El Habib Louai Ibn Zohr University Faculty of Letters Unveiling a New-Orientalist Discourse in Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran and Khaled Hosseini’s A Thousand Splendid Suns Over the past few years, a great number of fictional works and memoirs have been produced by various writers belonging to diasporic literary scene in response to an impassioned Western eagerness to know more about the East. This fervent interest has been shaped largely by the widely circulated academic debates on what Samuel Huntington termed the “clash of the civilization and the remaking of world order.” Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran and Khaled Hosseini’s A Thousand Splendid Suns are among the most widely successful diasporic literary works of the last decade. Their surprising success in the West is partly due to their authors’ apparently unconditioned subscription to views advocated by the prevailing political American mainstream. In this paper, I shall attempt to demonstrate how both writers consciously or unconsciously assist in reproducing the same monolithic Orientalist frames of presenting and representing the East. I shall argue that both Nafisi and Hosseini work within a New-Orientalist binary that perpetuates the superiority/modernity of the West and denigrates the East as irrational and backward by choosing to represent women as desperate victims of Islamic State violence. This empire thrives on the stories it tells itself about liberty and democracy or about “the end of history” or “the clash of civilizations.” These stories need exotic seasonings, and the native informants provide them. They are the byproduct of an international intellectual free trade, in which intellectual carpetbaggers offer their services to the highest bidder, for the lowest risk. Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks Signaled with that very subordinate clause, “in a delightful and deliciously politically incorrect manner,” and then in the rest of her introduction, Azar Nafisi transforms a beautiful social satire into a vicious tract, the account of a native informer, documenting the presumed malfeasance of an entire people, so that their culture and traditions, particularly their “paradoxical relation to the West," can be properly understood by the Washington, DC intelligence community. Hamid Dabashi, Post-Orientalism: Knowledge and Power in Time of Terror Diasporic literature produced in the last decade resulted in certain feelings of suspicion and perplexity towards the genuine efforts of its writers. While previous diasporic literature was highly praised for its unrelenting commitment to issues of nationalism, migration problems, cultural minority, linguistic integration, exile, and expatriation, contemporary diasporic literature seems to constitute a dispersed body of work that aspires to continuously uphold a Eurocentric view of the “mother country.” This abrupt change in perspective has not yet been attributed to any particular reasons. However, I believe that this sudden metamorphosis in previous commitments to the defense of diasporic rights for an unbiased representation and equal treatment is associated in the first place with the direct influence exercised by certain recent discursive formulations or narratives of embodiment. Among these discursive formulations are Samuel Huntington’s famous arguments with regard to “the clash of civilization” as it contributed to the transfiguration of “the world order.” Such premises have contributed to a drastic change in the diaspora’s previously unshakable conceptions of the conditions of presence on another’s land. Feelings of unbearable self-compunction and abashing sentiments of disengagement from any ancestral origin begin to pervade various literary works of some fiction writers in the years following the incidents of September 11, 2001. Predictably, these incidents contributed much to the imposition of such a divisive and dissentious historical argument as Huntington’s. September 11 indeed marked a turning point in history, because it effectively proved that the next war that shakes up the earth will be “civilizational.” Strikingly, and in a very cowardly way, most of the diasporic writers and critics, especially those from Islamic Eastern backgrounds, chose to succumb to the stagnant categorization and prejudgment of such theories as those propounded by Samuel Huntington. By yielding to such theories of cultural and civilizational conflicts, the diasporic writers and literary critics relinquished all horizons for responsibility. Such writers eventually turned out to be mere advocates of a New-Orientalist discourse that unceasingly strives to intensify such categorical conceptions of the East as backward, irrational, sensual, and barbaric. This aforementioned theoretical framework is the driving force which motivates me to investigate the extent to which Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran and Hosseini’s A Thousand Splendid Suns work within a New-Orientalist discourse that characterizes the East as irrational and uncivilized and portrays the West as modern and rational. Both Nafisi and Hosseini have consciously or unconsciously fallen into the abysmal pitfall of a New-Orientalism totally blinded by the bombastic Western discourse of democracy, equality, human rights, and freedom. Despite the imaginary nature of their literary works, both writers seem to be profoundly detached from their cultural backgrounds in a way that prevents them from approving of their ancestral heritage. Their narratives in this sense completely lack a national belonging, and any notion of a ”nation and narration” in Nafisi’s and Hosseini’s novels seems to be totally dissipated. My decision to investigate Nafisi’s and Hosseini’s fiction in light of the latest debates on diaspora and its cultural engagements stems from my understanding that the concept of diaspora as designating both a geographical site, where groups of people physically migrate, and a theoretical construct, where a typical way of representation and conception is developed. Both Nafisi and Hosseini subscribe to the second category of this definition since their ideas, views, and arguments are conceptualized through imaginary representations of a diasporic reality. But the questions that persistently germinate from any diasporic representation of national realities on the grounds of another territory relate more to questions of genuine representation and accountability. To what extent do Nafisi’s and Hosseini’s literary works authentically represent existential conditions and social realities of their native nations? As contributors to a newly-formed canon, what kind of realities do Nafisi’s and Hosseini’s works include or exclude in their representation? Do their literary works adhere to a distinct political critique or just affiliate to a biased Orientalist denigratory position? Within such frameworks, I shall address Nafisi’s and Hosseini’s works to unveil their subscription to a New-Orientalist discourse. I Both Reading Lolita in Tehran and A Thousand Splendid Suns have gained considerable academic and media attention. Part of this popularity is connected to the ways in which they reinforce Western popular prejudices and stereotypes of Muslims as backward and irrational. Moreover, they have helped to create and sustain the widely circulated view that Muslim women are continuously subject to a misogynic treatment that is an integral part of Islamic tradition. Both texts deal with the social realities and the existential conditions of women in the East. Nafisi’s memoir concentrates on the conditions of women in Iran during the Islamic revolution in the 1970s. Her motivation in depicting the deplorable conditions of Iranian women during the Islamic revolution derives directly from her experience as a female professor who taught at the University of Tehran, the Free Islamic University, and Allameh Tabatabai University upon her return from America in the revolutionary year of 1979. Having been educated in different Western universities, Nafisi was already influenced by certain ways of occidental thinking and modes of behavior. This Western cultural impact with all its active advocacy of values relating to freedom and equality resulted in her resistance to the compulsory law demanding that all women should wear a veil. Upon her refusal to wear one, she was expelled from the university. This state of affairs drove her to set the grounds for a feminist vindication and fervent protection of women's rights against any patriarchal manipulation or transgression. The subsequent expulsion of Azar Nafisi from her post as a professor of English literature led her to take a peaceful revolutionary decision. She decides to choose “seven of [her] best and most committed students and invited them to come to [her] home every Thursday morning to discuss literature” (Nafisi 3). These students are all intelligent and female, some veiled and others unveiled, and they all indulge in discussing earnestly selected canonical masterpieces of literature in English. Nafisi’s decision is meant to signify that Iran in particular and Middle Eastern countries in general are still unfriendly to women and to any latitudinarians. Through this act of bringing together a group of intelligent female students Nafisi fulfills a dream she has had for a long time: to unveil Iranian females and rescue them from the patriarchal subjugation of the Iranian male. Unfortunately, Nafisi is unaware of the New-Orientalist stereotypes that her attempt to speak for the Iranian women entails. The first of the New-Orientalist stereotypes that Nafisi unconsciously sustains relates to her unconditional preference for Western cultural productions and practices as reflected in its most outstanding literary masterpieces. The impact of Western literature, and by extension the western culture as a whole, is strikingly apparent in her selection of literary masterpieces. These range from fictional works by such canonical writers as Henry James, Jane Austen, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Vladimir Nabokov. It is ironic that Nafisi chooses such purely Western classics to investigate the social conditions of Iranian women even when she knows that the authors and the women studying them do not share the same historical realities or cultural imperatives. Bringing a group of brilliant female students together to discuss their current social conditions as oppressed women in the light of what they read in James’s Daisy Miller or Nabokov’s Lolita is insensitive to the cultural differences that produced such literary masterpieces. It becomes therefore quite evident that Nafisi primarily aims to reproduce the same cultural constructions that Western colonizers have already perpetuated through their imperial visions of the Eastern culture. These cultural constructions can be summarized roughly in such views that conceive of the West as being culturally far more modern and rational than the East, which constantly subjects its women to all kinds of torment, physical and psychological. Although I cannot penetrate the depth of Nafisi’s internal conscience to fathom the reasons for such a choice, it is clear that her selection of these particular literary works is based on her personal admiration of their respective authors. Nevertheless, Nafisi should have been aware of the dangerous effects that such a choice might have on these brilliant though still impressionable young Iranian women. In this manner, Nafisi risks indoctrinating generations of Iranian female citizens who, despite their love for their nation and its culture, may turn out to be totally assimilated into a different imperial culture inculcated by such literary masterpieces. To understand the repercussions of choosing such canonical Western literary masterpieces on the production of a New-Orientalist perspective, I will refer to Edward Said’s well-known formulations. Said points to the impact, cultural or civilizational if not effectively political, that literary or cultural productions of the West have had on the mindset of local intellectuals or writers of the East. In his seminal book Culture and Imperialism (1993), Said warns against an imperial culture that sweeps over the world through the amount of literary works that certain Western writers produce. Although Nafisi’s book merges both real incidents with imagination, it can still be included in those “cultural forms like the novel” which Said believes “were immensely important in the formation of imperial attitudes, references, and experiences” (Said xxi). Nafisi does not quite clearly negate the importance of her native cultural heritage, but she fails in a way to point to the cultural distinctive features of an Iranian nation. By overlooking an Iranian cultural distinctiveness, Nafisi contributes to the formulation of New-Orientalist attitudes with regard to the conditions of women in Iran; such attitudes have always degenerated the East as a patriarchal violent leviathan. In her seminal book Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India, Gauri Viswanathan points to the hidden intentions behind the establishment of an English literary studies department in previously colonized India. She demonstrates that the foundation of English departments in colonial universities was meant to educate a group of native Indians to facilitate a gradual occupation and at the same time to enhance control by raising a class of aboriginal people who are, as Macaulay put it, "Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, words and intellect." In the same vein, the Kenyan post-colonial critic Ngugi wa Thiong’o argues in his pioneering essay “On the Abolition of the English Department” that educational systems in African countries should be reformed to fit the African cultural specificities—its attitudes, modes of behavior, and life styles. The institutionalization of the African Literature and Languages department, Ngugi argues, would weaken the "basic assumption that the English tradition and the emergence of the modern west is the central root of our consciousness and cultural heritage. Africa becomes an extension of the west" and subverts the marginal status of African literature and culture (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 439). The fact that Nafisi was educated in different Western universities may have largely influenced her standpoint while writing Reading Lolita in Tehran. Evidently, Nafisi has assimilated consciously or unconsciously some of the Western foundational precepts and values of the Enlightenment, mainly those emphasizing freedom, equality, and justice. Nafisi inadvertently ignored the historical fact that those European countries which called for Enlightenment values and doctrines were the first to subject non-European countries to hideous practices of colonial oppression. Nafisi seems to ignore that the values and the doctrines of the Enlightenment were thoroughly Eurocentric, and allowed European colonial powers to dismiss their colonized subjects as inferior and uncivilized. Partha Chatterjee reconsiders the nature of the Enlightenment discourse as it relates to issues of national identity and Otherness. He propounds that “for Enlightenment itself, to assert its sovereignty as the universal ideal, needs its Other; if it could ever actualize itself in the real world as the truly universal, it would in fact destroy itself” (Chatterjee 17). The second New-Orientalist stereotype Nafisi upholds lies in her verbose descriptions of the actual reality of the Iranian Islamic revolution as it affects people’s emotions. Nafisi clearly exoticizes her apartment when she describes it as a fabulous “oasis” for the veiled girls where she undertakes the role of a Scheherazade who can transport them from their grim real world to the free utopian world of literature. Her modernized recreation of a New-Orientalist scene is also evident when she depicts the treatment of women by the zealots of the Islamic Revolution: “young women who disobey the rules are hurled into patrol cars, taken to jail, flogged, fined, forced to wash the toilets, humiliated” (Nafisi 27). Such a description only helps to fossilize the conventional attitudes and stereotypes that an Orientalist standpoint nurtured for such a long time. In contrast to this horrendous treatment of women, Nafisi wistfully recalls the good old days under the Shah, when she and her family enjoyed such a pleasant and easy life. Unwittingly, Nafisi here overlooks the historical truth, that the UK and US helped the Shah seize complete control of Iran after the anti-democratic overthrow of 1953. It is at this particular moment that Reading Lolita in Tehran loses credibility as an authentic representation of the real history of Iranian people. According to Hamid Dabashi, Reading Lolita in Tehran represents “the locus classicus of the ideological foregrounding of the US imperial domination at home and abroad.” Dabashi contends that Nafisi’s memoir does not subscribe to a distinct historical context because she remains silent about the atrocities of the Shah’s regime, which the Islamic Revolution brought to an end. Dabashi postulates that American novels hold a distinguished position as expressive of “the best that has been thought and said” (Arnold xx) in total absence of any assessment of Iranian political activism or any recognition of Iranian literary or cultural creativity. He goes further to condemn Nafisi’s memoir when he claims that the text “has assumed a proverbial significance in the manner in which native informers turned comprador intellectuals serve a crucial function in facilitating public consent to imperial hubris” (Dabashi). In this sense, Nafisi merely enhances the Western reader's already imperfect and partial knowledge of Iranian women. On the other hand, the memoir reinforces the converging misunderstandings that permeate social sphere of race and gender and eventually maintain the binary opposition of Western freedom/progress versus the primitiveness and irrationality of Iran and by extension the East. Though Nafisi’s memoir strives to render an authentic account of the actual situation of Iranian women, she succeeds only in transmitting a reductive story about these women as opponents to their counterpart males. Iranian women today hold high positions in education, politics, social and military system. They were decisive contributors to the removal of the last Shah and they hold the current Islamic government responsible for the protection of their rights. II Khaled Hosseini’s A Thousand Splendid Suns (2007) subscribes to the same body of literary works produced by migrants or semi-natives from Eastern backgrounds for the purpose of exposing the deplorable conditions of women in Islamic countries. Hosseini’s novel narrates the story of two young women, Mariam and Laila, as they struggle against the patriarchal oppression and violence of man (Rasheed) in the violent Islamic country of Afghanistan. It is interesting to point to Khaled Hosseini's cultural background as it relates to the construction of his views in this novel. I believe that by examining the author's origins, we can come to understand the nature of his representations of women in an Islamic country. Born in Afghanistan, Hosseini's family moved to France and then to the United States when he was a child; they were forced out of their country by the Soviet invasion. Hosseini is thus an Afghan immigrant whose opinions and views are largely formed within the American political and cultural context. This condition of being a semi-native poses critical problems for his readers. Hosseini might be included, as Dabashi argues, in that category of native informants who contribute to the making of American empire. The New-Orientalist representations of Muslim countries and culture start from this predicament from which Hosseini cannot easily disentangle himself. Hosseini seems here to undertake the position of an Orientalist writer who speaks for Afghan women without having closely lived with the Afghan people. Accordingly, his narrative cannot accurately represent what really takes places in Afghanistan. His novel is deemed to produce "Confirmations of such simplistic ahistoric narratives [that] reinforce the mainstream media representations of the whole Middle East and Islamic world as so morally deficient that the only possible Western response is the violent destruction and recreation of the Orient" (Fitzpatrick 244). The first Orientalist stereotype illustrated here is that of the misogynist Muslim male. Throughout colonial history, characterizations of Muslim culture as misogynist permeated the majority of Orientalist writings. Right from the first pages of this novel, the reader is introduced to one of the oldest stereotypes about Muslim people. Jalil is an old wealthy man who owns various houses and other properties, someone who has total freedom to fornicate and marry as many women as he likes. He is also represented as Haroun Al Raschid, another quite fabulously orientalized character in Arab history. By describing his character as a male with “three wives and nine children, nine legitimate children, all of whom were strangers to Mariam” (5), Hosseini perpetuates the classical Orientalist characterization of Muslim men as prototypes of sexual monstrosity and debauchery. Another male character employed to represent the traditionally stereotyped Orientalist attitudes towards Muslims is Rasheed. Hosseini adopts the same Orientalist strategy by depicting him as a gentle, affectionate and caring husband who is absolutely considerate of his wife’s emotions and welfare but who later turns into a sex-obsessed brute. In the beginning, Rasheed is a widower, a poor stone carver desperately in need of a soulmate. He gets married and introduces his new wife, Mariam, to his life in Kabul by taking her on a tour in the city, patiently explaining its architectural wonders. Abruptly, however, Hosseini shifts the course of this narrative to demonstrate a long-lasting Orientalist prejudice when he focuses on the incident of Mariam’s forced marriage to Rasheed. The incident of forced marriage is continuously associated with conventional Orientalist attitudes towards the Islamic social and legal system and its conception of marriage as an institution. Hosseini here generally represents women in Afghanistan as subjects to the male’s authority; only the elder man can decide about their personal choices even when it comes to their lovers or future husbands. This premise is totally outdated and I am sure Muslim women in various countries nowadays enjoy more freedom to act and choose their companions for life. The second Orientalist stereotype which Hosseini perpetuates through his narrative relates to similar issues touched upon in Nafisi’s memoir: the debate over the compulsion of wearing a veil. Just a few days after his marriage to Mariam, Rasheed begins to insist that his wife wear a burka in public. The requirement of wearing burka or hijab is itself orientalized in the sense that it conveys more than what Eastern people associate with it. For the Orientalist this custom signifies fanaticism and subjugation because the burka does not allow women to show their beauty and encloses them inside a black carcass devoid of femininity. For New-Orientalist intellectual women, rights and freedom are intricately connected with the degree of their detachment from cultural practices and formulations such the veil or the hijab. The third conventional Orientalist attitude defended by Hosseini is linked to the Muslim preference of the male over the female. Resheed is obsessed with the hope of having a male heir, an oriental stereotype widely associated with ancient Arab pre-Islamic tribes. When Mariam’s first pregnancy ends in miscarriage, Rasheed becomes furious and eventually loses hope after the other miscarriages. Hosseini emphasizes the other savage side of an oriental husband when he depicts Rasheed as totally insensitive to the sadness and pain these miscarriages inflict on Mariam. Within such oriental categorizations, Rasheed is presented as a superior irrational male who cannot accept any possible scientific explanation for these miscarriages. He continues to blame Mariam for failing to give him a male heir. At this stage Rasheed turns into a brutal monster that simply ignores Mariam and mistreats her by frequently criticizing her ways of cooking and cleaning. The myth of a brutal Oriental man is pushed further when Rasheed finally starts to physically abuse his wife before disposing of her as any other commodity. The fourth Orientalist stereotype lies in the propensity of Muslim males to dispose of their wives when they prove to be barren. Rasheed is represented as an Oriental man not governed by sublime feelings of love and affection, but rather by egoistic sentiments of personal immortalization of his ancestral line. Women in this sense are mere commodities that a man may discard when they are no longer useful. The introduction of Laila as a substitute for Mariam is used in order to endorse this Orientalist view of Muslim men as being interested only in sexual reproduction. Rasheed easily disassociates himself from Mariam the moment he succeeds in persuading Laila to marry him, as one possible strategy to avert local people’s suspicion towards the presence of another female in the same conjugal house. Rasheed’s mind is exclusively preoccupied with having a male heir. Rasheed, overjoyed, describes Laila saying “you...are a Benz. A brand-new, first-class shiny Benz” (Hosseini 216). Another drastic shift in Rasheed’s caring behavior towards Laila surfaces when she finally gives a birth to Aziza, a girl who is not his in the first place. A fit of indescribable anger and fury possesses Rasheed when Laila gives birth to a female. Finally, as predicted by an Orientalist attitude, women can only find solace in the company of other women as in all Eastern countries. Laila finds a good companion in Mariam and they form an alliance that helps them to cope with the miserable life they both share in Rasheed’s house. The last Orientalist stereotype which Hosseini’s novel upholds has to do with the premise that most of the countries in the East are still urgently in need of a Western occupation that will bring these countries a bit closer to development and prosperity. Hosseini hovers shortly over this stereotype when he incorporated incidents from the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. He seems to be quite in favor of a Russian rule because he thinks that Russians brought colossal improvement in Afghan infrastructure and educational system, especially for women. Other characters, such as Laila’s father, believe deeply in the change that Russians brought to the conditions of women, the reason why some obscure Islamist fought them. Laila’s father claims that “liberating women, abolishing forced marriage, raising minimum marriage age, etc.” (Hosseini 133) are among the basic goals of Russian occupation in order to introduce Afghanistan to modernity. Both Reading Lolita in Tehran and A Thousand Splendid Suns reflect what Hamid Dabashi calls selective memory, a technique used by most writers from Islamic migratory backgrounds to decontextualize certain historical incidents and incorporate them to serve the direct intentions of their literary works. Dabashi warns of such memoirs or fictional works which tend to “bank on a collective amnesia of historical facts surrounding successive US imperial moves for global domination.” Ironically, Hosseini’s novel overlooks or at least tries intentionally to obliterate some historical realties relating to the strategic problems between the States and the Soviet Union exemplified by Cold War and communism. Hosseini allowed the Americans to step into the tale without pointing to their historical long-lasting misunderstanding with the Russians. Consequently, the Russians clear the scene for the Americans who know how to implement changes that will secure and emancipate Afghan women from their male dominators as Spivak would ironically claim. The flow of the events already bring American readers to sympathize and therefore accept a foreign intervention in Afghanistan. The American war in Afghanistan is justified by such humanistic, well-intentioned willingness to emancipate women and establish a regime based on democracy. Finally, Hosseini brings his narrative to a conclusion that every Western citizens expects: the elimination of Taliban rulers. Yet the novel fails to include the subsequent terrible social and economic problems of the opium and heroin traffic, for example; it also fails to point to the uprising of new Taliban supporters in the suburbs and above all to the atrocities of the American army after the war. Conclusion Both Nafisi’s memoir and Hosseini’s novel concentrate on issues of women’s rights and freedoms in some Eastern countries. Nafisi traces women's rights in Iran during the Islamic Revolution while Hosseini trances the development of the same rights in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime. Both writers are natives or semi-natives of the countries they depict, a condition which, to a Western reader, grants authority to their views and opinions about women's rights and political issues. Nevertheless, both Nafisi and Hosseini fail in representing objectively social and political circumstances, mainly love relationships and human rights issues, due to the authors' biases toward Eurocentric/Americanized frameworks. This absence of neutrality transforms such writers into what Dabashi calls “native informants.” These two native informants prove to be zealous advocates of what some post-colonial theorists (principally Hamid Dabashi and Fatemeh Keshavarz) call New-Orientalist discourse. Their New-Orientalist perspective can be attributed in the first place to an ideological position that derives from their native or semi-native immigrant status. Both writers develop through their narratives a sense of detachment from the localities they describe. Nafisi clearly describes her repugnance towards her country and she constantly sees herself as an outsider when she says, “are these my people, is this my hometown, am I who I am?” (Nafisi 74). Hosseini’s denunciative voice of anything Afghan is dispersed among many characters, but easily detectable. Both books systematically fail to show a historical accountability for some incidents they incorporate in their narratives, and by so doing, they have unwittingly, and unjustifiably, won further international support for subsequent wars in Afghanistan and probably soon in Iran. This reductive feature of the two books introduces considerable distortions in the official histories of Iran and Afghanistan. By repeatedly debating issues having to do with Afghan backwardness, Western superiority, Islamic misogyny and irrationality, as well as by implicitly soliciting a foreign occupation or intervention, both Reading Lolita in Tehran and A Thousand Splendid Suns can serve, at the very least, as extremely appropriate examples of a “new Orientalist narrative.” Works Cited Arnold, Matthew. Culture and Anarchy and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Postcolonial Studies Reader, London: Routledge, 1995. Chatterjee, Partha. Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse. London: Zed Books,1986. Dabashi, Hamid. Native informers and the making of American empire. Al-Ahram, 2006 July 18. Fitzpatrick, Coeli. “New Orientalism in popular fiction and memoir: an illustration of type” in Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 4:3, 243-256, 2009. Hosseini, Khaled. A Thousand Splendid Suns. New York: Riverhead Trade, 2007. Nafisi, Azar. Reading Lolita in Tehran. New York: Random House, 2003. Macaulay,Thomas, Babington. The Minute on Indian Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Said, Edward. Culture and imperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993. Tags: Xenophile Articles Issue 1
