Re-Negotiating Orientalism through the Prism of Edward Said vs.

Aijaz
Ahmed debate on Marx, Europe and India (East)
Prof. RAKESH NAMBIAR (M.A. Hons. research / PET / NET)
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
VIVA COLLEGE, VIRAR (W)
rakeshnambiar88@gmail.com
Tel: (+91)9890065598
Published in Avartan Magazine ISSN (2320-3544) Winter 2014
Note: Please do acknowledge this article by sending your feedback
Edward Said in his ground breaking book Orientalism (1978) stormed up a debate in the
academic world for accusing the West of having a skewed and condescending view towards the
East. This view, as Said explains arises out of an audacious attempt by the west to divide the
world into an Occident upholding all the attributes of order, power, sanity, masculinity,
rationalism, etc. and an Orient representing disorder, powerlessness, insanity, femininity,
barbaric, despotic, etc. While Orientalism generated academic interest, it also generated
vehement criticism which problematized it completely, among them the most vicious criticism
came from Aijaz Ahmed. Ahmed categorically attacked Said, for dubbing Marx as an Orientalist
and a myriad of things which seemed to him indigestible. The ensuing scathing attack resulted in
added proliferation to the debate on Orientalism. This research paper attempts to revisit some
criticism by Ahmed selectively and relook Orientalism in a new light.
Ahmed first problematized the methodological approach in Orientalism for criticising the west
by relying too much on western epistemology and the very traditions which had the virtues of
tolerance, universality, non-racialistic pluralism, liberalism, humanism, sympathetic participation
in the emotional experience of the Other, etc. (Between Orientalism and Historicism Ahmed pg
286) But these doctrines, the bedrock of western criticism albeit available to all, were not
considered by the Orientalist in his theory and praxis on the non-western world. Even within the
equation between the Orient and Occident there was a relative superiority of the west in terms of
its position and hegemony of ideas (Orientalism, Said pg7). Though the practice of slavery ended
in Europe, the colonial adventure, racial discrimination, discourses in the form of Huntingtons
Clash of Civilisations (1996), etc. project the western view on the non-west in the 20th century. It
is proof enough that the western pejorative view (especially France) in the 21st century on the

practise of purdah, head-scarf and burqah among the Muslim women, who wear it willingly,
works totally against the principles of democracy, non-racial pluralism and respect for all
religions. Even the modern day creation of an Islamophobia is another exhibition of the paranoid
west, which is blatantly being used in popular media to keep surveillance on the non-west, so
that the length and breadth of the Other is known. Hence the western tradition of rational
criticism as Ahmed invokes was not an impartial and objective democratic procedure in spirit
because of its selective application towards the non-west (Orient).
Ahmeds argument regarding the chronology of Orientalism problematizes Saids timeline of
late eighteenth century as a roughly defined starting point (ibid pg 03) because it represented
an enlightenment in Europe due to its profound knowledge of the East with respect to various
translations conducted by many Oriental study projects. Hence his arriving at such a starting
point in the late eighteenth century which culminated in the burst of intellectual activity, without
substantial validation seems a sloppy attempt from a figure of such a high intellectual calibre.
The Orientalism debate has therefore called into question any starting point because it would
mean the unified west (Europe) had begun to think of an idea of domination as it had finished
acquiring the knowledge of the East. Saids starting point gives rise to a lot of counter questions
like, why does Orientalism start only during the late eighteenth century? Why not before or
after? Which Eurocentric forces led to the culmination of Orientalism during this period? The
enlightenment period which if it is relative to the intellectual activity in any nation can also mean
that during the sixteenth century Italy, Spain, Britain, France, Germany, etc were some of the
European nations in the phase of Renaissance. Said reiterates that Orientalism as an
objectification of the non-west, primarily stems from the academic disciplines of Oriental
Studies setup by Britain, France and America (chiefly the first two) largely to study the East and
further the cause of imperial subjugation and that is where Said arrives at the methodological
starting point (ibid. pg 16). But he concurrently argues that the epistemological and ontological
distinction with the Other were visible in European literature since the time of Aeschylus,
Dante, etc. (ibid. pg 03); which is where the self contradiction lies.
The phallic imaginary of the West was a stark stereotypical construction which also fluidly
flowed into literatures during the colonial rule. Critics like Franz Fanon, Ashis Nandy, etc. have
adequately dissected the sexual contrast in terms of the normative masculine sexuality of the
West to the abnormality of the East. Both the effeminate Bengali (Gandhi pg 98) and the

hypermasculine Afghani Pathan (Hurd pg 13) or Black man (Fanon) were the abstract Other to
the normative self of Europe. The idea of constituting an Identity through Difference (Sen) is
quite a common feature in a representational activity. But the western Identity through
Difference was one of comprehending, translating and appropriating the Other for domestic
consumption in the west. Many intermittent prevalence of Identity through Difference was also
witnessed among the European nations; say for example, between France and Britain who were
rivals for centuries and their literatures reflected their abject hate of one another. Albeit, some of
these activities were also done in the East, say for example, during the Hindu-Muslim rivalry
during the Islamic invasion in India.
But the fact remains that indigenous constructions of stereotype among the natives of the East
was largely in relation to its defensive position with its enemy, which gradually receded with
subsequent interactions and also because of the need to co-habit within the same ecosystem. The
evidence to this is the very fact that how different cultural and religious intersections have been
thriving gracefully in some Asian countries like India. Even many Chinese travellers who came
to India in order to acquaint itself of Indian culture like Fa Hien, Yi Jing, Xuanzang, etc.
translated and shared a lot of reverence and respect with the Indian civilisation (Sen). While the
stereotypical constructions of the West continued systematically through various disciplines of
academic knowledge, the perverted intentions of economically draining the East and funding its
imperial causes was highly offensive in nature. The comparison therefore by Ahmed between the
Self - Other equation, in indigenous caste hierarchies or an inferior tribe / race taken over by a
superior one, with western imperialism, is absurd. The hegemony (Gramsci) of the former is an
internal equation (East), as both the dominant (centre) and the subordinate forces (periphery) coexist within the wholeness of the same ecosystem, while the latter is an external equation (West),
with its centre in Britain and an objective purely driven by profit, exploitation and disruption of
native (colonised) organic wholeness to impose its ideology and domination.
The intellectuals and individual authors were powerhouses of thought who implicitly controlled
the flow of ideas due to their privileged position among the Nations of Europe. Marxs
knowledge about India was politically coloured and implicitly racial during the initial phase of
his writings which Ahmed claims was because of his error of judgement due to the inadequate
availability of research evidence. But what becomes increasingly true is the very presence of a
censor that chased away Marxs fellow feeling towards the poor Asia (Ahmed); which

undoubtedly shows the agency of the Orientalism that insinuated and indoctrinated the
intellectuals and western academia including Marx. Nevertheless, Marxs observations were seen
to be objective, detached and insensitive at times, as he considered these geographical spaces
(Oriental) to be a laboratory for revolution against the bourgeoisie forces. Perhaps Marx may not
be an imperialist, but by virtue of his position of privilege in the west, he may have internalised
the Oriental discourse. Ahmed in his defence of Marx equates him with Gandhi, which is an
incompatible comparison, considering the radical difference in ideologies and thought process of
both the personalities.
The colonial administrators for the sake of extension of their exploitative rule furthered the
binarification between the structured and civilised Europe and the divided and uncivilised Orient
which they not only circulated domestically in Europe but made use the same materials to
indoctrinate the indigenous natives in order to buy their loyalty. Through the spread of English
education by culturing a breed of Indians into English in morals, manners and intellect
(Macaulay) and proselytization, the British attracted the natives who wished to explore the west
of their dreams. The British reforms for upliftment among the natives appeared an eyewash, as it
was a covert initiative (divide and rule policy) to maintain the status quo of relations between the
two equations - the savage Orient and the civilised Occident, and hence the colonial rule
remained uninterrupted for years. Another fact remains that by constructing such a savage
Orient, the west could prevent its administrators from becoming inefficient and corrupt which is
largely seen in the literatures of Joseph Conrad, William Golding, etc. But a similar strategy was
employed by the indigenous Brahmins forbidding the natives from travelling the seas to other
regions e.g. Gandhis The story of my Experiments with Truth (1927) which showed the
opposition of the village elders on his travel for studying overseas.
The comparison appears broadly similar in nature as both the Orient and Occident display a
psychosis of upholding and safeguarding that which is dear to them, which is actually not the
culture, but the stability of the status quo. Hence Orientalism in this context becomes all the
more complex and problematic. As Ahmed rightly points out, the relations between some
indigenous existing equations was highly dichotomous at times and problematic. In India, there
were divisions between the Muslims and Hindus, where each conveniently characterised the
customs and traditions of the other as abhorrent. Even within the Hindu fold the rigidly
categorised four castes was proof enough of the complex indigenous equations. The degenerate

state of Hinduism with its oppressive caste and gender hierarchies was accepted by many
including Gandhi, Ambedkar, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, etc. Nevertheless, these equations
rebelled, negotiated and existed within the same ecosystem; on the whole the presence of a
pleasant and peaceful pre-existing indigenous society which was destroyed by the onslaught of
colonial and imperial invasion by Europe is highly doubtful.
Among the many colonial administrators who were cruel, some were benevolent to the natives
like Annie Besant (Irish), Allan Octavian Hume (British), Sir William Wedderburn (Scottish), C.
F. Andrews, John Britain, Henry Fawcett, Charles Bradlaugh, Sir Henry Cotton, William Digby,
etc. who inspite of their relative position in Britain were sympathetic to the Indian cause. Even in
literature E. M. Forster, Bernard Shaw, etc. denounced the imperial British atrocities. But Said
firmly denies the presence of an impartial and non-political knowledge as he believes them to be
coloured by an authors political circumstance or positioning. This undoubtedly also includes
him and so the million dollar question - who is neutral and non-political? Saids position
unfortunately conflicts the stability of Orientalism which also makes his theory polemic.
Saids understanding of Derrida, Nietzsche and Foucault is viewed by Ahmed with intense
condescension for being simplistic to the point of incoherence with the intellectuals. Similar is
the view of the critics on Saids conceptual understandings, which he explains, stems from their
defensive position because of their proximity and interests with the west. But what becomes
interestingly proliferating is the knotty hypothesis on Orientalism by Said, Ahmeds criticism of
Saids Orientalism and Saids defence from criticism. While each criticism polarises the
argument with a shifting Self - Other (centre and periphery) equation, the discourse because of its
binary nature spirals around Orientalism or reverse-Orientalism.
With Orientalism as a hypothesis, Said convincingly creates conceptual generalisations, which at
times becomes radically conflicting and Manichaean in nature. But Orientalism stands as a
hardly undeniable perspective shared among the European world order (Occident) over the less
advanced non-western world (Orient). One can also view it as a psychological state of the
European self which craves for a sense of relative supremacy or superiority over the rival nonwestern other. Although the imperial centre of the west has shifted to US it still accommodates
the European position on Orientalism. Finally, the argument on Orientalism is not of an eternal
order as Said admits; but it inevitably creates a peculiar predicament can one really hope for an

unlearning (Raymond Williams) or a de-orientalisation of discourses and world order, which

remains to be seen.

Bibliography
Ahmed, Aijaz. Between Orientalism and Historicism. Orientalism: A Reader. (ed.) A. L.
Macfie: Edinburgh University Press, 2000, pg 285 297.
__________. In Theory, Oxford University Press, 1992.
Chari, Hema. Colonial fantasies and Postcolonial Identities. Postcolonial Queer: Theoretical
Interjections. ed. John C. Hawley, New York, New York Press, 2001, pg 277- 304.
Fanon Franz. Black Skin White Mask. Paris: Grove Press, 1967.
Gandhi, Leela. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. N.p.: n.p., n.d., pg 98 101.
Hurd, Madeline. (Ed.) Encounters: Representations of the Others in Modern European History,
Sodertorns hogskola University College, 2003.
Marx, Karl. The British Rule in India. Orientalism: A Reader, (ed.) A. L. Macfie: Edinburg
University Press, 2000, pg 16 -17.
Nagel, Joane. Masculinity and nationalism: gender and sexuality in the making of nations,
Ethnic and Racial Studies: Vol. 21, No.2, March 1998, Routledge, pg 242-269.
Said, Edward. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, New Delhi: Penguin Books
India, 2001.
___________. Latent and Manifest Orientalism. Orientalism: A Reader, (ed.) A. L. Macfie:
Edinburgh University Press, 2000, pg 111-114.
___________. My Thesis. Orientalism: A Reader. (ed.) A. L. Macfie: Edinburgh University
Press, 2000, pg 106 -107.
___________. Orientalism Reconsidered. Orientalism: A Reader. (ed.) A. L. Macfie:
Edinburgh University Press, 2000, pg 345 361.
Sen Amartya. The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian Culture, History and Identity.
Penguin Books, London, 2005.
Sinha, Mrinalini. Colonial / Imperial Masculinities. International Encyclopedia of Men and
Masculinities, (ed.) Michael Flood et. al., New York: Routledge, 2007.
Windschuttle, Keith. Edward Saids Orientalism revisited New Criterion: Jan 99, Vol. 17,

Issue 05, pg 30.

Web source
British Friends of India, http://www.aicc.org.in/new/british-friends-of-india.php
First Anglo Afghan War Auckland's folly An expedition in Regime Change (Page 1 of 7)
http://www.silkroadbooksandphotos.com/books-angloafghanwar1.html
Marx on India: by Aijaz Ahmed, Feb 13, 2005, http://maximumred.blogspot.in/2005/02/aijazahmad-on-marx-on-india.html
Orientalism Kritik, www.debatecoaches.org/files/download/735