Modernisms in India
Modernisms in India Modernisms in India Supriya Chaudhuri The Oxford Handbook of Modernisms Edited by Peter Brooker, Andrzej Gąsiorek, Deborah Longworth, and Andrew Thacker Print Publication Date: Dec 2010 Subject: Literature, Literary Studies - 20th Century Onwards, Literary Studies - Postcolonial Literature Online Publication Date: Sep 2012 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545445.013.0053 Abstract and Keywords This article examines the history of modernism in India. It suggests that though the dis tinctions between modernity, modernization, and modernism are particularly complicated in the case of India, they remain crucial to a historical understanding of the ‘modern’ in all its senses. The article argues that the characteristic feature of Indian modernism in In dia is that it is manifestly social and historical rather than a hypostasis of the new as in the West. It contends that modernisms in India are deeply implicated in the construction of a secular national identity at home in the world, and in this respect answer a historical need to fashion a style for the modern as it is locally experienced. Keywords: modernism, India, modernization, modernity, national identity, hypostasis THE distinctions between modernity, modernization, and modernism are particularly com plicated in the case of India, but remain crucial to a historical understanding of the ‘mod ern’ in all its senses. Modernity, as a social and intellectual project, and modernization, as its means, are associated with the influence in India of Europe and of Enlightenment ra tionality from the eighteenth century onwards. Modernism, as an aesthetic, is far more limited in period and scope. Nevertheless, just as recent cultural criticism has proposed the existence of ‘alternative modernities’1 not native to the West, so too our attention has been drawn to ‘alternative modernisms’, or ‘modernisms at large’.2 The question of peri odicity, as of location, is complicated by the historical fact that modernism as an aesthetic was simultaneously restricted and elitist, and international and democratic.
[Show full text]