Imperialism and Exile

Imperial rule robs the ruled of identity: the philosophy, the way of thinking, the culture and the language with which one attaches one’s self. Presence of an identity is hence tantamount to one’s self being at satisfied ease and this brings to light the notion of being at home. The exilic experience destroys the process of the realization of this notion and it breaks the previously-tangible identity into numerous pieces. What follows hereafter is a scramble; a certain sort of a desperate struggle to latch onto, what Edward Said calls, a dominant ideology which puts one at a similar ease as did one’s shattered identity.

So far in the novel, I was able to identify the realization of three ideologies in the imperial setting. The first one is epitomized by “Willy-nilly the Head Maulvi” (1) of Delhi College whose reaction to the handshake with the high-ranking British official speaks volumes. It firstly highlights the acceptance of the British as the authority upon which depends one’s bread and butter; it secondly shows the unyielding contempt of the Indians towards the British. The narrator of the story also seems to be of the same ideology: his anger at the British having “destroyed our munificence and wealth, business and trade… our customs and traditions, dress and manners, our ways of life, religion and science … our language” (5-6) is a strong statement of contempt and derision towards the British. This ideology also had attached to it a strong religious sentiment. The second ideology which I identified is that which is exhibited by Ibn ul Vaqt. To him, the superiority of the “British Identity” was a concrete fact that he accepted without contempt, but despite this he stuck to the “traditional lifestyle” (2) as that was, according to the values ingrained in him by his family, “essential for nobility” (2). The third and last ideology which I was able to identify was that depicted by the servants of Noble Sahib’s house when Ibn ul Vaqt visits for a meal. Being of the same skin color and once belonging to the same ideology as Ibn ul Vaqt’s, their clear mockery of his eating mannerisms in an Englishman’s house highlights an ideology, which attaches a certain sense of superiority in identifying oneself with the “British Identity”. It is however, very ironic that those who mocked Ibn ul Vaqt on his “inferior” mannerisms, were servants of the Englishman who regarded Ibn ul Vaqt as his friend and hence of an equal status as his. This third ideology is also made apparent through the narrator’s rant against those Indians who, after a four or five year stay in Britain, either forgot or, as a pretense, pretended to forget, Urdu in favor of English.

Despite of being of the same land and of the same ancestors the Muslims in particular had different and often contradicting identities. This precisely solidifies the exilic experience which had shrouded their beings.