The first lecture organised by the newly reconstituted IACLALS was
held on March 22nd 1993 at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and was delivered by
Dr. Satendra Nandan, Fijian writer and former cabinet minister, who is now at the
University of Canberra, Australia. His topic, not surprisingly, was "An Enigma of
Exile: Literature and Politics". Prof. Meenakshi Mukherjee was in the chair.
Since it
was the first meeting of the Association in New Delhi, and since many new and potential
members were present, Dr. Harish Trivedi, the new secretary, delineated the history of
Commonwealth Literature Studies and made an eloquent plea that the limits of this
discipline should not be set by the language. Instead of English, colonial history should
be seen as the common denominator and the practice of Commonwealth Literature Studies
should include other languages of the Commonwealth as well.
Prof.
Meenakshi Mukherjee agreed with him and stressed the importance of splitting
"Commonwealth" into "common" and "wealth" which would then
valorise pluralism and heterogeneity, granting equal status to all cultures and
literatures.
Dr.
Satendra Nandan began his talk by underlining the significance of Commonwealth Literature
Studies programmes. He recounted how he first came across this breed of writers at the
University of Leeds when he registered for a course offered by Prof. C.D. Narasimhaiah. He
hadn't read even Indian writers in English when he had studied at an Indian University
earlier. Reading Commonwealth Literature changed his life because it gave him the
confidence to write about his own experience, made him realise how important this
articulation was. Fiji had no written literatures and the Mahabharata and the Ramayana
were such overwhelming and powerful texts, they prevented people from seeing the world
around them.
He argued
for a redefinition of Literature Studies programmes; moving away from the traditional
English concept to that of Culture Studies. He noted that though he had floated the idea
long ago, there still was no centre established to conduct and collate research on the
Indian diaspora. He pointed to the ignorance among even the intellectual community about
the nature and fate of Fiji Indians, and the nature of the coup that took place in Fiji.
Dr. Nandan
then through description of his own career showed how a writer has to be political because
all writers believe in values and have to constantly challenge and redefine those they see
as wrong. Being the first writer in Fiji (both as a poet and a novelist) he spoke for and
about the Indian community articulating a new consciousness of rootlessness and
fragmentation.
He said
that the "migrant" was a metaphor for man. |
Migration means more than people moving across frontiers, it also
includes the movement of ideas. The migrant experience is like the putting forth of new
roots by a banyan tree. The migrant writer is now involved in a reconstitution of
fragmentation, in accessing a new world instead of bits of the world.
Dr.Nandan
asked what a writer should do in a situation like Fiji's which threatened a second
deracination-react with silence, exile and cunning? He replied that writers have a very
important role to play to force people to see the truth. He expressed his disappointment
with the academicians in Australia and New Zealand who don't see the reality of Fiji. The
Fijian writer has to examine the myths created by Europeans which still exercise their
influence-e.g. that of the South-Pacific paradise. The world of reality was of course very
different.
The writer
is like Lord Shiva, he said. She/he has to drink the poison and reflect. His/her duty is
to make others recognise evil. He stressed that creativity is the most potent weapon
against any party. The indigenous and the migrant are two eyes in the vision of the
Fijian.
In the
lively discussion that followed, Dr. Satendra Nandan reiterated that if he hadn't read
V.S. Naipaul, he wouldn't have felt his environment was significant. New writings have
changed the very definition of English literature, he said taking the example of Salman
Rushdie. When Harish Narang and others questioned the need to extend the frontiers of
Commonwealth Literature Studies pointing to the objectionable nature of colonial and
post-colonial interventions by Britain, Dr. Nandan said that English was no longer the
language of the English alone. He also said that he finds "Commonwealth" a more
acceptable term than "Post-Colonial" or "New Literatures in English".
When Ranga
Rao asked him whether India was an area of darkness to him too, Dr. Nandan replied that he
had found his light here (referring to his Indian wife, Jyoti). He then said that
Naipaul's experience was different and went on to say that usually Indian migrants carry
little Indias with them and cannot come to terms with the larger India. He also said that
he was not a believer in the Great Indian Tradition for after all his grand parents had
been expelled by that very tradition. But, he said, India was his second home.
He then
answered questions on colonization, canonization, and acceptance of immigrant writings in
various national literatures. He felt that one should not deny the past, even colonial. He
also said that the British Empire wasn't the longest empire. Canonization and acceptace
are a matter of time and he warned that we were in no position to moralize to others! The
session ended with Dr. Nandan reading out a poem "Siddharth" from his
collection, Voices in the River. A Vote of Thanks was proposed by S.K. Sareen. |
