Bhupinder 93

CHAPTER THREE

Instruments of Politics: Rushdie‘s Shame

The aim of the present chapter is to explore how Salman Ahmed Rushdie portrays the

politics of colonial and postcolonial era. The chapter focuses on his Shame, where he satirizes

the political and social system of Pakistan. Rushdie travels back in time to present some of

the intensely shameful consequences of the trauma associated with partition of India in 1947.

Published in 1983, Rushdie‘s Shame deals with the political scenario of Pakistan. It is a

portrayal of rulers of Pakistan and the sufferings of the masses at the hands of the rulers.

Rushdie also highlights the politics of the prominent political leaders Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and

General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. The book provides important insights regarding the political

moves and counter-moves of the political leaders of Pakistan.

Rushdie through his novel Shame parodies the politics of Pakistan. The acts and

conduct of top political personalities are parodied through the fictional characters. According

to Linda Hutcheon parody ―as with any form of reproduction‖ (Hutcheon Politics, 89)

brings the idea of ―the original as rare, single and valuable‖ (Hutcheon, Politics 89) into

questioning. She further writes that it does ―not mean that art has lost its meaning and

purpose‖ (Hutcheon, Politics 89) but parody ―works to foreground the politics of

representation‖ (Hutcheon, Politics 90). Parody as such becomes a powerful tool of resistance

to what prevails as knowledge. Rushdie‘s Shame as an apt example of ‗Historiographic

Metafiction‘ castes a glance of suspicion and scepticism at what is passed as history.

According to Hutcheon, historiographic metafiction is, ―self conscious about the paradox of

the totalizing yet inevitably partial act of narrative representation. It overtly ‗de- doxifies‘

received notions about the process of representing the actual in narrative - be it fictional or
 Bhupinder 94

historical. It traces the processing of events into facts, exploiting and then undermining the

conventions of both novelistic realism and historiographic reference‖ (Hutcheon, Politics,

75). Rushdie‘s Shame is thus is one such postmodern text. History as reflected in the novel

does not claim to be authentic, nevethless, it problematizes historical knowledge. As Rushdie

observes,

The country in this story is not Pakistan, or not

quite. There are two countries, real and fictional,
occupying the same space. My story, my fictional
country exist, like myself, at a slight angle to
reality. I have found this off-centring to be
necessary; but its value is of course, open to debate.
My view is that I am not writing only about
Pakistan. (Rushdie, Shame, 29)
Rushdie goes on to further mixing of the fictional with the historical, as he says:

In Delhi, in the days before partition, the authorities

rounded up any Muslims . . . and locked them up in
the red fortress . . . including members of my own
family. It‘s easy to imagine that as my relatives
moved through the Red Fort in the parallel universe
of history, they might have felt some hint of the
fictional presence of Biliquis Kemal. (Rushdie,
Shame, 64)
In Rushdie‘s narrative thus, as Hutcheon notes, the fictional and the historical co-exist. This

according to Hutcheon is ―...the paradox of postmodernism. The past really did exist, but we

can only know through its textual traces, its often complex and indirect representations in the

present: documents, achieves, but also photographs, paintings, architecture, films and

literature‖ (Hutcheon, Politics, 75). Thus as Hutcheon concludes ultimately it is the choice of

the writer to decide which events to record and present as history.

Rushdie utilizes multiple narratives as he tells a story based on other stories in a loose and

episodic manner. The novel seems to depict the political and historical events of the post-

colonial Pakistan even as these may be taken as happenings in any political country. Events

are more important than the characters in the novel. Except for Omar and Sufia Zinobia, who
 Bhupinder 95

are imaginary characters, all other characters are modelled on real characters of Pakistani

political and social life. Once again, the technique used in the novel is that of magic realism.

Rushdie‘s Shame depicts how politics is a game of continuous struggle between the

individuals and the political parties. It is a continuous process for the attainment of power and

there are moves and counter-moves by the people actively engaged in it. The political players

put their mind, body and soul at stake to remain powerful. Shame depicts how the clash of

interests among the political personalities leads to jealousy, hatred and rivalries which further

lead to violence. It may be argued that the characteristics of the political personalities in the

fictional work of Rushdie cannot be linked only to the main political personalities of Pakistan

alone. In the neo-colonial period, politics has become highly complex. It is no more

considered as meant for straightforward people. The words ‗politician‘ and ‗shrewdness‘

have become synonymous with each other. There is no dearth of the shrewd and mean

politicians worldwide engaged in the vicious circle of acquiring power, who resort to the

third grade means and devices for realizing their political aspirations. The use of family,

friendship and relationships in politics is not restricted to Pakistan alone. It remains the fact

that the politicians are always busy to derive new means for their political survival. The

leaders become so cold-blooded that they do not even bother about their filial ties. The

politicians see every relation in the Foucauldian sense, a power-relation.

By using the technique of magical realism, Rushdie describes an imagined nation in

which the old man Shakeel lives with his three daughters named Chunee, Munee and Bunee

in a mansion. The house located in a town called Q was ―positioned beside an open maiden,

and it was equidistant from the bazaar and the Cantt‖ (12). The Old Shakil keeps his

daughters isolated from the rest of the world in the old mansion so as to keep them away from

the influence of the white men (colonizers). He closes the mansion to avoid any interaction

with the world outside. After the death of their father, the daughters continue to remain
 Bhupinder 96

alienated from the world, but as time passes they get rid of their parental subjugation and get

fascinated by the colonizers. They organize a party in which they invite the members of the

white community and the few ―non-white guests - local zamindars and their wives‖ (16). But

the non white guests abandoned ―the sisters to the colonial authorities‖ (16). The invitation

extended by the Shakil sisters may be termed as sudden infatuation of the three sisters for the

colourful world outside. (World of the white people) Throwing of a party may be seen as an

attempt of the Shakil sisters to demonstrate that they are no longer an inferior community.

Here Rushdie parodies the native‘s feeling a sense of inferiority in comparison to the

westerners or the colonizers who are politically and financially stronger than the natives.

One of the Shakil sisters becomes pregnant due to an interaction with an invited guest. This

results in the birth of a male child (Omar Shakil). For the sake of family reputation, the three

sisters decide not to disclose the illicit affair with a white man. They also decide to keep the

identity of the real mother of the child secret. They avoid interaction with the outside world

by shutting themselves inside their own mansion at Nishapur. In the article, ―The politics of

Repression and Resistance,‖ Neluka Silva observes:

From the outset, the three Shakil sisters are first ‗caged‘ by
their father. Then they inflict self-imprisonment during
their simultaneous pregnancy and continue to be entrapped
in their ‗cage‘. The cage- effect is so powerful that, in the
final denouement, even dictators cannot escape from it...
(Silva, 153)
The whole episode may be taken as a parody of the native obsession with the western

colonizer. An illicit affair with a white man which resulted in pregnancy of one of the Shakil

sisters suggests how the people of formerly colonized countries like Pakistan and India could

be the easy the prey to western culture. It results in loss of cultural values, language and

identity. The locking of the mansion could be seen as symbolic of the native‘s attempts to

turn within- going back to own cultural roots in order to free oneself from the western
 Bhupinder 97

culture. As Malshette Yogesh Tribakrao aptly observes in an article entitled ―Interpretation

of History and Politics in Salman Rushdie‘s Shame,‖ the masses of the ‗Third World

Countries‘ like Pakistan are still under the influence of their colonial masters, even after so

many years have passed since the nation‘s freedom from colonial domination. Analyzing

Shame, Tribakrao rightly observes:

Rushdie describes a ‗not-quite Pakistan‘ thirty seven years

after independence from colonial rule. While describing
this, Rushdie sees it still caught up in the subject-object
dialect imposed on Third World people by a Manichean
imperialism. To him, Pakistani people still view themselves
as objects. This is because they have been unable to shake
off the sense of shame and denigration heaped on them
during colonial rule. (Tribakarao, 1- 4)
The above description shows that the influence of the west on the ex-colonial nations

continues even in the neo-colonial era.

Omar Khayyam Shakil, the son of one of the three Shakil sisters, a decent and modest

fellow suffers from an inferiority complex and shyness which is the result of heredity and

environment. He suffers from fear psychosis and is not in a balanced state of mind. He

remains in the old mansion for twelve long years of confinement. Rushdie describes:

He was not free. His roving for freedom-of-the house was

only the pseudo-liberty of a zoo animal; and his mothers were
his loving, caring keepers. His three mothers: who else
implanted in his heart the conviction of being a sidelined
personality, a watcher from the wings of his own life? He
watched them for a dozen of years, and, yes, it must be said,
hated them for their closeness… (35)
Omar is the result of the shameful affair of his mother with a white man. The ‗shamelessness‘

of his mothers hangs heavy on his head and he is unable to face the world. Roshin George

describes Omar Khayam Shakil as an ―incarnation of the private shame of his three mothers‖

which stands ―for the shamelessness of the country that is peripheral‖ (Ray 133). Rushdie

describes the character and family background of Omar thus:

 Bhupinder 98

… Omar Khayyam in his cups described himself to

Isky. ‗You see before you,‘ he confided, ‗a fellow
who is not even the hero of his own life; a man born
and raised in the condition of being out of things.
Heredity counts, dontyouthinkso? (24)
Rushdie admits in an interview that he has linked the birth of an illegitimate son (Omar

Shakil) to that of the formation of Pakistan. Rushdie expresses his acute sense of pain and

anguish at the emergence of Pakistan as a consequence of the partition of India. He views it

as a political move of the colonizers aimed at dividing the country, planned by them much

before they decided to liberate the country from the colonial yoke. Rushdie describes thus:

This was the time immediately before the famous moth-

eaten partition that chopped up the old country and handed
Al-Lah a few insect-nibbled slices of it, some dusty western
acres and jungly eastern swamps that the ungodly were
happy to do without. (61)
Thus it is clear that the partition of the two countries was the result of the divisive policies of

colonizers and the Muslim leadership‘s self-centred politics. Rushdie attempts to show how

the idea of Pakistan was a Western construct:

It is well known that the term ‗Pakistan‘, an acronym, was

originally thought up in England by a group of Muslim
intellectuals. P for the Punjabis, A for Afghans, K for
Kashmiris, S for Sind and the ‗tan‘, they say, for
Baluchistan. (87)
Thus the colonizers through their agents, some Muslims residing in England, become

successful in dividing the nation into two separate nations.

Rushdie‘s Shame acquaints us with the state of affairs in Pakistan as well as the

political personalities responsible for the partition. He highlights the role of Pakistani leaders

who were responsible for the infamous partition due to the influence of the colonial rulers.

The Muslim leaders either failed to understand the nefarious designs of the colonizers or

possibly they had their own selfish motives in getting a separate nation for the Muslims.

Rushdie reveals that the conspiracy hatched jointly by the colonizers and the then political
 Bhupinder 99

leadership of the Muslim community was kept a secret. Rushdie targets the deceitful Muslim

leadership that kept the Muslim community in the dark about the formation of a new nation

after independence.

Rushdie brings to light the events of partition of the country in 1947 and the consequent

wounds inflicted on the Indian masses. The role of colonial rulers and their influence is

clearly evident in the text. The light emanating from the hotel Palladian is symbolic of the

fact that the colonial rulers are enlightened in sharp contrast to the ignorant natives. They

were on a civilizing mission, which was aimed to educate and enlighten the masses. The

consequences of the formation of Pakistan, according to the author, were equally shameful

for masses of both the countries. The partition riots brought sufferings to the people of both

countries. Rushdie links his own migrant status with the creation of new nation i.e. Pakistan.

In his essay entitled ‗‗Diaspora and Cultural Anxieties: A Study of Salman Rushdie‘s Shame

and The Satanic Verses,‖ Shaikh Suhel S. writes about the pain and suffering of Pakistani

masses because of forced migration from their ancestral homes due to partition thus:

The issues of exile and migration crop up in the novel

repeatedly. The author defines city as ―a camp of refugees‖
which hints at the refugees of 1947, migrants to Pakistan.
The title of the first section of the novel ―Escape from the
mother country‖ refers to the trauma of partition and Shakil‘s
escape from the ancestral home. (S. Suhel 84)
The partition of the country affected the masses of both countries. The grave political mistake

committed by the leaders of Pakistan as well as India for their own ulterior motives led to the

loss of honour and enormous loss of life and property. The portrayal of the death of

―Mahmood the Woman and her nudity in Delhi streets‖ (76) shows how the partition affected

the population of both countries. Thousands of people were brutally murdered and women‘s

honour was endangered. Rushdie‘s portrayal of Biliqis standing naked holding her ―dupatta

of modesty‖ (64) shows how the decency and honour of females came under serious threat
 Bhupinder 100

due to partition riots. Rushdie thus considers partition a political blunder committed by the

political leaders.

Rushdie though considered prominently a male-centric writer attempts to explore the

female dimension through the fictional character Sufia Zinobia. He depicts the sufferings of

the common masses especially the women in the post-colonial Pakistan. The politics of

oppression is an emerging trend in many countries of the Third World. Sufia one of the main

characters in the novel is the daughter of General Hyder and his wife Biliquis. Both had

expected a male child, hence they consider birth of Sufia to be inauspicious. Sufia‘s parents

term her birth to be shameful. By using the word ‗shame‘ as title of the work, Rushdie

parodies the obsession for the male child in countries such as India and Pakistan. Here the

male child is privileged over the female as the society considers male child as a strong heir to

their legacy. Contrary to the expectations of Iskander Harappa and Rani Humayun,

Arjumabad, a daughter‘s birth comes as a shock to them. They term her as ‗wrong miracle.‘

Rushdie has portrayed how the patriarchal society remains unconcerned about the interests of

the female children. As such the political leaders only claim to be the real representatives of

the people. They in reality have a strongly biased attitude towards the better part of the

population. The novel depicts how the politicians have strained family ties. They create

matrimonial alliances for furthering their political interests. Their political compulsions force

them to carry on with the men in reality they hate. There is no room for emotion or sentiment

in their life. The political players are successful in their political objectives as they are able to

conceal their emotions. The text convincingly shows how in politics, there are no ethics,

morals, and true relationships. There is no commitment, loyalty or sincerity. Rushdie

portrays how a so- called loyalist, General Hyder, for his own benefit turns against his

political mentor, Iskander Harappa.

 Bhupinder 101

Rushdie in the novel emphasises that the lack of awareness of gullible masses keeps

them from raising voice against the dictatorial policies of the rulers. The use of religion as a

political tool is common practice in the majority of nations. The communal and sectarian riots

take place due to the mixing of religion with politics which has a negative impact on the

progress of the nation. In Rushdie‘s view the extremely religious people are ignorant about

the shrewd ways of the politicians. Through his writing, thus, Rushdie tries to represent the

voice of the oppressed masses including women who are doubly victims of atrocities. There

is considerable evidence of political vendetta highlighted by Rushdie through the fictional

characters in Shame. Instead of doing something noble for the masses, the political players

use their politics to silence the oppositional voices. The third world nations still remain

underdeveloped mainly due to the policies and practices of the leaders and the parties. The

rivalry among the top political personalities not only creates tension among the supporters of

the main parties, but also has dire consequence in the life of ordinary masses.

Rushdie depicts Maulana Dawood as an agent of the colonizers. Without any national

consciousness Maulana is an emotionless creature motivated solely by the desire for power.

His act reflects the politics of the Princes and Maharajas who were given territories to

promote the British rule. Rushdie describes how Maulana Dawood ―rode around town on a

motor-scooter donated by the Angrez sahibs‖ and threatened the ―citizens with damnation‖

(42). Maulana‘s conduct indicates how religious personalities become tools of colonizers.

They act as advisors of rulers and instigate them to indulge in undemocratic and illegal

practices. Rushdie describes how under Dawood‘s instigation Raza Hyder indulges in

repression of all forms. He alters the television schedules and even dismantles the legal

system. He proclaims that ―God was in charge‖ (248) of all his deeds.

The lust for enjoying power dampens one‘s national spirit and patriotism. This is true

of the conduct of Ex-Princes who aligned with the colonizers in their lust for power and got
 Bhupinder 102

small states under their political domination. By aligning with the British they became tools

of colonizers who used them against their own population. The colonial rulers were

successful in their policy of divide and rule. Raza Hyder the man in power gets influenced by

the religious man Maulana Dawood. The Islamic scriptures have considerable influence on

the political practice of Maulana. Rushdie is critical of the religious fanaticism which makes

the politicians go to the extent of eliminating their political rivals. Raza Hyder is instrumental

in killing his arch political rival, Iskander. He is murdered at the end of the story by Babar‘s

mother at Nishapur as Hyder was instrumental in Babar‘s killing.

Rushdie is critical of the Pakistani society where even the people serving as teachers

indulge in immoral practices. It seems they are not scared of the legal or administrative

apparatus. The portrayal of the affair that Eduardo, the teacher, has with his student Farah is

an instance of misuse of position as a teacher. This also shows how the people who are

engaged in the noble profession of teaching indulge in immoral acts. In exchange, the father

of Farah is exempted from paying fees. Rushdie portrays how the political system fails to

check the immoral acts.In his second story Rushdie presents a blind old lady called

Bariamma who rules the Bariamma Empire. She makes a particular sleeping arrangement for

the males and females residing in her ‗Empire.‘ The sleeping arrangement, established for

maintaining decency, honour and dignity of the large family of Bariamma Empire brings

dishonour to Bariamma Empire as it became infamous for indecent acts and illicit relations

leading to dangerous social and political consequences. Rani Biliquis, one of the fictional

characters describes how men and women indulge in indecent and immoral acts of having

sexual relations with other‘s wives and husbands.

‗Imagine in that darkness‘, Rani giggles while the two of

them grind the daily spices, ‗who would know if her real
husband had come to her? And who would complain? I tell
you, Billoo, these married men and ladies are having a
pretty good time in this joint family set-up. I swear, maybe
 Bhupinder 103

uncles with nieces, brothers with their brothers‘ wives,

we‘ll never know who are the children‘s daddies really
are!‘ (73)
The sleeping arrangement depicts how corruption starting from the smallest unit can affect an

entire nation. Rushdie aims to show through Bariamma Empire that corruption is widely

prevalent in Pakistan. The men indulging in corruption have political protection.

Rushdie shows the fictional character Raja Hyder the fiancé of Biliquis has―eleven

legitimate‖uncles and at least ―nine illegitimate‖ uncles and their names were inscribed in the

holy Quran. Biliquis the fictional character describes how besides ―Rani, he could point to a

grand total of thirty-two cousins born in wedlock‖ (75). There were innumerable cousins of

the ―bastard uncles,‖ (75) but their names did not find a place in the Holy Quran.

The account of the two stories portrays how the immoral acts bring shame to the nation.

Rushdie links the birth of an illegitimate child to one of the Shakil sisters with the formation

of a new nation. The partition event was as shameful as the birth of an illegitimate child.

There was a heavy loss of life and property. Rushdie‘s portrayal of the empire of Bariamma

suggests that the disgraceful genealogy of illicit affairs brings shame to a nation. Rushdie

intends to show that the political leaders and the masses have not made any attempt to erase

the past even as they take pleasure in the shameful acts. He suggests that the neo-colonial

leaders are in no way different from the older ones.

The colonizer faced no resistance from the colonized population. Their politics was

successful in not only having political control over the nation but also dividing the nation.

They plundered the resources of India, yet remained acceptable to the masses. The ‗civilizing

mission‘ of the colonizers was politically motivated. This superiority of the colonizers has

been acknowledged in the fictional works by the post-colonial writers. The acceptance of the

superiority of the white by eminent writers should not be seen as an approval. Rather, it may
 Bhupinder 104

be said that Salman Rushdie has tried to portray the weakness of Indian population and its

leaders who had allowed the British to penetrate their nation on the pretext of ‗civilizing

mission‘. Further, it may be said that the divisive politics of the colonizers aimed at dividing

the nation into two. The lack of political awareness and organization among the colonized

population made the task of the colonizers easy to have a complete sway over the nation. The

colonizers were shrewd tacticians who used their power for successful invasion by using all

sorts of political tools.

Rushdie attempts to show that the nation suffered due to the grave mistakes

committed by the Muslim leaders which led to the partition of the nation in 1947. The novel

is a satire on the current social and political system of Pakistan. Rushdie shows his sense of

pain at the pitiable condition of the masses. Through the tale of the Bariamma Empire,

Rushdie describes the political and social system thus:

There were lurid affairs, featuring divorces, bankruptcies,

droughts, cheating friends, child mortality, diseases of the
breast, men cut down in their prime, failed hopes, lost
beauty, women who grew obscenely fat, smuggling deals,
opium-taking poets, pining virgins, curses, typhoid,
bandits, homosexuality, sterility, frigidity, rape, the high
price of food, gamblers, drunks, murders, suicides and God.
(76)

This is an apt description of the social and political conditions of the country. Corruption,

lawlessness, unlawful practices and financial crisis in the country can be attributed to loose

administration provided by the men in power. It also indicates how the nation suffers

adversely when the leaders at the helm of affairs lack vision and foresight. It cannot be

expected from the corrupt and oppressive rulers to provide a clean administration. Rushdie

points out that the Pakistani society has made no attempt at improving or revamping the

political system to avoid the subjugation of its people at the hands of dictators. The past

surely affects the present. The masses of Pakistan, which remained under colonial
 Bhupinder 105

domination, are now under the domination of modern day rulers who deny them even their

basic human rights.

Rushdie attempts to show through the fictional character Sufia that Pakistani political

and social system is unable to provide an environment in which the masses can enjoy full

freedom. The oppressive rule curtails the freedom which surely affects the psyche of the

residents of the nation. Rushdie seems to give a ‗wake-up‘ call to the Pakistani community to

raise their voice against the misrule of the leaders. Rushdie also demonstrates how the

political leaders and parties make mockery of democracy by their manipulative political

practices. The rigging of elections has become a common practice especially in countries like

India and Pakistan. The use of money and muscle power has made a mockery of the

democracy. The men who occupy the coveted seats of power even misuse the judiciary,

police and the army for continual of remaining in power.

In Shame, Rushdie portrays the real political personalities like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto

and General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq through the two main fictional characters Iskander

Harappa and General Hyder. The political moves and counter-moves of the two leaders to

attain power remain the focus of attention in the work. The suffering of the masses becomes

evident from the plight of the fictional characters like Suffia, the heroine of the story. It is

obvious that Rushdie seeks to draw attention to the conduct of the people at the helm of

affairs in Pakistan. He remains in a dilemma whether to admit or not that he is writing Shame

about Pakistan. He had an apprehension that his acceptance could lead to the imposition of a

ban on the book. So he uses the word ‗Pekkavistan‘ instead of Pakistan in the book. That

Shame is about Pakistan becomes clear from Rushdie‘s own description given in his latest

book Joseph Anton in which he describes how the book was ― banned by Pakistan‘s dictator,

Zia ul- Haq, the point of origin for the character of ‗Raza Hyder‘ in the novel‖(Rushdie,

Joseph, 61).
 Bhupinder 106

In Shame, Rushdie offers his account of social and political life in Pakistan. He

satirizes the resultant undemocratic, dictatorial and unlawful practices of the political leaders

of Pakistan. Rushdie intends to create political awareness among the masses about the wrong-

doings of the leaders of Pakistan and to make it the ―land of pure‖ by the active involvement

of the people. He uses the method of fictional historiography in portraying the political

history of Pakistan. He depicts how an oppressive regime dampens the progress of the

country. Rushdie in an interview says: ―Shame is not a portrait of a nation, it's a portrait of a

ruling class and Midinight’s Children tries to be a bit broader than that. But what happens at

the end of Shame . . . well, I‘m not entirely sure about that explosion‖ (Reder, 66-67).

Contrary to his earlier novel, Midnights’ Children which portrays India‘s liberation from the

colonial rule, Rushdie‘s Shame depicts the politics of the leaders of Pakistan. Aijaz Ahmad

in his article titled ―Rushdie‘s Shame‖ suggests that the ―bulk of the narrative is focused on

careers, corruptions, ribaldries and rivalries of two main protagonists in the political arena…‖

(Ahmad, 141)

Rushdie‘s focus in the book is on the masses suffering at the hand of the oppressive rulers,

who hardly ever ponder over the welfare of the countrymen. The sole motive of the

politicians is to devise the ways and means to remain in power. Through his fictional

characters, Rushdie tries to show how the rulers of postcolonial Pakistan follow the legacy of

the colonizers with regard to political and administrative affairs of the country. Rushdie‘s

fictional work also depicts the political instability in Pakistan. He expresses his contempt for

the political system which is ridden by internal conflict, hatred and violence. Rushdie admits

in his book, Joseph Anton that he wrote Shame because his ―feelings towards Pakistan were

ferocious, satirical, personal‖ (Rushdie, Joseph, 60). Rushdie considers Pakistan as a nation

of the crooked leaders and hopeless and helpless population. He points out how the ―civilian
 Bhupinder 107

politicians and unscrupulous generals allied with one another, supplanted one another and

executed one another...‖ (Rushdie, Joseph, 60).

Rushdie‘s Shame depicts the functioning of the political system which had a deep impact of

the Muslim culture. Rushdie acknowledges that in the novel,

... he had written about the workings of Muslim ‗honour

culture‘, at the poles of whose moral axis were honour and
shame, very different from the Christian narrative of guilt
and redemption. He came from that culture even though he
was not religious, and had been raised to care deeply about
questions of pride. To skulk and hide was to lead a
dishonourable life. (Rushdie, Joseph, 147)
Masood Ashraf Raja quotes Timothy Brennan to link the fictional characters in Shame with

actual historical figures of the colonial period. Brenan writes: ―…Raza an alternate form of

‗raja‘ of course suggests the Raj - the British governmental authority that ruled India from

1858 to1947… and Hyder Ali, the infamous ruler of Mysore, a scoundrel and a freebooter

from the south‖ (qtd. in Raja, 10). Brenan writes in his monograph published on Rushdie‘s

fiction that Rushdie cannot be regarded as a representative of the ‗third world‘ people as he

addresses the intellectual elite of the Metropolitan center. Damien Grant is of the view that

Shame portrays the ―instability of its fictional discourse which in turn has something to do

with the instability of Pakistan itself and Rushdie‘s own ambivalent feelings towards it‖

(Grant, 58). In an article titled ―Politics in the Novels of Salman Rushdie‖, Tariq Rehman

aptly points out:

World of Shame is an alienated world… in presenting the

alienated world, Salman Rushdie uses another important
technique to reinforce the impression that politics dehumanizes
human beings and makes them so different from what we
understand by the term ‗human‘ that they appear to us
strangers, aliens and monsters. (Rahman, 113)
Rushdie thus not only recognizes the alienating world of politics but also employs his

literary talent to describe it. Aijaz Ahmad is of the opinion that Rushdie because of his origin
 Bhupinder 108

knew well the conduct and character of the political rulers of Pakistan. In his book titled, In

Theory. Classes, Nations, Literatures Ahmad writes:

What Rushdie seems to know - from the inside, because of

his own class origin - is the history of the corruptions and
criminalities of Pakistani rulers; about these he says
remarkably trenchant things, and his desire to disjoin
himself from that history…( Ahmed, In Theory, 138-9)
Rushdie thus effectively employs his location as an insider as well as outsider to remarkable

use in his writings. Aijaz Ahmad however is critical of Rushdie as a political thinker. He

suggests that Shame is ―occupied so entirely by power that there is no space left for either

resistance or its representation‖ and ―whosoever claims to resist is already enmeshed in

relations of power and in the logic of all-embracing violences‖(Ahmed, In Theory, 127).

Ahmad believes that in Pakistan voices against the tyrannical rule gets silenced due to a fear

of subjection to tyranny.

Ahmad considers the novel as politically useless as it does not offer a concrete solution to

bring about any transformation in the system of which it is critical. He argues that Rushdie‘s

text ought to portray the objective truth about social conditions. In an interview with Una

Chaudhuri Rushdie defends his work against the allegations that his fiction lacks fictional

realism thus:

There‘s an essay or a letter of Brecht‘s‘- maybe it‘s a letter

he wrote to Walter Benjamin- where he says…in order to
describe reality you do not have to write realism, because
realism is only one rule about reality: there are lots of
others. (Qtd. in Taverson, 209)
Rushdie defends himself further saying: ―… I‘ am not at all a political novelist. I know you

have complained of not finding a coherent ideology in Shame - and in that sense I‘m certainly

not an ideological writer‖ (Quoted in Taverson, 204). Arguing against Aijaz Ahmed‘s

condemnation of Shame, Jaina Sanga suggests that Rushdie‘s use of colonial and post-
 Bhupinder 109

colonial references through metaphors is political as it problematises the ―entrenched

versions of reality‖(Sanga, 4).Rushdie‘s protestations notwithstanding, the political

dimension of Rushdie‘s work can hardly be ignored. Rushdie finds an ardent supporter in

Jeol Kuortti who writes in defence of his fiction. He argues thus: ―Oppressive rulers can be

overthrown by the sheer power of fiction, because it is capable of telling the truth about,

exposing, oppression‖ (Qtd. in Taverson, 202).

Andrew Taverson also offers a forceful defence of Rushdie‘s work when he suggest that

Rushdie

...is an intensely ideological writer, a writer committed to

political change, to the transformation of colonial modes of
thinking,... The novel for Rushdie, is about self- expression
... not about offering or promoting a particular programme
for political change. (Taverson, 204-5)
Hence Taverson believes that:

To understand Rushdie‘s position as a political novelist

more accurately, then, we must abandon the idea that
Rushdie is, or sets out to be, a politically transformative
writer, and accept instead that he is, in Shame at least, a
reactive writer, satirizing what is, without attempting to
offer any coherent blueprints for what should be.
(Taverson, 207-208)
This obviously justifies Ahmad‘s argument that Rushdie‘s Shame is unable to offer any

constructive solution to the social and political problems. Yet it may be argued that Rushdie

recognizes that the problems are as a consequence of the faulty politics of the leaders.

Moreover a literary writer does not have to provide any final political solutions, pointing at

the problems and flaws in itself needs to be commended. It has been critiqued that Rushdie‘s

characters do not offer resistance and remain passive. They bear oppression and suppression

more or less silently. It may be argued that by showing the characters subjected to

oppression, Rushdie offers a satirical portrayal of the tyrannical rule.

 Bhupinder 110

Another charge against Rushdie is that of his being Eurocentric. Ahmad and Brenan are of

the view that ―Writing within the discourses of the colonizer‖ makes his work ―complicit

with, not oppositional to colonialism‖ (Quoted in Taverson, 26). They argue that Rushdie‘s

privileged class position proves that ―he is in league with dominant European power

structures, not in antagonism to them‖ (Quoted in Taverson, 26). Rushdie however leaves it

to the readers to make their own judgements regarding his position.

Agnes Gyorke attempts to examine Rushdie‘s novels within the postmodern

framework. She declares: ―I do not read Rushdie‘s novels as case studies of India and

Pakistan: I argue that his texts shed light on how the category of the nation is reinserted into

largely ―hostile‖, postmodern framework …‖ (Gyorke, 10). Another critic M.D.

Fletcherterms Rushdie‘s fiction as ―postmodern writing of a humourous and biting variety‖

(Fletcher, 8). According to S.K. Tikoo, Rushdie ―selects his material from history, and then

fantasizes it, and by doing so, converts Pakistan into something like Peccavistan. This is what

he calls the palimpsest on the real existing country‖ (Tikoo, 52). Thus Rushdie‘s Pakistan

could be any country dealing with oppression and struggling to assert identity in today‘s

postmodern world.

Rushdie is well aware of the fact that, as a diasporic writer, he is likely to face

criticism for writing about the excesses of the political leaders of Pakistan. It is but natural

that a text like Shame writtenby an ‗outsider‘ is unlikely to get a positive response from the

local population. He is sure to be accused of being a foreigner who writes in a foreign

language. He does not have emotional ties with Pakistan. He does not ‗love‘ Pakistan like

the natives do. The natives are used to lead a life in the political and social environment

which, for Rushdie is different from the one in his adopted country. The people of Pakistan

would consider him an outsider, even if Rushdie claims to ‗belong‘ to the country of his

adoption. He says: ―I am an emigrant from one country (India) and a newcomer in two
 Bhupinder 111

(England, where I live, and Pakistan, to which my family moved against my will)‖ (85).

Rushdie‘s multiple roots or for the matter, multiple displacements thus provide him with a

powerful lens to view contemporary history.

It is obvious that Rushdie has an advantage of being a cosmopolitan; he can see a clear

picture of the social and political systems of Pakistan and India as well as those of the

western countries. It is due to his interaction with the societies of both the East and the West

that he successfully points out the flaws in the country of his origin. He sees the political

system of Pakistan as defective because of the dictatorship of the rulers. Rushdie feels deeply

concerned about the crime and corruption in Pakistan and India. He depicts the pain and

suffering of the citizens of these countries. He suggests that the leaders of Pakistan and India

follow the legacy of the ex-colonizers and attempt to divide the people on the issues of

religion, region, caste and language. The motive of the leaders is to divert the attention of the

masses from the real issues concerning the welfare of the masses. The politically ignorant

masses fall in the trap of the political devices of the leaders and indulge in infighting on the

basis of caste, creed or religion. The leaders continue to safely occupy the positions of power

as there is no threat from the divided masses. Rushdie portrays the rulers of his countries as

self-centred and narrow-minded whose main motive is to derive power through legal or

illegal, democratic or undemocratic means. Pakistan according to him, as a nation is burdened

with its colonial past as well as with the Indian legacy; after all it was part of India. The

desire to carve out an identity free from the past becomes dominant force in the dynamics of

politics. The leaders exploit the yearning for a distinct identity as also the threat perception

posed by the powerful Indian culture. Religion becomes a unifying entity through which the

undesirable cultural influences are sought to be neutralised. Unfortunately however the ethnic

clashes within the Muslim community frustrate the attempts of assertion of a separate and

unified identity. As Hima Raza aptly observes:

 Bhupinder 112

... Rushdie draws our attention to the cultural and political

hostilities between the Punjabis and Sindis, as well as those
between the indigenous peoples of Pakistan‘s most
populous provinces - Punjab and Sind - and the immigrant
mohajirs who are viewed with suspicion in their adopted
country... (Raza, 57)
Rushdie through his narrative thus may be seen as using his own identity to put across the

‗Mohajir‘ viewpoint. This obviously adds to the accusation of being a Eurocentric who sees

Pakistan through the eyes of a foreigner.

Rushdie in his writings depicts the political deficiencies in the country of his origin

by closely contrasting the western political system with the political system of India and

Pakistan. Rushdie‘s aim seems to be to awaken the leaders and masses of these countries so

that they may rise above the petty politics of religion, region, caste, community. He like any

Indian or Pakistani wishes that the politicians aim to work for the development of the

nation.The condemnation of Rushdie that his writings portray the country of his origin as

inferior in the eyes of western world is not fully justified. It may be said that these writings

are aimed to portray the flaws and deficiencies in the political systems of both India and

Pakistan, so as to bring reforms. Though, it is a separate issue that his writings have become

significant for the western audience. They being unaware about the culture, traditions and

geographical locations in these countries tend to view the Empire as portrayed by Rushdie.

The very fact that he is writing in English strengthens the allegations that he is writing

for the western world. In her book A Poetics of Postmodernism (1988) Linda Hutcheon

shows how in Shame Rushdie depicts the possible objections that could be raised by the

Pakistani masses to ―his position as insider / outsider writing about the events of Pakistan

from England‖ (Hutcheon, A Poetics, 108). Hutcheon quotes from Rushdie‘s Shame thus:

―Outsider! Trespasser! You have no right to this subject! ... We reject your authority. We

know you, with your foreign language ...speaking about us in your forked tongue, what can
 Bhupinder 113

you tell but lies? (28) The quote makes it quite clear that Rushdie knew well that his text was

all likely to be condemned by the residents of Pakistan.

What made way for sharp criticism however was Rushdie‘s controversial treatment of

religious beliefs and practices in his works. The portrayal of some characters like Mahmood

in Shame drew considerable critical attention as it was alleged to be hurtful to the religious

sentiments of the Muslims. This also indicates Rushdie‘s writings instead of bringing any

positive results for transformations in his own community end up in raising unnecessary

conflict and disruptions. Hence the allegations by the critics that he is Eurocentric and writes

for the western audience may be justified as he gained prominence as a writer in the western

world. He occupies the centre stage in the world of English writing. It seems that Rushdie‘s

politics to attain fame became instrumental in highlighting only the negative aspects of both

India and Pakistan in his major writings. His controversial remarks against Mrs. Indira

Gandhi also seem to be part of his politics to attain fame. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the former

Prime Minister of India sued Rushdie in the court as she felt that certain references in the

book The Midnight’s Children were intended to malign her image.

Many critics point out that in Shame, the fictional characters belong to the elite class,

and there is no space for the lower strata of the society. The characters however who may be

seen as belonging to the oppressed category are the females. Rushdie shows how as a result

of patriarchal oppression, Sufia Zinobia reacts violently and kills 218 men. Arjumabad, the

wife of Iskander Harappa registers her reaction against the misrule, tyranny, and dictatorship

of her husband through continuous embroidery of shawls.

Rushdie highlights the conduct of the top political leaders through his fictional characters,

Iskander Harappa and Raja Hyder modelled on the actual political personalities of Pakistan,

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former Prime Minister and Zia ul–Haq the former President of
 Bhupinder 114

Pakistan respectively. They remained the rulers of the country after the end of colonial

domination. Through the fictional characters, Rushdie portrays the political history of the

postcolonial Pakistan. Rushdie‘s fiction depicts how the ruling class is responsible ―for the

making of history‖ and ―controlling of power‖(Rushdie, in Interview, Kunapipi, 18).The

political struggle for power between the two Pakistani political personalities leads to a

number of political developments. Zia-ul Haq was successful in his attempt to throw Bhutto

out of power in 1977 by using military force. Tariq Rahman points out in his article ―Politics

in the Novels of Salman Rushdie‖ that Rushdie uses ―the method of providing unmistakable

counterparts for some of his fictional protagonists.‖ (Rahman, 113)

Through his fictional characters Rushdie depicts the dynamics of politics; the

oppression of the oppressed verses the oppressed, male versus the female even as clash for

supremacy between the two powerful figures leads to consequences which the entire country

has to deal with. Politicians want their hierarchy to pass on to a male child as a male child is

considered powerful heir to the throne. Rushdie shows how both Biliquis and Rani Humayun

expected a male child. Arjumabad, a female child, was born to Rani Humayun. Sufia

Zinobia and Naveed Hyder (two daughters) were born to Biliquis. The birth of Sufia is

considered as a ―wrong miracle‖ (Rushdie, Shame, 107) by the Hyder family as they expected

a male child, who could be potentially a powerful heir to their political legacy. Termed as

‗shame‘ to her parents, Rushdie portrays Sufia as a retarded child who suffers from brain

fever and gets retarded permanently. At the age of nineteen, she has the brain of a six- year

old child. Sufia Zinobia gets married to Omar Shakil but is not fit to have normal sexual

relations. Later she has sexual intercourse with four young men and she tears off their heads.

Rushdie describes how Sufia ―had torn off their heads and then reached down into their

bodies to draw their guts up their necks with her tiny weaponless hands"(138). Sufia may be

seen as a representative of Pakistani masses who have become psychologically weak because
 Bhupinder 115

of the suppression by the Pakistani rulers. Sufia's act of murder of four men depicts the

unrest among the Pakistani people, which leads to violence in the country. Pardeep Kumar

Dey says that Sufia's ―lack of mental development and emotional instability can be a

statement on the neo-colonial state of Pakistan‖ (Dey, 103). Thus the characters become a

symbol of the unequal political system of Pakistan.

The oppression of women and its political outcome remains one of the main themes of

Shame. It is an important aspect to be examined is the relationship between the status of

women and that of society. In the article titled ―Shame as a Political Allegory,‖ Santosh

Chakraborti rightly observes:

The political discourse is inextricably bound up with the

gender question that plagues Pakistan because of its
ideological Islamic root. Repression of women in the
blantly patriarchal, male-dominated Pakistani society is
knitted into the texture of the allegory to show how woman
power can assume devastating proportions. (Chakraborti,
159)
It may be said that the repression of women adversely hits the development of the nation. In

an article entitled ―Beauty and the Beast: Dualism as Despotism in the Fiction of Salman

Rushdie‖, Keith Booker suggests that ―as long as women are oppressed, men cannot have

true freedom‖ (Booker, 252).

Patriarchal society serves its interests through its biased attitude towards women.

Society is unconcerned to female issues and their problems. Rushdie expresses his anguish

over the oppression of women. He portrays the sufferings of women through the fictional

characters like Biliquis Hyder, Rani Harappa, Sufia Zinnobia, Arjumabad Harappa and

Naveed Hyder. Aijaz Ahmad points out how women lose their identity in a Pakistani society

thus:
 Bhupinder 116

In general, moreover, what we find is a gallery of women

who are frigid and desexualized (Arjumabad, the ‗Virgin
Ironpants‘), demented and moronic (the twenty-odd years
of Zinobia's childhood), dulled into nullity (Farah), driven
to despair (Rani, Bilquis) or suicide (Good News Hyder),
or embody sheer surreal incoherence and loss of individual
identity (the Shakil sisters). (Ahmad, In Theory, 144)
Pardeep K. Dey reflects on gender politics in Shame thus:

Shame also is a reflection on gender politics. Society sees

that Sufia becomes seriously ill, develops brain fever and
thus permanently retarded. She develops the brain of a six-
year- old at the age of nineteen. Her mental illness act as a
metaphor with reference to the pressures of gendering
which are very much social and historical. Sufiya's plight is
the universal condition which imposes upon many women,
particularly of the third world, the possibility of
deformation and incapacity. (Dey, 103-104)
Thus the sexual oppression is closely linked with the prevalent politics of repression.

Shame highlights the fact that the dictatorship of the rulers, their immoral acts and

rampant corruption leads to political instability in the nation. It surely has an adverse effect

on the society of Pakistan. Sufia uncovers the shameful acts of the rulers. She attempts to

fight against the repression and injustice meted out to her. In this regard, Catherine Cundy

opines that Rushdie ―desires to tell a cautionary tale about Pakistani elite in Shame- a tale that

demonstrates the numerous ill bred by oppression and in which corruption gain their just

rewards‖ (Cundy, 44). Sufia's violence and her killing of two hundred and eighteen Turkeys

can be seen as a reaction of political oppression of the rulers. Sufia's frustration and mental

agony and her consequent violence can be linked to her humiliation. Parmeswaran links the

sufferings of Sufia with that of the Pakistani masses thus:

Sufia can be likened to the spirit of Pakistan at the indignities

heaped upon her by her own kith and kin who had expected her to
be something other than she was and who turns out to be, because
of their actions and attitudes, wild, the Beast within breaking out of
her. Her lack of mental development, and her emotional instability
 Bhupinder 117

could well be Rushdie‘s statement on Pakistan. (Parmeswaran,

107)
Commenting on the oppression of the rulers, Roshin George, in an article entitled ―Salman

Rushdie‘s Shame History and Fiction‖ observes:

Suppression especially sexual suppressions may result in extreme

cruelty as is seen in the case of Sufia. Her killing of the four slum
boys after raping them signifies this. It stands for the extreme
suppression and sexual hypocrisy that was and is the face-mark of
Zia. The macabre element in the ending is also fit for a society,
which is totally repressed. It also stands for Rushdie‘s wistful
thinking for the end of the dictatorship in Pakistan. (George, 134 -
135)
According to Mujeebuddin, Rushdie's Shame is a portrayal of women, ―who are dynamic and

aggressive and rejects the passive roles that women are reduced to playing and sometimes,

under the pervasive influence of patriarchal values, even will this subjection upon

themselves‖( Mittappli, 144). He further writes that the females in Shame are portrayed as

passive characters who submit themselves to the patriarchal society. Arjumabad is so blind in

love ―for her father that she refuses to see even his most glaring omissions is condemned like

her mother to a life without love‖ (Mittapli, 144). Obviously, in a society where politics

implies control and oppression there can be no scope of having gender equality. Shame aptly

reflects this issue. Thus Rushdie‘s Shame may be seen as an attempt to voice concern for

gender equality in the patriarchal social order.

According to Aijaaz Ahmad ―Sufia's shame comes to refer less and less to herself (her

femaleness; her mental retardation) or to her family (which is ashamed of her on both counts,

femaleness and retardation) and becomes increasingly focused on the world as Sufia finds it;

she becomes, almost literally, the conscience of a shameless world...‖ (Ahmad, In Theory,

146) The marginalization of women in the Islamic countries like Pakistan is painful. The

rulers claim to run the administration according to the dictates of Islam and consider

themselves as ‗agents of God.‘ They forget their moral duty to provide fair treatment to all
 Bhupinder 118

the citizens. Instead of providing the rule based on justice or equality, the rulers become

despotic. In the modern era when the majority of countries are making all out efforts to give

the rightful place to the women, the Pakistani political, social and religious leaders hardly

make any attempt to do something to raise the status of women. It can be said that the

countries which have attained the status of developed countries, is due to the rights and

privileges given to their women as well as men. Rushdie seems to suggest that the women

should not be considered as a tool of sexual fulfilment or production of children. The

progress of the nation is possible only if it allows women to live with dignity and allow them

to have equal rights. Given the opportunity to work, the women with their intellect and

energy can surely work wonders for a nation and society.

The text also highlights the dominance of military over democracy in Pakistan. The

history of post-colonial Pakistan era shows how powerful dictators have had their sway over

administration. Rushdie models the two main fictional heroes Iskander Harappa and Raja

Hyder on the real Pakistan‘s political personalities like Zulfikar Ali-Bhuto and General Zia-

Ul-Haq respectively. The narrative indicates that there is hardly any difference between a

dictator or a democrat being at the helm of affairs. The rulers adopt basically the same

policies. The leaders are merely wearing the mask of democrats. The masses remain under

the oppressive rule and continue to suffer.

Patience, inter alia, sustains politics. One gains a lot in politics by possessing this trait.

A patient politician is successful in his moves as he adapts himself according to the political

situation. He bears the humiliation when he is politically weak and plans the future course of

action to avenge the defeat. In politics, impatience can make a thing of the past to result in

the loss of political power. Rushdie describes how ―Mahmood the Woman lost his Empire

because of a single error, which arose out of his fatal personality flaw, namely tolerance‖

(Rushdie, Shame, 62). Rushdie offers a satirical picture of the dual characters of the
 Bhupinder 119

politicians and the officers working under them. The political system of the nation is such

that the society does not consider corruption as an illegal act: ―A custom officer depends, for

a decent income, on traffic. Goods pass through, he not unreasonably impounds them, their

owners see reason, an accommodation is reached, the customs man‘s family gets new

clothes‖ (51). This shows that the officers fearlessly indulge in corruption as they are hand in

glove with the politicians who provide them with the political patronage. The nexus between

the politicians and bureaucracy is a dangerous trend in any society. The eradication of

corruption cannot be given practical shape when the men whose duty is to provide clean

administration, become a part of the corrupt political system. The personal motives and

interests gain precedence over the social and national interests. Even the head of the state or

country is not free from the allegations of corruption. Timemagazine highlights the corrupt

practices of politicians of Pakistan. The president, Ayub Khan is accused of having a Swiss

bank account.

Arjumabad Harappa, (modelled on Benzeer Bhutto), the daughter of Iskander

Harappa is an ambitious girl who has political aspirations. It is because she is born in a

political family. She is well aware that society is patriarchal in which men are politically and

socially powerful. Her father Iskander tells her ―‗It‘s a man‘s world, Arjumabad. Rise above

your gender as you grow. There is no place to be a woman in‘‖ (126). Following the advice

of her father, she rejects her womanhood and starts assuming the role of a man. Yet she is

infatuated with Haraoun Harappa, the son of Mir Harappa. But Haraoun's marriage is fixed

with Naveed Hyder and Arjumabad. So Arjumabad goes on to become a forceful lawyer. She

is in the process of becoming a dynamic leader following her father‘s legacy. She wants to

transform the nation by her progressive modernist approach. Arjumabad an ardent supporter

of her father confronts her mother over her father‘s conduct. She likes her father in spite of

his indecent and immoral acts as she is aware of the inner realities of political life of the
 Bhupinder 120

leaders. The rise of the children of politicians in politics emerges as an important issue in the

novel. The sons and daughters of politicians get more opportunities to interact with society as

they grow in a political environment and often accompany their parents in election

campaigns. They even help their political parents in redressing the grievances of people and

as such they become popular public figures. However, an ordinary man having political

aspirations has to struggle hard to find a place in a party and the government. Some people

struggle throughout their life with no achievement in the political field. A man born in a

political family need not wait for long to attain the coveted seat of power. In an article ―An

Analysis of Shame,‖ Uma Parmeswaran succinctly observes:

Rushdie’s point about the centrality of family in politics

and in culture is well-taken. In India, the Nehru dynasty has
established that most marvellous modern innovation:
monarchy- in-a- democracy. If Benazir Bhutto could have
her way, he says, so would it be in Pakistan. (Parweswaran,
86)
Strong political background and ample finances thus play a significant role in a person‘s

success in politics. The politics of today has become a family affair even in countries which

claim to be democratic. Thus the children also become pawns in the hands of their political-

minded parents who employ them to further their political ambitions.

Rushdie shows the strange behaviour of Biliquis, the wife of General Hyder, who gets

upset over her husband‘s failure to attract and win Pinki, who is wooed and won over by his

political rival Iskander. In a way, she approves of her husband‘s extra marital affairs. On the

other hand, she herself indulges in an illicit affair with Sindabad Mengal leading to the birth

of Naveed Hyder. This clearly suggests that the politicians have loveless relations with their

family and even the husband-wife relations get strained. The family as an institution is on the

verge of collapse. The birth of illicit children further puts the honour and dignity of the

political family under scanner. For the political passion and their own pleasure or merry-
 Bhupinder 121

making the political leaders lose their family ties, moral values and lose their prominence in

the political and social circles. Sheer political power and possession of enough finances does

not make one a respectable figure. Reputation matters a lot to live in a civilized society. A

leader should be aware that he is to serve as a role model for the people.

Rushdie shows how Sindabad Mengal who had an illicit affair with Biliquis, the wife

of Raza Hyder gets eliminated, but no one comes to know about his murder, or about the

murderer. The police is hand in glove with the criminals having political protection. This

indicates how the disciplining authorities act at the behest of politicians who want to settle

their personal or political scores. Rushdie‘s description of the murder reflects the extreme

brutalization of a violent society. Iskander Harappa‘s has an affair with Pinki Aurangzeb,

even as he needs his own wife for campaigning only during elections. The novel depicts how

the rulers eliminate their subordinates if they do not work in accordance with their policies.

The arrest of C. M Gichi by Iskander can be seen in this light.

Rushdie portrays a socio-political life full of chaos and confusion. The politicians

continue their struggle for attaining power. The total failure of administrative set-up in

Pakistan is a result of the malpractices of the leaders. Rushdie attempts to show how the

politicians who claim to be the harbingers of democracy make the election process a farce. In

a truly democratic country, the men of the masses get elected in the elections due to their

popularity. But in Pakistan the election process is affected by force and coercion. Iskander

Harappa is able to come to power using manipulative practices. He uses undemocratic ways

and means to win the elections. Rushdie describes how large ―numbers of men and women

were swept away by the oceans of bewilderment, unable to locate ballot- boxes or even

ballots and failed to cast their votes. Others, stronger swimmers in those seas, succeeded in

expressing their preferences twelve or thirteen times‖ (178).

 Bhupinder 122

The rigging of elections by the political players makes democracy a farce. There is hardly any

difference between democracy and dictatorship. Rushdie shows how in some constituencies

the results were quite contrary to the expectations of Iskander Harrappa. The counting

process takes place at night. Rushdie narrates how outside ―the errant polling stations, large

number of democrats assembled, many holding burning brands over their heads in the hope

of shedding new light on the count‖ (178). Rushdie further shows how ―people‘s will had

been expressed‖ (178) by manipulative practices and ―Isky had won a huge and absolute

majority of the West Wing‘s seats in the new National Assembly‖ (178-179). It is clear the

masses have remained under the subjugation of an alien rule for a long period. Hence they

are yet to realise their freedom to decide whom they wish to elect as their representatives

from among the men engaged in the power struggle. The use of force and coercion is a

common practice not only in Pakistan but in many other formerly-colonized countries.

There is constitutional failure and break-down of the administrative machinery. National

spirit is missing among the leaders as well as the masses of Pakistan. It is rather impossible

to think of the transformation of the country into ―land of pure‖ where the leaders as well as

the masses indulge in all sorts of unethical and illegal practices. Rushdie describes thus:

Shameful things are done: lies, loose living,

disrespect for one‘s elders, failure to love one‘s
national flag, incorrect voting at elections, over-
eating, extramarital sex, autobiographical novels,
cheating at cards, maltreatment of women- folk,
examination failures, smuggling, throwing one‘s
wicket at the crucial point of a Test match and they
are done shamelessly. (122)
‗Shame‘thus becomes an umbrella term for all things which are wrong in the society. As

Tariq Rahman points out, ―symbol of shame is major politically significant symbol. It stands

for collective responsibility of human beings for allowing inhuman things to happen‖
 Bhupinder 123

(Rahman, 114). In reality the politicians shirk from their duty to provide good governance

and clean administration.

One needs to possess a magnetic personality to succeed in politics. The dynamic

leader Iskander Harappa is successful in getting support from the masses. He gets an

overwhelming response for his notion of ‗Islamic socialism.‘ He also promises every peasant

with one acre of land. Such promises and allurements touch the heart people‘s heart and they

are ready to support the leaders who show concern about their well being. Though Iskander

has an illicit affair with Pinki Aurangzeb, but in front of the public he presents himself as a

decent man, having his wife Rani Humayun on the podium along in an election campaign. He

is well aware of the importance of keeping pretences in public life. Rani Humayun also

understands the importance of being his wife. Rushdie observes:

She knew all about the end of Pinki affair and knew
in the secret chambers of her heart that a man
embarking on a political career must sooner or later
ask his wife to stand beside him on the podium; … (
Rushdie, Shame 152)
Matrimonial proposals are thus made for political gains. Raja Hyder is willing to marry

Naveed Hyder, his daughter to Haroun Harappa, the nephew of a man in power, Iskander

Harappa, which would strengthen his political power, if the matrimonial proposal

materializes. The nature of political men can be judged from the fact that Hyder also wants to

get rid of Naveed Hyder because she looked like Sindabad Mengal (the man with whom

Iskander‘s wife had an illicit affair) as she grew up. Naveed Hyder gets attracted towards

Talvar Ul-Haq as such marriage of her (Naveed Hyder) with Haroun could not materialize.

The political men are opportunistic and try to maintain the relationships with the powerful

men. Political compulsions keep the men together even though they have animosity in their

hearts. Iskander‘s prestige gets lowered when Naveed Hyder, daughter of Raja Hyder, who

was to be engaged to Haroun Harappa, has a love affair with Talvar Ulhaq and later marries
 Bhupinder 124

him. Still Raza Hyder tries to have cordial relations with Iskander. The leaders thus pretend

to be close even though both are deadly against each other.

The political leaders succeed in attracting masses by way of their skills of oratory.

They touch the hearts of people through their impressive speeches. Though they hardly have

any emotions, they are adept at the art to making people emotional. Rushdie shows how

Iskander Harappa is able to touch the hearts of the people by making sentimental speeches:

At a rally attended by two million people, Iskander

Harappa unbuttoned his shirt, ‗What have I to hide?‘
he shouted. ‗They say I have benefited; but I have
lost fully half my beloved country. Then tell me, is
this gain? Is this advantage? Is this luck? My people,
your hearts are scarred by grief; behold, my heart
bears the same wounds as yours‘. Iskander Harappa
tore off his shirt and ripped it in half; he bared his
hairless breast to the cheering, weeping crowd.
(180)
Ability to deliver forceful and emotional speeches thus is an essential asset for a political

leader. The dynamic personality and oratory skills enable one to climb the ladder of power

politics.

As Rushdie demonstrates, the power hungry politicians are never faithful to their

wives. Emotional ties are burst asunder due to infidelity. Rani Humayun terms Iskander a

man who has no emotional attachment with her and Arjumabad, their daughter. They are

‗needed‘ in time of election campaigns only. It is well known that Iskander has an affair with

Pinki. If the men who claim to be representatives of people are insincere towards their life-

partners, how can they be sincere and honest towards the people? How can the masses repose

confidence in them? Can one expect these leaders to feel quite intensely for their voters and

supporters? Another question is why the wives of the politicians campaign along with their

husbands when they are aware of illicit relations with other women. The answer is probably

that they also value status over personal emotional needs. They know it well that as legal
 Bhupinder 125

wives, their status and power and resultant comforts of life are linked to their playing their

part in the farce equally professionally.

Rushdie shows how in politics some political leaders get defeated by their own men

as they too have their own ambitions. Iskander Harappa is rendered powerless, then arrested

and ultimately hanged by his own men Talvar Ulhaq and Raja Hyder. Rushdie shows the

politicians do not even spare the wives and daughters of their political opponents. When Raza

Hyder is forced out of power by Iskander Harappa, Rani Humayun and Arjumabad face

humiliation as they are kept under house arrest. While, under house arrest, Rani Harappa

reveals the character and conduct of her husband forgets about the welfare of masses. The

embroidery of shawls by Rani depicts how Iskander hankers after power even as he projects

himself as ―a servant of Duty‖ (192). Rushdie shows through Rani Harappa‘s eighteen

embroidered shawls, the shameless acts of Iskander. The embroidered shawls are kept in one

trunk with a piece of paper over it on which she would write her chosen title: ―‗The

Shamelessness of Iskander the Great.‘‖ The shawls depict the ―unspeakable things‖ (191)

about the political life and acts of Iskander. By showing the ‗badminton shawl, she reveals to

Arjumabad the real face of her father. She shows the indecent and immoral acts of a Iskander

Harrapa, the head of the state thus:

…man lay unclothed…female figures seemed

unable to bear the confinement of white shirts…
while Isky lounging on his left flank, propped up an
elbow, received their ministrations,… (192)
It is clear that the rulers like Iskander indulge in immoral acts, extra-marital relationships,

and misuse of power and status for their own merry- making than doing anything tangible for

the welfare of the Islamic state. Through, the portrayal of ‗slapping shawl‘ Rani Humayun

shows the high-handedness of Iskander. He often snubs and humiliates his subordinates.

Rushdie describes of the ‗slapping shawls‘ thus:

 Bhupinder 126

…Iskander a thousand times over raising his hand

and lifting against ministers, ambassadors,
argumentative holy men, mill-owners, servants,
friends,…(192)
Rushdie seems to hold valid that power abhors resistance and has affinities with compliance.

The politicians are unable to tolerate the voice of dissent from their subordinates. The

ministers, bureaucrats, owners of business houses and even personal friends are kept at a

distance by the men in power. Even the suggestions or arguments from religious personalities

regarding the functioning of government are unwarranted as the political power gets into the

heads of the men in power who think themselves to be ‗omnipotent‘. The ‗torture shawl‘ of

Rani Humayun depicts the oppressive rule of Iskander and the miserable and pitiable

condition of prisoners in jails where they are ―tied to chairs‖ (193). Rani Humayuns‘

‗Election shawls‘ is a portrayal of irregularities and undemocratic practices prophesied by

Iskander for attaining the power. Rushdie shows how, the democratic norms are flouted by

tampering of ballot boxes and rigging of elections already marred by violence. Through the

portrayal of ‗election shawls,‘ Rushdie satirizes the democratic process of electing the so-

called representatives in Pakistan thus:

… and the election shawls, one for the day of suffrage that
began his reign, one for the day that led to his downfall,
shawls swarming with figures, each one a breathtakingly
lifelike portrait of a member of the Front, figures breaking
seals, figures breaking seals, stuffing ballot-boxes,
smashing heads, figures swaggering into polling booths to
watch the peasants vote, stick waving rifle-toting figures,
fire-raisers, mobs, and on the shawl of the second election
there were three times as many figures, as on the first, but
despite the crowded field of her art not a single face was
anonymous… and of course he‘d have won anyway…a
respectable victory …(193)
Rushdie describes how election process becomes a farce. The rulers conduct elections to

provide legitimacy to their rule which they actually capture by force. Rushdie further
 Bhupinder 127

describes how Iskander manages to win election by force and coercion. Not yet satisfied, he

wanted the opposition squashed ―like cockroaches under his boot‖ (193).

Rani Humayun‘s ―allegorical shawl, ‗Iskander and the Death of Democracy‘‖ (194)

shows how Iskander is actually killed by the Generals but he is shown to have been hanged.

The Generals who had worked under Iskander become his executioners as they now owe their

allegiance to Raza Hyder. He becomes the ruler by overpowering Iskander whose protégé he

was before. The rulers who indulge in oppression are eventually themselves caught in the

same trap. They get eliminated from the political scene by other political forces or men who

consider them as hurdles in their way to attain the seat of power. The clash of interests creates

political rivalries, which result in, planning ways and means to usurp the political opponents.

Andrew Taverson succinctly observes that the shawls embroidered by Rani Humayun

… operate as a kind of woven series of political cartoons

depicting the life and violent crimes of Rani‘s husband
Iskander: his libertinage, his obscenities, his violence, his
disregard for human rights, his strangulation of Pakistan
and his contempt for democracy. (Taverson, 140)
The narrative evidence reveals that the politicians often talk about the problems facing the

nation even though they do nothing to eradicate them. Corruption, poverty, population

problems are merely political issues which provide content for their political speeches.

Naveed Hyder, General Hyder‘s daughter gave birth to twenty seven children. It shows that

population is a problem for the common masses, not for politicians.

Political alliances break to the extent that the close associates turn out to be bitter

foes. Friendship has no place in politics. The conversation between Iskander Harappa and

Raja Hyder highlights this trait of politicians:

‗Iskander, Raza said without raising his voice, ‗don‘t forget

your friends.‘ ‗A man in my position has no friends,‘
 Bhupinder 128

Harappa replied. ‗There are temporary alliances based on

mutual self interest.‘ (Rushdie, Shame, 209)
In politics, even the protégées do not tolerate the humiliation at the hands of their leaders.

The men engaged in the game of politics do not forget their humiliation at the hands of their

opponents and are constantly on the lookout for an opportunity to avenge their humiliation.

Rushdie shows how General Hyder ―would remember to his dying day the time he had

visited Iskander Harappa to discuss the defence budget and had been slapped across the face

for his pains‖ (209). The narrative shows how in politics, protégées become executioners:

Raja Hyder, Harappa‘s protégée became his executioner;

but he also broke his sacred oath, and he was religious man.
What he did later may well have been the result of his
desire to cleanse his sullied name in the eyes of God. (223)
Rushdie seems to suggest that power chain is as strong as the weakest link in the chain.

General Hyder‘s humiliation at the hands of Iskander impels him to overpower Iskander. He

is successful in eliminating Iskander through his conspiracies. Politics demands patience, and

one needs to bear even humiliation from one‘s opponents, when one is politically weak. He

can avenge the defeat or humiliation meted out to him when he becomes politically strong.

Tolerance and patience are the essential traits cultivated by the political men in order to

succeed in the game of politics.

The narrative bears testimony to the fact that the Pakistani rulers use military power

on the pretext of cleaning up the system, to suppress the opponents and exercise complete

control over the political system. Raja Hyder even uses religion to his own advantage. Hyder

is seen on T.V putting his right hand on the holy Quran. He promises fresh elections within

ninety days in which all the political parties including the popular front of Iskander Harappa

would be allowed to participate. Making false promises is a part and parcel of the game of

politics of modern day leaders. They swear in the name of God, they never keep their

promises. The ―act of loyal treason‖ (227) committed by Talvar Ulhaq changed the political
 Bhupinder 129

environment entirely. The popular front was banned. The elections were postponed twice,

then ―shelved; then cancelled‖ (227). The people ―began to say what they really stood for was

Cancel My Last Announcement‖ (227).

Politicians remain silent on the allegations brought against them by their opponents.

Iskander, in his interview to a foreign journalist, levels accusations against Hyder. He ―doubts

on Raza Hyder‘s good faith, moral fibre, sexual potency and legitimacy of birth‖ but Raza

―remained tolerant‖ (224). Talvar Ulhaq, the most trusted lieutenant of Iskander turns against

him by intriguing with Raja Hyder. He charges Iskander of being instrumental in arranging

the murder of his own cousin Mir Harappa. Iskander gets laid in the trap as part of a strategy

of Hyder, who uses Talvar Ulhaq to provide evidence of Iskander‘s involvement in the

murder. Hyder has his own personal scores to settle. He is unable to forget the slap he got on

his face by Iskander when he was called for discussion on a budget. The persons of the inner

circle like Talvar Ulhaq prove to be dangerous for political leaders when they align with the

opposition for furthering their own political interests.

In politics social relations are used at the politically propitious time. There is no place for

loyalty and sincerity in the game of politics. Iskander on being charged of intriguing in

murder of Mir Harappa, says:

From darkness into light, from nothingness into

somethingness. I made him, I was his father, he is
my seed. And now I am less than he. They accuse
Haroun of killing his father because that is what
Hyder is doing to me. (230)
Rushdie shows how the constitution and courts are tools in the hands of the powerful

dictators and how they can alter the decisions according to their whims and caprices. The use

of illegal practices to eliminate the political opponents is very common in the so-called

democratic countries. Iskander Harappa, the fictional character in Shame (modeled on

 Bhupinder 130

Zulfikar - Ali-Bhutto, the real character and the former P.M of Pakistan.) filed an appeal in

the Supreme Court against the verdict of the High court. The Supreme Court gives a split

decision. In spite of the split decision Iskander has to meet with death as General Shuja

shoots at Iskander Harappa, who dies subsequently. The General remained a loyal soldier of

Iskander. He has committed the act of murder of Iskander on the instructions of General

Hyder who is currently in power.

In power politics, loyalty and sincerity takes on a political colour. General Hyder

starts distrusting his own son-in-law Talvar ulhaq. But to keep him along is a political

necessity. Faith even in the nearest relation can prove fatal or rewarding. When a foreign

interviewer asks Raja Hyder about his Islamic punishments, he terms them as barbaric. He

answers with a smile that he as an agent of God is following His dictates. Talvar Ulhaq the

son- in- law of General Hyder and General Shuja is shown organising a coup against General

Hyder to attain power. This shows how the lust for power turns one‘s most trusted lieutenants

into one‘s enemies.

After a detailed analysis of the text, one may conclude that Shame is a postcolonial

text that highlights the tensions, conflicts and manipulations inherent in the dynamics of

politics. The novel seemingly is a critique of the dictatorial regime of Pakistan; however it

essentially is a commentary on the prevalent political practices in the postcolonial nations.

Written by one of the most influential third world writers, the text exposes the corruption and

political injustices of the rulers of a country. Though liberated from the colonial yoke, it is

clear that the country is yet to be liberated from the corrupt and the biased politicians. In the

game of politics, there is no place for individuality, ideology and ethics. The allegiances of

the men hankering after power are only temporary. In fact politics has invaded the most

personal spaces in people‘s lives. The marital alliances have nothing to do with romance or

love. These are based on the political compulsions, the aim being to remain powerful in the
 Bhupinder 131

political arena. Family members including children are exploited and are made instruments

for realising one‘s political aspirations. Sincerity, loyalty, affection, etc., have no place in life.

The politicians use even religion as a means for safeguarding or furthering their political

interests. The politicians hardly care about the faith bestowed in them. There is no uniform

civil law and administrative agencies such as police or judiciary operate under arbitrary

politics. Politics of political intrigues is quite common. The political practices of the leaders

have far reaching consequences on the social and economic conditions of the nation. The

issue of political vendetta has become an important factor in the dynamics of politics. It

leads to political rivalries and also results in enormous loss of life and property which

dampens the progress of the nation. The dynamics of politics essentially involves use of

violence, force, coercion and control. Rushdie‘s text may be taken as an authentic

documentation of the contemporary scenario where ‗dirty‘ politics has become the part and

parcel of life. To some extent Rushdie may be seen as reiterating the negative view of the

region in the western discourse, this however should not take away from its literary merit.

Rushdie weaves together a highly complex, interesting tale of potential intrigue, conflict,

manipulations and exploitation. The novel as such provides another view of history disguised

as fiction. The dynamics of politics, itself a subject always open to interpretation gets further

complicated when loaded with fictional probabilities and possibilities. Rushdie thus emerges

as an artist par excellence, a narrator of powerful stories that have come to haunt the

contemporary postmodern world.

 Bhupinder 132

WORKS CITED

Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory, Classes, Nations, Literatures. London: Verso, 1992. Print.

....―Salman Rushdie‘s Shame: Postmodern Migrancy and the Representation of Women.‖ In

Theory, Classes, Nations, Literatures. London: Verso, 1992. 123-158. Print.

Booker, Keith. ―Beauty and the Beast: Dualism as Despotism in the Fiction of Salman

Rushdie.‖ InReading Rushdie: Perspectives on the fiction of Salman Rushdie. Ed. M.

D. Fletcher. Amsterdam and Atlanta, Ga.: Rodopi, 1994. 236- 254. Print.

Chakraborti, Santosh. ―Shame as a Political Allegory.‖ Salman Rushdie: Critical Essays -1.

Eds. Mohit K. Ray and Rama Kundu. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2006.Print. 152- 162.

Cundy, Catherine. Salman Rushdie: Contemporary World Writers. Manchester: Manchester

UP, 1997.Print.

Dey, Pardeep K. ―Shameand Midnight’s Children: A Postcolonial Critique.‖ Salman

Rushdie: Critical Essays -1. Eds. Mohit K. Ray and Rama Kundu. New Delhi:

Atlantic, 2006. 89-116. Print.

Fletcher, M.D. InReading Rushdie: Perspectives on the fiction of Salman Rushie.

Amsterdam and Atlanta, Ga.: Rodopi, 1994. Print.

George, Roshin. ―Salman Rushdie‘s Shame: History and Fiction.‖ Salman Rushdie: Critical

Essays -1. Eds. Mohit K. Ray and Rama Kundu. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2006. 129

-151. Print.

Grant, Damien. Salman Rushdie. Plymouth: Northcote House, 1999.Print.

Gyorke, Agens. Postmodern Nations in Salman Rushdie’s fiction: Midnight’s Children,

Shame and The Satanic Verses. Saarbucken: UDM Verlag, Dr. Muller, 2010. Print.
 Bhupinder 133

Hutcheon, Linda. The Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. London:

Routledge, 1988. Print.

.... ―Historiographic Metafiction: The Past Time of Past Time.‖ The Poetics of

Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. London: Routledge, 1988. 105-123. Print.

....The Politics of Postmodernism. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

.... ―Representing the Past.‖ The Politics of Postmodernism. London: Routledge, 2002. 59-

88. Print.

.... ―The Politics of Parody.‖ The Politics of Postmodernism. London: Routledge, 2002. 89-

113. Print.

Mittapli, Rajeshwar, and Jeol Kuortti. Eds. Salman Rushdie: New Critical Insights -I. New

Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2003. Print.

Parmeswaran, Uma. Salman Rushdie’s Early Fiction. Rawat Publications New Delhi, 2007.

Print.

Rahman, Tarique. ―Politics in the Novels of Salman Rushdie.‖ The Novels of Salman

Rushdie. Eds. G.R. Taneja and R.K. Dhawan. New Delhi: Indian Society for

Commonwealth Studies, 1992. 102- 117. Print.

Ray, Mohit K and Rama Kundu. Eds. Salman Rushdie: Critical Essays -1. New Delhi:

Atlantic, 2006. Print.

Reder, Michael R. Ed. Conversations withSalman Rushdie. Jackson: U.P of Mississippi,

2000. Print.

Rushdie, Salman. Shame (1983). London: Vintage, 1995. Print.

 Bhupinder 134

....Joseph Anton: London: Jonathan Cape, 2012. Print.

.... “Midnight’s Children and Shame.‖ Lecture/ Interview, University of Aarhus, 7 Oct.

1983.Kunapipi 7.1 (1985): 1-19. Print.

Raja, Masood Asharaf. ―Postcolonial Texts, in the Era of Empire.‖ 5. 2(2009): 1-14.

Print.

Raza, Hima. ‗Unravelling Sharam: ―Narrativisation as A Political Act in Salman

Rushdie’sShame‘ Wasafiri, 18:39 (2003): 55-61. Print.

Sanga, Jaina. Salman Rushdie’s Postcolonial Metaphors: Migration, Translation, Hybridity,

Blasphemy and Globalization. West-pot: Greenwood, 2001. Print.

S. Suhel Shaikh. ―Diaspora and Cultural Anxieties: A Study of Salman Rushdie‘s Shame and

The Satanic Verses.‖ Literature of Diaspora: Cultural Dislocation. Ed. Shaikh

Samad. New Delhi: Creative Books, 2009. 82-89.Print.

Silva, Neluka. ―The politics of Repression and Resistance.‖ Salman Rushdie New

Critical Insights-1. Eds. Mittapali Rajeshwar and Jeol Kuortti. New Delhi: Atlantic

Publishers and Distributors, 2003. 150-168. Print.

Syed, Mujeebuddin. ―Centers and Margins: Shame‘s ‗Other‘ Nation.‖ Mittapali Rajeshwar

Jeol Kuortti. Eds. Salman Rushdie: New Critical Insights-1. New Delhi:

AtlanticPublishers andDistributors, 2003. 131-148. Print.

Taneja, G.R. and R.K. Dhawan. Eds. The Novels of Salman Rushdie. New Delhi: Indian

Society for Commonwealth Studies, 1992. Print.

Taverson, Andrew. Salman Rushdie. New Delhi: Viva Books Pvt. Ltd. 2010. Print.
 Bhupinder 135

Tikoo, S.K. ―Shame: A Modern Comic Epic in Prose‖ Taneja, G.R. and R.K. Dhawan. Eds.

The Novels of Salman Rushdie. New Delhi: Indian Society for Commonwealth

Studies,1992. 44-63. Print.

Tribakarao, Malshette Yogesh. Shete Sonali Shivraj, ―Interpretation of History and Politics in

Salman Rushdie‘s Shame”:Golden Research Thoughts.1.8 (Feb 2012) 1-4. Print.