Fewzia Bedjaoui

Indian Women Cries of the Other India

Writing for Indian women among others is a way of expressing feelings of suffering, loneliness, frustration, fear, alienation as well as hopes and dreams. It is a solitary activity, sometimes underestimated, unrewarded and clandestine, because the patriarchal norms simply fix what is adequate and relevant both in content and form. Writing is, thus, undertaken within socio-cultural and political constraints. Since writing represents a political claim, social responsibility resides in writing, in reading and responding to matters. Yet, this inevitably leads to the issues of Indian fundamentalism vs. Indian women in English literature. The fundamentalists’ struggle to live according to the principles of a sole exclusive religious ideology has promoted intolerance for the other culminating in violence and murder justified as the command of God to bring the other to the right path. Religion has an answer for every question and doubt since the truth has been revealed once for all: the Sacred Book, in the case of the Hindus: The Vedas .The weight of moral responsibility, the freedom to choose is taken off the women’s shoulders. Yet, the rise of prominence of Hindu fundamentalism has left its print on culture and at the literary level, women writers have sought to represent it and its consequential clashes in their novels. The enlightened or modern belief that cultures and people can be mixed and enrich one another is not taken for granted. In the case of The God of Small Things, fundamentalism, regarding gender, caste, religion and politics is perceived from below, i.e. the political murder of the Paravan Velutha. The impact of fundamentalism is seen through conceptualising the body and expression of feelings. Its representation is not intellectual. But, Roy has been harshly criticized for her passionate voice and her Booker Prize. It is novel that engages the ups and downs of religious and secular identities, as it had been the case for S. Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. The Indian critical reception of the The God of Small Things in particular raises the question of censorship for women writers in India. Certainly, censorship is applied by a great range of institutions involving the vernacular press, the rightist cultural national, political groups symbolizing patriarchy, as well as those Indian women who condemn the freedom of expression for women. Usually, censorship prevails when literary establishments deny publication of women’s works because the writing lacks literary merit or commercial audience. Probably, their objections for publishing have to do with content. Writing is to be uncritical of Indian norms and values: any Indian woman writer who criticizes patriarchal chauvinistic values or promotes the Western inculcated ideas faces publishers, home disdain as it is shown by Roy’s The God of Small Things criticism. They must not make their family life the subject of their writing and allow the writing to get in the way of their primary roles of good housewives, mothers and daughters. That means therefore, that writing must be done only in the time and space left over from completing the duties that come with these roles. In the case of Roy, extremist Hindus and politicians denigrated and ridiculized her writing probably in order to make The God of Small Things inaccessible to its audience and to keep the author from writing. Roy, Indian writer and activist, spells out the many faces of censorship in her native country, which to this day, attempt to silence Indian women while her The God of Small Things is released with wide publicity and has been reviewed extensively, notably in the U.S.A. and Europe. Once more, Indian women writers have not to challenge the Indian socio-cultural constraints.

The writing of Indian women vs. men tends to be marginalized because the Indian literary tradition is represented by Indian patriarchal interests. Inevitably, to the question why women writers have received scant attention from Indian post-colonial critics, the standard answer was that the output of women’s writing is quite poor or obscene without entering the post-modern debate on the deconstruction of the frontier between high culture and mass culture. The argument that women writers were not active in literary production is simply untenable, for the illustration of Kali Publishing shows the opposite. Indian male critics may quickly point out that Western literary awards are not reliable indicator of the artistic achievement of women writers, as the Indian local mass media serve the interests of the author. The relationship between the media and socio-religious / political hegemonic forces is certainly justified: it needs to impose an entire negation of the merits of the works that have been awarded. Perhaps the rejection of literary awards as an adequate criterion of evaluation gives one a clue to the problematic relationship of women’s writing to local politics. Thus, winning literary awards abroad does not necessarily mean one would be recognized as an important writer at home, notably Roy.

Then, the voices of Indian women represent or dismantle the traditional patriarchal values and ideals and / or attempt at creating their own culture. Indeed, Feminist Publishing in India, including Kali For Women and Zubaan and Women Unlimited, is providing a stimulating publishing mouthpiece to Indian Feminism. It is not surprising, then, that it deals with a wide range of genres from English translations of important fictional writings by women from different Indian languages to particular women voices which redefine issues of women’s lives from traditional subversient roles assigned to them which stemmed from Hindu myths to a strong commitment to women’s rights and feminist activism. In India for example Countries of Goodbyes by Mridula Grag was translated from Hindi to English by Manisha Chaundhry (2003). Recollections (1986) and Our Existence (1986) , respectively by Shantabai and Baby Kamble were published at home, thanks to Subventions of the Commission for the Culture and Literature of the State in home languages (Marathi) and translated into French by Guy Poitevin (1991) entitled Parole de femme intouchable with La Fondation pour le Progrès de l’Homme. Even in Pakistan women’s writings such as So That You Can know Me , an anthology of Pakistani women writers, were translated from Punjabi, Pushto, Seraiki, Sindhi and Urdu by Yasmin Hameed and Asif Aslam Farrukhi (1997), through UNESCO’s Funds. More recently agencies prevail at both the local and state levels, respectively the Mehfil-e-Kawateen and the Karnataka Lekhakiyara Shanga to encourage Indian woman’s writing and publishing in all the different vernacular languages and English (Joseph ).

Besides, Mridula Grag stands really apart from the mainstream contemporary Hindi literature for a basic reason, i.e. for her audacious themes. English translation by Manisha Chaudhry of her 1996 best seller Kathgulab gives non Hindi readers access to her masterpiece and relevance to today’s literary world. Like Roy, she was arrested for obscene writing in Delhi but honoured with the 2001 Hellman Hammett Award for courageous writing Chittacobra ( 1979) by the New York Based Human Rights Watch. Perhaps that is the key to Grag’s success as a writer whether in Hindi or in translation. She voices the world of the contemporary Indian woman, unafraid to defy severe age-old norms and fight to re-shape the world. Indeed, translation is not an original product, but it opens a literary system to transformation and subversion. The English version of Indian writing could be highlighted by media and publishers, particularly giving worldly acclaim. Tagore’s Gitanjali (1913) conferred the writer the Nobel Prize for Literature, as well as established him as an international figure whose reputation is also outside the Bengali. Undoubtedly, the written word of Indian women writers has contributed to the outlining and definition of a culture which challenges Indian male hegemony and androcentric power relations and knowledge. One of the key issues raised in this context is the superiority or inferiority of Indian writing in English as compared to the literary production in the various languages of India. Consequential key concepts emerge, particularly superficial / authentic, imitative / creative, shallow / deep, elitist / parochial, critical / uncritical. India’s best writing is located from its independence (1947) and represented by those writers who write in English, notably those who reside in Western countries. It is probably a new celebration of the hegemony of the foreign, First World, colonizer’s language. It becomes a new form of colonialism, especially cultural. Recent writers such as S. Rushsdie and Amit Chaudhuri brought debateful remarks on Indian writing in English, respectively in The Vintage Book of Indian Writing (1997) and The Picador Book of Modern Indian Literature (2001) while Amitav Ghosh refused to be confered the Eurasian Commonwealth Writers Prize for his novel The Glass Palace in 2001, showing his open disapproval for the categorization of Indian writing in English under the labelling postcolonial, as too limiting. Such Western behaviours and viewpoints will probably spark off ever-lasting debates with increasing research and Indian novel writing in English. Yet, English writing suggests the creation of a new postcolonial identity. It is noteworthy to question the validity of the corpus of Indian writing in English on the grounds of relevance to an Indian audience. It remains the cultural voice of a specific class and thus one of the hegemonic effects of British colonialism in India. The authentic India lies certainly outside authors who write in English and their readers. There are those Indian writers who confine themselves to the use of vernacular languages, notably Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayam which reflects Indian socio-cultural and political values. One of the ironies of prolific theoretical works is that it recognizes that writing in English is an impact of British colonialism and yet is more than a century and a half old. The part of indigenous languages in the context of nationalism needs stressing as they wish to preserve and celebrate an authentic culture. Does that mean that writing in English in India will be replaced by Indian languages? No relevant answer can be given.

Being an impact of Western colonialism, writing in English is related to irrelevance and impoverishment, for the period of British domination is one of decline, failure and loss for Indians. To give all men an English mind (Fox) is pretentious since the majority of Indians cannot speak or understand English and literature written in English is far from mirroring an authentic India. Education remains a privilege for the two upper classes of society, the Brahmans and the Kshattriyas. Nationalist writers deny the legitimacy of English and locate those who use it in what is ostensibly an ankward situation. But, has any one writing in Bengali or Hindi felt the compulsion or need to defend his use of medium? Indian authors justify their commitment to the language being chosen as Kamala Das did in her poem An Introduction, or resolve to write back in their mother tongue, as R. Parthasarathy did in the Tamil language (Ibid). In this context, the Indo-Anglian writer remains neo-colonialist, standing outside the general framework of Indian literature refering to religious and autobiographical writing. Undoubtedly, the part of vernacular writing in relation to nationalist assertions, notably cultural nationalism including decolonization, cannot be underestimated. The role of the woman or man writer as a spokesperson is reserved for the vernacular writer. The focus has been on common themes or certain responses to social realities. But, there is a hiatus between the real world and its fictive universe. Realism implies transparency while experiment acknowledges its artifice and hybridity. Even if a writer like Narayan, whose reputation in the West is greatly dependent on his capacity for realistic portrayal, the response from the Indian audience is moderate because he addresses to a different audience, while Samskara(1976) by U.R. Arnatha Murphy inspired indignation and anger at home.

Furthermore, there is a crucial difference between Anglo-Indian and Indo-Anglian women writing. The former uses an Indian subject matter but is written by Western author for the West. The latter is written by Indians using Indian subject matter but transformed in order to suit a Western or Westernized audience. Given the complexity of the political, social and cultural situation, it is hardly surprising that women writings are tempted to insert stereotypes, for the novel in English has a specific audience in mind and the issue of style requires the author to pretend that the characters speak English.

Yet, Indo-Anglian women writing remains Indian. It is concerned with the quest for an Indian identity: the notion of separateness from English culture and the need for self-identity

We cannot write like English. We should not...We in India, think quickly, and we move quickly.There must be something in the sun of India that makes us rush and tumble and run on. And our paths are interminable (Ibid).

Indian writing cannot be entirely Indian or Western: the Indian women writers consider themselves more secure within a traditional framework of values or might perceive themselves to be outsiders. Are they native-aliens, as said Bhabha in the Location of Culture?

If Indo-Anglian writing has a purpose and an audience, it might be a consequence of desiring to address the ambiguity of all perceptions or deceptions that have paraded as truth. Particularly, the vision Indian women writers, notably Roy in The God of Small Things and Mukherjee in Jasmine projects is one of marginalization. At the heart of their literary enterprise is a profound need to question , to challenge . Indeed, the questionning, the sense of marginalization and subversion are a consequence of socio-cultural conditions prevailing in India. Yet, the challenge is to overcome the difficulty in allying home reality with its Western representations, to write across diverse cultures and transcend the boundaries of a national identity, to recognize the voice of this other India where two cultures interwine in English Indian writing but which may not be really understood by a home audience.

Literature remains one of many forms of writing which plays a role in the constitution of the subject and the production of messages about women and men are similar in this society. Indian woman literature can be seen as a literature of resistance, giving voice to the historically marginalized groups. Women writing is, thus, a kind of boundary crossing borderwork: women writers are crossing the previously defined disciplinary boundaries of various national literatures. Crossing the linguistic border involves the development of changing speaking identities that reveal various aspects of women identities. Borderlands may feed growth and exploration, for choices and comparisons arise at frontiers: their enigma challenges them to examine, resist, and exploit lines of divisions within themselves and to test intellectual limits. The border has been a privileged trope for feminist activity. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1988) sees feminism as the movement with the greatest radical potential within literary criticism. Indeed, criticism includes analyzing and reflecting upon limits (Code 396).Indeed, Indian woman literature as a whole repeats the quest for self-authenticity and determination which features the growth of a specific literary identity. Cultures are thus, transplanted into a new context of use and that involves a constant negotiation and renegotiation of the priority of race, culture and gender within the surrounding social context.

Works Cited

Bhabha, Homi . The Location of Culture.London: Routledge,1991

Fox, Margalit. “Raja Rao, Indian Novelist and Scholar, Is Dead at 97”in The New York Times, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/arts/15rao.html

Hameed, Yasmin and Farrukhi, Asif Aslam. So That You Can Know Me Garnet: Reading, 1997

Joseph, Ammu. “The Censor Within” in The Hindu, 2001

Menon , Ritu. “ Gender-based Censorship ? Perhaps Not What you think”, 2004

www.wacc.org.uk/modules.php?name=news

Mukherjee, Bharati. Jasmine. New York: Grove Press, 1989

Poitevin, Guy. Parole de femme intouchable . Paris : Coté Femmes . Editions, 1991

Roy, Arundhati, The God of Small Things . New Delhi: IndiaInk, 1997

Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses .New York: Henri Holt, 1997

Rushdie, Salman and West, E. The Vintage Book of Indian Writing London : Vintage ,1997

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can The Subaltern Speak?”in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg; Urbana, Chicago Press

Syal, Meera. Anita and Me. London: Flamingo, 1996

Vaijayanti, Gupta. “The Guarded Tongue”, 2003