How sustainable is the argument that Indian writers in English betray an 'anxiety of Indianness'?

Historical and Colonial Context

The roots of this anxiety lie in the colonial encounter. English education, introduced by the British, created a class of Indians familiar with Western literary forms and critical frameworks. However, this familiarity came at the cost of a perceived alienation from indigenous languages and cultural traditions. Writers like Raja Rao, in his preface to *Kanthapura* (1938), explicitly addressed this dilemma, acknowledging the need to ‘Indianize’ English to capture the nuances of Indian life. This initial self-awareness laid the groundwork for the later articulation of the ‘anxiety of Indianness.’

Arguments Supporting the Anxiety

Several factors support the argument that Indian writers in English experience this anxiety:

• Language as a Colonial Legacy: English remains inextricably linked to the colonial past, raising questions about its suitability as a medium for expressing authentically Indian experiences.
• Representation and Authenticity: Writers grapple with the challenge of representing Indian realities without resorting to stereotypes or exoticization, often feeling pressured to prove their ‘Indianness’ to Western audiences.
• The Burden of Tradition: The weight of India’s rich literary and cultural traditions can create a sense of inadequacy, as writers attempt to measure up to the standards of classical Sanskrit, Persian, or regional languages.
• Negotiating Multiple Identities: Indian writers often navigate multiple identities – Indian, English-speaking, global – leading to a sense of fragmentation and a struggle to find a coherent voice.

For example, Salman Rushdie’s early works, like *Midnight’s Children* (1981), while celebrated for their linguistic innovation, were also criticized for their perceived reliance on Western narrative structures and a self-conscious display of erudition. This illustrates the tightrope walk Indian writers often undertake.

Counterarguments and Diverse Responses

However, the argument for a universal ‘anxiety of Indianness’ is not without its limitations. Many Indian writers have successfully subverted and reappropriated English, transforming it into a uniquely Indian literary language:

• Indigenization of English: Writers like Arundhati Roy (*The God of Small Things*, 1997) and Kiran Desai (*The Inheritance of Loss*, 2006) have demonstrated a mastery of English that is deeply rooted in Indian sensibilities, incorporating regional dialects, rhythms, and cultural references.
• Hybridity and Syncretism: Postcolonial literature often celebrates hybridity and syncretism, recognizing that identity is fluid and multifaceted. Writers embrace the complexities of their cultural backgrounds rather than feeling constrained by a singular notion of ‘Indianness.’
• Challenging Western Canon: Many Indian writers actively challenge the dominance of the Western literary canon, offering alternative perspectives and narratives that decolonize the imagination.
• Global Audience and Recognition: The increasing global recognition of Indian writers in English suggests that their work resonates with audiences beyond the confines of national identity.

Furthermore, the very notion of a monolithic ‘Indianness’ is problematic. India is a diverse nation with a multitude of languages, cultures, and identities. To assume that all Indian writers share the same anxieties is to overlook this inherent heterogeneity. Writers from marginalized communities, for instance, may experience different forms of anxiety related to caste, gender, or regional identity.

Evolution of the Debate

The debate surrounding the ‘anxiety of Indianness’ has evolved over time. While Mukherjee’s initial formulation was influential, subsequent critics have challenged its assumptions and offered alternative interpretations. Contemporary Indian writers are increasingly confident in their use of English, viewing it not as a colonial imposition but as a tool for self-expression and cultural exchange. The rise of ‘diasporic literature’ further complicates the issue, as writers living outside India grapple with questions of identity and belonging in new and complex ways.

Perspective	Supporting Arguments	Limitations
Anxiety of Indianness	Colonial legacy of English, pressure to represent authenticity, burden of tradition	Oversimplifies Indian identity, ignores linguistic innovation, doesn't account for diverse experiences
English as a Tool for Expression	Indigenization of English, celebration of hybridity, challenging Western canon	May still be perceived as elitist, potential for cultural appropriation