Review by Steven Salaita, Virginia Tech Published in the South Asian Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 1, 2006

1. 274 R ev iew s
Nyla All Khan. R ev iew s 275
The Fiction of Nationality in an Era of Trans-
nationalism. literary investigation. It is to Khan's credit that her actual literary
New York and London: Routledge, 2005. 132 pp.
$65 (hardcover) criticism does not conform to the limited connotations of interrogation.
Instead, she treats the four authors central to her book with great
At the first glance, it appears that Nyla Ali Khan has attempted to nuance, illustrating how their relationship with various transnational
cover more than the scope of themes opens spaces in which both historical phenomena and fictive
The Fiction of Nationality in an Era of
Transnationalism representations of history can be more fully understood and developed.
can accommodate, thus overextending her analysis.
However, it quickly becomes evident that one of the book's greatest Her engagement with Naipaul's contentious, often contradictory work
strengths is the author's ability concisely to invoke and assess complex is especially interesting, arising as it does from an impressive critical
and far-reaching material. Khan accomplishes much in this slim maturity where polemical response would perhaps be the more
volume, which is appropriately specialized without becoming convenient and emotionally-satisfying approach.
cumbersome, and theoretically intricate without being tedious. Khan also explores, in India, "the uncritical reversion to
The scope of this book is indeed ambitious, as Khan fundamentalism and the superficial creation of a `unified' political
comprehensively examines four Anglophone South Asian authors, V.S. identity in the wake of nationalist movements led to an erosion of unique
Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Amitav Ghosh, and Anita Desai. These and distinctive cultural identities" (10). She later transfers this
authors, as Khan illustrates, differ aesthetically and politically, observation to a literary setting, noting that Naipaul, Rushdie, Ghosh,
dramatically in some cases, and so treating them conjointly in one and Desai all "have attempted to retrieve histories that have been
study is not a simple undertaking. Khan quickly proves up to the task, distorted or erased in discourses of power" (14), though each author
combining theoretical contextualization with literary criticism without undertakes this sort of attempt with sometimes vastly different styles and
ever becoming didactic or reductive. Khan, for instance, is critical of commentaries. The conclusion to be drawn from these cosmopolitan
Naipaul's nonfiction travelogue, Beyond Belief, approaches, and what ultimately binds the four diverse authors, is the
whose less-than-
flattering presentation of Islam Khan attributes to Naipaul's "support of common realization "that in the mixed, heterogeneous space of
Hindu extremism" (6). Yet Khan never becomes polemical, wisely transnationalism, cultural and linguistic authenticity is a pipe dream"
noting that "Naipaul does critique myths of origin and of national (15). Of course, it is the fact of vast diversity among the four authors
sensibility in his novels" (6). This sort of nuance contributes to what on that first leads Khan to this belief.
the whole is a prudent and insightful analysis. On a broader note, I would daresay that Khan's conclusions about
The most interesting aspect of Khan's theoretical discussion is her transnationalism among South Asian communities would-with,
assessment of transnationalism, an emphasis promised by the book's certainly, relevant variations-also hold true of the Arab, African, and
title. This assessment is skeptical of the ability of transnational East Asian diasporas. There is much in her argument of value as well
communities to deterritorialize the "various socioeconomic, political, to migratory Latin American communities as well. Indeed, Khan's
and cultural practices and identities" associated with the nation-state. theoretical analysis-and here I have in mind her justifiable dislike of
In fact, Khan presents the more acute and relevant argument that invented national identities becoming the backbone of political
"transnational politics often lead to cultural and religious fanaticism by movements-as something worth exploring in the context of today's
emphasizing a conception of identity polarized between the `authentic' United States, which not only hosts many of the transnational, diasporic
and the `demonic"' (2). This binary conception of identity, according to communities of interest to Khan but also is grappling with its own form
Khan, has led Anglophone South Asian authors to examine of patriotic fundamentalism. Citizens of any nation (or of multiple
transnational identities as they are negotiated in western spaces. Her nations) would do well to heed Khan's warning that such nationalistic
methodology, then, offers "a critical dialogue between [works by moves can wreak, and have wreaked, havoc (12).
Naipaul, Rushdie, Ghosh, and Desai] and the contemporary history Scholars interested in South Asian Studies, postcolonial theory,
they encounter, using history to interrogate fiction and using fiction to ethnic studies, literary criticism, or critical race theory would likewise
think through historical issues" (2). do well to pick up The Fiction of Nationality in an Era of Trans-
This conception of critical inquiry as interrogation is particularly nationalism. Albeit slim, it contributes much to the ongoing debates in
noteworthy, as it has the propensity to effect injunctive modes of these fields over the role of literature in history and the influence of
history on literature.
South A sian Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 1, 2006.
Steven Salaita
Virginia Tech