Salman Rushdie’s Concept of Wholeness in the Context of the Literature of India

Wholeness then can be understood as variety, versatility and complexity. Self-development occurs through the conscious integration of new facets, by our openness to change and by a certain control of our thoughts, emotions and inclinations. Instead of using words like uniformity or harmony, we should rather speak of integrated complexity. If parts of our selves are not integrated or if they are emphasised in a one-sided way, they prove to be an obstacle in achieving wholeness. They need to engage in a wellbalanced interaction with other aspects, which they do not dominate. We can illustrate this interaction between the various parts of the self by using an approach of Gestalt-psychology, which conceives the self as equilibrated structure. 1 This term describes a system of transformation, which regulates itself by striving towards equilibrium. Wholeness should also be seen as a relative instead of an absolute concept. Only then does it make sense to speak of the aim of working towards “greater wholeness”2 . In addition, we then start to regard individuals as agents who are responsible for their own lives.

Returning to my initial mentioning of wholistic approaches to individual wellbeing, I want to take up their notions of the interconnectedness between body, mind and conscience, a stance I have also purported in this study. Health in this approach leads to physical and psychological wholeness, which reflects balance between external and internal environments. 3 Consciousness of our human needs is involved here, which refers to both our physiological needs such as the need for food, sexual satisfaction and freedom from pain as well as our psychological needs like the need to be appreciated by and to be close to someone and spiritual needs like that of mental growth and enlargement. Only if we recognise our needs can we start a process of integrating them into a whole and, by then acting on them in a controlled way, become more healthy beings and especially more stable and secure in our selves. We thus attempt to maximise our potential. This includes also following our own goals and taking responsibility of our environment, which extends to other living beings that we interact with. The part of my study that focuses on Anglo-Indian texts has shown that wholeness is sometimes difficult to attain though.

This is particularly obvious in the colonial situation, which describes power-situations in which individuals are subjugated and often deprived of their humanity and individuality. Unsurprisingly, it has also frequently been difficult for individuals during the years after Independence to find and ascertain their own worth and values, which would have necessitated giving up the belief in the once-established hierarchical relations between the former colonizers and the colonised. The confusion most individuals experienced in this context has sometimes led to the adoption of radical forms of nationalism. Colonial policy has aggravated violent nationalisms between Indian groups, such as Hindu nationalism by making apparent differences blatantly obvious. However, Indian society itself has also often imposed restrictions on or has erected barriers between persons. These barriers have been strong between religious and ethnic groups where a person is expected to clearly be on one side. Individuals are also strictly categorised on the basis of caste, status and class and, although these divisions have partly loosened, they still exist and, as a result, reduce persons to some functional roles associated with the respective cause of division. Another crucial factor in Indian society has been the allocation of clearlydefined gender roles, which do often not leave much room for individual variation.

However, my analysis of the texts has shown how individuals have tried (and sometimes at least partly achieved) to deal with their national, ethnic, religious and other aspects of their identity in new ways that go beyond the specific set of expectations set by their social and cultural environment. While doing so, provided they are at the same time still an active part in that society, they are not only able to discover their more authentic selves, but also react back on the social fabric by introducing alternative ways of being and living. As a result, society might take some of these new elements up in return and become enriched. It is worth mentioning though that society also provides the person with possibilities of identification that foster individual development, for example through confronting them with certain elements, and does not merely pose as an obstacle to individual development. Salman Rushdie develops this interaction between the individual and society especially in the context of migration. To him, it is the notion of border-crossing that becomes central to individual and social development. He approaches the issue of border-crossing in a literal and in a metaphoric sense: In the post-colonial situation and in view of migration waves bordercrossing has been a striking phenomenon of movements of a great number of people.

As a result these migrants had to learn how to cross other, invisible borders, which can be of a linguistic, racial, national and / or ethnic nature. This involved learning how to live with insecurities and the confrontation with completely new ways of life, which led to a questioning of everything one was certain of. This process is presented as a chance to enrich one’s own experiences and to widen one’s horizon. Instead of borders and categorizations that leave persons in a clearly-defined, static sphere, there is now activity and movement, a constant intermingling of various spheres and aspects within the individual: The latter is thus predominantly hybrid and ambivalent by nature. As the search for meaning is a never-ending process, Rushdie emphasises the importance of questioning, deferment of meaning and the rejection of closure as important processes for self-development. In Rushdie’s writing the complexity of a person, which mirrors the complexity of the world, is reflected in his postmodern approach, which includes the technique of Magic Realism and post-colonial – such as linguistic – elements of hybridity.

Both Rushdie’s and the analysed Anglo-Indian texts reveal the strife of persons to establish meaning in their lives as something fundamental to identity. The tendency to develop and to undergo transformations by integrating new facets and to achieve wholeness in this way is acknowledged as a shared inclination in human nature. As individuals are social beings and part of collectives, wholeness has to contain a humaneness that reaches out to others and particularly displays openness, tolerance and imagination. Wholeness therefore implies being at home with oneself and in tune with the world.

Salman Rushdie as a Writer of Uncommon Talent

A large people of India still believe that English is a language of British people and hence it is truth that English men bring bitter feeling within our hearts. We must realize that to learn English language does not mean that we would evolve a slave attitude. English dialect with its extraordinary artistic legacy is never again a dialect of specific nation or race. English can now clearly be called“global lingua franca”. English is a medium for the establishment of an international mutual contact among the different natives of all over the world. It is a superb ‘window on the world’ and has tossed open to us a huge display or worldwide logical, artistic, social and political scene by which we have colossally picked up.

In Rushdie’s first work Grimus, he uses certain key thoughts of Sufi verse with regards to Western dream kind. Salman Rushdie used to bend English, the ruler’s language only a few decades ago, to his will and made it serve his motivation. Midnight Children denoted a defining moment in Indian English tale as well as in the historical backdrop of twentieth century writing and thoughts. Salman Rushdie uses the thematic and artistic work always invited new strategy which is usually reflected in its style of recitation. Most of his books express civic and private based events, past mythos and mythologies, sanity and fictional wit and sarcastic parody – within an artistic and semantic frame work which is generally restricted in his works. If Midnight’s children is about India, [3] his subsequent novel is about Pakistan and the situation since 1947. The is a fine purposeful anecdote in which Rushdie has utilized dream – with-a-fantasy idea all through the novel. The epic frequently stirs the sentiment of nauseate among perusers in view of unwarrantedly hostile comment among the prophet of Islam and sacred ‘Koran’. The narrative strategy that Rushdie uses is to represent the entire story as sequence from the dreams and nightmares of Gibreel Farishta.

A dream exertion that crushed the two commentators and perusers. This epic had composed for Victor Gollancz sci-fi rivalry, the book is in fact, a mission novel with a nonexistent setting that utilizes certain key thoughts of Sufi verse with regards to Western dream kind. This epic is fairly troublesome for a typical peruser and varies altogether from his later books.

Rushdie started to write the novel in 1975 when he was just ten years old and finished it in 1979. Salman Rushdie’s fame went wide spread with the circulation of his second novel, ‘Midnight’s Children’ in 1980. The volume secured the famous Booker Mcconnell prize for literature in 1981 and was received a scholarly perfect work of art. The honor gave it colossal attention and media inclusion, audits and articles, radio highlights and meetings. A sprawling humorous and aggressive book that mixes fact and fantasy with a linguistic extravaganza never seen in Indian writing in English before it invented new metaphors of nationhood. Midnight’s Children is reasonably a political novel and presents a practical picture of Indian legislative issues. He introduces the occasions in such an honest way, to the point that it shows up as though the political and verifiable situation of Indian sub-mainland has been redrawn. Rushdie’s writings style about the politics was similar to the writer Milan Kundra. Salman Rushdie used to bend English, the ruler’s language only a few decades ago, to his will and made it serve his motivation. Midnight Children denoted a defining moment in Indian English tale as well as in the historical backdrop of twentieth century writing and thoughts.

The entire cohort of new upcoming authors, mainly the male authors, like Amitav Ghosh, Allan Sealy, Shari Tharoor, Mukul Kesavan, Rohinton Mistry, Vikram Seth and Vikram Chandra etc., shadowed his paths. The thematic and artistic work always invited new strategy which is usually reflected in its style of recitation. His multifaceted eloquent genres have the newness in metaphors and idioms which is admired by most of the young authors. Most of his books express civic and private based events, past mythos and mythologies, sanity and fictional wit and sarcastic parody – within an artistic and semantic frame work which is generally restricted in his works. If Midnight’s children are about India, his subsequent novel is about Pakistan and the situation since 1947. As Rushdie claims, “The Country in the story is not only Pakistan but the two nations, factual and fictitious, that inhabits, the same interstellar”. Rushdie picks factually from Pakistani history, visualizes it and inflicts it, like a palimpsest, on the present country. Geography, history and persons are artistically re – created in the book to form the past in the present fable with the subject of Shame and brazenness. The book was banned in Pakistan but it won much grave acclamation.

The is a fine purposeful anecdote in which Rushdie has utilized dream – with-a-fantasy idea all through the novel. The epic frequently stirs the sentiment of nauseate among perusers in view of unwarrantedly hostile comment among the prophet of Islam and sacred ‘Koran’. The epic contains undesirable mocking comments against Hindu God ‘Hanuman’ moreover. The tale has arrived in contentions because of many sexual moments, obviously unimportant to the conspiracy that intertwined into the constituents of faith. Rushdie did not falter to label his cast who are very familiar as pious people. Rushdie accepts the truth that his personal knowledge of Islamic culture and religion has come into his fictional imagination. Rushdie says, “Actually, one of my major themes is religion and fanaticism”. He used the name “Mahound” instead of widely accepted “Mohammad”. He uses other religious names such as Hamaza, Ayesha, Ganesh, Hanuman etc, in its real form.

The narrative strategy that Rushdie uses is to represent the entire story as sequence from the dreams and nightmares of Gibreel Farishta as he broods over possible movie productions. The novel speaks about the whores of Jahilia imitating the appearance and idiosyncrasies of the Prophet’s wives; it is generally read by fundamentalist Muslims as slandering the real wives of the real Prophet. The controversy over The Satanic Verses has shown that the cross-cultural chasms, that have always posed problems in the reading of new literature in English. Rushdie’s satire is virulent in The Satanic Verses. Here he satirizes, Islamic fundamentalism hence the uproar in the Muslim World than resulted in the Ayatollah’s fatwah on Rushdie on 14 February 1989. The title, his distribution of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused quick discussion in the Islamic World because of its flippant portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad. India, South Africa, Pakistan, Saudhi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangaladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Qatar restricted this book. The book was formally signed in Bradford, England on January 1989. On February 12, five individuals were murdered by police gunfire amid a dissent in Islamabad Network.

In 1990, Rushdie distributed a paper ‘In God Faith’ to conciliate the pundits and delivered a conciliatory sentiment that endorsed his regard for Islam. In any case, the Iranian pundits did not withdraw the fatwa. After the passing of Khomeini in 1989, Iranian government had pulled back the fatwa against Rushdie. This was consented to with regards to an arrangement among Iran and the U.K to standardize relations. Rushdie a while later pronounced that he would quit living secluded from everything. Rushdie was happy to come back to a soberly regular life and ultimately settled in New York City.

Salman Rushdie has used many narrative techniques and he has used new strategy in English Literature. His fame went widespread around the world. Many contemporary writers like Amitav Ghosh, Allan Sealy, Shasi Tharoor, Mukul Kesavan, Rohinton Mistry, Vikram Seth and Vikram Chandra and so on outdid his samples.

Despite all controversies, Rushdie deserves respect as a writer of uncommon talent who dealt many provocative issues in various descriptive methods in his books. So he could be treated as controversial writer and also as a main writer and ranked among the best contemporary writer of the world like Milan Kundera; Gracia Marquez, Gunter Grass, John Irving, V.S. Naipaul, Arundhati Roy and Vikram Seth.

The Weight of Societal Pressure on Individuals

Shirley Jackson’s short story and Salman Rushdie’s essay both pass on the message that society is able to impose rules and mindsets that are driven by factors such as religion due to it having a massive following. Individuals in a society avoid going against flow of the society so it is easy to find themselves conforming to something they don’t truly believe in or understand. People will just blindly follow the tradition and culture they are born into without question for fear of persecution by the rest of the group. Shirley Jackson demonstrates this message in the form a short story with symbolism as well as a slow reveal to the reader of what is truly happening in the village in which the story takes place. Salman Rushdie’s essay takes a direct route with absolute statements claiming that the once you are born religion is the first thing introduced to you by society and pressures you to figure out where you belong and what you will do for said group or religion. He states that society places strong intellectual constraints on the individual by forcing religion upon them. Both explain the same issue pushing forth the same message but have different ways of revealing them.

In the Lottery, Shirley Jackson is able to create a society lost in tradition incapable of stopping something they know is wrong because it’s all they have ever known. For as long as they have known, dating back past the oldest man in the village, it was ritual for someone to be chosen at random for sacrifice. As people are born in to this village, that is all they are ever taught so they become desensitized to something they would feel is inherently evil like sacrificing your neighbor for supposed crop growth. It’s best said by Old man Warner: “Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon,” (Schilb, John, p.700). This implies that the lottery must occur for there to be good harvest and since they have always done the lottery and had good harvest, they correlate the two together and won’t stop for fear of no food as well as fear to go against social flow. Its difficult for people to go against an idea that was brought to them at birth from their society. It can lead isolation and even persecution. The symbols like the black box in the story provide context a bit of context in the story. “There was a story that the present box had been made with some pieces of the box that preceded it… constructed when the first people settled down to make a village here,” (Schilb, John, p.697). This suggests that the people are clinging on to this tradition from their culture because it is all they have ever known, and it is the only thing that was strictly taught from their society. Helen Nebeker states that even the “chips of wood, now discarded for slips of paper, suggest a preliterate origin” (Nebeker). This further demonstrates that these people have been blindly following a ritual that has existed before people could read or write with little to no understanding of the world around them. That’s what makes the ritual even more absurd as it occurs in a time where people would know better than to rely on sacrifice for harvest as opposed to science, demonstrated when Mr. Adams states, “Some places have already quit lotteries” (Schilb, John, p.700). The people can address the issue, but none stand up to change even though they realize it wrong, even when their friend Tessie Hutcinson begs for it stop. This is caused by group think as well as societal flow. The whole society is based on this lottery; therefore, to question it can be offensive and even dangerous. Few people question their own society although not strongly enough to raise enough concern to change their society to fit their current needs. Jennifer Hicks claims that Shirley Jackson “had the ability to see our present in our past” (Hicks). This means that Jackson wrote this story as a message to show that we have a similar system in our world today that we have yet to realize due to desensitization, normalization, and failure to think outside of what know and what we have been taught just like the people in the village.

In his essay Imagine There’s No Heaven, Salman Rushdie demonstrates how societal pressure of religion on the individual effect his or her way of thinking in rather blunt way making it very clear that it is wrong and affects our countries as well as laws in a bad way. He holds very strong opinions as he is very involved in protesting religion even dragging him into international trouble. According to Merriam Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature, Rushdie “was condemned to death by leading Iranian Muslim clerics in 1989 for allegedly having blasphemed Islam in his novel The Satanic Verses”(Merriam-Webster). This explains his strength in tone when discussing the topic, comparing religion to a prison that not only undermines a person’s strength perceive and understand but one that limit ones thought process entirely. Similarly to Jackson, Rushdie looks at something people are taught the second they come into existence.

Something that will forevermore influence them, their way of thinking as well as behaving. The only difference with Rushdie is that he very clearly encouraged people specifically the six billionth person alive when he wrote it to actively go against the trained thinking and to see what you would when you actually can think for yourself as opposed to following guidance from religious “dogma.” Rushdie shows how religion is brought into our lives as soon as we can think and how it and its stories (no matter the religion you are taught to follow) brought to you by people of higher power are used to control you. He goes as far to say as it is “inescapable… in the way that jail is” (Rushdie). He clearly views that the religious mindset pressured by society restricts from being able to think and formulate opinions on your own. In an interview with John Banville, Rushdie sees himself battling with people who can view the world through the lens of religion stating that arguments that are used against him (a progressive voice in the Muslim world) are generally “insult, offense, blasphemy, heresy…the battle between the sacred and the profane. And in that war, I’m on the side of the profane” (Banville). He has a set goal which is seen in his tone and use of words in his essay. He argues that the same blind following of religion results issues from war between the countries in the middle east to women being unable to receive abortions or birth control over topics that religion is incorrect about. He demonstrates that the people who argue against birth control even though we are overpopulated are those whose perspective has been cut off by the weight of religion in society. He also expresses this in countries where certain groups are targeted for differing religions and beliefs which inherently goes against the core of the religion itself, yet people are so ensnared in its web that they don’t even realize their position.

The theme and message are what brings these two texts together. Both explain how society places certain beliefs and pressures on to the individual resulting actions that go unquestioned either from fear, ignorance, or both. Both demonstrate how said pressure prevents the individual from being able to stand up and make their own decisions despite knowing what is better for their society. Helen Nebeker while reviewing The Lottery comments “until enough men are touched strongly enough by the horror of their ritualistic, irrational actions…man will never free himself… and is ultimately doomed” (Nebeker). That’s what is shown by Jackson. If the people of the village don’t eventually stand against their customs in realization of its errors systemically then they will be stuck in this loop forever which can eventually result in self-destruction. To counter that, Rushdie is the individual who goes against the nature of society and actively opposes things we were all taught in our society in his essay. Both make it a point that, even though in the current time their texts took place, people understood that certain parts of religion were wrong, yet they continue forth with tradition. They both display this when Mr. Adams say other villages stopped the lotteries, yet they continue and how religions today are wrong about sex health, yet people continue to follow what they say. This blind devout whether driven by fear or just will due to the nature of the society they were born in poses a threat to its people which a constant resurfacing topic in these texts.

The difference between these two texts, beside their execution as well as tones, is that Jackson’s short story acts as a relative warning where the reader needs to find deeper meaning and how to reconnect it back to our current society which can be applied to different scenarios as opposed only religion while Rushdie’s essay acts a call-to-action of sorts encouraging people to follow enlightened philosophers who reached to separate themselves from the church as it condemned you for thinking on your own.

Analysis of Salman Rushdie’s Novels

Many Western readers, ignorant of Islam and Hinduism, the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent and the creation of Pakistan, the India-Pakistan war of 1965, and the Pakistani civil war of 1974, may tend to read Salman Rushdie’s (born 19 June 1947) novels as bizarre entertainments. This is unfortunate, since each is a picaresque allegory into which the author has inserted details from his own life in order to prove that myth is history, today is yesterday, and the life of one person is integral to the history of nations. Rushdie masks events here and there and relentlessly mixes Persian and Hindu myths, but the hiatus in logic that this method creates is merely to prove his contention that an Anglo-Indian-Pakistani is a person with a hole in the body, a vital place in which there is a haunting void.

Midnight’s Children is Rushdie’s allegorical picaresque on the history of the modern state of India. Its narrator, Saleem Sinai, is one of those whose birth coincided with the hour and day India achieved independence:midnight, August 15, 1947. He and many others, including Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, considered these “midnight’s children” singled out, privileged by the hopeful hour at which they began their lives. Saleem discovers that he does indeed have special powers; he can, in his mind, summon all the other children born during the midnight hour of August 15, 1947, and, when a boy, he does so nightly, establishing the “Midnight Children’s Conference,” a forum he hopes will augur well for organizing the leaders of the new state.

Saleem’s family is prosperous; they reside in one of Bombay’s more affluent sections on an estate of homes once owned by an Englishman, William Methwold, who left India on the very day the Raj ended. Through a bizarre series of events (an accident at school that reveals that his blood type corresponds to neither parent and the subsequent confession of Mary Pereira, a nurse who had worked at the hospital at which Saleem was born), Saleem’s family discovers that Mary had intentionally switched children, giving the Sinais a child of one of Bombay’s poorest families. Only Saleem, through his telepathic powers, knows that the Sinais’s real son, reared as a street urchin named Shiva, is actually an illegitimate child of the Englishman Methwold. Though the Sinais make no attempt to locate their own boy and do accept Saleem as their own, Saleem recognizes Shiva as his nemesis and realizes that Shiva may well destroy him.

Each of the children of midnight has some special talent or ability by virtue of time and date of birth: Saleem’s telepathic skills, Shiva’s extraordinarily strong knees (which he uses to kill the Indian street entertainer he believes is his father), and the abilities of Parvati-the-witch, who seeks to use her talents only for good. All the children become caught up in the political machinations that follow upon India’s independence and the creation of Pakistan. Saleem’s family, aware that they are part of India’s unwanted Muslim minority, immigrate to Pakistan. This event, plus the fact that Saleem no longer wishes to have any contact with Shiva, the rightful heir of the Sinais, ends Saleem’s nightly summoning of the Midnight Children’s Conference. Once in Pakistan, Saleem discovers that his telepathic powers do not work. He tries, instead, to develop his exceptional power of smell, utilizing his huge nose to smell danger, injustice, unhappiness, poverty, and other elements of Pakistani life.

Saleem and his family become caught up in Pakistan’s 1965 war with India. Saleem’s former countrymen become his enemies, and all of his family are killed in the war, except his sister, who has taken the name Jamila Singer and has become famous as a singer of patriotic songs. When the east wing of Pakistan secedes in 1973 and declares itself the independent state of Bangladesh, Saleem enlists in Pakistan’s canine patrol, the Cutia, performing the function of a dog to sniff out traitors. Pakistan’s devastating loss in the war leaves Saleem without a country. Ultimately, it is Parvati-thewitch who uses her magic to make him disappear and return him to India.

Saleem marries Parvati but is unable to consummate the marriage. Whenever he tries to do so, he sees the decaying face of Jamila, the woman who had been reared as his sister. Saleem had loved Jamila, but he also had come to recognize that their nominal brother-sister relationship would not allow her to be his. Out of frustration, Parvati takes Shiva, now a major in India’s army, as her lover. She gives birth to his child, named Aadam, whom Saleem acknowledges as his own son.

Shiva, the destroyer, supervises the slum clearance project that not only eliminates the Bombay quarter in which the magicians had lived but also kills Parvati and many of her magician colleagues who had refused to leave their homes. Saleem is one of those arrested and brought to Benares, the town of the widows. Here he is imprisoned, forced by Shiva to name and identify the skills of the children of midnight; he is released only after he has been forcibly sterilized. Oddly, those arrested as a result of Saleem’s information do not blame him; they, too, are sterilized.

Much more happens in Midnight’s Children. The novel is structured as a family history that reaches back to Saleem’s grandparents and describes the political circumstances in India after World War I, through World War II and the end of the Raj, to the war with Pakistan and the Pakistani civil war. It is also highly mythic. Sinai, the surname of the narrator, masks the name of the Arabian philosopher Avicenna (Abn 4Alt al-Husain ibn 4Abdall3h ibn Stn3; 980-1037), who saw the emanations of God’s presence in the cosmos as a series of triads of mind, body, and soul. The triads appear in the three generations of Sinais who appear in the novel, but the three religions of India—Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity— which also appear, do nothing to reverse the downward course of India’s fortunes after 1947. Sin is the ancient moon god of Hadhramut, who acting at a distance can influence the tides of the world. He is represented by the letter S and is as sinuous as the snake. Appropriately, Saleem discovers his son Aadam in the care of a master snake charmer, Picture Singh. Sinai is both the place of revelation, of commandments and the golden calf, and the desert of barrenness and infertility that is Rushdie’s view of modern India.

Saleem’s nose resembles the trunk of the elephant deity, Kali, who is the god of literature, and the huge ears of Saleem’s son Aadam carry the motif into India’s future. Shiva is the Hindu god of destruction and reproduction, a member of the trinity that includes Brama and Vishnu. The closing chapters of the novel find Saleem the manager of a Bombay pickle factory owned by his former nurse, Mary Pereira, the woman who had originally exchanged him for the true son of the Sinais, underscoring the motif of absurd continuity, pickled history, and Saleem’s huge nose, which is called a cucumber as often as it is an elephant’s trunk.

The most savage satire of the book is reserved for Indira Gandhi, daughter of Nehru and, until her 1984 assassination, prime minister of India. Rushdie repeatedly cites a famous newspaper photograph in which her hair is white on one side and black on the other to symbolize her hypocrisy. He ridicules Sanjay Gandhi, her son, now also dead, as the mastermind of India’s slum clearance and birth-control plans. Specific members of Gandhi’s cabinet appear in the novel with appendages to their titles, such as “Minister for Railroads and Bribery.” Gandhi’s campaign slogan “Indira is India, and India is Indira,” which Rushdie often quotes in these contexts, thus becomes a dire prophecy. It is little wonder that distribution of Midnight’s Children, published during India’s state of national emergency, was prohibited in India. The novel also made Rushdie persona non grata in the country of his birth.

Rushdie has called Shame his “antisequel” to Midnight’s Children. It has picaresque and seriocomic elements that resemble those of the earlier novel, but its characters are Pakistanis, members of the power elite that had its historical counterpart in the circle of deposed prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Bhutto’s protégé, the man who engineered the coup and Bhutto’s trial and execution, Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq. Shame created as much consternation in Pakistan as Midnight’s Children had in India, with precisely the same result: The novel was banned in Pakistan, and Rushdie was considered subversive.

The title of Shame derives from the Urdu word Sharam, and it contains an encyclopedia of nuance the English barely suggests: embarrassment, discomfiture, indecency, immodesty, and the sense of unfulfilled promise. Rushdie thus explores in this work themes that are similar to those of his first novel. All the characters experience shame in one or another of these forms as well as some its converse, shamelessness.

Shame also maintains the highly mythic, literary tone of Midnight’s Children. Its unprepossessing hero, evocatively named Omar Khayyám Shakil, is a paunchy doctor of great promise with the name of the Persian poet known for the twelfth century Rubáiyát, the erotic lyric poems imitated in English by Edward FitzGerald in 1859. Rushdie’s Omar is born in a crumbling house called Nishapur (also the town of the historical poet’s birth), once the mansion of an Englishman, Colonel Arthur Greenfield, in a Pakistani backwater identified only as “Q,” but perhaps Quetta.

The circumstances of Omar’s birth are ambiguous. He has three mothers: Chhunni, Munnee, and Bunny Shakil. These three sisters all consider him their son, and none discloses which of them actually gave him birth, nor will they disclose the name of his father, though the reader learns that he is an Englishman. Omar’s situation is thus a metaphor of the mixed cultural legacy Rushdie often describes. Indeed, Rushdie has often spoken of himself as a man with three mothers: India, Pakistan, and England. The house in which Omar is reared is a labyrinth, a relic of the British Raj; its corridors lead to rooms unoccupied for generations, and Omar, who in his early boyhood is prohibited from leaving the house at any time, is frightened out of his wits when he ventures too far and sees that the water-seeking roots of a tree have punctured the house’s outer walls. All of this is Rushdie’s metaphorical description of the state of mind of a person with mixed and hostile origins: alienated, loveless, relentlessly, fearfully traversing the labyrinth of the mind, and feeling shame. Omar’s only glimpse of the world outside Nishapur is through his telescope, appropriately, given that the poet for whom he was named was also an astronomer.

The novel is filled with a wealth of characters whose backgrounds are similarly symbolic and complex. Rushdie draws them together both through family relationships and through their individually shameful actions as well as their capacity to feel shame. For example, Bilquìs Kemal Hyder is a woman reared in Bombay, India, by her father, Mahound “the Woman” Kemal, owner of a motion-picture theater. The epithet regularly applied to her father is simultaneously an indication of his motherly solicitude for his daughter and a jibe at his having lost his masculinity by assuming the burden of child rearing. After her father dies in a terrorist bomb blast that also destroys his theater, Bilquìs is rescued by Raza “Razor Guts” Hyder, Rushdie’s version of Zia, an ambitious young military officer who takes her as his bride and returns to the family home in Karachi, Pakistan, the country created by partition of the Indian subcontinent. Thrust into an uncompromisingly Muslim environment, she finds herself shamed when she is unable to bear Hyder a son. Of their two daughters, Sufiya Zinobia Hyder and Naveed “Good News” Hyder, the first is perpetually childlike, the result of a mistreated case of meningitis. Bilquìs and Hyder’s second daughter, “Good News,” atones for her mother’s relative infertility by bearing twenty-seven children.

The focus of Shame is the rise to power of Omar’s companion in dissipation, Iskander “Isky” Harappa, based on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Isky gives up drinking and womanizing in middle age, adopts the veneer of a devout Muslim, and seizes power after the loss of Pakistan’s east wing. For a time he remains popular, assisted by his beautiful unmarried daughter, Arjumand “Virgin Ironpants” Harappa, Rushdie’s satiric depiction of Benazir Bhutto, who would later become prime minister of Pakistan. Isky’s wife, Rani Humayun Hyder, remains out of the limelight on the family’s isolated estate, where she weaves shawls that document all of her husband’s acts of shame—a twist on the Penelope motif of Homer’s Odyssey (c. 725 b.c.e.; English translation, 1614). By the time Isky is hanged in a military coup, Rani has completed eighteen of these shawls. (Rushdie enumerates the details of each in an angry excursus modeled on a Homeric epic catalog.)

When Hyder seizes power, he encourages the trial and conviction of Isky Harappa. After a curious combination of circumstances causes Harappa’s death, Hyder orders the corpse hanged, ostensibly carrying out the court’s sentence of execution. Hyder’s increasing concern is, however, the deviant behavior of his daughter, Sufiya Zinobia. Though well past twenty, she has the mental age of less than ten. Hyder accepts Omar Shakil’s offer to marry her, made out of shame for his past womanizing and platonic love for the young woman whose life he had saved. Sufiya Zinobia is, however, aware that some act about which she knows nothing regularly accompanies marriage. She twice escapes from the Hyder house, where she is literally imprisoned (recalling Shakil’s own imprisonment in youth), allows herself to be raped at random by street-walking men, then decapitates the men who have raped her. The villagers who discover these decapitated corpses create the legend of a wild white panther to explain the murders, but Hyder knows that his daughter is the killer and fears that she will eventually decapitate him.

When Hyder’s downfall appears imminent, he, his wife Bilquìs, and Shakil escape to the closed mansion of Shakil’s youth, and Shakil’s three mothers give them sanctuary. Shakil quickly realizes, however, that the three old women plan to kill Hyder in reprisal for his having ordered the death of their younger son, Babar Shakil, for his terrorist involvements. This they do, though not before the accidental death of Bilquìs. Shakil dies soon thereafter, shot by Talvar Ulhaq, Hyder’s sonin- law and former state police chief. The pantherlike figure of Sufiya Zinobia observes the carnage, with Harappa’s daughter Arjumand hovering as a vision of a future of “a new cycle of shamelessness.”

Rushdie’s point, developed through these and other complexities of plot, is that shame and shamelessness develop through religious and political failure; the images of Islam and Pakistan that he invokes are filled with parricide and cruelty, but never genuine and simple love. That those who destroy one another are related by family as well as national ties merely compounds the tragedy and the shame. Rushdie’s Pakistan is presented as “a failure of the dreaming mind.”

The Satanic Verses is Rushdie’s strongest indictment of politicized religion, mixed cultural identity, and insensitive, arbitrary officialdom. Its tone is allegorical, picaresque, satiric, and irreverent. Those who know details concerning the founding of Islam, British politics, and contemporary London will recognize the objections made to the book; those unaware of these particulars will likely be puzzled by the novel’s character and chronological shifts and may even wonder why the work has caused such consternation.

The novel begins with an explosion, a passenger airplane destroyed by a terrorist bomb as it flies over the English Channel. Only two passengers survive: Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, two actors of Indian origin. Miraculously, they float to earth unharmed. Farishta, whose first name is the Indian form of that of the angel Gabriel, has made his reputation playing Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Hanuman, and other Indian deities in films known as theologicals. Chamcha, a complete Anglophile, has achieved fame by doing commercial voice-overs in England, though his face is unknown to his admiring audience. With this as background, Rushdie establishes the figure of the angel Gibreel (in Islam associated with bringing Allah’s call to theProphet Muwammad) and the apparently diabolical Chamcha, who has traded his ethnic identity for a pseudo-British veneer.

When they land, Chamcha discovers that he has grown horns under his very English bowler, as well as cloven hooves and a huge phallus—this despite his mild demeanor, elegant manners, and proper British appearance. Farishta (whose surname means “sweet”) finds that he has a halo, despite his being an unconscionable womanizer. His very trip to England was a pursuit of Alleluia Cone, the British “ice queen” of Polish refugee parents. Cone is an internationally famous mountain climber who has conquered Mount Everest. Rushdie thus mixes the imagery of good and evil, angel and demon; this is an exponential motif of the entire novel. It follows that the British police arrest Chamcha as an illegal immigrant and brutalize him terribly. Farishta, however, because of his angelic appearance, remains free, having charmed the police and having refused to identify Chamcha.

The narrative then abruptly shifts to introduce Mahound, a blasphemous name for Muwammad, the founder of Islam. Edmund Spenser used the name Mahound in The Faerie Queene (1590, 1596) to represent a heathen idol reserved for oaths sworn by the wicked. Rushdie’s Mahound profanely re-creates Muwammad’s call from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Mahound, likeMuwammad, is a businessman; he climbs Mount Cone and looks down on the city of sand that Rushdie calls Jahilia, a fictive town that corresponds to Mecca. Mahound’s pursuit of his destiny on Mount Cone corresponds to Gibreel’s pursuit of mountain climber Alleluia Cone; his dream-filled sleeps as he awaits the angel Gibreel resemble the trancelike seizures, ever increasing in severity, of Gibreel Farishta.

Mahound’s companions are described as the scum of Jahilia (Muwammad’s companions were former slaves), and Rushdie puckishly names one of them Salman. They have the habit, dangerous in a city built entirely of sand, of constantly washing themselves (a parody of Muslim ritual purification). The twelve whores of Jahilia (which means “ignorance” or “darkness”), reminiscent of Muwammad’s twelve wives and known as Mothers of the Believers, reside in a brothel called the Curtain. Translated as hejab, this can be associated with the curtainlike veil worn by pious Muslim women.

Abu Simbel, the name of the village flooded in the 1960’s when Egypt constructed theAsw3n High Dam, is the name given here to the ruler of Jahilia, a city also endangered by water. Because he recognizes Mahound as a threat to his power, Abu Simbel offers him a deal. If Mahound’s Allah will accept a mere 3 of Jahilia’s 360 deities into the new monotheistic religion, he will recognize it and give Mahound a seat on the ruling council. It will not be much of a compromise, Abu Simbel insists, since Mahound’s religion already recognizes Gibreel as the voice of Allah and Shaitan (Satan) as the spirit the Qur$3n records would not bow before Adam.

Mahound decides to compromise. He climbs Cone Mountain, consults with his Gibreel, then returns to Jahilia to announce the new verses: “Have you thought upon Lat and Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other? . . . They are the exalted birds, and their intercession is desired indeed.” These are the so-called Satan-inspired inclusions of the goddesses of motherhood (Lat), beauty and love (Uzza), and fate (Manat) as daughters of Allah, which the Quran rejects as heresy. Mahound later publicly recants this heretical insertion and flees to Yathrib (the ancient name for Medina), corresponding to the historical account of the hegira, Muwammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina. Gibreel reappears to announce: “It was me both times, baba, me first and second also me.” One can draw implications that Islam was founded by rationalizing good and evil, that its founder was both a sincere mystic and a power-hungry entrepreneur, and that Gibreel, an actor who specializes in impersonating deities, had given at least one bravura performance that changed history.

Rushdie goes on to recount a masked sardonic version of the holy war to establish Islam, continuing to blur the distinction between ancient and modern times. A bearded, turbaned imam in exile in London (which he considers Sodom) is in exile from his homeland, called Desh. When a revolution begins in Desh and overthrows the corrupt empress, named Ayesha (ironically also the name of Muwammad’s favorite wife), Gibreel (perhaps the angel, perhaps the actor Farishta, perhaps one and the same) flies the imam to Desh on his back in time to see the carnage. This episode can be interpreted as the recall to Iran of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was in exile near Paris until the overthrow of the shah. When the revolution succeeds, Ayesha metamorphoses into the mother goddess, Al-Lat, she whom Mahound had falsely named a daughter of Allah in the satanic verses.

In a parallel sequence, an epileptic peasant girl, also named Ayesha, arouses the lust of a landowner named Mirza Saeed, whose wife is dying of breast cancer. As Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, so Ayesha,whodeclares that her husband the archangel Gibreel has told her to do so, leads the entire village, including Saeed’s wife, on a pilgrimage by foot to Mecca. She declares that the Arabian Sea will open to admit them (recalling the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus); butterflies mark their privileged status, and they are Ayesha’s only food (recalling the manna of the Israelites). All that the unbelievers see as they watch the pilgrims is their disappearance into the Arabian Sea. The implication remains that Ayesha parts the sea for those who believe; to everyone else, the entire enterprise ends as a cult suicide. This motif emphasizes the novel’s focus on migration, which Rushdie has claimed is its central subject.

Much more happens in The Satanic Verses. London, called “Ellowen Deeowen” by Farishta, is beset by ethnic antagonisms. Its police and most whites are brutal racists; its Indians are rogues or displaced mystics. Still, nothing in Rushdie’s novel is what it appears to be, and that is his point. Empires and religions alike arise from a combination of noble and sordid motives. It is impossible to admire or hate anything unreservedly; there is evil even in that which appears absolutely good, and, conversely, one can explain evil in terms of good gone awry. Such relativism is hardly new, but the notoriety The Satanic Verses has received has obscured the author’s point. What is clear is that The Satanic Verses is the logical sequel to ideas Rushdie began to develop in Midnight’s Children and Shame, as well as an allegory that strains narrative and religious sensibilities to the breaking point.

As a kind of permanent immigrant, a man who can neither return to a home country (India) nor feel really at home in any other land, Rushdie has, as Henry Louis Gates, Jr., has noted, presented a “vision of migrancy as the very condition of cultural modernity.” A crucial aspect of this aesthetic position, however, has been an intense examination of the various homelands that formed—and continued to inform—the intellectual, spiritual, and political components of Rushdie’s psychological being. Whereas Midnight’s Children and Shame focus on India and Pakistan at specific, contemporary moments in their postcolonial history, The Moor’s Last Sigh is an attempt to account for and understand the origins and evolution of the complex cultural matrix that Rushdie refers to as “Mother India.” Its narrative combines the overall structure of the classic nineteenth century novel, projecting the epic sweep of history, with an episodic linkage of individual incidents and characters akin to the picaresque; it is also similar to Eastern story cycles.

The Moor of the title is Moraes Zogoiby, son of Aurora Da Gama, whose lineage is Indian Muslim, and Abraham Zogoiby, whose ancestors include Muslim and Jewish exiles who were banished from Spain in 1492. Through the course of the novel, Moraes tells the story of his family from the mid-nineteenth century to the present (the 1990’s), where he, the lone survivor, has returned to Spain to continue a frustrating quest for his mother’s legacy: the Moorish paintings that may reveal the essential truth and meaning of his life.

This intricate, swirling mix of history, myth, legend, personal feuds, ethnic rivalries, and disappointed love is the story of a man trying to make some sense of his life as well as the story of his fascinating, driven family. It is also the saga of a country with a long past, an interim as a semisubjugated colonial entity, and a turbulent, troubled present. While much of the narrative is written with the kind of vivid, detailed realism that is one of the marks of Rushdie’s style—an abundance of descriptive images and evocative details—frequent infusions of mystic moments, almost hallucinatory states of being, apparent intrusions of the supernatural, and other features of Magical Realism contribute to a larger dimension than a historic record. This is especially apparent in the presentation of Aurora Zogoiby as a symbol for India itself, an equivalent to the Mother India (the name of a film released in 1957, the year of Moraes’s birth) that represents all of the clashing, tempestuous qualities exerting an immense emotional pull on its inhabitants. It is also apparent in Moraes’s (meaning Rushdie’s) exhilarated response to and evocation of the city of Bombay, an urban masculine complement to the more pastoral, and historically traditional, feminine motherland.

Moraes states early in the novel that his account is one of regret, “a last sigh for a lost world,” and the world that he re-creates or reimagines is a rich fusion of cultures, a hybrid set in sharp contrast to what Rushdie calls “the fundamentalist, totalized explanation of the world” that he has challenged throughout his work. The novel begins in the region of Cochin, where the West (Europe) and the East (India) met and mingled for the first time. It was the central site of the pepper crop, and among other extended metaphors that are threaded through the novel, spice—the source of the Da Gama family wealth— stands for passionate love. The shift from commerce in the spice trade to the contemporary economics of currency and technology underscores the separation of the human from its most significant strengths and is one of the primary causes of the downward course that the Da Gama line takes.

For Rushdie, love begins as an irresistible rush of physical feeling that overwhelms the senses but then is complicated by circumstances of family, ambition, and cultural forces beyond individual control. While Moraes maintains that “defeated love would still be love,” Rushdie has observed that “the central story of Aurora and Abraham in the book is a story of what happens when love dies.” Moraes struggles to fill the “dreadful vortex” of its absence, and though his life in retrospect reveals his failure in all the realms where love matters (nation, parents, partner), his efforts to understand love’s power and to use it in accordance with a set of human values redeem his failure.

The loss of Moraes’s family foundation due to love’s blindness and treachery is balanced by the restoring capacity of the love for a place and by the invigorating experience of artistic consciousness as a means of illumination. The Moor’s Last Sigh is a paen to a special place, the vanishing (perhaps never existent) India of Rushdie’s heart’s core, the “romantic myth of a plural, hybrid nation,” which he lovingly describes in Aurora’s paintings.

A sense of loss permeates the narrative, as Moraes’s three sisters, his treacherous lover UmaSarasvati (possibly based on Marianne Wiggins), many acquaintances, and various semiadversaries die prematurely. Adding to this loss are his estrangement from his parents and his separation from the places he has known as home. As a compensation of sorts, India continues to glow in Moraes’s mind, rendered indelibly in Rushdie’s verbal paintings. It is the unifying concept for what Rushdie calls “the four anchors of the soul,” which he lists as “place, language, people, customs.” The sheer size of the India that Rushdie constructs, in addition to a palimpsest of its layers, makes it an elusive, almost chimerical country. The Moor’s Last Sigh, laced with loss, disappointment, frustration, and anger, is not a pessimistic vision of existence, because even when place, peoples, and customs are removed, language remains, and Moraes—who exhibits all of the verbal virtuosity that is a feature of Rushdie’s style—utilizes the powers of language in the service of truth, to his last breath.

The Enchantress of Florence is an ambitious work; though presented as a novel, it more closely resembles medieval romance. It is concerned with the storytelling process more than with telling a sustained story. Frame tales appear within frame tales, and the result is a work that resembles the fifteenth century collection of stories The Arabian Nights’ Entertainments (also known as The Thousand and One Nights) or perhaps John Barth’s Chimera (1972), his own resetting of the Scheherazade tales.

The central figure of The Enchantress of Florence is Akbar the Great, the liberal Mughal emperor of the sixteenth century, a historical figure. Akbar represents toleration of religion, no doubt an attractive symbol for Rushdie, given the precarious circumstances under which he has lived since publication of The Satanic Verses. Akbar sees the world in which he lives dissolving into hatred and violence. Though something of a philosopher king, he seems paralyzed by his inability to trust any of those around him, even his closest advisers.

A mysterious traveler from the West suddenly appears at Akbar’s court. He too has a basis in history, though his identifications are several. The stranger is variously Agostino Vespucci (cousin of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci), though he also calls himself “Uccello.” The immediate reference appears to be to Paolo Uccello, born Paolo di Dono (1397-1475), a Renaissance painter known for his application of mathematical principles to his art in conveying perfect perspective. It is also true, however, that this relatively common Italian surname, meaning “bird,” implies someone wise but crafty and possibly untrustworthy. Vespucci-Uccello has a third identity, perhaps the most significant, that of Mogor dell’Amore, the “Mughal of Love.” Vespucci-Uccello-Mogor dell’Amore claims kinship with Akbar and quickly becomes his closest adviser, though even Akbar is aware of the seductive quality of his new adviser’s tale telling.

The Enchantress of Florence is a verbal arabesque with an enormous number of characters. Many of these are historical figures fictionalized and reworked, such as the Medicis and Niccolò Machiavelli. There is also a variation on the Pygmalion myth. Despite his extensive harem, Akbar is able to conjure up only one, Jodha, who is perfect, and he has done this through a dream. Jodha’s opposite is Qara Köz (“Black Eyes”) whose androgynous sensuality fills Rushdie’s romance. Rushdie channels this sensuality into aesthetics, however, for this is his abiding concern.