Meenakshi Mukherjee

UNTIL now, Indian English novel has been evaluated as an isolated and perhaps more
privileged and sophisticated stream of creativity within the rubric of Indian novel as a
whole. Its relationship complementary or contrasting with novel in bhasha
literatures has been overlooked for overtly political reasons. A dialogic encounter with
bhasha literature threatens to undermine its international claims as also its projection in
the media as the only authentic discourse of post-colonial India. It is usually alleged that
bhasha writers are parochial and therefore are qualified enough to express narrow
regional interests only.
Meenakshi Mukherjee, a well-known critic of Indian English fiction, in her latest critical
endeavour locates the cultural dynamics of Indian English fiction in the broader context
of Indian novel as a whole. This is definitely a step forward in the direction of Indian
English criticism as it wriggles out of the colonial hangover in its attempt to explore the
poetics of Indian English literature vis-a-vis bhasha literature.
In her earlier enterprise, "Realism and Reality", Mukherjee had speculated on the
possible lineage of Indian English novel from ancient Indian narratives lake the
Panchatantra, Kaadambari, Daskumarcharita, etc. In "The Perishable Empire", she shifts
her focus once again to the post-colonial fiction scenario but within a comparative frame
to underline its tensions and heterogeneity.
In her insightful opening chapter "Nation, novel, language", Mukherjee argues that in the
wake of colonial encounter, it was novel in Indian languages more than English writings
which received a major impetus. While Indian English novel lacked direction, in many of
the Macaulay-maligned dialects, it soon matured and forged its respective traditions in a
definite manner. She observes, "While novels in Bangla, Marathi, Malayalam and other
languages soon consolidated their strengths and initiated literary traditions that continue
to this day, scores of English novels written in the late 19th and early 20th century are
virtually forgotten now." She quite significantly adds: "By the turn of the century novel in
the vernaculars had become a major vehicle of political dissent, positing in fictional
terms what was not yet feasible in the arena of action, novel after novel in English paid
direct or veiled tribute to imperial rule."
More than a theoretician, Mukherjee is known for her meticulous archival research. She
analyses more than 60 rather obscure novels in English written by Indian between 1830
and 1930 a period seldom taken into account to theorise the history of Indian English
novel. She discovers certain distinct tendencies in early Indian English fiction. One, early
"Indian English novelists displayed their acquaintance with the classics of western
literature more readily than did Indian-language novelists". Two,"Novels in English hardly
ever provide us with examples of self-reflexivity about the language they use." Three,
this fiction catered only to male readership for the knowledge of English was a malespecific skill in the 19th century; novels in Indian languages on the other hand, had a
sizeable readership among women.
Indian English novel has its unique worries and anxieties. One overriding concern of
Indian English novelist has been to vindicate his Indianness, the choice of English as
medium of expression notwithstanding. One comes across a spate of articles, doctoral
dissertations on Indianness of Indian English writers writings, but it is unthinkable to
even imagine a thesis on Indianness of Marathi or Punjabi novel as such. This anxiety of
Indianness weighs so heavy on the imagination of Indian English novelist that more
often than not he ends up in presenting a rather homogenised or essentialised
perspective of India as a nation.
Mukherjee compares the enterprise of Indian English writings to "one-string instrument",
which even in the hands of a master like R.K.Narayan "cannot become a sitar or a
veena". According to her, the much-hyped Malgudi of Narayan lacks local colour, and
therefore it very easily lapses into "a metonymic relationship with India as whole". Also,
she adds, since English in India functions on relatively fewer registers, it does not allow
Indian writer in English the creative freedom to bring out the polyphony of Indian
character. Translation studies, institutionalised as they are, have divided us more than
ever before. Translation is no longer a "part of natural ambience", it is a self-conscious
act, a field of study. Instead of acting as a conduit of cultural transmission within
country, it is generating cultural divide among us. Mukherjee recalls that how earlier
Hindi-speaking women readers used to take Sharat Chandra as original Hindi writer; and
how students from Kerala in the 1970s and 1980s used to know about Premchands
"Godan".
The commodification or professionalisation of translation has resulted in the decline of its
quality. The fact that contemporary translation industry encourages translation from
native languages into English has destroyed the unofficial indigenous translation culture
which we as a multilingual society has always had. "Mutual translation" continues to be a
neglected area.
The very title of Mukherjees book, "The perishable Empire", however appears rather
wishful, and therefore unreal too. She intends to counter Macaulays claim of British
Empire as an "imperishable", one by way of asserting the unprecedented changes postcolonial history has undergone in terms of its deconstructive methodologies and
discursive practices. The slogan of writing back to Empire is more hype than truth.
Empire continues to dictate to us in ways that are too subtle to be underplayed.
Second, the writer is carried away by her Bangla heritage. Novelists or poets belonging
to Bengal or Bihar receive preferential treatment. By underplaying Sanskrit as an
alternative to English imperialism, Mukherjee is hinting towards the regionalisation of
Indian novel. Such regionalisation is welcome provided it is not done at the cost of the
nation. Moreover by asserting different trajectories of novel in different Indian
languages, she seems to suggest a total absence of Indianness per se in these novels.

Meenakshi Mukherjee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meenakshi Mukherjee

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Meenakshi Mukherjee

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNTIL now, Indian English novel has been evaluated as an isolated and perhaps more

You might also like