Contemporary English Writing in India - JPCS
Contemporary English Writing in India - JPCS Contemporary English Writing in India - JPCS
Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic) globalized world than others written in Assamese, Tamil, Telugu or Marathi, to mention a few. For the Western literary critic, such writing deals with culturally Indian topics, uses a different kind of English, and opens up a radically distinct vision of reality. It is at this point when Literature should be written in capital letters for here resides one of the most important values of this art. Indian writing in English per se can provide, I believe, to any reader of English something genuinely Indian that remains out of reach for a wider audience in literature written in other Indian languages. In addition, approaching English writing in India does not necessarily entails the negation of the existence of other literatures written in India in any of the many languages spoken nowadays or prior to the colonization of India. It is naïve, in my view, on the part of the reader and of the academia to believe that taking into consideration English literary production in India negates the existence of literature written in other languages, especially in a country in which multilingualism is such a common place. A serious approach to literature written in English in India can only acknowledge the existence of a continuous inter-influence among coexisting languages and literary traditions in India and delve into how this writing enlarges and resituates our assumptions about reality and literature. Another interesting fact is that the papers accepted exclusively deal with women writers, namely Kamala Das, Indira Goswami, Shashi Deshpande and Meena Kandasamy. All of these artists are at least bilingual. Das writes in Malayalam and English, Goswami in Assamese and English, Deshpande only writes in English but speaks Kannada, Marathi and Sanskrit fluently, and Kandasamy writes in English but speaks Tamil. These writers are very heterogeneous in their life and literary trajectories. Das and Goswami died recently and their place within international literature is already secured. The same can be said of Deshpande, but she is a living Editorial. Cristina M. Gámez-Fernández. JPCS. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012. 4
Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Print); 1948-1853 (Electronic) author. Kandasamy, on the contrary, is an emerging and promising artist who has broken ground in poetry initially, and is now working in prose. If one looks at the map of India having these writers in mind, one can see that different parts of the national territory are represented: Das was born and lived in the South of India, in Kerala; Goswami in Northeastern India, in Assam; Deshpande was born in Karnataka but has lived in Mumbai and Bangalore, all of these territories in the West in India; and Kandasamy in the Southeast of India, in Chennai. Priya Menon deals with Das’ My Story and considers questions of gender construction in upper caste Kerala in the novel and its complex intermingling with writing. Kumar Sankar Battacharya explores Goswami’s The Moth-Eaten Howdah of the Tusker and the short story “The Offspring” in order to reflect upon the interconnectedness of notions like caste and class in India. Maninder Kapoor and Seema Singh approach Deshpande’s That Long Silence as a way delve into the question of feminist narratology by pointing out the features associated to Deshpande’s writing and to a genuinely feminist writing. Finally, Abin Chakraborty examines Kandasamy’s Touch and reveals how her poems counteract readers’ prejudices in relation to Dalit culture and people by giving voice to silenced historical past and current events. This issue also includes two short stories. Anway Mukhopadhyay’s Letter from the Brotherland opens up a new territory, a private—yet universal—urge which leads readers to a reconsideration of India. On the other hand, S. Krishnamoorthy Aithal’s Samudramanthana, the Churning of the Ocean discloses a fresh and alternative conception of culture in its wider sense. Upon looking back at the work done, it is nonetheless unavoidable to think of the great health of Indian writing in English, despite Western (conscious or not) unawareness of its existence. Many other Indian writers could have been studied here but what remains the key Editorial. Cristina M. Gámez-Fernández. JPCS. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012. 5
- Page 1 and 2: Journal of Postcolonial Cultures an
- Page 3: Journal of Postcolonial Cultures an
- Page 7 and 8: Journal of Postcolonial Cultures an
Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies<br />
ISSN No. 1948-1845 (Pr<strong>in</strong>t); 1948-1853 (Electronic)<br />
globalized world than others written <strong>in</strong> Assamese, Tamil, Telugu or Marathi, to mention a few.<br />
For the Western literary critic, such writ<strong>in</strong>g deals with culturally <strong>India</strong>n topics, uses a different<br />
k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>English</strong>, and opens up a radically dist<strong>in</strong>ct vision of reality. It is at this po<strong>in</strong>t when<br />
Literature should be written <strong>in</strong> capital letters for here resides one of the most important values of<br />
this art. <strong>India</strong>n writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>English</strong> per se can provide, I believe, to any reader of <strong>English</strong><br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g genu<strong>in</strong>ely <strong>India</strong>n that rema<strong>in</strong>s out of reach for a wider audience <strong>in</strong> literature written <strong>in</strong><br />
other <strong>India</strong>n languages. In addition, approach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>English</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>India</strong> does not necessarily<br />
entails the negation of the existence of other literatures written <strong>in</strong> <strong>India</strong> <strong>in</strong> any of the many<br />
languages spoken nowadays or prior to the colonization of <strong>India</strong>. It is naïve, <strong>in</strong> my view, on the<br />
part of the reader and of the academia to believe that tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to consideration <strong>English</strong> literary<br />
production <strong>in</strong> <strong>India</strong> negates the existence of literature written <strong>in</strong> other languages, especially <strong>in</strong> a<br />
country <strong>in</strong> which multil<strong>in</strong>gualism is such a common place. A serious approach to literature<br />
written <strong>in</strong> <strong>English</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>India</strong> can only acknowledge the existence of a cont<strong>in</strong>uous <strong>in</strong>ter-<strong>in</strong>fluence<br />
among coexist<strong>in</strong>g languages and literary traditions <strong>in</strong> <strong>India</strong> and delve <strong>in</strong>to how this writ<strong>in</strong>g<br />
enlarges and resituates our assumptions about reality and literature.<br />
Another <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g fact is that the papers accepted exclusively deal with women writers,<br />
namely Kamala Das, Indira Goswami, Shashi Deshpande and Meena Kandasamy. All of these<br />
artists are at least bil<strong>in</strong>gual. Das writes <strong>in</strong> Malayalam and <strong>English</strong>, Goswami <strong>in</strong> Assamese and<br />
<strong>English</strong>, Deshpande only writes <strong>in</strong> <strong>English</strong> but speaks Kannada, Marathi and Sanskrit fluently,<br />
and Kandasamy writes <strong>in</strong> <strong>English</strong> but speaks Tamil. These writers are very heterogeneous <strong>in</strong><br />
their life and literary trajectories. Das and Goswami died recently and their place with<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational literature is already secured. The same can be said of Deshpande, but she is a liv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Editorial. Crist<strong>in</strong>a M. Gámez-Fernández. <strong>JPCS</strong>. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012.<br />
4
Change language