274 Reviews
Nyla All Khan. The Fiction of Nationality in an Era of Trans-nationalism. New York and London: Routledge, 2005. 132 pp.$65 (hardcover)
At the first glance, it appears that Nyla Ali Khan has attempted tocover more than the scope of The Fiction of Nationality in an Era ofTransnationalism can accommodate, thus overextending her analysis.However, it quickly becomes evident that one of the book's greateststrengths is the author's ability concisely to invoke and assess complexand far-reaching material. Khan accomplishes much in this slimvolume, which is appropriately specialized without becomingcumbersome, and theoretically intricate without being tedious.
The scope of this book is indeed ambitious, as Khancomprehensively examines four Anglophone South Asian authors, V.S.Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Amitav Ghosh, and Anita Desai. Theseauthors, as Khan illustrates, differ aesthetically and politically,dramatically in some cases, and so treating them conjointly in onestudy is not a simple undertaking. Khan quickly proves up to the task,combining theoretical contextualization with literary criticism withoutever becoming didactic or reductive. Khan, for instance, is critical ofNaipaul's nonfiction travelogue, Beyond Belief, whose less-than-flattering presentation of Islam Khan attributes to Naipaul's "support ofHindu extremism" (6). Yet Khan never becomes polemical, wiselynoting that "Naipaul does critique myths of origin and of nationalsensibility in his novels" (6). This sort of nuance contributes to what onthe whole is a prudent and insightful analysis.
The most interesting aspect of Khan's theoretical discussion is herassessment of transnationalism, an emphasis promised by the book'stitle. This assessment is skeptical of the ability of transnationalcommunities to deterritorialize the "various socioeconomic, political,and cultural practices and identities" associated with the nation-state.In fact, Khan presents the more acute and relevant argument that"transnational politics often lead to cultural and religious fanaticism byemphasizing a conception of identity polarized between the `authentic'and the `demonic"' (2). This binary conception of identity, according toKhan, has led Anglophone South Asian authors to examinetransnational identities as they are negotiated in western spaces. Hermethodology, then, offers "a critical dialogue between [works byNaipaul, Rushdie, Ghosh, and Desai] and the contemporary historythey encounter, using history to interrogate fiction and using fiction tothink through historical issues" (2).
This conception of critical inquiry as interrogation is particularlynoteworthy, as it has the propensity to effect injunctive modes of
South Asian Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 1, 2006.
Reviews 275
literary investigation. It is to Khan's credit that her actual literarycriticism does not conform to the limited connotations of interrogation.Instead, she treats the four authors central to her book with greatnuance, illustrating how their relationship with various transnationalthemes opens spaces in which both historical phenomena and fictiverepresentations of history can be more fully understood and developed.Her engagement with Naipaul's contentious, often contradictory workis especially interesting, arising as it does from an impressive criticalmaturity where polemical response would perhaps be the moreconvenient and emotionally-satisfying approach.
Khan also explores, in India, "the uncritical reversion tofundamentalism and the superficial creation of a `unified' politicalidentity in the wake of nationalist movements led to an erosion of uniqueand distinctive cultural identities" (10). She later transfers thisobservation to a literary setting, noting that Naipaul, Rushdie, Ghosh,and Desai all "have attempted to retrieve histories that have beendistorted or erased in discourses of power" (14), though each authorundertakes this sort of attempt with sometimes vastly different styles andcommentaries. The conclusion to be drawn from these cosmopolitanapproaches, and what ultimately binds the four diverse authors, is thecommon realization "that in the mixed, heterogeneous space oftransnationalism, cultural and linguistic authenticity is a pipe dream"(15). Of course, it is the fact of vast diversity among the four authorsthat first leads Khan to this belief.
On a broader note, I would daresay that Khan's conclusions abouttransnationalism among South Asian communities would-with,certainly, relevant variations-also hold true of the Arab, African, andEast Asian diasporas. There is much in her argument of value as wellto migratory Latin American communities as well. Indeed, Khan'stheoretical analysis-and here I have in mind her justifiable dislike ofinvented national identities becoming the backbone of politicalmovements-as something worth exploring in the context of today'sUnited States, which not only hosts many of the transnational, diasporiccommunities of interest to Khan but also is grappling with its own formof patriotic fundamentalism. Citizens of any nation (or of multiplenations) would do well to heed Khan's warning that such nationalisticmoves can wreak, and have wreaked, havoc (12).
Scholars interested in South Asian Studies, postcolonial theory,ethnic studies, literary criticism, or critical race theory would likewisedo well to pick up The Fiction of Nationality in an Era of Trans-nationalism. Albeit slim, it contributes much to the ongoing debates inthese fields over the role of literature in history and the influence ofhistory on literature.
Steven SalaitaVirginia Tech
