Imperialism and Exile

An essential distinction Said makes in his Reflections on Exile is one between “us” and the “outsiders”; a distinction intrinsically indispensable to the legacy of colonialism in the subcontinent. Drawing from this set distinction, Nazir Ahmed’s Ibn-ul-Vaqt seems to fit perfectly the frame of a displaced individual pitted against an “uncomprehending society”. Caught up in the constant struggle between traditionalism and the newly imported Anglicism, Ibn ul-Vaqt faces a sort of self-exile; one induced by his “inclination” to adopt the English lifestyle at the very time it were deemed “blasphemous”. Nazir Ahmed clearly establishes his protagonists leaning towards the way of the British from the inception of his literary work, but it is truly emphasized in his analogical representation of Ibn ul-Vaqt’s adaptation as an almost religious act; with the Noble Sahib as the facilitating Baptist. These religious connotations indicate both the contempt of the society at large,; by adopting British customs Ibn ul-Vaqt would become an exiled muslim, almost as if he had prescribed to a new faith.

 Nazir Ahmed further shows the hostility of the native towards the colonizer through the feeling of loss felt at what the natives felt was a ‘staining’ of the last cultural identity that remained intact; language. However, by using highly personal settings such as the home of the protagonist, Nazir Ahmed introduces the very “humanistic” aspect of exile which Said believed exilic literature excluded; Ibn ul-Vaqt’s house becomes a symbol of both his lost traditions and customs and his future “transcendental homelessness”, but simultaneously, his ability to give refuge to newer customs, or ones that he believed were progressive (his invitation of Noble Sahib to the confines of his home is symbolic of his invitation for reform which is consummated with his future visits to Noble Sahibs domain). But perhaps Nazir Ahmed more importantly wished to highlight the role of the British in reforming India; he thus emphasizes the camaraderie between Ibn ul-Vaqt and Noble Sahib, thus setting the stage to then indicate that the reform Noble Sahib inculcates in Ibn ul-Vaqt is indeed a positive and progressive one, however, one that hostile society at large could not perceive as being such. To Nazir Ahmed, Imperialism had its catch for the native, and was not merely an exploitative socially darwinistic entity. 

Ibn ul-Vaqt then becomes an almost exilic figure; he is viewed by his own kind with both appreciation and apprehension, but through his literary technique, Nazir establishes that indeed he no longer belongs. He is neither truly part of the British, his insignificance dramatized by the award ceremony, and is neither part of the new surge of nationalistic Muslims conceived by the imperialistic overture of the British. Indeed, as displayed in the dinner scene, he is neither like Noble Sahib or the Khidmatdar, the colonizer and the colonized, yet is somewhere in the middle struggling to grasp or perhaps discover his disoriented identity. His is an inner conflict and struggle, in Said’s words, a solitude he must experience outside of the group, because such is the nature of imperialism. Thus, Nazir Ahmed’s protagonist inherently embodies what Said identifies as the ‘age of the refugee’, ravaged by the forces of imperialism and left on a solitary journey to rediscover his identity, thus symbolic of the era of imperialism and the rebirth of identity and nationalistic sentiment that it induced.