Introduction

The advent of postcolonial studies offers a vital critique of colonial history, power dynamics, and the legacies of Western domination, particularly in the context of the global South. It grounds its unique epistemological eyes, shaped by the experiences and perspectives of the formerly colonised, through which colonially constructed social relationships in non-western countries can be studied. However, while attempting to deconstruct the colonial meta-theories/narrative, it often remains imprisoned within the framework of Western epistemology, fostering no substantially alternative framework. Instead, it perpetuates a similar kind of structure, paradoxically that it seeks to dismantle. Therefore, while drawing upon postcolonial literature, the current scholarship critically seeks to understand its theoretical limitation and how it is practised. Postcolonial studies primarily revolve around the question of culture, identities, and representation of non-western countries, and they neglect other structural factors, such as the neo-colonial economy and global capitalism, and their role in marginalising the colonised traditional system of governance. This neglect of neo-colonial economic structures underscores the urgent need for a more comprehensive approach in postcolonial studies.

Modern/Colonial Construction and Postcolonialism

The end of the physical or military rule of colonialism paved the way for the rise of postcolonial studies across the global South. Its focus was on analysing the history of colonialism and how it has shaped the development of formerly colonised nations even after its physical end. In other words, postcolonial studies aim to understand how colonialism has impacted the social, economic and cultural life of native/parochial. Contributing to the field of postcolonial studies,  Ashish Nandy argues that colonialism had sustained itself for so long, not because of its production of military and technological advancement but its ability to create a secular hierarchy incompatible with the traditional order (Nandy, 1987). Later in his argument, he discloses not only the impact of colonialism on the materiality/physicality of the formerly colonised nations but also how it even altered their psychology.

Frank Fanon, a leading figure in postcolonial/ decolonial studies, argues along the same line that how colonialism, through its modern/colonial mechanism, i.e., medical science and modern\colonial laws, construct the inferior consciousness and instil fears among the natives (Fanon, 1959). Furthermore, Fanon states that colonialism tremendously alters the psychology and the very being of the colonised, due to which they begin to despise their local cultural originality.

The native negro who returns from France after spending a couple of months reveals himself at once; he answers only in French, and often he no longer understands Creole. He no longer understands the native dialect; he talks about the Opéra, which he may never have seen except from a distance, but above all, he adopts a critical attitude toward his compatriots. Confronted with the most trivial occurrence, he becomes an oracle. He is the one who knows. He betrays himself in his speech (Fanon, 1952, p. 13).

Continuing the argument of Fanon, Ngugi extends that colonialism, through its production of the subjects shapes the capacity of the imagination and the notion of sovereignty of the colonised. Moreover, he states that the system of colonialism functions in a way that the colonised become trapped in the colonial framework.

Sovereignty lies with the subject being freed from his subjection to an oppressing other, free to regain his subjectivity as an agent of his being. For to be subject to another, an oppressing other? Is he a foreigner or a national?  Is to have one’s capacity for imagining a different future limited. In a colonial context, this sovereignty is not yet realised; it is an ideal toward which to struggle (Ngugi, 2008, p.3).

However, while looking critically at the very methodology of these theorists, can we say that Ngugi’s idea of native sovereignty, Nandy’s concept of the colonised mind and Fanon’s understanding of national/native consciousness are not derived from the Western epistemological framework? Does not it appear that their theorisation of nativism is not initially embedded into the antique vocabulary of traditions but rather an interpretation and reinterpretation of tradition from the perspective of modern/colonial location? In the process of decolonisation, does it not appear that they valorise or romanticise traditionality?

This question seems to get blurred. As Prathama Banerji argue, highlighting the theoretical limitation of postcolonial, it only demonstrates differences against the West by amassing counter-historical evidence (evidence that contradicts or challenges the dominant historical narrative) that led to an explosion of Western tradition, but it cannot provide autonomous theories. While doing so, she adds, it remains imprisoned in the old comparative framework, which marks similarities and differences with the West in terms of criteria already prefigured in Western theoretical frameworks (Banerji et al., 2016).

No different from Banerji, Meera Nanda, while taking account of the practices of the postcolonial theories, states how post-colonial and post-modern studies create such a loophole in the dominant/mainstream discourse, which may help in misrepresenting the present and manipulative appropriation of the traditional past is possible, leading to what she calls reactionary modernism (Nanda, 2012). Extracting the traditional past from the position of modern/colonial can also be seen implicitly in Partha Chatterji’s conceptualisation (Chatterji, 1997), in which he uses Raj Narayan’s text, which seems to glorify the past to build the conception of our modernity.

The Ambiguity of Postcolonialism and its predicament

While critical of colonialism, postcolonialism primarily plays in the cultural field of discourse, identity, and representation, often neglecting other pressing structural and material conditions in the present society. Hence, it seems to fail to offer a more solid framework through which the new equitable society of the colonised can be imagined. To say it clearly, it seems to be lacking in the theorisation of their society at present. For example, Ranajit Guha, a towering figure in subaltern studies, challenges the idea of postcolonial from the historiographical perspective and argues that postcolonial historical discourse assumes independence as a clear break from colonial oppression.

Conversely, subaltern groups and their history within postcolonial history and society often experience similar marginalisation and oppression in all spheres, from everyday life to academic discourse. In other words, he states that postcolonial states reproduce similar hierarchies even in postcolonial societies that were prevalent under colonial rule (Guha, 1988).

The method that the postcolonial studies offer to decolonise primarily lies in the traditional/indigenous past of the colonised. In the words of Ngugi, to initiate the decolonisation process, the colonised need to accumulate their means of imagination and resources that may be dug from their historical and cultural artefact (Rao & Ngugi, 1999). However, one can raise a question of how Ngugi’s method of decolonisation and reconceptualisation of indigeneity will deal with the complexity of the modern nation-state, which consists of many traditions and histories. Are Ngugi and other postcolonial scholars critical of their prospective methods for decolonisation?

Against the loophole created by postcolonialism, Nanda contends that postcolonial scholars seem to be very narrow in their approach; hence, they uncritically present the romanticised view of the traditional/indigenous knowledge system (Nanda, 2003). Furthermore, she states that by valorising traditional practices, postcolonial theorists undermine scientific inquiry, rationality, and progress. Therefore, all pre-colonial knowledge systems are not beneficial and selectively defending Indigenous knowledge may risk endorsing regressive social norms.

Not only does it fail to address the complex conundrum of traditionality, but it cannot also deal with other structural/material factors like neo-colonial economics and global capitalism and its role in creating a distinctive social relationship in the present society. For example, Aijaz Ahmad critically argues that postcolonialism disproportionately focuses on the cultural and discursive analysis of coloniality/modernity that leads to the failure to address tangible issues like class, land ownership, labour exploitation, and economic sovereignty that are shaped by the current global capitalist framework (Ahmad, 1992).

The postcolonial theory and practice

Postcolonialism, through forming a new episteme based on the available traditional and cultural efficacy of the colonised, provides conceptual vocabularies and theories and propounds to rebuild their society in terms of it. By reconceptualising the modern/colonial produced knowledge, they become trapped in producing some/ different kind of tendency of nationalistic flavours. For instance, while witnessing the practicality of the theory (how theories are practised at the institutional level) of secularism and democracy in India, various post-colonial scholars argue that these theories must be reconceptualised from the episteme of locals. It can be seen how Rajiv Bhargav reconceptualised the ideas of secularism and how Partha Chatterji reflected on political society. However, one can raise the question that to what extent Bhargav’s concept of the principal distance of secularism and Chatterji’s ideas of civil/political society are practically intrinsic to Indian society.

On the contrary, the rise of Hindu nationalism and the resultant anti-minority sentiment in contemporary India brings about a bundle of questions in front of post-colonial about their prospective method of theorisation. While being aware of the new surge, Prathama Banerjee states that post-colonial while reconfiguring the modern/colonial theory, they invoke authentic/Indigenous mode that gradually takes the form of some kind of cultural nationalism (Banerjee et al., 2016, p. 2). Apart from the significance that postcolonialism presents in critiquing colonialism and its impact. However, the theory they formulate and propound consists of many problems when it comes to applying it practically.

Conclusion

While postcolonial studies have been instrumental in critiquing the impact of colonialism on the socio-cultural and psychological aspects of the colonised, these critiques demonstrate significant limitations. Despite its efforts to formulate the epistemology of the colonised, it remains trapped in Western theoretical frameworks. It focuses on cultural discourse over material conditions, romanticising Indigenous knowledge, ambiguous terminology, and limited applicability beyond colonial contexts, indicating areas where postcolonial studies could expand or evolve. To remain relevant, postcolonial studies must tackle these critiques and adapt better methodologies and frameworks to address the complex realities of a globalised postcolonial world.

References

Ahmad, A. 1992. In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literature. Verso Books.

Banerjee, P., Nigam, A., & Pandey, R. 2016. The work of Theory: Thinking Across Traditions. Economic and Political Weekly. 42-50.

Chatterjee, Partha. 1997. Our Modernity. https://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/files/partha1.pdf

Fanon, Frank. 1952. “The Negro and Language.” In Black Skin, White Masks. Pluto Press.

Fanon, Frank. 1959. “Medicine and Colonialism.” In A Dying Colonialism. Grove Press.

Guha, Ranajit. 1988. “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India.” In Selected Subaltern Studies. Oxford University Press.

Nanda, Meera. 2003. Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. Rutgers University Press.

Nanda, Meera. 2012. Dharma and the Bomb: Postmodern Critiques of Science and the Rise of Reactionary Modernism in India. Penguin.

Nandi, Ashish. 1987. Colonization of the Mind. https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/c/17430/files/2020/02/Colonization-of-the-Mind.pdf n

Ngũ gi, Wa Thiong’o. 2008. Freeing the Imagination. Transition. 100. Indiana University Press.

Rao, D. Venkat and Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o. 1999. A Conversation with Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o. Research in African Literature. 1. Indiana University Press.

***

Saddam Hussain is a PhD scholar in Sociology at South Asian University (SAU), New Delhi.