Hindi-belt, the argument against English is still a powerful and emotive one, because Hindi is very widely spoken in that region, and it is naturally felt that it should be the national language, that Hindi should be the language of government, commerce, education, and culture. In the South, however, where Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, and other languages are spoken, the argument is more muted, because to the speakers of these languages, Hindi appears no less a colonizing tongue than English.

For this reason, English has retained a great deal of its power in the southern states of India, and it is here that the most innovative and energetic English-language writers and critics are to be found. The point is that, today, English has become an Indian language.

Salman Rushdie’s contention in his essay “Commonwealth Literature’ Does Not Exist” revolves around the artificiality and the exclusionary nature of the term ‘Commonwealth literature.’ He argues that this categorization creates a form of ghettoization, grouping together vastly different literatures under a single, unhelpful label, primarily based on the writers’ colonial histories rather than their literary commonalities.

Rushdie highlights the inherent contradictions in the term by pointing out that some countries not part of the Commonwealth, like South Africa and Pakistan, are included under its literary umbrella, whereas countries that are part of the Commonwealth, like England, are excluded from it. This selective inclusion and exclusion underscore the arbitrary and problematic nature of the category.

Furthermore, Rushdie notes that the term ‘Commonwealth literature’ implicitly suggests a peripheral status to the writers it encompasses, as if they are on the fringes of the ‘main’ English literature, which remains the literature of white Britons and Americans. This marginalization is not only inaccurate but also patronizing, as it fails to recognize the diverse and rich contributions of writers from formerly colonized nations.

The essay suggests that the persistence of the term ‘Commonwealth literature’ stems from a certain colonial mentality that still pervades literary criticism and academia. This mentality tends to preserve the centrality of British literature while relegating the works of non-British, non-white authors to a subsidiary status.

Rushdie calls for the recognition of English as a global language that has been appropriated and transformed by writers from all over the world. He emphasizes that these writers are creating literature that is not peripheral but central to the contemporary literary landscape. By doing so, Rushdie advocates for a more inclusive and accurate understanding of English literature, one that acknowledges its global nature and the myriad voices that contribute to it.

In discussing “Commonwealth literature,” Salman Rushdie emphasizes the problematic nature of categorizing and containing diverse literatures under this term. He argues that such classification not only imposes arbitrary boundaries but also reinforces a colonial mindset, treating these literatures as peripheral to the “core” English literature of Britain and the United States.

Rushdie further explores the concept of authenticity in literature, criticizing the expectation that writers should draw solely from their national traditions. He highlights the case of the Indian poet Arun Kolatkar, whose award-winning English poems about a Hindu temple town were criticized for not adhering to traditional forms. This criticism reflects a narrow view of literature that values so-called authenticity over innovation and diversity.

Moreover, Rushdie points out that the idea of a pure, unalloyed tradition is a fallacy, particularly in India, where culture is a rich tapestry of various influences. He underscores that Indian culture—and, by extension, Indian literature—is inherently mixed and multifaceted, challenging the notion of a singular, authentic national identity.

Rushdie’s critique extends to the broader implications of the “Commonwealth literature” label, which he sees as creating a literary ghetto. This ghettoization leads to a limited and often superficial understanding of the works it encompasses, focusing on their national characteristics rather than their literary merit and universal themes. By doing so, it diminishes the complexity and richness of these literatures.

Rushdie argues that the concept of ‘Commonwealth literature’ reduces the rich diversity of experiences and perspectives of writers from former British colonies to a homogenized and marginalized category. This reductionism not only undermines the literary value of these works but also perpetuates a colonial mindset that views non-British, non-American writers as inherently peripheral to the main corpus of English literature.

The essay critiques the notion of ‘authenticity’ that Commonwealth literature proponents often seek. Rushdie recounts how the Indian poet Arun Kolatkar faced criticism for his English-language poems despite their brilliance, simply because they did not conform to traditional expectations. This insistence on authenticity, he argues, is a subtle form of exoticism that demands writers to adhere to a narrowly defined cultural identity, thereby stifling creativity and innovation.

English literature should be seen as a global phenomenon, encompassing diverse voices and experiences from around the world. The English language, having ceased to be the sole possession of the English, now supports a world literature that is dynamic and ever-evolving. He references William Butler Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” to underscore the inevitability of this change, suggesting that the ‘centre cannot hold’ and that the dominance of traditional English literature must give way to a more inclusive and representative literary landscape.

He argues that this term is not only reductive but also perpetuates a colonial mentality that marginalizes and ghettoizes these works, thus hindering their recognition and appreciation within the broader landscape of English literature.

Rushdie highlights the artificial boundaries created by such categorization, which often lead to narrow and misleading readings of the works it encompasses. He points out that Indian authors writing in English, for example, should be seen as contributing to English literature rather than being sidelined into a subsidiary category. He emphasizes that the English language in India, while historically linked to colonial rule, has been adapted and transformed by Indians into something uniquely their own. This adaptation is a testament to the dynamic and evolving nature of English, which can no longer be seen as the exclusive property of the English.

Moreover, Rushdie argues that the insistence on authenticity—demanding that writers adhere to traditional forms and themes rooted in their national cultures—stifles creativity and reinforces outdated stereotypes. He suggests that true literary connections are based on imaginative affinities rather than nationality or language. By recognizing this, we can better appreciate the richness and diversity of global English literature.

Rushdie calls for a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of English literature, one that acknowledges its global dimensions and the contributions of writers from diverse backgrounds. He envisions a world where English literature is not constrained by artificial labels but is celebrated for its multifaceted and expansive nature, reflecting the new realities of a interconnected world. This vision aligns with the idea that English, as a world language, now supports a world literature that is vibrant and ever-growing.

Salman Rushdie’s essay “Commonwealth Literature’ Does Not Exist” uses the final lines of W.B. Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” to underscore his argument about the evolving nature of English literature. While Yeats’ poem is a lament for the downfall of Western civilization in the aftermath of World War I, Rushdie uses it with a touch of irony to critique those who hold a narrow view of what constitutes English literature.

For Rushdie, the notion that English literature should be the exclusive domain of white Anglo-Saxon British-born writers is outdated and chauvinistic. The “centre” that “cannot hold” is the old, exclusionary view of English literature. The “rough beasts” slouching towards Bethlehem symbolize the emergence of a new era in which English is no longer the sole possession of the English but a global language enriched by diverse voices from former colonies and beyond.

Rushdie’s use of Yeats’ lines suggests a transformative moment. Instead of an apocalyptic end, he envisions the beginning of an inclusive age where the canon of English literature expands to include works by writers from various cultural and global backgrounds. This new era celebrates the dynamic and multifaceted nature of English as a world language, acknowledging its ability to support a rich and diverse world literature.

Thus, Rushdie calls for a more inclusive understanding of English literature, one that reflects the realities of a connected world and the contributions of writers from all over the globe. This broader perspective not only enriches the literary canon but also recognizes the evolving and democratizing power of the English language.