Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

Revisioning History: Shashi Tharoor's Great Indian Novel

Author(s): Kanishka Chowdhury
Source: World Literature Today, Vol. 69, No. 1, Postmodernism/Postcolonialism (Winter, 1995),
pp. 41-48
Published by: Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40150855
Accessed: 11-02-2016 06:19 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40150855?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
World Literature Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Revisioning History: Shashi Tharoor's GreatIndianNovel
By KANISHKACHOWDHURY In a recent ar-
ticle titled
"Figures,Con-
figurations,Transfigurations" EdwardSaid suggests
that contemporarypostcolonial literaturesexpress
"ideas, values, emotions formerly suppressed, ig-
nored or denigratedby, and of course in, the well-
known metropolitancenters" (1). He goes on to
claim that these literatureshave "played a crucial
role in the re-establishmentof nationalculturalher-
itage, in the re-installmentof native idioms, in the
re-managingand re-figuringof local histories,geog-
raphies,communities."AlthoughSaid overestimates
the emancipatorypotential of postcolonial litera-
tures and convenientlygeneralizesa diversebody of
work,thereis clearlyan attemptby writersfrom for-
mer colonies to rearticulatetheir colonial and post-
colonial experienceand write themselvesback into
history.Indeed, such acts of recoveryare essential,
since one of the most damaginglegaciesof colonial-
ism is its textual appropriationof communities'
pasts, where the native becomes the passive subject
of history.FrantzFanon elaborateson this point in
The Wretched of theEarth:"Colonialismis not satis-
fied merely with holding a people in its grip and
emptyingthe native'shead of all form and content.
By a kind of pervertedlogic, it turns the past of the
oppressedpeople, and distorts, disfiguresand de-
stroys it" (161). While both Said and Fanon de-
nounce the culturalimperialismof the formercolo-
nizers, their pronouncementsare relevant beyond
the periodof "colonialism."
Political independence for the former colonies
has not translatedinto economic or cultural free-
dom. Contemporaryefforts to articulate an "au-
thentic"postcolonialvoice are often mappedwithin
the terms of past power relations.It is quite appar-
ent, for instance, that the unequal relationshipbe-
tween the metropolitan centers (London, New
York, and Paris) and their formercolonies still ex-
ists. A glance at the abundantEuro-Americancriti-
cal discourse on postcolonialwriting, for example,
generally shows some recurringpatterns. On the
one hand, thereis the completeabsenceof the post-
colonialsubjectin the postmodernnarrative.Gaya-
Kanishka Chowdhury is AssistantProfessorof Englishat the
Universityof St. Thomasin St. Paul, Minnesota,wherehe teach-
es multiculturalliteratureand postcolonialliteratureand theory. a
He has publishedarticlesin such journalsas CollegeLiterature,
Mediations, and Modern Fiction Studies. Currently he is engaged break
in researchon postcolonialpopularculture.
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tri Spivak,analyzingGilles Deleuze's comments on
a universalizedworkers' struggle, points out that
such statementsconstitute a "disavowal";they dis-
regard"the internationaldivisionof labor, a gesture
that often marks poststructuralistpolitical theory"
(272). The postcolonialsubjectis also absentin the
work of such critics as Jean-FrancoisLyotard,who
have been quick to point out the theoreticalcontra-
dictions of the Westernmaster narrative.However,
unlike other theorists from the West and from the
formercolonies, Lyotarddoes not acknowledgethe
specific reasons for its diminished influence. He
does not attemptto theorizethe postwaranti-impe-
rial stance of the former colonies and its effect on
that narrative.The Westernnarrative,accordingto
Lyotard,has been replacedonly by "petitsrecits"or
smallerlocal narratives.
The other, more insidioustrend in contemporary
theories of postcolonialliteratureis the assumption
by Westerncriticsthat postcolonialculturalproduc-
tion operatesfundamentallyand inevitablyas a form
of resistanceto Westernculturalhegemony. Such a
critical stance allows Western critics, however un-
wittingly,the privilegeof universalizingpostcolonial
culturalproductionand excludingthose that do not
conformto their definitions.This act of culturalap-
propriation,which has been encouragedby institu-
tional and pedagogicpractices,resultsin the recolo-
nization of postcolonial literatures and thereby
negatestheirrich culturaland politicaldiversity.
These scholarlyviews are undoubtedlydamaging,
but they are furtherreinforcedby Westerncapital's
control over marketingtechniques which preclude
the "normal"circulationof any text written origi-
nallyin or translatedinto a Europeanlanguage.The
postcolonialwriteris thereforefaced with the met-
ropolitancenter's attemptsto control her discourse
and regulate her production. The writer has to
breakout of a limitinguniversewith its own discur-
sive rules in order to produce any oppositionaldis-
course. Indeed, as Michel Foucault has shown,
these discursiverules are characterizedby the fixing
of terms for the elaborationof concepts and theo-
ries. Only certain"speakingsubjects . . . may enter
into discourseon a specificsubject. . . . More exact-
ly, not all areas of discourseare open and penetra-
ble; some are forbidden territorywhile others are
. . . open to all" (225).
In this essay I would like to examinethe effortsof
Indian writer, Shashi Tharoor, to
contemporary
out of Western discursive constrictions in
orderto recoverand rearticulateevents on the sub-
42 WORLDLITERATURE
TODAY
continent in this century. My comments on Tha-
roor'swork are largelyrestrictedto the condition of
the middle-class Indian writer who has a specific
traditionto draw upon and are not designed to be
pronouncements on the efforts made by writers
from the Caribbeanor the African continent. It is
important to recognize that literary texts emerge
from a complex set of historicalcircumstancesand
"competing ideological and cultural clusters"
(Ahmed, 23). Any claims about postcolonial texts
must be negotiatedthroughan intricatemappingof
specificsocial and culturalconditionsthat accompa-
ny the productionof a particulartext. An analysisof
the historicallegacy of colonialism, however, does
display a certain degree of uniformityin the post-
colonial condition. A common history of economic
and culturalbondage resultsin similarpoliticaland
cultural expressions. Thus Tharoor's project may
well be close to other rewritingsin the postcolonial
tradition and may subsequently contribute to a
broader understandingof writers for whom "the
rereadingand rewritingof the Europeanhistorical
and fictional record [remains] a vital and in-
escapabletask, [a task which is] at the heart of the
post-colonialenterprise"(Ashcroft,196).
This essay, however,will not deal only with sal-
vaging Tharoor as a representativepostcolonial
writer. In the first section I will demonstratethat
postcolonial writers, such as Tharoor, are them-
selves the victimsof dividedallegiancesand ambiva-
lent loyalties:their class position among largelyillit-
erate populations, the material and discursive
attractionsof metropolitancenters, and the lure of
recognitionand publicationoffersfrom London and
New York, among other factors,contributeto their
unavoidableinvolvement in Western cultural sys-
tems. Said, Fanon, and Ashcroft,in theirurgencyto
celebratethe recoveryof the "national"or "native"
voice, avoid highlightingthe inevitable contradic-
tions that must accompanyany process of cultural
recovery.An attemptto recovera "national"past is
necessarilyexclusiveand can only succeed by elimi-
nating other oppositional voices. I examine Tha-
roor's own, perhaps somewhat deficient, acknowl-
edgment of the historical inconsistencies of his
project.Ultimately,it is my contention that any ef-
fort to establish,define, or locate a historicalpast is
never only a projectfor "re-managingand re-figur-
ing . . . local histories,geographies,and communi-
ties," but also a creativeculturalact fraughtwith its
own contradictions(Said, "Figurations,"1).
Writing back to the Empire: A dialogue
with the past. In ThePoliticalUnconscious Fredric
Jamesonsuggestsan interpretivemove which would
effectively(re)cover the political subtext of a work
and would perhapssubvertthe dominantnarrative:
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Onemustrewrite]the literarytextin sucha waythat
the lattermayitselfbe seenas the rewritingor restruc-
turationof a priorhistoricalor ideologicalsub-text,it
beingalwaysunderstood thatthat"subtext" is not im-
ex-
mediately presentas such,not somecommon-sense
ternalreality,nor even the conventionalnarratives of
historymanuals,but rathermust itself alwaysbe
(re)structuredafterthefact.(81)
WhileJameson'scommentsare relatedto the analy-
sis of literary texts, they also include the actual
process of rewritingany priorhistoricalor ideologi-
cal text. In this context, Tharoor's work is an at-
tempt to recover a subtext by breakingaway from
the dominant European narrative.Tharoor's "re-
structuration"of the events precedingIndian Inde-
pendence and after defies the "conventionalnarra-
tives of history manuals."His appropriationof the
great Indian epic, the Mahabharata>in order to
rewriteIndianhistoryand to restoregroupsto their
historicalbeing is what Homi Bhabha would per-
haps call "sly civility,"where the "nativerefusesto
satisfythe colonizer'snarrativedemand"(78).
Accordingto Bhabha,the writer,in this instance,
occupies a position which is neither openly rebel-
lious nor apparentlycompliant. A portion of this
"slycivility"is Tharoor'suse of an alien languageto
give shape to past events. The languagequestion is
complicated, since theoreticallyTharoor has three
choices: he can write in Sanskrit,the originallan-
guage of the epic; alternatively,he can write in
Hindi or any other regionallanguage;finally,he can
write in English,a languageof preferencefor writers
from his class.1Tharoor,unlike the ancient scribes,
has too many options. His ultimatelinguisticchoice
is not merely dictated by his familiaritywith En-
glish, but also situates his audience, which is com-
posed primarilyof westernizedIndians and the in-
ternational bourgeoisie. His decision, then, is
drasticallydifferent from a writer like Ngugi wa
Thiong'o, who feels that "the real languagethat one
is looking for is the language of struggle, the lan-
guage of the transformationof our varioussocieties.
And eventuallythis languagecan only be found in
the actions and feeling and thoughts and experi-
ences of the working people" (150). However,
Ngugi's idealistic statementbelies the fact that his
choice to write in Kikuyu excludes a large number
of Kenyan "workingpeople" who speak either Luo
or Maasai.
Neither Tharoor nor Ngugi, despite their ideo-
logical differences, can claim to have found the
"correct"formulafor liberatingthe so-called work-
ing people. Obviously,Tharoor'sliteraryobjectives
are far less clear.Perhapshe realizesthe impossibili-
ty of making a sharp and violent break with the
dominant culture of the metropolitancenter. Any
such attempt would have to erase two hundred
yearsof historyand also deny that both the coloniz-

er and the colonized have been permanently
changed through their encounter. The alternative,
however, is not simply to accept the master's lan-
guage but to decolonize it, as the British dub poet
Linton KwesiJohnsonhas so effectivelydone.2Tha-
roor's recourseis to "beginby co-opting the entire
properties of that [alien] language as correspon-
dences to propertiesin [his] matrixof thought and
expression" (Soyinka, quoted in Gates, 40). His
counterhegemonicstrategy,then, is to adapta com-
pelling and popular Indian epic so that he may
"negatethe priorEuropeannegationof [his] culture
and adopt and creative(ly) modif(y) . . . western
languagesand artisticforms in conjunctionwith in-
digenous languages and forms" (JanMohamed,
103). Accordingto MikhailBakhtin,such a move at
the linguistic level is particularlyrelevant and ap-
plicableto the genreof the novel.
Languageuponenteringthe novelestablishesits own
specialorderwithinit, and becomesa uniqueartistic
system,whichorchestrates themeof the
the intentional
author.[Theauthor]canmakeuseof languagewithout
whollygivinghimselfup to it, he maytreatit as semi
alienor completelyaliento himselfwhilecompelling
languageultimatelyto serve all his own intentions.
(299)
The prosewriter,in Bakhtin'swords,distanceshim-
self from the language of his work and speaks
"through"language.Such a writerdrawsfrom other
languages,creatinga heteroglotnovelisticlanguage.
Of course, accordingto Bakhtin,the choice here is
not so much between availabledistinct languages,
but between the specific sociolectswithin a "given"
language.
However, despite Tharoor's creative use of the
master'slanguage,he does not and cannot reverse
the course of history.He cannot create a new mas-
ter narrative,a legitimizing monolithic discourse.
His historyhas to differfrom those "official,ortho-
dox, authoritativelynational and institutionalver-
sions [which] tend principallyto designate provi-
sional and highly contestable attempts to freeze
these versions of history into identities for use"
(Said, "Figurations,"12). Tharoor'snarrator,Ved
Vyas, who is also the narratorof the Mahabharata^
aptlysums up his views on such nationalistversions
of history:"Some of our more Manicheanhistorians
tend to depict the Britishvillains as supremelyac-
complished- the omniscient,omnipresent,omnipo-
tent manipulatorsof the destiny of India. Stuff and
nonsense, of course" (116). Tharoor/Vyas'srejec-
tion of Manichean dualities also suggests that the
Mahabharatacannot be used as a vehicle to look
back nostalgicallyat a "pure"precolonialpast. This
would be an ahistoricalmove, since it would deny
the last few centuriesof historicalinvolvement.The
Mahabharataitself must pass through the filter of
colonial experience. The text, as Ved Vyas tells
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CHOWDHURY 43
Ganapati, like India, like history, is constantly
changing.
- indeedthe world,the universe,all
History,Ganapati
humanlife, andso, too, everyinstitutionunderwhich
we live- is in a constantstateof evolution.The world
and everythingin it is being createdand re-created
evenas I speak. . . goingthroughtheunendingprocess
of birthand rebirthwhichhas madeus all. Indiahas
beenbornandrebornscoresof times,andit willbe re-
bornagain.Indiais forever;andIndiais foreverbeing
made.(245)
Tharoor's (dis)claimer of nationalist histories
does not, however,imply that his versionis a disin-
terested one. The India to which Tharoor refers is
seen throughhis eyes- narroweyes that largelyig-
nore the plight of the vast underclassfor whom in-
dependence merely suggested a ceremonialshift in
power. In a sense, Tharoor'sprojectof writingback
to the center sadly enacts the erasureof the subal-
tern or the underclass.JennySharpe,in a perceptive
analysisof figures of colonial resistance,points out
the inherentcontradictionsof a middle-class"liber-
ating"discoursesuch as Tharoor's:"To thinkof the
relationbetweenthe discoursecenteringon the pro-
duction of the colonial subjectand what it occludes
as an eclipse is to see that the subalternclasses are
not situated outside the civilizing project but are
caughtin the path of its trajectory.. . . For the colo-
nized subjectwho can answerthe colonizersback is
the product of the same vast ideologicalmachinery
that silences the subaltern"(143). Tharoor'seffort
to answerthe colonizeris dependentupon the ma-
terial and discursivetools that are providedby the
colonizer.The same ideologicalapparatusthat pro-
vides him with a voice is inevitablycaughtup in si-
lencingthose who are less fortunatethan Tharoor.
Clearly,Tharoor'swork is not "resistancelitera-
ture" in the way BarbaraHarlow describesit. The
GreatIndianNovel does not call "attentionto itself
as a political and politicizedactivity . . . [nor is it]
immediately and directlyinvolvedin a struggleagainst
ascendantor dominantformsof ideologicaland cul-
turalproduction"(Harlow,29). The choice of a sin-
gle narratorwho recounts the deeds of great men
denies that the "strugglingoppressed class itself is
the depositoryof historicalknowledge"(Benjamin,
260). Tharoor'sepic historicalperspectiveis neces-
sarilyexclusiveand detractsfrom the liberatorypo-
tential of what is otherwisea notable act of cultural
recovery. His narrativeis not the testimony of a
whole people. The historicalversion he offers con-
cerns great men and is fashionedby a grandmoral
and ethical design: "In my epic I shall tell of past,
present and future, of existence and passing, of ef-
florescenceand decay, of death and rebirth;of what
is and of what was, of what should have been" (18).
Such declarationsare made in order to capturethe
44 WORLDLITERATURETODAY
mood of the epic, not to pose as counterhegemonic
challenges.
But perhaps it is Tharoor's historical selection
which makesany attemptto recoverthe strugglesof
the subaltern finally irrelevant. The banality of
everydaylife does not interestTharooror his narra-
tor. Their India is the India of great men, of Gan-
dhis and Nehrus. Tharoor,in his emphasison Gan-
dhi and Nehru, ignores one fact: "That such and
such a man and preciselythat man arisesat a partic-
ular time in a particularcountryis, of course, pure
chance"(Marx,767-68). The all-pervasivefigureof
Gandhi/Gangaji,the so-called enigmatic individual
genius, is a diversion from the collective social
forces that shape any age. His omnipresenceis also
juxtaposed,somewhat contradictorily,againstmass
spontaneous revolution. In this instance Tharoor
presents a falsifiednotion of a spontaneousmove-
ment detached from a conscious leadership.Such
beliefs only perpetuatehistoricalmyths and give the
"masses a 'theoretical'consciousness of being cre-
ators of historicaland institutionalvalues, of being
foundersof a state"(Gramsci,198).
Tharoor's revisionist history, a history from a
privileged vantage point, thus ultimately remains
"traditional,"for he fails to recover the history of
the silenced voices, the voices which made the na-
tional struggle possible. "Traditional"historiogra-
phy has been dominatedby this elitism, "colonialist
elitism and bourgeois-nationalistelitism. . . . Both
these varietiesof elitism sharethe prejudicethat the
makingof the Indiannation and the developmentof
the consciousness- nationalism- which informed
this process were exclusivelyor predominantlyelite
achievements" (Guha, "On Some Aspects," 1).
Such historical versions further the "great men"
myth of historyand erase the politics of the people.
Indeed, as Partha Chatterjeehas pointed out, the
"uniqueachievementof Gandhism [was] the politi-
cal appropriationof the subalternclassesby a bour-
geoisie aspiringfor hegemonyin a new nation state"
(176). The strugglefor nationalindependence,as in
so many other dependentnations, saw the national
bourgeoisiebegin to organizeitself to slip into the
rankssoon to be vacatedby the British.The nation-
al bourgeoisiewith its incomplete version of a war
of independenceassured a qualifiedindependence:
a transferenceof power without a transferenceof
autonomy. India remained dependent upon the
West while the native ruling class used the existing
state apparatusto maintaintheir dominance.Mean-
while, the Indian peasants and the urban workers
remaineddisempoweredby the machinationsof the
national bourgeoisie.These subalterngroups were
"alwayssubjectto the activityof the ruling groups,
even when they rebel[led]. . . . Only 'permanent'
victorybreakstheir subordination,and that not im-
mediately"(Gramsci,55).
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
As in the Mahabharata,where we learn nothing
about the slaughteredsoldiers on the battlefieldof
Kurukshetra,so in Tharoor'sIndiawe learnverylit-
tle about the underprivilegedfoot soldier. Tharoor
the novelist/historiancannot "rescue from out the
colonial history the suppressed native voice, at-
tempting also to derive new historiographicalin-
sights not only for comprehendingthe past but also
for discussing . . . the weaknessesin native soci-
eties" (Said, "ThirdWorld,"39). He can only make
a feeble attempt at recognizingthe unreliabilityof
his historicalknowledge:"Thereis no storyand too
many stories;there are no heroes and too many he-
roes. What is left out matters almost as much as
what is said" (Tharoor,411). But it is not enough
to legitimizeexclusion by claimingthat the "politi-
cal and governmentalprocess in our countryhas al-
ways been distant from the vast mass of the people
[and that] this has been sanctifiedby traditionand
reinforcedby colonialism"(370). These words dif-
fuse the nature of the problem within a vortex of
"traditions"and sustainoppression.
Ultimately, Tharoor is bound by his ideological
position in modernIndia. As a westernized,middle-
class Hindu, he is unableto get beyond the habitual
preoccupationsof his class. His nostalgia for the
past, a past when India was the "landof Rama, . . .
the land where truth and honour and valour and
dharmawere worshippedas the cardinalprinciples
of existence" (411), is juxtaposedagainst his dis-
taste for postindependencefailures.Tharoor'slong-
ing for a returnto past glories,however,is based on
a created,staticnotion of "tradition."
In the following section I would like to demon-
stratethat Tharoor'sromantic,monolithic"landof
Rama"is a contradictionto his otherwiseskeptical
approach to the past and his acknowledgments
about the impossibilityof recoveringthat past. I also
intend to point out that in his skepticism,Tharoor
does depart from "traditional"historiography.He
generally has an "ironic" (Hayden White's term)
distancefromthe past and displayselementsof both
"documentaryobjectivism"and "relativistsubjec-
tivism"(DominiqueLaCapra'sterms).
Tharoor's Maha/Great BharataIIndia. In a
recent interviewTharoorquite clearlystateshis rea-
sons for using the Mahabharatato fore/background
eventsin modernIndia:
[TheMahabharata] struckme as a workof suchcon-
temporary my own in-
resonance,it helpedcrystallize
choateideasaboutissues.I wanteda vehicleto trans-
mit someof my politicalandhistoricalinterestsin the
evolutionof modernIndia.I saw the recastingof the
Mahabharata as a perfectvehiclefor the two Indias.
18)
("Interview,"

Tharoor's choice is a significantone, because the
Mahabharatahas been and remains embedded in
the Hindu national consciousnessas the great epic.
Even in the West, viewershave been exposed to its
depth and scope through versions such as Peter
Brook'stheatricalproductionand his six-hourfilm.
However,a text as complex and as "foreign"as the
Mahabharatacan only be given limited exposurein
the West; Brook'sfilm, for example, was shown in
the United States only in so-called art houses and
on viewer-supportedtelevision. It is exactly the re-
verse in India. The world of the Mahabharatais
"the nationalheroic past: it is the world of 'begin-
nings' and 'peak times' in the national history, a
worldof fathersand of foundersof families,a world
of 'firsts'and 'bests'" (Bakhtin,13). Bakhtin'schar-
acterizationof the epic is undoubtedlytrue of the
Mahabharata,but his somewhatimperiousdismissal
of the epic form is in complete contradictionto the
fluidity of the great Indian epic. According to
Bakhtin,the epic is markedby its "closedness"and
"conclusiveness":"Becauseit is walled off from all
subsequent times, the epic past is absolute and
complete. It is as closed as a circle;inside it every-
thing is finished, alreadyover. There is no place in
the epic world for any openendedness,indecision,
indeterminacy.... It suffices unto itself, neither
supposingany continuationnor requiringit" (16).
Bakhtin's generalizationsabout the epic form, of
course, should be understoodwithin the context of
his discussion of the novel. He valorizesthe latter
form, since he claimsthat it is "determinedby expe-
rience, knowledge,and practice (the future)" (15).
The novel also, because of its polyglossia,is open
and continuous;the epic, on the other hand, has
"absoluteconclusivenessand closedness"(16).
The Mahabharata,however, has not existed
merelyas a "closed"text. It has undergonenumer-
ous forms of revisions;its "meanings"have been
constantly reinterpretedand revised. Its primary
battle, the battle of Kurukshetra,is markedby its
inconclusiveness.Throughout generationsthe epic
has been translated and transformedin different
versions.Part of the "inconclusiveness"of the Ma-
habharatais thus celebratedthrough its numerous
translationsand transcreationsin various regional
languages. One of the more recent "transforma-
tions" of the epic has been a highly successfulpre-
sentationfor a mass televisionaudience.The obscu-
rities of the epic have been rewritten within the
frameworkof a popularnarrativemode, and the re-
sult has enthralled television audiences in India.
Anil Chopra'sMahabharata,made for Doordarshan
India, uses narrativestyles from popularcinema to
convert a complicated tale into a spicy treat for
viewers.However, it is not the mere trappingsof a
Bombaymelodramawhich captivatethe viewer:the
charactersin the Mahabharataexist as symbols of
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CHOWDHURY 45
virtue; the concept of "dharma"informs the text
and is an importantpart of Hindu religious/philo-
sophicaldoctrine;filmmakersand playwrightsoften
use charactersand events from the epic (Shyam
Benegal's Kalyug is a good example of this tradi-
tion); and perhaps more important for Tharoor,
"There'shardly a political controversywhere there
isn't somebody making some allusion to characters
of the Mahabharataand describinga politician as
Kama, or as Duryodhana"("Interview,"25).
Tharoor's fascinating combination of history,
mythology,and politics thus remainsclose to an in-
digenouslivingtradition;but perhapsit is Tharoor's
anecdotal recounting of events in all their farcical
and tragictones that separatesthe novel from other
historical accounts. His narrativemethodology is
that of the carnivalesquehistorians, and he uses
Bakhtinianfestive laughterto disrupt and displace
colonial hierarchies;neither the Englishnor the In-
dians are sparedas objects of ridicule.Like the tra-
ditional Indian clown-narrator(the "Viduksha"),
Tharoor can take all kinds of narrativeliberties as
long as he adheresto the core of his tale.
But perhapsthe most significantmannerin which
Tharoorparts companywith traditionalhistoriesof
India is his recognition of the difficulty of trans-
lating past events into an "objective"narrative.
Vyas/Tharoorconfessesthat perhapsthe "true"his-
tory of India can neverbe suitablyrecovered;all one
has arebiases and distortions.
Everytale I have told you, everyperceptionI have con-
veyed, there are a hundredequallyvalid alternativesI
have omittedand of whichyou areunaware.. . . This is
my storyof the IndiaI know, with its biases, selections,
omissions,distortions,all mine. . . . EveryIndianmust
for ever carrywith him, in his own head and heart,his
own historyof India. (373)
Here Tharoor almost completely echoes the words
of Hayden White:
There is no such thing as a single correctview of any
objectunderstudybut . . . manycorrectviews, each re-
quiringits own style of representation.. . . The histori-
an operatingunder such a conception could thus be
one who, like the modern artistand scientist, seeks to
exploita certainperspectiveon the worldthat does not
pretend to exhaust descriptionor analysis. {Tropicsof
Discourse,46-47)
Any attemptto describehistoricalevents alwaysin-
cludes ordering and arranging certain narrative
strategies,which then aid in fulfillingthe historian's
intentions.White suggestsan apparentalternativeto
this manipulativestrategyand arguesthat an "iron-
ic" view of historyenableshistoriansto take a skep-
tical view of the past, since they have distance.Such
"irony presupposes the occupation of a 'realistic'
perspective on reality [i.e., the historian's], from
which a non-figurativerepresentationof the past
46 WORLDLITERATURETODAY
might be provided" (Metahistory,38). Ironic dis-
tance provides perspective and avoids romanticiz-
ing. It is quite clear,however,that "irony"also gives
the historiana certain sense of superiorityover his
so-callednaive counterparts.And in Tharoor'scase,
as we have seen, "irony"does not precluderoman-
tic essentializing.The "ironic"narrativestrategycan
even consolidate such essentializing by ignoring
contesting"historical"voices which accompanyany
formof "presupposition."
In many ways, Tharoor the novelist/historianis
performingwhat is primarilya creativeact. He rein-
terpretsand re-presents"popular"stories about the
past and, like a historian, gives shape to the un-
known. Hayden White makes a similarpoint in his
essay"The HistoricalText as LiteraryArtifact."
History - the realworldas it evolvesin time- is made
senseof in the samewaythatthe poet or novelisttries
to makesenseof it, i.e., by endowingwhatoriginally
appearsto be problematical andmysterious withtheas-
pectof a recognizable, becauseit is a familiar,form.It
does not matterwhetherthe worldis conceivedto be
realor onlyimagined; the mannerof makingsenseof it
remains the same. (Tropicsof Discourse,98)
This process of makingfamiliaris a creativeway of
reinterpretingselected moments of the past and or-
dering history.3Tharoor's narrator,Ved Vyas, is
also conscious about such artificialmethods of re-
countinghistory- a historywhich is alwaysimposed
and ordered:"We tend, Ganapati,to look back on
historyas if it were a stage play, with scene building
upon scene, our hero movingfrom one action to the
next in his remorselessstride to the climax. Yet life
is never like that . . . and so the recountingof histo-
ry is only the order we artificiallyimpose upon life
to permitits lessons to be more clearlyunderstood"
(101).
The tendency to "order" events or produce
meaningsis what LaCaprahas referredto as "rela-
tivistic subjectivism."According to LaCapra, the
relativisthistorian"places himself or herself in the
position of 'transcendentalsignifier'that 'produces'
or 'makes'the meaningsof the past" (138). The ob-
jectivist,on the other hand, "placesthe past in the
'logocentric'position of ... 'transcendentalsigni-
fied.' It is simply there in its sheer reality, and the
task of the historianis to use sources as documents
to reconstructpast realityas objectivelyas he or she
can" (137). Clearly, both positions are equally
proneto a "misreading"of past events.Any effortto
recoverthe past is mediatedby the ideologicalposi-
tion of the historian.Tharoorhimself alternatesbe-
tween the subjectivistand the objectivistroles. He
attempts to order the random events in history by
contextualizingthem through the language of an
epic tradition,but ultimatelyeven he recognizesthe
impossibilityof organizingthe past. He then claims
to reportonly "facts."His narratortakescareto em-
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
phasize, "Facts, that is all I intend to record, facts
and names. This is history"(86), but then concedes
that these supposedfacts are equallyunreliable.
As Tharoor and Vyas order history, so too do
they fashionthe charactersand events fromthe Ma-
habharata.It is not importantfor Tharoor to have
an "authentic"rendering of the epic. Tharoor's
charactersdo not so much reflect or imitate the
"real"figures;they act as symbolicpersonalitiesand
present the reader with associative images, which
then must be decoded through apparentlyshared
culturalexperiences.It thereforebecomes unneces-
saryto questionTharoor'schoice of charactersor to
decide whether Subhas ChandraBose's role in the
Indian national movement is as importantas Pan-
du's role in the epic, or if the absenceof Abhimanyu
(Arjuna'sson) is significant.As Vyas puts it, the
point of the story is in the telling: "I did not begin
the storyin orderto end it; the essence of the tale is
in the telling. . . . There is no end to the story of
life. There are merelypauses"(162-63).
Clearly,for Tharoor, "faithfulnessto [the] idea"
is far more importantthan "faithfulnessto the nov-
elistic depiction of characters"("Interview,"19),
and a significantpart of Tharoor's "faithfulnessto
the idea"is to show the idealismand the hope of the
years preceding independence. Bhisma/Ganga
Dutta/Gandhi dominates the narrative, but his
deeds, in postcolonialIndia, have been reduced to
the realmof textualexperience.
It is in thehistorybooksnow,andtoday'sequivalent of
the snot-nosedbratsof Motiharihaveto studyit for
theirexaminations on the nationalistmovement.But
whatcanthe dullblack-on-white of theirtextbookstell
themof theheadyexcitement of thosedays?(50)
Tharoor,as a student in postcolonialIndia, has also
been presentedwith textualversionsof the indepen-
dence struggleand its moments of heady idealism.
For many writers of his generation,therefore,the
failure of independence becomes the greatest
tragedyof modern India. India, like the majorityof
colonized nations, overestimatedthe emancipatory
potentialof independence.The misplacedpriorities
of its leaderscreateda state which "waswell on the
way to becoming the seventh largest industrial
power in the world, whateverthat may mean, while
80% of her people continuedto lack electricityand
clean drinkingwater" (Tharoor,293). The "blind"
Dhritarashtra/Nehru led the countrytowarda form
of "progress"but was incapableof providinghous-
ing, food, or employmentfor the vast majorityof his
people.
The greatestpostindependencebetrayal,howev-
er, comes when Dhritarashtra/Nehru' s daughter,In-
dira Gandhi/ Priya Duryadhoni,declaresa state of
emergency.The subsequentstrugglefor democracy
then becomes, for Tharoor, the battle of Kuruk-

shetra or the great Bharatawar. Tharoor's choice
for the modern analogyto the ancient war is a re-
vealing one. The 1977 parliamentaryelections
which saw the defeat of the authoritarianIndira
Gandhiwere undoubtedlya triumphantmoment for
Indian democracy,but as Tharoorknows, the elec-
toral victoryachievedvery little. Within three years
the oppositionto Gandhihad collapsedand she was
returned to her previous position. Certainly, in
terms of human suffering,the partitionof the sub-
continentremainsthe most tragic event in modern
Indianhistory,and the scars of that separationstill
remainon both sides of the divide. Thus, Tharoor's
choice for the greatcontemporarybattle is problem-
atic; however,Tharoor/Vyasdoes concede that the
1977 election followingthe emergencyis not meant
to be the single most important event in recent
times.
Lifeis Kurukshetra. Historyis Kurukshetra. The strug-
glebetweenDharmaandadharma is a struggleourna-
tion,andeachone in it, engagesin on everysingleday
of ourexistence.Thatstruggle,thatbattle,tookplace
beforethiselection;it willcontinueafterit. (391)
Indeed, as anyone who is familiarwith the cur-
rent politicalviolencein India knows, "battles"have
become partof our dailyexistence.The variousreli-
gio-ethnic schisms have made the turmoils of the
emergencyrecede in the nationalimagination.Tha-
roor, however, is surprisinglycavalier about these
struggles.Perhaps a failure to revive a "politics of
the people" makes Tharoorblind to other political
factors in his homogenized Maha/Great Bharata/
India. On 4 April 1990 some 300,000 Hindus affili-
ated to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a militant
Hindu organization,gathered on the lawns of the
Delhi Boat Club to pledge their electoralsupportto
the BharatiyaJanata Party.4Such a spectacle can
only be terrifyingto the Muslims and other minori-
ties in India.And the recentgains of that same party
in the parliamentaryelections of 1991 aggravated
the alreadyexisting tensions between the majority
Hindus and other minoritycommunities.5Thus, to
say "I have been on the whole a good hindu in my
story"(412) or to regret"how far we have travelled
from the glory and splendour of our adventurous
mythologicalheroes" (411) has a somewhatfright-
ening resonance in contemporaryIndian politics.
Also, given the variousregionalcrises in India, with
secessionist movements breaking out in Assam,
Jammuand Kashmir,and Punjab,it is simplynaive
to claim that "the regionalistsand autonomistsand
separatistsand secessionists . . . are of no conse-
quence in the story of India" (412).6 Can the
lessons of the Mahabharatagive shape to the chaos
that is modern India? Is it enough to slip into a
mindlessidealismwhere the only goal is a hopeless-
ly intangibleone? "Let each man live by his own
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CHOWDHURY 47
code of conduct, so long as he has one. Derive your
standardsfrom the world aroundyou and not from
a heritagewhose relevancemust be constantlytest-
ed" (418).
Notwithstanding these serious inconsistencies,
TheGreatIndianNovelis still a notableexampleof a
postcolonialwriter'sattemptingto breakfree of the
restraintsof a metropolitanculture.Throughhis in-
novativeuse of the English languageand in his ef-
fort to recoveran indigenousepic "tradition,"Tha-
roor effectively recovers a version of India for a
portion of its people. His revisioned History pro-
vides a "site of intersection"(Said, "Narrative,"83)
where the postcolonialwritercan refiguredominant
European narratives.It must be rememberedthat
traditional European historiography,both before
and after independence, consisted of "colonialist
knowledge... its functionwas to erect that past as
a pedestal on which the triumphsand gloriesof the
colonizers and their instrument,the colonial state,
could be displayed to best advantage" (Guha,
"Dominance,"211).
In the light of these years of imposed colonialist
"knowledge,"Tharoor'swork, despite all its contra-
dictions and failures, creates a postcolonial space
which celebratesthe possibilitiesof revisioningcolo-
nialist knowledge.The battle between the center's
impositionof discursiverestrictionson the postcolo-
nial writerand the writer'screativeeffortsto break
free from this impositionwill continue. And writers
such as Shashi Tharoorwill be caught between the
contradictionsof their class position and their ef-
forts to "redraw"frontiers and rewrite histories.
They are trappedin an inevitablepredicament:even
as they attempt to challengethe hegemonic entail-
ments of metropolitanculture, they simultaneously
renew their cultural contract with the metropolis.
However, despite their inevitablecomplicityin past
and contemporarysystemsof colonialistknowledge,
writerslike Tharoorsucceed insofaras they provide
a correctivefor the epistemicviolence of the Euro-
pean colonizers.PerhapsChinuaAchebe'sthoughts
on the "novelistas teacher"sum up what Tharoor
at best can hope to achievefrom his work:"I would
be quite satisfied if my novels (especiallythe ones
set in the past) did no more than teach my readers
that their past- with all its imperfections - was not
one long night of savageryfrom which the first Eu-
ropeans acting on God's behalf delivered them"
(45).
Universityof St. Thomas(Mm)
1
Sanskrit, of course, is not a realistic choice for Tharoor. For
writers such as he, who have been educated in westernized insti-
tutions, Sanskrit remains largely an alien language. As far as Tha-
roor is concerned, the English language remains the most practi-
cal, though necessarily limiting, option.
2 Linton Kwesi
Johnson's distinctive style is best seen in his
many albums and in such poetry collections as Inglan Is a Bitch.
48 WORLD LITERATURE TODAY
3 Gates, Henry Louis Jr. "Authority,(White) Power and the
Tony Bennett makes a similar point in OutsideLiterature:
"The past, in so far as the historianis concernedwith it, is never
the past as such- not everythingthat may be said of it- but only
the past as a product of the specific protocols of investigation
which characterizethe disciplineof historyin its concernto es-
tablish,classifyand orderthe relationsbetweeneventspertinent
to the inquiryin hand"(56).
4The
BharatiyaJanataParty(BJP)has attainednationalrecog-
nition since the 1991 elections.SmallermilitantHindu organiza-
tions such as the VishwaHindu Parishad,the Jana Sangh, and
the Shiv Sena have alignedthemselvesto the BJPin orderto at-
tain some degreeof politicalclout. The BJPnow walksthe fine
line between being a mainstreamparty and appeasingthese
smallermilitantgroups.
5Since I wrotethis
essay,eventsin Indiahave takena turnfor
the worse.The destructionof the Ayodhamosqueby Hindu mil-
itants and the consequentriots acrossthe countryhave forever
shatteredthe confidence of millions of India's citizens, both
Hinduand Muslim.
6Tharoor's
responseto the 1992 riots is characteristicof his
faithin a democratic,secularIndia:"The ragingbattle is for In-
dia's soul. For my sons, the only possibleidea of Indiais the one
theirparentsgrewup with, that of a nationgreaterthan a sum of
its parts.That is the only Indiathat will allow them to continue
to call themselvesIndians"(A21).
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua.MorningYet on CreationDay. New York. An-
chor. 1975.
Ahmed, Aijaz. "Jameson'sRhetoricof Othernessand the "Na-
tionalAllegory."SocialText,17 (Fall 1987), pp. 3-25.
Ashcroft,Bill, et al. TheEmpireWritesBack: Theoryand Practice
in Post-ColonialLiterature.
London.Routledge.1989.
Bakhtin,Mikhail. TheDialogicImagination.CarylEmersonand
MichaelHolquist,trs. Austin.Universityof Texas Press. 1981.
Benjamin,Walter."Theseson the Philosophyof History."In his
Illuminations. HarryZohn, tr. New York.Schocken.1969. Pp.
253-64.
Bennett,Tony. OutsideLiterature. New York.Routledge.1990.
Bhabha,Homi. "SlyCivility."October, 34 (1985), pp. 71-80.
Chatterjee,Partha."Gandhiand the Critiqueof Civil Society."
In Subaltern on SouthAsianHistoryandSo-
StudiesIII: Writings
ciety.RanajitGuha, ed. New Delhi. OxfordUniversityPress.
1984. Pp. 153-95.
Fanon, Frantz.The Wretched of theEarth.ConstanceFarrington,
tr. New York.Grove. 1968.
Foucault,Michel. TheArchaeology of Knowledge.A. M. Sheridan
Smith,tr. New York.Pantheon.1972.
This content downloaded from 165.95.226.100 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 06:19:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(Black)Critic:It's All GreekTo Me." CulturalCritique, 7 (Fall
1987), pp. 19-46.
Gramsci,Antonio. Selections fromthePrisonNotebooksof Antonio
Gramsci.Quintin Hoare and GeoffreyNowell Smith, eds. &
trs. New York.InternationalPublishers.1971.
Guha,Ranajit."On Some Aspectsof the Historiography of Colo-
nial India."In Subaltern on SouthAsianHistory
Studies:Writings
andCultureI. RanajitGuha, ed. New Delhi. OxfordUniversity
Press. 1982. Pp. 1-7.
. "DominanceWithout Hegemony and Its Historiogra-
phy." In SubalternStudies:Writings on SouthAsianHistoryand
CultureVI. RanajitGuha, ed. New Delhi OxfordUniversity
Press. 1989. Pp. 210-35.
Jameson,Fredric.ThePoliticalUnconscious: Narrativeas a Socially
Symbolic Act. Ithaca,N.Y. CornellUniversityPress. 1981.
JanMohamed,Abdul.ManicheanAesthetics:ThePoliticsof Litera-
turein ColonialAfrica.Amherst.Universityof Massachusetts
Press. 1983.
LaCapra,Dominique.Historyand Criticism. Ithaca,N.Y. Cornell
UniversityPress. 1985.
Lyotard,Jean-Francois.The Postmodern Condition:A Reporton
Knowledge.Geoff Benningtonand Brian Massumi,trs. Min-
neapolis.Universityof MinnesotaPress. 1984.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Marx-EngelsReader.
RobertC. Tucker,ed. New York.Norton. 1978.
Ngiigi wa Thiong'o. "The Languageof Struggle."Transition, 54
(1991), pp. 142-54.
Said, Edward."Figurations,Configurations,Transfigurations.
RaceandClass,32:1 (1990), pp. 1-16.
. "Narrative,Geographyand Interpretation." New LeftRe-
view, 180 (March/April1990), pp. 81-97.
. "ThirdWorld Intellectualsand MetropolitanCulture."
Raritan,9:3 (1990), pp. 27-50.
Sharpe,Jenny. "Figuresof ColonialResistance."ModernFiction
Studies,35:1 (Spring1989), pp. 137-55.
Spivak,Gayatri."Canthe SubalternSpeak?"In Marxismand the
Interpretationof Culture.CaryNelson and LarryGrossberg,eds.
Urbana.Universityof IllinoisPress. 1988. Pp. 271-313.
Tharoor, Shashi. The GreatIndianNovel. New Delhi. Penguin
BooksIndia. 1989.
. Interview.IndiaCurrents,4:8 (1990), pp. 18+.
. "The Revengeof History."New YorkTimes,11 Decem-
ber 1992, p. A21.
White, Hayden. Metahistory:TheHistoricalImaginationin Nine-
teenthCenturyEurope.Baltimore.Johns Hopkins University
Press. 1973.
. Tropicsof Discourse:Essaysin CulturalCriticism.Balti-
more.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress. 1978.