 Welcome back to NPTEL, the National Program on Technology Enhanced Learning being brought to you by the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science. We are in module 4 of our series of lectures on English Language and Literature. Module 4 as you know is being devoted to literary criticism and today we are in lecture 10 of this module. This lecture is entitled post colonialism and in a moment I shall be telling you how this lecture is going to be structured, but before that let us do as we always do a recap of the last lecture and the last lecture you will recall was devoted to the topic post structuralism. For instance we saw through Chris Barker in his book The Sage Handbook of Cultural Studies wherein he says that the word post as a prefix obviously suggests after and therefore post structuralism in a sense is obviously after the school of criticism or even philosophy as we put it known as structuralism. But the important point that we found in the last lecture as is being argued by Chris Barker is that the post does not mean simply an after in the temporal sense this after is a little complicated in that if you look at these words here they in this involves both the absorption of key ideas from structuralism and also a critique and transformation of them. But what do we find here that in that post structuralism is both a continuation and a critique of the structuralist enterprise. Next we found that whereas in structuralism meaning as given to us by Sor is understood through a system of difference hence meaning is known as being differential and through a system of relations among the various units of a system. We found that language and structuralism is a self-sufficient system wherein meaning emanates through a system of difference and relation among the units of that system. Then we also found in structuralism which is going to be radically critiqued by post structuralism we found in structuralism that meaning comes about through the organization of science and you remember this was an important word in structuralism and the stability of meaning is achieved through the structures of this organization. So, it was a neat way of understanding almost a formulaic if you may say a way of understanding meaning emanation in language. Then we found that post structuralism followed or critiqued structuralism in that it saw the production of meaning through science as endlessly deferred. So, we found for instance to Derrida that it meaning was not only differential, but meaning was also deferred or meaning was also postponed. So, no text had a complete meaning in itself or the authoritative meaning because by the very nature of the science system now the post structuralism we saw did not say that there was no structure, their job was to show us the structurality of the structure itself that the structure is there, but if you look at it closely you can dismantle that structure because the sign there are no pure signifies that is no signifier which is a part of the sign no signifier has a or an authoritative signifier. There may be many nuances to a sign and meaning precisely because this is turning the structuralist claim on its head, this precisely because meaning comes about by a system of difference that system of relation and difference is a fluid one. This is what we had seen and then as we see in this slide we found the word difference given to us by Derrida that is which is a combination of to differ and to differ. Then an important point that we found through say philosophers like Michel Foucault was that the subject the one who experiences is actually an effect of discourse and this is the word we shall be coming across again in today's lecture and we found that the subject is really an effect of language according to the structuralist claim and language and practice discourse and practice cannot be separated our practices are also an effect of language. This is something that we had discussed in the last lecture and we did not go into it again and we found that discourse is really or language is really you know the power we can term it after Michel Foucault as the power to name. Discourse has the ability to create a subject, to create its subjectivity, to create its identity you know indeed to create its most personal or even private of feelings right. These are all understood as the effect of discourse, we for instance if man is understood through the discourse of religion, man is you know the effect the subjectivity of man is understood to be an effect of the larger discourse of the religious sky right. Therefore, we found that this is a term which almost you know this term here is a linking term that links us to post colonialism. We found that this is anti essentialist, now if you recall from previous lectures what is essentialism? Essentialism means that there are essences to things that things are essences in themselves there is something ontologically, philosophically speaking there is something ontologically true of things right, but post structuralism in denying a determinate meaning in denying the you know an authoritative meaning or the meaning of things becomes anti essentialist right. So, things texts are amenable to several meanings, now again as I said in the last lecture this does not mean that anything goes. It simply means that there may be readings of texts that do not follow or even radically question assumed certain assumptions of patterns of reading of techniques of reading, bringing out some other relationships in the text which are otherwise you know hidden by you know what we call the dominant modes of reading or reading practices. So, this point takes us directly really to the lecture that you know rather the topic of discussion today that is post colonialism. Now, I will take the help of glossary you know of literary and cultural terms given to us by Peter Brooker it is a useful book you may look it up it is a glossary of you know literary theory terms using literary theory and it gives us these three terms all starting with post post structuralism, post modernism, post colonialism and he says that you know we have to look at the term post here as I said a while ago in terms of changes and departures not in terms of clear cut from previous from the word without its prefix post for instance post structuralism is a change and departure from the structuralist mode post modernism is again a change and a departure, but with you know obvious linkages to modernism and post colonialism is also rendered a problematic term in the sense that the post here is simply not a dividing line between you know a colonial past and a post colonial present. These terms I need you to understand are slightly more complicated than simply being a temporal term. Now, what is common among these three terms according to Peter Brooker? We have see we have post structuralism, post modernism and post colonialism he says that these three schools of thought among other things obviously, this is not an exhaustive list among other things they point to difference a term that we already found in post structuralism they point to the most important one of the most important you know terms not simply in literature, but also in philosophy which is meaning you know the emanation of meaning or the formation or the construction of meaning critique right, critiquing established modes of thinking and identity. So, difference meaning critique and identity are some of the terms or some of the you know you could say some of you could say some of the goals or you know some of the important constituent you know terminology in post colonialism, post structuralism and post modernism. So, these are basically the terms that these three ways of thinking grapple with another you know before we go into post structuralism proper. Another point that I would like to raise here is there are also critiques that have drawn or pointed to the you know the similarities right both political and discursive between say feminism and post colonialism. For instance, these are my own words here which I would like to read out scholars have often pointed to the complementarities shared by post colonialism and feminism. As both discourses they are at once discourses and they are at once struggles. So, as both discourses and as to struggles of real men and women their concerns have hinged largely around the question of human dignity, freedom and the opposing of oppression that ranges from opposing the creation of cultural stereotypes to actual bondage. So, both feminism just a while ago we saw the similarities between post modernism, post colonialism and post structuralism. As far as feminism is concerned it shares you know it shares with post colonialism the not just you know not just certain discursive terms, but also the more important political opposition to dominant genders on the one hand and dominant races and nations on the other hand. So, both have human dignity, human freedom and the opposing of oppression as their ultimate political goals right. So, as complementary discourses in the general rubric of contemporary literary and cultural studies the two discourses of feminism and post colonialism have raised this is extremely important epistemological challenges. From the point of view of discourse of course, the larger political end to be met but also from the point of view of discourse the challenges have been as deep as raising epistemological questions. So, some of you may have come across the term epistemology you know epistemology is a branch of philosophy, epistemology I do not know if I have mentioned this or will be mentioning this in one of our lectures here, but let me go into this a bit epistemology is a branch of philosophy which deals with knowledge it is also known as the theory of knowledge right. So, epistemology raises fundamental questions about knowledge for instance beginning with the question like what is knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? How do we know that a piece of information is knowledge? What is the difference between knowledge and belief right when and how does a belief become knowledge? Is it at all possible for us to have complete knowledge? What is truth as far as knowledge is concerned? What is the relationship between knowledge and truth etcetera? So, these are as you will understand you know that these are very fundamental questions. So, both feminism and post colonialism you know they challenge the epistemological they raise epistemological challenges to hegemonic structures for instance feminism would raise epistemological challenges and challenge the knowledge formation the way knowledge is formed through a patriarchal discourse that favors men for instance post colonialism would you know launch an epistemological attack on say to be very loosely to a dominant so called western way of constructing knowledge both about itself and the other. So, as let me quickly read this again the discourses of feminism and post colonialism have raised epistemological challenges to hegemonic structures and this is important here both in academics and in policy making to follow. So, what we have done till now is we have looked at the similarities between or among post structuralism, post modernism, post colonialism and feminism and we have used one word if you recall here we have used the word anti-essentialist all these are anti-essentialist discourses or as we say should be anti-essentialist discourses. It should not be that feminism becomes an essentialist discourse in its bid to try and oppose structures that have been there because of patriarchy more about this you know the dangers here towards the end of this lecture. What then is the epistemological challenge that is being made by post colonialism? Let us look at this slide carefully here we have this word here the orient that you are aware of these two words the oxidant and the orient the orient is here referred to the east and the oxidant to the west. So, what are now let us raise this question what are the epistemological challenges that are made by postcolonial writers, postcolonial authors, postcolonial critics postcolonialism as an enterprise as a theory as a discourse and as an academic and political enterprise that is this it looks at let us look at this slide here it looks at its studies or its flaws and critiques western structures right now in western structures we may add terms like discourses and if you remember discourses are what? Discourses are ways of speaking about something right for instance if you recall if you look at man as a religious you know point on the discourse of religion there is a way of talking about man. There is a way in which we define man there is a way in which we talk about the purpose of why man is you know why man exists in the first place for instance and if we talk from say the discourse of biology for instance then the definitions would change right. So, postcolonial critics hold that the west because of imperialism because of actual annexation, actual rule domination for you know because of which we had cultural domination do an economic domination they build certain discourses they build certain ways of talking for instance when the British were in India they had certain discourses certain ideas of the so called natives of people in India and they had a certain way of talking about the natives right. So, first that the epistemological challenge is to the discourse right where has and how has this knowledge which is given rise to a way of speaking to has given rise to terminology how has what are its sources what are its limits that is what are the conditions under which such knowledge has emanated in the first place right. So, there is an attack on the discourse positing if we may use a word a counter discourse to the main hegemonic western discourse the discourse that has come from the oxidant then particularly through imperialism right. Now, this is the first level in the second level we find that there is an attack or there is an you know critique of the ideologies that have now what are the ideologies if we say that discourses are ways of speaking then ideologies we may say are ways of seeing the ways of seeing or you know particular lenses through which you know intellectual moral right lenses through which you look at something anything any phenomenon any person any race any community any subject and you hold which gives you certain ways of looking at that. So, you will understand the discourses this course is not separate from ideology right ideology ways of seeing give you a certain discourse ways of speaking ways of speaking also on the other hand feed into your way of looking at something way of ways of seeing something right. So, it is argued that the west right in post colonialism it is argued that the west has created certain discourses ways of speaking and ideologies ways of seeing as far as the east is concerned then find after that culture what are you know how is the culture of you know the native that is the colonized country how is its culture viewed how is it judged right how is you know and how it shows in the discourses on the ways of you know speaking and writing about India for instance by the Britishers right. So, the studies also they also say also epistemological questions relating to culture and finally, constructs what are the constructs what are the images that we have by the colonized you know colonized nations on the colonizers. Now, this is simply because we have just begun to get into into you know to talking about post colonialism in a in elementary sort of way it is not always the fact that in post colonialism you study only the colonizers knowledge or the colonizers discourse and ideology a very important part of it is how the colonized right during colonization have looked at the colonizers what are the forms of resistance more about this a while later, but simply because I was talking about epistemology and the challenges to the core structures of knowledge that is why we have this slide here and in that way we can say that the discourses the ideologies the culture and constructs of the west as far as the east is concerned are what are critiqued by the postcolonial critiques right. So, definitely how do we then bring in the term anti-essentialism if I ask you this mode of looking at western structures by the postcolonial critiques how is it anti-essentialist you know sort of essentializing of the colonized people was created by the western structures to put it very simply postcolonialism has had I will talk about that it was the end of this lecture there are so many you know there many ways in which postcolonialism may be may also be critiqued right and a sort of quite what I feel are a certain myopic ways of considering the west. However, we will begin by talking about the main orientation of the postcolonialism there is therefore, you know a very important binary here this is what we call the otherization the otherization here this binary is the division between the self and the other this is this lies at the core really the crux of postcolonial criticism on in one sense the self is say the colonizer colonizing nation the other is the colonized and from another perspective when we are talking from the point of view of the colonized becomes the self and the colonizer becomes the other you know this elementary binary opposition here between the self and the other is at once the defining crux of postcolonialism as well as its theoretical limitation right to be always seeing and considering the you know the colonizer or the colonizer whichever perspective we are taking as the other right is to miss out what we find in the interstices of this binary is to miss out certain other kinds of connections certain complementarities more about this later we first talk about postcolonism really right then come to this while later right. Now, I said that as with post structuralism as with postcolonialism post sorry postmodernism postcolonialism can also we cannot really divide have need divisions about say from this state postcolonialism begins like we cannot have definite division about when postmodernism comes away from postmodernism sorry comes away from from modernism there are many who have said that postmodernism is nothing but you know and you know and to quote I forget the name of the theorist anyway to you know to see postmodernism as an incomplete project of modernity right so also in postcolonialism right you cannot really pair out you know the colonial and the postcolonial a as I said because there are problems with the binary opposition between self other and colonizer colonize ok. Another point of view also the anti-colonialist discourse is something that has seemed to be sort of given a short shift because of postcolonialism right postcolonialism in a sense of course is the culture the ideology the discourses after actual you know decolonization right or actually you know of a colonizing country leaving the colonized country to its to have its own government etcetera independence for that matter right put it simply but for instance we look at the slide here there the the theoretical political impetus was given not necessarily within right postcolonial setup for instance you may have heard of France Fanon who you know a writer who was deeply you know involved with the struggle for independence in Algeria from independence from France ok Fanon gave us some of the most important you know explorations particularly from the point of view of psycholinguistics and psychopathies also right of what colonialism does to the psyche to the individual and the collective psyche Fanon himself was a psychiatrist who served and you know and he saw as a doctor and he saw first hand you know the outcome of the colonial you know the colonial encounter not only you know from not only on what happens to the colonized population in the colonized nations also what happens to the colonizing forces what happens to for instance for a white soldier who is in Algeria you follow so Fanon here says to speak means above all to assume a culture to support the weight of a civilization ok now this is from his book of our black skin white masks and one of the most fundamental aspects of you know problems in this colonial postcolonial setup is that of language when one colonizing nation sort of imposes right its language on the natives and Fanon for instance says that you know to speak any language is not just to speak the language or to know the letters and to know the grammar of the language it also is to assume its culture its values its epistemologies and as he said excuse me the weight of a whole civilization if you look at language very deeply you will understand the language is not simply having competence linguistic competence it runs far sorry far more deep then when we come to post academicians in postcolonialism right when you come to literary and cultural criticism in academia there are several names here of course but the most important here or the ones that have been foregrounded in anthologies in discussions and books are these three names ok Edward Said Homi Bhabha and Homi Bhabha not the scientist Homi Bhabha the theorist and Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak now if you look at their biography you find that these are not these are not people from the west they have come to the west join the academia there and there was a time when postcolonial criticism right was inaugurated so to speak as an act now remember we have Fanon we have others like Amy Césaire for instance who talked about anti-colonialism but when you talk about postcolonialism as you know being part of being made part of the literary even canon so to speak then we talk about writers like Bhabha Said and Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak and we look quickly at these and how they are you know critiqued and what their some of their formulations are right some of the points that they have been you know collectively looking at and each of them giving more emphasis on some of these points here are again similar points that we will find in postcolonial literary criticism and cultural criticism and these are for instance identity the question of identity in a postcolonial situation of reappropriation of cultural and linguistic reappropriation by people in a postcolonial setup right questions of resistance how literary texts and other cultural objects have resisted remember what what what we have seen a while ago resisted we have those four terms the discourses you know for instance the ideologies and and you know the culture for instance and the language of of the colonizing nation. So, how you know writers creative writers have resisted those dominant structures those dominant epistemies and brought about a reappropriation of reappropriation of their you know of their native cultures right here in this lecture I am not going to talk about any one critique or I am not going to you know discuss the individual contributions of critiques this is more of a general you know lecture. So, that you can understand overall in overall sense what postcolonialism or the postcolonial enterprise entails. So, there are questions of identity being looked at by these critiques of as I said resistance and re-approval resistance to the other culture and reappropriation you know redeeming so to speak so to speak or redemption of one's own culture right. Subaltern is an important term also as Pivok Hosef has said of a misunderstood term subaltern is a term which has been revived by Gatrice Pivok in her theory contribution to theories of postcolonialism. The term subaltern actually comes you know it is a military term it comes from the you know from a position in you know in the forces in the army. So, one of our very important and also controversial essays is can the subaltern speak the question of agency in the natives in the colonized people how far they have a language and a discourse of their own in broadly speaking. Then another term hybridity and this term again is attributed to Homi Bhabha and this is this talks about the hybrid condition of the postcolonial a straggled so to speak between his or her own culture and that of the colonizing nation even in a postcolonial set up where for instance just because you are you belong to an independent nation or nation that has become independent after you know duration of you know being having been colonized does not mean that from that date of independence that you know your orientation your you know your so to speak your values your constructs your ideologies that they have been completely snapped. So, important point to realize is you may be postcolonial from a temporal or time point of view, but the structures remain so much so that there are so many critics who say that the British have you know the left India, but handed over the same structures to a middle class bourgeois leadership without much changes. We also see this in the phenomenon called neocolonialism for instance. So, according to Bhabha and many other critics we are really in such situations the postcolonial is really a hybrid and never really postcolonial cannot be a postcolonial. Next there are also you know postcolonial criticism also looks at efforts you know or you could say assertions of cultural belonging right questions of cultural belonging not in the sense simply of appropriation or also, but also as you will find in many diasporic writers for instance cultural belonging becomes a highly problematic term the sense that you the text do not show you know a clear belonging sense of belonging to a culture is how is in particularly in diasporic writers the problematics of cultural belonging and power it is not that other writers not critics not talk about power, but this also is an important contribution by Edward Said. If you recall Foucault one of the most important terms in the whole critical terminology of Michel Foucault is Pa and Said's Edward Said's works like Orientalism, Culture and Imperialism obviously show the influence of Michel Foucault Pa and discourse these being the two most important theoretical you could say pivots that Said had borrowed from Michel Foucault. So, see these are really some of the terms that you should talk about in a you know when you beginning postcolonial studies and at the same time we have to understand that these terms simply do not mean a uni or one dimensional way of looking the colonizer for instance. The colonizer is also it is also a change of subjectivity and identity in the colonizer when he or she comes into contact with the colonized civilization or the colonized culture. It is not that the colonizer in any in any colonial situation is not that the colonizer just stands back and starts making pronouncements on the colonize. A postcolonialism that is a sophisticated one has to look at these hidden you know aspects of subjectivity of identity of cultural belonging for instance of power it is not you know. So, many have criticized and I would say rightly so works like Edward Said's Orientalism which was published in 1978 I think where he says now let us look at the slide here and that book he says talks about Orientalism as a systematic discourse by which Europe was able to manage look at this manage and even produce the orient. Look at this Said says that the orient the east was systematically produced constructed managed given direction to where discourses were created by the by Europe about the orient about the east in so many different ways politically sociologically militarily ideologically scientifically and imaginatively. If you look at this even as a standalone quotation you will find that it is a one you know one directional or one dimensional way of looking there is no is not talking about the orient to not simply in a temporarily postcolonial situation even within the colonized situation the orient to having its own structures about the west. So, this is one of the problems nevertheless Orientalism his work Orientalism said in a published in 1978 clearly showing the you know clearly showing the in you know a showing inspiration from Michelle Foucault as far as discourse and power relations are concerned was a seminal book it was a landmark really from which you know people took the queue critics to the queue took the queue and started to improvise on it started to show multiple directions and dimensions of it, but really without having I would say to grant Edward Said you know this without a book like Orientalism you would not probably have had postcolonialism postcolonialism as you know an academic you know an academic discourse that had enormous sway at least during a certain period of time and you know in you know in sort of the rarefied realms of academia. So, this was a book that sort of inaugurated it right then so well also if you look at you know say if you want to compare this is the next point that I would like to talk about when you want to compare postcolonialism say to its kindred terms for instance what are its kindred terms some of the synonyms really are commonwealth and talk about postcolonial literature some people say or commonwealth literature or third world literature. Now the point that is raised by students is are these the same are these three terms commonwealth third world and postcolonial the same from the point of view of time from the point of a temporal dimension I would say we would safely say that postcolonialism is a relatively newer term we have been talking about commonwealth literature the discourse of commonwealth literature is not I would say not so anti essential is not so radical as that of the postcolonialism neither is third world the term third world literature. Postcolonial a postcolonial criticism as a discourse has a far larger terminology has had a far more longest way and is far you know say far more you know far more sought to be far more powerful both discursively academically and politically than the kindred terms commonwealth and third world. That is why we have clear terms in postcolonialism as I said the subaltern you know orientalism then then you know postcolonialist discourses for instance hybridity liminality there are clear cut this is really a discourse that has grown and has as I said earlier has had a longest way in academics. What I am going to do is now I will quickly read a passage from a book edited by Carol Breckinridge and you have some very very very fine grained and very important relooks as a relookings into orientalism in Edward side's orientalism which talked as said about the way the west has been sorry the orient has been constructed systematically and managed in many different directions and dimensions by the west. So this is an important book if you want to move you know further from orientalism and look at the critique and you know improvisations of orientalism she says and I am reading from our first chapter post implies that which is behind us and the past implies periodization this is very clear very simple right post is of course something that is already is past right is behind us talking about something that we have left and now we are in a post situation we can therefore speak of the post colonial period as a framing device this is very important it is not simply about about talking about a past colonized past that has gone and being in a post colonial situation it is an epistemologically it is a framing device that is you have a different paradigm if I may use the word it is a paradigm is a strong word here let us stick to framing device it is you know it is a framing device as she says to characterize what the second half of the 20th century right the second half of the 20th century may be looked at through the lenses or the framing device of post colonialism. The term again she says post colonial importantly you know it displaces the focus on post war so it is another post here right it displaces the focus on post war as a historical marker so there is a you know it makes a shift from a framing device which is mostly based on the discourse of war and post war replaces it with post colonial right as a historical marker for the last 50 years post war refers of course to the period after the second world war and although the war was central to decolonization etcetera it is used to periodize history much less frequently in the x colonial world than in the metropolitan worlds of Europe and America. So, post war even if it talks about decolonization will talk from a European perspective do you understand and it is much it is used to periodize history as she says much less frequently in the x colonial world right. So, the post war for you know in an erstwhile colonized nation post war is not a strong as far as resistance is concerned as far as writing back is concerned I forgot to mention this very important book the empire writes back sorry the empire writes back this is a book that is immensely important as important as the adverts sides orientalism for instance you may want to look up that text right. So, this the discourse of post war is of no use when you you know talk about post colonialism and for the x colonized nations right post colonialism is a far more politically charged and far more useful and powerful framing device right. So, then she says to call the second half of the 20th century post colonial then is to call for a reappraisal re understanding a relook of the way we frame contemporary world history. So, there is a you know is a different again there is a different discourse that needs to be highlighted as she says and to reemphasize the rupture in national and global relations created by the urge to forge independent nation states right it brings to our attention the relations between colonialism and nationalism in the politics of culture in both the societies of the x colonizers and those of the x colonized. Now, there this is one point that I have said I because I mentioned earlier that I will be dealing with it and this is you know the critique of post colonial post colonialism and post colonial criticism. And I am reading from Peter van der we are which who is one of the editors I think of the book by Carol Breckenridge that I had I had mentioned he says that although we have to admit that this is a forceful vision post colonialism it is also surely and he is very categorical in this it is also surely a misleading one it is itself a product of Orientalism since it neglects the important ways it is so important here you know you see ways in which the so called orientals not only have shaped their own world also the orientalist views criticized by side this is what I you know I had mentioned earlier about being in interstices of the binary between colonizer colonize to look at what happens in between to look at it not simply a side looked at it as a systematic construction one sided construction of the orient here van der we are is talking about how also to you know the need to look at how the orientals so called orientals have not only as he says shaped their own world but also the orientalist views criticized by side it would be as he says a serious mistake to deny agency to the colonize in our effort to show the force of colonial domination. So, unwittingly post colonial criticism may sometimes end up end up kind of undoing itself in the sense that it it establishes and reestablishes the force of colonial discourse and domination when it sees the west east being completely created and managed by the west and we have forgotten to study the contribution of the orientals in this whether it is regarding Orientalism or regarding its own reappraisals and its own attempts at reappropriation. So, we come to the end of this and you know what I am going to do is now I am going to pose a few questions and I will give you some hints as to how to answer these. For instance, if you if you begin by saying you know name name three three prominent post colonial critics with their corresponding or respective important you know important terms that they have contributed to the post colonialist discourse. Then you would say that these are among others Edward Said and for with him the terms Orientalism based on the influence of Foucault terms like discourse and par, Gayatri Chakraborty Spivock and her among others you know important term the subaltern subaltern of Foucault said was not a term constructed by Spivock it was the term that comes from the military and was used by Antonio Gramski very productively. Then Homi Baba and his important terms of hybridity the hybrid condition the mixed condition the liminal condition of you know the both the post colonial and you know the colonizer and the colonize. Next if you are asked a question like how does post colonialism given epistemological challenge to dominant discourses. Then you say that like post modernism like post structuralism post colonialism also makes epistemological attacks or rather attacks on the epistemology of how the west has created its knowledge particularly how the west has created the knowledge of its other which is the east or the orient. So, it will talk about how what the sources of such knowledge are what the limits or conditions under which such knowledge has been formed the uses to which has been put the nature of such knowledge. Then if you know you get a question like what are the most important you know what are the most important terms in post colonial criticism in the sense of what are the most important points that come up in discussions of post colonialism. Then you would say that words like identity subjectivity appropriation reappropriation discourse power these are some of the terms have subaltern liminality these are the some of the important terms and important issues that are discussed mostly issues of identity in so called post colonial nation states. These are some of the more contemporary issues being discussed and finally, if you get a question like how do we critique post colonialism post colonialism critiques western knowledge formation about the east about the erstwhile colonies how do we you know what are the critisisms to which post colonialism itself may be what are the dangers of doing post colonialism in a so called narrow way sort of way. Then the answer would be this some of the answers are you know they go like this for instance post colonialism of the Sydean kind as we find in Orientalism has been guilty of sort of one dimensional way of looking you know the traffic is one dimensional the west has created the east do you follow. So, these are some of the dangers some have also seen you know people who are critiques were against post modernism have also seen post colonialism of a more discursive kind losing you know out on many other you know you know urgent issues local issues you know by talking about globalization by talking about neocolonialism by talking about the colonial enterprise we are we also not sort of not looking at or giving importance to what happens within the nation. So, the self other binary of colonizer or say of colonizer colonize is so huge in this discourse that it sort of seems to do away sort of neglect questions of what happens even within the colonizing set up do you understand some of the more important questions have been raised by feminist for instance regarding the black woman and the difference between the black woman the political power differences between the black woman and the black man right. So, these are other binaries that also get formed, but if we are in the larger discourse of the all important binary of colonizer colonizer and these are some of the issues that get sidelined right. So, again I said I have not taken up any book any work at length I have tried here to simply tell you what post colonialism is what its orientation is what its goals are and post colonist criticism literary criticism would obviously look for you know the text both from the colonizer and the colonize worlds cultures and look at how through you know sidelines how the west has created the east and from other perspectives for instance from homibabas perspective the hybrid the mixed you know that the nuances of hybridity of people who straddle to cultures even in a so temporarily post colonial post independence situation. So, there is lot of course to be learnt here lot of course to be you know you can look at the empires empire rights back you can also look at Orientalism look at some of the new books that have come up right. Thank you so much and we shall meet again in the next lecture.