the pre-Islamic moment
f o r e g r o u n d e d m u l t i p l e gods, the i d e a of O n e G o d is d i f f i c u l t
to sell to the p o p u l a t i o n at large, particularly since the
e a r l i e r m u l t i p l e go d s ar e l i n k e d to a brisk, lucrative trade
that y i e l d s m o n e y not o n l y f o r the m a n in charge, t h e Grand e e ,
A b u Simbel, b u t f o r the loc a l m e r c h a n t s as well. The Grandee
offers M a h o u n d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to a l l o w t h r e e female g o d d e s s e s
to r e m a i n a l o n g w i t h the new, One God, Allah, a n d in e x c h a n g e
he p r o m i s e s to help Mahound spread his new faith. Mahound
retreats to Mount Cone a n d w i l l s G i b r e e l to "reveal" verses
that p e r m i t the t h r e e g o d d e s s e s to remain. Later, howev e r ,
w h e n M a h o u n d is r e c o n s i d e r i n g his c o m p r o m i s e w i t h the Gran d e e ,
he w r e s t l e s w i t h G i b r e e l a n d u l t i m a t e l y throws t he f i g h t :
118
After they had wrestled for hours or even weeks
Mahound wa s pinned down beneath th e angel, it's
w h a t h e want e d , it w a s his w i l l f i l l i n g m e u p and
giving me strength to hold him down, because
archangels can't lose such fights, it w o u l d n ' t be
right, it's only devils who get beaten in such
circs, so the moment I got on top he started
weeping for joy and th e n he did his old trick,
forcing my mouth open and making th e voice, the
Voice, p o u r o u t of m e again, made it p o u r al l over
him, l i k e sick. (123)
The end result is that Mahound convinces himself that the
f i r s t s e t o f v e r s e s w e r e i n s p i r e d b y th e Devil, b u t thi s time
he has the rea l godly message. Gibreel undercuts this
assertion by revealing to the reader tha t ". . .it w a s me
both times, baba, me first and second also me” (123) . For
Mahound a n d his followers, however, th e compromise-oriented
verses become the S a t a n i c v e r s e s a n d M a h o u n d r e t u r n s to his
o r i g i n a l , i n f l e x i b l e p o s t u r e a n d s i m p l y m a n d a t e s that e v e r y o n e
m u s t n o w b e l i e v e in o n e God.
The message Mahound takes back to Jahilia undoes the
e a r l i e r c o m p r o m i s e a n d h e e m e r g e s as a rigid, single-minded,
unforgiving man with repressive ide a s about women. He
m i g r a t e s to a n o a s i s c i t y a n d r e t u r n s t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s later
119
to Jahilia. The sand used to build Jahilia is described
e a r l i e r as " . . . the q u i n t e s s e n c e of u n s e t t l e m e n t , shifting,
treachery, lack of form . . ." (94); however, as time has
passed, even this constantly shifting city of sand has
h a r d e n e d due t o M a h o u n d 's influence,
so that it had lost its old, shifting,
p r o v i s i o n a l q u a l i t y of a m i r a g e . . . and become a
p r o s a i c place, q u o t i d i a n . . . a n d poor. Mahound's
arm had grown long; his powers had encircled
Jahilia, c u t t i n g off its life-b l o o d , its pilg r i m s ,
a n d caravans. (359-60)
Mahound, we are told, b ecomes "obsessed by law" (363) and
"f o u n d h i m s e l f spouting rules, rules, rules, until the
f a ithful could scarcely bear the prospect of any more
revelations . . . r u l e s about e v e r y d a m n t h i n g . . ." (363) .
T h e rules M a h o u n d i m p o s e s instruct the p e o p l e h o w to o r g a n i z e
t h e i r lives a n d r a n g e f r o m edicts a b o u t p e r s o n a l hygiene, to
s e x u a l practices, to f o o d preparation, to h o w p r o p e r t y s h o u l d
b e divided, to h o w w o m e n should b e d o c i l e o r maternal, etc.
(3 64-67) . In t h e end, however, M a h o u n d is p u n i s h e d f o r his
i n f l e x i b i l i t y b y A l - L a t who causes his illness and ultimate
death. B y m a k i n g M a h o u n d a c k n o w l e d g e h e r p r e s e n c e d u r i n g h is
f i n a l moments, R u s h d i e reinf o r c e s the fact t hat the i d e a of
o n e G o d is a c o n s t r u c t e d fiction.
120
In t h i s s e c t i o n o f the text, a b y n o w f a m i l i a r Rushdie-
theme emerges which foregrounds hybridity over purity,
m u l t i p l i c i t y o v e r singleness, th e p r o f a n e o v e r t h e sacred, the
Devil over God, Al-Lat over Al-Lah, and ambiguity over
clarity. In this context, I s l a m is r e p r e s e n t e d as a rigid,
r e p r e s s i v e r e l i g i o n w i t h a r u l e f or everything. A l t h o u g h the
pre-Islamic moment is not romanticized by Rushdie (he
recognizes for example a fully operating dominating patriarchy
w i t h i n it) , t h e idea of m u l t i p l e g o d s w i t h a f e m a l e g o d at the
lead exists in a p r e f e r r e d s p a c e w h i c h t o l e r a t e s a m b i v a l e n c e
in a w a y t h a t M a h o u n d ' s I s l a m cannot. A p r e-Islamic Jahilia
c e l e b r a t e s t h e p a t r i a r c h Ib r a h i m ' s v i s i t to th e v a l l e y , rath e r
t h a n his w i f e H a g a r ' s w h o m he a b a n d o n e d there a l o n g w i t h their
son, Ismail, to p e r i s h in th e h e a t o f the desert, a ll fo r the
sake of a m a l e diety. It is H a g a r w h o survives, i n s p i t e of
the injustice done to her, yet, the people of Jahilia
c e l e b r a t e n o t h e r memory, r a t h e r th e h o n o r d o n e t h e i r v a l l e y
b y the v i s i t of Ibra h i m (95) . D u r i n g this m o m e n t i n history,
the slave t r a d e is b r i s k a n d w o m e n ar e o b j e c t i f i e d as belly-
d a ncers a n d p r o s t i t u t e s . T he s o c i e t y is h i e r a r c h i c a l as is
d e m o n s t r a t e d b y the d e s i g n o f t he t o w n w h i c h "has b e e n built
in a s e r i e s o f r o u g h circles, its hou s e s s p r e a d i n g o u t w a r d s
f r o m the H o u s e of the B l a c k Stone, a p p r o x i m a t e l y in o r d e r of
wealth and rank" (96) . And yet, this is also a community
121
w h e r e merchants, Jewish, Monophysite, N a bataen come together
to trade silver and gold, linen f rom Egypt, and silk from
China, arms and grain from Basra. There is gambling,
drinking, and dance (96) . This is a society that values
poets, h o s t s annual p o e t r y c ompetitions, w h e r e the p o e t Baal
tells the G r a n d e e that " 'A p o e t ' s w o r k ... (is) to n a m e the
un n a m e a b l e , to point at frauds, to take sides, start
argum e n t s , shape the world, a n d stop it f r o m g o i n g to sleep'"
(97) . B e f o r e M a h o u n d t a k e s over, Jahilia is c o n t r o l l e d and
ruled b y Abu Simbel, the Grandee, who answers thus to this
q u e s t i o n w h i c h he p u t s to h i m s e l f : "W h a t k i n d o f i d e a a m I?
I bend. I sway. I calculate the odds, trim my sails,
manipulate, survive" (102) . A b u Simbel does not a c c u s e his
wife, Hind, of a d u l t e r y w i t h B a a l b e c a u s e "he (Abu Simbel) has
his appetites, w h y s h o u l d s h e n o t h a v e hers? A s l o n g as she
is discreet; and as long as he knows" (101) . This type of
open-ended philosophy, however, is suppressed by Mahound's
return to Jahilia. Mahound's goal is to m a k e everyone
" submit" to Islam. As a result, his r ules are implemented
with an attempt to con t r o l and domesticate women, silence
poets, and ban whorehouses. When Baal the poet who once
mocked the Recitation is finally d i s c o v e r e d in h is hiding
place behind The Curtain, the last remaining whorehouse in
Jahilia, he shouts out: "'Wh o r e s a n d writ e r s , Mahound. We
122
a r e the people y o u c a n ' t f orgive.'" To w h i c h M a h o u n d replies,
"'Writers an d whores. I see no d i f f e r e n c e h e r e ' " a n d orders
Baal's execution. Thus, in both Jahilia sections Rushdie
e s t a b l i s h e s a c l e a r d i c h o t o m y b e t w e e n the p r e - I s l a m i c m o m e n t
which is d e s c r i b e d as fluid, possessing a rootless, nomadic
past, celebrating multiple gods, in p a r t i c u l a r three f emale
go d d e s s e s ; a n d the p o s t - I s l a m i c m o m e n t w h i c h is p r e s e n t e d as
rigid, rule-oriented, binary-driven, and foregrounding One
God.
Gibr e e l ' s n ext d r e a m has to d o w i t h t h e Imam a n d occurs
following Mahound's migration to t he oasis city a n d we a re
t o l d of a n o ther m i g r a t i o n w h i c h is o c c u r r i n g w i t h i n G i b r e e l :
" E v e n the serial v i s i o n s h a v e m i g r a t e d now; t h e y k n o w the c i t y
(London) b e t t e r t h a n he" (205). Now, Gibreel's "archangelic
other self b e g i n (s) to seem as tangible as the shifting
r e a l i t i e s he inh a b i t s w h i l e h e ' s awake" (205) . Like Mahound's
the Imam's version of Islam rivets around the idea of
singularity rath e r than multiplicities. The Imam believes
t h a t his v e r s i o n of f u n d a m e n t a l i s t I s l a m is t h e t h i n g itself,
an essence, rat h e r than the representation of an idea put
forth by Mahound. The Imam, an exile, is "the enemy of
i m a ges" (206) a n d t h e o n l y p h o t o g r a p h s p e r m i t t e d in h i s h o u s e
ar e p o s t c a r d s b e a r i n g " c o n v e ntional" im a g e s o f h i s h omeland.
By pointing this out, Rushdie not only reminds us of the
123
f u n d a m e n t a l i s t v e r s i o n of I s l a m (the Imam's) which prohibits
ph o t o g r a p h s and other images because they are a possible
te m p t a t i o n b a c k w a r d into idol-worship, but c o m i n g c l o s e o n the
he e l s of C h a m c h a 's d e v i l - m e t a m o r p h o s i s this is a c o m m e n t o n
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in general. When Chamcha becomes a devil he
asks the m a n t i c o r e h o w the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s come a b o u t a n d is
told: " ' T h e y d e s c r i b e us . . . That's all. They have the
power of descrip t i o n , and we succumb to the pictures they
construct'" (168) . In o t h e r words, l a n g u a g e has the p o w e r to
construct r e a l i t i e s . Since l a n g u a g e is r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the
same w a y t h a t p h o t o s are, w h a t t h e I m a m seems to b e f i g h t i n g
against is t h e n o t i o n that m u l t i p l e realities are p o s s i b l e .
He is only interested in one version of reality
(fundamentalist Islam) and superimposes this version o nto
"Jerusalem." Put a n o t h e r way, he is a f t e r "reality" rather
t h a n a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of i t . W h a t he r e f u s e s to a c k n o w l e d g e
is the fact t h a t his v e r s i o n of I s l a m is a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , an
idea as well. E v e n Jerusalem, the I m a m ' s u l t i m a t e g o a l is "a
s l i p p e r y word. . .it c a n be an idea a s w e l l as a place: a goal,
a n exaltation. W h e r e is the Im a m ' s J e r u s a l e m ? 'The fall of
the harlot . . . . H e r crash, the B a b y l o n i a n whore' " (212) .
An idea (the Imam) fighting a contrary idea (the Empress
Ayesha).
A n d a n i m p o r t a n t part of the I m a m ' s idea is a r e j e c t i o n
124
of Hi s t o r y :
For there is an enemy beyond Ayes h a , and it is
History herself. H i s t o r y is the b l o o d - w i n e that
m u s t no l o n g e r b e drunk. History the i n t o x icant,
t h e creation a n d p o s s e s s i o n of the D e v i l . . . the
greate s t of lies--progress, science, r i g h t s --
against w h i c h t h e I m a m has set his face. H i s t o r y is
a devia t i o n f r o m t he Path, k n o w l e d g e is a delusion,
be c aus e the sum of knowledge was complete on the
day Al-Lah finished his revelation to Mahound.
(210)
Once again, Islam is represented as a closed system which
a t t e m p t s to nega t e the h y b r i d i t y inherent in " h i s t o r y . " A s in
the M a h o u n d section w h e r e the m u l t i p l e gods o f t h e p a s t are
d e s t r o y e d to promote the i d e a o f O ne God, h e r e t he c h r o n o l o g y
of h i s t o r y is rejected f o r "the ti m e l e s s n e s s o f God" (211) .
By placing this dream sequence after the Mahound chapter,
Rushdie further emphasizes the "unreality" of Islam.
A c c o r d i n g to the Imam, t h e s u m o f k n o w l e d g e w a s c o m p l e t e d the
d a y A l - L a h finis h e d his r e v e l a t i o n s to Mahound. K n o w i n g that
the r e v e l a t i o n s are r e a l l y M a h o u n d ' s o w n ideas r a t h e r t h a n the
U l t i m a t e A u t h o r i t y ' s strips t h e m of t h e i r m y s t i q u e . A n d this
s i t u a t i o n is further c o m p l i c a t e d b y o u r k n o w l e d g e t h a t it is
Rekha who is actu a l l y c o n t r o l l i n g G i b r e e l ' s dreams to b e g i n
125
with. Nonethele s s , the Ima m wills G i b r e e l to e n g a g e in b a t t l e
with Ayesha (who tur n s o ut to be Al-Lat) a n d this time, t he
a r c h a n g e l prev a i l s . A l - L a t is k i l l e d a n d t h e I m a m g r o w s to a
m o n s t r o u s size, l i t e r a l l y swall o w i n g p e o p l e as t h e y e n t e r the
p a l a c e gates.
A f t e r the I m a m section, we go b a c k i n t i m e to J a h i l i a a n d
w i t n e s s M a h o u n d ' s end. W i t h M a h o u n d ' s death, on e d r e a m en d s
for Farishta, b u t a n o t h e r begins alm o s t as a l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n
of the earlier one: Ayesha-of-the-butterf lies is also a
messenger of God as wa s Mahound. At first, Gibreel is
r e l i e v e d b y this n e w s e q u e n c e beca u s e ". . .it s u g g e s t s that
the d e i t y w h o m he, Gibreel, has t r i e d u n s u c c e s s f u l l y to ki l l
can be a God of love, as well as o ne of v engeance, power,
duty, rules and hate . . ." (216). But ultimately this
version turns out to be as rig i d and unforgiving as the
M a h o u n d a n d I m a m vers i o n . The r e a l i t y v e r s u s f i c t i o n set up
is further complicated in this sequence by th e fact that
A y e s h a dreams G i b r e e l . In oth e r w o r d s , G i b r e e l dre a m s M i r z a
Akhtar and Mishal and Ayesha arrives to dream Gibr e e l and
become transformed b y "his" message. O n c e again, G i b r e e l is
a h elpless victim whose archangelness is appropriated by a
willful human bein g : "With Mahound there was always a
struggle; w i t h t h e Imam, slavery; but w i t h t h i s girl, t h e r e is
nothing. G i b r e e l is inert, u s u a l l y a s l e e p in th e d r e a m as he
I
126
is in life. She . . . takes what she needs, and l eaves"
(234).
Ayesha decl a r e s that G o d h a s mandated a pilgrimage, on
foot, t o Mecca. Once again, w e a r e t o l d that t h e s e a r e not
Gibreel's words. Ayesha-the-messenger, however, is a True
B e l i e v e r a n d h e r Faith in G o d s t e e l s h e r a g a i n s t m e r e e a r t h l y
a n x i e t i e s s u c h as w a l k i n g t h r o u g h t h e A r a b i a n Sea. Osman-the-
clown sees the mortal danger in Ayesha's plan from the
b e g i n n i n g a n d tells his bullock, "'Maybe we should have stayed
untouchable . . . a compulsory ocean so u n d s worse than a
forbidden well' "■ (240) . Later, Osman directly questions
A y e s h a a b o u t h e r v e r s i o n of God: " ' W h a t ' s he a f r a i d of? Is
he so u n c o n f i d e n t that he n e e d s us t o d i e to p r o v e o u r l o v e ? ' "
(483) . A l i t t l e later, M i r z a S a e e d l o s e s a ll h o p e o f r e a c h i n g
his w i f e w h e n she a n n o u n c e s , "' T h i n g s h a v e c o m e to t h e p o i n t
. where only the pure can be with the pure' " (496) .
M i s h a l r e j e c t s h e r h usband's l o v e b e c a u s e he is a n u n b e l i e v e r
and therefore impure. Ayesha's religion operates within
extremely tight, cle a r l y d e f i n e d boundaries, to the extent
that when one of the w o m e n delivers an illegitimate child,
A y e s h a p r o n o u n c e s its d e a t h s e n t e n c e b y stating, "'Everything
w i l l be a s k e d of us' " (497) . H e r f o l l o w e r s s t o n e t h e b a b y to
death.
In a n a t t e m p t to save h i s wife, Mishal, w h o is d y i n g of
127
cancer yet insi s t s on walking with Ayesha on her Haj
pilgramage, M i r z a S a e e d o f f e r s A y e s h a a c o m p r o m i s e : he o f f e r s
to f l y her, Mishal, a n d t e n o r twelve o t h e r p i l g r i m s to M e c c a
w i t h i n forty-eight h o u r s . He tries to c o n v i n c e h e r that if
she accepts this deal, sh e will indeed have performed a
miracle for some i n s t e a d of for none. Even t h o u g h he is a
secular, godless, man, h e acknow l e d g e s t h a t h e r j o u r n e y thus
f a r has a l ready c o n s t i t u t e d a mir a c l e of s o r t s a n d p l e a d s w i t h
her to c onsider his p roposal. But Ayesha chooses to go
f o r w a r d w i t h h e r plan, s e c u r e in her b e l i e f t h a t the A r a b i a n
Sea w i l l part for her and her followers, and t h e y will be
"saved." The narrator tells us that Mirza Saeed's offer
contains an o l d q u e s t i o n : "What k i n d of idea are you? and
she, in turn, o f f e r s h i m a n o l d answer: "I w a s tempted, but
a m renewed: am u n c o m p r o m i s i n g - absolute: pure" (500) . Li k e
M a h o u n d before her, Ayesha is u n w i l l i n g to b e n d b e c a u s e h er
v e r s i o n of Islam d o e s n o t p e r m i t d e a l - m a k i n g o r compromises.
S i n c e A y e s h a remains u n c o m p r o m i s i n g , absolute, a n d p u r e to the
end, she drowns in t h e A r a b i a n Sea a l o n g w i t h h e r followers.
T h e me s s a g e here s e e m s t o be that f l e x i b i l i t y a n d c o m p r o m i s e
are e ssential f or s u r v i v a l . The o t h e r m e s s a g e see m s to be
th a t o n c e w e c o n s t r u c t o u r v e r s i o n of "reality, " w e s h o u l d be
careful not to take it too seri o u s l y by always reminding
o u r s e l v e s that it is a s e l f - m a d e fiction. M a h o u n d b e g i n s the
128
p r ocess of m y t h - m a k i n g b y creating Islam. Ayesha carries on
his tradition b y b e l i e v i n g his construct to be reality and
later b y v a l i d a t i n g h e r dreams of G i b r e e l . The individuals
w h o believe in her "creation" add yet another lay e r to t he
f i ction of Islam. Thu s ea c h of the three Islam dreams
(Mahound/the Imam/Ayesha) are "false" in that they ar e
c o n s t r u c t e d b y t h e i r m a j o r players. E a c h d r e a m ends in d e a t h
and destruction. By writing these episodes as Gibreel's
dreams and t h e n by exposing the i r "artificial" nature even
further, R u s h d i e r e p r e s e n t s Islam as a rigid, m a l e - d o m i n a t e d ,
c o n s t r u c t e d myth.
Gibreel w h o has s t r u g g l e d w i t h the r e a l i t y v e r s u s f i c t i o n
issue t hroughout th e b o o k gives up in t h e end. His f i c t i o n s
e n t e r his real world and take over his very identity: he
becomes the a n g e l A z r a e e l . Gibreel ends u p c o m m i t t i n g s u i c i d e
b e cause he c a n n o t face e x i s t i n g in a dream. It is r e a l i t y he
is after (perhaps b e c a u s e his d r e a m w o r l d is so f r i g h t e n i n g l y
rigid, harsh, a n d cruel) . Gibreel has n e v e r b e e n able to get
b e y o n d b e i n g c o n t r o l l e d b y others.
Gibreel's t r a n s f o r m a t i o n is r e m i n i s c e n t of the n e g a t i v e
transformations in S h a m e where c h a r a c t e r s discard their old
skins in s n a k e - l i k e fashion. We are a l s o r e m i n d e d of S u f y a n ' s
ea r l i e r L u c r e t i u s v e r s u s O v i d speech. This is a L u c r e t i u s -
tr a n s f o r m a t i o n w h i c h o c c u r s at the expense of the old self
129
w h i c h dies t o m a k e the n e w self p o s s i b l e . T he i m p l i c a t i o n is
that this k i n d of metamo r p h o s i s is les s d e s i r a b l e t h a n O v i d ' s
v e r s i o n w h i c h c la i m s that the soul r e m a i n s the same bu t a d a p t s
to ever-varying forms (276) . Adaptation is the k e y to the
s u c c e s s f u l c r o s s i n g of b o u n d a r i e s i n t o a n e w self. Gibreel
r e fuses to adapt. H e simp l y b e c o m e s th e archangel. "He felt
his o l d self d r o p f r o m him, an d d i s m i s s e d it w i t h a s h r u g
..." (320) .
W i t h t h i s n e w self comes a b e l i e f in O ne G o d a n d t h e e x
a c t o r w h o p l a y e d hund r e d s of gods i n I n d i a n theol o g i c a l m o v i e s
n o w r e j e c t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a h y b r i d divinity. Rekha (who
is c o n s t a n t l y t r y i n g to take G i b r e e l d o w n a few pegs) l e c t u r e s
him about how his newfound good versus evil binary is too
r e s t r i c t i v e a n d p o i n t s out that it is, in fact, o n l y a r e c e n t
fabrication:
Amos, eig h t c e n t u r y BC, asks: 'Shall there b e evi l
in a city and the Lord hath no t done it?' Also
Jahweh, q u o t e d b y D e u t e r o - I s a i a h two h u n d r e d y e a r s
later, remarks: 'I form the light, and create
darkne s s ; I mak e pea c e a n d c r e a t e evil; I the Lord
do all these things.' It isn't until the B o o k of
Chronicles, m e r e l y f o u r t h c e n t u r y BC, that t h e w o r d
shaitan is u s e d to m e a n a being, an d not only an
a t t r i b u t e of God. (323)
13 0
Bu t the ide a of mixing good and evil in the Deity is too
impure and there f o r e uncomfortable for Gibreel who is now
a f t e r Clarity. He is n o t e v e n w i l l i n g to i m a g i n e S h a i t a n as
a f a l l e n a n g e l a n d r e m i n d s h i m s e l f of the p a s s a g e i n t h e Q u r a n
(18:50) w h i c h labels S h a i t a n as a djinn. Gib r e e l is c o m f o r t e d
b y t h i s less complicated, m o r e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d v e r s i o n w h i c h
allows him to construct a light (Gibreel) / d a r k (Shaitan)
binary which d ispenses with Rekha's "sentimentalities" of
"joining, l o c k i n g together, love" (353).
B u t l ove is what R e k h a (who t u r n s out to b e in c o n t r o l of
G i b r e e l ' s w a k i n g / d r e a m i n g adventures) is after. "'You could
h a v e l o v e d me, g o o d a n d p r o p e r ' " she tells Gibreel. "'I k n o w
h o w t o love. Not e v e r y b o d y h as t he c a p a c i t y for it; I do, I
mean did' " (325) . Rekha t akes her revenge on Gibreel by
t o t a l l y b u n g l i n g up his life. " ' A m a n must s u f f e r f o r c a u s i n g
a lover's leap'" (333) s he says, but in the next b r e a t h she
o f f e r s G i b r e e l a compromise: "If o n l y he w o u l d s a y h e l o v e d
her . . . and, once a week, w h e n she came to lie w i t h him,
s h o w h i s lov e ..." (333) . In return, R e k h a p r o m i s e s to e n d
hi s m a d n e s s a n d even p r o m i s e s to a l l o w G i b r e e l to live w i t h
All i e . B u t Gibreel is no l o n g e r a m a n of comprom i s e s . He now
exists in absol u t e s a n d t h e r e f o r e i n s t e a d of s a y i n g "I l o v e
you" he says "Give me time" (334) . Rekha tries to win him
b a c k b u t he u l t i m a t e l y r e j e c t s h e r as a temptation, a trick,
131
a fog (335) a n d r e a f f i r m s his faith in O n e God. B y g i v i n g up
o n love, G i b r e e l l o s e s t he last of his h u m a n i t y (and his will)
b u t regains his a b i l i t y to fly.
Yet u n d e r n e a t h h i s n e w angelic form, G i b r e e l is a f r a i d of
"the altered states in which his dreams leak into, and
overwhelm, his w a k i n g self, m a k i n g h i m that a n g e l i c G i b r e e l he
has no d e sire to b e . . ." (427) . The n a r r a t o r asks w h e t h e r
Gibreel is to b e considered "good" by virtue of wishing to
remain at bottom an untranslated man. This question is
a n s w e r e d in the n e g a t i v e b e c a u s e such d i s t i n c t i o n s (of "good"
and "bad") rest on an idea of the self as being (ideally)
homogeneous, non-hybrid, "pure" whi c h is a fantastic notion
(427) . But the point is, Gibreel believes in just such a
f a n t a s t i c n o t i o n of i d e n t i t y a n d therefore u l t i m a t e l y resists
his m e t a m o r p h o s i s b y c o m m i t t i n g suicide. U n l i k e Chamcha, he
is u n a b l e to r e g a i n h i s w i l l (except for b r i e f m o m e n t s w h e n he
r e s c u e s his f r i e n d a n d p u l l s the trigger) a n d s i n c e h e cannot
t o l e r a t e the id e a of b e i n g God's a v e n g i n g angel, he escapes
via death. In a sense, wh a t he finally escapes from is
absolutism, purity, rigidity.
Just as Gibreel submits to a "pure," rigid version of
I s l a m as it is c o n s t r u c t e d b y characters s u c h a s Mahound, the
Imam, a n d Ayesha, a n d b e c o m e s Azraeel, C h a m c h a a l l o w s h i m s e l f
to be represented by t he dominant British narrative which
132
otherizes h i m a n d he becomes a devil. The difference between
A z r aeel and Chamcha is that the latter permits himself a
f le x i b i l i t y w h i c h al l o w s him to continue to transform into
S a l a h u d d i n Chamc h a w a l l a , a c h a r a c t e r w h o incorpo r a t e s (rather
than sheds) al l his pre v i o u s versions, incl u d i n g the "evil"
ones. Survival, f or Chamcha, t r a n s l a t e s into his b e i n g a b l e
to s u c c e s s f u l l y d e c o n s t r u c t the c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d b i n a r y a n d
to clear a n e w s pace f o r himself. T h i s idea is t h e o r i z e d b y
Alb e r t Memmi in his book entitled The Colonizer- and the
Colonized, in which he d iscusses the manner in which the
c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d b i n a r y is c o n s t r u c t e d of two terms that
are, as S u s a n G i l s o n M i l l e r states i n the book's afterword,
". . . t ied t o g e t h e r in a 'd u o ' of m u t u a l n e e d . . . . the
e xistence of o n e is b o u n d up w i t h t h e other, a nd . . . their
relat i o n s h i p . . . (has) a f a t a l i t y t h a t . . . (can) b e b r o k e n
o n l y b y r a d i c a l change" (156) . It is u s e f u l to r e a d C h a m c h a ' s
char a c t e r through Me m m i ' s ideas as they h elp further
illuminate R u s h d i e ' s stance r e g a r d i n g t h e c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d
binary. A c c o r d i n g to Memmi, the c o l o n i z e r a n d the c o l o n i z e d
are both constructed representations or myths that are
c i r c u l a t e d to m a i n t a i n the p o w e r - b a s e a n d economic i n t e r e s t s
of the colonizer. The s ystematic de-humanization of the
c o l o n i z e d b y t h e c o l o n i z e r is d o n e w i t h t he intent of l o c k i n g
the native into a d e s i g n a t e d slot w h e r e s/he is r e l e g a t e d to
133
an inferior status which is closer to ani m a l rather than
human.
W i l l f u l l y c r e a t e d a n d s p r e a d b y the colon i z e r , this
mythical and degrading portrait ends up being
a c c e p t e d a n d l i v e d w i t h to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t b y the
colonized. It thus acqu i r e s a certain amount of
r e a l i t y an d c o n t r i b u t e s to the true p o r t r a i t of the
colonized. . . . oppression is tolerated willy-
n i l l y b y the o p p r e s s e d themselves. (87-88)
M e m m i g o e s o n to state tha t "the m o s t serious b l o w s u f f e r e d b y
the colonized is b e i n g removed from history and from the
community" (91) . In effect, the c o l o n i z e d is " . . . ou t of
the game. He is in no w a y a sub j e c t of history a n y more"
(92) . I n fact, the c o l o n i z e d b e c o m e s an o b j e c t a n d o b j e c t s do
not possess the ability to think for themselves or govern
themselves (95) . Memmi warns th a t as long as h e tolerates
colonization, ". . . the o n l y p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the
c o l o n i z e d are a s s i m i l a t i o n o r p e t r i f i c a t i o n " (102) . In the
case of "petrification, " t h e colonized draws less and less
from his own past, relegates his folk her o e s and popular
leaders t o a s e c o n d a r y s t a t u s , a n d seems ". . . c o n d e m n e d to
lose his memory" (103) . T h e m e m o r y of a p e o p l e r e s t s u p o n its
institutions, says Memmi, and once the colonized's
institutions are dea d o r petri f i e d , he s c a r c e l y b e l i e v e s in
134
t h o s e w h i c h c o n t i n u e to s h o w some signs of life, a n d he o f t e n
becomes ashamed of these institutions, ". . as of a
ridiculous a n d o v e r a g e d monument" (103). The elite, middle
class c o l o n i z e d a v o i d s his o w n p a s t a n d t h e m e m o r y w h i c h is
a s s i g n e d to h i m is that of the c o l o n i z e r (105) . A c c o r d i n g to
Memmi, the colonized e v e n t u a l l y b e g i n s to overthrow his
unlivable existence ". . . with the whole force of his
oppressed personality" (120) . His first a t t e m p t is ” . . . t o
c h a n g e his c o n d i t i o n b y c h a n g i n g his skin" (120) . The model
he uses is t h a t o f the colonizer. "The f i r s t a m b i t i o n of the
colonized is to become e qual to that splendid model and to
r e s e m b l e h i m to t h e p o i n t of d i s a p p e a r i n g i n him" (12 0) .
This is in fact C h a m c h a ' s impulse w h o is a m i g r a n t like
G i b r e e l a n d w h o a l s o b e g i n s his j o u r n e y b y r e j e c t i n g a v e r s i o n
o f the S u p r e m e Being: his father. C h a n g e z . L i k e the e a r l i e r
Omar Khayyam Shakil in S h a m e . what Chamcha wants to leave
b e h i n d is his s u b c o n t i n e n t p a s t w h i c h i n c l u d e s a d o m i n e e r i n g
father. So h e d e c i d e s to be c o m e "English" a n d his m u t a t i o n
f r o m S a l a h u d d i n C h a m c h a w a l l a into S a l a d i n C h a m c h a b e g i n s in
o l d Bombay, l o n g b e f o r e he gets to T r a f a l g a r Square:
W h e n t h e E n g l a n d cricket team play e d I n d i a at the
Braboume Stadium, he prayed for an England
victory, for the game's creators to defeat the
local u pstarts, for the p r o p e r o r d e r of t h i n g s to
135
b e ma i n t a i n e d . (37)
Chamcha believes that by adopting a British accent and by
d r e s s i n g a n d a c t i n g lik e a n E n g l i s h gentleman, he w i l l s u c c e e d
in b e i n g a c c e p t e d as "one of us." Later, he falls in love
with Pamela L ovelace, a woman he interprets as being
quintessentially English, and it is her "Englishness" he
covets. The narrator tells us that Pamela's voice is
c o m p o s e d of
tweeds, headscarves, s u m m e r pudding, h o c k e y - s t i c k s ,
t h a t c h e d houses, saddle-soap, h o u s e - p a r t i e s , nuns,
family pews, large dogs and philistinism, and in
s p i t e of al l of he r a t t e m p t s to r e d u c e its volume
it was loud as a dinner-jacketed drunk throwing
b r e a d r o l l s in a club. (180)
F o r Chamcha, P a m e l a r e p r e s e n t s t h e t y p e of " E n g l i s h n e s s " he is
after because he believes it is a civilized, rational,
educated, fair-minded, w e l l - b r e d space. And fo r a time, he
actually believes he has succeeded in being accepted into
English mainstream society because he looks and acts in a
p r o p e r E n g l i s h way, hol d s w e l l - p a y i n g jobs in t e l e v i s i o n a n d
radio, owns property in suburbia, and is m a r r i e d to Pamela
Lovelace. The problem with this metamorphosis is it is
i d e n t i c a l to t h e s h o r t c o m i n g in G i b r e e l ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n : it
occurs in a snake-like fash i o n i n w h i c h C h a m c h a a l l o w s "the
136
c ity o f his b i r t h (to) fall away f rom him" (33) completely.
By d i s c a r d i n g Bombay, C h a m c h a discards his past. As in his
o t h e r n o v e l s , R u s h d i e crit i q u e s any space w h i c h a t t e m p t s to be
"purely" a n y on e thing, a n d therefore, C h a m c h a ' s i n a b i l i t y to
incorporate "India" into his new "English" experience is
presented as a negative moment in the text. Chamcha and
G i b r e e l b o t h b u y into the concept that "reality" is d i v i d e d
into a system of binaries. For Gibreel, the overarching
d i c h o t o m y has to do w i t h "reality" ve r s u s "fantasy" a n d "good"
v ersus "evil." F o r Chamcha, it boils d o w n to c o l o n i z e r versus
colonized, a n d he, of course, wants to b e l o n g to the former
category. Since he b uys into the colonizer's perspective
a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h his Indian past is d e c i d e d l y i n f e r i o r to
his present English moment, he rejects outright the
"colonized" sid e of the binary and constructs his "new"
i d e n t i t y f r o m a "purely" B r i t i s h perspective. J u s t as Gib r e e l
cannot t o l e r a t e a n y i n t e r m i n g l i n g of r e a l i t y a n d fantasy, g o o d
and evil, Chamcha cannot imagine a space in which the
"colonized" exi s t s as anything other than a victim, as
"other," as inferior. The problem with this binary
p e r s p e c t i v e is that it offers o v e r - s i m p l i f i e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
of "reality" a n d leaves too m u c h out. Chamcha is u n a b l e to
deal w i t h this issue u n t i l m u c h later in the n o v e l .
B u t for all of his eff o r t s to be p u r e l y English, Chamcha
137
is periodically reminded of the fact that he is a hybrid
creature, a combination of India a n d England. H i s attempt,
however, is to s u p p r e s s s u c h reminders. O n h i s fl i g h t b a c k to
L o n d o n from Bombay, h e falls into a t o r p i d s l e e p a n d d r e a m s he
is visited by a man with glass skin who begs Chamcha to
r e l e a s e h i m f r o m t he p r i s o n of his skin. Chamcha picks up a
s t o n e and b a t t e r s at the glass, but w h e n he t r i e s to p i c k o f f
the broken shards, the other man begins to scream because
c h u n k s of his fl e s h c o m e a w a y w i t h the g l a s s . At this p o i n t ,
C h a m c h a w a k e s up. W h e n h e asks the s t e w a r d e s s f o r a drink, he
does so in a B o m b a y lilt: " 'Achha, means w h a t ? . . .so,
okay, bibi, g ive o n e w h i s k e y s o d a o n l y ' " (34). Later, after
the mid-air explosion as he is tumbling downward toward
London, he finds he is n o t dead, but weeping:
And all his body cased in a fine skin of ice,
s m o o t h as glass, like a b a d d r e a m c o m e true. ... He
wa s p o s s e s s e d b y the n i g h t m a r e - f e a r of cracking, of
s e e i n g his blood bubbling up f r o m the i ce-breaks,
of his f l e s h c o m i n g a w a y w i t h the shards. (131)
H i s e a r l i e r n i g h t m a r e v i s i o n of a m a n b e i n g t r a p p e d w i t h i n a n
invisible skin of g l a s s c omes true as he falls ea r t h - w a r d ,
t o w a r d England. C h a m c h a is l i t e r a l l y t r a p p e d in h is colored,
subcontinent skin, complete with a suppressed Indian accent
a n d l o n g - b u r i e d h a b i t s s u c h as p u t t i n g c o c o n u t - o i l in his h a i r
138
and a love of professional wrestling (34) . Any attempt to
extricate himself from this skin, from his past, from h is
"Indianness," from his "colonized" status will result in
failure, o r e v e n death. The n a r r a t o r t e l l s us that in o r d e r
to survive, C h a m c h a w i l l h a v e to "construct everything from
scratch, ” w i l l have to invent the ground beneath his feet
b e f o r e he c a n t a k e a s t e p (132). T h e q u e s t i o n this p r e m i s e
raises, of course, is w h a t k i n d of c o n s t r u c t i o n w i l l C h a m c h a
attempt?
Earlier, Chamcha meets his o l d c h i l d h o o d acqu a i n t a n c e ,
Z e e n y Vakil, i n Bombay, w h o tells h i m to s t o p b e i n g a n E n g l i s h
toady and wake up to t he r e a l i t y of his constructed British
identity which only suc c e e d s in rendering him invisible.
R e f e r r i n g to his p r o f e s s i o n as a r a d i o and television actor
she tells him: " ' T h e y p a y y o u to imitate them, as long as
t h e y d on't h a v e to l o o k at you. Y o u r v o i c e b e c o m e s famous b u t
t h e y hide y o u r face. G o t a n y ideas w h y ? ' " (60) . The reason,
of course, ha s to do w i t h C hamcha's race: h e is b r o w n - s k i n n e d
an d t h e r e f o r e m a y e n t e r t a i n b y u s i n g h is voice, but he m u s t
r e m a i n e i t h e r m a s k e d o r invisible. "'Sometimes, when you're
q u i e t . . . y o u l o o k just like a blank," says Zeeny and accuses
hi m of h a v i n g a "slave m entality" and begs h i m to c o m e h o m e
(61). But C h a m c h a h a s w o r k e d h a r d f o r m a n y years to e s c a p e
"India" a n d h a s n o d e s i r e to face it again. Z eeny's p o i n t is
139
identical to Changez's: "'Grow up,'" she commands (69).
Likewise, C ha m c h a ' s father, Changez, recognizes the
l i m i t a t i o n s in hi s son's p e r s p e c t i v e a n d tells h i m t o face the
fact that he is now an adult who should let go of old
c h i l d h o o d h u r t s an d get o n w i t h hi s life:
'So sad. A q u a r t e r o f a c e n t u r y a n d s t i l l the s on
b e g r u d g e s the p e c c a d i l l o e s o f the past. O m y son.
Y o u m u s t stop c a r r y i n g m e a r o u n d like a p a r r o t on
y o u r shoulder. W h a t a m I? Finished. I'm no t y o u r
Old Man of the Sea. Face it, mister: I don ' t
e x p l a i n y o u a n y more.' (69)
A n d C h a n g e z does not e x p l a i n C h a m c h a a n y m o r e b e c a u s e C h a m c h a
is n o w a n a d u l t w h o m u s t c o n s t r u c t hi s o w n s e n s e of identity.
W h a t C h a m c h a fails to g r a s p at th i s meeting, however, is that
the B r i t i s h i d e n t i t y he h a s f o r g e d is e q u a l l y as o n e - s i d e d a n d
repressive as the Changez-enforced identity he sought to
escape years ago. Further, Chamcha is unable to view his
father from an adult, more inclusive perspective and is
therefore unable to f o r g i v e h i m fo r his p a s t trespasses and
his current r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Kastu r b a . Instead, he sta n d s
b e f o r e h i s father, b l a z i n g w i t h r i g h t e o u s ra g e a n d f l i n g s out
what he h o p e s w i l l be a t e r r i b l e indictment: " ' T h e r e was,'
said Saladin Chamcha, 'a w a l l e t of pounds, and there wa s a
r o a s t e d c h i c k e n ' " (68). Bu t C h a n g e z r e f u s e s to b e s e n t e n c e d
140
b y his son a n d p o i n t s out the fact that u n t i l Chamcha stops
carrying a r ound his t a k e - a w a y c h i c k e n of the past, he will
n e v e r co m e a n y c l o s e r to a n adult v i s i o n of "reality." The
"reality" that Changez wants Chamcha to embrace includes a
f a t h e r w h o deals w i t h t he loss of his b e l o v e d w i f e N a s r e e n b y
r e - m a r r y i n g a n d b y p l a y i n g out a N a s r e e n - f a n t a s y w i t h t he help
of C h a m c h a ' s o l d nanny, Kasturba.
Changez's "reality" also includes a h e r i t a g e of Mughal
art w h i c h he finds enabling, b u t in w h i c h C h a m c h a sees on l y
violence. Chang e z ' s hamza-nama cloths from th e sixteenth
c e n t u r y depict scenes f r o m the life of a h e r o w h o is p e r m i t t e d
to fail a n d who o f t e n has to b e rescued f r o m hi s troubles.
Changez tells Z e e n y tha t this is th e r e a s o n he lik e s these
pictures. He obviously operates in a fuzzier reality than
C h a m c h a w h i c h allows f o r a b l u r r i n g b e t w e e n c a t e g o r i e s s u c h as
v i c t i m i z e r a n d victim, a n d w h i c h makes r o o m f o r s t r e n g t h an d
weak n e s s , heroes a n d o r d i n a r y indiv i d u a l s w h o n e e d h e l p from
others. His mar r i a g e to N a s r e e n - T w o a n d his r o l e - p l a y i n g w i t h
K a s t u r b a is c l e a r l y i n d i c a t i v e of his n e e d f o r a s s i s t a n c e in
coping with his grief for his first wife. Changez is not
a s h a m e d o f the fact tha t he nee d s help, a fac t th a t hi s son
h a s a g r e a t deal of t r o u b l e a d j u s t i n g to.
F o r Zeeny, the p i c t u r e s p r o v i d e e l o q u e n t p r o o f r e g a r d i n g
h e r t h e s i s about the e clectic, h y b r i d i z e d n a t u r e of the Indian
141
artistic tradition:
Th e M u g h a l s h a d b r o u g h t a r t i s t s f r o m e v e r y p a r t of
India to w o r k o n the paint i n g s ; i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y
w a s s u b m e r g e d to cr e a t e a m any-headed, m a n y - b r u s h e d
Overartist who, literally, was Indian painting.
O n e h a n d w o u l d d r a w the m o s a i c floors, a s e c o n d the
figures, a third would paint the Chinese-looking
cloudy skies. O n the b a c k s of the c l o t h s w e r e the
s t o r i e s that a c c o m p a n i e d the s c e n e s . The pictures
w o u l d b e s h o w n like a movie: h e l d up w h i l e s o m e o n e
read out the he r o ' s tale. In the H a m z a - n a m a you
c o u l d s e e the P e r s i a n m i n i a t u r e f u s i n g w i t h
K a n n a d a a n d K e r a l a n p a i n t i n g styles, y o u c o u l d see
Hindu and Muslim philosophy forming their
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y l a t e - M u g h a l synthesis. (70)
Z eeny's b o o k o n I n d i a n art d i s m i s s e s "the c o n f i n i n g m y t h of
authenticity, th a t f o l k l o r i s t i c s t r a i t j a c k e t " w h i c h s h e seeks
to replace b y a n e t h i c of " h i s t o r i c a l l y v a l i d a t e d e c l e c t i c i s m ,
f o r was not the e n t i r e n a t i o n a l c u l t u r e b a s e d o n the p r i n c i p l e
of b o r r o w i n g w h a t e v e r c l o t h e s s e e m e d to fit, Aryan, Mughal,
British, t a k e - t h e - b e s t - a n d - l e a v e - t h e - r e s t ? 11 (52) . B u t C h a m c h a
is unable to c e l e b r a t e the c o n j o i n i n g s a n d fusions r e p r e s e n t e d
in this art a n d r e s p o n d s o n l y to the v i o l e n t i mages of b a t t l e
b y stating l o u d l y in his E n g l i s h voice: "'The s a v a g e r y
142
The sheer barbaric love of pain'" (70) . Unlike
Zeeny, Chamcha is still defined by the colonizer/colonized
b i n a r y a n d is t h e r e f o r e u n a b l e t o g l e a n a n y t h i n g of v a l u e f r o m
his I n d i a n past, ei t h e r c u l t u r a l o r personal.
Just as he is u n a b l e to factor violence into his
perception of an aesthetic ideal, Chamcha is completely
u n f a m i l i a r w i t h what Z e e n y l a b e l s sin "adult" Bombay:
'Y o u 're l o s t .... What do you know about Bombay?
Y o u r o w n city, o n l y it n e v e r was. T o you, it's a
d r e a m of childhood. G r o w i n g up o n S c a n d a l P o i n t is
like living on the moon. No bustees, there, no
siree, only servants' quarters. Did Shiv Sena
e l e m e n t s come t h e r e to m a k e com m u n a l t r o u b l e ? Were
your neighbours starving in the textile strike?
Did Datta Sa m a n t stage a rally in front of your
bungalows? How old were you when you met atrade
unionist? How old the first time you goton a
local t r a i n i n s t e a d of a c a r w i t h a d r i v e r ? That
wasn't Bombay, d arling, excuse me. That was
Wonderland, Peristan, Ne v e r - N e v e r , O z .' (55)
H e r a d v i c e to h i m is to c u l t i v a t e a n adult r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h
the c i t y of his childhood. C h a m c h a ' s p r i v i l e g e d c h i l d h o o d has
e x c l u d e d h i m f r o m the B o m b a y w h i c h Z e e n y n o w r e p r e s e n t s : a
city that is teeming, hybrid, eclectic, and politically
143
diverse.
Z e e n y takes C h a m c h a to a c r o w d e d b a r w h e r e t h e y m eet h e r
friends George and Bhupen. Geo r g e begins to discuss the
B h o p a l c a t a s t r o p h e noisily, in ideolo g i c a l terms, a n d compares
t h e U n i o n C a r b i d e c o m p a n y to the T r o j a n (American) H o r s e that
the Indians invited int o their country. Bhupen interrupts
George and a r gu e s that r a t h e r than b l a m e o u t s i d e r s , Indians
s h o u l d look within. He claims that e v e r y t h i n g g o e s b a c k to
t h e A s s a m m a s s a c r e f o r w h o m all Indians a r e guilty. W h e n he
f i n a l l y falls silent, a y o u n g main in a n o t h e r c o r n e r o f the b a r
argues back: Assam has to be understood politically, he
cries; there we r e e c o n o m i c reas o n s for wh a t h a p p e n e d . Another
i n d i v i d u a l c o u n t e r - a r g u e s t h a t cas h m a t t e r s d o n o t e x p l a i n w h y
a g r o w n m a n clu b s a little gir l to death. Yet another man
s p e a k s up to sta t e t h a t if y o u think that, y o u h a v e n e v e r be e n
h u ngry. H o w b l o o d y romantic, he says, to s u p p o s e econo m i c s
cannot make men into beasts. As Chamcha listens to this
debate, irre g u l a r p a l p i t a t i o n s b e g i n in hi s c h e s t a n d he turns
green. His excuse, w h e n t h e y d r a g h i m o u t d o o r s , is that he is
e x h a u s t e d a n d has h a d to o m u c h ru m to drink. B u t Z e e n y gives
him a glittering, hard, triumphant loo k which denotes her
r e c o g n i t i o n that s o m e t h i n g g o t t h r o u g h to h i m (56-57) . Later,
s h e tells C h a m c h a t h a t sh e w a s p r o u d of B h u p e n . "'In h o w m a n y
countries could you go into some b a r a n d start up a deba t e
144
like that? T h e pass i o n , the seriousness, the respect. You
keep y o u r c i v i l i z a t i o n , Toadji; I l i k e this o n e p l e n t y fine'"
(58) . This episode illustrates the polyvocal quality of
Bombay, a city where residents from al l points of the
p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c spect r u m c a n s p e a k o u t f r e e l y in p u b l i c
w i t h o u t fear of o p p r e s s i o n . The fact th a t C h a m c h a turns g r e e n
is indicative o f a s h i f t whi c h is b e g i n n i n g to o c c u r in his
colonized personality: Chamcha w ho h a s c o n s t r u c t e d his w o r l d
v i e w from the p e r s p e c t i v e of the c o l o n i z e r is not a c c u s t o m e d
to such radical, anti-colonial notions as ar e posited by
Zeeny, George, B h u p e n , a n d the others. It ha s n e v e r o c c u r r e d
to him to view America or Great Britain as u n t r ustworthy,
deceptive, T r o j a n Horses, or to g r a p p l e w i t h t he n o t i o n of h o w
e x t r e m e p o v e r t y a f f e c t s a populace, o r to f a c t o r v i o l e n c e int o
his reality.
Another episode which simultaneously points to the
f l e x i b i l i t y of B o m b a y ver s u s the c o l o n i a l r i g i d i t y of C h a m c h a
has to do w i t h a n I n d i a n d r a m a t i z a t i o n of a s t o r y b y S a r t r e o n
the subject of shame. In the original, a h u s b a n d suspects h is
wife of infidelity and sets a trap to catch her out. He
p r e t e n d s to l e a v e o n a business trip b u t r e t u r n s s e c r e t l y to
s p y o n his wife. H e k n e e l s d o w n at h i s front doo r a n d loo k s
t h r o u g h the keyh o l e , h o p i n g to see h i s w i f e ' s infidelity in
action. He f e e l s a p r e s e n c e b e h i n d h i m a n d he turns to see
145
w h o it is w i t h o u t rising. It is his wife, l o o k i n g d o w n at h i m
in revulsion and disgust. In the Indian version of this
story, however, the n a r r a t o r o f S V t ells us that the k n e e l i n g
husband "felt no pres e n c e behind him; was surprised b y the
wife; s t o o d to face h er o n e q u a l terms; b l u s t e r e d a n d shouted;
until sh e wept, he e m b r a c e d her, and they were reconciled"
(72) . T h e I n d i a n v e r s i o n o f S a r t r e ' s s t o r y does not e n d in a
f r o z e n m o m e n t o f shame w i t h t h e w i f e a n d h u s b a n d o n a n u n e q u a l
footing. Instead, the two c o n f r o n t each other's secrets as
equals (her a l l e g e d i n f i d e l i t y a n d his s p y i n g ) , she w e e p s a n d
he blusters angrily, but they end up embracing and
re c o n c i l i n g . O n e does not e n d up m o r a l l y j u d g i n g t he o t h e r ' s
behavior. Chamcha, however, is u n a b l e to interpret t h e I n d i a n
dramatization in this positive light; instead, he declares
that t h e I n d i a n v e r s i o n p r o v e s t hat like the c h a r a c t e r s i n it,
Z e e n y t o o is "without shame" b e c a u s e she a ccepts w h a t C h a m c h a
c o n s i d e r s t o b e Changez's a d u l t e r o u s a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h K a s t u r b a
w i t h o u t p a s s i n g moral judgements. "'As a m a t t e r of fact, ' " he
g oes on, "'this m a y be a n a t i o n a l c h a r a c teristic. I b e g i n to
s u s p e c t t h a t Indians l ack the n e c e s s a r y m o r a l r e f i n e m e n t for
a true sense of tragedy, and therefore c annot really
u n d e r s t a n d the idea of shame'" (72) . A t this stage, Chamcha
is simply unable to value the flexibility and compromise
i n h e r e n t in the Indian dram a t i z a t i o n , o r in Z eeny's p o s i t i v e
146
and loving re s p o n s e to Changez. Once again, his colo n i a l
p e r s p e c t i v e b l i n d s h i m to a n y lessons he m a y l e a r n f r o m India
o r Bombay.
"'To be b o r n again, . . . first y o u h a v e to die'" (3)
sings Farishta as he tumbles toward the earth, and it is
C h a m c h a who c o mm a n d s h i m to fly. T h e n a r r a t o r t e l l s us that
"C h a m c h a w i l l e d it and Farishta did what was willed" (10) .
Th e i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t s o m e t h i n g "new" is a b o u t to h a p p e n to
these characters. What happens to Farishta is that he
eventually beco m e s the angel Gibreel, and later, Azraeel.
W h a t h a p pens to C h a m c h a is that he m u t a t e s i n t o a devil, and
the n a r r a t o r rem a r k s that it is "not m u c h o f a price to p a y
for survival, for b e i n g reborn, for b e c o m i n g n e w , a n d at t h e i r
age at that" (133) . J u s t as Faris h t a ' s lack of will allows
him to be controlled by others, Chamcha's belief in the
d o m i n a n t B r i t i s h n a r r a t i v e allows h i m to b e r e - m a d e into its
image of him. He is a b r o w n - s k i n n e d i m m i g r a n t f r o m India, a
c o u n t r y tinder B r i t i s h r u l e for two h u n d r e d y e a r s ; he is not
n o w n o r e v e r c a n be "one of us." He is an alien, a n intruder,
a n outsider, a n d is h unted down like a w i l d a n i m a l on Rosa
D i a m o n d ' s little strip o f beach. Someone reports a suspicious
person in the area and immediately, fifty-seven constables
a r r i v e w i t h thei r t h i r t e e n dogs to j o i n in "the t h r i l l of the
chase" (139). When they discover Chamcha, he already has
147
horns g r o w i n g out of h i s head, a n d he is severely beaten by
the police. What puzzles Cham c h a th e most through this
h u m i l i a t i n g or d e a l is t h e fact that all t h e p o l i c e m e n take his
m o n s t r o u s a p p e a r a n c e c o m p l e t e l y for g r a n t e d a n d t h e y m i s t r e a t
him in the mo s t banal and familiar manner. "'This isn't
England'" he thinks, not for the last time (158) . Just as
Zeeny's adult Bombay is not the city he remembers f r o m his
protected, c h i l d h o o d days, this is not a L o n d o n h e has e v e r
i n t e r f a c e d with: p o l i c e b r u t a l i t y a n d r a c i s m d o no t fit into
Chamcha's v e r s i o n of a "civilized" England. The point that
Chamcha keeps missing is the fact that his version of
" E ngland" is the colonizer's perspective which is racist,
violent, a n d otherizing, in a d d i t i o n to w h a t e v e r e l s e it m a y
be. A n d t h e d o m i n a n t E n g l i s h cult u r e o p e r a t e s f r o m a p o s i t i o n
of g r e a t p o w e r w h i c h has th e a b i l i t y to t r a n s f o r m i n d i v i d u a l s
i n t o a n imals. W h e n C h a m c h a as k s the m a n t i c o r e h o w t h e y d o it,
t h e a n s w e r he r e c e i v e s is simple: "'Th e y d e s c r i b e us. . . .
That's all. They have the power of description, and we
s u c c u m b to t h e p i c t u r e s t h e y construct'" (168) .
T h e E n g l a n d that C h a m c h a - t h e - d e v i l e n c o u n t e r s is w o r l d s
a p a r t f r o m his p o l i t e c o u n t r y - c l u b , Y o r k s h i r e p u d d i n g image of
the past. Now, he enters the L o n d o n of S u f y a n , Mishal, and
Hanif, individuals who he do e s not recognize as British
b e c a u s e t h e y r e f u s e to fi t the mould. This is a w o r l d w h e r e
I
148
people of c olor are r o u t i n e l y h a r a s s e d b y s k i n h e a d s a n d the
p o l ice, w h e r e r a c i s m leads to f alse cha r g e s of m u r d e r a g a i n s t
a radical Asian community leader, where a fifty-year-old
Nigerian woman is accused of assault after she is beaten
senseless, and w h e r e the crisis in public housing leads to
illegal bed-and-breakfast e s t a b l i s h m e n t s s u c h as the o n e r u n
by Hind a n d he r daughters. M i s h a l c alls it "the r e a l w orld"
a n d i n v i t e s C h a m c h a to j o i n it. "'You n e e d n ' t l o o k so f i s h
faced and holy'" she t ells him when he displays shock at
Hind's capitalistic endeavors, "'Look where all your law
a b i d i n g got y o u ' " (264). Like Z e e n y b e f o r e her, Mishal too
encourages C h a m c h a to e x p a n d his d e f i n i t i o n of a c i t y that
he has thus far approached from a very limited angle of
vision. A t this stage, C h a m c h a c a n b e d e s c r i b e d in the w o r d s
of A l b e r t M emmi as "the c a n d i d a t e f o r a ssimilation" w h o has
come
. . . to tire of t h e e x o r b i t a n t p r i c e w h i c h he m u s t
p a y a n d w h i c h he n e v e r f inishes owing. . . . It is
a dramatic moment when he realizes that he has
assumed all the accusations and condemnations of
the colonizer, that he is becoming accustomed to
lookin g at his o w n p e o p l e (and himself) t h r o u g h the
eyes of t h e i r procu r e r . (123)
It is not u n t i l he b e g i n s to b r e a k out of the d o m i n a n t
149
culture's narra t i v e that he is f i n a l l y able to s t o p v i e w i n g
h i m s e l f as evil i n c a r n a t e . "No m o r e of t h i n k i n g m y s e l f evil.
A p p e a r a n c e s deceive; the c o v e r is not the b e s t g u i d e to the
book. Devil, Goat, S h a i t a n ? N o t I" (257). C h a m c h a rea l i z e s
t h a t in o r d e r to s u r v i v e h i s d e v i l - m e t a m o r p h o s i s , h e m u s t stop
t h i n k i n g of him s e l f as a d e v i l . H e notices t h a t M i s h a l a n d
A n a h i t a wh o have n e v e r b e l o n g e d to the d o m i n a n t d i s c o u r s e do
n o t v i e w h i m as a n evil entity. F r o m the start, they re-read
th e s i g n of "devil" a n d a c c o r d i n g to their r e - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of it C h a mcha is "brilliant, " "magic, " "e x t r e m e " a n d m a y even
possess special "powers" (258). H is e xposure to the "real"
London, in ad d i t i o n to his immersion into an immigrant,
m a r g i n a l i z e d s u b - c u l t u r e w h i c h he has shu n n e d t h r o u g h o u t his
B r i t i s h experience, b e g i n s to e r o d e his old c e r t a i n t i e s a n d he
f e e l s his old life s l i p p i n g a w a y f r o m him as well. A s Memmi
states, "the colo n i a l c o n d i t i o n ca n n o t be c h a n g e d e x c e p t b y
doing away with the colonial relationship" (126) ; the
c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d b i n a r y m u s t b e d e c o n s t r u c t e d in o r d e r for
a n e w space to em e r g e in w h i c h C h a m c h a can b e g i n to c o n c e i v e
o f h i m s e l f as s o m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a devil. A t t h i s s t a g e of
t h e game, what is left to the c o l o n i z e d to do, a c c o r d i n g to
Memmi, is to revolt as this is t he only way out of the
colonial s ituat i o n (127) . "...It is the c o l o n i z e d w h o must
refuse the colonizer" and t h e r e b y b e g i n his journey toward
150
"self-discovery" (128) .
What finally allows Chamcha to break out of the
representation of "devil" w h i c h h a s b e e n t hrust u p o n h i m is
anger. W h e n C h a m c h a finds out that G i b r e e l is still a l i v e a n d
well and making movies w i t h the f i l m p roducer, Sisodia, he
flies into a v i l e r a g e a n d screams i n s u l t s at his ex-fr i e n d .
"'Traitor, deser t e r , scum'" he shouts. B ut w h e n his o u t b u r s t
is over, he r e a l i z e s h i s horns have d i m i n i s h e d b y a b o u t t h r e e -
quarters of a n i n c h (273) . Once again, R u s h d i e links a n g e r to
p o t e n t i a l c h a n g e a n d thus m akes it a n i m p o r t a n t s t e p p i n g - s t o n e
in Chamcha's re-humanization process. As in Shame and
M i d n i g h t 's Children. the ability to overturn the
v i c t i m i z e r / v i c t i m b i n a r y is tied to a n g e r a n d will. Unlike
Gibreel, C h a m c h a p o s s e s s e s a will w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y a l l o w s h i m
to r e - c o n s t r u c t h i s i d e n t i t y a n d e s c a p e f r o m w i t h i n the b o u n d s
of the c o l o n i z e r ' s narrative.
Like S u f i y a Z i n o b i a in S h a m e . C h a m c h a is h i d d e n a w a y in
M i s h a l ' s parents' a t t i c where he c o n t i n u e s to g r o w b i g g e r a n d
bigger. As the r u m o r s about his a l t e r e d s t a t e s p r e a d in the
immigrant community, he becomes a popular icon of hope, a
g r e a t hit. T h e A s i a n a n d the w h i t e c o m m u n i t y b e g i n to d r e a m
a b o u t him, a l b e i t f r o m different p e r s p e c t i v e s :
While non-tint neo-Georgians dreamed of a
sulphurous en e m y crushing their perfectly restored
151
resid e n c e s beneath his smoking heel, nocturnal
browns-and-blacks found themselves cheering, in
their sleep, this what-else-after-all-but-black-
man, maybe a little t w i s t e d up b y fate c l a s s race
history, all that, b u t g e t t i n g off his b e h i n d , bad
a n d mad, to k i c k a l i t t l e ass. (286)
T h e n a r r a t o r tells us t h a t at f i r s t t h e s e dr e a m s w e r e p r i v a t e
matters, but soon began leaking into w a k i n g hours, and then
t h a n k s to A s i a n retailers, all o f a sudden, he is e v e r y w h e r e :
on buttons, sweatshirts, posters, songs. Saladin's response
to all this fame is: "Go away. . . . This isn't what I
wanted. T h i s is not w h a t I m e a n t at all" (287) . Yet, unlike
Gibreel who submits to each successive dream sequence and
f e e l s h e is l o s i n g his m i n d w h e n his dreams e n t e r h i s w a k i n g
re a l i t y , S a l a d i n cho o s e s O v i d o v e r Lucretius, the m u t a b i l i t y
of e v e r y t h i n g , the o p t i m i s m o f Bombay: "Zeeny, eclecticism,
hybridity" (288) . U n l i k e G ibreel, h e e xercises his w i l l a n d
becomes more an d more angry over his situation, until he
c a u s e s a m e l t d o w n of all t h e w a x im a g e s at the H o t w a x C l u b a n d
emerges i n a "new" form:
W h e n Mishal, Hanif and Pinkwalla ventured into the
club-room several hours later, they observed a
s c e n e o f f r i g h t f u l de v a s t a t i o n , tables s ent flying,
c hairs broken in half, and, of course, every
152
waxwork--good and evil--Topsy and Legree--melted
like t i g e r s int o butter; and at the cent r e of the
carnage, sleeping like a baby, no mythological
creature at all, no iconic Thing of hor n s and
hellsbreath, but Mr. Saladin Chamcha himself,
a p p a r e n t l y r e s t o r e d to his o l d shape, mother-naked
but of entirely human aspect and proportions,
h u m a n i z e d --is t h e r e a n y o p t i o n b u t to c o n c l u d e ? - -by
the f e a r s o m e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of h i s hate. (294)
But since Saladin has chosen Ovid over Lucretius, his new
"self" includes v e r s i o n s of all his e a r l i e r identities. In
the same vein, his h u m a n i z e d form i n c l u d e s v i o l e n c e a n d ev i l
which is d e s c r i b e d a s s p r i n g i n g f r o m "some rece s s of his o w n
t r u e nature" r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g external t o h i m (463) . Again,
u n l i k e G i breel w h o is u n a b l e to deal w i t h R e k h a ' s idea that
b o t h g o o d a n d evil r e s i d e w i t h i n the deity, S a l a d i n r e c o n c i l e s
himself to his new identity which is constructed fr o m hi s
e a r l i e r selves a n d w h i c h is inclusive of b o t h g o o d a n d e v i l .
And it is the "evil" in him that leads Saladin to cause a
b r e a k u p b e t w e e n G i b r e e l a n d Allie, e v e n a f t e r he has b e e n re-
humanized.
At the end of the text, we find that Saladin's
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n has p r o g r e s s e d to yet a n o t h e r level: n o w he is
Salahuddin Chamchawalla and no longer estranged from hi s
153
father. G o i n g b a c k to India a n d f a l l i n g in love w i t h C h a n g e z
is an important stage in Salahuddin's identity-building
project because it indicates a movement into a more fluid,
flexible, h e t e r o g e n e o u s space. Z e e n y t e l l s him:
'We're all here. W e ' r e r i g h t i n front of you. You
should really try a n d make an adult acquaintance
w i t h this place, this time. T r y a n d e m b r a c e this
city, as it is, n ot some childhood memory that
m a k e s y o u b o t h n o s t a l g i c a n d sick. D r a w it close.
T h e a c t u a l l y e x i s t i n g place.' (541)
What Zeeny wants Salah u d d i n to embrace is an eclecticism
re p r e s e n t e d b y h e r s e l f and her f r i e n d s . Z e e n y is a p h y s i c i a n
who works w i t h t h e homeless a n d w r i t e s b o o k s o n In d i a n a r t .
Her friends include poets, filmma k e r s , journalists, and
political activi s t s , all of w h o m l i v e in Bombay. A n d Bombay,
of course, represents Rushd i e ' s "third p r i n c iple," a space
that includes b o t h sides of the east/ w e s t , secular/religious,
real/f a n t a s y , colonizer/colonized binary in ever new
combinations t h a t foregr o u n d h y b r i d i t y o v e r c l a r i t y a n d open-
endedness o v e r closure. In t u r n i n g a w a y f rom "the w i n d o w of
his childhood" at Scandal Point, S a l a h u d d i n turns t o w a r d t he
optimism, will, a n d f luidity of Z e e n y V a k i l a nd gives h i m s e l f
"another chance" to succeed (546-47). Albert Memmi concludes
his b ook b y stating:
154
Having abandoned the colonial f ramework, it is
i m por t a n t f o r all o f us to d i s c o v e r a new w a y of
l i v i n g w i t h t h a t relationship. ... to f i n d a n e w
o r d e r of t h i n g s w i t h E u r o p e m e a n s p u t t i n g n e w o r d e r
i n oneself. (147)
F o r Chamcha, "putting n e w o r d e r in oneself" translates into
reconciling him s e l f with his past as represented by his
father, c o m i n g to t e r m s w i t h a n "adult" B o m b a y o f t h e p r e s e n t
moment, a n d r e c o g n i z i n g the o p t i m i s m a n d h y b r i d i t y o f Zeeny
Vakil. Th e i m p l i c a t i o n is that this "new order" w i l l p e r m i t
S a l a h u d d i n C h a m c h a w a l l a to d e v e l o p a n a dult a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h
L o n d o n as w e l l - - t h e L o n d o n w h i c h b e l o n g s not o n l y to t h e likes
of P a m e l a Lovelace, b u t to s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n i m m i g r a n t s such
as M i s h a l a n d H a n i f as w e l l .
A t this juncture, it is i m p o r t a n t to take a c l o s e r look
at Rushdie's "third principle" as represented by his
construction of "Bombay" and " Zeeny Vakil." For Rushdie,
"Bombay" and "Zeeny" clearly represent a "new," inclusive
s p a c e o f hybridity. A n d as I h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d above, this
s p a c e is m e a n t to be f l u i d a n d h e t e r o g e n e o u s . Y e t , t h i s s pace
has a b u i l t - i n resi d e n t h i e r a r c h y that p r i v i l e g e s a n urban,
u p p e r - m i d d l e class, c o l l e g e - e d u c a t e d , "worldly" i n t e l l e c t . As
a r e s u l t , a g r e a t deal g e t s left o u t . Although we are told by
the narrator that Zeeny works with "the homeless," Rushdie
155
does not make any attempt to inc l u d e the homeless into his
n a r r a t i v e an d as a result, w e do not m e e t a s i n g l e "homeless"
person in SV. Simil a r l y , we are told that Zeeny is very
a c t i v e in c o m m u n i t y p o l i t i c s , b u t R u s h d i e d o e s not i n t r o d u c e
the subaltern into Zeeny's "grassr o o t s " projects. Her
p o l i t i c s r e m a i n c o n f i n e d to t h e m i d d l e class, o r to o r g a n i z e d
l a b o r w h o a l r e a d y h a v e a v o i c e o n the p o l i t i c a l r egister. The
"vo i c e l e s s " subalterns, such as the t ens of thousands of
u n o r g a n i z e d laborers w h o e x i s t in Bombay, r e m a i n v o i c e l e s s and
nameless. The m a r c h t h a t Z e e n y h elps o r g a n i z e t o w a r d the e n d
of the n o v e l has to d o w i t h the f o r m a t i o n of a h u m a n chain,
stretching from "the Gateway of India to the outermost
northern suburbs of the city in support of 'national
integration'" (537). H o w e v e r , the i n d i v i d u a l s w ho c o n t i n u e to
remain "unintegrated" a r e t h o s e w h o l i v e in e x t r e m e poverty,
whose everyday struggle for survival prevents them from
enjoying the luxury of urban, political a ctivism, as
represented by Zeeny and her friends. Thus, although the
c o m m u n i t y work that Zeeny does is c o m m e n d a b l e , it is b y no
means all-inclusive, as R u s h d i e w o u l d h a v e us beli e v e . The
point is that Rushdie does not set up the Zeeny/Bombay
e q u a t i o n as a s u b j e c t i v e v e r s i o n of t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y moment;
o n t h e contrary, R u s h d i e p o s i t s Z e e n y / B o m b a y as an i d e a l space
that is capable of including all aspects of "life." The
156
p r o b l e m is, of course, that he d o e s so w i t h o u t looking over
h i s s h o u l d e r a n d t h e r e f o r e without a c k n o w l e d g i n g the fact that
th i s space is a c o n s t r u c t w i t h a h i e r a r c h y of its own.
So what kind of idea is this novel? Clearly, it is
Rushdie's intention that it be perceived as fluid,
multilayered, complex, a n d flexible. A s h e d o e s in M i d n i g h t 's
C h i l d r e n . R u s h d i e a t t e m p t s to u n d e r m i n e a l m o s t all the "pure"
spaces in SV. Thus, although Gibreel gets seduced into an
a b s o l u t i s t narra t i v e , the novel as a w h o l e is a h y b r i d of m a n y
d i f f e r e n t spaces. E v e n in the G i b r e e l d r e a m sequences, there
a r e o n g o i n g a l t e r n a t i v e narratives w h i c h c o n t e s t or u p e n d the
O n e G o d narrat i v e : Al-Lat, Manat, a n d Uzza exist along with
A l -Lah; Queen Ayesha is the Imam's counterpart; a n d Osman,
M i r z a Akhtar, a n d S r i n i v a s all q u e s t i o n A y e s h a ' s haj project.
But R u shdie c o m p l i c a t e s matters further b y not a l l o w i n g the
q u e s t i o n i n g / c o u n t e r p a r t voices to go u n c h a l l e n g e d as we l l a n d
t h e r e f o r e the r e a d e r is never c e r t a i n w h e t h e r the A r a b i a n Sea
p a r t e d or not, w h e t h e r the D i v i n i t y w h o v i s i t s G i b r e e l in the
Imam section is the Oopervala or the Neechayvala, or why
M a h o u n d thanks A l - L a t bef o r e he dies. Rekha, who represents
a more hybrid space tha n Al-Lah also tur n s out to be a
v e n g e f u l g h o s t w h o d e s t r o y s G i b r e e l ' s l i f e as a p u n i s h m e n t for
his infidelity an d who kills A l l i e out of jealousy. It is
despite all these un c e r t a i n t i e s that Gibreel turns toward
157
C l arity. And yet, even his character is not free of
"impurities." A f t e r all, i n s t e a d of k i l l i n g Chamcha, he e n d s
up s a v i n g his life, and his final act is c o m m i t t e d to g a i n
f r e e d o m f r o m Clarity.
Further, Gibr e e l ' s adventures as the avenging angel
A z r a e e l a r e u p e n d e d b y H a n i f w h o d o e s not a l l o w M i s h a l S u f y a n
to i n t e r p r e t the S h a a n d a a r C a f e f ire as a n y t h i n g o t h e r than
". . . history: an event in t h e h i s t o r y of Britain. A b o u t the
p r o c e s s of change. ' . . .Stay w i t h me,'" he begs Mishal. "'The
w o r l d is real. We have to l i v e i n it; we h a v e to l i v e here,
to l i v e on' 11 (469) . U n l i k e t h e I m a m who sets out to d e s t r o y
h i s t o r y a n d who embraces G i b r e e l ' s fantasy, H a n i f r e j e c t s the
"make-believe" world of Gibreel and turns instead to the
pr e s e n t , s e c u l a r moment as it e x i s t s in his e x p e r ience. And
yet, R u s h d i e pushes b a c k b y e n d i n g this s e c t i o n w i t h G i b r e e l
crying out to his d r e a m Mis h a l : "...Come back! Nothing's
happening! Mishal, for p i t y ' s sake; turn around, c o m e back,
c o m e back' " (469) . This t y p e of c onstant interplay between
the r e a l a n d the fictit i o u s se r v e s to u n d e r m i n e the l o g i c of
coherence and unity in this novel and a s ingle meaning is
r e f u s e d at the i n t e r t e x t u a l l e v e l .
T h e "reality" Gi b r e e l is a f t e r is u l t i m a t e l y a v a i l a b l e to
S a l a h u d d i n b e c a u s e he a c c e p t s his "unreal" t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a n d
his anger allows him to g e t beyond the b o u n d a r i e s of those
158
imaginations which picture h i m s o l e l y as "the o t h e r , " as a
devil, as a monster. The novel concludes with Salahuddin
t u r n i n g a w a y fr o m the o l d f ictions o f hi s c h i l d h o o d t o w a r d the
n e w n e s s of Z e e n y V a k i l . H i s v i e w of the A r a b i a n Sea takes us
b a c k to A y e s h a a n d h e r p i l g r i m s :
The moon was almost full; moonlight, stretching
from the r o c k s of S c a n d a l P o i n t o u t to far horizon,
cr eate d the illusion of a s i l v e r pathway, like a
p a r t i n g in th e w a t e r ' s s h i n i n g hair, like a r o a d to
miracu l o u s lands. He shook hi s head; could no
longer b e l i e v e in fairy-tales. C h i l d h o o d w a s over,
and the v i e w f r o m the w i n d o w w a s no mor e than an
o l d a n d s e n t i m e n t a l echo. (547)
When S a l a h u d d i n turns away f r o m th e window, partly what he
leaves behind are Gibreel's sad dreams. Since he turns
towards Z e eny wh o represents newness and th e here-and-now
r e a l i t y of India, he enters into the world of contemporary
p o l i t i c s a n d a r o o t e d n e s s in the c i t y of Bombay.
In the end, e v e n t h o u g h R u s h d i e is g u i l t y of p r e s e n t i n g
us w i t h a n e s s e n t i a l i z e d v e r s i o n of " B o m b a y , " it is i m p o r t a n t
to note that Salahuddin Chamchawalla is successful in
u n r a v e l l i n g the c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d binary, partly with its
as s i s t a n c e . A n d thus w e r e t u r n to the q u e s t i o n p o s e d in S V ;
w h a t k i n d of idea ar e y o u ? S a l a h u d d i n ' s answer, at the end,
159
p u t s h i m s q u a r e l y in the c a t e g o r y o f a n i d e a that c o m p r o m i s e s ,
does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a
niche, a n d who u l t i m a t e l y s u r v i v e s .
V. H A R O U N A N D T HE S E A OF S T O R I E S
Z embla, Zenda, Xanadu:
A 11 o u r d r e a m - w o r l d s m a y come true.
F ai r y lan d s a r e f e a r s o m e too.
R ead, a n d b r i n g m e h o m e to you.
T h u s b e g i n s Rush d i e ' s first nov e l w r i t t e n in hiding, Haroun
and the Sea of Stories. dedicated to his son, Zafar. In
i n t e r v i e w s r e g a r d i n g this book, R u s h d i e sta t e s t h a t it r e a l l y
b e g a n as a bedti m e r i t u a l f o r his son: Rushdie w o u l d concoct
amusing stories for Z a f a r as the b o y finishedhis bath and
thenprepared for bed. Later, Zafar reportedly offered
v a l u a b l e editori a l a d v i c e to his f a t h e r w h o s h a r e d a d r a f t of
Haroun with him by stating that th e book was too slow and
n e e d e d to b e sp e e d e d u p s i g n i f i c a n t l y , if it w a s to r e t a i n a
r e a d e r ' s attention. R u s h d i e m a d e th e a p p r o p r i a t e a d j u s t m e n t s
w h i c h r e s u l t e d in a n e n t e r t a i n i n g , child r e n ' s a d v e n t u r e story.
In an interview with Charlie Rose, Rushdie states that he
considers this w o r k to b e a "small project", as c o m p a r e d to
t h e m o r e a dult p e r s p e c t i v e o f The M o o r ' s L ast S i g h , h i s l a t e s t
p o s t - f a t w a novel, w h i c h h e c o n s i d e r s to be b r o a d e r i n scope.
160
161
In m y opinion, H a r o u n r e p r e s e n t s a c o m i n g t o g e t h e r of all
of R u s h d i e ' s m a j o r ideas: historical events are accessible
only through interpretation which leads to versions of
meanings (M i d n i g h t 's Chi 1d-ren) , e x c l u s i v e l y f o r e g r o u n d i n g the
past, present, o r future leads to r e p r e s s i o n a n d s u p p r e s s i o n
w h i c h r e s ults in v i o l e n c e (S h a m e ) , r e a l i t y is a construct, a n d
t h o s e w h o survive it w e l l do so b e c a u s e o f t h e i r a b i l i t y to
bend, be adaptable, and key into the enabling power of
h y b r i d i t y a n d in t e r m i n g l i n g (T h e S at a n i c V e r s e s ) . In a d d i t i o n
to embodying Rushdie's major philosophical perspectives,
Haroun is also a r e - t e l l i n g of his p o s t - f a t w a experience in
hiding. O n this l e v e l , it is a r e s p o n s e to K h o m e n i 's d e a t h
sentence, a response which exp o s e s the limitations of any
a b s o l u t i s t m ode of thinking. In this c h a p t e r I shall dis c u s s
Haroun as Rushdie's reply to the fatwa, a reply which
incorporates all the m a j o r ideas expressed thus far in his
o t h e r writings. I will b e g i n b y r e m e m b e r i n g when, how, and
w h y the fatwa was issued, a n d con t i n u e o n t o r e a d the text as
Rushdie's attempt to e x p o s e the b i n a r y s y s t e m as a cultural
construct which prevents a free intermingling of ideas,
actions, a n d philosophies, a n d i n e v i t a b l y l e a d s to violence.
In r e sponse to the p u b l i c a t i o n of T h e S a t a n i c V e r s e s . on
February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni of Iran
p r o n o u n c e d a fatwa on S a l m a n R u s h d i e a n d h i s p u b l i s h e r s w h i c h
162
was b r o a d c a s t o n T e h r a n radio:
'I i n f o r m t h e p r o u d M u s l i m p e o p l e of the w o r l d that
the author of The Sata n i c Verses book which is
ag a i n s t Islam, the Prophet a n d th e Koran, a n d all
involved in its publication who ar e aware of its
content, are s e n t e n c e d to death. A n y o n e w h o die s
in the cause of r i d d i n g the world of R u s h d i e ...
will be r e g a r d e d as a martyr, and go directly to
heaven.' (Appignanesi, Th e R u s h d i e L e t t e r s 13 0)
Thus b e g a n Khom e n i ' s a t t e m p t e d s i l e n c i n g a n d R u s h d i e ' s f o r c e d
exile f r o m p u b l i c life. Khom e n i c l a i m e d t h a t the n o v e l wa s
b l a s p h e m o u s a n d o f f e n d e d Musl i m s a r o u n d t h e globe. His death
sentence on Rushdie was iss u e d in a n a t t e m p t to c l e a n s e the
earth of i mpur i t i e s such as tho s e represented by the
fictions/lies promulgated by the novel. From Khomeni's
perspective, R u s h d i e ' s o f f e n c e was s t r a i g h t forward: in S V .
R u s h d i e h a d d a r e d to p r e s e n t his v e r s i o n o f the s t o r y of the
b i r t h of I s l a m a n d in d o i n g so he h a d s t r a y e d too far f r o m the
e s t a b l i s h e d scri p t (the Quran) , a n d in fact, had even raised
d o ubts a b o u t w h e t h e r th i s holiest of h o l y b o o k s wa s w r i t t e n b y
God o r b y a m e r e mortal, Muhammed. S i n c e M u s l i m s b e l i e v e that
the Q u r a n is t h e w o r d of G o d an d remains, e v e n today, in its
original, unaltered, untampered, "pure" form, R u s h d i e ' s nov e l
is easily interpreted as blasphemous since it presents the
163
P r o p h e t M u h a m m e d as a "man" rather than an emissary of God,
and in doing so, exposes Islam as a human construct.
A c c o r d i n g to Khomeni, the p u n i s h m e n t f o r s u c h a n o f f e n c e is a m
u l t i m a t e s ilencing, o r death. From Rushdie's perspective, the
v e r y noti o n s t h a t K h o m e n i found b l a s p h e m o u s a n d i n s u l t i n g w e r e
to be foregrounded and celebrated: recognizing history as
a l w a y s a l r e a d y b e i n g narrative, the v a l u e of i n t e r m i n g l i n g the
sacred and t h e profane, old a n d new, rigid and flexible to
come up with ever new, hybrid combinations that foreground
openness rather than closure, and process rather than a
c o n c r e t e end-res u l t .
Khomeni's issuance of the fatwa was ostensibly a
religious ac t and Iran's Ch a r g e d'Affaires in London, four
d a y s into the event, d e s c r i b e d the e x e c u t i o n o r d e r as " p u r e l y
a r e l i g i o u s statement, n o t m e a n t as a g e s t u r e ag a i n s t B r i t a i n "
(Appignanesi, R L 131) . But, of course, p o l i t i c s w e r e i n v o l v e d
because, in part, Iran was flexing its revolution-derived
m u s c l e a n d a n n o u n c i n g itself to the W e s t in p a r t i c u l a r a s a
Muslim force to be contended with. Iran had, after all,
r e c e n t l y u n d e r g o n e g r e a t p o l i t i c a l u p h e a v a l a n d its p e o p l e h a d
chosen and named Khomeni as their spiritual and political
leader. In m a k i n g his d e c l a r a t i o n a g a i n s t Rushdie, Khomeni
had the support of many Irani citizens as well as a
significant number of Mu s l i m s around the world. Western
164
powers, in the meantime, s u c h as th e U.K., the U.S., a n d the
then European Community (EC) were eager to categorize
Khomeni's actions as "fundamentalist" and "uncivilized"
because in their opinion, Ira n had "failed to respect
international stand a r d s of behaviour" (RL 131) . The EC
threatened an economic blockade to which Khomeni responded
that s u c h a n a c t i o n w o u l d in n o w a y p r e v e n t I r a n f r o m "... its
i n t e n t i o n t o e x e c u t e the d i v i n e order" (RL 134) . A s e r i e s of
v i o l e n t a c t s f o l l o w e d a r o u n d th e w o r l d r a n g i n g f r o m o r g a n i z e d
book burnings, to f i r e - b o m b i n g s of b o o k s t o r e s a n d p u b l i s h i n g
houses, to str e e t riots, to police firings resulting in
deaths, to the murders of individuals associated with the
p u b l i c a t i o n of the novel, i n c l u d i n g its J a p a n e s e t r a n s l a t o r .
Rushdie, of course, was not killed, however, the b o u n t y o n his
h e a d w a s r a i s e d to $2.5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s o n F e b r u a r y 14, 1997.
Just as Khomeni seized th e condemnation of SV as an
opportunity to a p p e a r as "the" leader of the M u s l i m world,
Western countries, especially the U.S. used the violence
r e s u l t i n g f r o m th e fatwa fo r t h e i r o w n p o l i t i c a l gain. Since
the end of the C o l d War, the W e s t has turned its attention
toward Islamic count r i e s and has labelled "fundamentalist
Mu s l i m s " as "the Enemy" just as "Communism" wa s l a b e l l e d in
the p a s t . O n e n a r r a t i v e that h a s e m e r g e d is o b s e r v e d in T o m
Stoppard's letter to Salman Rushdie: the fundamentalist
165
M u s l i m s are irrational, fanatical, a n d u n e n l i g h t e n e d . In the
West, "the e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E n l i g h t e n m e n t m a d e t h e d i s c o v e r y
that man wa s perfectible, that change was progress, that
progress was good; in short, that we W e s t e r n e r s have moved
with the times and that Muslim fundamentalism has not" (R L
118) . When the W est engages in this line of thinking,
however, it is guilty of the same offense that it claims
K h o m e n i to be: otherization. Just as K h o m e n i ' s b e l i e f in the
p u r i t y of the Q u r a n e n c o u r a g e s h i m to o t h e r i z e R u s h d i e as a n
E v i l Enemy, the West's E n l i g h t e n m e n t n a r r a t i v e l eads it to a
monolithic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "Islam" a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h all
Muslims ar e backward, ignorant, terrorists, a n d m e n s u c h as
Khomeni are merely autocratic tyrants. In Khomeni's
narrative, Rushdie is c o n d e m n e d and his t a l e n t s as a writer
a n d a t h i n k e r go unnoticed. In the W e s t ' s n a r r a t i v e , Mus l i m s
ar e alw a y s fundamentalist, and Khomeni is always a cruel
despot to be crushed, never a chosen or valued leader, or
a n y o n e w i t h w h o m one m a y negotiate.
T his p r o b l e m of o t h e r i z i n g individuals a n d / o r c o m m u n i t i e s
arises because of a binary perspective which insists on
dividing the world into West/East, Knowledge/Ignorance,
Subject /Object, White/Black, Secular-Christian/Fundamentalist-
Muslim. Depending on whether one represents the West or
Khomeni, th e binary may be flipped to foreground the
166
a p p r o p r i a t e hierarchy, b ut a h i e r a r c h y a l w a y s r e m a i n s as long
as the system o f b i n a r i e s c o n t i n u e s . S i n c e b i n a r i e s r e p r e s e n t
a p o w e r stru c t u r e in w h i c h one t e r m / s i d e is a l w a y s dominant
o v e r the other, v i o l e n c e is an i n e v i t a b l e e n d - r e s u l t ; no t o n l y
the m o r e o b viou s v i o l e n c e it takes to g a i n m a s t e r y o v e r the
other, but the v i o l e n c e r e s u l t i n g f r o m th e f o r e g r o u n d i n g of a
t w o - t e r m s y s t e m w h e r e o n e is always c a t e g o r i z e d as e i t h e r the
c o l o n i z e r or the colonized, the v i c t i m i z e r o r the victim. In
s u c h a system, n e w c o m b i n a t i o n s w h i c h d o a r i s e a r e s u p p r e s s e d
a n d r e p r e s s e d b e c a u s e t h e y mess w i t h the p u r i t y / i n t e g r i t y of
a structure that allows one side ascendancy over another.
T h u s a c o m m i n g l i n g of t he sacr e d a n d th e p r o f a n e is i m m e n s e l y
t h r e a t e n i n g to a K h o m e n i b e c a u s e a c c o r d i n g to hi s narrative,
p u r i t y must be m a i n t a i n e d in o r d e r fo r hi s r e l i g i o u s powe r -
b a s e to function successfully. Similarly, a c k n o w l e d g i n g that
"Muslim” is n ot a monolithic term representing
fundamentalism/terrorism makes it harder for n o n-Muslim,
W e s t e r n powers to j u s t i f y the i r c o n s i d e r a b l e e c o n o m i c s t a k e in
t u r n i n g their m i l i t a r y a t t e n t i o n towa r d s n a t i o n s lik e I r a q o r
Iran.
Rushdie's essays, interviews, documentaries, and novels
have always pointed to the dangers involved in b u y i n g into
binary systems that simplify experience int o either/or
categories. Life, history, is always narrative, R u s h d i e has
167
always m a i n t a i n e d . Religious or political leaders who present
it as a s y s t e m of bina r i e s are a c t i v e l y c r e a t i n g a m y t h a n d
t h e n s e l l i n g it as "reality." It is a w r i t e r ' s job, he has
asserted repeatedly, to c ounter s u c h m y t h - m a k i n g b y o f f e r i n g
o ne's o w n v e r s i o n of "reality" which may be c o n t r a r y to the
s tatus quo's. In a n e s s a y entitled, "Imaginary Homelands,"
w r i t t e n in 1982, s i x y e a r s b e f o r e the i s s u a n c e o f the fatwa,
R u s h d i e w r i tes: "... d e s c r i p t i o n is i t s e l f a p o l i t i c a l act"
a n d t hat
r e d e s c r i b i n g the w o r l d is the n e c e s s a r y first step
towards changing it. And particularly at times
when the state takes reality into its o w n hands,
a n d s e t s a b o u t d i s t o r t i n g it, a l t e r i n g t h e p a s t to
fit s its present needs, then the making of the
alternative r ealities of art, including the n o v e l
o f memory, becomes politic i z e d . . . . Writers and
p o l i t i c i a n s a r e natural r i v a l s . B o t h g r o u p s t r y to
m a k e t h e w o r l d in t h e i r o w n images; t h e y fight for
the same territory. And the n o v e l is one way of
d e n y i n g the official, p o l i t i c i a n ' s v e r s i o n o f t r u t h
(I m a g i n a r y H o m e l a n d s 13-14).
B o t h M i d n i g h t 's Chi lrfrpn and Shame a r e n o v e l s w h i c h d e a l w i t h
the t h e m e of th e i mportance of r e - d e s c r i b i n g the w o r l d f r o m
one's own perspective. S V is a n o v e r t celebration of "the
168
third principle," a space that foregrounds hybridity,
intermingling, a n d proc e s s . It is, therefore, no w o n d e r that
Rushdie's novels have been banned, burned, and generally
rejected by the forces who believe that the only way to
p r e s e r v e a culture, o r a religion, o r a l i f e s t y l e is to k e e p
it f ree of all p o s s i b l e impurities. O n t h e o t h e r hand, it is
ironic that sections of the Western political
s t r u c t u r e / i n t e l l i g e n t s i a w h o R u s h d i e h as c r i t i q u e d s h a r p l y in
h i s w o r k s h a v e t u r n e d t o h i m (post-fatwa) as a s ymbol of t h e i r
E n l i g h t e n m e n t n a r r a t i v e a n d h old h i m up as a n e x a m p l e of an
e d u c a t e d , n o n - t h r e a t e n i n g "Easterner" b e c a u s e he is s e c u l a r in
h i s thinking, an d b e c a u s e t h e y m i s t a k e n l y a s s u m e that since he
c r i t i q u e s Khomen i ' s p o l i t i c s a n d w orldview, that he is so m e h o w
on " t h e i r side." A careful r e a d i n g of S V reveals, however,
that Rushdie is always on the "side" of heterogeneity and
v a r i e t y , a n d his i m p u l s e is to always b e i n c l u s i v e of p ast and
present, o l d and new, r e l i g i o u s a n d secular. His attempt, in
short, is always to d e c o n s t r u c t the binary.
Thus, b y the time w e g e t to H a r o u n a n d the Sea of Stories
in Rushdie's oeuvre, the theme regarding the value of
i n t e r m i n g l i n g an d h y b r i d i t y is a f a m i l i a r o n e a n d the novel
t u r n s ou t to be a c o m p a c t ca p s u l e of all o f h is m a j o r ideas.
L i k e hi s o t h e r n ovels w h i c h are also a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l , Ha r o u n
emerges from his personal experience of living under the
169
t h r e a t of K h o m e n i ' s fatwa. A n d s i n c e it is his p o l i t i c s a n d
his w o r l d v i e w t h a t got h im into th e f a t w a s c e n a r i o to b e g i n
with, Haroun is an intertwining of Rushdie's philosophical
i m p u l s e to a r r i v e at the "third p r i n c i p l e " a n d a r e - t e l l i n g of
th e m a n n e r in w h i c h Khomeni a t t e m p t s to s i l e n c e him. A major
strand in Haroun turns out to be th e statement that
writers/individuals mus t continue their struggle against
politicians a n d n o t e v e r b e w i l l i n g to a c c e p t a n y o n e e l s e ' s
v e r s i o n of "reality" ov e r their own. In R u s h d i e ' s specific
experience, he m u s t continue to p r o d u c e f i c t i o n as t h a t is hi s
o n l y w e a p o n a g a i n s t the likes of Khomeni.
Specifically, H a r o u n is about h o w R a s h i d Khalifa, a g r e a t
storyteller, lo s e s h is abil i t y to te l l tal e s a f t e r his wife,
Soraya, leaves him, a n d the m a n n e r in w h i c h his son, Haroun,
embarks on a fantastic journey to give h is father back his
voice. In the c o u r s e of the nov e l we l e a r n that m o r e is at
stake than just R a s h i d Khalifa's g i f t of gab; we l e a r n that
the S e a of S t o r i e s itself is in g r a v e d a n g e r of b e c o m i n g a
storyless, d e a d sea. What H a r o u n ends up saving, in the end,
is the sea itself, w i t h Rashid's "voice" being restored by
default. The threat to the Sea o f Stories, is, of course,
Khattam-Shud, th e arch enemy of language, the ultimate
silencer. But just as Khattam-Shud represents silence and
darkness, his counterparts, the G u p p e e s r e p r e s e n t d i a l o g u e a n d
170
s u nshine. A n d suc h binaries, it b e c o m e s cle a r e a r l y on, are
what Kahani is divided into: Gup/Chup, light/dark,
fiction/fact, freedom/slavery, etc. Ultimately, Rushdie's
p o i n t i n H a r o u n is that this s y s t e m of b i n a r i e s is a c o n s t r u c t
and that as lo n g as dividing boundaries exist to prevent
intermingling, everyone w h o b u y s i n t o t h e i r n e e d is c o m p l i c i t
in the i n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t i n g v i o l e n c e .
T h e d u a l i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e o f th e resid e n t s of K a h a n i is
revealed in the manner in which they privilege opposites:
speech/silence, light/dark, peace/war, freedom / s l a v e r y ,
fun / c o n t r o l , f i c t i o n / f a c t , w a r m / c o l d , love/death. The impulse
o n b o t h sides, the Guppees a n d t h e C h u p w a l a s is to k e e p the s e
b i n a r i e s s e p a r a t e d so as to m a i n t a i n th e i n t e g r i t y o f e i t h e r
s i de's positionality. It is this motive that inspires the
E g g h e a d s at P2C 2 E House to m a n i p u l a t e the r o t a t i o n of K a h a n i
in o r d e r t h a t G u p be b a t h e d in E n d l e s s Sunshine, while Chup
experience only darkness and night. A furt h er division is
ensured by the c o n s t r u c t i o n of C hattergy' s Wa l l b e t w e e n the
two countries. On the other side of this boundary, the
C ultmaster, Khattam-Shud, bans s p e e c h a n d pois o n s the story
waters. Thus, b o t h sides p a r t i c i p a t e in the a t t e m p t to k e e p
G u p a n d C h u p separated. Khatta m - S h u d , a l t h o u g h the A r c h E n e m y
of Speech, is no t the o n l y on e to b l a m e for the t r o u b l e s in
Gup. It is the Guppees, a f t e r all, who t h r o u g h th e u s e of
171
their super-computers and gyroscopes create an endless,
artificial night in Chup, at the same t ime that they are
b a t h i n g themse l v e s in s u n s h i n e . A n d Iff t he G e n i e a d m i t s that
th e poisoning of the ocean began long before Khattam-Shud
e m e r g e d as a p o w e r f u l r u l e r i n Chup:
'It's our own fault,' he wept. 'We are the
Guar d i a n s of the ocean, and we didn't guard it.
L o o k at the O cean, l o o k at it I The oldest stories
e v e r made, a n d l o o k at t h e m now. W e let t h e m rot,
we a b a n d o n e d them, l o n g be f o r e this p o i s o n i n g . We
lost touch w i t h o u r beginnings, w i t h o u r roots, our
Wellspring, our Source. Boring, we said, not in
demand, su r p l u s to requirements. And now, look,
just look! No colour, no life, no nothing.
Spoilt!' (14S)
By focusing exclusively o n newness a n d novelty, the Guppees
h a v e f o r e g r o u n d e d the p r e s e n t m o m e n t to the e x c l u s i o n o f the
past, o r t h e i r "roots." A n d as in e v e r y o t h e r R u s h d i e n o v e l
thus far, s u c h o n e - s i d e d n e s s is r e p r e s e n t e d as b e i n g n e g a t i v e
and dangerous. The ideal space in Rushdie is always a
heterogeneous one in which the p ast co-mingles with the
present to create a "new" moment in time. In H aroun, the
o c e a n is b e i n g p o i s o n e d b y Kha t t a m - S h u d , but e v e n p r i o r to his
attempt, the o c e a n was a l r e a d y i n trouble b e c a u s e t h e a n c i e n t
172
tales within it had been neglected too long. Thus, the
G u p p e e s a r e c o m p l i c i t in th e p o i s o n i n g o f th e o c e a n o n several
levels: not only do they actually create the light/dark
d u a l i s m t h a t e m p o w e r s Khattam-Shud, t h e y a l s o d i v i d e stor i e s
into categories such as "n e w ” and "old” and relegate the
latt e r to a s e c o n d a r y status.
The O c e a n of t he Sea of Stories, itself, however is a
hotch-potch of al l kinds of stories and its hybrid
c o n s t r u c t i o n mak e s it t h e site of h e t e r o g e n e i t y i n this n o v e l .
H a r o u n f i r s t c a t c h e s s i g h t of it as he z o o m s t o w a r d K a h a n i on
the H o o p o e ' s back: "Rushing up toward t h e m was a sparkling
a n d s e e m i n g l y i n f i n i t e e x p a n s e of water. . . . A n d wh a t w a t e r
it was! It shone with colours everywhere, colours in a
brilliant riot, colours such as Haroun could never have
imagined" (68) . A s he l o o k s into the wat e r , H a r o u n sees that
it is
. . . m a d e u p o f a thousand, thous a n d , t h o u s a n d an d
one different currents, each one a different
colour, weaving in a n d out of one another lik e a
l i q u i d t a p e s t r y of b r e a t h t a k i n g c o m p l ex i t y ; a n d Iff
explained that these were the Streams of Story,
that each coloured strand represented a nd contained
a sing l e tale. Different parts of the Ocean
c o n t a i n e d d i f f e r e n t sorts o f s t o r i e s . . . . And
173
because the stories w e r e h e l d here in f l u i d form,
t h e y r e t a i n e d the a b i l i t y to change, to b e c o m e n e w
v e r s i o n s of themselves, to j o i n up to o t h e r sto r i e s
a n d so b e c o m e yet o t h e r s tories. . . . (The Ocean)
w a s n o t d e a d but alive. (71-72)
Al l of the adjectives used to describe Rushdie's "third
principle" apply to this Ocean: fluidity, adaptability,
n e w n e s s e m e r g i n g f r o m conjoinings, inte r m i n g l i n g . S i n c e the
ocean is alive, it is ever-changing and constantly
t r a n s f o r m i n g s t o r i e s into new vers i o n s . T h e P l e n t i m e w Fishes
that Iff r e f e r s to as "hunger a rtists" a s s i s t in this p rocess:
t h e y s w a l l o w s t o r i e s through t h e i r m u l t i p l e mouths,
'and in t h e i r innards m i r a c l e s occur; a l i t t l e bit
o f o n e s t o r y joins on to a n i d e a f r o m another. ...
Nothing comes from nothing, . . . no story comes
f r o m nowhere; new stories a r e b o r n from o l d -- it
is th e n e w combinations t h a t m a k e t h e m new. ' (86)
The implication is that there a re no "originals" in this
Ocean, only "traces", in the D e r r i d i a n sense, that combine
with other fragments to tell the s t o r y a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t
way, thereby creating a new v e r s i o n of an existing story.
This lack of "originals" is c e l e b r a t e d r a t h e r t han b e m o a n e d
b e c a u s e it is o n l y th r o u g h such a h y b r i d i z e d c o m i n g t o g e t h e r
that a "new" v e r s i o n of a story c a n emerge. What the O c e a n
174
represents, then, on a theoretical level is the idea of
t r a n s l a t i o n / t r a n s f o r m a t i o n as d e s c r i b e d b y J a c q u e s D e r r i d a in
his book. Positions:
In the limits to w h i c h it is possible, o r at least
appears possible, translation practices the
d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s i g n i f i e d a n d signi f i e r . B u t if
this difference is never pure, no more so is
translation, and for the no t i o n of t r a n s l a t i o n we
would have to s ubstitute a notion of
transformation: a r e g u l a t e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of one
la n g u a g e b y another, of one text b y a nother. (20)
Because of intermingling, sto r i e s within the Ocean are
"t r a n s f o r m e d " into different stories and therefore have no
"original" meaning. W h e n H a r o u n asks B utt the H o o p o e if their
z o o m i n g a l o n g the O c e a n a n d s p r a y i n g S t o r y S t r e a m s in e v e r y
direction will "muddle u p the stories, due to t h e t u r b u l e n c e
t h e y are causing, Iff replies, "'No problem! A n y story worth
its salt c a n h a n d l e a l i t t l e s h a k i n g up!'" (79) . Thus, not
o n l y ar e t h e stories f o r m e d as a result of c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h
o t h e r stories, o n c e t h e y emerge, t h e y are r e s i l i e n t a n d able
to withstand being stirred up or mixed t ogether. The
"impurity" of v a r i o u s s t o r i e s c o m i n g toge t h e r is c h e r i s h e d in
t his n a r r a t i v e s p e c i f i c a l l y b e c a u s e it results in "newness."
On another level, Rushdie's foregrounding of such
175
"impurity" in H a r o u n is his d e f e n s e / r e s p o n s e to K h o m e n i - l i k e
a t t a c k s on SV: SV, afterall, is a r etelling, a translation,
a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f t h e I s l a m myth. As Ha r v e e n Sachdeva Mann
notes in an article entitled, "Being Borne Across,*
T r a n s l a t i o n a n d S a l m a n R u s h d i e ' s The S a t a n i c V e r s e s ." .
it (S V ) d i s p l a c e s the purity of the o r i g i n a l (s) with the
h y b r i d i t y of t h e n e w " (285) . Likewise, t h e O c e a n in H a r o u n is
c o m p o s e d of t h o u s a n d s of s t o r y - s t r e a m s w h i c h h a v e e m e r g e d as
a r e s u l t of c o n j o i n i n g s w i t h o t h e r s tories. T h e "transformed"
s t o r i e s are "re-told" s t o r i e s in the s a m e s e n s e th a t S V is,
a m o n g other things, a r e - t e l l i n g of a h o m o g e n e o u s I s l a m story,
which holds the Quran as a transcendental signified.
A c c o r d i n g to R u s h d i e ' s narrative, the important t h i n g is to
r e - t e l l the story. In a n e s s a y entitled, "One T h o u s a n d Days
in a B a l l o o n , " he s t a t e s that
. the row over S V was at bottom an argument
about who should have power over the grand
narrative, th e S t o r y of Islam, a n d t h a t that p o w e r
mu s t b e l o n g e q u a l l y to everyone. That e v e n if m y
novel were incompetent, its a t t e m p t to r e t e l l the
story w o u l d sti l l be important. That if I've
failed, others must succeed, because those who do
not h a v e p o w e r o v e r the s t o r y t h a t d o m i n a t e s t h e i r
lives, p o w e r to rete l l it, r e t h i n k it, deconstruct
176
it, joke a b o u t it, and change it as times c hange,
t r u l y are powerless, b e c a u s e t h e y cannot t h i n k n e w
thoughts. (IH 432)
T h e O c e a n i n H a r o u n w h i c h is e v e r - c h a n g i n g , ever-renewing, is
a c o n s t r u c t of language, of text, of stories, that e x p o s e s the
notion that a n y o ne u n e q u i v o c a l "mean i n g " is e v e r p o s s i b l e .
The r e - t e l l i n g of stories, that is, "representation, " a l w a y s
entails the contaminants of perspective, point of view,
p o s i t i o n a l i t y , a n d it is this s e n s e o f " c o n t a mination" t h a t is
celebrated via "the Ocean" in H a r o u n .
A l t h o u g h the O c e a n is r e p r e s e n t e d as the p r i m a r y s i t e of
hybridity in this novel, another important example of the
p o s i t i v e n a t u r e of h e t e r o g e n e i t y is p r e s e n t e d in the d e b a t e s
that the Guppees engage in as t h e y a r e p l a n n i n g to s a v e the
Ocean/Batcheat. Since they are divided on which is most
c r i t i c a l to save, m a n y d i s c u s s i o n s e n s u e n o t o n l y a m o n g t h e i r
military ranks as they amass their army of Pages, but also
among the citizens of Gup including Goopy and Bagha, the
P l e n t i m e w F i s h e s w h o al w a y s s p e a k i n rhyme:
' S a v i n g Batcheat! What a notion!'
'What m a t t e r s is to save t h e Ocean!'
'. . . T h e O c e a n ' s the i m p o r t a n t thing--'
' -- W o r t h m o r e than the d a u g h t e r of a n y king. ' (118)
H a r o u n is s h o c k e d to h e a r what he a s s u m e s will be i n t e r p r e t e d
177
as "mutinous talk" by the General and the King, but his
companions do not even know the meaning of that word:
"' W h a t ' s a Mutin u s ? ' " Iff asks him. "'Is it a plant?'" Mali
inquires. The h e a t e d q u a r r e l l i n g abo u t w h e t h e r to save the
O c e a n o r Bat c h e a t c o n t i n u e s and H a r o u n h e a r s th e Barge - B i r d s
state:
'I say i t 's a Wild Goose Chase to go aft e r
Batcheat!' -- 'Yes, and wha t ' s more, she looks like
a Wild Goose, too.' -- 'How dare you, sirrah?
That's our beloved Princess y o u ' r e t a l k i n g about;
o u r e s t i m a b l e Prin c e Bolo's i n t e n d e d a n d beauteous
bride!' -- 'Beauteous? Have you forgotten that
voice, tha t nose, those tee t h . . . ?' (119)
Haroun n o tices that General Kitab, mounted on a winged
m e c h a n i c a l horse, f l i t s f r o m B a r g e - B i r d to B a r g e - B i r d to keep
in t o u c h w i t h the v a r i o u s discussions, a n d n e v e r b a t s an eye
at a n y of the t i r a d e s of insults a n d i n s u b o r d i n a t i o n because
"... s u c h was the f r e e d o m e v i d e n t l y a l l o w e d to the Pages and
o t h e r c i tizens of G u p ..." (119) . No o n e is r e p r i m a n d e d or
s i l e n c e d b e c a u s e as B u t t the Hoopoe e x p l a i n s to Haroun,
" ' . . . w h a t is the p o i n t of giving p e r s o n s F r e e d o m of Speech
. . . if y o u then s a y t h e y m u s t not u t i l i z e t h e same?' " (119) .
Th i s s tatement obviously ties into Rushdie's personal
s i l e n c i n g b y the fatwa, bu t in the c o n t e x t o f hybridity, it
178
reinforces the fact that in order f or heterogeneity to
flourish, m u l t i p l e ideas a n d points of v i e w m u s t b e p e r m i t t e d
to b e voiced and heard. L a t e r in H a r o u n . R u s h d i e ties the
Guppees ability to debate contrary ideas into their very
a b i l i t y to survive: w h e n the armies of C h u p a n d G u p r u s h at
e a c h other, R a s h i d K h a l i f a observes to h is g r e a t s u r p r i s e that
the Chupwalas ar e q u i t e u n a b l e to resist t h e Guppees, in s pite
of t h e i r strict m i l i t a r y c o d e a nd s o p h i s t i c a t e d weaponry. The
Pages o f Gup, w e a r e told,
having talked through everything so fully, fought
hard, remained united, supported each other when
required to do so, and in general looked l ike a
force w i t h a c o m m o n purpose. All those a rguments
and debates, all that openness, had created
powerful bonds of fellowship between them. The
Chupwalas on the other hand, turned out to be a
disunited rabble. . . . (they) betrayed one
another, s t a b b e d one ano t h e r in t h e back, mutinied,
hid, deserted . . . and, after the shortest clash
imaginable, s i m p l y threw d o w n all t h e i r w e a p o n s a nd
ra n away. (185)
Th e Chupwalas, it m u s t b e recalled, were l o y a l to K h a t t a m - S h u d
out of fear r a t h e r t h a n a sense of "fellowship." A n d fear, in
this text, leads to s i l e n c e rather t han dial o g u e . T he silence
179
K h a t t a m - S h u d m a n d a t e d l e d to s u b s e r v i e n c e o n the part of his
f ollowers in t ha t t h e y d i d n o t s p e a k out a g a i n s t him, b u t t h e y
were also prevented from speaking to one another and were
t h e r e f o r e u n a b l e to b u i l d a s e n s e of c o n s e n s u s a n d f r i e n d s h i p
amongst themselves. The Guppees win the war against the
Chupwalas because of their a b i l i t y to discuss, debate, and
c o n t e s t o p p o s i n g i deas freely, w i t h o u t a n y f e a r of r e t a l i a t i o n
f r o m t h e i r G e n e r a l o r King. T h i s f l e x i b i l i t y a nd o p e n n e s s o n
th e p a r t of the r u l e r s o f K a h a n i is t i e d to the f l u i d i t y a n d
adaptability of the Ocean which they hope to save from
K hattam-Shud. As stated above, howe v e r , the Guppees
t h e m s e l v e s ar e p a r t i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e p o i s o n i n g o f the
ocean. In s p i t e of t h e h e t e r o g e n e i t y t h e y represent, they,
lik e the Chupwalas are guilty of f o r e g r o u n d i n g a division
b e t w e e n w hat t h e y p e r c e i v e a r e the f orces o f light v e r s u s t h e
forces of dark, that is, they too are guilty of a binary
p e r s p e c t i v e w h e n it c o m e s to the C h u p w a l a s .
Rushdie draws a t t e n t i o n to the l i m i t a t i o n s of a b i n a r y
s y s t e m b y h a v i n g H a r o u n a r t i c u l a t e the f o l l o w i n g c o n c e r n s :
'But it's n o t as s i m p l e as that,' he told h imself,
b e c a u s e the d a n c e of the S h a d o w W a r r i o r s h o w e d h i m
that s i l e n c e h a d its o w n g r a c e a n d b e a u t y (just as
speech could be graceless and ugly) ,- and that
Action could be as noble as Words; and that
180
creatures of darkness could be as lovely as the
children of light. 'If Gup p e e s and Chupwalas
d i d n ' t hate e a c h o t h e r so,' he thought, 'they might
actually find each other pretty interesting.
O p p o s i t e s attract, as t h e y say.' (125)
By dividing experience into light and dark, active and
pa s s i v e , l ove a n d death, too m u c h g e t s left out. For example,
th e y o u n g p e o p l e of G u p f r e q u e n t l y v i s i t the T w i l i g h t Strip,
an area clearly off-limits to them because it d oes not fit
i n t o th e e i t h e r / o r s y s t e m of G u p (or Chup) . Iff t ells G e n e r a l
K i t a b a n d the others: " ' L i v i n g in t h e sunl i g h t all t h e time,
t h e y w i s h to see the stars, t h e Earth, the o t h e r M o o n s h i n i n g
in the sky. It is a d a r e d e v i l t h i n g to do . . . . Dark, my
sirs, h a s its fascinations: mystery, strangeness, romance.'"
(103) . The dark, then, although it m a y connote terror and
silence, c a n a l s o be v i e w e d a s i n t r i g u i n g and exci t i n g . But
the Guppees ar e not permitted to read "the dark" as a
s i g n i f i e r w i t h m u l t i p l e m e a n i n g s b e c a u s e such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
blur the boundaries between the divergent philosophies of
"dark" v e r s u s "light." Similarly, s i l e n c e can be as b e a u t i f u l
as speech (as demonstrated by Mudra's dance), but to the
Guppees, it ha s always b e e n p r e s e n t e d as evil a n d d e a d l y (as
i n the fanatical sewing up of lips practiced b y devotees of
Khattam-Shud). Another notable omission which results from a
181
binary perspective is t he fact that the G u p p e e s a s s u m e that
Chup is a land of seamless obedience to the Cultmaster.
B e c a u s e the y a s s u m e t h a t e v e r y o n e is v i c t i m i z e d a n d e n s l a v e d
by Khattam-Shud's oppression, they remain unaware of
resistance to his terror. Mu d r a ' s w i l l i n g n e s s to c o m m u n i c a t e
is a shock to them, as is the k n o w l e d g e that the s hadows in
Chup have a m i n d of t h e i r o w n b ecause t h e y a r e c o n s i d e r e d the
equals of the p e o p l e to w h o m they are joined. P e a c e w i t h the
Chupwalas therefore means peace with their shadows as w e l l .
Thus, the Guppees' loyalty to their side of the binary
pr e v e n t s t h e m f r o m v i e w i n g Chup as a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a d a r k
te r r a i n ruled a b s o l u t e l y b y Khattam-Shud.
But there are a c t u a l l y few a b s o l u t e s i n Kahani, a space
where intermingling and heterogeneity abounds in both
characters as well as t he landscape. The Hoopoe is a
co n j o i n i n g of bird and machine, with a computerized brain
which is more human than android. This combination of
"artificial" and " natural" recurs in the f i g u r e of the Mali
who is a clump of v e g e t a t i o n s h a p e d s o m e t h i n g like a man.
Mali is a F l o a t i n g G a r d e n e r w h o w eeds the O c e a n b y u n t w i s t i n g
t w i s t e d story s t r e a m s . A n d a l t h o u g h he d i v i d e s s t o r i e s into
"good" versus "bad" b y b e m o a n i n g the fact t h a t c e r t a i n p o p u l a r
r o mances have b e c o m e j u s t l o n g lists of s h o p p i n g e x p e d i t i o n s
and that there is a n o u t b r e a k of t a l k i n g h e l i c o p t e r a n e c d o t e s
182
in c h i l d r e n ' s stories, he h i m s e l f r e p r e s e n t s a r a t h e r radical
i n t e r m i n g l i n g of a c t i v e (gardener) w i t h p a s s i v e (vegetation) .
Even the dreaded Khattam-Shud is h i n t e d at b e i n g mor e tha n
just t h e da r k Villain: h e b e a r s an u n c a n n y r e s e m b l a n c e to the
sniveling clerk, Mr. Sengupta, w ho runs a w a y w i t h Haro u n ' s
mother. The message here seems to be th a t there are
multiplicities in everyone, even someone as seemingly one
s i d e d as Khattam-Shud.
W h a t K h a t t a m - S h u d r e p r e s e n t s m o s t o b v i o u s l y is silence,
b u t e v e n "silence" is o p e n to v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Early
i n t h e text, as H a r o u n is m a k i n g his w a y t o the V a l l e y of K,
Rushdie links it to the erasing of language, to ultimate
closure, that is, to death:
H a r o u n h a d th e f e e l i n g that t h e y w e r e f l o a t i n g on a
sea of silence, that a w a v e of s i l e n c e was l i f t i n g
them up, up, up towards the mountaintops. His
m o u t h was d r y a n d his ton g u e f e l t s t i f f a n d caked.
R a s h i d c o u l d n ' t m a k e a s o u n d either, no t eve n ark.
'Any m o m e n t now, ' H a r o u n wa s thinking . . . I am
g o i n g to b e w i p e d out, like a w o r d o n a blackboard,
one swoosh of the dust e r and I ' 11 be gone for
g o o d .' (38)
T h i s c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n th e i n a b i l i t y to s peak, t he e r a s i n g of
language, and death is c o n t i n u e d as Rashid expla i n s that
183
Khattam-Shud is the "Arch-Enemy of all Stories, even of
L anguage i t s e l f . He is the P r i n c e o f S i l e n c e a n d t h e F o e of
Speech" (3 9). K h a t t a m - S h u d l i t e r a l l y means "the e n d . " But
silence is also linked to the departure of lo v e as it is
Soraya's abrupt exit that causes Rashid to lose his
storytelling voice in the f i r s t place. W h e n she leaves, he
tells Haroun, . . the m a g i c ' s gone, gone fo r ever, ever
since she left'" (53), a n d i n s t e a d o f c a p t i v a t i n g tal e s , the
only sound th a t now emer g e s from his mouth is "ark. " The
p oli t i c o s who hire Rashid to tel l only "praising tales"
p r a c t i c e a v e r s i o n of s i l e n c i n g as well. Rashid argues that
not all good stories are sugar-and-spice tales and that
"'people c a n d e l i g h t in the s a d d e s t sob-stuff, as l o n g as t h e y
find it b e a u t i f u l ' " (48) . But this l i n e of reasoning only
enrages S n o o t y B u t t o o who i n f o r m s R a s h i d that he w a n t s n o n e of
his "gloompuss" yarns. "'If y o u w a n t pay, t h e n just b e gay'"
(49) he tells him. Th e land of Chup itself is another
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of silence. O n it s t w i l i t shores,
no b i r d sang. No w i n d blew. N o v o i c e spoke. Feet
f a l l i n g o n shi n g l e m a d e no sound, as if the p e b b l e s
w e r e c o a t e d in some u n k n o w n m u f f l i n g m a t e r i a l . The
air sme l t stale and stenchy. Thorn-bushes
clustered around white-barked, leafless trees,
trees li k e s a l l o w gho s t s . (122)
184
But the negative connotations of t his stale, pale, ghostly
silence ar e undercut by the arrival of Mudra, t he Shadow
Warrior who is d e s c r i b e d as " s t r i k i n g , " athletic, an expert
s wordsman, graceful, intelli g e n t , eager to communicate with
the Guppees, and ultimately, peace-loving. However, the
dreadful version of silence reappears w h e n Haroun approaches
the Cultmaster's ship. H e o p e n s h i s m o u t h to s p e a k to Iff,
but finds that fear has d r i e d his t h r o a t a n d all t h a t comes
out of his m o u t h is a strange, croaking noise: "'Ark,' he
croaked, pointing to the dark ship. 'Ark, ark'" (148-49).
W h e n Haroun meets Khattam-Shud, an overt c o n n e c t i o n is m a d e
between "purity" a n d d e a d l i n e s s as t h e C u l t m a s t e r p o i n t s out
hi s filtration machines to t h e boy. These machines remove
"all d irt and impurities f r o m the poi s o n s , so that t h e y are
o n e h u n d r e d p e r cent pure, o n e h u n d r e d p e r c e n t deadly" (161) .
"Purity" is t h e r e f o r e d e a d l y a n d is l i n k e d t o the p o i s o n i n g o r
s i l e n c i n g of s t o r i e s . B y p r e s e n t i n g us w i t h m u l t i p l e v e r s i o n s
of "silence" in a s t o r y w h i c h f e a t u r e s it as an A r c h Enemy,
Rushdie draws attention to t he heterogeneity of the sign.
"Silence" does not h a v e a n y one, f i x e d M e a n i n g in this text,
rather, it is p r e s e n t e d a l t e r n a t i v e l y as death, the e n d of
stories, the loss of a l o v e d one, fear, grace, beauty, and
"purity." Thus, by creating multiple signifiers for the
s i g n i f i e d " s i l e n c e , " R u s h d i e u n l o o s e n s it f r o m its t r a d i t i o n a l
185
m o o r i n g s a n d sets it a f l o a t .
L i k e "silence, " R u s h d i e p r e s e n t s the V a l l e y o f K. as
a signifier with multiple meanings as well. Rashid tel l s
H a r o u n t h a t in t he anci e n t t o n g u e of F r a n j , the V a l l e y t h a t is
now simply named "K" had other names: "Kache-Mer" meaning
"the p l a c e that hid e s a Sea" and "Kosh-Mar" or "nightmare."
B u t Franj is n o l o n g e r s p o k e n in th e c o u n t r y of A l i f b a y . Now,
m a n y p l a c e s a r e n a m e d a f t e r l e t t e r s of the Alphabet, a n d s i n c e
the r e are only a limited number of letters and an almost
u n l i m i t e d n u m b e r of p l a c e s in n e e d of names, this r e s u l t s in
m a n y p l a c e s s h a r i n g names, w h i c h i n turn, leads to c o n f u s i o n
(24). The id e a that there ar e n o t e n o u g h letters (words) to
denote tow n s (meanings) appears to be the flipside of
Rushdie's notion that ideas or concepts such as "sile n c e "
d o n ' t m e a n just o n e thing. In th e "fictional" lan d o f Kahani,
"silence" c a n b e a p p r o a c h e d f r o m m a n y d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s .
In the "real" Alifbay, it seems, people are running out of
si g n i f i e r s a n d m u s t u se the sa m e o n e s o v e r a n d o v e r a g a i n e v e n
t h o u g h d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s are implied. Here, "K" c a n m e a n the
Valley of K or some other area altogether. The common
d e n o m i n a t o r to b o t h the n o t i o n o f m u l t i p l e s i g n i f i e r s o r too
fe w s i g n i f i e r s is that there is n o s e t t l e d Meaning; t h e r e ar e
only versions of meani n g s which exist in language.
Ultimately, it is lang u a g e that is f o r e g r o u n d e d in t h i s tex t
186
b e c a u s e R ushdie' s p o i n t is that it is the o n l y t o o l w e p o s s e s s
w i t h w h i c h to access, interpret, create, o r d e s t r o y "reality."
A n d it is lan g u a g e t h a t affords H a r o u n a n e n t r a n c e into
the f i c t i o n a l w o r l d of Kahani. As H a r o u n p r e p a r e s f o r his
j o u r n e y to visit the W a l r u s , Iff tells h i m to c h o o s e a b i r d
e v e n t h o u g h there are n o n e in s i g h t . "' A p e r s o n m a y c h o o s e
what he cannot see'" he t e l l s Haroun. "'To g i v e a thing a
name, a label, a handle; to r e s c u e it f r o m a n o n y m i t y , to p l u c k
it ou t of the Place of N a m e l e s s n e s s , in short to i d e n t i f y it--
well, tha t ' s a w a y of b r i n g i n g the said t h i n g i n t o b e i n g . ' "
To this Haroun replies, "'That m a y be true where you come
f r o m , ' . . . 'But in these p a r t s str i c t e r r ules apply. '" Iff's
r e s p o n s e is simply, " ' B e l i e v e i n y o u r o w n e y e s a n d y o u ' l l get
into a lot of trouble . . .'"(63) . R u s h d i e ' s p o i n t is t h a t in
o r d e r to survive well, w e m u s t h ave the a b i l i t y to b e l i e v e in
the unseen, that is, "fiction." "Iff" the w a t e r genie and
"Butt" the Hoo p o e c o n n o t e i m a g i n a t i o n a n d c o n t r a d i c t i o n , and
are a l t e r n a t i v e s to the p r e s e n t state of a f f a i r s . It is w i t h
t h e i r h e l p that H a r o u n m a k e s his w a y to Kahani, an imaginary
land of s t o r i e s .
Bu t e v e n be f o r e t h i s m a g i c a l jo u r n e y c o m m e n c e s , Rushdie
b e g i n s to b l u r the line b e t w e e n "reality" a n d " f ic t i o n . " His
description of Dull Lake, the h ouseboats in the shapes of
different birds and animals, the s ilver m o u n t a i n s , are all
187
b a s e d in history. W h a t he d e s c r i b e s is a n a c t u a l lake in the
V a l l e y of Kashmir. E v e n the h o o p o e is a n "actual" b i r d found
on the subcontinent. C e r t a i n l y the bit a b o u t the politicos
o n l y wanting happy stories for p o t e n t i a l v o t e r s is b a s e d in
"reality." A n a ctive i n t e r m i n g l i n g of "reality" a n d "fiction"
o c c u r s as H a r o u n cro s s e s D u l l L a k e w i t h his father. T h e lake,
it t u r n s out, is t e m p r e m e n t a l b e c a u s e it r e s p o n d s to the m o o d
s w i n g s of those u p o n it: R a s h i d ' s s adness r e s u l t s in a Mist
of M i s e r y e n v e l o p i n g t h e i r swan-boat; S n o o t y B u t t o o ' s h o t a ir
conjures up a boiling wind; Haroun's conscious effort to
c o n t r o l his irrit a t i o n c a l m s d o w n the w a v e s (49-50). Haroun
is delighted to learn t hat his father's Moody Land story
wasn't "'o n l y a s t o r v . a f t e r all.'" "He k n e w w h a t he knew:
t h a t th e real w o r l d was f ull of magic, so m a g i c a l w o r l d s c o u l d
e a s i l y b e real" (50) . T h e Cultmaster, of course, w a n t s none
of t his t ype of c o - m i n g l i n g a n d tells H a r o u n h e ' d h a v e done
better to stick to Facts, rather than being stuffed with
stories (155). A n d he r e p e a t s the same q u e s t i o n H a r o u n a s k e d
at t h e v e r y beg i n n i n g of the n o v e l : " . . . 'w h a t ' s the u s e of
stories t hat aren't even t r u e ? '" (155) . The answer to this
q u e s t i o n is the most i m p o r t a n t l e s s o n H a r o u n l e a r n s d u r i n g his
adventures: the use of fiction is t hat it alone is a
s u c c e s s f u l antidote to t h e r i g i d i t y of K h a t t a m - S h u d .
In o r d e r to get a w a y f r o m Khattam-Shud, H a r o u n d i v e s into
188
the o c e a n a n d as h e falls d e e p e r a n d deeper, he c a t c h e s s i g h t
o f T h e S o u r c e of Stori e s . As he watches,
the g l o w i n g f l o w of pure, unpolluted stor i e s came
bubbling up f r o m the v e r y h e a r t of Kahani. There
w e r e so m a n y S t r e a m s of Story, of so m a n y different
colours, all pouring ou t of the Source at once,
that it l o o k e d like a h u g e u n d e r w a t e r f o u n t a i n of
s h i n i n g w h i t e light. (167-68)
N e w stories c o n t i n u e to p o u r out of "the S o u r c e " in s p i t e o f
the C u l t m a s t e r ' s "pure" poisons. Khatta m - S h u d cannot en d the
n e w s t o r y streams; h e c a n o n l y p l u g th e S o u r c e to p r e v e n t t h e m
f r o m e n t e r i n g a n d t h e r e b y r e n e w i n g the O c e a n . T h e p o w e r of
f i c t i o n is t h e r e f o r e g r e a t e r tha n the p o w e r of K h a t t a m - S h u d .
Wh a t saves the d a y is, of course, a w i s h , a w i l l e d a c t of
H a r o u n ' s imagination: h e w i s h e s th e s u n to c o m e out a n d m e l t
a w a y the C u l t m a s t e r a n d hi s s h a d o w y m a c h i n e r y a n d slaves . As
a result, peace breaks out and Mudra becomes the ruler of
Chup. His n e w g o v e r n m e n t wants a n e n d to d i v i s i o n s b e t w e e n
Chup and Gup, it desires a peace in which Night and Day,
S p e e c h a n d Silence, w o u l d no l o n g e r be s e p a r a t e d into Z o n e s b y
T w i l i g h t Strips a n d W a l l s of Force (191). Having recognized
th a t b i n a r i e s o n l y s e r v e to d i v i d e a n d s e p a r a t e a n d u l t i m a t e l y
l e a d to violence, t h i s n e w g o v e r n m e n t h o p e s to c r e a t e a s p a c e
where old opposites can co m e together to refashion their
189
perspectives.
Meanwhile, Haroun's "happy ending" is one probably
m a n u f a c t u r e d by the Wa l r u s . "'We m a k e them up,'" the Walrus
tells Haroun (201) . Rushdie points to the fact that like
stories, endings are "made up" as well. U n l i k e m o d e r n t exts
that naturalize endings and demand closure, Haroun draws
a t t e n t i o n to itself as a c o n s t r u c t w i t h a "made up" e nding.
R a s h i d g ets his s t o r y t e l l i n g v o i c e b a c k and is a g r e a t s u c c e s s
at S n o o t y Buttoo's p o l i t i c a l gathering. The s t o r y h e t e l l s is
Haroun. This leads to the ousting of cor r up t politicos
(because the audience is c h e e r e d b y the events of t h e tale)
a n d th e c h o o s i n g of n e w l e a d e r s . E veryone is h a p p y i n a c i t y
that used to be the saddest of all cities. But Haroun is
u p s e t b y the fact that this is a n "artificial" happy ending
and tells his father: " ' D o n ' t y o u get it? It isn't real.
It's j u s t something the E g g h e a d s got out of a bottle. It's
all fake. People s h o u l d b e h a p p y w h e n there's s o m e t h i n g to be
h a p p y about, not just w h e n t h e y g e t b o t t l e d h a p p i n e s s p o u r e d
over them f rom the sky'" (208). Of course, Ha r o u n , too,
submits to this "bottled" happiness when he sees that his
m o t h e r ha s retu r n e d home. Was it the Walrus? Maybe so a n d
maybe n o . Th e point R u s h d i e s e e m s to be m a k i n g i s , w h a t 's the
difference? In the end, h o w o n e chooses to i m a g i n e defines
the "reality" one ends up in.
190
T h u s R u s h d i e p u s h e s h i m s e l f out to the S e a o f S t o r i e s o n
his f i c t i o n a l boa t b y c h o o s i n g to imagine a r e a l i t y that is
obviously more enabling than the one Khomeni attempted to
t h r u s t u p o n him. O u r lives t e a c h us w h o w e are, h e says in
IH. By constructing a "happy ending" fo r Haroun, Rushdie
a s s e r t s his im a g i n a t i v e w i l l o v e r t he forces th a t s e e k to shut
h i m down, a n d on c e again, he c h o o s e s a life o f heterog e n e i t y ,
hotch-potch, and melange where "reality" and "fiction"
i n t e r m i n g l e to c r e a t e a n e w m o m e n t of hop e for a w r i t e r who
m u s t r e m a i n in hiding.
In an open letter to Rushdie, the Yugoslavian writer
Dragan Velikic refers to a story by Marguerite Yourcenar
entitled, "How Wang-Fo Saved Himself," in which the main
character, the p a i n t e r Wang-Fo, lives as a v a g a b o n d in a huge
empire, trading his pictures f or food. One day, he is
c a p t u r e d b y soldiers a n d t a k e n to th e E m p e r o r w h o t h r e a t e n s to
b l i n d h i m b e c a u s e W a n g - F o has p a i n t e d b e a u t i f u l p i c t u r e s of
the w o r l d when, in fact, the w o r l d is imperfect. B e f o r e the
blinding, Wang-Fo is presented with one of his earlier,
unfinished paintings. Upon seeing this painting, Wang-Fo
u n d e r s t a n d s that it is o n l y the s k e t c h of a scene: a b o a t on
the shore, g r e y cliffs, and a restless sea. Surrounded by
guards, he begin s to paint. Suddenly, he p u s h e s th e b a r e l y
f i n i s h e d bo a t out to the sea a n d b e f o r e the E m p e r o r c a n o r d e r
191
his cour t i e r s to s e i z e t he painter, the boat b e c o m e s a tiny
point, a n d W a n g - F o d i s a p p e a r s into t h e d e p t h s of this p i c t u r e
(R L 107) . B y w r i t i n g H a r o u n . Rushdie, too, is "saving" his
life through his art. The arch-enemy, K h attam-Shud, the
ultimate silencer, represents on an autobiographical level,
R u s h d i e ' s arch-enemy, Khomeni, the i s s u e r of the fatwa. The
f i c t i o n a l K h a t t a m - S h u d is d e f e a t e d d u e to the i m a g i n a r y p o w e r s
of a child wh o is able to wish hard enough. The act of
wishing is a willed act of an imagination that values the
p o w e r o f fiction. T h e c o n c o c t e d " h a p p y ending" is R u s h d i e ' s
f u r t h e r attempt at e m p h a s i z i n g his "escape" from the E mperor,
Khomeni. The first step toward changing reality is re
d e s c r i b i n g it. B y p r o d u c i n g H a r o u n . R u s h d i e r e - d e s c r i b e s his
status as a writer in deep hiding and rej e c t s the role of
"victim" b y r e f u s i n g to s t a y silent. Instead, he c o n s t r u c t s
hi s own escape-boat, his own version of reality, and sails
a w a y o n it, into a r e a l m w h e r e c h i l d r e n a r e n ' t s e p a r a t e d f r o m
p a r ents, where sa d n e s s no longer reigns supreme, and where
s t o r y t e l l e r s have the a b i l i t y to s p e a k t h e i r mind.
In a 1990 essay entitled, "In Good Faith," Rushdie
writes:
The ar g u m e n t b e t w e e n p u r i t y a n d impurity, w h i c h is
also the a r g u m e n t bet w e e n R o b e s p i e r r e a n d Danton,
between the stultifications of excessive
192
respe c t a n d the s c a n d a l s of impropriety, is a n o l d
one; I say, let it continue. Human beings
understand themselves and shape their futures by
arguing and challenging and questioning a n d saying
the unsayable; not b y b o w i n g the knee, whether to
g o d s or to men. (I m a g i n a r y H o m e l a n d s 3 94- 3 95)
Having said the unsayable in The Sata n i c Verses two years
earlier, a n d h a v i n g l i v e d in p o s t - f a t w a h i d i n g f o r o n e year,
R u s h d i e c o n t i n u e s the a r g u m e n t b e t w e e n s i l e n c e a n d s p e e c h in
H a r o u n a n d the Sea of S t o r i e s . a n o v e l w h i c h o f f e r s i t s e l f as
an antidote to the violence inherent in any system that
foregrounds binaries (and therefore hierar c h i e s ) to the
exclusion of intermingling and fluidity. As such, it
c a p s u l a t e s R u s h d i e ' s ideas r e g a r d i n g the e n a b l i n g q u a l i t i e s of
h y b r i d i t y a n d hotch-potch, i d e a s a r t i c u l a t e d in v a r y i n g forms
in the t r i l o g y of n o v e l s preceding Haroun. In this novel,
R u s h d i e m a k e s it c l e a r that in his opinion, in o r d e r to "save"
f i c t i o n f r o m the " p u r e , " s i l e n c i n g t e n d e n c i e s of f a t w a - i s s u e r s
such as Khomeni, one m u s t continue to write. And write he
d o e s , to p r o d u c e Haroun, a c e l e b r a t o r y novel a b o u t the power
of l a n g u a g e to create a n d d e s t r o y "reality" which is always
r e p r e s e n t e d as a c o n s t r u c t .
VI. THE MOOR'S LAST S IGH
T h e Moor's Last S i g h is R u s h d i e ' s s e c o n d p o s t - f a t w a n o v e l
a n d o n e w h i c h he c o n s i d e r s to b e his b e s t l i t e r a r y effort y e t .
He has used its publication as a vehicle to emerge out of
hiding and thereby soundly r efuse the "victim" category
u s u a l l y r e s e r v e d for t h o s e w i t h a p r i c e o n t h e i r head. In
doing so, he has exhibited creativity, s trength, and hope.
The novel itself, however, reads very differently as it
r e m a i n s to the e n d a n o s t a l g i c b a c k w a r d l o o k at a "golden age"
o f p l u r a l i t y in India w h i c h is n o w past. All the positive,
e c l e c t i c , hyb r i d c h a r a c t e r s in this text a r e k i l l e d o ff one b y
one, and the remaining survivors espouse a singularity of
v i s i o n as rep r e s e n t e d b y t h e r e i g n i n g m y t h s of "religion" a n d
"bu s i n e s s . " Th e p r o t a g o n i s t , M o r a e s Z o g o i b y ' s desire, at the
c o n c l u s i o n of the novel, f o r a renewed, j o y f u l time, does not
r i n g t r u e and is too little, c o m i n g too late. In this cha p t e r
I shall argue that the myth of hybridity developed from
v a r i o u s angles in R u s h d i e ' s p r e c e d i n g f o u r n o v e l s is p r e s e n t e d
d i d a c t i c a l l y in M o o r v i a A u r o r a ' s art a n d f a m i l y background,
and that although, once again, the space i n h a b i t e d b y this
e n c y c l o p e d i c p a i n t e r is the o n e p r i v i l e g e d i n the text, in the
193
194
final analysis, it is no t a space th a t is p e r m i t t e d to s u r v i v e
a n d ultimately, n o r is it a t r u l y h y b r i d one. This is p a r t l y
d u e to the fact t h a t in this novel, d i v e r s i t y is p r e s e n t e d as
a double-edged metaphor: it can represent freedom and
inclusiveness, but, according to Rushdie, it c an also
represent a weakness that leads to v u l n e r a b i l i t y . In this
text, v o ices of singularity, s u c h as Moraes' father, Abraham
a n d the boss of Bombay, Mainduck, e x p l o i t this v u l n e r a b i l i t y
to their best a d v a n t a g e an d e n d up o v e r p o w e r i n g a n d e r a s i n g
proponents of di fference, s u c h as t h e a r t i s t A u r o r a a n d th e
admirer and later c u r a t o r of he r work, Zeenat. Explaining
t h i s idea further, in a n i n t e r v i e w w i t h M a y a Jaggi in the N e w
S t a t e s m a n a n d S o c i e t y . Rus h d i e states that there is a . .
a flip side to p luralism; the down side can be confusion,
formlessness, chaos, a lack of vision or singl e n e s s of
purpose. There a r e some v e r y strong, monoli t h i c , b r u t a l v i e w s
around, and sometimes those w ho have a clearer view get
f u r t h e r ' ” (N e w S t a t e s m a n . Vol. 8, p . 20). In M o o r , b y p o s i t i n g
Aurora's h y b r i d i t y in o p p o s i t i o n to A b r a h a m and M a i n d u c k ' s
singularity, Rushdie gives this book a twist which
distinguishes it from his preceding four novels: here,
h y b r i d i t y is p i t t e d a g a i n s t s i n g u l a r i t y r a t h e r tha n p r e s e n t e d
as a space c a p a b l e o f i n c l u d i n g s i n g u l a r i t y . In T h e S a t a n i c
V e r s e s . a novel where the "third p r i n c i p l e ” is a c t u a l i z e d ,
195
C h a m c h a s u r v i v e s b e c a u s e of hi s a b i l i t y to i n c o r p o r a t e " g o o d ”
a n d "evil." In M o o r , the " g o l d e n age" is r e g i s t e r e d as "good"
a n d the m o n e y / r e l i g i o n m y t h s as "evil," a n d the r e is n o h o p e
that the two will ever converge to create yet another,
alternative space. The novel ends with Moraes Zogoiby's
flight f r o m Ind i a to Spain, a n e n d i n g m a r k e d b y the l e g e n d a r y
last s i g h o f th e M u s l i m sultan, Boabdil, as h e r e l i n q u i s h e d
the keys of the A l h a m b r a to F e r d i n a n d an d Isabella, th e r e
conquering Catholics. And as Maya Jaggi notes, "'the book
laments an Ind i a doubly los t to its author--through its
transformation and his own exile'" (N e w Statesman 20) .
According to Rushdie, this is the last book he will write
about I n d i a u n l e s s the w o r l d chan g e s a n d he is p e r m i t t e d to
travel b a c k a n d for t h to I n d i a onc e again. Th e p r o b l e m w i t h
M o o r , however, is that it i m p l i e s that "the e n d of a w o r l d is
the e n d o f the world" (Rushdie, M o o r 3 76) a n d one is le f t w i t h
the sense that India is finished. But, of course, just
b e cause R u s h d i e is done w i t h hi s cycle of s u b c o n t i n e n t n o v e l s
does not mean that India, too, is ended. In this context,
Moor is Rushdie's bleakest book: it illustrates a onc e -
br i l l i a n t moment of hybridity in India which is violently
s t a m p e d o u t of e x i s t e n c e b y w h a t he sees as the w a v e of the
future, that is, f u n d amentalism. I shall conclude this
ch a p t e r b y t a k i n g note of t h e s i l e n c e s in R u s h d i e ' s oeuvre,
19 6
p a r t i c u l a r l y as t h e y a p p l y to h i s m y t h of m i g r a n c y , w h i c h he
has offered (in past novels) as a n a n t i d o t e to f u n d a m e n t a l i s m .
In a PBS i n t e r v i e w w i t h C h a r l i e Rose, R u s h d i e s t a t e s that
t h e c h a r a c t e r of Aurora, the p a i n t e r , e m b o d i e s s o m e of his own
ideas, a n d that "the k i n d of p a i n t e r she is, is a l i t t l e bit
t h e k i n d of w r i t e r I w o u l d l i k e to be. . . . She t r i e s to put
the world on her canvas" (Rushdie ELibrarv) . Rushdie's
impulse for in c l u s i v e n e s s is, in part, what leads to his
notion of hybridity, and in M o o r , this idea is most fully
i l l u s t r a t e d in the c h a r a c t e r a n d f a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d of A u r o r a
da G a m a / Z o g o i b y .
As far as family history is concerned, from the
b e g i n n i n g , A u r o r a ' s life is i n f l u e n c e d b y a m i s h - m a s h of ideas
and indi v i d u a l s . Her grandfather, Francisco da Gama is a
"modernist" w h o follows the p h i l o s o p h y of B e r t r a n d R u s s e l l and
Mrs. Annie Besant. In 1916 he joins the H o m e R u l e campaign
which demands a n i ndependent Indian parliament to determine
the country's future. He forms a H o m e Rule L e a g u e in C o c h i n
a n d has the n e r v e to invite d o c k - l a b o r e r s , tea pic k e r s , b a z a a r
coolies, a n d his own w o r k e r s f r o m t h e da G a m a s p i c e fields.
His wife Epifinia, however, is outraged and expostulates:
"' M asses a n d cla s s e s in same club! S h a m e a n d s candal! Sense
is gone from the man' " (19) . Early in their marriage,
Francisco transforms their traditional old mansion into an
197
eclectic living arrangement. He commissions a French
a r c h i t e c t to b u i l d two n e w s t r u c t u r e s o n his property,
one a strange angular slabby affair in w h i c h the
g a r d e n p e n e t r a t e d the i n t e r i o r space so t h o r o u g h l y
t hat it w a s o f t e n h a r d to s a y w h e t h e r one was in o r
o ut of doors, ... and the other a wood and paper
house of c a r d s - - 'a f t e r t h e s t y l e Japanese'. . . .
(16)
To E p i f a n i a ' s horror, F r a n c i s c o has t h e f a m i l y r e - l o c a t e e v e r y
f e w w e e k s a m o n g s t t h e s e three h o u s e s as the f a n c y st r i k e s him,
to g o "East" o r "West." In addition, f o r e i g n a r t i s t s come to
s t a y a n d l e a v e b e h i n d a r t w o r k t h a t d i s g u s t s Epifania: "'Your
art-sh a r t , F r a n c i s c o , ' " she t ells h e r h u s b a n d venomously, "'it
will b l i n d o f y me with ugline ss. '" T o w h i c h F r a n c i s c o replies,
"' O l d beauty is not enough . . . . Old palaces, old
behaviour, old gods. These days the world is full of
q uesti o n s , a n d t h e r e are n e w w a y s to b e beauti f u l ' " (16-17).
B u t F r a n c i s c o a n d E p i f a n i a ca n n o t a g r e e o n anything, not e v e n
th e B r itish. F r a n c i s c o b e c o m e s p o l i t i c a l l y a ctive a n d g o e s to
j ail b e c a u s e of h i s eff o r t s to r i d I n d i a of the c o lonialists;
his wife, o n the o t h e r hand, r e m a i n s t h e i r loyal s u p p o r t e r to
th e end: "'What are w e but E m p i r e ' s chil d r e n ? B r i t i s h have
given us everyt h i n g . ..civilization, law, order, too much'"
(18) . S h e r e f u s e s to see t h e m as the o p p r e s s o r s a n d c o n t i n u e s
198
to b e l i e v e in t h e i r o m n i p o t e n t beneficence.
H e r s o n Camoens (Aurora's father), however, follows in
his father's footsteps and tells his wife Belle about the
d a w n i n g of a n e w p o s t - B r i t i s h world, a free country, t h a t will
b e a b o v e re l i g i o n b e c a u s e it is secular, above class because
it is socialist, above c a s t e b e c a u s e it is e n l i g h t e n e d , above
l a n g u a g e b e c a u s e it is m a n y - t o n g u e d (51) . In this sense, he
is c l e a r l y a p r o p o n e n t of t h e s e c u l a r m y t h as a d v a n c e d b y one
of India's most important leaders, Nehru, and is deeply
troubled by India's other revered leader, Mahatma Gandhi.
U p o n his ret u r n from a G a n d h i speech, he tells his w i f e that
t h e r e wa s a large, w a i t i n g c r o w d that k ept u p a s t e a d y babble,
constantly punctuated by the pop of soda-water
bottles; longitudinal cucu m b e r slices, crescent
shaped, and brushed up with the peel of a lime
d i p p e d in salt, w e r e d i s a p p e a r i n g from the wooden
t r a y of a v e n d o r who was announcing in a subdued
tone (as a concession to the coming of a great
man), 'Cucumber f o r thirst, the b est f o r thirst.'
. . . T h e n G a n d h i c a m e and m a d e e v e r y o n e c l a p hands
a n d chant his f a v o r i t e d h u n . (55)
G a n d h i 's dhu n of course h a s to do w i t h the idea t h a t Hi n d u s
and Muslims can live together in peace because they all
w o r s h i p the same idea of God. Camoens tells B e l l e t h a t a f t e r
199
that he h e a r d nothing. "'I h a d s e e n India's b e a u t y in that
c r o w d w i t h its s o d a - w a t e r a n d c u c u m b e r b u t w i t h t hat G o d stuff
I go t scared'" (55) . Camoens' c o m m e n t has to d o w i t h h i s fear
t h a t a l t h o u g h Ga n d h i p r e a c h e d b o t h I s h w a r a n d A l l a h as b e i n g
God, he didn' t really mean it because ultimately he
f o r e g r o u n d e d o n l y Hinduism. The implication, of course, is
that only a secular ideology is ca p a b l e of transcending
I n d i a ' s divisiveness.
A u r o r a herself, a Catholic, falls in love w i t h A b r a h a m
w h o is J e w i s h a n d who w o r k s in h e r family's s p i c e warehouse.
In c h o o s i n g A b r a h a m at t h e a g e o f fifteen, she c r o s s e s several
i m p o r t a n t bounda r i e s h a v i n g to do w i t h religion, class, and
e v e n s o c i a l m ores since t h e c o u p l e are n e v e r a c t u a l l y married.
A s A u r o r a b l osso m s into a n artist, she b e c o m e s i n v o l v e d w ith
t h e n a t i o n a l i s t mo v e m e n t a n d b e g i n s to m o v e in e l i t e p o l i t i c a l
circles. It is e v e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t the r e n o w n e d I n d i a n leader
w h o p r a c t i c e s a secular politics, Nehru, is o n e of h e r m a n y
lovers. Her fame and reputation continue to grow and her
i m a g e is p a i n t e d o n w a l l s a n d c a r i c a t u r e d in the p a p e r s until
" . . . the m a k e r of i mages b e c a m e an image herself" (116) .
A l t h o u g h A u r o r a is m y t h o l o g i z e d b y India's masses, she he r s e l f
a l w a y s r e m a i n s true to a s e c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y that is o s t e n s i b l y
b r o a d e r - b a s e d t h a n those w h o a d m i r e her. F o r example, every
y e a r she dances against the r e l i g i o n - i n f u s e d G a n e s h a s o n her
200
hilltop, yet the c r o w d h o n o r i n g G a n e s h m i s r e a d s h e r i n t e n t i o n s
and ends up becoming her groupies. Similarly, even though
N e h r u is her c onfi d a n t e , sh e c r i t i c i z e s h i m fo r b r e a k i n g u p a n
i m p o r t a n t strike in a n e f f o r t to c o m p r o m i s e w i t h the B r i t i s h .
H e r art, of this peri o d , is alw a y s p r o - s t r i k e a n d t h e r e f o r e
anti-British. Even though Nehru represents an important
v e r s i o n of the s e c u l a r i d e a l in this novel, A u r o r a is g i v e n a
s p a c e that is e v e n m o r e p r i v i l e g e d . Yet, R u s h d i e a t t e m p t s to
e x p o s e Au r o r a ' s shortcomings a n d s he is n ot p r e s e n t e d as an
idealized, "pure," character. As the novel progresses, we
l e a r n that she h u m i l i a t e s h e r h u s b a n d in public, takes l o v e r s
openly, is not terribly interested in childrearing, and
although she is responsible fo r the loss of her servant
L a m b a j a n ' s leg, p r e t e n d s his d e f o r m i t y ha s to do w i t h t h e f a c t
that he is a p i r a t e a n d b u y s him a p a r r o t . This last is an
i n t e r e s t i n g twis t to h e r c h a r a c t e r s i n c e she is c l e a r l y a w a r e
o f h o w tropes ca n b e u s e d a n d m i s - u s e d fo r p o l i t i c a l p u r p o s e s :
"'So what point in a pirate if no p a r r o t ? ' s h e ' d inquire.
. 'Might as well have had th e little man without th e
l o i n c loth'" (126) . In s p i t e of this recogn i t i o n , however, sh e
p r o c e e d s to invest L a m b a j a n ' s p a r r o t w i t h "false" m e a n i n g a n d
is h a p p y to p r e t e n d t h a t h e r e a l l y los t hi s leg in a p i r a t e
battle, rath e r t h a n b e c a u s e o f h e r panic. Aurora's implied
dig at Gandhi (the "little man (with) th e loincloth") is
201
reminiscent of h e r fa t h e r Camoens' e a r l i e r c o m m e n t to B e l l e
r e g a r d i n g a G a n d h i speech. Aurora, like Cam o e n s is c l e a r l y o n
the secular s i d e of the p o l i t i c a l d i v i d e as well, and is a
p r o p o n e n t of N e h r u (even g i v e n h i s shortcomings) rather than
Gandhi.
Aurora's a r t reflects her personal and political views
which are informed by Francisco's and Camoens' secular,
e a s t / w e s t perspe c t i v e s . W h e n h e r m o t h e r dies, Aurora locks
h e r s e l f into h e r studio for a w e e k a n d a t t e m p t s to d e a l w i t h
h e r g r i e f b y painting. T he e n d r e s u l t is w h a t Ca m o e n s c a l l s
"'...t h e g r e a t s w a r m of b e i n g i t s e l f .'" In the u n i v e r s e she
p a i n t s u p o n t h e walls a n d c e i l i n g of h e r studio, h i s t o r y is
co-mingled with fantasy. Beginning with King Gondophares
i n v i t i n g St. T h o m a s the A p o s t l e to India, to the E m p e r o r A s o k a
w i t h h i s P i l l a r s of Law, to t h e b u i l d i n g of t he Taj Mahal, to
m o d e r n I n d i a n h i s t o r y h a v i n g to d o w i t h Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah,
and British soldiers, a n d c o n t i n u i n g on "beyond h i s t o r y " to
depict creatures of h e r fancy, the hybrids, like h a l f - w o m a n
half-tiger, a n d in an h o n o u r e d place, "Vasco d a G a m a himself,
s e t t i n g his f i r s t foot o n I n d i a n soil, s n i f f i n g the air, and
s e e k i n g out w h a t e v e r was s p i c y a n d hot a n d m a d e money" (59) .
I n c l u d e d in t h i s m ural is a p e r s o n a l f a m i l y h i s t o r y of t h e da
Gamas, with all of their eccentricities and viciousness
intact. Camoens notices that only God is ab s e n t from this
202
sprawling representation of personal and public history.
Aurora's desire to be an encyclopedic painter is clearly
expressed in this work as sh e attempts to include al l of
Indian history since the arrival of the first western
c o l o n i s t s onto her canvas. U n l i k e h e r m o t her-in-law, Flory,
who attempts to d e n y h e r family's conne c t i o n to the Muslim
M o o r of Spain, A u r o r a d e l i g h t s in h e r c o n n e c t i o n to V a s c o da
Gama. Flory is eager to preserve the purity of her
Jewishness; Aurora, o n the o t h e r hand, relishes t h e i m p u r i t y
i m p l i e d b y a w r o n g - s i d e - o f - t h e - s h e e t s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Vasco,
w h o c a m e for spices a n d f o r trade.
As her career progresses, however, this mixing of
personal with pub l i c history and the inclusion of purely
i m a g i n a t i v e creatures ceas e s in h e r art for a b r i e f m o m e n t as
s h e tur n s to "realism" as a p r e f e r r e d mode of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
In this phase, A u r o r a works e x c l u s i v e l y on r e a l i s t i c s k e t c h e s
o f strikes, political events, and other documentary pictures
o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events in India. B u t we are to l d t h a t this is
n o t a n e n d u r i n g pha s e an d is, in fact, b e t t e r e n d e d b e c a u s e as
t h e n a r r a t o r explains,
It was e a s y for a n a r t i s t to lose he r i d e n t i t y at a
time when so many thinkers believed that the
p o i g n a n c y a n d p a s s i o n o f t he country's i m m e n s e life
c o uld o n l y be represented by a kind of selfless,
203
d e d i c a t e d - - e v e n p a t r i o t i c - - m i m e s i s . (173)
The implication here is that "realism" excludes a n artist's
a b i l i t y to s h o w that "life is f a n t a s t i c " and that "'the real
is always hidden . . . i nside a miraculously burning bush'"
(174) . Vasco Miranda, however, encourages Aurora to give
v o i c e to h e r "secret identity," to f o l l o w the t r u e d i r e c t i o n
of h e r heart, inwards, to the r e a l i t y of dreams, a n d to g i v e
up h e r m i m e t i c a rt (179).
Eventually, A u r o r a m o v e s a w a y f r o m n a t u r a l i s m a n d begins,
o n c e again, to p a i n t to p l e a s e herself, in a s t y l e u n i q u e l y
her own. At her best, what she creates is a fantasy land
c a l l e d M o o r i s t a n o r Palimpstine. T h e r e is n o t h i n g n e w tinder
the sun, s h e t el l s h e r son, a n d u s e s A r a b - S p a i n t o r e - i m a g i n e
India. H e r d e s i r e is to r e p r e s e n t a g o l d e n age o f h y b r i d i t y
as it existed historically in the Arab period of Southern
Spain, in Andalusia. She recalls that this was a cu l t u r e
w h i c h i n c l u d e d Christians, Jews, and Muslims l i v i n g side b y
s i d e f o r h u n d r e d s o f years. E a c h o f these c u l t u r e s a f f e c t e d
e a c h o t h e r so that n o n e r e m a i n e d p u r e l y a n y one thing. The
result was a hybrid architecture, literature, and culture,
even though Muslim sultans were the rulers. This rich,
c o m p l e x e n v i r o n m e n t w as e f f a c e d b y t h e r e - c o n q u e r i n g C a t h o l i c s
who Rushdie describes in his Charlie Rose interview as
"Christian fundamentalists." In Moor. Rushdie draws a
204
p a r a l l e l b e t w e e n the c o m p o s i t e c u l t u r e of I n d i a w h e r e t h e r e is
a H i n d u majority, but w h e r e m a n y o t h e r c u l t u r e s - - C h r i s t i a n ,
Muslim, Jewish--come together to form a melange to Muslim
Spain. And Rushdie/Aurora views the newly emerging Hindu
f u n d a m e n t a l i s m in I n d i a as a th r e a t to this r i c h c u l t u r e of
h o t c h - p o t c h an d h y b r i d i t y .
Bu t prior to the threat, prior to the re-conquering
Catholics, S p a i n / I n d i a e n j o y e d a f l u i d i t y t h a t A u r o r a c aptures
in h e r p a i n t i n g s b y c r e a t i n g a p l a c e o n c a n v a s " 'w h e r e w orlds
collide, f l o w in a n d o u t o f o n e another, a n d w a s h o f y away. . . .
O n e universe, one d i m e n s i o n , o n e country, o n e d r e a m b u m p o ' i n g
i n t o another, o r b e i n g under, o r o n top of' " (22 6) . Aurora
c r e a t e s a g e o g r a p h y w h e r e t h e w a t e r ' s edge, t h e d i v i d i n g line
b e t w e e n th e two w o r l d s o f w a t e r a n d l a n d b e c o m e s t h e f ocus of
her attention. And "at the water's edge strange composite
creatures slithered to and fro ac r o s s t he frontier of the
elements" (226) . A n d a b o v e it all, A u r o r a p i c t u r e s a p a l a c e
in w h i c h the M o o r r e s i d e s . F o r h e r model, she u s e s h e r son,
M o r a e s Zogoiby. T h e Moor, in h is h y b r i d fort r e s s , represents
a g o l d e n age:
Jews, Christians, Muslims, Parsis, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains crowded into h e r p a i n t - B o a b d i l 's
fa n c y - d r e s s balls, and the Sultan himself was
represented less and less naturalistically,
205
appearing more and more often as a masked,
particoloured harlequin, a patchwork quilt of a
man; or, as his skin dropped, f r o m him chrysalis-
fashion, s t a n d i n g r e v e a l e d as a g l o r i o u s butterfly,
w h o s e w i n g s w e r e a m i r a c u l o u s c o m p o s i t e of all the
co l o u r s of the world. (227)
T hus Aurora celebrates the conjoining of many different
hist o r i e s a n d c u l t u r e s in S p a i n d u r i n g t he t i m e of Boabdil,
bu t he r idea is to r e a d I n d i a t h r o u g h S p a i n a n d c e l e b r a t e its
hybridity and diversity. T he patchwork quilt Moor is
r e m i n i s c e n t of e a r l i e r p r o t a g o n i s t s in R u s h d i e ' s fiction, s u c h
as S a l a h u d d i n C h a m c h a w a l l a , as the M o o r is a c o m p o s i t e o f all
the various c u l t u r e s he is s u r r o u n d e d b y a n d w h i c h have l e a k e d
into him. T his is m e a n t to be an e n a b l i n g v e r s i o n of h y b r i d i t y
w h i c h is l i f e - g i v i n g a n d beautiful.
But A u r o r a is u n a b l e to s u s t a i n t h i s p o s i t i v e ideal a n d
the M o o r - f i g u r e o f h e r l a t e r p i c t u r e s s t a n d s alone, p o r t r a y e d
as a c r eature of s h a d o w s . H e loses his p r e v i o u s m e t a p h o r i c a l
role as a "unifier of opposites, a standard-bearer of
pluralism, c e a s i n g to s t a n d as a s y m b o l ... of the n e w nation,
a n d b e i n g transformed, instead, into a s e m i - a l l e g o r i c a l f i g u r e
of decay" (303) . T h i s n e w M o o r is a h y b r i d o f darkness, evil,
a n d weakness. H e r d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t w i t h t h e h o p e she o n c e h e l d
in c o n j o inings c o m e s f r o m t he i d e n t i t y p o l i t i c s she o b s e r v e s
206
in m o d e r n Ind i a w h e r e individuals attempt to p r e s e r v e their
sense of themselves by shutting out anything they consider
f o r e i g n o r i m p u r e to their essence. Th e d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t also
results from her o w n ill experience with th e communal hype
d r u m m e d u p b y t h e likes of M a i n d u c k o v e r h e r p a i n t i n g o f the
cricketeer, T h e K i s s i n g of A b b a s A l i Baicr. A u r o r a p a i n t s the
kiss in a l i g h t h e a r t e d moment. T h e ide a is q u i c k l y c o n c e i v e d
and lightly executed, we are told. However, all of her
"innocent," playful motives aside, the painting quickly
be c o m e s extremely controversial, and critics accuse her of
" u n d e r l y i n g mot i v e s " an d "social i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " The Hindu
fundamentalist, Mainduck, seiz e s upon a communal angle and
m ak e s it the c e n t e r o f H i n d u / M u s l i m violence. H e sees cricket
as a f u n d a m e n t a l l y c o m m u n a l i s t game, e s s e n t i a l l y Hindu, but
w i t h its H i n d u - n e s s c o n s t a n t l y u n d e r threat f r o m th e c o u n t r y ' s
other, treacherous communities (231). M eanwhile, all A u r o r a
is able to d o is mutter, like S a l a d i n b e f o r e her, "This is not
w h a t I m e a n t at all." This s e c t i o n of the text c l e a r l y refers
to R u s h d i e 's personal experience with SV, and thus he has
A u r o r a state: "'It's as if . . . I d o n ' t hav e a n y r u n s o n the
bloody board'" (234). A lifetime of her work, action,
affinity, a n d o p p o s i t i o n is w a s h e d a w a y u n d e r t h e a t t a c k that
follows T h e K i s s i n g . A u r o r a is o t h e r i z e d b y h e r c o m m u n i t y and
no one pays attention to any of her work except the one
207
c o n t r o v e r s i a l piece. Her popularity goes i n t o decline, and
w i t h it h e r h o p e f u l n e s s a n d optimism. In t h i s state, Aurora
r e - w r i t e s the M o o r as a f igure in decline, a n d he c e a s e s to be
a s y m b o l of joy f u l c o m i n g s -t o g e t h e r s .
Th e " r e a l ” moor, M o r a e s Zogoiby, b e g i n s h i s life s u f f u s e d
w i t h A u r o r a ' s e c l e c t i c p e r s o n a l i t y a n d art. S h e u s e s h i m as
a m o d e l fo r h e r B o a b d i l w h o is meant to r e p r e s e n t a n u l t i m a t e
f o r m of hybridity. But Moraes, himself, n e v e r d e v e l o p s into
a h y b r i d character. Instead, his a c c e l e r a t e d b i o l o g i c a l pace
f a s t - f o r w a r d s h i m f r o m a c h i l d h o o d w h e r e h e is s u r r o u n d e d b y
d iversity, to an adolescence with his tutor Dilly, to an
a d u l t h o o d w i t h h i s lover, Uma, to a life of v i o l e n c e as one of
Mainduck's thugs, to an "escape" into Spain, and his final
c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h V a s c o Miranda. Moraes' experiences with
Uma and Mainduck are portrayed as particularly dark and
t r o u b l i n g b e c a u s e t h e y are e q u a t e d to " a n t i - h y b r i d i t y . " D u r i n g
these phases he b u y s into som e o n e el s e ' s v e r s i o n of r e a l i t y
and "becomes" what they want him to be. The da n g e r s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s u c h s n a k e - l i k e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s are m u c h more
fully developed in earlier Rushdie novels s u c h as S h a m e and
SV. Here, there is o n l y a c u r s o r y m e n t i o n as M o r a e s wonders:
"To g i v e u p one's o w n p i c t u r e of the w o r l d a n d b e c o m e w h o l l y
dependent on someone else's--was not that as good a
d e s c r i p t i o n as a n y of the p r o c e s s of, literally, g o i n g out of
208
o n e ' s mind?" (267). T h i s idea o f m a d n e s s is b r o u g h t u p o n c e
again wh e n Moraes asks whether Uma is "insaan" (human) or
"insane" (322). Is s he b a d o r m a d (266). Uraa's prob l e m , it
t urns ou t is that s h e d o e s n ot d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n "metap h o r s "
and "lies" (270) a n d is a changeling, a n d therefore, Moraes
t u r n s a w a y f r o m her. In l e a v i n g Uma, h e c h o o s e s life o v e r a
s u i c i d e pact, b u t this p a r t i a l t u r n i n g t o w a r d a m o r e i n c l u s i v e
e x i s t e n c e is cut s h o r t b y his p o s t - p r i s o n d e c i s i o n to w o r k f o r
Main d u c k . His l i f e of v i o l e n c e e n d s w i t h a n u l t i m a t e act of
violence: murder. H e sma s h e s M a i n d u c k to d e a t h a n d f l i e s to
S p a i n in s e a r c h of M ooristan.
What he finds, of course, is an empty, surface
"hybridity" in what he calls his "anti-Jerusalem" (388) .
T h e r e is a n e w c o l o n i a l i s m in B e n a n g a l i w h i c h h a s c o m e a b o u t
as a result of globalization, and although one sees
i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m Ame r i c a , England, Sweden, Norway, a n d France,
there is no intermingling of cultures and there is not a
S p a n i a r d i n sight. T h e s e n e o - c o l o n i a l i s t s in a l l i g a t o r s h o e s
and sports shi r t s haunt a specific section of the city and
Gottfried Helsing calls them "blood-suckers" (390) . M i r a n d a ' s
house is reminiscent of the Shakil sisters' Nishapur where
"time d o e s n ' t move" (393). V a s c o h a s a t t e m p t e d to a p p r o p r i a t e
A u r o r a ' s v i s i o n of M o o r i s t a n for h i m s e l f a n d h a s c o n v e r t e d his
home into a simulation of her various Moor paintings. B ut
209
Moraes discovers very quickly that this is not a true
Palim p s t i n e ; it is, rather, just a n "ugly, p r e t e n t i o u s house"
(409) . What Aurora sought to c a p t u r e o n her canvas in her
p a i n t i n g e n t i t l e d T h e Moor's Last S i g h w a s t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of
m u l t i p l i c i t y b y singularity. Ironically, M i r a n d a ' s a r t i f i c i a l
A l a m b r a k i l l s the h y b r i d i t y found in h e r p a i n t i n g s a n d emerges
i n s t e a d as t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of M i r a n d a ' s s i n g u l a r o b s e s s i o n
to d e s t r o y e v e r y t h i n g c onnected to A u r o r a .
A c c o r d i n g to Rushdie, the o n l y h i n t o f "true" hybridity
in S p a i n r e s i d e s i n the town of E r a s m o t h a t M o r a e s p a s s e s in
a taxi, on hi s way to Benangali. He observes indivi d u a l s
arguing from opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum:
"'Everything in l ife is so diverse, so opposed, so obscure,
that we c a n n o t b e c e r t a i n of a ny truth, ' " "'All is possible, ' "
"'God e x i s t e d , ' " " ' G o d was dead,'" "'. . . p e r s o n a l i t y was
homogeneous and men were to be held responsible for their
a c t s . . w e w e r e such c o n t r a d i c t o r y e n t i t i e s that the
c o n cept of p e r s o n a l i t y itself ceased, u n d e r c l o s e scrutiny, to
h ave meaning' " (386) . F or Rushdie, E r a s m o is r e m i n i s c e n t of
Z e e n y V a k i l ' s e c l e c t i c Bombay in S V w h e r e poets, politicians,
laborers, and journalists all gather in cafes to debate
contemporary is s u e s and philosophical concerns. But once
M o r a e s is i n Benang a l i , he cannot r e t u r n to Erasmo. W h e n he
asks M i r a n d a ' s maid, Felicitas, w h y s h e d o e s n o t g o a c r o s s to
210
E r a s m o since she feels o p p r e s s e d in Benangali, h e r c u r t a n s w e r
is t h a t . . . there is no r o a d to E r a s m o f r o m here'" (401) .
T h u s M o r a e s is i m p r i s o n e d in B e n a n g a l i b y Mira n d a , Mooristan
t u r n s o u t to be a n illusion, a n d the m u l t i p l i c i t y r e p r e s e n t e d
in M i r a n d a ' s ot h e r priso n e r , Aoi, is k i l l e d b y singularity.
A o i r e m i n d s Moraes of Z e e n a t V a k i l a n d h is child h o o d , tutor,
D i l l y Hormuz. But like every other positive force in this
novel, A o i who is c o m f o r t a b l e in h e r r o o t l e s s n e s s , w h o teaches
Moraes not to b e a v i c t i m b y h e r ow n s t r e n g t h of character,
w h o is a self-possessed, s e l f - c o n t a i n e d woman, is killed. At
the m o m e n t of he r death, M o r a e s o n c e a g a i n c h o o s e s l i f e b y not
f l i n g i n g h i mself at Miranda. M o r a e s d o e s m a n a g e to escape,
but R u s h d i e does n ot l e a v e a n y hope fo r w h a t h e is e s c a p i n g
into. W e see Moraes at th e e nd r e s t i n g h is h e a d to s l e e p on
a gravestone an d hoping to reawaken to a renewed, joyful,
better time. But these are empty hopes, in th e final
analysis, b e caus e R u s h d i e shuts d o w n e v e r y o p t i o n f o r r e n e w a l
a n d joy. Eras m o is inaccessible, hybridity has deteriorated
into a commercial, globe-trotting venture b y wealthy, white
E u r o p e a n s w h o do not m i x w i t h the natives, A o i is killed, an d
Moraes h i mself is doomed to die, given his debilitating
disease of acceleration. B a c k in India, th e o n l y r e m a i n i n g
s u r v i v o r e v e n r e m o t e l y c o n n e c t e d to the Z o g o i b y / d a G a m a s is a
scarred Nadia Wadia who once agreed to become engaged to
211
Moraes in r e tur n f or e c o n o m i c security for herself and her
a g i n g mother. In p l a c e of the earlier envisioned flux and
f l u i d i t y o f India t h e r e n o w e x i s t s a n extreme, fundamentalist
v e r s i o n o f H i n d u i s m w h i c h o n l y seeks to divide, "purify, " a n d
d o m i n a t e all oth e r c o m m u n i t i e s . There is n o t e v e n th e hint of
a n I n d i a n Eras m o to h o l d o n t o as p o t e n t i a l f o r hope. In fact,
R u s h d i e ' s entire n o v e l is i t s e l f a n o s t a l g i c l o o k i n g b a c k at
w h a t o n c e e x i s t e d i n i d e a l i z e d f o r m (Aurora's family, h e r art,
her politics) but is now destroyed forever, just as in
B e n a n g a l i , h e r p a l i m p s e s t p a i n t i n g of M a d o n n a - w i t h o u t - c h i l d is
d e s t r o y e d t h roug h M i r a n d a ' s violence.
In his i n t e r v i e w w i t h C h a r l i e Rose, R u s h d i e s t a t e s that
M i d n i g h t 's C h ild r e n w a s a n o v e l he w r o t e ou t o f c h i l d h o o d a nd
t h a t S a l e e m Sinai, e v e n t h o u g h h e grows up, r e t a i n s a k i n d of
c h i l d l i k e v i e w of the world. M C is a n o v e l a b o u t beginnings,
he says. M o o r , on the o t h e r hand, he says, represents Bombay
from "the grown u p knowledge" he has of India, and of this
world. If this is the case, t h e n Rushd i e ' s c h i l d h o o d v e r s i o n
of India is fluid, eclectic, heterogeneous, a n d hybrid; his
a d u l t v e r s i o n is bleak, hopeless, dark, and singular. Why?
In m y opinion, Rushdie's shi f t in v i s i o n has to do w i t h his
f a t w a - i m p o s e d hiding: l i v i n g o u t of the c i r c l e of p u b l i c life
for eight years has taken its toll and has effaced his
p o l i t i c a l optimism. T h e res u l t is a b o o k w h i c h is m e a n t to be
212
a last look at h i s ideal o f hybridity, b u t w h i c h t u r n s o u t n o t
to be v e r y h y b r i d at a l l . The o v e r - a r c h i n g t h e m e in M o o r is
a c t u a l l y "secularism, " r a t h e r t h a n " h y b r idity. " In t h i s b o o k
more so than in any of the others, Rushdie plays up the
se c u l a r theme a la Nehru and bemoans the fact that now,
J awaha r l a l is j u s t t h e n a m e of a s t u f f e d dog. Nehru's message
of s e c u r a l i s m w a s m e a n t to o verride t h e d i v i s i v e n e s s r e s u l t i n g
f r o m India's m u l t i t u d i n o u s gods of v a r i o u s r e l i g i o u s faiths.
Bu t now, in M o o r . R u s h d i e states that the secular dream is
d e a d an d all w e h a v e left is an e m p t y s y m b o l of it, a s t u f f e d
dog on wheels. Aurora, who is meant to represent
inclusi v e n e s s a n d c r o s s i n g - o f - b o u n d a r i e s , is s t a u n c h l y s e c u l a r
and the one thing missing in h e r art is God, Christian or
otherwise. Every year she d ances against t he Ganesha
processions a n d t a k e s p r i d e in h e r s e c u l a r vi ew s. In fact,
all the m a j o r i n t e l l e c t u a l s and p o s i t i v e characters in t h i s
book are u n b e l i e v e r s . On the o t h e r hand, Epifania, Flory,
Mainduck, the ganeshas are all marginalized in this text.
Epifania, wh o is a devout, old-fashioned Catholic is also
b r o u g h t to us as a d e f e n d e r of the c o l o n i a l r u l e i n India, a n d
w h e n she dies, w e a r e t o l d that "life i n c r e a s e s " at E l e p h a n t a
b e c a u s e a "filter" is r e m o v e d f rom the a i r (64) . Simila r l y ,
F l o r y is r e p r e s e n t e d as the evil m o t h e r - i n - l a w w h o a c t u a l l y
m a k e s a R u m p l e s t i l s k i n e s q u e b a r g a i n w i t h A b r a h a m to t a k e h i s
213
f i r s t - b o r n s o n in e x c h a n g e for a loan he d e s p e r a t e l y n e e d s to
save the da Gama business. She is d e s c r i b e d as Epifania's
"opposite number" (73) and draws a dividing line between
h e r s e l f a n d A b r a h a m w h e n he falls in love w i t h A u r o r a . Both
Epifania and Flory are r eligious and eager to protect the
s a n c t i t y of t h e i r identities, a n d b o t h w o m e n a r e p r e s e n t e d as
hostile, aggressive, scheming, and vengeful. Mainduck, for
all of Rushdie's h a l f - h e a r t e d a ttempts to humanize him, is
portrayed as a fascist who is o n l y interested in violence,
destruction, and control. He "owns" the city of Bombay
through his corruption and bribery schemes, and he tells
Moraes that he c o n t r o l s the p o o r m a s s e s (293) . M a i n d u c k is
th e future, the n a r r a t o r tells us, a n d M o r a e s l e a r n s h i m like
a road (300). Mo r a e s reveals Maind u c k ' s personal side by
n a r r a t i n g p r i v a t e m o m e n t s he e x p e r i e n c e s in h is h o u s e a n d he
states that "the point is they are not inhuman, t hese
Mainduck-style li t t l e Hitlers, and it is in their humanity
t hat we must lo c a t e our collec t i v e guil t . . . " (297), but
unfortunately, w e do not g et e n o u g h of M a i n d u c k ' s "humanity"
to be a b l e to do this. A n d as far as "guilt" goes, Rushdie
places it squarely on the shoulders of t he Mainducks,
Abrahams, a n d A d a m s of India. E v e n th o u g h h e c l a i m s to b l a m e
the very plurality he cherishes, the evil "others" in this
te x t a r e c l e a r l y the r e i g n i n g m y t h s of "money" as r e p r e s e n t e d
214
by Adam and Abra h a m , and "religion" as represented by
Mainduck.
So h o w h y b r i d is a h y b r i d i t y that d o e s no t m a k e r o o m for
singularity? In e a r l i e r R u s h d i e novels, c h a r a c t e r s w h o b o u g h t
in t o the religion-myth or the business/money-myth were not
m a r g i n a l i z e d in the m a n n e r in w h i c h all th e c h a r a c t e r s (except
those who are directly related to hybridity) in Moor are.
R e v e r e n d M o ther in M C is reli g i o u s throughout the text, yet
she is represented as a strong-willed woman who is not
vicious, and w h o helps hold her family together in trying
times. It is her, a f t e r all, who b r e a k s th e ice regarding
Saleem' s u n k n o w n b i o l o g i c a l origins and embraces h i m as h er
g r a n d s o n s ubsequ e n t to M a r y ' s confession. Saleem's "father"
cares only about m a k i n g money, yet he is p o r t r a y e d as a man
c a p a b l e of loving h i s "son" an d of f a l l i n g in lov e w i t h his
wife, Amina, yea r s a f t e r t h e y are married. S imilarly, in SV,
C h a n g e z who causes p a i n a n d e m b a r r a s s m e n t to his s o n Saladin,
continues to transform during the tex t and eventually
a c k n o w l e d g e s his o w n w e a k n e s s e s a nd s a d d n e s s e s . In b o t h MC
a n d SV, the c h a r a c t e r s w h o repre s e n t s i n g u l a r i t y ar e m e a n t to
portray one version among many, and their narrowness of
p e r s p e c t i v e is e i t h e r h u m a n i z e d o r swept up int o th e g r e a t e r
r u s h of teeming h e t e r o g e n e i t y of the o v e r a l l n a r r a t i v e . In
M o o r , however, the s i n g u l a r i t y of the likes o f M a i n d u c k is not
215
un d e r c u t by a rivalling philosophy or worldview, and the
result is no t a hete r o g e n e o u s re-telling of history as we
observe in MC, but a static, limited version of it as
r e p r e s e n t e d in A u r o r a ' s art.
In a d d i t i o n to leaving out god(s) a n d religion, A u r o r a ' s
art (and politic s ) excludes the s ubalt e r n . H e r circles, a f t e r
all, are high-brow, elite, and extremely restricted when
viewed from a global Indian perspective. What Aurora
represents, in the end, is an extremely small section of
Ind i a n society (and politics) . For all of her hybrid
cre a t u r e s t hat belong both to the air and water, and her
c o l l i d i n g realities, she makes n o m e n t i o n o f the tribals, the
u n o r g a n i z e d laborers, or the p o o r e s t of t he p o o r w h o l i v e in
the c i t y a n d the countryside, o r of the subaltern w o m e n who
are not r e g i s t e r e d o n a n y social, polit i c a l , o r e c o n o m i c s c a l e
in India. Aurora's hybridity is reserved for the
intelligentsia and the most high-powered politicos. Even
t h o u g h she c h o o s e s A b r a h a m who is b e l o w h e r in s ocial class,
she forges n o re l a t i o n s h i p w i t h F l o r y o r a n y of the o t h e r s in
A b r a h a m ' s c ommun i t y . Throughout t h e text, she re m a i n s in h e r
iv o r y tower, p a i n t i n g eclectic i m a g e s of a t ime n o w past, and
dancing high on her hilltop against the masses' faith in
Ganesh.
In the final analysis, Moor's hybridity is unable to
216
accommodate any version of religious fundamentalism, and
secularism alone is presented as the key to a successful
e xistence. In SV, a l t h o u g h the d e b a t e b e t w e e n god(s) a n d no-
god(s) is t h o r o u g h l y p l a y e d out a n d "Islam" is r e v e a l e d as a
construct, Rushdie leaves the door open for alternative
possibilities by constantly challenging the a u t h e n t i c i t y of
any one voice. Thus, it is never clear whether Gibreel
actually becomes an angel or merely imagines th e entire
experience, w h e t h e r the A r a b i a n S e a p a r t s o r not, w h e t h e r Al-
L a t is a n a c t u a l being, a n d w h e t h e r Rekha, a v e n g e f u l g h o s t is
in u l t i m a t e c o n t r o l of th e narrative. B y m a i n t a i n i n g a sen s e
o f a m b i g u i t y r e g a r d i n g d i v i n e an d l a r g e r - t h a n - l i f e e p i s o d e s in
S V . R u s h d i e m a n a g e s to p r e s e n t "secul a r i s m " a n d " M a r x i s m " as
a l t e r n a t i v e v e r s i o n s of "reality." In M o o r , however, anyone
who represents a f a i t h in god(s) is v i o l e n t l y m a r g i n a l i z e d ,
thereby eliminating any possibility of ambiguity regarding
t h e i r stance. A u r o r a ' s sen s e of h y b r i d i t y d o e s n o t m a k e r o o m
fo r god(s) a n d p r i v i l e g e s a s e c u l a r v i s i o n t o t he e x c l u s i o n of
a l l others. In this context. M o o r does r e p r e s e n t "the e n d of
a w o rld," that is, R u s h d i e ' s e a r l i e r i m a g e o f mela n g e , hotch
potch, a n d i m p u r i t y as r e p r e s e n t e d in hi s earlier novels in
the city of Bombay. Because Moor is unable to critique
communalism without itself submitting to a version of
singularity (exclusive secularism) , it fails to communicate
217
the m e s s a g e o f h y b r i d i t y that it is m e a n t to value. And in
this novel, Rushdie's political and social elitism is most
obvious, e s p e c i a l l y as it leaks into t h e c h a r a c t e r of A u r o r a .
Thus, a novel meant to represent an albeit lost ideal of
h y b r i d i t y in I n d i a is u l t i m a t e l y u n s u c c e s s f u l b e c a u s e it is
g u i l t y of the v e r y o t h e r i z a t i o n it s e e k s to expose.
P o i n t i n g o u t the l imitations of M o o r ' s "hybridity" is a
good entre into a discussion of other silences in R u s h d i e ' s
oeuvre. M a n y e m i n e n t scholars h a v e c r i t i q u e d Ru s h d i e f or his
c l a i m to i n c l u s i v e n e s s which, in fact, t h e y r e a d as a s e l l - o u t
to the Western world. Such writers place Rushdie in a
category of "postcolonials" as described by Kwame Anthony
Appiah in a n a r t i c l e entitled, "Is the Post- in P o s t m o d e r n i s m
the Post- in P o s t c o l o n i a l ? ", by substituting "India" for
"Africa":
P o s t c o l o n i a l i t y is the c o n d i t i o n of what w e m i g h t
ungenerously call a c o m p r a d o r intellingentsia: a
relatively small, Western-style, Western-trained
group of writers and thinkers, who med i a t e the
trade in c u l t u r a l commodities of w o r l d c a p i t a l i s m
at the p eriphery. In the West they are known
through the Africa t h e y offer; their compatriots
know them both through the West they present to
A f r i c a a n d t h r o u g h an A f r i c a t h e y h ave i n v e n t e d f o r
218
the world, for e a c h other, a n d for A f r i c a . (348)
Appiah's point in his article is that postcolonialism and
postmodernism are two distinct terms, and what is called
"syncretism" in d e s c r i b i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y p o s t c o l o n i a l A f r i c a n
ar t is a conseq u e n c e of the int e r n a t i o n a l exchange of
c o m m odities, rather than a "space-clearing" gesture of
postmodernism (348) . Whereas I have read the majority of
R u s h d i e ' s w o r k as just s u c h a "space-clearing" g e s t u r e , many
of his crit i c s have not. Rushdie himself notes cri t i c a l
a s s a u l t s m a d e o n himself a n d o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y I n d i a n w riters
working in English: the "practitioners" of this newly
e m e r g i n g litera t u r e he s tates a r e
denigrated for being too upper-middle-class; for
lacking diversity in their choice of themes and
techniques; for b e i n g less popular in India than
o u t s i d e India; for possessing inflated reputations
on account of the int e r n a t i o n a l power of the
English language, and of the ability of Western
c r i tic s and publishers to impose their cul t u r a l
standa r d s on the East; for l i v i n g in many cases,
outside India; for being deracinated to the point
where their work lacks spiritual dimension
essent i a l for a 'true' u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e soul of
India; for being insufficiently grounded in the
219
a n c i e n t literary t r a d i t i o n s of India; for b e i n g the
literary equiva l e n t of MTV culture, or of
globalizing C oca-Colonization, even .. . for
s u f f e r i n g from a c o n d i t i o n ... call(ed) 'Rushdie-
itis' . . . . (The N e w Y o r k e r 54)
In a n a t t e m p t to de f e n d h i m s e l f a n d o t h e r w r i t e r s l i k e him,
R u s h d i e n o t e s t h a t few of t h e s e c r i t i c i s m s are
l i t e r a r y in the p u r e s e n s e of the w o r d . . . since
they do not deal with language, voice,
psychological or social insight, imagination, or
talent. Rather, t h e y h a v e to do w i t h class, power,
and belief. There is a whiff of political
correctness about them: the ironic proposition
that India's best writing since independence may
have been done in the language of the departed
i m p eri a l i s t s is s i m p l y too m u c h for some folks to
bear. (54)
D e s p i t e hi s c h a r g e of "political correctness", w h a t is t r u l y
i r o n i c a b o u t Rus h d i e ' s statement is that "class" a n d "power",
along with "gender" are the very issues for which he is
u s u a l l y t a k e n to task. In m y opinion, his d e s i r e to be ju d g e d
on a "purely literary" level is problematic given that his
definition of this category (at least in The New Yorker
article) clearly excludes "class," "power," and "gender."
220
Literature, after all, as Edward Said has pointed out in
C u l t u r e and I m p e r i a l i s m (and as an e a r l i e r R u s h d i e has n o t e d
in Imaginary Homelands and mos t of his novels) is not an
a c t i v i t y that o c c u r s i n a c u l t u r a l vacuum. "Literature" is
infused w i t h all the personal baggage that its p r o d u c e r is
e n d o w e d w i t h -- b a g g a g e h a v i n g to do with, a m o n g o t h e r things,
class, gender, and power. To dis m i s s these categories as
being "non-literary" in nature is the s a m e as c l a i m i n g that
"Literature" transcends the everyday world because its
p r o d u c e r s are ab o v e p o l i t i c a l m o t i v a t i o n s .
Specifically, one of the major criticisms that
postcolonial scholars have l e v i e d against Rushdie has to do
with h i s n o t i o n of migrancy. My reading of Rushdie's
m i g r a n c y - m e t a p h o r ha s f o c u s s e d o n wha t I consider to be its
m o s t p o s i t i v e message, tha t is, b e i n g a n i m m i g r a n t teaches y o u
to d i s t r u s t
all t h o s e who c l a i m t o p o s s e s s absolute forms of knowledge;
all total explanations, al l systems of
thought w h i c h purport to be complete. . . . To
experi e n c e a n y f o r m of m i g r a t i o n is to ge t a l e s s o n
in the importance of t o l e r a t i n g others' points of
view. On e m i g h t a l m o s t s a y that m i g r a t i o n ought to
be e s s e n t i a l training for all w o u l d - b e democrats.
(IH 2 8 0 )
221
An immigrant mentality allows one to c o n t i n u o u s l y reimagine
the world and foreground uncertainty over any absolute
narrative. B u t this p o s i t i v e r e a d i n g aside, it is impor t a n t
to note the potential limitations that are also part of
R u s h d i e ' s m i g r a n c y - m e t a p h o r . A s R e v a t h i K r i s h n a s w a m y asks in
an article entitled, "Mythologies of Migrancy:
Postcolonialism, Postmodernism and the Politics of
(Dis) l o cation, " "has t h e m y t h o l o g y o f m i g r a n c y (as a r t i c u l a t e d
by writers s u c h as Rushdie) provided a productive sit e for
p o s t c o l o n i a l r e s i s t a n c e o r has it w i l l y - n i l l y become complicit
with hegemonic postmodern theorizations of power an d
identity?" (127-28). A c c o r d i n g to Krishnaswamy, a l t h o u g h the
f i g u r e o f m i g r a n c y ha s p r o v e d u s e f u l in
drawing attention to the marginalized, in
problematizing conceptions of borders, and in
critiquing the politics of power . . . it also
appears to have acquired an excessive figurative
flexibility that threatens to undermine severely
the oppositional force of postcolonial politics.
The metaphorization of postcolonial migrancy is
becoming so overblown, overdetermined, a nd
amorphous as to repudiate any meaningful
specificity of historical location or
interpretation. P o l i t i c a l l y c h a r g e d w o r d s s u c h as
222
"diaspora" and "exile" are b e i n g e m p t i e d of t h e i r
histories of pain and suffering and are being
d e p l o y e d p r o m i s c u o u s l y to d e s i g n a t e a w i d e a r r a y of
cross-cultural phenomenon. . . . The entry of
p o s t c o l o n i a l i s m into the m e t r o p o l i t a n a c a d e m y u n d e r
the hegemonic theoretical rubric of p o s t m o d e r n i s m
o b v i o u s l y has b e e n a pow e r f u l f a c t o r in d e t e r m i n i n g
how the "T h i r d W orld" is conceived and consumed.
(128)
A c c o r d i n g to Krishnaswamy, the p r o b l e m a r i s e s w i t h the fact
t h a t all to o often, the p o s t c o l o n i a l text is a p p r o a c h e d "as a
l o c a l i z e d embell i s h m e n t o f a u n i v e r s a l n arrative, a n object of
knowledge that may be known through a postmodern critical
discourse" (128-29). B y f o c u s s i n g a t t e n t i o n p r i m a r i l y o n the
f o r m a l s imilarit i e s b e t w e e n p o s t m o d e r n a n d p o s t c o l o n i a l texts,
the r a d i c a l historical a n d p o l i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the
two are erased. As a result, the c o m p l e x "local" h istories
and culture specific knowledges inscribed in postcolonial
narratives get "neutralized" into versions of postmodern
"d i v e r s i t y " according to which "others" are seen, but are
s t r i p p e d of their "dense specificity." "Class, gender, and
i n t e l l e c t u a l hierarchies w i t h i n o t h e r c u l t u r e s w h i c h h a p p e n to
b e a t l e a s t as e l a b o r a t e as t h o s e in the West, f r e q u e n t l y are
ignored" (129). Citing the example of Fredric Jameson's
223
p a r a d i g m of p o s t c o l o n i a l l iterature as n a t i o n a l a l l e g o r y w h i c h
uniformly constitutes all "Third World" intellectuals,
regard l e s s of their gender or class, as marginalized
insurgents or as nationalists struggling a gainst Western
imperialism, Krishnaswamy states that such readings of
p o s t c o l o n i a l l i t e r a t u r e s r educe "difference" to "equivalence,
interchangeabili t y , syncretism, and diversity, while a
levelling subversive subalteraity is indiscriminately
a t t r i b u t e d to a n y a n d all" (129) . K r i s h n a s w a m y w arns t h a t if
p o s t c o l o n i a l p o l i t i c s is to r e t a i n its r a d i c a l c u t t i n g edge,
what "Third World" intellectuals must confront is t he fact
that
any mythology of migrancy that fails to
differentiate rigorously between diverse modalities
of post colonial diaspora, such as migrant
intell e c t u a l s , migrant labour, economic refugees,
political exiles, and s elf-exiles, exp l o i t s the
subordinate position of the "Third World,"
suppresses the class/gender differentiated
h i s t o r i e s of immigration, r o b s t h e o p p r e s s e d o f the
vocabulary of protest, and blunts the edges of
m u c h - n e e d e d o p p o s i t i o n a l disco u r s e . (13 0)
A c c o r d i n g to Krishnaswamy, the r h e t o r i c of m i g r a n c y in
contemporary postcolonial disc o u r s e does not stress the
224
e c o n o m i c a n d p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s b e h i n d immigration. H e quotes
Rushdie:
the effects of mass migrations has been the
creation of radically new types of human being:
people who root themselves in ideas rather than
places, in m e m o r i e s as m u c h as in m a t e r i a l things;
p e o p l e w ho h a v e b e e n o b l i g e d to d e f i n e t h e m s e l v e s -
- b e c a u s e t h e y a r e so d e f i n e d b y o t h e r s -- b y t heir
othern e s s ; people i n w h o s e deepest selves str a n g e
fusions occur, unprecedented unions between what
t h e y were a n d w h e r e t h e y f ind themse l v e s . (131)
Krishnaswamy's reading of t his passage emphasizes its
"spiritual" and "mystic" vocabulary which constructs a
" m igrant sensibility," and he states that by foregrounding
me n t a l or psychological processes over sociological or
p o l i t i c a l ones, Ru s h d i e " d e - m a t e r i a l i z e s " the m i g r a n t into "an
abstract idea" (132). Thus, n o t o n l y does such terminology
tend to obscure or at least minimize the material and
h i s t o r i c a l co n t e x t s of "T h i r d Wo r l d " immigration, it fails to
ac c o u n t fo r w h a t Krishnaswamy names as the t wo fundamental
factors t h a t f r a c t u r e i m m i g r a n t experience: "the e x i g e n c i e s
of n e o - c o l o n i a l g lobal c a p i t a l i s m d e t e r m i n i n g the d i s p e r s a l of
'Third World' peoples, a n d the d i s t i n c t l y class- a n d gender-
d i f f e r e n t i a t e d nature of i m m i g r a n t experience" (132) .
i
225
In reassessing Rushdie's myth of migrancy via
Krishnaswamy's critique, it b ecomes clear that Rus h d i e
"univ e r s a l i z e s " the i d e a of the migrant. In SV, f o r example,
Chamcha is p r e s e n t e d as "the" metropolitan migrant, a n d the
i s s u e of his class, gender, o r intelle c t u a l a b i l i t y is n e v e r
o p e n e d u p or qu e s t i o n e d . Like Zeeny, Chamcha is a n upper-
m i d d l e - c l a s s , W e s t e r n - e d u c a t e d Indian, w h o s e s o c i a l c i r c l e is
limited to a wealthy, elite group of individuals. Even
Zeeny's attempt to i m m e r s e Chamcha in the "here-and-now" of
contemporary Bombay politics is a limited gesture that
e x c l u d e s the subaltern. Further, there is n o d i s t i n c t i o n m a d e
b e t w e e n Chamcha w h o h a s c h o s e n to m i g r a t e t o England, versus
other immigrants who are forced to leave their homelands
b e c a u s e of p o l i t i c a l o r e c o n o m i c reasons. B y n e g l e c t i n g to
make this distinction, Rushdie erases the boundaries that
exist between intellectual migrants, laborers, economic
r e fugees, poli t i c a l exiles, and self-exiles. The one
"political" exile w e m e e t in S V is the I m a m w h o is r e p r e s e n t e d
as a r a b i d n a t i o n a l i s t and, in fact, other i z e d . Thus, within
t h e h i e r a r c h y e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n SV, the m e t r o p o l i t a n m i g r a n c y
e x p e r i e n c e is c l e a r l y f o r e g r o u n d e d a n d p r i v i l e g e d .
Contained within the above critique of Rushdie's
migrancy-metaphor is a criticism of the manner in which
R u s h d i e writes "woman" into his text. A s K r i s h n a s w a m y notes
226
in his article, even in MC, "Rushdie a l m o s t always links in
o v e r d e t e r m i n e d w a y s the w o m e n a nd the w o r k i n g class to sexual
prowess, while c o n n e c t i n g u pper-class m a l e impotence ... to
intellectual capability" (144). Midway through Shame, the
n a r r a t o r claims t h a t a l t h o u g h his s t o r y b e g a n as a m a s c u l i n e
saga, the w o m e n h a v i n g e m e r g e d from the m a r g i n s hav e n o w t a k e n
o v e r the t e x t . I n O u t s i d e in the T e a c h i n g M a c h i n e . G a y a t r i
S p i v a k notes t h a t th e s t o r y of M a h o u n d i n S V is "a s t o r y of
n e g o t i a t i o n in t h e n a m e o f woman." She g o e s o n to state that
"one of the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g features a b o u t m u c h of R u s h d i e ' s
work is his anxiety to write woman into the narrative of
history." But, S p i v a k concludes, R u s h d i e is not s u ccessful in
his attempt and "he r e a g a i n we have to record an honorable
failure" (223) . I n a l o n g footnote p e r t a i n i n g to this poi n t
she explains furt h e r : "I feel s o l i d a r i t y w i t h m e n wh o let
w o m e n in. But I c a n n o t see this g e s t u r e a s th e p e r f o r m a n c e of
feminism. ... T o c r e a t e w o m e n as 'strong characters' is not
n e c e s s a r i l y to 'pursue (t)he issue of f e m i n i s m ...'" (317) .
Taking note of the concerns voiced by postcolonial
c r itics pertaining to R ushdie's inability to write women
s u c c e s s f u l l y int o hi s text, and his r e l a t i v e u n c o n s c i o u s n e s s
regarding the elite class and power-position from which he
speaks, serves to b r i n g M o o r ' s lack of " h ybridity" into e v e n
sharper focus. The novel means to b e m o a n a golden age of
227
freedom and inclusiveness as represented by Aurora and her
art, but a closer look reveals this idealized space to be
lacking in fluidity in that it does not make room for the
l o w e r classes, o r religion, and presents "secula r i s m " as the
ans w e r to all of society's ills. In his earlier novels,
R us h d i e ' s a n t i d o t e to v a r i o u s v e r s i o n s of f u n d a m e n t a l i s m was
always his v e r s i o n of hybridity, the "third p r i n c i p l e , " w h i c h
included his myth of migrancy. In M o o r , h owever, Rushdie
himself notes that such a m y t h c a n e a s i l y s l i d e i n t o trans
na t i o n a l globetrotting b y the p r i v i l e g e d few of the "first
world, " t h e r e b y l o s i n g its a b i l i t y to d e - m y s t i f y o v e r - a r c h i n g
m e t a n a r r a t i v e s s u c h as "fu n d a m e n t a l i s m . " B y the c o n c l u s i o n of
this novel, "Mooristan" is a n impossibility.
But a l t h o u g h R u s h d i e d oes n o t o f f e r a n y h o p e i n M o o r , it
is important to keep in mind his political and so c i a l
a ctivities outside this text. Rushdie has taken every
o p p o r t u n i t y to p r o m o t e M o o r p u b l i c a l l y in print, o n radio, a n d
on television. His appearances on T.V. talk-shows and
interviews h ave r a n g e d f r o m n e t w o r k p r o g r a m s like J a y L e n o to
public television with Charlie Rose. He has announced his
a v a i l a b i l i t y fo r sign i n g s at b o o k s t o r e s and other publicity
avenues. Now, his appearances are advertised in advance,
ra t h e r t h a n k ept secret. O n e of his latest l i t e r a r y e n d e a v o r s
is Mirrorwork: F i f t y Years of I n d i a n W r i t i n g 1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7 e d i t e d
228
by himself and Elizabeth West. This collection includes
contemporary Indi a n writers such as Anita Desai, Vikram
Chandra, a n d A r u n d h a t i Roy, a l l of w h o m wr i t e in English. In
a r e c e n t a r t i c l e p u b l i s h e d in T h e N e w Y o r k e r . R u s h d i e m a k e s
the p o i n t that fo r t h e s e p o s t c o l o n i a l writers, E n g l i s h is n o t
"the b a s t a r d c h i l d of E m p i r e " (52), it is, rather, an I n d i a n
l a n g u a g e in the same w a y t h a t Urdu, a once-imported language
is now "Indian." He states tha t because of its colonial
origins, like Urdu and unlike a ll other Indian languages,
E n g l i s h has no r e g i o n a l base; "but in all o t h e r w a y s it has
e m p h a t i c a l l y co m e to stay" (54) . I n MC, R u s h d i e d e m o n s t r a t e d
t h a t s u b c o n t i n e n t E n g l i s h is a u n i q u e v e r s i o n of the l a n g u a g e
and is no longer the sole possession of the English. Th e
c o n t e m p o r a r y Indi a n w r i t e r s in th e M i r r o r w o r k a n t h o l o g y h a v e
likewise captured English in their unique voices and have
t h e r e b y m a d e it the i r own. A s R u s h d i e states in I H .
what seems to be happening is that tho s e p e o p l e s
who were once colonized by the language are now
rapidly remaking it, domesticating it, becoming
more and more r elaxed about the way they use it
. they are carving out large territories for
t hems e l v e s within its frontiers. . . . th e
c h i l d r e n of i n d e p e n d e n t I n d i a se e m not to t h i n k of
English as being irredeemably tainted by its
229
colonial provenance. They use it as an Indian
language, as one of the tools they have to hand.
(64)
U n l i k e the e x - c o l o n i z e d i n d i v i d u a l w h o m a y c h o o s e to t u r n to
h i s / h e r n a t i v e l a n g u a g e as a n a l t e r n a t i v e to th e l a n g u a g e of
the colonizer, Rushdie a n d others l i k e him, "take b a c k ” the
l a n g u a g e of the o p p r e s s o r a n d r e - f a s h i o n it f r o m t h e i r new,
"post" c o lonial perspective. I read Rushdie's New Yorker
article and the recent a n t h o l o g y as a clear attempt on his
part to re-insert himself into contemporary literature,
p o l i t i c s , a n d s ociety. T h e eight y e a r s of d e e p h i d i n g ar e n o w
b e h i n d him, a n d his d e s i r e is to be s e e n a n d h e a r d o n c e again.
Thus, e v e n t h o u g h M o o r m a y b e a d i s a p p o i n t i n g novel, R u s h d i e ' s
literary effort s continue as he attempts to re-position
h i m s e l f as a n Indian, "post" c o l o n i a l author.
VII. CONCLUSION
After reading Rushdie's m a j o r works, it may be stated
that he is a post-colonial writer in t he sense that his
impulse is to always deconstruct the colonizer/colonized
b i nary. In d o i n g so, h e a t t e m p t s to c l e a r a n e w space, "the
t hird principle," where as Albert Memmi states one can b egin
to put "new order in oneself" (147) . Unlike some other
postcolonial writers who simply reverse the
colonizer/colonized binary and end up in a nativist,
nationalist, or religious fundamentalist space, Rushdie
rejects those categories b e c a u s e he r e c o g n i z e s the violence
inherent in their hierarchical composition. Instead, he
a p p r o p r i a t e s English, the l a n g u a g e of the colonizer, a n d in M C
retells the history of the subcontinent from an Indian
perspective, all the w h i l e stressing that this is just one
v e r s i o n a m o n g m a n y p o s s i b l e versions. R u s h d i e ' s e m p h a s i s on
h i s t o r y as a c o n s t r u c t c o n n e c t s h i m to p o s t s t r u c t u r a l i s t a n d
p o s t m o d e r n t h e o r y a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h as G a y a t r i S p i v a k sta t e s
in The Post-Colonial Critic, the notion of textuality is
related to the notion of "the worlding of a world on a
supposedly uninscribed territory" (1) . Spivak refers
230
231
s p e c i f i c a l l y to the i m p e r i a l i s t project "wh i c h h a d t o a s s u m e
t h a t the ear t h that it t e r r i t o r i a l i z e d was in fac t p r e v i o u s l y
uninscribed" (1) . S p i v a k go e s o n to state that "this w o r l d i n g
is a l s o a texting, textualising, a m a k i n g int o art, a making
i n t o a n object to b e u n d e r s t o o d " (1) . R u s h d i e is a w a r e o f the
manner in w h i c h th e subcontinent has b e e n "worlded" by the
B r i t i s h and his r e s p o n s e is to o f f e r his ow n "flawed" t e x t as
an alternative version of history. In doing so he
d e m o n s t r a t e s that h i s t o r y is p r o d u c e d in language. As Derrida
and Lyotard would state, there is n o t h i n g b u t text, a n d as
S p i v a k explains, what t h e y ar e t a l k i n g about is a p o l i t i c o -
p s y c h o - s e x u a l - s o c i o - e t c . n e t w o r k or weave, a n d "the m o m e n t yo u
n a m e it, there is a n e t w o r k that's b r o a d e r t h a n that. A n d to
a n e x t e n t that n o t i o n t h a t w e a r e effects w i t h i n a m u c h l a r g e r
t e x t / t i s s u e / w e a v e of w h i c h the ends are not a c c e s s i b l e to us
is very differe n t from saying that everything is language"
(25) . B y the e n d o f MC, th e protagonist, Saleem Sinai, is
c o g n i z a n t of the fact t h a t he is not the s u b j e c t of history,
r a t h e r he is an "effect" w i t h i n a m u c h lar g e r text.
Shame, too, deals w i t h th e c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d binary,
but in this novel the binary is m e r e l y flipped rather than
de c o n s t r u c t e d . Here, the characters' extreme approaches to
h i s t o r y in t h e N i e t z s c h i a n s e n s e
(antiquarian/critical/monumental) lead to one-sided, "pure,"
232
c o m p a r t m e n t a l i z e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of "reality" w h i c h in t u r n
lead to v i o l e n c e .
In SV, th e colonizer/colonized b i n a r y is d e c o n s t r u c t e d
an d the protagonist, Salahuddin Chamchawalla survives in
Bombay which is representative of the "third principle", a
space Rushdie constructs as a counter-myth in the B a r t h i a n
sense, to e x p o s e o t h e r n a t u r a l i z e d m y t h s s u c h as "Islam" a n d
the do m i n a n t B r i t i s h discourse.
Haroun is a fairy-tale rendition of the political and
social events that succeeded the publication of SV. This
novel exposes the binary sy s t e m to b e a cultural construct
w h i c h i n e v i t a b l y l e a d s to violence. T h e a l t e r n a t i v e s p a c e in
Haroun is th e Ocean, a site of heterogeneity and
intermingling, where "traces" in the D e r r i d i a n s ense o f the
w o r d c o m b i n e to f o r m e v e r - n e w v e r s i o n s of s t o r i e s .
Moor reads very differently from t he novels mentioned
above p a r t l y b e c a u s e it is a d i d a c t i c work that ultimately
es t a b lishes a fundamentalist/secular binary which is never
re v e r s e d o r u n r a v e l l e d . M oraes Zogoiby, its protago n i s t , is
c o l o n i z e d b y e v e r y o n e a r o u n d h i m a n d r e m a i n s a v i c t i m to the
end. U n l i k e S V i n w h i c h he i l l u s t r a t e s b o t h the l i m i t a t i o n s
and the enabling factors that constitute "Islam" and the
dominant B r i t i s h d i s c o u r s e , in M o o r . R u s h d i e fails to o p e n up
the silences r e s i d e n t in "secularism" a n d h e fails to h u m a n i z e
233
"fundamentalism."
A n d yet, if one looks b e y o n d M o o r , it b e c o m e s c l e a r t h a t
R u s h d i e h i m s e l f has n o i n t e n t i o n o f s u c c u m b i n g to the v e r s i o n
of I s l a m i c f u n d a m e n t a l i s m t h a t s t i l l has a $2.5 m i l l i o n b o u n t y
on his head. Rushdie's latest literary endeavor is an
anthology that he has jointly edited with Elizabeth West
having to do with fifty years of Indian writing from 1947-
1997, e n t i t l e d , M i r r o r w o r k . "It's h i g h time I n d i a n l i t e r a t u r e
go t i t s e l f n o t i c e d , " says R u s h d i e i n the int r o d u c t i o n , "and
it's s t a r t e d h a p p e n i n g . " A c c o r d i n g to Rushdie,
prose writing--both fiction and non-fiction--
c r e a t e d in this p e r i o d b y Indian w r i t e r s w o r k i n g in
English. is proving to be stronger and more
i m p o r t a n t b o d y of w o r k t h a n m ost of w h a t has been
p r o d u c e d in the 16 'official languages' of India
during the same time. 'I n d o - A n g l i c a n '
literature represents perhaps the most valuable
contribution I ndia has yet made to the world of
books, (viii)
Included in t hi s anthology is a selection f r o m MC, a novel
t hat is "undeniably a part of the story of these fifty
y e a r s ..." (ix) .
A n d M C is a n o v e l about t h e i d e a of India, a n i d e a t hat
R u s h d i e s t i l l finds w o r t h c e l e b r a t i n g . In a n e s s a y p u b l i s h e d
234
in th e August 11, 1997 issue of Time magazine, Rushdie
discusses India's u p c o m i n g 50th. a n n i v e r s a r y of i n d e p e n d e n c e
from the British and observes that Indians do not seem too
e x c i t e d a b o u t this event, i n p a r t b e c a u s e the last f i f t y y e a r s
have not been "the promised golden age of freedom" (40) .
A n c i e n t v i o l e n c e has t a k e n o n n e w forms, he states, a n d even
Bombay which for a l o n g t i m e believed itself immune to the
w o r s t o f India's com m u n a l e v i l s h a s b e e n r o c k e d b y a s e r i e s of
explosions, which have destroyed the myth that it was a
different space (41) . So far, t his sounds like a r e - c a p of
M o o r 's plot, but a f t e r l i s t i n g m a j o r p r o b l e m s in India s u c h as
p o s t - p a r t i t i o n reality, an e v e r - g r o w i n g population, extreme
poverty, riots, corruption, the ills associated with
n a t i o n a l i s m and f u n d a m entalism, R u s h d i e states: "And y e t I do
feel like celebrating. The news is not all bad" (42) .
A c c o r d i n g to Rushdie, the m o s t i m p o r t a n t thing that c a m e into
being during mid n i g h t of 1947 was "the so-called idea of
India" (42) w h i c h bel o n g s to e a c h o ne of the b i l l i o n p e o p l e
who compose it. This m u l t i p l i c i t y is f i n a l l y the point, he
says, and it sh o u l d not b e c o n f u s e d w i t h the o l d p l u r a l i s t
id e a of a m e l t i n g pot o r a c u l t u r a l mosaic: "The s e l f h o o d of
India is so capacious, so elastic, that it accommodates 1
billion kinds of difference. It ag r e e s with its billion
selves to call all of them 'Indian'" (42). According to
235
R u shdie, this m a y b e the m o s t innovative n a t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y
to h a v e e m e r g e d in the p o s t c o l o n i a l period.
In the final analysis, what Rushdie attempts to
f o r e g r o u n d in his w o r k s is t h e i d e a of melange, hotch-potch,
and impurity as it ties into reality-making and the
construction of identity. He has been critiqued for not
always acknowledging his own subjective investment in the
n a r r a t i v e he produces, a n d to b o r r o w a p h r a s e f r o m Spivak, for
not unlearning his p r i v i l e g e . Yet, he does succeed in
c r e a t i n g a ficti o n that r e c o g n i z e s the l i m i t a t i o n s o f a b i n a r y
system, a n d w h i c h a t t e m p t s a g e s t u r e of d e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
WORKS CITED
Afzal-Khan, Fawzia. Cultural Imperialism and the Indo-Enalish
Novel. Pennsylvania: The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1993.
Appiah, Kwarae An t h o n y . In M y F a t h e r ' s House: A f r i c a in t h e
P h i l o s o p h y o f C u l t u r e . Oxford: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press,
1992.
"Is the Post- in Postmodernism the Post- in
Postcolonial?" C r i t i c a l I n q u i r y (Winter 1991): 336-357.
Appignanesi, Lisa, a n d S a r a Maitland, eds. The Rushdie F i l e .
Syracuse: S y r a c u s e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1990.
Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Trans. A n n e t t e Lavers. New
York: Hill a n d Wang, 1972.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatoloav. Trans. Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974.
Positions. Trans. A l a n Bass. Chicago: T he U n i v e r s i t y
of Chicago Press, 1981.
Grewal, Inderpal. " S a l m a n Rushdie: Marginality, Women, and
Shame." Genders 3 (Fall 1988): 24-42.
Harrison, James. Salman Rushdie. New York: Twayne
236
237
Publishers, 1992.
Hawes, Clement. "Lead i n g H i s t o r y b y the Nose: The Turn to
the E i g h t e e n t h C e n t u r y i n M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n .11 Modern
F i c t i o n Studies 39.1 ( W i n t e r 1993): 147-168.
Jaggi, Maya. "The Las t Laugh." N e w Statesman & Society 8
(1995) : 20.
Jalal, A y esha. D e m o c r a c y a n d A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m in S o u t h A s i a .
Cambridge: C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1995.
T h e Sole Spokesman: Jinnah. the M u s l i m L e a g u e a n d the
Demand for P a k i s t a n . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985.
Krishnaswamy, Revathi. "Mythologies of Migrancy:
Postcolonialism, Postmodernism and th e Politics of
(D i s ) l o c a t i o n . " Ariel 26.1 (1995): 125-146.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. T h e P o s t m o d e r n Condi t i o n : A Report
o n K n o w l e d g e . Trans. G e o f f B e n n i n g t o n a n d B r i a n M a s s u m i .
M i n n e apolis : U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n n e s o t a Press, 1984.
M a c D o n o g h , Steve, ed. T h e R u s h d i e Letters: F r e e d o m to Speak.
Freedom to Write. Great Britain: Brandon Book
P u b l i s h e r s Ltd., 1993.
Mann, H a r v e e n Sachdeva. " ' B e i n g B o r n e across': Translation
and Salman R u s h d i e 's The Satanic V e r s e s ." Criticism
XXXVII.2 (1995): 281-308.
Memm i , Albert. The Colonizer and the Colonized. 1965.
238
Trans. Howard Greenfeld. Expanded Edition. Boston:
B e a c o n Press, 1991.
Naidis, Mark. India: A Short Introductory H i s t o r y . New
York: The M a c m i l l a n Company, 1966.
Rushdie, Salman. "Damme, this is the O r i e n t a l S c e n e for You!"
T h e N e w Y o r k e r 23 a n d 30 June 1997: 50-61.
"India at Fiv e - 0 . " T i m e 11 Aug. 1997: 40-42.
I nte r v i e w w i t h Charlie Rose. Electric L i b r a r y 21pp.
Online. Internet. 21 Jan. 1997.
Haroun and the Sea of Stories. New York: Viking
Penguin, 1990.
I ma g i n a r y H o m e l a n d s : Essays a n d C r i t i c i s m 1981-1991.
N e w York: V i k i n g Penguin, 1981.
Midnig h t ' s C h i l d r e n . N e w York: V i k i n g Penguin, 198 0.
Th e Moor's L a s t S i g h . London: R a n d o m House, 1995.
The Satanic V e r s e s . N e w York: Viking P e n g u i n Inc.,
1988 .
Shame. N e w York: A l f r e d A. Knopf, Inc., 1983.
Said, Edward. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the I n t e l l e c t u a l . N e w York:
Pa n t h e o n Books, 1994.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakrav o r t y . "Cain the Subaltern Speak?"
M a r x i s m an d the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Culture. E d s . Cary
Nelson and L a w r e n c e Gronberg. Ur b a n a : U n i v e r s i t y of
Illinois Press, 1988.
239
O u t s i d e in the Teac h i n g M a c h i n e . N e w York: R outledge,
1993 .
The P o s t c o l o n i a l C r i t i c . N e w York: Routledge, 1990.
Suleri, Sara. The Rhetoric of E n g l i s h I n d i a . Chicago: The
U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1992.
Meatless Days. Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago
Press, 1989.
White, Hayden. Metahistorv: The Historical Imagination in
Nineteenth-Centurv E u r o p e . Baltimore: T h e Johns H o p k i n s
Wilson, Keith. "M i d n i g h t 's Children and Reader
Responsibility." Critical Q u a r t e r l y 26.3 (1984): 23-37.
Wolpert, Stanley. A New History o f India. Oxford: Oxford
U n i v e r s i t y Press, Inc., 1982.
WORKS CONSULTED
Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes. Nations. Literatures.
London: Verso, 1992.
Aji, A r o n R. "'All N a m e s M e a n Something': Salman Rushdie's
H a r o u n a n d the L e g a c y of Islam. " Contemporary Literature
XXXVI.1 (1995): 103-129.
Arac, Jonathan and Barbara Johnson, eds. Consequences of
Theory. Selected Pa p e r s from the English Institute,
1987-88. 14. B altimore: The Johns H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y
Press, 1991.
Ar a v amudan, Srinivas. "' B e i n g G o d ' s P o s t m a n is N o Fun, Yaar' :
S a l m a n R us h d i e ' s T h e S a t a n i c V e r s e s .11 diacritics 19.2
(1989): 3-20.
Birch, David. " Postmodernist C h u t n e y s ." T e x t u a l P r a c t i c e 5.1
(1991): 1-7.
Braziller, George, ed. For Rushdie: Essays bv Arab and
Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech. New York:
G e o r g e Braziller, Inc., 1994.
Brennan, Timothy. S a l m a n R u s h d i e a n d the T h i r d W o r l d . New
York: St. M a r t i n ' s Press, Inc., 1989.
Bulgakov, Mikhail. The Master and M a r g a r i t a . 1967. Trans.
240
241
M i r r a Ginsburg. N e w York: G r o v e Press, 1995.
Calvino, Italo. Invisible Cities. 1972. Trans. William
Weaver. N e w York: H a r c o u r t B r a c e & Comp a n y , 1974.
Carter, Angela. Wise C h i l d r e n . Toronto: Li t t l e , Brown and
Company, 1991.
Cook, Rufus. "Place and Displacement in Salman Rushdie's
Wor k . " W o r l d L i t e r a t u r e T o d a y 68.1 (1994) : 23-28) .
Eder, Richard. Rev. of The Moor's Last Sigh, by Salman
Rushdie. Los A n g e l e s T i m e s 07 Jan. 1996: 3.
Rev. of E a s t / W e s t . b y S a l m a n Rushdie. N e w s d a v 2 9 Jan.
1995: 37.
Gates, H e n r y Louis Jr. T h e S i g n i f y i n g Monkev: A T h e o r y of
African-American Literary Criticism. Oxford: Oxford
Gorra, Michael. "Rudyard Kipling to Salman Rushdie:
I m p e r i a l i s m to P o s t c o l o n i a l i s m . " The C o l u m b i a H i s t o r y of
the British Novel. Ed. John Richetti. New York:
C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1994: 631-656.
H ar r i s o n , James. "Reconstructing M i d n i g h t 's Ch 1 I d r e n and
S hame." University of Toronto Quarterly 5 9.3 (1990):
399-412.
Hillel, Halkin. "S a l m a n Rushdie Surrenders." Rev. of The
Moor's Last S i g h b y S a l m a n Rushdie. Commentary 102 07
Jan. 1996: 55.
242
Hogue, L a w r e n c e W. D i s c o u r s e a n d the O t h e r . Durham: Duke
Race. Modernity. Postmodernitv. Albany: State
U n i v e r s i t y of H e w Y o r k Press, 1996.
Hower, Edward. "Longing f o r Love." Rev. o f T h e Moor's L a s t
S i g h b y S a l m a n Rushdie. ELibrarv. O nline. Internet.
21 Jan. 1997.
Hume, Kathryn. "Taking a Stand while Lacking a Center:
Rushdie's Postmodern Politics." Philological Quarterly
74.2 (Spring 1995): 209-230.
Hutcheon, Linda. The Politics of Postmodernism. London:
R o u t l e d g e , 1989.
Th e Koran. Trans. N. J. Dawood. 4th. Ed. London: Penguin
B o o k s Ltd., 1974.
Mi s hra, V i jay. "Postcolonial D i f f e r e n d : Diasporic Narratives
o f S a l m a n Rushdie." A r i e l 26.3 (1995): 7-45.
Mohan, Rajesw a r i . "Dodging the C rossfire: Questions for
P o s t c o l o n i a l Pedagogy." C o l l e g e L i t e r a t u r e 19.20 (1993) :
28. Elibrarv. Online. Internet. 21 Jan. 1997.
Morphet, Tony. "Stranger Ficti o n s : Trajectories in the
L i b e r a l Novel." W o r l d L i t e r a t u r e T o d a y 70 (1996): 53.
Elibrarv. Online. Internet. 21 Jan. 1997.
P a r a m e s w a r a n , Uma. " H a n d c u f f e d to History: Salman Rushdie's
Art." A r i e l 14.4 (1983): 34-45.
243
Pipes, Daniel. The Rushdie Affair-. New York: Carol
P u b l i s h i n g Group, 1990.
Rao, M. Madhusudhana. Sa l m a n Rushdie's Fiction: A Study
(Satanic Verses Excluded). New Delhi: Sterling
P ublisher's P r i v a t e Limited, 1992.
Rushdie, Salman. E a s t / W e s t . N e w York: P a n t h e o n Books, 1994.
Grimus. N e w York: P enguin Books, Ltd., 1991.
The J a g u a r S m i l e . N e w York: V i k i n g P e n g u i n Inc., 1987.
I nterview with Dan Cryer. Newsday 22 Jan. 1996.
ELibrarv. Online. Internet. 21 Jan. 1997.
Interview w i t h R o b e r t Siegel. A l l Things Considered.
Na tional Public Radio. WBUR, Boston. 17 Jan. 1996.
ELibrarv. Online. Internet. 21 Jan. 1997.
Saadawi, N a w a l El. T h e Innocence of the D e v i l . Trans. S h e r i f
Hetata. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1994.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. 1978. N e w York: V i n t a g e Books,
1979.
Sen, Suchismita. "Memory, Language, and Society in S a l m a n
Rushdie's H a r o u n a n d the Sea of S t o r i e s ." Contemporary
Literature X X X V I . 4 (1995): 654-675.
Soyinka, Wole. "Jihad for Freedom." I n d e x o n C e n s o r s h i p 18.5
(1989): 20-21, 30.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. In O t h e r Worlds: Essays in
Cultural P o l i t i c s . London: Routledge, 1988.
244
The Spivak R e ader. N e w York: Routledge, 1996.
Taheri, Amir. "Pandora's Box Forced Open." Index on
C e n s o r s h i p 18.5 (1989): 7-9.
Taneja, G. R. , a n d R. K. Dhawan, eds. The Novels of Salman
Rushdie. N e w Delhi: P r e s t i g e Books, 1992.

Salman Rushdie A Postmodern A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salman Rushdie A Postmodern A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality o f this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

of the Requirements for the Degree

UMI Microform 9815414

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

Hogue without whose knowledge, guidance, and support this

extremely demanding schedule, Professor Hogue gave most

g e n e r o u s l y o f his t ime a n d e n e r g y ; for the h u n d r e d s o f h o u r s

s pent in discussion and debate, I am most grateful. For

i n t r o d u c i n g m e to theory, I a m e t e r n a l l y in his debt, because

life h a s s i m p l y not b e e n t h e s a m e since.

This dissertation was not written in a social vacuum:

there are others I must a c k n o w l e d g e -- m y parents, Aqila and

Anver Hassumani, because th e i r lives taught m e the va l u e of

i n t e r mingling long before I s t umbled upon Salman Rushdie; my

husband, B i l l Carter, w h o s e l o v e has always s h o w n m e the w a y

and who understands my open palm of desire; my daughter,

of the R e q u i r e m e n t s for the D e g r e e

that he is a post-colonial writer in the sense that his

impulse is to always deconstruct the colonizer/colonized

binary. In d o i n g so, he att e m p t s to c l e a r a n e w space, "the

to put "new order in oneself" (147) . Unlike s ome other

postcolonial writers who simply reverse t he

colonizer/colonized binary and end up in a nativist,

nationalist, or religious fundamentalist space, Rushdie

rejects those c a t e g o r i e s b e c a u s e he r e c o g n i z e s the v i o l e n c e

inherent in their hierarchical c omposition. Instead, he

appropriates English, the l anguage of the c olonizer, a n d in

M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n r e t e l l s the h i s t o r y o f the subcontinent

fr o m a n Indian p e r s p e c t i v e . Rushd i e ' s e m p h a s i s o n h i s t o r y as

theory according to which as Gayatri Spivak states in The

the notion of "the worlding of a world on a supposedly

u n i n s c r i b e d territory" (1) . Rushdie is a w a r e of t h e m a n n e r in

w h i c h th e s u b c o n t i n e n t has b e e n "worlded" b y the B r i t i s h a n d

his response is to offer his o wn "flawed" t ext as an

Shame, too, deals w i t h the c o l o n i z e r / c o l o n i z e d binary,

deconstructed. Here, the characters' extreme approaches to

( a n tiquarian/cr i t i c a l / m o n u m e n t a l ) l e a d t o one-sided, "pure,"

deconstructed and the protagonist, Salahuddin Chamchawalla

survives in Bombay which is representative of the "third

principle", a space Rushdie constructs as a counter-myth in

of the political and social ev e n t s t h a t succeeded the

alternative s pa c e in Haroun is the Ocean, a site of

heterogeneity and intermingling, w h e r e "traces" in the

The Moor's Last Sigh reads very differently from the

novels mentioned above partly because it is a d i d a c t i c w o r k

th a t ultimately establishes a fundamentalist/secular binary

which is n e v e r r e v e r s e d o r unravelled. Moraes Zogoiby, its

In the final analysis, what Rushdie attempts to

f o r e g r o u n d in his w o r k s is the i d e a of melange, hotch-potch,

and impurity as it ties into reality-making and the

construction of i dentity. He h as been critiqued for not

always acknowledging his own subjective investment in the

not unlearning his privilege. Yet, he does succeed in

II. M I D N I G H T 'S C H I L D R E N ............................... 46

IV. THE S A T A N I C V E R S E S ............................... Ill

VI. THE M O O R ' S L A S T S I G H ............................. 193

When I "discovered" Salman Rushdie twelve years ago, I

k n e w I w o u l d one d a y w r i t e about him. B a c k then, however, he

was a f a i r l y o b s c u r e a u t h o r in s p i t e of his B o o k e r P r i z e for

M i d n i g h t 's C h i l d r e n . Later, as a graduate stu d e n t working

t o w a r d m y dissertation, I was fairly confident th a t I would