“Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi

“Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature and Indian Literature” by Harish Trivedi first appeared in 2007 as a chapter in the academic publication Forum for Modern Language Studies (Vol. 43, No. 2). This work critically examines the dynamics of literary exchange between Indian and Western literature through the dual frameworks of colonial influence and postcolonial intertextuality. Trivedi outlines how early Orientalist translations of Indian texts impacted Western literary traditions before colonialism reversed the equation, imposing English literature and culture on India. The shift from the colonial concept of “influence” to the postcolonial notion of “intertextuality” reveals not only evolving literary paradigms but also the nuanced ways in which Indian authors have engaged with and resisted Western dominance. Trivedi underscores the complex dialectics of reception, adaptation, and hybridity in this literary interplay, asserting: “The Western influence on Indian literature was nothing if not dialectical and dialogic, which makes it perhaps as vast and complex an example as one could find anywhere in world literature not only of influence but also of reception.” The article is pivotal in literary theory for demonstrating how global literary traditions inform and reshape one another, challenging the binaries of dominance and resistance.

Summary of “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi

• Historical Dynamics of Influence:
  • Trivedi begins by highlighting how Indian literature influenced Western literature in the precolonial period, particularly through translations of Sanskrit texts like the Panchatantra and the Bhagavad Gita. This reversed under colonialism, where British literature imposed its dominance on Indian literary traditions (Trivedi, 2007, p. 122).
• Colonial Influence on Indian Literature:
  • English literature was introduced as part of British colonial hegemony, often portrayed as a “civilizing” force. Trivedi critiques this narrative, particularly how figures like J.C. Ghosh framed Western literary influence as humanizing Indian literature while diminishing its historical depth (Trivedi, 2007, p. 124).
• The Shift from Influence to Intertextuality:
  • Postcolonial literary discourse has shifted from discussing “influence” to exploring “intertextuality,” emphasizing relationality and hybridity over direct imposition. This change aligns with broader poststructuralist ideas, destabilizing fixed notions of originality (Trivedi, 2007, p. 123).
• Critical Debates in Influence Studies:
  • Trivedi notes the “anxiety of influence” (Harold Bloom) in Western literary criticism but highlights a contrasting eagerness among Indian writers to acknowledge Western influence, particularly in adopting forms like the novel and tragedy. However, Indian writers often merged these forms with traditional narratives, creating hybrid forms (Trivedi, 2007, p. 126).
• Resistance and Adaptation:
  • Indian writers like Rabindranath Tagore and Sisir Kumar Das exemplify resistance and adaptation to Western literary dominance. Tagore praised European Romanticism while reasserting Eastern spirituality, while Das discussed the tension between traditional and colonial ideals in Indian literature (Trivedi, 2007, p. 126-127).
• Postcolonial Intertextuality and Hybridity:
  • The postcolonial approach to intertextuality highlights the dialogic nature of cultural exchange. Trivedi critiques the over-reliance on English by postcolonial Indian writers like Salman Rushdie, contrasting them with bilingual authors such as Nirmal Verma and Krishna Baldev Vaid, who engage deeply with Indian and Western literary traditions (Trivedi, 2007, p. 130).
• Colonialism and Hegemonic Oppression:
  • Trivedi asserts that colonial literary influence was not just cultural but deeply hegemonic, marking one of the most profound impositions of one literature over another in global history. This was more than literary borrowing; it was an “oppression” tied to British rule (Trivedi, 2007, p. 124).
• Postcolonial Critique of Western Theories:
  • The article critiques Western critical paradigms for failing to account for the complexities of colonial and postcolonial literary interactions. Indian writers challenge the binaries of center-periphery and colonizer-colonized by producing texts that reflect hybrid identities (Trivedi, 2007, p. 129).
• Key Quotation:
  • “The Western influence on Indian literature was nothing if not dialectical and dialogic, which makes it perhaps as vast and complex an example as one could find anywhere in world literature not only of influence but also of reception.” (Trivedi, 2007, p. 126)

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi

Theoretical Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference/Context in the Article
Colonial Influence	The imposition of Western (particularly British) literature and culture on Indian literary traditions.	Trivedi critiques the colonial framing of English literature as a “civilizing” force (Trivedi, 2007, p. 124).
Postcolonial Intertextuality	The relationship between texts in postcolonial contexts, emphasizing hybridity and relationality.	Shift from “influence” to “intertextuality” in postcolonial discourse, influenced by poststructuralism (Trivedi, 2007, p. 123).
Orientalism	The Western construction and appropriation of Eastern cultures for knowledge and power.	Discussed through Schwab and Said’s opposing views on the influence of translated Indian texts on Western literature (p. 122).
Hybridity	A postcolonial concept referring to the blending of cultures and identities in colonial or global contexts.	Indian writers’ integration of Western forms with indigenous traditions is an example of hybridity (Trivedi, 2007, p. 126).
Anxiety of Influence	A concept by Harold Bloom, describing the struggle of authors to overcome the impact of predecessors.	Contrasted with Indian writers’ early eagerness to acknowledge Western influence (Trivedi, 2007, p. 127).
Reception Theory	Focuses on the audience’s or readers’ interpretation of texts in different cultural contexts.	Explored through Indian writers’ adaptive and resistant responses to Western literature (Trivedi, 2007, p. 126-127).
Pastiche	A form of imitation or adoption of literary styles, often blending multiple sources.	Critiqued in Indian postcolonial novels for being overly dependent on Western forms (Trivedi, 2007, p. 129).
Dialogism	Bakhtin’s concept of the dialogic relationship between texts and voices, emphasizing multiplicity.	Influenced Kristeva’s notion of intertextuality, which Trivedi links to postcolonial literature (Trivedi, 2007, p. 123).
Hegemony	Gramsci’s concept of cultural dominance through consent rather than force.	English literature as a tool of cultural hegemony during colonial rule (Trivedi, 2007, p. 124).
Globalization of Literature	The transcultural flow and exchange of literary forms and languages in a globalized world.	Postcolonial writers like Rushdie reflect this through their migration and global readership (Trivedi, 2007, p. 129-130).

Contribution of “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi to Literary Theory/Theories

• Postcolonial Theory:
  • Trivedi critiques the colonial imposition of English literature as a hegemonic tool of domination, contributing to postcolonial discourses on cultural oppression and resistance (p. 124).
  • He highlights the evolution from “colonial influence” to “postcolonial intertextuality,” underscoring the hybridity and dialogic nature of Indian literature’s response to Western traditions (p. 123).
  • By exploring Indian authors’ negotiations between indigenous and Western forms, Trivedi enriches the understanding of hybridity as defined by Homi Bhabha (p. 126).
• Intertextuality:
  • The article interrogates the transition from traditional notions of “influence” to the poststructuralist concept of “intertextuality,” emphasizing relationality over originality (p. 123).
  • Trivedi critiques how postcolonial intertextuality destabilizes fixed binaries (e.g., colonizer/colonized, center/periphery) and fosters new modes of cultural engagement (p. 129).
  • He references Julia Kristeva’s early definition of intertextuality and its roots in Bakhtin’s dialogism, connecting these ideas to Indian postcolonial writing (p. 123).
• Reception Theory:
  • Trivedi’s discussion of how Indian writers absorbed, resisted, or adapted Western literature contributes to reception studies, emphasizing the active role of readers and authors in meaning-making (p. 127).
  • He expands reception theory by addressing how colonial contexts created complex layers of reception, marked by both assimilation and opposition (p. 126).
• Comparative Literature:
  • The article provides a model for cross-cultural literary analysis by comparing Western literary forms with Indian traditions like the katha and dastan (p. 127).
  • It critiques Eurocentric assumptions in comparative literature by foregrounding the dialogic and hybrid nature of Indian responses to Western texts (p. 130).
• Orientalism:
  • Trivedi draws on Edward Said’s Orientalism to analyze the impact of early translations of Indian texts on the West, contrasting this with colonial-era disregard for Indian literature (p. 122).
  • He extends Said’s critique by illustrating the mutual but asymmetrical literary exchanges between the East and the West (p. 124).
• Hegemony and Cultural Studies:
  • The article addresses Gramscian hegemony by showing how English literature was used as a tool for cultural domination, shaping Indian literary production under colonial rule (p. 124).
  • It challenges this hegemony by showcasing Indian writers’ ability to subvert Western forms, emphasizing cultural resistance (p. 126).
• Globalization and World Literature:
  • Trivedi critiques the global dominance of English and the commodification of postcolonial literature, particularly in the works of diasporic authors like Salman Rushdie (p. 129).
  • He calls for greater attention to bilingual and regional Indian authors who represent richer intertextual exchanges between global and local cultures (p. 130).

Examples of Critiques Through “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi

Rabindranath Tagore’s Works	Tagore admired the “spirit of Europe” but reinterpreted Romanticism through an Indian spiritual lens, blending Eastern and Western sensibilities.	Tagore described how Western Romanticism “dazzled” him but framed this influence within traditional Indian metaphors (p. 126).
Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children	Trivedi critiques Rushdie’s Anglophone postcolonialism as a surface-level representation of Indian culture, lacking the deeper intercultural sensibility of bilingual Indian writers.	Rushdie is critiqued for embodying the globalized postcolonial writer, writing in English and appealing to Western audiences (p. 129).
Sisir Kumar Das’s History of Indian Literature	Das highlights the conflict between Western influence and indigenous traditions, portraying literary exchange as both exciting and tortuous.	Trivedi references Das’s observation of the “love and hate relationship” between Indian and Western ideals in literature (p. 126).
Nirmal Verma’s Ve Din	Verma is praised for embodying postcolonial intertextuality by engaging deeply with Western and Indian literary traditions through his bilingualism.	Trivedi notes Verma’s career trajectory, including his translations of Czech literature into Hindi, as an exemplar of intercultural hybridity (p. 130).

Criticism Against “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi

• Overemphasis on Colonial Hierarchies:
  • Critics argue that Trivedi focuses heavily on the power dynamics of colonialism and the hegemony of English literature, potentially downplaying more nuanced and equal exchanges between Indian and Western traditions.
• Limited Representation of Regional Indian Literatures:
  • While the article discusses bilingual authors like Nirmal Verma, it neglects significant contributions from non-English Indian writers who engage with intertextuality in regional languages.
• Elitist Focus on Canonical Authors:
  • Trivedi’s analysis primarily focuses on elite and globally recognized authors like Salman Rushdie, which could ignore the voices of grassroots or marginalized literary traditions in India.
• Binary Framing of Influence and Intertextuality:
  • Some critics might argue that the article constructs a rigid binary between “colonial influence” and “postcolonial intertextuality,” neglecting how these dynamics can coexist in certain works or contexts.
• Simplified View of Postcolonial Diaspora Writing:
  • Trivedi critiques diasporic writers like Salman Rushdie for being too aligned with Western audiences but may oversimplify their complex positionality and engagement with Indian culture.
• Generalization of Western Impact:
  • The article generalizes the “Western influence” as a homogenized force, without addressing the specific roles of other colonial powers (e.g., the French or Portuguese) or regional European influences on Indian literature.
• Undervaluation of Postmodernist Frameworks:
  • While the article explores poststructuralist ideas of intertextuality, it critiques their application to Indian literature without fully engaging with how postmodern frameworks could deepen the analysis of hybridity and multiplicity.
• Insufficient Exploration of Female Voices:
  • Trivedi’s discussion largely overlooks the role of women writers in the colonial and postcolonial literary exchanges, leaving gendered perspectives underexplored.
• Reliance on Western Theorists:
  • Ironically, while critiquing the Western dominance in literary studies, Trivedi heavily leans on Western theorists like Bakhtin, Kristeva, and Said, which might be seen as contradictory.

Representative Quotations from “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“India, with its colonial history and contemporary postcolonial culture, offers a rich site for the study of both influence and intertextuality.”	This opening statement establishes the article’s premise: India’s complex literary relationship with the West, shaped by colonialism and its aftermath, provides a unique framework for analyzing literary influence and the broader concept of intertextuality.
“It was India which first exercised a literary influence on the West, an equation that was utterly reversed later through colonial intervention.”	Trivedi highlights a historical reversal: early Indian texts like the Panchatantra influenced European literature, but British colonial rule shifted the dynamic, making Indian literature heavily reliant on Western influences.
“Orientalism caused in Europe nothing less than an ‘Oriental Renaissance,’ unsettling the foremost minds of an age.”	This refers to the profound impact of Indian texts on European intellectual circles during the 18th century, particularly through translations of Sanskrit literature, showcasing the initial admiration for Indian knowledge.
“The influence of English literature on Indian literature may be one of the most extensive and profound influences ever exerted by one literature over another.”	Trivedi underscores the transformative power of English literature on Indian literary traditions, attributing this to the colonial context, where literature became a tool of cultural domination.
“The attraction for the new was at times hesitant and cautious, at times impetuous and uninhibited.”	This reflects the ambivalence in Indian writers’ responses to Western literature—ranging from eager adoption of new genres to cautious integration with indigenous traditions.
“Never in our literary history was there so much obsession with the past, such glorification and defence, such criticism and introspection.”	Trivedi notes that the colonial encounter prompted Indian writers to revisit and reassess their own literary traditions, blending nostalgia with critical evaluation.
“The postcolonial world, having dissolved the old binary of the coloniser and the colonised, has gone global.”	This observation critiques postcolonial theory for moving away from its initial focus on colonial hierarchies, arguing that globalization and hybrid identities have redefined the relationship between the former colonizer and the colonized.
“If the new intertextual dispensation has visibly enabled any writers, it must be Salman Rushdie and other younger postcolonial Indian writers in English.”	Trivedi identifies Rushdie and similar writers as emblematic of postcolonial intertextuality, critiquing how they cater to Western audiences while being celebrated for their hybridity.
“Intertextuality destabilises the notion not merely of (old) influence but equally of all signification.”	This aligns with poststructuralist theory, emphasizing how intertextuality challenges fixed meanings and singular notions of originality, replacing them with relational and interconnected interpretations.
“The Western influence on Indian literature was nothing if not dialectical and dialogic.”	Trivedi encapsulates his argument that the relationship between Indian and Western literatures was a two-way exchange, involving both domination and creative dialogue, rather than unilateral influence.

Suggested Readings: “Colonial Influence, Postcolonial Intertextuality: Western Literature And Indian Literature” By Harish Trivedi

1. Trivedi, Harish. “Colonial influence, postcolonial intertextuality: Western literature and Indian literature.” Forum for Modern Language Studies. Vol. 43. No. 2. Oxford University Press, 2007.
2. Dharwadker, Vinay. “English in India and Indian Literature in English: The Early History, 1579-1834.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, 2002, pp. 93–119. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40247335. Accessed 28 Jan. 2025.
3. SINGH, NAMVAR, and Harish Trivedi. “Decolonising the Indian Mind.” Indian Literature, vol. 35, no. 5 (151), 1992, pp. 145–56. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23337172. Accessed 28 Jan. 2025.