Looking that the Grandmother

Much of what we've been discussing in concern to the Shadow Lines has revolved around the idea of "home." As noted earlier, Ghosh's presentation of "home" is multifaceted. However numerous the presentation of the "home" is within the novel, there is a groundwork that can be laid. This groundwork includes commentary upon the idea of the "nation," the cosmopolitanism evident within these images (meaning that each image is build off of an "otherness" or is created in relation to another geography, nation, history and so on), and the political natures of these various positions granted. Individuals may be said to become politicized through various rejection and embracing of certain histories. Ila is politicized through her rejection of certain definitions of "India." Further, her desire to maintain a certain degree of self-agency is conflictive with gender and social norms exemplified through Robi. Offering a starker contrast with Ila, is the grandmother. In her actions as well as statements, the Grandmother exemplifies a difference that may be attributed to her experience of colonization.

Most prevelantly, the Grandmother's relation to "India" as a "nation" (I place quotes around both of these terms to suggest that the singularity and concreteness of either term should be questioned, but secondly to call attention to theory done by Benedict Anderson in concern to the idea of nationhood), comes up in her oppinions of Ila and also her comments on the a supposed physical border between East Pakistan and India.

I'd like to look at the Grandmother's perception of Ila first:

Ila shouldn't be there, she said, stammering hoarsely. She doesn't belong there. What she doing in that country?

She's just studying there for a while, Tha'mma, I said gently. At that time Ila was at University College in London, doing a BA in history.

But she shouldn't be there, my grandmother cried, pushing my hands feebly away.

I leant back in my chair looking helplessly at her. over the last few months the flesh had wasted slowly away from her face so that the skin on her cheeks hung down now, like dry, brittle leather.

Ila has no right to live there, she said hoarsely. She doesn't belong there. it took those people a long time to build that country; hundreds of years, years and years of war and bloodshed. Everyone who lives there has earned his right ot be there with blood: with their borther's blood and their father's blood and their son's blood. They know they're a nation because they've drawn their borders with blood. Hasn't Maya told you how regimental flags hang in all their cathedrals and how all their churches are lined with memorials to men who died in wars, all around the world? War is their religion. That's what it takes to make a coutnry. Once that happens people forget they were born this or that, Muslim or Hindu, Bengali or Punjabi: they become a faimly born of the same pool of blood. That is what you have to achieve for India, don't you see? (76)

There are several things that I want to bring out from this passage. First, the Grandmother defines "nation" through specific qualifications: death, war, geographic boundaries, churches, flags, and so on. Most notably, the Grandmother cites war. The act of war, of people's fighting for a specific nation that seeks to define its physical, ideological boundaries through the sacrifice of life may be seen as one of the strongest definitions of a nation. This line of thought is defended by Anderson, who explicates the importance of war memorials within a nation's self-definition.

The Grandmother carries this thought farther in asserting that as an individual, Ila has no right to live in London, or the UK in general. This assertion is founded within a certain history. Again, this history is defined by symbols such as cathedrals, flags, veterans, and so on. Interestingly, because Ila was born outside of the UK, and does not uphold certain stereotypical standards or historical roots with the UK the Grandmother refuses to extend citizenship or legitimacy to Ila as calling London her home. This refusal further cements that fact that individual identity formation in the novel is constantly formed in relation to specific nations and their history. There is a constant presence of "otherness" in the formation of Ila's, the Grandmothers, and many other character's identities.

At the end of the passage, the Grandmother hints at cosmopolitanism. Though the Grandmother sees this cultural trend as negative, her acknowledgment of the issue again cements the presence of alterity within the novel and the characters. Further, "home" for the Grandmother is distinctly singular. History, for the Grandmother, then, is a process of unification. Understanding that the Shadow Lines presents the reader with multiple vantage points of "home" and its definition, history may not be seen as coinciding with the Grandmother's understanding.

Ghosh, through multiple viewpoints, seems to present an understanding of history that troubles the idea of a monolithic foundation for a "nation" or "home." Further, the narrative does not follow any linear path. Often, the narrator digresses from the present into the past or future. These digressions at times occur after an event has been explained: For example, we are told the Grandmother is sick, and that she eventually dies, then we are presented with a story that occurred before she became ill. This jumping back and forth upholds an understanding of history that is not linear, is not singular (the narrator presents Ila's, his own, Maya's, and tridib's story), and thus serves to trouble the idea of history as a unifying process. Ghosh seems to uphold the notion that history is complicating, and gives the present with multiple stories.

Moreover, what is interesting is the role of identity formation within a certain definition of "home" as informed by a nation's history. As individuals encounter the history, they are left with the task of incorporating the details and varying stories of the past and creating a solid foundation that is informative socially, ethically, culturally and so on.

This combination of identity formation within a historical narrative of "home" seems to present contradicting defintions of "home" from the characters. The Grandmother's definition of "home" and her role within it is distinctly different than that of Ila's. Due to notions of history and nation, varying definitions and functions of "home" are given. These conflicts may be seen as resolved when tracing similarities within both images, therefore providing the background that Ghosh uses to uplift important and paramount aspects within this process of defining "home" within a historically heterogeneous and cosmopolitan world.