Short Questions.

Aijaz Ahmed INDRA RAY

1. Q: What does Aijaz Ahmed problematize in his essay?

A: Aijaz Ahmed problematizes “Third World Literature” as a theoretical
category because it homogenizes diverse literary histories and public
aspirations, reducing them to a single narrative shaped primarily by
nationalism and colonial responses.
2. Q: Why is the category ‘Third World Literature’ problematic
according to Ahmed?
A: The category ‘Third World Literature’ is problematic because it
homogenizes the diverse literary histories and aspirations of different
countries, overlooking the unique cultural, political, and historical
contexts of each nation.
3. Q: What common conditions do most ‘Third World’ countries
share?
A: Most ‘Third World’ countries share the common conditions of having
been colonized and responding to colonial forces, with nationalism
emerging as a significant productive force in their histories.
4. Q: Why can’t ‘Indian Literature’ be a coherent theoretical
category?
A: ‘Indian Literature’ cannot be a coherent theoretical category due to
the immense diversity in cultures, languages, and histories across India,
making it difficult to encapsulate all literary works under a single unifying
framework.
5. Q: What factors have affected the historiography of Indian
literature during the colonial period?
A: The historiography of Indian literature during the colonial period was
affected by Orientalism, which imposed Western interpretations on
Indian texts, and the development of print culture, which prioritized
certain languages and texts over others.
6. Q: How does Ahmed view cultural production?
A: Ahmed views cultural production as being determined by material
conditions such as social, political, and economic factors, which shape
the objectives and forms of literary and artistic outputs.
7. Q: What did 19th-century print culture and Orientalist
constructions do to Indian literature?
A: 19th-century print culture and Orientalist constructions created a
fragmented historiography of Indian literature, privileging certain texts
and languages while marginalizing others, thus affecting the overall
understanding of India’s literary history.
8. Q: What is one major issue with defining ‘Indian Literature’?
A: A major issue with defining ‘Indian Literature’ is that it often privileges
high textuality, focusing on elite, written texts and overlooking the rich
traditions of oral and peripheral literatures.
9. Q: What does Ahmed suggest is needed for understanding
Indian literature?
A: Ahmed suggests that a Marxist intervention and structural history are
needed to address the material conditions of production and provide a
comprehensive understanding of Indian literature.
10. Q: What are some reasons for the underdevelopment of
literary history research in India?
A: The underdevelopment of literary history research in India is due to
sporadic development of institutions, lack of comparative scholarship,
weak traditions of translation, and the influence of unilingual vernacular
education promoting linguistic differentiation.
11. Q: How has unilingual vernacular education affected Indian
literature?
A: Unilingual vernacular education has promoted linguistic differentiation
and regional particularism, leading to a fragmented understanding of
Indian literature and hindering the development of a comprehensive,
unified literary history.
12. Q: What is a significant characteristic of Indian literature in
the premodern phase?
A: A significant characteristic of Indian literature in the premodern phase
is its multilinguality and polyglot fluidity, with writers and poets often
composing works in multiple languages.
13. Q: What did many notable writers and poets in the 16th and
17th centuries do?
A: Many notable writers and poets in the 16th and 17th centuries wrote
in different languages, demonstrating the linguistic fluidity and
multicultural literary environment of premodern India.
14. Q: How did the 19th-century interventionist colonial system
affect Indian literature?
A: The 19th-century interventionist colonial system restricted the
multilinguality of Indian literature to a triadic category of languages,
significantly impacting the literary landscape and historiography.
15. Q: What is needed for a comprehensive historiography of
Indian literature?
A: A comprehensive historiography of Indian literature requires a
comparatist framework that acknowledges both the heterogeneity and
unity of India’s diverse literary traditions, ensuring a more inclusive and
accurate representation.
16. Q: How did the introduction of print culture in the 19th
century affect oral literature?
A: The introduction of print culture in the 19th century diminished the
potential of oral literature, especially those from marginalized voices, by
privileging written texts over oral traditions.
17. Q: What does Ahmed criticize about the category ‘Indian
Literature’?
A: Ahmed criticizes the category ‘Indian Literature’ for its claim to
fundamental unity based on national origin and civilizational ethos, which
overlooks the diversity and complexity of India’s literary traditions.
18. Q: What are the gaps in our knowledge about Indian
literature’s unity?
A: Gaps in our knowledge about Indian literature’s unity stem from
incomplete evidence and inadequate literary historiography traditions,
leading to an incomplete understanding of India’s diverse literary
landscape.
19. Q: What flawed method governs much ongoing research in
Indian literature?
A: Much ongoing research in Indian literature is governed by the flawed
method of viewing the literary text as a discrete aesthetic object, ignoring
its social grounding and network of literary productions.
20. Q: What two pressures did Orientalist scholarship face?
A: Orientalist scholarship faced the pressures of colonialist
Eurocentrism, which sought to dominate and reshape Indian texts, and
universalist humanism and rationalism, which aimed to make these texts
accessible and intelligible to Western audiences.
21. Q: Why doesn’t Ahmed completely denounce Orientalist
scholarship?
A: Ahmed doesn’t completely denounce Orientalist scholarship because
it made texts available for public scrutiny and modern critical analysis,
despite its colonial biases and limitations.
22. Q: How should current historiographers use Orientalist
knowledge?
A: Current historiographers should use Orientalist knowledge
productively while questioning its foundational constructions and biases
to develop a more accurate and inclusive understanding of Indian
literature.
23. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the canonization of texts?
A: Ahmed argues that the canonization of texts often overlooks the
social grounding and network of literary productions, privileging certain
texts based on class and caste hierarchies.
24. Q: What issue arises from privileging high textuality in Indian
literature?
A: Privileging high textuality in Indian literature fails to account for the
cross-fertilization of genres and themes, as well as the rich traditions of
oral and peripheral literatures.
25. Q: What is a major limitation of the traditional model of Indian
literature classification?
A: A major limitation of the traditional model of Indian literature
classification is its ahistorical and obscurantist nature, which privileges
certain texts over others and fails to capture the diversity of India’s
literary traditions.
26. Q: What was the impact of the colonialist modernity on
Indian literature?
A: Colonialist modernity denounced Indian literature, reinforcing
restrictive categories and overlooking the diverse and multilingual nature
of India’s literary traditions.
27. Q: What are some characteristics of the premodern literary
texts in India?
A: Premodern literary texts in India were multilingual and composed in
different genres, reflecting the linguistic fluidity and multicultural literary
environment of the time.
28. Q: What does Ahmed suggest about the narrative
constructed by Orientalist scholarship?
A: Ahmed suggests that the narrative constructed by Orientalist
scholarship contributed to a single canonicity of literary and religious
texts, often ignoring the diverse social and cultural contexts in which
these texts were produced.
29. Q: How does Ahmed view the tradition of mutual translations
among regional languages?
A: Ahmed views the tradition of mutual translations among regional
languages as weakly developed and suggests that more systematic
efforts are needed to strengthen this tradition and enhance our
understanding of India’s literary diversity.
30. Q: What problem does Ahmed identify with using English as
a mediating language?
A: Ahmed identifies that using English as a mediating language can’t
capture the oral and performative elements of regional literatures,
limiting the understanding and appreciation of these literary traditions.
31. Q: What does Ahmed say about the tradition of circulating
texts in India?
A: Ahmed notes that the tradition of circulating texts in India is weak,
with little institutional support for overlapping translations, resulting in a
fragmented literary historiography.
32. Q: How did colonial policies affect the historiography of
Indian literature?
A: Colonial policies restricted cultural productions and influenced
historiographical methods, imposing Western frameworks and often
marginalizing indigenous literary traditions.
33. Q: What is the role of material conditions in cultural
production, according to Ahmed?
A: According to Ahmed, material conditions such as social, political, and
economic factors play a crucial role in determining cultural production
and shaping the objectives and forms of literary and artistic outputs.
34. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the flexibility of culture as
a category?
A: Ahmed argues that culture as a category is flexible and can transcend
languages and state boundaries, affecting the periodization and
understanding of literary histories.
35. Q: What impact did the 19th-century bourgeoisie nation-state
construction have?
A: The 19th-century bourgeoisie nation-state construction overlooked the
material conditions in cultural productions, focusing instead on creating a
unified national identity and narrative.
36. Q: What does Ahmed emphasize about the historiography of
diverse literature?
A: Ahmed emphasizes that the historiography of diverse literature needs
more attention to account for its multi-layered and multidimensional
aspects, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate representation of
different literary traditions.

37. Q: Why is empirical knowledge about Indian literature

insufficient?
A: Empirical knowledge about Indian literature is insufficient due to the
lack of comprehensive understanding of regional languages, their
histories, and the diverse literary traditions across India, resulting in
incomplete and fragmented historiography.
38. Q: What is a challenge in constituting ‘Indian Literature’ as a
theoretical category?
A: A major challenge in constituting ‘Indian Literature’ as a theoretical
category is its diverse and heterogeneous nature, which makes it difficult
to encapsulate all literary works under a single, cohesive framework.
39. Q: How does Ahmed view the relationship between
canonized texts and oral traditions?
A: Ahmed views the relationship between canonized texts and oral
traditions as often overlooked, leading to an incomplete historical
understanding and neglect of significant literary contributions from
marginalized voices.
40. Q: What does Ahmed suggest about the Marxist intervention
in literary history?
A: Ahmed suggests that a Marxist intervention in literary history can
provide profound insights by addressing the material conditions of
production, offering a more comprehensive and critical understanding of
literature.
41. Q: How has the 19th-century print culture affected modern
literary understanding?
A: The 19th-century print culture solidified rigid textual hierarchies,
privileging written texts over oral traditions and limiting the scope of
modern literary understanding, especially regarding marginalized voices
and genres.
42. Q: What does Ahmed criticize about the traditional model of
Indian literature?
A: Ahmed criticizes the traditional model of Indian literature for
privileging classical texts and overlooking regional and oral literary
traditions, leading to an incomplete and biased historiography.
43. Q: What impact did Orientalist scholarship have on Indian
literary texts?
A: Orientalist scholarship created a canon that often ignored the social
and cultural contexts of Indian literary texts, privileging certain texts and
languages while marginalizing others, thus affecting the overall
understanding of India’s literary history.
44. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the ideological grid of
Orientalist readings?
A: Ahmed argues that the ideological grid of Orientalist readings needs
to be questioned and critically examined to understand the constructed
narrative of Indian literature and develop a more inclusive historiography.
45. Q: How does Ahmed suggest we address the historiography
of Indian literature?
A: Ahmed suggests addressing the historiography of Indian literature by
examining the genealogies of genres and their sociological contexts,
ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate representation of India’s
diverse literary traditions.
46. Q: What issue does Ahmed identify with the canonization of
literary texts?
A: Ahmed identifies that the canonization of literary texts often privileges
texts based on class and caste hierarchies, overlooking the diverse
social and cultural contexts in which these texts were produced.
47. Q: What does Ahmed propose about the material history of
overlapping forms and genres?
A: Ahmed proposes that the material history of overlapping forms and
genres should be studied to understand the heterogeneity and unity of
Indian literature, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate
historiography.
48. Q: How does Ahmed view the role of oral and performative
aspects in literature?
A: Ahmed views oral and performative aspects as adding layers of
meaning that printed texts may not capture, emphasizing the importance
of considering these elements in literary historiography.
49. Q: What problem does Ahmed identify with the
historiography of regional languages?
A: Ahmed identifies that the historiography of regional languages is often
discrete and lacks an aggregative principle for understanding overlaps,
resulting in a fragmented understanding of India’s literary traditions.
50. Q: How does Ahmed suggest addressing the gaps in our
knowledge of Indian literature?
A: Ahmed suggests addressing the gaps in our knowledge of Indian
literature by improving comparative scholarship and translation efforts,
ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate representation of India’s
diverse literary traditions.
51. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the ideological
construction of Indian literature?
A: Ahmed argues that the ideological construction of Indian literature
often privileges certain texts and overlooks the diverse literary
productions, leading to an incomplete and biased historiography.
52. Q: How did colonial policies influence the understanding of
Indian literature?
A: Colonial policies influenced the understanding of Indian literature by
imposing restrictive categories, often marginalizing indigenous literary
traditions and imposing Western frameworks on the interpretation of
texts.
53. Q: What does Ahmed suggest about the need for new
historiographical approaches?
A: Ahmed suggests that new historiographical approaches are needed to
address material conditions and the cross-fertilization of genres,
ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of Indian
literature.
54. Q: How does Ahmed view the role of print culture in literary
historiography?
A: Ahmed views the role of print culture in literary historiography as
establishing rigid textual hierarchies, limiting the understanding of oral
traditions and marginalized voices, and affecting the overall
understanding of India’s literary history.
 55. Q: What challenge does Ahmed identify in constituting
‘Indian Literature’?
A: Ahmed identifies that constituting ‘Indian Literature’ as a theoretical
category is challenging due to the diverse and heterogeneous nature of
its literary productions, making it difficult to encapsulate all works under
a single, cohesive framework.
56. Q: What does Ahmed propose about the relationship
between literature and material conditions?
A: Ahmed proposes that literature should reflect the material conditions
of its production, such as social, political, and economic factors, which
shape the objectives and forms of literary and artistic outputs.
57. Q: How has the 19th-century bourgeoisie nation-state
construction affected literary historiography?
A: The 19th-century bourgeoisie nation-state construction overlooked
material conditions in cultural productions, focusing instead on creating a
unified national identity and narrative, which often marginalized diverse
literary traditions.
58. Q: What does Ahmed emphasize about the historiography of
diverse literature?
A: Ahmed emphasizes that the historiography of diverse literature needs
more attention to account for its multi-layered and multidimensional
aspects, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate representation of
different literary traditions.
59. Q: Why is empirical knowledge about Indian literature
insufficient?
A: Empirical knowledge about Indian literature is insufficient due to the
lack of comprehensive understanding of regional languages, their
histories, and the diverse literary traditions across India, resulting in
incomplete and fragmented historiography.
60. Q: What is a challenge in constituting ‘Indian Literature’ as a
theoretical category?
A: A major challenge in constituting ‘Indian Literature’ as a theoretical
category is its diverse and heterogeneous nature, which makes it difficult
to encapsulate all literary works under a single, cohesive framework.
61. Q: How does Ahmed view the relationship between
canonized texts and oral traditions?
A: Ahmed views the relationship between canonized texts and oral
traditions as often overlooked, leading to an incomplete historical
understanding and neglect of significant literary contributions from
marginalized voices.
62. Q: What does Ahmed suggest about the Marxist intervention
in literary history?
A: Ahmed suggests that a Marxist intervention in literary history can
provide profound insights by addressing the material conditions of
production, offering a more comprehensive and critical understanding of
literature.
63. Q: How has the 19th-century print culture affected modern
literary understanding?
A: The 19th-century print culture solidified rigid textual hierarchies,
privileging written texts over oral traditions and limiting the scope of
modern literary understanding, especially regarding marginalized voices
and genres.
64. Q: What does Ahmed criticize about the traditional model of
Indian literature?
A: Ahmed criticizes the traditional model of Indian literature for
privileging classical texts and overlooking regional and oral literary
traditions, leading to an incomplete and biased historiography.
65. Q: What impact did Orientalist scholarship have on Indian
literary texts?
A: Orientalist scholarship created a canon that often ignored the social
and cultural contexts of Indian literary texts, privileging certain texts and
languages while marginalizing others, thus affecting the overall
understanding of India’s literary history.
66. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the ideological grid of
Orientalist readings?
A: Ahmed argues that the ideological grid of Orientalist readings needs
to be questioned and critically examined to understand the constructed
narrative of Indian literature and develop a more inclusive historiography.
67. Q: How does Ahmed suggest we address the historiography
of Indian literature?
A: Ahmed suggests addressing the historiography of Indian literature by
examining the genealogies of genres and their sociological contexts,
ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate representation of India’s
diverse literary traditions.
68. Q: What issue does Ahmed identify with the canonization of
literary texts?
A: Ahmed identifies that the canonization of literary texts often privileges
texts based on class and caste hierarchies, overlooking the diverse
social and cultural contexts in which these texts were produced.
69. Q: What does Ahmed propose about the material history of
overlapping forms and genres?
A: Ahmed proposes that the material history of overlapping forms and
genres should be studied to understand the heterogeneity and unity of
Indian literature, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate
historiography.
70. Q: How does Ahmed view the role of oral and performative
aspects in literature?
A: Ahmed views oral and performative aspects as adding layers of
meaning that printed texts may not capture, emphasizing the importance
of considering these elements in literary historiography.
71. Q: What problem does Ahmed identify with the
historiography of regional languages?
A: Ahmed identifies that the historiography of regional languages is often
discrete and lacks an aggregative principle for understanding overlaps,
resulting in a fragmented understanding of India’s literary traditions.

72. Q: How does Ahmed suggest addressing the gaps in our

knowledge of Indian literature?
A: Ahmed suggests addressing the gaps in our knowledge of Indian
literature by improving comparative scholarship and translation efforts,
ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate representation of India’s
diverse literary traditions.
73. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the ideological
construction of Indian literature?
A: Ahmed argues that the ideological construction of Indian literature
often privileges certain texts and overlooks the diverse literary
productions, leading to an incomplete and biased historiography.
74. Q: How did colonial policies influence the understanding of
Indian literature?
A: Colonial policies influenced the understanding of Indian literature by
imposing restrictive categories, often marginalizing indigenous literary
traditions and imposing Western frameworks on the interpretation of
texts.
75. Q: What does Ahmed suggest about the need for new
historiographical approaches?
A: Ahmed suggests that new historiographical approaches are needed to
address material conditions and the cross-fertilization of genres,
ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of Indian
literature.
76. Q: How does Ahmed view the role of print culture in literary
historiography?
A: Ahmed views the role of print culture in literary historiography as
establishing rigid textual hierarchies, limiting the understanding of oral
traditions and marginalized voices, and affecting the overall
understanding of India’s literary history.
77. Q: What challenge does Ahmed identify in constituting
‘Indian Literature’?
A: Ahmed identifies that constituting ‘Indian Literature’ as a theoretical
category is challenging due to the diverse and heterogeneous nature of
its literary productions, making it difficult to encapsulate all works under
a single, cohesive framework.
78. Q: What does Ahmed propose about the relationship
between literature and material conditions?
A: Ahmed proposes that literature should reflect the material conditions
of its production, such as social, political, and economic factors, which
shape the objectives and forms of literary and artistic outputs.
79. Q: How has the 19th-century bourgeoisie nation-state
construction affected literary historiography?
A: The 19th-century bourgeoisie nation-state construction overlooked
material conditions in cultural productions, focusing instead on creating a
unified national identity and narrative, which often marginalized diverse
literary traditions.
80. Q: What does Ahmed emphasize about the historiography of
diverse literature?
A: Ahmed emphasizes that the historiography of diverse literature needs
more attention to account for its multi-layered and multidimensional
aspects, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate representation of
different literary traditions.
81. Q: What does Ahmed propose about the ideological
construction of literary texts?
A: Ahmed proposes that the ideological construction of literary texts
often reflects the interests of dominant groups, privileging certain
narratives and marginalizing others, leading to a biased and incomplete
historiography.
82. Q: How does Ahmed view the relationship between literature
and socio-political contexts?
A: Ahmed views the relationship between literature and socio-political
contexts as integral, with literary productions shaped by and reflective of
the material conditions, social struggles, and political dynamics of their
times.
83. Q: What does Ahmed emphasize about the need for new
historiographical methods?
A: Ahmed emphasizes the need for new historiographical methods that
consider the socio-political and material conditions of literary production,
ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of
literature.
84. Q: How does Ahmed view the role of translation in literary
historiography?
A: Ahmed views translation as crucial in literary historiography, as it can
bridge linguistic divides and provide access to diverse literary traditions,
promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of
literature.
85. Q: What is a significant issue with the historiography of
Indian literature?
A: A significant issue with the historiography of Indian literature is the
privileging of classical and high textuality works, often neglecting
regional and oral traditions, resulting in an incomplete and biased
representation.
86. Q: How does Ahmed suggest addressing the historiography
of regional literatures?
A: Ahmed suggests addressing the historiography of regional literatures
by integrating comparative and cross-linguistic studies, ensuring a more
comprehensive and accurate representation of India’s diverse literary
traditions.
87. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the influence of
colonialism on Indian literary historiography?
A: Ahmed argues that colonialism significantly influenced Indian literary
historiography, imposing Western frameworks and marginalizing
indigenous traditions, which has shaped the current understanding of
Indian literature.
88. Q: How does Ahmed propose we view the relationship
between oral and written literatures?
A: Ahmed proposes viewing the relationship between oral and written
literatures as interconnected, with oral traditions providing rich contexts
and narratives that complement and enhance written texts.
89. Q: What does Ahmed criticize about the traditional approach
to literary canonization?
A: Ahmed criticizes the traditional approach to literary canonization for
privileging elite, written texts while neglecting oral and marginalized
literary traditions, leading to a biased and incomplete historiography.
90. Q: How does Ahmed view the role of material conditions in
literary production?
A: Ahmed views material conditions, such as socio-economic and
political factors, as crucial in shaping literary production, influencing the
themes, forms, and objectives of literary works.
91. Q: What is a challenge in creating a unified historiography of
Indian literature?
A: A challenge in creating a unified historiography of Indian literature is
accounting for the diverse and heterogeneous nature of its literary
traditions, which span multiple languages, cultures, and historical
contexts.
92. Q: How does Ahmed suggest we address the fragmentation
in literary historiography?
A: Ahmed suggests addressing the fragmentation in literary
historiography by adopting a comparatist framework and improving
translation efforts, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate
representation of diverse literary traditions.
93. Q: What does Ahmed argue about the role of Orientalist
scholarship in literary historiography?
A: Ahmed argues that while Orientalist scholarship contributed to the
availability of texts, it also imposed colonial biases and restrictive
categories, which need to be critically examined for a more accurate
understanding of literary history.
94. Q: How does Ahmed propose we understand the material
history of literary genres?
A: Ahmed proposes understanding the material history of literary genres
by examining their socio-political contexts and the conditions of their
production, ensuring a more comprehensive and accurate
historiography.
95. Q: What does Ahmed emphasize about the diversity of
Indian literary traditions?
A: Ahmed emphasizes that the diversity of Indian literary traditions
requires a nuanced and multi-layered historiography that accounts for
regional, linguistic, and cultural differences, ensuring a more inclusive
representation.
96. Q: How does Ahmed view the impact of print culture on
literary historiography?
A: Ahmed views the impact of print culture on literary historiography as
significant, as it established rigid textual hierarchies and often
marginalized oral and regional traditions, affecting the overall
understanding of literary history.
97. Q: What does Ahmed suggest about the need for
interdisciplinary approaches in literary studies?
A: Ahmed suggests that interdisciplinary approaches are needed in
literary studies to address the complex interplay of social, political, and
cultural factors in literary production, ensuring a more comprehensive
understanding.
98. Q: How does Ahmed view the role of nationalism in literary
historiography?
A: Ahmed views nationalism as a significant force in literary
historiography, often shaping the narratives and interpretations of literary
texts, but also potentially overlooking the diversity and complexity of
literary traditions.
99. Q: What does Ahmed propose about the relationship between
literature and cultural identity?
A: Ahmed proposes that literature plays a crucial role in shaping and
reflecting cultural identity, with literary texts often engaging with and
responding to the social and political contexts of their times.
100. Q: How does Ahmed suggest we approach the study of
literary texts?
A: Ahmed suggests approaching the study of literary texts by
considering their socio-political and material contexts, ensuring a more
comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their significance and
impact.