Sal

manRushdi
e
sMagi
calJour
neyThr
oughKashmi
r
:Haroun and the
Sea of Stories, (Post-)coloniality, and the Fairy Tale1
Eric K.W. Yu
Haroun and the Sea of Stories (1990) holds a unique place in Salman
Rus
hdi
e

soe
uvr
e
. Cr
e
a
t
e
di
ni
t
i
a
l
l
yf
orhi
sy
oungs
onZafar and read, in an earlier
form, to him as serialized bedtime stories, Haroun i
st
heonl
ypi
e
c
eofc
hi
l
dr
e
n
s
fiction Rushdie has ever published.

Conceived while Rushdie was working on The

Satanic Verses (1988) and completed shortly after the imposition of the fatwa by
Ayatollah Khomeini, Haroun ha
sbe
e
nr
e
c
e
i
ve
di
nt
hes
ha
dowoft
he
Rus
hdi
e
Af
f
a
i
r
.
Reviewers were quick to draw our attention to Haroun
sallegorical
di
me
ns
i
onc
onc
e
r
ni
ngRus
hdi
e

spr
e
di
c
a
me
nt
sa
sawr
i
t
e
rpr
os
e
c
ut
e
dbyI
s
l
a
mi
c
fundament
a
l
i
s
m. Ther
e
l
a
t
i
ve
l
ys
i
mpl
epl
otbe
g
i
nswhe
nRa
s
hi
dt
he
Sha
hofBl
a
h
l
os
e
shi
ss
t
or
y
t
e
l
l
i
ngt
a
l
e
nta
f
t
e
rh
i
swi
f
e

se
l
ope
me
nt
,l
e
a
di
ngt
ohi
sa
ndhi
ss
on
Ha
r
oun

sma
g
i
c
a
lj
our
ne
yt
ot
hewonde
r
l
a
ndKa
ha
ni(

s
t
or
y

)
,c
l
i
ma
xi
ngwi
t
ht
he
defeat of the ene
mi
e
sofs
pe
e
c
ha
n
dc
l
os
i
ngwi
t
hRa
s
hi
d
sr
e
c
ove
r
ya
ndha
ppyf
a
mi
l
y
reunion.

To critics like Jean-Pi

e
r
r
eDur
i
x,Rus
hdi
e

sde
s
i
r
et
or
e
s
i
s
tr
e
l
i
g
i
ousa
nd

political oppressions and to reaffirm his value as a professional writer is clear enough.
Yet there isa
r
g
ua
bl
ynot
hi
ng
pos
t
c
ol
oni
a
l
,
onemus
ta
dd,a
boutHaroun as
Rus
hdi
e

sl
i
t
e
r
a
r
yr
e
a
c
t
i
ona
ga
i
ns
tt
hefatwa a
ndMus
l
i
mf
a
na
t
i
c
i
s
m,i
ft
he
pos
t
-
he
r
eme
a
ns
t
r
a
ns
c
e
ndi
ng
or
g
o
i
ngbe
y
ondc
ol
oni
a
l
i
t
y
,t
ous
eKwa
meAppi
a
h
s
expressions (63).

With reference to the apparent lack of postcolonial concerns in

Haroun, one might suspect that Rushdie, obsessed with his personal difficulties while
finishing the book after the fatwa, did not give much thought to such issues as
contemporary political problems of the Indian subcontinent or of migration.

But this

f
a
c
i
l
ee
xpl
a
na
t
i
onut
t
e
r
l
yf
a
i
l
st
oa
c
c
ountf
ort
hebook
sc
ur
i
oust
r
e
a
t
me
ntofKa
s
hmi
r
,

the ancestral home of Rushdie as well as Jawaharlal Nuhru, the greatest spokesman of
Indian nationalism.
As is typical of the fairytale, places in Haroun lack geographical specificity,
all except the Valley of K, which is readily identified as Kashmir.2 Apart from
foregrounding the identity of Kashmir in an otherwise ahistorical fairytale, Rushdie
also tells us that the
r
ea
r
e
he
a
vi
l
ya
r
me
ds
ol
di
e
r
s
,
t
ha
tpe
opl
ei
nt
hes
t
r
e
e
t
[
we
a
r
]
e
xt
r
e
me
l
yhos
t
i
l
ee
xpr
e
s
s
i
ons
(
42)
,a
ndf
ur
t
he
re
xpl
a
i
nst
hr
oug
hRa
s
hi
d
smout
ht
ha
t

Kos
h-ma
r
me
a
ns
ni
g
ht
ma
r
e
.
I
nf
a
c
t
,a
r
oundmi
d-1988, less than a year before
Rushdie began working on the final drafts of the book, Kashmir witnessed the
outbreak of the insurgency.

In response India began to deploy various kinds of

security personnel to the valley, which, by 1995, reached the number of almost four
hundred thousand.

The blame could no longer be put on Pakistani infiltration, for

t
hes
e
pa
r
a
t
i
s
tmove
me
ntha
s
,s
i
nc
et
hel
a
t
e1980s
,e
a
r
ne
d
wi
de
s
pr
e
a
dpopul
a
r
s
uppor
t
(
Ga
ng
ul
y1)
,a
ndwha
tma
nymi
l
i
t
a
r
ygr
oupswa
nti
sac
ompl
e
t
e
l
y
independent state, not joining Pakistan instead.

In other wor
ds
,Ne
hr
u
sdr
e
a
mt
ha
t

Kashmir, with a Muslim majority, would willingly stay in the Indian Union to prove
that the secular sovereign nation triumphs over religious sectarianism has broken into
pieces.

And to the embarrassment of Rushdie himself, whose Mi

dni
ght

sChi
l
dr
e
n

(1981) contains sympathetic statements about the Kashmiri cause, in January 1989 his
Satanic Verses provoked week-long demonstrations and violence in the valley,
causing more than sixty casualties.

The Rushdie Affair, in this respect, has turned

into a peculiar (post-) colonial issue, having to do not so much with religious

f
a
na
t
i
c
i
s
mpur
ea
nds
i
mpl
ea
swi
t
haf
or
me
r
l
yi
nde
pe
nde
nts
t
a
t
e

sde
s
pe
r
a
t
e
s
t
r
ugg
l
ef
ori
nde
pe
nde
nc
ef
r
om I
ndi
a
,who,ha
vi
ngt
hr
ownof
fBr
i
t
a
nni
a

sy
oke
,i
snot
entirely free of her own colonial desire.

More recent events in Kashmir can hardly

beunde
r
s
t
oodi
nt
e
r
msofwha
tRu
s
hdi
edi
s
mi
s
s
e
sa
s
pa
r
t
i
t
i
onf
ool
i
s
hne
s
s
in
Mi
dni
ght

sChi
l
dr
e
nand Shame (1983).

Given the importance of Kashmir in the

Indian Political imaginary and its symbolic and affective meanings for Rushdie
himself, it is a great pity that most critics, Indian and Western alike, remain silent on
Har
oun
sallusions to traumatic Kashmiri history, whether out of uneasiness or mere
oversight.
This pa
pe
ri
sa
bout
t
r
a
ve
l
i
nl
i
t
e
r
a
la
swe
l
la
sme
t
a
phor
i
c
a
ls
e
ns
e
s
. Ba
s
e
d
onHa
r
ouna
ndhi
sf
a
t
he
r

st
r
i
pf
r
om t
he
i
ma
g
i
na
r
yc
ount
r
y
Al
i
f
ba
yt
oKa
ha
nivi
a
Ka
s
hmi
r
,Iwi
s
ht
oe
xa
mi
nehows
omepos
t
c
ol
oni
a
li
s
s
ue
s
t
r
a
ve
l
f
r
om Rus
hdi
e

s
earlier novels to a f
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
ef
orc
hi
l
dr
e
n,a
ndf
ur
t
he
ri
nve
s
t
i
ga
t
et
hege
nr
e

sown
c
ompl
i
c
i
t
ywi
t
hc
ol
oni
a
l
i
t
y
.I
nt
hef
i
r
s
tpa
r
t
,Is
ha
l
lf
oc
usonRus
hdi
e

spr
obl
e
ma
t
i
c
treatment of Kashmir in Haroun in relation to his migrant sensibility and political
ambivalence.

In the second, I turn from thematic analysis to an as yet unplowed

area of genre criticism.

Tracing the historicity of the fairytale for children with

respect to the bourgeois mystification of childhood and to the domestication of the

exotic, I shall examine, ha
vi
ngr
e
c
our
s
et
oFr
e
dr
i
cJ
a
me
s
on
snot
i
onof
f
or
ma
l
s
e
di
me
nt
a
t
i
on,
t
heg
e
nr
e

sbur
de
nsoft
hepa
s
t
. Is
ha
l
la
t
t
e
ndpa
r
t
i
c
ul
a
r
l
yt
owha
t
wi
l
lbec
a
l
l
e
dt
he
moda
l
i
t
yofe
xot
i
c
i
s
ma
ndi
nnoc
e
nc
e
,
e
xpl
or
i
ngi
t
sr
e
l
a
t
i
onst
o
imperialism and colonialism.
It must be pointed out at the outset that Rushdie need not have alluded to
Kashmir in Haroun, and its unusual presence intimates something of an obsession,
the return of the repressed.

Without the reference, Haroun as a fairytale is fully

intelligible, complete in itself.

Geographic specification is superfluous.

K serves

two main narrative functions.

First, the place is a passageway to the wonderland

Ka
ha
ni
. Thes
c
e
ni
c
Dul
lLa
ke
i
nt
heva
l
l
e
ypr
ovi
de
sHa
r
ounwi
t
haf
i
t
t
i
ng

environment to tes
tt
hei
nc
r
e
di
bl
e
MoodyLand t
he
or
y
(
49)s
oa
st
oc
onvi
nc
ehi
m
t
ha
t
t
her
e
a
lwor
l
dwa
sf
ul
lofma
g
i
c
,[
a
nd]s
oma
g
i
c
a
lwor
l
dsc
oul
de
a
s
i
l
yber
e
a
l

(
50)
. Thi
spr
e
pa
r
e
sf
orHa
r
oun
se
nc
ount
e
rwi
t
ht
heWa
t
e
rGe
ni
eont
hef
a
nc
i
f
ul
hous
e
boa
t
Ar
a
bi
a
nNi
g
ht
sPl
usOne
a
tni
g
ht
,i
na
ug
ur
a
t
i
nghi
smi
r
a
c
ul
ousj
our
ne
y
on the Hoopoe to Kahani in search of the Ocean of Stories, the magical source of
narrative power.

K, as a metonym of exoticism and magic, makes possible a smooth

transition from the mimetic to the fantastic modes of writing. Second, with respect
to political allegory, K is a miniature society where democracy has been corrupted by
pol
i
t
i
c
a
lpr
opa
ga
ndaa
nda
ut
oc
r
a
t
i
cme
a
s
ur
e
s
. Ha
r
oun
sf
a
t
he
rRa
s
hi
di
shi
r
e
dby
Snooty Buttoo, the powerful leader there, to tell people happy stories so as to rally
s
uppor
ti
nt
hee
l
e
c
t
i
onc
a
mpa
i
g
n. OnRa
s
hi
da
ndHa
r
oun
sr
e
t
ur
nt
r
i
p,ha
vi
ngs
a
ve
d
the Ocean of Stories on Kahani, Rashid recounts to people of K how the Chupwalas,

f
oe
sofs
pe
e
c
h,
a
r
ede
f
e
a
t
e
d,i
nc
i
t
i
ngt
hem to expel Buttoo and reinstall true
democracy in K. The political message is obvious:
Oppressive rulers can be
overthrown by the sheer power of fiction, because it is capable of telling the truth
a
bout
,e
xpos
i
ng
,oppr
e
s
s
i
on.
(
Kuor
t
t
i31)
Obsessed with the themes of storytelling and of freedom of speech, most critics
simply pass by the Kashmiri allusion.

But it will be fruitful to relate Haroun to

s
omeofRus
hdi
e

snot
a
bl
e
a
dul
t
c
onc
e
r
nsma
ni
f
e
s
t
e
di
nhi
se
a
r
l
i
e
rwor
ks
,a
nd
interpret it symptomatically in terms of his own ambivalence and obsessions
a
s
s
oc
i
a
t
e
dwi
t
hKa
s
hmi
r
,apl
a
c
el
y
i
nga
tt
hepe
r
i
phe
r
yofhi
s
i
ma
g
i
na
r
yhome
l
a
nd
a
nda
na
ptme
t
a
phorf
ort
he
bor
d
e
rc
ondi
t
i
ons
whi
c
hde
f
i
nes
ubj
e
c
t
i
vi
t
y
,t
ous
e
Sa
mi
rDa
y
a
l

swor
ds(
39)
. OfK
sma
nynames, Rashid remembers only two:

Ka
c
he
-me
r
(cache-mer),
t
hepl
a
c
et
ha
thi
de
saSe
a
,
a
nd
Kos
h-ma
r
(cauchemar)

ni
g
ht
ma
r
e
(
40)
. The
s
et
wona
me
s
,s
uppos
e
dl
yde
r
i
ve
df
r
om t
he
a
nc
i
e
ntt
ong
ue

ofFr
a
n
j
(
40)
,i
nvi
t
eust
og
obe
y
ondt
het
hi
na
i
rofma
g
i
c
. Let us begin with the

Se
aofSt
or
i
e
s
i
nt
het
i
t
l
e
,a
ndi
nqui
r
ewhyKa
s
hmi
r
hi
de
saSe
a
.
One road we
c
a
nt
a
kei
st
of
ol
l
owNe
hr
u
se
xa
mpl
ei
nhi
sThe Discovery of India (
1945)
,t
o
di
g
de
e
pf
orf
ounda
t
i
ons
(
28)
,r
e
c
upe
r
a
t
i
ngt
hemy
t
hi
cpa
s
t
,buti
nour case of Kashmir
rather than of Bharata Mata, or Mother India.

For Nehru, Kashmir is

unquestionably a part of the great country, and its membership in the Indian Union
testifies to the cultural and religious diversity of the nascent secular state.

Rus
hdi
e

migrant sensibility, on the contrary, has denied him a comforting sense of belonging
exclusively to any one place.

This is especially the case after the Rushdie Affair.

Root
s
,
wr
i
t
e
sRus
hdi
ei
nShame,
a
r
eac
ons
e
r
va
t
i
vemy
t
h,de
s
i
g
ne
dt
oke
e
pus in
ourpl
a
c
e
s
(
86)
. Hea
l
s
oc
onf
e
s
s
e
s
,ne
ve
r
t
he
l
e
s
s
,t
ha
theha
snotbe
e
na
bl
et
odo
a
wa
ywi
t
h
t
he
r
oot
s
i
de
a
c
omp
l
e
t
e
l
y(
88)
.I
nThe Wizard of Oz he claims that he
f
ound
t
her
i
g
htvoi
c
ef
orHar
oun
in the 1939 Hollywood adaptation of Frank
Baum
sf
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
e
,whi
c
h,i
nhi
sowna
na
l
y
s
i
s
,i
sma
r
ke
dpr
e
c
i
s
e
l
yby
ag
r
e
a
tt
e
ns
i
on
be
t
we
e
n
t
hehuma
ndr
e
a
mofleaving [
][
a
nd
]i
t
sc
ount
e
r
va
i
l
i
ngdr
e
a
m ofr
oot
s

(
23)
. The
Ka
c
he
me
r
a
l
l
us
i
oni
nHaroun, i
nt
hi
sl
i
g
ht
,be
t
r
a
y
sRus
hdi
e

sva
g
ue
longing for hi
s
I
ndi
a
nr
oot
s
,t
houg
hr
a
t
he
rdi
f
f
e
r
e
ntf
r
om Ne
hr
u
smovet
og
r
ound
mode
r
nI
ndi
a
nna
t
i
onhoodi
n
g
r
oupme
mor
yofpa
s
t[
]t
r
a
di
t
i
on(Discovery of
India 391)
. Ka
s
hmi
r
,wr
i
t
e
sNe
hr
u,
ha
sbe
e
noneoft
hebi
gg
e
s
ts
e
a
t
sofI
ndi
a
n
culture and learning thr
oug
houthi
s
t
or
yf
ora
bout2,
000y
e
a
r
s
(
Qt
di
nSha
r
ma7)
.I
n
an old Hindu legend, the valley used to be a lake, though not exactly a sea, where the
demon Jalodbhava, after the lake was drained, fell prey to Vishnu (Sharma 8).

If

this reference is not clos

ee
noug
h,t
he
Se
aofSt
or
i
e
s
i
nt
het
i
t
l
eof
f
e
r
sabe
t
t
e
rhi
nt
.
On the luxurious houseboat where Rashid and Haroun spent their night in K, there
was on a bookshelf The Ocean of the Sea of Story, or Kathasaritsagara, a collection
of stories written in Sanskrit, compiled by a Kashmiri Brahmin in the eleventh
5

c
e
nt
ur
y
.I
nt
hes
e
ns
et
ha
tt
hi
st
r
e
a
s
ur
e
da
nc
i
e
ntc
ol
l
e
c
t
i
on,wi
t
ht
hewor
d
s
e
a
i
ni
t
s
title, originated in Kashmir, a fact not particularly well known, Kashmir is precisely

Ka
c
he
-me
r
,

t
hepl
a
c
et
ha
thi
de
saSe
a
.
Kathasaritsagara, having influences on
The Arabian Nights a
ndGr
i
mm
sf
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
e
s
,r
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
st
hec
ul
t
ur
a
la
c
c
ompl
i
s
hme
nt
of the old Kashmir (Sattar xv).

More importantly, the ethos of the world in

Kathasaritsagara is characterized by i
t
smul
t
i
c
ul
t
ur
a
l
i
s
m,whe
r
e
Hi
ndus
,Buddhi
s
t
s
,
Br
a
hmi
ns
,Ks
a
t
r
i
y
a
s
,me
r
c
ha
nt
s
,Su
dr
a
s
,t
r
i
ba
l
s
,f
r
i
ng
es
e
c
t
sa
ndung
odl
ybe
i
ng
s

co-existed relatively harmoniously (Sattar xxvi), offering Rushdie a picture of

pre-Islamic cultural diversity and religious tolerance.
Apart from that mythic time of Kashmir, Haroun also evokes another golden old
a
ge
. Ra
s
hi
d
swa
r
mde
s
c
r
i
pt
i
onsoft
he
pl
e
a
s
ur
ega
r
de
nsbui
l
tbyt
hea
nc
i
e
nt
Empe
r
o
r
s
i
nSr
i
na
g
a
r
,
whe
r
et
hes
pi
r
i
t
sofa
nc
i
e
ntki
ng
ss
t
i
l
lf
l
e
wa
bouti
nt
heg
ui
se
3
ofhoopoebi
r
ds
(
25)
,a
l
l
udet
ot
hes
pl
e
ndoroft
heMus
l
i
me
mpe
r
or
s
.
Ironically,

the careless juxtaposition of these two different times undermines the myth of a long,
continuous and unified tradition.

The advent of Islam in the valley, as Mohan Lal

Koul has taken pains to demonstrate in his recent book, is anything but a peaceful
movement.

Rushdie, of course, is not entirely ignorant of this irony.

At a more

critical moment in Mi
dni
ght

sChi
l
dr
e
n,her
e
mi
ndsusof
t
hel
e
g
e
ndofSi
ka
nda
r
But-Shikan, the Iconoclast of Kashmir, who at the end of the fourteenth century
destroyed every Hindu temple in the Valley [...], traveled down from the hills to the
river-plains; and five hundred years later the mujahideen movement of Syed Ahmad
Barilwi followed the well-t
r
odde
nt
r
a
i
l
(
310)
. Ra
s
hi
d
st
houg
hta
boutGuppe
e
Pa
g
e
sbe
i
ng
bur
ne
d,
onec
a
ns
a
y
,a
l
l
ude
snotonl
yt
ot
hebur
ni
ngofThe Satanic
Verses by angry Muslims in the heat of the Rushdie Affair, but also to the record that
Si
ka
nda
r
bur
nta
l
lbookst
hes
a
me[
wa
y
]a
sf
i
r
ebur
nsha
y
(
Koul15)
. The

Ka
s
hmi
r
iMus
l
i
ms
ownmor
er
e
c
e
ntg
r
i
e
va
nc
e
s
,ont
heot
he
rha
nd,ha
vemuc
ht
odo
wi
t
hI
ndi
a

sr
e
l
uc
t
a
nc
et
og
r
a
ntKa
s
hmi
rindependence.4

In the late 1980s, the

conflicts between the Muslim majority and the Hindu minority in Kashmir escalated,
resulting in the mass exodus of Hindus out of the valley in March 1990.

Since 1992,

a
l
l
e
g
a
t
i
onsofhuma
nf
i
ght
svi
ol
a
t
i
onsbyt
he[
I
ndi
a
n]s
e
c
ur
i
t
yf
or
c
e
s[
ha
vei
nc
r
e
a
s
e
d]
as do charges of corruption [in the state bur
e
a
uc
r
a
c
y
]
(
Si
ng
h245)
. Thec
l
os
e
rwe
l
ooka
tKa
s
hmi
r
ihi
s
t
or
y
,t
hene
a
r
e
rwewi
l
lge
tt
o
Kos
h-ma
r
.

Tobe
t
t
e
runde
r
s
t
a
ndRus
hdi
e

sc
ur
i
oust
r
e
a
t
me
ntofKa
s
hmi
rin Haroun, we
must examine the multiple and conflicting meanings of this palimpsest state in
Mi
dni
ght

sChi
l
dr
e
n. Re
a
de
r
soft
hebookma
ys
t
i
l
lr
e
me
mbe
rt
ha
tt
he
f
a
mi
l
ys
a
g
a

ofSa
l
e
e
mSi
na
ibe
g
i
nswi
t
hhi
sg
r
a
ndf
a
t
he
rDr
.Az
i
z

sr
e
t
ur
nf
r
om Ge
r
ma
nyt
o
Ka
s
hmi
r
,s
e
e
i
nghi
shome
l
a
nd
t
h
r
oug
ht
r
a
ve
l
e
de
y
e
s
(
11)a
ndha
vi
ngr
e
nounc
e
d
Islam, turned i
nt
oahol
l
owma
n
vul
ne
r
a
bl
et
owome
na
ndhi
s
t
or
y
(
10)
.I
nt
he
boa
t
ma
nTa
ia
nd
Re
ve
r
e
ndMot
he
r
,
Az
i
z

swi
f
e
,Ka
s
hmi
rseems to stand for
cultural stagnancy and religious conservatism, antithetical to secular modernism.
Heidelberg-returned, Aziz feels
s
a
d,t
obea
thomea
ndf
e
e
ls
out
t
e
r
l
ye
nc
l
os
e
d,
a
nd
f
i
ndst
hee
nvi
r
onme
nt
hos
t
i
l
e
(
11)
,whi
l
eTa
if
i
ndshi
mf
or
e
i
g
na
ndt
hr
e
a
t
e
ni
ng
.
The trope of alienation, surprisingly, further develops in other directions.

The

We
s
t
e
r
ni
z
e
de
l
i
t
e

ss
pi
r
i
t
ua
le
mpt
iness, as captured by the recurrent hole metaphor
about Aziz, eventually turns into indiscriminate anti-religious fervor: having gone
ma
da
f
t
e
rhi
ss
on
sde
a
t
h,Az
i
zg
oe
sba
c
kt
oKa
s
hmi
ra
f
t
e
rhi
sa
l
mos
tl
i
f
e
-long exile,
a
l
l
e
ge
d
l
ys
t
e
a
l
sMuha
mma
d
sha
i
rf
r
om the Hazratbal shrine and dies while trying to
destroy an old Hindu temple.

Much more ironically, Saleem, illegitimate son of the

English colonist William Methwold and a low-c

a
s
t
eI
ndi
a
nwoma
n,ha
s
e
y
e
sa
sbl
ue
as Kashmiri sky -- which were also eyes asbl
uea
sMe
t
hwol
d
s-- and a nose as

dr
a
ma
t
i
ca
saKa
s
hmi
r
igr
a
ndf
a
t
he
r

s-- which was also the nose of a grandmother

f
r
omFr
a
nc
e
(
117)
,Rus
hdi
es
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
. Thepur
eHi
g
h-Aryan blood in Aziz,
Sa
l
e
e
m
sf
a
l
s
egr
a
ndf
a
t
he
r
,whi
c
hmi
g
htwe
l
lbet
a
ke
na
sas
i
g
nof authentic
Indianness, is playfully confused with the heritage of European colonialism.
I
ne
vi
t
a
b
l
ec
ul
t
ur
a
lba
s
t
a
r
di
z
a
t
i
onofSa
l
e
e
m,a
ndbye
xt
e
ns
i
on,ofa
l
lmi
dni
g
ht

s
children, is dramatized.

At another place, Saleem regrets that although his family

t
hr
ow[
t
he
i
r
]l
oti
nwi
t
hI
ndi
a[
r
a
t
he
rt
ha
nPa
ki
s
t
a
n]
,
t
hea
l
i
e
nne
s
sofbl
uee
y
e
s
r
e
ma
i
n
s
(
107)
,s
e
e
mi
ng
l
yc
onf
us
i
n
gt
heKa
s
hmi
r
ii
de
nt
i
t
ywi
t
hhi
sf
a
mi
l
y

sr
e
l
i
g
i
ous
ba
c
kg
r
ound. El
s
e
whe
r
e
,howe
ve
r
,Rus
hdi
ei
se
xc
e
pt
i
ona
l
l
ys
e
ns
i
t
i
vet
oKa
s
hmi
r

s
political uniqueness.

He reminds us that Kashmir

i
snots
t
r
i
c
t
l
ys
pe
a
ki
ngapa
r
tof

t
heEmpi
r
e
,buta
ni
nde
pe
nde
ntpr
i
nc
e
l
ys
t
a
t
e
a
nda
l
l
owsTa
it
ode
c
l
a
r
et
ha
t

Ka
s
hmi
r
i
sa
r
edi
f
f
e
r
e
nt
(
33)
. Hee
ve
nwr
i
t
e
st
ha
t
,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
or
umor
s
,Ta
i
wa
s
infuriated byI
ndi
aa
ndPa
ki
s
t
a
n
ss
t
r
ugg
l
eove
rhi
sva
l
l
e
y
,a
ndwa
l
ke
dt
oChha
mb
with the express purpose of standing between the opposing forces and give them a
pi
e
c
eofmi
nd,
s
hout
i
ng
Ka
s
hmi
r
if
ort
heKa
s
hmi
r
i
s
(
37)
. Anot
i
c
e
a
bl
eme
nt
i
on
of Kashmiri politics i
sa
l
s
of
oundi
nt
hede
s
c
r
i
pt
i
onofhow
She
i
khAbdul
l
a
h,t
he
Li
onofKa
s
hmi
r
,wa
sc
a
mpa
i
g
ni
ngf
orapl
e
bi
s
c
i
t
ei
nhi
ss
t
a
t
et
ode
t
e
r
mi
nei
t
sf
ut
ur
e

(
260)
. Whi
l
et
hehe
a
dl
i
nei
nane
ws
pa
pe
rr
e
a
ds
Abdul
l
a
h
I
nc
i
t
e
me
nt

Ca
us
eof
his Re-Ar
r
e
s
t
,
Sa
l
e
e
ms
pe
a
ksofAbdul
l
a
h
s
c
our
a
g
e
.
Considering the political
c
l
i
ma
t
ei
nt
hes
ubc
ont
i
ne
nt
,Rus
hd
i
e

se
xpr
e
s
s
i
onofs
y
mpa
t
hyf
ort
heKa
s
hmi
r
ic
a
us
e
i
sg
l
a
r
i
ng
l
ys
ubve
r
s
i
ve
. ForI
ndi
a
ns
,
i
fa
ni
nc
hofKa
s
hmi
rwas conceded then India
i
t
s
e
l
fwoul
dbea
tr
i
s
k,
be
cause it would incite other separatist movements within the
nation, as Akbar Ahmed explains (257).
It would be wrong, though, to claim that Rushdie is committed to the Kashmiri
cause, for elsewhere in Mi
dni
ght

sChi
l
dr
e
nand in Shame, he seems to treat Kashmir

rather casually as just a part of India.

Coming from a middle-class, Urdu-speaking

Muslim family, growing up in Bombay and having spent most of his adult life in
England, Rushdie has no intimate knowledge of Kashmir.

Besides, as is

appropriately repr
e
s
e
nt
e
dbyt
hea
l
i
e
nne
s
sf
e
l
tbyDrAz
i
z
,Rus
hdi
e

sc
os
mopol
i
t
a
n
outlook and secular, democratic leanings are at odds with the supposedly cultural
backwardness and religious conservatism embodied in Kashmir.

His postcolonial

diasporic experience, nonetheless, must have alerted him to the subaltern, in-between
status of the Kashmiris, while his sympathy for their cause is in line with his Leftish
l
i
be
r
a
l
i
s
m. Expl
a
i
ni
nghi
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
ye
a
s
yr
i
de
i
nEng
l
a
nd,Rus
hdi
ea
s
s
e
r
t
sbi
t
t
e
r
l
y
t
ha
ti
t
i
snott
her
e
sult of the dream-Eng
l
a
nd
sf
a
mouss
e
ns
eoft
ol
e
r
a
nc
ea
ndf
a
i
r
pl
a
y
,butof[
hi
s
]f
r
e
a
kf
a
i
rs
ki
na
nd[
hi
s
]
Eng
l
i
s
h
Eng
l
i
s
ha
c
c
e
nt
(Imaginary
Homelands 18)
. Wes
houl
dnot
et
ha
thi
s
f
r
e
a
kl
i
g
htc
ompl
e
xi
onc
ome
sf
r
om hi
s
Kashmiri ancestors.

While his whiteness, middle-class background, Western

education and cosmopolitan taste must have afforded him a feeling of superiority in
hi
sc
ount
r
yofor
i
g
i
n,a
mongWe
s
t
e
r
ne
r
shei
si
ne
vi
t
a
bl
y
whi
t
ebutnotqui
t
e
.
The
fact that Haroun finds The Ocean of Sea of Story
wr
i
t
t
e
ni
nal
a
ng
ua
g
e[
he
]c
oul
dnot
r
e
a
d(
51)i
squi
t
et
e
l
l
i
ng:wha
t
e
ve
ra
f
f
e
c
t
i
vec
onne
c
t
i
onRus
hdi
ema
yf
i
ndin

Ka
c
he
-me
r
,
i
ti
st
a
i
nt
e
dbyas
e
n
s
eofOt
he
r
ne
s
s
,ame
di
a
t
e
dvi
s
i
onof
t
r
a
ve
l
e
d
e
y
e
s
.
Andhi
sdoubl
ea
wa
r
e
ne
s
sofKa
s
hmi
r

sma
r
g
inality vis--vis India and
Pakistan as well as the inner religious conflicts must have undermined any rosy
portrait of Kashmiryat.

To Rushdie, then, Kashmir functions as a powerful trope of

alienation, liminality and fragmentation, resonating with his own cultural

in-betweenness and his fractured national identity, heightened after the Affair.
Gi
ve
nRus
hdi
e

se
mot
i
vea
nds
y
mbol
i
ci
nve
s
t
me
nt
si
nKa
s
hmi
r
,i
ti
snot
surprising that he alludes, so explicitly, to Kashmir in Haroun.

But for him to speak

of rec
e
nt
Kos
h-ma
r
,
orKa
s
hmi
r

sni
g
ht
ma
r
i
s
hhi
s
t
or
y
,s
i
nc
et
hel
a
t
e1980sa
mount
s
to sheer embarrassment.

It is not to say that Rushdie must be ignorant of the

Farooq-Ra
j
i
va
c
c
or
d,howt
hes
ono
ft
he
Li
onofKa
s
hmi
r
a
l
l
e
ge
dl
y
s
ol
dout
hi
s
state to the Center and met Muslim oppositions, followed by the outbreak of
anti-Indian riots and terrorism.

It is quite likely that Rushdie, before he finished

Haroun, had heard of the news about the violent demonstrations in the valley against
his Satanic Verses.

Bes
i
de
s
,i
nc
ompl
e
t
el
oc
a
lknowl
e
dge
,
t
hei
ne
vi
t
a
bi
l
i
t
yoft
he

mi
s
s
i
ngbi
t
s
,
a
sRus
hdi
ede
mons
t
r
a
t
e
sma
s
t
e
r
f
ul
l
yi
nShame (69), does not hinder
hi
mf
r
om de
t
a
i
l
i
ngt
hevi
c
e
sofa
f
i
c
t
i
ona
lc
ount
r
y[
.
.
.
]a
tas
l
i
g
hta
ng
l
et
or
e
a
l
i
t
y

(29).

What I venture to s
ugg
e
s
tt
oa
c
c
ountf
orRus
hdi
e

ss
i
mul
t
a
ne
ousna
mi
nga
nd

evasion of more recent Kashmiri history is that, under the deep impact of the
insurgence, often misunderstood by non-s
y
mpa
t
hi
z
e
r
sa
sme
r
e
f
unda
me
nt
a
l
i
s
t

uprisings,5 Kashmir has become too alien to Rus

hdi
e

sc
os
mopol
i
t
a
ns
e
ns
i
bi
l
i
t
y
.
The demonic figure of armed mujahideen, whowoul
dt
a
keRus
hdi
e

she
a
di
fg
i
ve
n
t
hec
ha
nc
e
,mi
g
htwe
l
lha
ver
e
pl
a
c
e
d,i
nRus
hdi
e

si
ma
g
i
na
t
i
on,Ta
it
heboa
t
ma
na
nd
the Reverend Mother, inscrutable but relatively benign natives of his ancestral home.
Besides, Rushdie might have found himself much more at home with the
England-returned Farooq Abdullah, a medical practitioner like Dr. Aziz in Mi
dni
ght

s
Children and having a dandy side not entirely unlike Isky Harapa in Shame, than
ma
nyoft
he
f
a
c
e
l
e
s
s
a
nt
i
g
ove
r
nme
ntMus
l
i
mf
i
g
ht
e
r
s
.
Thet
r
e
a
t
me
ntof
Kos
h-ma
r
i
nHaroun is disappointing if taken realistically,
not so much because it simplifies, as a fairytale for children is expected to do, but
because it misleads.

K
sunbe
a
r
a
b
l
es
a
dne
s
s
,whi
c
hc
a
ne
ve
nbe
s
me
l
l
e
d[
.
.
.
]ont
he

ni
g
hta
i
r
(
47)
,a
l
ongwi
t
ht
heha
unt
i
ngde
pi
c
t
i
onof
he
a
vi
l
ya
r
me
ds
ol
di
e
r
s
a
nd
pe
opl
e

s
e
xt
r
e
mehos
t
i
l
ee
xpr
e
s
s
i
ons
(
42)
,whi
l
ea
l
l
udi
ngt
or
e
c
e
ntpol
i
t
i
c
a
lt
ur
moi
l

10

in the valley, is explai

ne
da
wa
yi
nt
e
r
msofBut
t
oo
sma
ni
pul
a
t
i
onofde
moc
r
a
t
i
c
pr
oc
e
dur
e
sa
ndma
g
i
c
a
l
l
yr
e
s
ol
ve
dbyRa
s
hi
d
sr
e
c
ount
i
ngofhi
sj
our
ne
yt
oKa
ha
ni
.
A more pertinent account, one may contend, should at least refer to the National
Conf
e
r
e
nc
e

si
na
bi
l
i
t
y
,a
f
t
e
rFa
r
oo
q

spr
o-Indian turn, to represent Kashmiri
aspirations any longer, and to the subsequent rise of armed militancy out of wide and
de
e
pdi
s
c
ont
e
nt
. But
t
oo
sobvi
ousa
l
l
us
i
ont
ot
hef
or
me
rPa
ki
s
t
a
nil
e
a
de
rZul
f
i
ka
r
Al
iBhut
t
o,pa
i
nt
e
da
st
he
wor
l
dc
ha
mpi
onofs
ha
me
l
e
s
s
ne
s
s
i
nShame through the
figure of Isky Harappa (108), may be considered a trope of displacement.

Sensitive

to but unable to come to terms with recent Kashmiri tragedies, Rushdie is compelled,
on this reading, to speak of another time and s
pa
c
e
. Anda
s
Kos
h-ma
r
i
nHaroun
is being flattened by post-Af
f
a
i
rc
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
mi
nt
opr
i
ma
r
i
l
ya
g
l
oba
l
i
s
s
ueofa
r
t
i
s
t
i
c
freedom and censorship, the local and the specific utterly pass into oblivion.
It will not be easy to locate postcolonial issues in the contents of Haroun.
However, with reference to the historicity of the genre adopted and certain
tropological peculiarities in the text, we can explore Har
oun
srelation to coloniality
a
nds
e
ei
ft
he
r
ei
sa
ny
t
hi
ngt
r
ul
y
p
os
t
c
ol
oni
a
l
.
In an insightful article on genre
c
r
i
t
i
c
i
s
m,Fr
e
dr
i
cJ
a
me
s
onpr
opos
e
st
ha
t
i
ni
t
se
me
r
g
e
nt
,s
t
r
ongf
or
mag
e
nr
ei
s
essentially a socio-symbolic message, or in other terms, that form is immanently and
i
nt
r
i
ns
i
c
a
l
l
ya
ni
de
ol
ogyi
ni
t
sownr
i
g
ht
(
140-41)
.
Thei
de
ol
ogyof form itself [...]
s
e
di
me
nt
e
d,
J
a
me
s
onf
ur
t
he
re
l
a
b
or
a
t
e
s
,
pe
r
s
i
s
t
si
nt
ot
hel
a
t
e
r
,mor
ec
ompl
e
x
structure as a generic message which coexists-e
i
t
h
e
ra
sac
ont
r
a
di
c
t
i
onor[
]a
sa
mediatory or harmonizing mechanism-wi
t
he
l
e
me
nt
sf
r
om l
a
t
e
rs
t
a
g
e
s
(
141).

In the

f
ol
l
owi
nga
na
l
y
s
i
s
,Is
ha
l
la
dhe
r
et
oamuc
hwe
a
ke
rnot
i
onof
f
or
ma
ls
e
di
me
nt
a
t
i
on.

While stressing that even a deceptively simple genre like the fairytale for children
consists of heterogenous if not contradictory elements from different periods, I

11

concede that ideological orientations of the formal elements concerned cannot always
be unambiguously pinned down.

As far as generic identify is concerned, leaving

aside the political allegory about artistic freedom already expounded, Haroun is
basically a fairytale for children, with a sci-fi touch.

Tracing the history of the

fairytale as a genre, Jack Zipes points out that the fairytale emerges as a product of
the higher-class European literary appropriation, since the fifteenth century, of the
ki
ndofor
a
lf
ol
kt
a
l
e
sknowna
st
he
wonde
rt
a
l
e
(
When Dreams Came True 2).
Some of the prominent features of the oral wonder tale which survive in later literary
fairytales include the lack of concrete, real temporal and geographical references, the
presence of supernatural powers and magical agents, relatively straightforward
characterization in diametrical opposition of good versus evil, and above all, the
happy ending.

All four characteristics listed here, though modified to some degrees,

can be detected in Haroun.

The fairytale, with its predictably simple magic to guarantee an unlikely happy
end and the tendency to dehistoricize, is not a particularly promising genre for
expressing complicated postcolonial concerns.

Nonetheless, it would be utterly

wrong to claim that generic constraints of the fairytale must have disallowed adequate
treatment of political issues, postcolonial or otherwise, in Haroun.
with respect to a concrete example.

Let me explain

The social relations in Gup City on Kahani,

with its king, a prince and a general, follow a kind of fairytale convention, residual of
the medieval world of the folktale.

However, in order to make the Guppees

representatives of free speech in his allegory, Rushdie grants them absolute freedom
to air their opinions while on the way to attack the Chupwalas.

This enviable

freedom, embarrassingly, can hardly be reconciled with the general description of

power relations in the story.

For instance, when the crowd find themselves in

12

conflict with the prince on an important decision whether to save the Ocean or the
princess first, they concede at once: save both.

Other parts of the story show that the

Guppee society is strictly hierarchical and patriarchal.

Absolute freedom of speech,

ironically, does not entail political rights, not least true equality.

Such glaring

contradictions, however, could have been avoided, had Rushdie thoughtfully

developed the sci-fi dimension, a modern generic convention already experimented
by Rushdie in Grimus (1975), if unremarkably, to introduce more innovative forms of
social structure.6 I
nf
a
c
t
,t
hel
i
t
e
r
a
r
yf
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
e
,
i
ns
t
i
t
ut
i
ona
l
i
z
e
di
nFr
a
nc
edur
i
ng
the eighteenth century first in literary salons, at court and then in print,7 with a large
r
e
pe
r
t
oi
r
eof
c
onve
nt
i
ons
,mot
i
f
s
,t
opoi
,c
ha
r
a
c
t
e
r
s
,a
ndpl
ot
s
(
Zi
pe
s
,When Dreams
3), has proven, in the course of time, to be a much more plastic form than the oral
wonde
rt
a
l
e
. Dur
i
ngt
hef
i
r
s
tha
l
foft
het
we
nt
i
e
t
hc
e
nt
ur
y
,a
c
c
or
di
ngt
oZi
pe
s

s
erudite survey, the literary fairytale became much more politicized.

Of course, it

must be pointed out that the fairytales containing sophisticated social messages of
contemporary relevance are not necessarily intended for children mainly, not to say
exclusively.

If Rushdie is unable, even if willing, to deal with the postcolonial in

Haroun, the blame falls not so much on the fairytale as such, but on the very genre of
the fairytale for children.

Si
g
ni
f
i
c
a
nt
l
y
,
Zi
pe
ss
t
r
e
s
s
e
swi
t
hr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
et
ot
hehi
s
t
or
i
c
i
t
yoft
hege
nr
e
,
i
t
was from 1830 to 1900, during the rise of the middle classes, that the fairy tale came
i
nt
oi
t
so
wnf
orc
hi
l
dr
e
n(
20)
. Tha
tHaroun belongs to the fairytale for children is
not hard to ascertain.

Apart from its relatively simple and somewhat repetitious

Eng
l
i
s
h,t
hes
t
or
yi
sma
r
ke
dbyi
t
s
c
l
e
a
nl
i
ne
s
s
- no bawdy expression, relatively
little violence, no eroticism, not even romance (the Haroun-Blabbermouth
relationship does not go beyond mutual liking and ends abruptly), and no trace of

13

(pagan) religion save some conventional magical elements, partly rationalized by

pseudo-science.

At first sight, there is nothing unusual about the necessity to

c
l
e
a
ns
ea
l
ls
uc
hf
or
msof
c
or
r
upt
i
o
nf
ort
hewe
l
l
-being of the child reader.

What

may be of interest to the postcolonial critic, as we shall see, lies in the underlying
mystification of childhood.

Examining bourgeois conceptions of childhood in

relation to modem Western stories intended for children, Jacqueline Rose argues that

c
hi
l
dr
e
n
sf
i
c
t
i
onha
sne
ve
r completely severed its links with a philosophy which
sets up the child as a pure point of origin in relation to language, sexuality and the
s
t
a
t
e
(
8)
. Si
nc
et
he
di
s
c
ove
r
yofc
hi
l
dhoodbyEur
opea
r
oundt
hes
i
xt
e
e
nt
h
century (Aris 33) and the instituti
onofc
hi
l
dr
e
n
sl
i
t
e
r
a
t
ur
ei
nt
heni
ne
t
e
e
nt
hc
e
nt
ur
y
,
it has come to be a commonplace assumption in the West that childhood is a distinct,
privileged stage of life, having unmediated assess to a sort of ideal primitive world
unt
a
i
nt
e
dby
a
dul
t
s
oc
i
a
la
nd sexual corruptions.

But the fetish of childhood,

a
na
l
y
z
e
ds
y
mpt
oma
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
,r
e
ve
a
l
sa
dul
t
s
ownps
y
c
hi
ci
nve
s
t
me
nt
s
.
The
r
ei
sa
c
ont
i
nui
t
yi
nc
hi
l
dr
e
n
sf
i
c
t
i
on,
obs
e
r
ve
sRos
e
,
f
r
omRous
s
e
a
uupt
oa
ndbe
y
ond
Peter Pan to Alan Garner, in which the child is constantly set up as the site of a lost
t
r
ut
ha
nd/
ormome
nti
nhi
s
t
or
y
(
43
)
. Chi
l
dr
e
n
sf
i
c
t
i
oni
st
opr
ol
onga
ndpr
e
s
e
r
ve
i
nnoc
e
n
c
e
,
notonl
yf
ort
hec
hi
l
dbuta
l
s
of
or[
a
dul
t
s
][
.
.
.
]va
l
ue
swhi
c
ha
r
e
c
ons
t
a
nt
l
yont
heve
r
g
eofc
ol
l
a
ps
e
(
44)
. Put in more vicious terms, the
mystification of childhood concerned implies disavowals not only of inevitable
linguistic impurity and indeterminacy but of various forms of oppressions and
repressions.

While childhood is privileged as a superior moral and aesthetic vantage

point, the child, paradoxically, becomes the fitting object of bourgeois pedagogy and
s
ur
ve
i
l
l
a
nc
e
,i
nt
hena
meofr
e
s
c
ueorpr
ot
e
c
t
i
on. Chi
l
dr
e
n
sl
i
t
e
r
a
t
ur
e
,i
nf
a
c
t
,
s
e
t
s
up the child as an outsider to its own process, and then aims, unashamedly, to take the
child in(
2)
.
Whe
r
e
ve
rc
hi
l
dho
o
dpur
i
t
y[
.
.
.
]i
sbe
i
ngpr
omot
e
di
nonet
y
peof
14

di
s
c
our
s
e
,
Ros
ea
r
g
ue
sf
r
omade
c
ons
t
r
uc
t
i
vepe
r
s
pe
c
t
i
ve
,
t
hee
xc
l
ude
dt
e
r
m oft
he
oppos
i
t
i
onwi
l
lbeope
r
a
t
i
ngs
ome
whe
r
eve
r
yc
l
os
ea
tha
nd(
50)
. Following this
hint, I wish to explore in Haroun a much neglected connection between the fairytale
for children and an aspect of Orientalism, or what I shall call, for want of a better
na
me
,t
he
moda
l
i
t
yofe
xot
i
c
i
s
ma
ndi
nnoc
e
nc
e
.
By
Or
i
e
nt
a
l
i
s
mIhave in mind
the aspect of fantasy, orwha
tEdwa
r
dSa
i
dc
a
l
l
s
aki
ndofs
e
c
ond-or
de
rknowl
e
dge

ont
opof
e
xa
c
tpos
i
t
i
veknowl
e
d
g
ea
boutt
heOr
i
e
nt
(
52)
,
g
ove
r
ne
dbyaba
t
t
e
r
yof
de
s
i
r
e
s
,
r
e
pr
e
s
s
i
ons
,i
nve
s
t
me
nt
s
,a
ndpr
oj
e
c
t
i
ons
(
8)
.
What we see in Haroun, as in some other fairytales for children, especially
Oriental tales, is an eye for the marvelous, which strikes us as a hunger for the exotic
at times.

In what may be considered a travelogue part of the story, Haroun craves

f
or
t
hemos
ts
pe
c
t
a
c
ular view on earth, a vista of the Valley of K with its golden
f
i
e
l
dsa
n
ds
i
l
ve
rmount
a
i
nsa
ndwi
t
ht
heDul
lLa
kea
ti
t
she
a
r
t avi
e
ws
pr
e
a
dout
l
i
keama
g
i
cc
a
r
pe
t
,wa
i
t
i
ngf
ors
ome
onet
oc
omea
ndt
a
kear
i
de
(
34)
. Thevi
r
g
i
n
beauty of the legendary Vale of Kashmir, as is typical in earlier descriptions of the

my
s
t
e
r
i
ousOr
i
e
nt
,
i
nvi
t
e
st
hei
nnoc
e
nty
oungt
r
a
ve
l
e
r
,i
nama
nne
rnott
oor
e
mot
e
from the ultimate imperialist fantasy: come hither and possess me.

But this way of

s
e
e
i
ngt
hr
oug
ht
hec
hi
l
d
si
nnoc
e
n
te
y
e
s
,pur
ge
dofa
nyr
e
f
e
r
e
nc
et
oc
haracteristic
We
s
t
e
r
ni
ndul
g
e
nc
ei
n
Or
i
e
nt
a
ls
e
ns
ua
l
i
t
y
,
i
sc
ouc
he
di
nadi
s
c
our
s
eofc
hi
l
dhood
innocence, where the exotic is already domesticated and associated with an innocuous
conventional fairytale motif, the magic carpet.

It is also noteworthy that The Ocean

of the Sea of Story, a

ni
ndi
g
e
nousl
i
t
e
r
a
r
ypr
oduc
tofRus
hdi
e

sa
nc
e
s
t
r
a
lhome
,i
s
pr
e
s
e
nt
e
di
na
nunmi
s
t
a
ka
bl
ye
xot
i
cpe
r
s
pe
c
t
i
ve
:i
ti
s
wr
i
t
t
e
ni
nal
a
ng
ua
ge[
Ha
r
oun]
could not read, and illustrated with the strangest pictures he had ever se
e
n(
51)
.
Furthermore, the mysterious Oriental storybook is found on the houseboat called

15

Arabian Nights Plus One,

e
a
c
hofi
t
swi
ndows[
ha
s
]be
e
nc
utouti
nt
hes
ha
peofa
fabulous bird, fish or beat: the Roc of Sinbad the Sailor, the Whale Tat Swallowed
Men, a Fire-Br
e
a
t
hi
ngDr
a
g
on,a
nds
oon.
And
l
i
g
htbl
a
z
e
doutt
hr
oug
ht
he
windows, so that the fantastic monsters were visible from some distance, and seemed
t
obeg
l
owi
ngi
nt
heda
r
k.
(
51)The many allusions to The Arabian Nights, at K and
on Kahani
,g
owe
l
lwi
t
hHa
r
oun
si
nnoc
e
ntde
l
i
g
hti
nt
hema
g
i
c
a
lwor
l
doft
he
f
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
e
. Theoc
c
a
s
i
ona
lus
eof
we
i
r
dHi
ndus
t
a
nie
xpr
e
s
s
i
onsa
ndofI
ndi
a
n
English only adds a further exotic coloring.

Haroun
sa
pparently benign exotic

mode, associated with childhood innocence, is incompatible with the kind of

mona
r
c
h-of-all-I-s
ur
ve
y
vi
s
i
ononef
i
ndsi
nRi
c
ha
r
dBur
t
on
sAf
r
i
c
a
n
di
s
c
ove
r
i
e
s

(
Ma
r
yLoui
s
ePr
a
t
t201)
,a
ndi
se
ve
nmor
er
e
mot
ef
r
omt
heva
r
i
ous
moda
l
i
t
i
e
s
of
systematic knowledge examined by Bernard Cohn regarding empire building and
colonial administration since the eighteenth century (3-11).

Nevertheless, if the

modality of exoticism and innocence is placed in the wider context of the discursive
formation of the fairytale in Europe, its kinship to wha
tPr
a
t
tc
a
l
l
st
he
a
nt
i
-que
s
t
,

t
hes
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
sofr
e
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
onwhe
r
e
byEur
ope
a
nbour
ge
oi
ss
ubj
e
c
t
ss
e
e
kt
os
e
c
ur
e
t
he
i
ri
nnoc
e
nc
ei
nt
hes
a
memome
nta
st
he
ya
s
s
e
r
tEur
ope
a
nhe
ge
mony
(
7)
,i
s
inevitably suspected.
Let it be remembered that Antoine Galland and Burton, the most famous
European translators and popularizers of The Arabian Nights, were famed Orientalists,
c
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
dbys
c
hol
a
r
sl
i
keZi
a
uddi
nSa
r
da
rf
orpe
r
pe
t
ua
t
i
ng
a
l
lt
hei
de
a
sa
bout
sensuality, licentiousness, cruelty, fanaticism, treac
he
r
y
,de
s
pot
i
s
ma
ndba
r
ba
r
i
s
mof
the Orient (43).

Western reception and literary imitation of Oriental tales in the

eighteenth century and their subsequent transformation into fairytales for children
traversing cultural confines, is an unabashed history of appropriation, concurrent with

16

the rise of the West as a global power, politically, economically and culturally.

In

her detailed study of the reception of The Arabian Nights, Eva Sallis instructively
points out that its translation into European langua
g
e
sme
a
nsbe
i
ng
r
e
bor
ni
nt
oa
n
alien environment [...] in which its signs were received in a radically different way
f
r
omt
he
i
ra
c
c
e
pt
e
dme
a
ni
ng
si
nt
he
i
rc
ul
t
ur
eofbi
r
t
h(
1)
. Thee
i
g
ht
e
e
nt
h-century
European reception was marked by the craze for the exot
i
c
,
whi
c
hma
det
het
e
xt
mor
es
t
r
a
ng
et
ha
ni
ti
nf
a
c
twa
s
(
6
9)
. Of
t
e
nt
hee
xot
i
c
wa
sl
a
r
g
e
l
yapr
oduc
toft
he
s
c
e
nes
e
t
t
i
nga
ndvi
vi
dba
c
kg
r
oundoft
het
a
l
e
s
(
70)
. We
s
t
e
r
nr
e
wr
i
t
e
sa
nd
imitations were to further consolidate the exotic mode.

When tales and motifs from

The Nights, since the early twentieth century, have already been amply appropriated
byWe
s
t
e
r
nc
hi
l
dr
e
n
sl
i
t
e
r
a
t
ur
e
,Sa
l
l
i
s
Or
i
e
nt
a
l
i
s
tc
ha
r
g
e
s
,c
ur
i
ous
l
y
,a
ppe
a
rt
obe
much less compelling.

It is not to say that because of cleansing, we can no longer

find negative images about the Orient in The Nights or in its countless fairytale
adaptations and imitations.

Rather, the hard fact is that Oriental tales assimilated by

c
hi
l
dr
e
n

sl
i
t
e
r
a
t
ur
e
,wi
t
ht
hea
c
c
ompa
ny
i
ngmoda
l
i
t
yofe
xot
i
c
i
s
m and innocence,
ha
vebe
c
omepa
r
ta
ndpa
r
t
i
a
lofWe
s
t
e
r
n,a
ndi
nc
r
e
a
s
i
ng
l
yg
l
oba
l
,c
hi
l
dr
e
n
sc
ul
t
ur
e
,
as indispensable family fare.

Childhood innocence, a mystified bourgeois discursive

construct, is all the more cherished because it is supposed that adulthood always
threatens to annihilate its fragile existence.

Thriving in a wonder world protected by

the familiar aura of childhood innocence, the exotic in contemporary fairytale

di
s
c
our
s
ea
ppe
a
r
st
obe
ha
r
ml
e
s
s
,
na
t
ur
a
l
,e
t
e
r
na
l
,a
hi
s
t
or
i
c
a
l
,t
he
r
a
pe
ut
i
c
,
t
o
bor
r
owZi
pe
s

swor
ds(
Fairy Tale as Myth 7).

The modality of exoticism and

innocence is thus Otherness domesticated, as though utterly irrelevant to centuries of

real contacts between the West and its Other.

17

The modality of exoticism and innocence

,a
sage
ne
r
i
c
s
e
di
me
nt
,
i
shi
s
t
or
i
c
a
l
l
y
c
l
os
e
l
yr
e
l
a
t
e
dt
oOr
i
e
nt
a
l
i
s
m,whi
c
h,t
oSa
i
d,i
su
nque
s
t
i
ona
bl
y
a
na
s
pe
c
tofbot
h
i
mpe
r
i
a
l
i
s
ma
ndc
ol
oni
a
l
i
s
m(
123)
. Ye
tt
hee
xot
i
cmodei
ni
t
s
e
l
fi
snotne
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
y
implicated in imperial fantasy or colonial desire.

If exoticism is ravishment in the

marvelous, or the experience of wonder, then it is naturally linked to the fairytale, for
Zipes tells us that a prominent generic feature of the fairytale, remnant of the oral
wonde
rt
a
l
e
,i
st
o
i
nduc
ewonde
r
(When Dreams 5)
.I
nZi
pe
s

sa
c
c
ount
,t
he
f
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
ei
se
s
c
a
pi
s
tbutpot
e
nt
i
a
l
l
ye
ma
nc
i
pa
t
or
y
,be
c
a
us
ei
t
[
s
e
e
ks
]t
oa
wa
ke
nour
regard for the miraculous condition of life and to evoke in a religious sense profound
feelings of awe and respect for life as a miraculous process, which can be altered and
changed to compensate for the lack of power, wealth, and pleasure that most people
e
xpe
r
i
e
nc
e

(
5)
. Thema
r
ve
l
ouss
t
udi
e
dbyGr
e
e
nbl
a
t
ta
s
ac
e
nt
r
a
lf
e
a
t
ur
e[
.
.
.
]i
nt
he
whole complex system of [European] representation [...] through which people in the
late Middle Ages and the Renaissance apprehended and thence possessed or
di
s
c
a
r
d
e
dt
heunf
a
mi
l
i
a
r
,t
hea
l
i
e
n,t
het
e
r
r
i
bl
e
,t
hede
s
i
r
a
bl
e
(
Gr
e
e
nbl
a
t
t22)
,
however, is much more ambivalent ideologically.

The marvelous Columbus saw in

the New World de

not
e
s
s
omede
pa
r
t
ur
e
,di
s
pl
a
c
e
me
nt
,ors
ur
pa
s
s
i
ngoft
henor
ma
l
ort
hepr
oba
bl
e
,buti
nt
hedi
r
e
c
t
i
onofde
l
i
c
i
ousva
r
i
e
t
ya
ndl
ove
l
i
ne
s
s
(
76)
,a
ndwa
s
i
nvoke
di
nhi
s
f
or
ma
ll
e
g
a
lr
i
t
ua
l
ofna
mi
nga
ndt
a
ki
ngpos
s
ession of the Indies (80).
Jean de Lr
y

sa
c
c
ountofhi
sma
r
ve
l
ouse
xpe
r
i
e
nc
ea
taBr
a
z
i
l
i
a
nwi
t
c
he
s
s
a
bba
t
h,
ont
heot
he
rha
nd,r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
s
a
ne
c
s
t
a
t
i
cj
oy
(
16)
,amy
s
t
e
r
i
ousl
a
c
kofme
a
ni
ng
,
having nothing to do with demonizing or conquering the Other.

The marvelous

pr
oduc
e
swonde
r
,whi
c
hi
s
t
hr
i
l
l
i
ng
,pot
e
nt
i
a
l
l
yda
nge
r
ous
,mome
nt
a
r
i
l
y
i
mmobi
l
i
z
i
ng
,c
ha
r
ge
da
tonc
ewi
t
hde
s
i
r
e
,i
g
nor
a
nc
e
,a
ndf
e
a
r
i
nGr
e
e
nbl
a
t
t

swor
ds
,
a
nd
i
st
hequi
nt
e
s
s
e
nt
i
a
lhuma
nr
e
s
pons
et
owha
tDe
s
c
a
r
t
e
sc
a
l
l
sa
f
i
r
s
t
encoun
t
e
r

(20).

What we find in the most fanciful exotic parts of Haroun, be it the

18

descriptions of K, the Ocean of Stories on Kahani, or the strange otherworldly

c
r
e
a
t
ur
e
sl
i
keMa
l
it
hef
l
y
i
ngg
a
r
de
ne
r
,s
e
e
nt
hr
oug
hHa
r
oun
se
y
e
s
,howe
ve
r
,i
sa
remarkable lack of fear.

Also noticeable are the self-confidence and knowingness in

this young hero, who may have derived from the strong-willed child-protagonist one
s
e
e
si
nt
het
r
a
di
t
i
onoff
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
epa
r
odi
e
s
i
nt
e
nde
df
orbot
hc
hi
l
dr
e
na
nda
dul
t
(
Zi
pe
s
,
When Dreams 21)a
se
xe
mpl
i
f
i
e
dbyLe
wi
sCa
r
r
ol
l

sAl
i
c
e

sAdv
e
nt
ur
e
si
n
Wonderland (1865).

Well versed in fairytales and mildly cynical, Haroun

nevertheless chooses to firmly believe in magic and takes great delight in it.
Although he constantly ravishes in wonders, he never feels being threatened.

At

times he consciously makes sense of his fantastical experience in terms of fairytale

conventions, and seeks for what he, through his familiarity with the fairytale
discourse, always already knows.

Although Haroun is empowered with a stronger

wi
l
la
ndg
i
ve
nag
r
e
a
t
e
rr
ol
et
ha
nhi
sf
a
t
he
r

si
nt
hea
dve
nt
ur
e
,hi
ss
upe
r
i
orknowl
e
dge
about the magical world, supposedly a gift of his uncorrupted childhood innocence,
paradoxically, comes from the favorite stories he heard fr
om hi
sf
a
t
he
r
. Ha
r
oun
s
propensity to see the Other as the dj-vu and his craze for the homely exotic,
a
c
t
ua
l
l
y
,
i
sda
ng
e
r
ous
l
yc
l
os
et
oSa
r
da
r

sde
f
i
ni
t
i
onofOr
i
e
nt
a
l
i
s
mi
nt
e
r
msof
a
constructed ignorance, a deliberate self-de
c
e
pt
i
on,
orana
r
c
i
s
s
i
stic pursuit of
s
ome
t
hi
ng
a
e
s
t
he
t
i
c
a
l
l
ypl
e
a
s
i
ng(
4)
.I
ft
hec
hi
e
fa
i
m ofpos
t
c
ol
oni
a
lc
hi
l
dr
e
n
s
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
ur
e
,a
ss
omec
r
i
t
i
c
sbe
l
i
e
ve
,i
s
s
e
ns
i
t
i
vi
t
yt
r
a
i
ni
ng
,
e
na
bl
i
ngt
hec
hi
l
d-reader to
forego his or her habitual self and to hear voices of the Other
,t
he
nHa
r
oun
s
self-assured indulgence is particularly alarming.
As is evident in The Wizard of Oz (1992), Rushdie is keenly aware of the utopian
impulse in the fairytale and tries to relate it to his diasporic experience.

He states

t
ha
t
Ov
e
rt
heRa
i
nbow,
t
het
he
mes
ongoft
he1939MGM mus
i
c
a
li
nhi
ss
t
udy
,
i
s
,

19

oroug
htt
obe
,t
hea
nt
he
m ofa
l
lt
hewor
l
d
smi
gr
a
nt
s
,
f
or
i
ti
sac
e
l
e
br
a
t
i
onof
Es
c
a
pe
,ag
r
a
ndpa
e
a
nt
ot
heUpr
oot
e
dSe
l
f
,ahy
mn the hy
mn t
oEl
s
e
whe
r
e

(
23)
. Her
e
mi
ndsust
ha
t
Ha
r
oun
s companions [...] are clear echoes of the friends
who danced with Dorothy down the Yellow Brick Road (
18)
.I
nhi
sa
na
l
y
s
i
sofOz,
Rushdie ponders on home and migrancy, confesses his childhood admiration of
England, and compares, if rather superficially, the differences between Hollywood
a
nd
Bol
l
y
wood.
Regrettably, nowhere can we detect any overt critique of
colonialism and its aftermath.

Likewise, even if we can see allusions to social and

political problems such as Islamic fundamentalism, corruption of democracy, political

and commercial exploitations of stories, and even environmental pollution featuring
prominently in Haroun, wedonots
e
ea
ny
t
hi
ngunmi
s
t
a
ka
bl
y
pos
t
c
ol
oni
a
l
t
he
r
e
e
xc
e
ptt
hr
oug
has
y
mpt
oma
t
i
cr
e
a
d
i
ng
. Ont
hec
ont
r
a
r
y
,Rus
hdi
e

sprofessed aim to
tailor Haroun f
or
c
hi
l
dr
e
nf
r
om s
e
ve
nt
os
e
ve
nt
y
(
18)ha
sobs
c
ur
e
dt
hef
a
c
tt
ha
tt
hi
s
book is written in a dominant Western language and in a genre which, despite its
recent globalization, has a peculiar institutional history, thus blinding us to any
colonial or neo-colonial relations implicated.

What concerns us here is not only the

historicity of the literary fairytale for children and its complicity with Orientalism, but
also the more recent rise of the fairytale film in the transnational culture industry,
whi
c
h,obs
e
r
ve
sZi
pe
s
,
[
t
e
nds
]t
ous
et
hef
a
i
r
yt
a
l
et
oi
nduc
eas
e
ns
eofha
ppye
nd
and ideological consent and to mute its subversive potential for the benefit of those
s
oc
i
a
lgr
oupsc
ont
r
ol
l
i
ngpowe
ri
nt
hepubl
i
cs
phe
r
e
(When Dreams 27-28).

If the

pos
t
-i
n
pos
t
c
ol
oni
a
l
f
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
e
sf
orc
hi
l
dr
e
ni
st
a
ke
nt
ome
a
n,notj
us
t

e
x-c
ol
oni
a
l
or
mi
g
r
a
nt
,
buta
c
t
i
ve
l
y
c
ha
l
l
e
ngi
ng
c
ol
oni
a
l
i
t
y
,t
he
ni
tr
e
qui
r
e
sa
great deal more courage and imagination in wrestling with the formal and ideological

s
e
di
me
nt
s
oft
hege
nr
e
. Ye
te
v
e
ni
fRus
hdi
ede
c
i
de
st
ot
a
keupt
hi
sc
ha
l
l
e
nge
,a
big question remains: will his young Western readers, long nourished by such Disney
20


c
l
a
s
s
i
c
s
a
sThe Lion King and Aladdin, be willing to abandon their familiar world
of
Ar
a
b
i
a
nNi
g
ht
se
nt
e
r
t
a
i
nme
nt
s

?
Notes

A slightly shorter version of this article appears in Rudolphus Teeuwen ed.,

Crossings: Travel, Art, Literature, Politics. Taipei: Bookman, 2001.

2

277-96.

Apart from the names

Ka
c
he
-me
r
a
nd
Kos
h-ma
r
,
t
hes
t
or
ya
l
l
ude
st
os
uc
h

real places as Dal Lake, National Highway NHIA, and the Jawahar Tunnel in the
district. In the glossary appended to the book, Rushdie clearly tells us that the Dull
La
ke
ge
t
si
t
sna
mef
r
om t
heDa
lLa
kei
nKa
s
hmi
r
(
217)
.
3

Hoopoebi
r
ds
a
l
l
ude
st
oSu
f
i
s
m,f
ori
nt
het
we
l
f
t
h-century Sufi text The

Conference of the Birds, the hoopoe guides other birds to spiritual perfection. The
Sufis, renowned for their gentleness and otherworldliness, were early founders of
Islam in the valley. Unfortunately, not all early Muslim settlers and rulers were
non-violent, as will be seen in the case of Sikandar.
4

It might be helpful to offer the reader a very brief historical note here. The

independent princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was established in 1846, when
Gulab Singh bought Kashmir from the East India Company under the Treaty of
Amristar, inaugurating the Dogra rule. In 1947, as Pakistani military tribesmen
entered Kashmir, Maharajah Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, with the
effect that Kashmir joined the Indian Union. In 1948, the United Nations Security
Council ruled that the Kashmiris should decide their future by a plebiscite. However,
partly because of the wars between Pakistan and India, the plebiscite never
materializes. In 1949, the Indian Constituent Assembly granted the State of Jammu
a
ndKa
s
hmi
ras
pe
c
i
a
ls
t
a
t
us
,unde
rAr
t
i
c
l
e370.Howe
ve
r
,Ka
s
hmi
r

ss
pe
c
i
a
ls
t
a
t
us
within India has been eroded gradually; full autonomy never comes into being.
5

Ganguly has probed into the social background of the recent insurgency and

of
f
e
r
e
dal
uc
i
d,i
fc
r
ude
,a
c
c
ount
:
I
nt
heba
c
kgr
oundof[
t
he
]pol
i
t
i
c
a
ls
c
e
ne
,
Kashmiris were becoming better educated and more politically aware. Younger
Kashmiris, no longer as politically quiescent as their parents, began to chafe against
the steady suppression of political dissent. Finding virtually all institutional channels
21

of expressing their discontent closed, they mobilized and resorted to other, more
violent methods of protest. Since secular politics, as represented by the National
Conference [headed by Farooq Abdullah], was corrupt and undemocratic, it is not
s
ur
pr
i
s
i
ngt
ha
tt
hemove
me
ntt
ookona
ne
t
hnor
e
l
i
g
i
ousdi
me
ns
i
on.
(
91)
6

Although some people claim that sc

i
e
nc
ef
i
c
t
i
onc
oul
dbet
r
a
c
e
dba
c
kt
o
t
he

ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (

wr
i
t
t
e
npe
r
ha
psi
n2000BC)
(
Robe
r
t
s47)
,i
f
notMa
r
yShe
l
l
e
y

sFrankenstein (1818), often critics see Jules Verne (1818-1905) and

H.G. Wells (1866-1946) as founders of the genre. In serious modern writers like Isaac
Asimov and Doris Lessing, human and human-machine relations are explored in
depth. Thef
i
r
s
tr
e
a
de
rofwor
ksl
i
keLe
s
s
i
ng

sCanopus In Argos: Archives would be

surprised by the fact that the sci-fi plot could be much less formulaic as is found in its
popular forms. Despite some haunting scenes and its general appeal to sensationalism
(as in the portrait of the incestuous relationship between Flapping Eagle and his sister),
Rus
hdi
e

sGrimus is not particularly successful in studying social relations, and is

often considered an immature work of his.
7

By
i
ns
t
i
t
ut
i
ona
l
i
z
a
t
i
on,
Zi
pe
swi
s
he
st
oe
mpha
s
i
z
ePe
t
e
rBur
ge
r

sa
r
g
ume
nt

t
ha
t
wo
r
ksofa
r
ta
r
enotr
e
c
e
i
ve
da
ss
i
ng
l
ee
nt
i
t
i
e
s
,butwi
t
hi
ni
ns
t
i
t
ut
i
ona
l
frameworks andc
ondi
t
i
onst
ha
tl
a
r
g
e
l
yde
t
e
r
mi
net
hef
unc
t
i
onoft
hewor
ks
(
Qt
di
n
Zipes, Fairy Tale as Myth 19). In other words, the production and reception of
f
a
i
r
y
t
a
l
e
sa
r
eme
di
a
t
e
dby
f
r
a
mi
ngc
ondi
t
i
ons
,
t
hedi
a
c
hr
oni
cde
ve
l
opme
ntofwhi
c
h
determines the historicity of the genre.
Works Cited
Aris, Philippe.

Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life.

Trans. Robert Baldick.

New York: Vintage, 1962.

Appi
a
h,Kwa
meAnt
hony
.
I
st
hePos
t
- in Postmodernism the Post- in
Pos
t
c
ol
oni
a
l
?
Contemporary Postcolonial Theory: A Reader.
Padmini Mongia.
Cohn, Bernard S.

London and New York: Arnold, 1996.

55-71.

Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge.

Princeton UP, 1996.

22

Ed.

New Jersey:

Da
y
a
l
,
Sa
mi
r
.
TheLi
mi
na
l
i
t
i
e
sofNa
t
i
ona
ndGe
nde
r
:Sa
l
ma
nRus
hdi
e

s
Shame
.
TheJ
our
nalofMi
dwe
s
tModern Language Association 31.2
(1998): 39-62.
Durix, Jean-Pi
e
r
r
e
.
TheGa
r
de
n
e
rofSt
or
i
e
s
:Sa
l
ma
nRus
hdi
e

sHaroun and
the Sea ofSt
or
i
e
s
.
Re
adi
ngRus
hdi
e
:Pe
r
s
pe
c
t
i
v
e
sont
heFi
c
t
i
onof
Salman Rushdie. Ed.

M. D. Fletcher.

Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994.

343-51.
Ganguly, Sumit. The Crisis in Kashmir . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.
Greenblatt, Stephen.

Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World.

Oxford: Clarendon, 1992.

Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconsciousness.

Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1981.

Koul, Mohan Lal. Kashmir - Past and Present: Unravelling the Mystique.
New Delhi: Manav, 1994.
Kourtti, Joel. Fiction to Live in.

New York: Peter Lang, 1998.

Nehru, Jawaharlal. The Discovery of India .

New York: Doubleday, 1959.

Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London
and New York: Routledge, 1992.
Roberts, Adam. Science Fiction. London: Routledge, 2000.
Rose, Jacqueline. The Case of Peter Pan or The I
mpos
s
i
bi
l
i
t
yofChi
l
dr
e
n
s
Fiction.

Rev. ed.

London: MacMillan, 1992.

Rushdie, Salman. Shame.

---.

London: Pan, 1983.

Haroun and the Sea of Stories .

London: Granta, 1991.

23

---.

Imaginary Homelands.

London: Granta, 1991.

---.

The Wizard of Oz.

---.

Midnight
sChi
l
dr
e
n. London: Vintage,1995.

London: BFI, 1992.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism.

London: Penguin, 1987.

Sailis, Eva. Sheherazade Through the Looking Glass.

Richmond, Surrey:

Curzon, 1999.
Sardar, Ziauddin. Orientalism.
Sattar, Arshia.
Somadeva.

Introduction.

Buckingham: Open UP, 1999.

Tales from the Kathasaritsagara.

London: Penguin, 1994.

Sharma, B.L. Kashmir Awakes.

By

xv-xli.

Delhi: Vikas, 1971.

Singh, Tavleen. Kashmir: A Tragedy of Errors.

New Delhi: Viking, 1995.

Zipes, Jack. Fairy Tale as Myth, Myth as Fairy Tale.

Lexington, Kentucky:

UP of Kentucky, 1994.
---.

When Dreams Came True: Classical Fairy Tales and Their Tradition.
New York and London: Routledge, 1999.

24