Exile and identity

Before delving into the dynamics of exile, it is interesting to note how explicitly Said differentiates the tangential approach he takes as opposed to the celebrated exile literary works specifically those of the Lost Generation of 1920s. Exile, according to Said, is not quantified by melancholic musings over existentialist questions. Rather, he calls it a predicament 'produced by human beings for other human beings'. Exile is not a condition engineered by a man combating against abstract notions of a materialistic society he cannot bear; nor is it a phenomena subject to an individual's whim of actively distancing himself from the society. On the contrary, exile is grounded in the notion of denied agency and power dynamics at play. Hence, Said defines exile as a deliberate attempt by one party to claim supremacy over the other.

This turf war, however, goes beyond merely overpowering a certain entity. In fact, the ostracization involved actively demonizes the threatening Other to an extent were the concept of what it means to be you equals all that the Other is not or can never be. Subsequently, concepts like nationalism organically emerge when a set group asserts its legitimacy over a geographical domain and the epithets assumed to connote national cohesion automatically adopt an exclusionary air. To be ‘unified’ automatically assumes the subtext of being unified against, notions of common religious, ethical or racial identity unashamedly marginalize minorities, reinforcing national pride accentuates irreconcilable differences etc. Hence, Said mentions how ‘slightest deviation from accepted group line is an act of rankest treachery and group disloyalty’. Therefore, ironically congruent, exile and nationalism are mere conditions where one entity effectuates its agency by excluding the other. What Said calls a ‘contrapuntal’ relationship is therefore subject to perception: one man’s freedom fighter; another’s terrorist.

Apart from the violence shaping nation states and corresponding exile groups, the dilemma is worsened when the exile’s desire for homeland becomes parallel to rigid exclusionary patriotism of nationalism. Consequently, the violence which made the Jews homeless reasserts itself when they claim territorial right as in the case of Palestine.

Another aspect of dilemma wrecked by the dislocated notions of identity is that observed by Nazir Ahmed’s titular character, Ibn-ul-Vaqt. The estrangement or isolation characteristic of the exilic are multiplied two fold whereby the clash is not only between the imperial rulers and Muslim subjects but also among the latter. While political rules entail obeying those in authority, hostility is evident by the Head Maulvi shaking hands with ‘Laat Sahib’ and later washing the ‘impure limb’. This hostility is not only directed towards the imperial rulers but all that they represent with plain mud pulling ranks over the benign ‘angrezi sabun’. The hatred in fact later evolves into subverting the very idea of being Muslim dictated by not being British. Similarly, conflict is seen over smoking cigarettes on the train or in the hysteria following Ibn-ul-Vaqt notoriously long lunch with the Noble Sahab regardless of Quran’s reference to the People of the Book.

Conclusively, the realms observed within the two readings barely allow the individual to form any rational agency, regardless of him belonging to a nation or an exile group. His thoughts, actions, beliefs etc. are governed by either what differentiates him from the Other or by what the group mentality deems appropriate.