Imperialism and Exile

Said categorizes exile in a number of ways, most important of which he says it is an existence that is deeply rooted alongside questions of nationalism, when one's looking at questions of identity. Speaking specifically to how nationalism and exile are connected with each other he says that 'the interplay between nationalism exile is like Hegel's dialectic of servant and master, opposites informing and constituting each other'; what he means to say is that in order for somebody to feel what it is to be like in exile he must first be able to identify himself with a nation/nationality. Only then can he be free to assert his exilic identity and produce work from such a position.

My contention so far with Ibn-ul-Vaqt, a story primarily occupied with imperial occupation has so far in the book very little to do with questions of exile and nationalism. In order for one to generate any kind of nationalism, there are certain prerequisites that need to be met. A defined territory, qualities or characteristics that are assigned by a superior governing body, common cultural, linguistic, societal traits and the belief that we're part of a larger whole.

Imperialism will, in my opinion give rise to nationalistic sentiment from the very beginning, which may eventually lead to questions of exile. But so far in the book the narrator is primarily concerned with differences in historical races, rather than nationalisms. That's apparent from muslim and hindu traditions that are borne out of these peoples interaction with the British.