To The Welsh Critic Who Doesn T Find Me Indentifiably India By Arundhati Subramaniam Summary

1913 Words4 Pages

Throughout ‘To the Welsh Critic Who Doesn’t Find Me Identifiably Indian’, Arundhati Subramaniam argues that the “the business of language”, or the language that one speaks, should not dictate one’s identity. This becomes crucial in her poem as she uses this argument in response to a Welsh Critic, who does not identify her as being Indian. The poem substantiates her perspective of language through various techniques. For instance: Subramaniam reinforces the critic’s cultural assumptions in a defiant tone; she questions him, repeatedly, about language and eventually she challenges him, insisting he should explain to her how he would receive her as “Identifiably Indian”. Subramaniam’s hint towards opposition to the critic’s vision of language …show more content…

We hear his assumption from the critic’s paraphrased words, “English Lit Type’ that infer Subramaniam is identified as English since she has studied and is well versed with English literature. According to the poem’s description, the critic provides further evidence of her being considered English by revealing how Subramaniam reads ‘Keats’ poetry. This ‘Keats’ refers to John Keats whom was a British poet that, hence, wrote English poetry. Whilst the critic, again, implies that only those of English identity would read texts of this language, this is where Subramaniam begins to counter-argue and put her foot down. Through her side comment of “-or is it yours-”, she critiques whether the critic can claim that John Keat’s poetry belongs to him, the British or in fact anyone, therefore, pondering whether it is acceptable to let the English language and its texts be claimed by only a specific cultural group. It is evident that from her disobedient tone, Subramaniam’s position towards the English language is already beginning to …show more content…

Subramaniam begins with a set of questions that can be divided in contrasting pairs. At first she questions “how much” of “the business of language” belongs to herself or the critic. By doing so, she implies the question of whether language belongs to a specific cultural identity. After this she questions “how much “of language comes from “the mind “or “the gut”. Perhaps the mind refers to one’s behaviour as a mind affects how we act, thus, linking with culture in the way that every culture has its own specific behavioural norms. The gut, on the other hand, may refer to a more biological aspect which functions the same for every human being, perhaps this implies that language belongs to and may be spoken by all and not only it’s ‘given’ culture. Thirdly, follows the question of “too much” or “too little” this suggests that Subramaniam questions if one needs to know a specific amount of a language in order to hypothetically be identified culturally by that language. Lastly, she contrasts a “salon” and a “slum”. This may refer to a contrast between an upper class English-person and a bottom-class Indian, thus again asking if language is associated with where one lives or comes from. All these questions, in a sense, ridicule the critic asking her what standards of one’s language would deem them acceptably identifiable to a specific ethnic

Open Document