Autobiographical Act and the Formation of Self and Truth in the Autobiographies of

M.K Gandhi and B.PKoirala

“To describe truth as it has appeared to me and in the exact manner in which I have arrived at it has been my ceaseless effort ". Gandhi

This statement from Gandhi's autobiography signifies that his effort to write about his personal life is actually the effort to describe how he exactly arrives to the truth of his life. On the other hand, Bisheshwor Prasad Koirala, a Nepali political leader of Gandhi's time narrates: "During my long stay in the prison, I attempted writing about my life and thereby to write about the contemporary socio-political system, one or two times, to pass time. In doing so, what I found was I tended to write more about others than about my life" (My translation 1).1

In these two contexts, the first autobiographer Gandhi claims that his autobiography is an account of the processes of how he exactly arrives to the 'truth' of his life and the second autobiographer, Koirala, narrates the problem of writing about oneself. He states that he could not focus about his own life and was rather inclined to write about other, particularly about Nepali politics. The aim of this research is to unfold the answer of what actually happens when an autobiographer begins writing about his life and how does he or she profess to construct the 'autobiographical self' and the 'truth' about his/ her life in the autobiography. Gandhi's claim about the content of his autobiography and Koirala's experience of the problem in writing his autobiography in the opening paragraph of this dissertation are the points of departure from which I enter into these questions concerned with the 'autobiographical act'.

Regarding the etymology of the word 'autobiography'; 'autos' means 'self',

'bios' means 'life' and 'graphe' means 'writing' in Greek language. The act of writing an

1 The subsequent quotations from the autobiography of Koirala are all my translation. 2 autobiography is a complex process since it requires recourse to fragmented memory.

Past memories gradually fade with the passage of time therefore they are fragmented by their nature and almost impossible to recapture completely. Similarly, the autobiographical act of writing takes place in the dynamics of intention of an autobiographer, his space, time and circumstances of writing. This means with the change in time and space, the intentions and the circumstances of an autobiographer obviously change. This natural change adds complexity in the act of arriving to the truth of the life of an autobiographer. An 'autobiographical act' of writing involves this discursive process which is actually an act of using language to describe about one's life and the self.

Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson call this process a 'symbolic interaction' of an autobiographer with the reality of his\her life. "Life narratives are always symbolic interactions in the world.They are culturally and historically specific" (49-50). This means, autobiographical acts are rhetorical actions in the broadest sense. To make it simple, the act of writing about one's life is essentially the act of a careful selection of words to describe about one's experience. The degree of possibility of coming to the

'truth' and projecting the real self of an autobiographer in his\her autobiography objectively is therefore low. This applies to any autobiographical act of writing life stories.

'Autobiographical self' is the self created in an autobiography through the

'autobiographical act'. It is the subject or the self of an autobiographer projected by means of language in an autobiography. Autobiographical self is an image which an autobiographer picturizes about himself or herself while writing. 'Autobiographical self' is therefore, a 'constructed self' in language by the 'discursive activity' of writing or what Smith and Watson say 'symbolic interaction' of the autobiographer with his\her reality of life. Therefore, the objective of this research is to explore what goes 3 into writing an autobiography by an individual in general and how Gandhi and

Koirala perform autobiographical acts in their autobiographies in particular. The significance of this study lies in unfolding the nature of an ‘autobiographical act’ and autobiographical subject (self) through the analysis of the autobiographical acts of

Gandhi and Koirala. It also studies the way how an autobiographer perform an autobiographical act to create the image of 'self'. So the key search of this project is to answer how autobiography as the form of life writing process functions and how are

Gandhi and Koirala motivated to write about their lives or what politics lies behind it.

Regarding the form of the autobiographies, both of the selected ones are political autobiographies in general. Gandhi is very much sure about the primary focus of his autobiography. He assures the reader that his life in reality had been series of experiments with truth. Chapter two is the elaboration of how he arrives to the truths from his experiments. Koirala, on the other hand, begins with- the problem of writing about self. Indeed, after going through his autobiography one finds that,

Koirala emphasizes much in writing about the events in relation to the political life, rather than focusing on his private affairs.

I examine how Gandhi projects his autobiographical self, the image of oneself cultivated in one's autobiography, around his stories of several experiments which he claims to have performed in dietetics, in his ideas of non-violence (ahimsa), civil- disobedience (Satayagtaha) and celibacy (Bramacharya) and arrives to what he calls

'truth'. With a self assurance, Gandhi reinforces the image of a Mahatma2, a title conferred to Gandhi, by means of his narrative strategy in his autobiography.

Meanwhile, I also examine how Koirala professes to cultivate his autobiographical self immersed in various political affairs of his life and time. He overshadows his

2 The great spiritual being 4 private life to render political overtones in most of the significant events of his life.

This way he constructs his autobiographical self more as a politically colored self that makes no distinction between the private and public, between the self and other. It implies that Koirala has nothing significant to narrate about his private life but his was the life completely devoted to the democracy and freedom of Nepali people. As a political figure, his life is more a public life rather than the private.

According to Philippe Lejeune: " We call autobiography the retrospective narrative in prose that some makes of his own existence when he puts the principle accent upon his life especially upon the story of his own personality" (qtd. in Smith and Watson 1). Since an autobiography accounts the stories of an autobiographer's life in retrospect; it is essentially about the past memories or reminiscences. In this sense,

I argue that as the autobiographers, Gandhi and Koirala proactively recreate the memory of their past at present. They manipulate the events of their life and interpret them the way they intend at a particular spatio-temporal location they find themselves in, while performing the autobiographical act.

This complex situation is the result of the nature of an autobiographer's memory in relation to his space, time, intention and the inherent purpose to write about one's life. This dynamics among the nature of memory in relation to immediate circumstances of the autobiographer, his intention and the inherent purpose to write about his life creates a problem. An autobiographer tends to merge both facts and fictions about his life into one and create a provisional truth about the self projected in his autobiography instead of the real flesh-blood self, on the process of act of writing about the self. This real self is simply unattainable in an autobiography according to the recent post-structural and postmodern theories of autobiography. 5

So, this research juxtaposes the ideas recently developed in the genre of "life writing" with the stories of Gandhi and Koirala to study how they project their images in their autobiography. In particular, I focus on autobiographical act of Gandhi and

Koirala to explore how they politicize the ‘self’ and the ‘truth’ in their autobiographies to create the intended image of their self. I mean the image of an autobiographer which he deliberates to cultivate in his autobiography. For example the image of the self of a Mahatma created by Gandhi in his stories of experiments about the truth and the image created by Koirala about himself as a votary of political freedom and prosperity in Nepal.

As mentioned earlier, writing autobiography is essentially a discursive activity. It involves the employment of discourses or language. Smith and Watson refer to the recent, post structural, postmodern and psychoanalytical theories and

Derrida's theory of deconstruction that refute the adequacy of language to represent the truth. Smith and Watson bring the idea of Sigmund Freud's notion of psychoanalysis that human being is not essentially rational but the human self is the product of the unconscious desires which exist outside the conscious control and frame the psyche of a human being. Freud also insists that language does not function neutrally but it is always 'interested 'or encodes speaker's desires (124). Lacan reinterprets Freud and claims that Freud's unconscious is a language itself. The speaker's subject spoken through this language always becomes the other to the desire of the speaker himself or herself (124). So according to Lacanian psychoanalysis, the subject of the speaker formed in language is far from the real subject or self.

Similarly, Watson and Smith bring Derrida's idea of self. According to the idea of Derrida, self is nothing but a fiction. It is "an illusion constituted in discourse, a hypothetical place or space of storytelling" (132). It can never be discovered and it 6 is essentially fragmented. It is because the true meaning of a self is always in the process of constitution, since the language or the words (signifiers) one uses to construct the self refer to other signifiers or words for their meaning in a particular linguistic system and this turns into never ending process of referral to get the final meaning or truth (133). This is the reason why there cannot be stable, unitary and unified meaning in the discourse created by language. This theory of deconstruction of meaning has a significant impact on recent rereading of autobiographical act of truth construction because autobiographical truth is therefore, discourse created in language.

On the other hand Smith and Watson also bring the idea of Marxism.

According to the Marxists analysis individual consciousness or self of an individual is the product of the socioeconomic forces ruling the society. An individual's consciousness is build by his\her relationship with these larger socioeconomic forces and their structures in the society (123). This simply means, an individual consciousness is directly affected by the immediate socioeconomic circumstances.

Such circumstances change with the change in time therefore truth also changes with the time.

Smith and Watson discuss the direct impact of these and other relevant ideas of recent development in the act of writing an autobiography and argue:

New understandings of autobiographical subject involved new

understanding of these key concepts of self and truth. While the

Enlightenment or liberal-humanist notion of selfhood understand the

"I" as the universal transcendent marker of 'man', radical challenges to

the notion of a unified selfhood in the early decades of the twentieth 7

century eroded certainty in both a coherent "self" and the "truth" of

self-narrating. (123)

What Smith and Watson call 'new understandings ' of autobiographical subject and truth refer to such ideas of Freud, Lacan, Derrida and the Marxist ideas of individual consciousness. These ideas have influenced upon our perception about the autobiography as a genre and it's functioning regarding the concept of 'self' and 'truth' framed by an autobiographer in his autobiography. While the importance of autobiography in literature is growing in the recent years; the traditional monolithic notion of autonomous self who supposes to write about inalienable truths of his life has undergone profound refashioning and reconfiguration. Therefore, this study examines such new implications of life-writing or autobiography with a critical focus on the autobiographies of Gandhi and Koirala.

According to Smith and Watson, the word autobiography was first used in a preface of an anthology of poems by the eighteenth century English-working class poet Ann Yearsley. Many critics cite Robert Southey who anglicized the above three words in Greek in 1809 as the first appearance of the term in English (2). St.

Augustine's Confession is acknowledged as the first autobiographical narrative of a book – length, which was written around 397 C.E. This is the retrospective accounts of Augustine in which he narrates how he converted to Christian (85). During medieval ages autobiographical writing was the job of the spiritual masters. Later,

Benjamin Franklin's autobiography becomes a foundational autobiography in secular community in U.S.A. He viewed 'self-writing' as 'self-invention' (98). Smith and

Watson argue that," Franklin secularizes the heritage of puritan life narrative and emphasizes ‘self- invention’ as an ethical, rather than Spiritual project" (98). 8

But my point in this research is to reveal how the recent developments in the notions of autobiography have already dismantled the idea of Franklin's 'self- invention' through autobiographical narration which Smith and Watson refer to (98).

In particular, this research reveals the problems of autobiographical acts in the process of 'self- invention' in Gandhi and Koirala.

Autobiographical act has more to do with the faded memory of an autobiographer and his\her changing perspectives about the events of life and self.

The perspectives of looking life change with the passage of time. By the very nature of memory of any autobiographer, one cannot reach to the correct recollection of the events of his life in retrospect and by the very nature of the ‘self’ of an autobiographer he cannot select the objective words to represent the truth of his life. Moreover, there are no objective words as such in language which can correctly capture the truth. It is all about construction of discourse of own kind while writing an autobiography. On the other hand, obviously an autobiographer's perspectives about his\her life are always prone to change with the changing circumstances. So an account of one's life events in the autobiography simply turns to be the subjective interpretation of one's past. There involves a tendency of fabrication of truth about one's life. This is what I call the problem of an autobiographical act.

Smith and Watson cite Daniel L. Schacter who argues that autobiographies are constructed out of "fragments of experience that change overtime" (16). Similarly,

Smith and Watson claim: "Narrated memory is an interpretation of a past that can never be fully recovered" (16). So, on the process of an autobiographical act there are big chances of remembering and forgetting the events of the life by an autobiographer. An autobiographer tends to fabricate the truth and his or her self in the act of rendering a concrete shape to his fragmented memory on the one hand and 9 on the other nothing can control the autobiographer to become self- judgmental about his life events and to pass the judgments the way he wishes in his autobiography. This is how an autobiographer performs an autobiographical act.

Smith and Watson further argue that, "memories are contextual or governed by the circumstances. The memory invoked in the autobiographical narratives is specific to the time of writing and the contexts of telling"(18). They also argue that such contexts are politically charged and therefore remembering particular events involves the politics. It means politics of formation of the image of autobiographer's self, the way he wishes it to be. So there is always a risk of 'truth 'and 'self' being politicized in an autobiographical act which happens in Koirala and Gandhi as such.

Smith and Watson further clarify this and state that normally when we listen or read the narrative about the autobiographers we actually attend to their role of remembering and consciously forgetting the events which they do not want to include in their autobiography. This is the autobiographical act of actively recreating the meaning of his or her past at the present (24).

Now the additional problem is the use of language itself. The act of narrating one's events and experiences obviously involves the use of language. By the use of language autobiographer creates a line of discourse about oneself. If there comes the matter of use of language to narrate the experience, our subjective biasness of looking things around and the life of oneself comes into play. This naturally leads to the fabrication of the language. An autobiographer remains eclectic in the selection of the words used in narrating. This is the discursive dimension of creating truth about the matter around us and the way we view the world and ourselves. The very discursive nature of an autobiography has the inherent problem of inadequacy in representing

‘truth’ about anything according to the recent theories of autobiography. So the 10 identity of an autobiographer, so constructed in discourse, is provisional. It is because the way autobiographer views about his life depends very much upon the immediate circumstances of the autobiographer. The views change with the change in circumstances. Watson and Smith argue that "identities are historic, they are marked by time and place. What one is demanded by history (time and space) to be?

[Sometimes or] often autobiographers incorporate several models of identity in succession or in alternation to tell a story of serial development" (34-35).

Moreover, Smith and Watson offer us some important components of autobiographical acts. The first is the occasion or the coaxers who function as the imperative forces to solicit or provoke an autobiographer to write about his life. As in the case of Koirala the mediator Ganeshraj Sharma, legal counsellor and senior advocate and Sailaja Acharya niece of Koirala were the coaxers to solicit him write his autobiography. Similarly in the case of Gandhi one of his nearest co-workers

Swami Anand insisted him to write his autobiography several times.

The other component is the site or the specific occasion, location, a moment in history or a socio-political space in culture or so. It is like, from what location and circumstance has the narrator narrated his story? Is it jail, café, private room, TV shows or what (56)? This site has a profound impact upon the content and the way autobiographer acts because the situation of such sites intervene the mentality of an autobiographer and filters the things he writes or says. Similarly, the producer of the story or the multiple versions of the narrating 'I's and narrated 'I's and the dynamics among these multiple versions of the selves of an autobiographer also determine the autobiographical act (58). In real life an autobiographer perceives himself or herself as having several versions of self out of which the one is projected in the autobiography. 11

Some other important components are; addressees or implied readers, audience of one's autobiography, the modes of inquiring the self or the investigation or the process of self knowing is another components of an autobiographical act (50) .

For example, in Gandhi's autobiography he always narrates some major incidents of his life and his struggle to go through such incident in the form of the experiments of his life and he gets something out of that experiment; a greater revelation as 'truth'.

This is the mode of self knowing of Gandhi which has been elaborated later.

Similarly, the act of construction of multiple layers of plots of autobiographer's life and arranging those plots so as to give the fluid self and experience a concrete shape is what Smith and Watson call 'emplotment' (71). The medium of presentation, written, visual and other and the consumers are other important components of autobiographical act. Consumers are those readers and audience who are beyond the intended audiences of an autobiographer (77). These components do not always come together into play while writing an autobiography but one or other becomes dominant according to the situation in which an autobiographer writes.

Now the focus is on the problems of autobiographical acts and the genre, autobiography itself. Particularly, what theorists on autobiography view the problem of autobiographical act in the light of the recent developments is important in this context. In an analysis of Gertude Stein's Everybody's Autobiography, Timoty W.

Galow writes, "autobiography is traditionally defined, in part due to its dependence on language, as a solitary enterprise- that is, as the expression of an individual consciousness interacting with the material world. Yet here the subject of representation can be neither unified nor material" (112).

Galow claims that autobiographical subject (self) is never a solid subject nor a fixed one, though it is fixed by the autobiographer in language, it is fluid and has 12 multiple versions. This is because of the subject's dependence on language to express oneself because the nature of the language is fundamentally elusive. This is why an autobiographer simply fails to construct a unified and a material representation of a

‘truth’ and a ‘self’.

D.G Wright claims that "the conceptual limitations of autobiography were obvious" even before the emergence of the groundbreaking concept of Nietzsche on language and limitation or human perception about the world (211). Wright claims that: "Memory is unreliable, sincerity impossible to establish, language distorting and the holy trinity of autobiographical persons author and narrator and protagonist- can seemingly never be made into One" (211). He makes a critical analysis of Nietzche's autobiography Ecce Homo and claims that the act of writing an autobiography is more about ‘creation’ and less ‘description’ (212). Wright interprets Nietzsche, in the context of Nietzsche's view on writing autobiography and the limitation of the genre itself. Wright writes that: "Nietzsche had always been deeply committed to understanding the world as a perpetual flux, a world that receives only provisional meanings, through the act of willful interpretation" (218). The same, as Nietzsche views, happens in the case of writing any autobiography. The question is how can we grab the essence of our whole life which is in flux and the way we lived, in a few pages of autobiography that we build through but a discourse?

Similarly, Jens Brockmeier and DonalCarbaugh also highlight the transitory and multiple versions of the truth of our life. In a context they bring the ideas of

Bakthin into account for the discussion of problems of narrating life stories. They claim that, "every narrative self- account is itself part of a life. Embedded in a lived context of interaction and communication, intention and imagination, ambiguity and 13 vagueness, there is always, potentially a next and different story to tell, as there occur different situations in which to tell it" (7).

As there are multiple versions of truths about one's life; the truths, beyond the constructed truth in the autobiography, are the alternative truths of autobiographer's life. Gandhi and Koirala in this sense, account only one version of their multiple truths in their autobiography. It means each autobiography written so far, is the single version of the truth of the life of that autobiographer. Similarly, Paul John Eakin claims that an autobiographer constructs his identity in his autobiography but the problem is that he only focuses the revealing part of his life. This is only a very small part of life which he actually had lived (115).

Lisa McNee argues that, autobiographical discourses conform to the postmodernist theories of constructed subjectivity. These constructed subjects are therefore made of discourses. Autobiography shares such constructed subject with the readers (95). An autobiographer essentially constructs his 'truth' and 'self' in the autobiography and renders to the reader according to McNee. So it is all about the matter of self- construction in language not in reality.

In a different context Rockwell Gray writes: "Autobiographers who take risks, they doubt, like many of us, that they have real control over their past, their destinies or even over the act of writing out their thoughts"(46). Gray implies that an autobiographer himself doesn't have assurance that he can offer an objective account of his life or he has the agency to really control the past accounts and the thoughts. It means whatever an autobiographer writes, is not absolutely true even for himself. He can realize that he has fabricated the 'self' and 'truth' in his autobiography. If one agrees with Gray one should also agree that autobiographer essentially dissimulates while writing about the 'truth' and 'self'. Gray further claims that an autobiographer 14 involves oneself in the politics of pretense of attainment of agency so "the autobiographical impulse seeks to fulfill the deep human urge to raise our lives to a greater power, to double them as it were by having them over again under the relative control of art"(55). Here this art is the art of recreating the alternative self in language or the act of creating the double or say the duplicate of oneself in an autobiography.

So it is a powerful art of rhetoric.

Karl J. Weintraub explains this act of writing oneself or autobiographical act as ‘living with one’s world’ (833). An autobiographer forms his self in living with his own world and this moves on and on as the world and the time moves. With this dynamicity it also indicates that this act of forming the self in an autobiography is contingent and unpredictable in itself. He writes: "In living with one's world, one forms a self as the world moves on, and one helps form a world as oneself is being formed. This preserves an element of contingency, of unpredictability something that the individual an experience as freedom within an enveloping cultural- historical skin"

(833).

Once again coming back to the politics of remembering and forgetting one agrees that autobiographical acts solely depend on the play of memory. While politicizing the memory, an autobiographer deliberately underplays some memory and overplays the other. It is done so to comply with the nature of the self he desires to project in the autobiography. When, we go through the autobiographies selected here; one can notice several incidents where Gandhi has not mentioned about the things beyond the scope of his notions of vegetarianism, ahimsha, satyagraha and brahamacharya. While on the other hand, Koirala has underplayed his private and family affairs and foregrounded the political affairs. This has been elaborated in the third chapter. 15

Regarding this act of remembering and forgetting GunnthorunnGudmundottir argues: "Writing an autobiography signals a drive towards remembering but I maintain that the autobiographical process must also involve forgetting and as the writer chooses one memory at the cost of another, probably equally valid version"(12). This act of remembering and forgetting complicates the matter in terms of representation of the ‘self’ and ‘truth’. There are obvious chances of misrepresentation of ‘truth’ and ‘self’ or there involves a kind of fabrication in itself.

This sounds like selecting the flowers of compatible memories with the intended ‘self’ and ‘truth’ to be cultivated in the autobiography and making a garland of them in the form of autobiography. The memories which are unselected are the flowers of other kinds which do not fit in the garland one wants to weave. This politics of remembering and forgetting is one of the fundamental acts in writing an autobiography.

Gudmundsdottir further argues that an autobiographer makes use of fiction while handling with the memory. This is the point where facts merge into fiction as I argued before. When it becomes almost impossible to remember everything about one's life he/she fills the fissures in the fragmented memory by the fictions. This act of filling the fissures involves the deployment of the fiction with the facts of one’s life which is another problem in the autobiographical act. Gudmundsdottir claims:

Memory and fiction can be looked in as two strands in

autobiographical writing. Fiction is in a way inherent to memory, as

remembering constitutes a continuing process that changes with time.

Memory is always a product of circumstances, experiences, the passing

of time, memory's public aspects, and its connection to other people

and the changing perspective of the remembering self. (54) 16

These are the theoretical dimensions in which this research is based. The argument is that, there is an inherent problem of arriving to the truth in autobiographical act. The autobiographical self formed out of such problematic act of writing an autobiography is not the coherent self as an autobiographer assumes to be. In an inquiry of the autobiographical act of self-making and truth building I argue that Gandhi and Koirala turn out to be the autobiographers, which recent theories on the act of writing autobiography view i.e., they politicize their ‘self’ and ‘truth’ as they go on building their autobiographical self in the autobiographies. In this sense I agree with Philip

Dodd who writes, "The authors of diaries and autobiographies are engaged on the impossible task of objectifying something that remains elusive; they aspire to a knowledge of themselves that would be synonymous with writer's knowledge of their artifacts" (159). By this, Dodd means autobiographies are not essentially different than the artefacts like novels poems or other forms of art. It means an autobiography is an artistic construction of an 'autobiographical truth' not completely real and similarly, it is the artistic construction of ‘autobiographical self’ not the flesh-blood self.

With these theoretical underpinnings I venture to reread the autobiographies of

Gandhi and Koirala from the perspective of the recent models developed in the genre of autobiography. Regarding the limitation of this research; I do not have any arguments in relation to the philosophy of Gandhism nor do I take concern to the core political issues raised by both Gandhi and Koirala. Instead of political affairs as such,

I only focus on the way Gandhi and Koirala build up themselves in their autobiographies. In doing so my aim is not to prove them right or wrong regarding any issue concerned with them but to view how they construct their autobiographical 17 self in their autobiographies. Furthermore, my focus is to show the inherent problem behind writing an autobiography in the light of the recent theories discussed so far.

So far, I opened my introduction with the contexts of Gandhi's and Koirala's autobiographical ventures and build my research problem that Gandhi and Koirala seems self-assertive about what they write in their autobiography. I argued that an autobiographer simply cannot present a complete self and a material reality of his life in the autobiography but he has lot of chances of fabricating the ‘self’ and the ‘truth’ which he claims to have presented. With a brief discussion of few theorists regarding their views on the problem of autobiographical act and the genre itself now I come to the end of my introduction.

The chapters that follow now deal with how Gandhi (chapter two) and Koirala

(chapter three) project their own versions of truth about their life and conceive their autobiographical self in their autobiographies. Gandhi claims to have presented the truth of his life exactly as the final outcome of his experiments on the ideas of vegetarianism, celibacy, non-violence and civil disobedience whereas, Koirala seems to claim that his life is only the life dedicated to the fight against the suppression of

Ranarchy3 and unitary regime of monarchy and the struggle for the democracy and the freedom of Nepali people. He projects himself to have lived a completely political life.

3 The autocratic regime of Rana rulers in the history of Nepal Autobiographical Act and Construction of Self and Truth in Gandhi

This chapter contends that, Mahatma Gandhi strives to establish his ethos as the finder of what he calls 'truth' in his autobiography by means of his

'autobiographical act'. By this I mean, my aim is to explore how Gandhi implicitly constructs his 'autobiographical self' and truth about his life through the language and rhetoric he employs in his autobiography. This act of construction of one's self in an autobiography by means of one's language in general is an autobiographical act.

Gandhi claims that his life is nothing but series of 'experiments with truth'. By the way of discursive analysis of his statements, which are rather self- assertive, this chapter, examines the extent to which Gandhi projects his multiple selves through his autobiographical discourse to arrive to the 'truth' in his autobiography. On the basis of recent developments in autobiographical theories; I argue that such act of construction of autobiographical subject in language is inevitably predestined to the fabrication of truth and the self projected as such.

In their discussion of constitutive processes of autobiographical subjectivity,

Smith and Watson claim that formation of autobiographical self is fundamentally cultural discursive practices (42). So, taking their ideas of construction of autobiographical subject, through what they call 'symbolic interaction' of the autobiographer with the real world outside, as the basis of key reference of study, I examine the construction of autobiographical self and truth of both, Gandhi in this chapter and Koirala in the next.

As autobiographers construct themselves through the autobiographical act of

'cultural discursive practices' Smith and Watson interrogate, "how, then can they be said to control the stories they tell about themselves" (42)? This means if a person is constituted by the cultural forces he lives in and the language he uses; how can he 19 control the narrative he tells about the truth and his self? Two ideas are significant in this sense; one, language is inadequate to represent the truth and the self and second, an individual lacks the agency to control the stories of his life because the prevalent cultural discourses and the social circumstances control the act of telling the stories by the individual. I borrow this fundamental question of Smith and Watson to inquire the problem of autobiographical act in the autobiographies of both Gandhi and Koirala.

According to Kenneth Saunders, Gandhi's life can roughly be divided into four different phases: from his birth in 1869 A.D to completion of schooling in India in1888 A.D, his preparation to opt for law as a career in London from 1888 to 1891, his twenty years of struggle for freedom in South Africa since 1894 to 1914 where he founded his notion of Satyagraha and his last phase of freedom fighting in India since

1914 to 1948 (201). Interestingly, Gandhi interprets these different phases of his life from the vantage point of the time, from which he writes this autobiography.In doing so he projects his multiple versions of selves which belong to the different phases of his life mentioned earlier and juxtaposes these autobiographical selves with his real self of the time when he wrote this autobiography. Jerome Burner's idea aboutself narration is relevant here who claims that in an autobiography, "a narrator in the here and now, takes upon himself \herself the task of describing the progress of the protagonist in the there and then, one who happens to share his name" (27). This means, Gandhi compares and contrasts his multiple versions of autobiographical selves 'there' and 'then' with the self 'here' and 'now'. This 'here' and 'now' is the point of time and space when he wrote his autobiography at the historical juncture when the fight for Indian independence was in its full swing and Gandhi had already been entitled as Mahatma. 20

This way, the organization of this chapter is roughly like how Gandhi himself moves back and forth in his autobiography constructing those multiple selves through the autobiographical act of projecting oneself into the autobiographical language, in the different phases of his life through the interpretation, from the vantage point mentioned earlier. I agree with Karl J. Weintraub who defines autobiography in terms of autobiographer's interpretation of his past life. The very act of writing autobiography is in itself a subjective act since there involves the act of interpretation of the events of one's life by oneself. Weintraub argues: "Past life is being rearranged because it is being interpreted in terms of the meaning (or meanings) that life now is seen to possess"(827). He claims that, "the dominant autobiographic truth is, therefore, the vision of the pattern and meaning of life which the autobiographer has at the moment of writing his autobiography" (827).

So, as an autobiographer, Gandhi involves himself in interpreting his life in different phases from a particular point of time and in doing so he constructs his different versions of truth through the manipulation of his language according to his intention. The problem arises when he tends to corroborate these multiple versions of truths and selves with the final 'truth' and 'self' which he claims to have arrived after his experiments in vegetarianism, celibacy, civil-disobedience and non-violence.

The plan is to go through his key statements which he make in the autobiography about his understanding of life which he frequently arrives after the completion of what he calls "experiments" in dietetics, self –discipline, social discipline and after all his notion of governance of God upon his life trials. He arrives to such statements in several points in his autobiography as the conclusive essence of those experiments. These statements are rather assertive. But I take the side of Smith and Watson, and argue that Gandhi's rhetorical act of constructing his 'self' is a 21 contingent act because after all this act entails the use and embellishment of the language he uses to come to such truth statement he makes at several points in his autobiography. It is significant to notice in this context that the 'self' and the 'truth' of

Gandhi which he deliberates to construct in his autobiography is the self of a

Mahatma. Since an autobiographical self is the product of subjects' symbolic interactions with particular contexts of historical cultural and social organizations.

Smith and Watson claim that, "Social organizations and symbolic interactions are always in flux; therefore identities are provisional" (33). So, question is how any autobiographer like Gandhi, with essentially provisional identity, is able to construct the stable 'self' and the 'truth' about his life through an autobiographical act.

This and the previous question from Smith and Watson pervade this research as both Gandhi and Koirala's statements from their autobiography undergo assessment in terms of autobiographical acts. Gandhi employs his memory, interprets his experiences, constructs his provisional identities, politicizes his deployment of body into the severe painful trails and thereby assumes agency through his autobiographical acts to come to what he claims to be his 'truth'.

Jacques Derrida holds that, "autobiographical subject is above all inter-subject, co-subject: "my" history, "my" life is afforded me by others"(qtd. in Smith 64). As mentioned earlier; the autobiographical subject means; the structure of the self assumed by the autobiographer, in an autobiography. This means, autobiographical subjects are therefore, constructed by the other subjects or the real people who read and interpret the autobiography in particular contexts to be provisional. Not only this but an 'autobiographical self' has its own multiple selves, which become 'the other' of its own at the time one writes one's autobiography. For example, Gandhi interprets his self as a child, his stay in London as a distinct kind of person, his personality as a 22 husband, his personality as a father and other multiple selves as his 'other' and assesses those multiple selves implicitly comparing them with the real self he assumes at the time of writing his autobiography . This he performs by comparing, contrasting and sometimes assimilating his real self with such multiple selves to claim his truth.

The effects resulted from the interrelation and the interactions among such multiple selves of an autobiographer and the reader is what Robert Smith writes, 'discursive effect' (64). What I mean is, Gandhi narrates his multiple versions of self and by the same token multiple truths about his life in the act of constructing the self he targets to frame as an image of Mahatma. He assures that his final and single truth is but, the almighty god himself.

Gandhi assures the 'autobiographical self' as such being a reader of his life himself. He reads his childhood and explains it the way he desires or thinks it to be at the time when he puts his pen on the paper to write about oneself. In the 'Introduction' of his autobiography Gandhi assures that he wants to invest his narration of his life towards the formation of his perception of spiritualism (10). He writes: "I should certainly like to narrate my experiments in the spiritual field which are known only to myself, and from which I have derived such power as I possess for working in the political field"(10). Before this, he also claims that his, "experiments in the political field are now known, not only in India, but to a certain extent to the civilized world'

(10). This is how he makes a firm background of why he narrates his truth about his life and to what direction.

With full of rigor and self-assurance he claims that his direction in his life is as clear as the shining sun. He insists:"What I want to achieve what I have been striving and pining to achieve these thirty-years is self –realization to see god face to face, to 23 attain Moksha4" (10). He adds: "I live and move and have my being in pursuit of this goal [and] all my ventures in the political fields are directed to this same end" (10).

Gandhi as a Mahatma saying so, his readers in general set their minds towards the direction which Gandhi projects himself. This assurance of Mahatma, of that big political, historical and social stature, prepares his readers to anticipate the facts of his life presented in his autobiography as overtly factual owing to what he claims to be

'truth'. This also prepares the general readers to anticipate Gandhi with a profound faith on the idea of Moksha heading towards the telos. The way Gandhi sounds positive, hopeful and self assured towards his goal of attainment of Moksha is rhetorically strong since his Mahatma self demands such assurance of his goal. But in terms of recent ideas developed in autobiographical discourses this act of writing about oneself is a play of language. James Olney claims that "a narrative that pretends to be written by a self- conscious self who is actually only a linguistic construct" (qtd, in Brosman 98). `

According to Karl J. Weintraub: "The dominant autobiographical truth is the truth, which the autobiographer presumes at the moment of writing his autobiography"(827). Therefore, Weintraub argues that the truth constructed in any autobiography is transient because as soon as the time changes the perception of one's life changes thereby. Gandhi's key characteristic of his autobiography is his assertion of stability of his findings of the truth.

Gandhi associates himself directly with his family genealogy of his direct ancestors. He draws a lineage from his grandfather and speculates that his

"grandfather, must have been a man of principle" and his "father was a lover of his clan" (13). He was "[t]ruthful, brave and generous but short-tempered"(13). This he

4 Salvation, spiritual liberation 24 writes in the very first page of his autobiography which helps to introduce his birth and parentage. This creates a clear context from which Gandhi sets up his narration and locates himself in a suitable position to perform his Mahatma self in the chapters to come, not only through his struggles and conduct but also from his lineage.

Furthermore, throughout his autobiography he establishes himself as a true votary of his mother. This is significant from the perspective of his adherence to God and spiritualism. He writes: "The outstanding impression my mother has left in my memory is that of saintliness. She was deeply religious "(14). Further he claims that his mother "would take the hardest vows and keep them without flinching"(14). He correlates his devotion towards his mother, with his formation of spiritual and true self, which he projects in his 'autobiographical self' through the image of his mother he construct in his autobiography.

Lisa McNee argues that, "[a]utobiography offers us the most striking from of discursive articulation of the problem, for in this genre; the individual agent presents and actively creates a textual self" (85). Gandhi's 'self' is like McNee's 'textual self'; one can see that Gandhi's statements about his childhood are fundamentally interpretation of his 'self' in language particularly adjectival; for example generous, shy, spiritual, innocent religious and so. He claims that he was shy, somehow introvert and truthful since the childhood as he writes: "I do not remember having ever told a lie" (15). In a chapter entitled "Stealing and Atonement" he has mentioned about his act of stealing things to buy cigarettes with the acquaintance of his friend.

Soon he writes that he becomes ready to confess that crime with his father writing a letter of confession asking for punishment as an autobiographical act of ethical refinement through moral transgression. His father instead of punishing him sheds tears which mean he becomes happy that his son has realized his crime. This was one 25 of the important experiments with truth. Now he concludes: "A clean confession combined with a promise never to commit the sin again, when offered before one who has the right to receive it, is the purest type of repentance [so] I know that my confession made my father feel absolutely safe about me and increased his affection for me beyond measure" (33).

When we notice the phrases like, 'a clean confession', purest type of repentance' 'absolutely safe' and beyond measure', these are the words of high magnitude, though they are of normal usages in the then South Indian culture. But these words implicitly comply with the self – assurance of Gandhi which he uses as the part of the rhetoric. It is an attempt to present his 'autobiographical self' on formation which leads towards a gradual purification through the experiences he had in his formative days of childhood.

In an another incident when he was taking an examination in his first year of high school his teacher prompted him to copy the spelling of the word 'kettle' which he had mis-spelt. And he writes with pride that he "never could learn the art of copying"(16). But no sooner he writes this he also writes after few pages: "My uncle had the habit and when we saw him smoking; we thought we should copy his example" (31). The former statement sounds implicitly imperative something like:

'We should not make the habit of copying'. But he also writes that they love to copy the art of smoking of his uncle. This often happens in the act of writing autobiography because one cannot write about the different incidents in life from a fixed angle.

Looking different incidents from multiple angles result to the construction of multiple identities. These identities are nothing but narrative identities made by self narration and are provisional. 26

Rockwell Gray insists that, "autobiography is a manner of presenting understanding and experiencing oneself. It enters into and shapes discourse, behaviors, self –perception and political activity" (33). According to Gray, autobiographical act is the act of articulating and experiencing oneself through the interpretation of how one grows up. An examination of how Gandhi interprets his self to have cultivated from the readings of several books and sculptures throughout his life reveals that the self of Gandhi is the product of his intensive readings and assimilating the kinds of book which are compatible with his goal and personality. As claimed by Gray, Gandhi claims that he has shaped his self out of the great lessons he got from the books he encountered throughout his life. So according to Gandhi, part of Gandhi's self is the self constructed through the consumption of the books that follow.

The first book he mentioned is the book which was purchased by his father during his schooldays. It was SharavanaPitri Bhakti Natak5 which has the story of deep love, compassion and the devotion of a boy named Shravan, carrying his blind parents to the pilgrimages. The second he mentions is the legendary drama,

Harischandra6. The character Harischandra is the protagonist who can undergo any ordeals for the sake of truth (16). He claims: "Still both Harishchandra and Shravana are living realities for me, and I am sure I should be moved as before if I were to read those plays again today "(17). The lessons from these books and love of truth, according to Gandhi, are the constitutive elements of his self.

5 A Legendary drama famous in Indian sub-continent 6 A Legendary character 27

Regarding the Ramayana7, Gandhi claims that, he "regard[s] the Ramayana of

Tulsidas as the greatest book in all devotional literature" (36). The Bhagavat Gita8 also had great importance in his life. But he writes strategically that, "Manusmriti at any rate did not then teach me ahimsa"(37). This means, he had rejected or simply disliked the books which do not abide by his supreme notion of vegetarianism, celibacy, Satyagraha and ahimsa or non-violence.

Some books which he claimed to have read on vegetarianism are; Salt's Plea for Vegetarianism, Howard Williams' The Ethics of Diet, Dr Anna Kingsford's The

Perfect Way in Diet. A journal, The Vegetarian edited by Dr Oldfield in which he himself was the secretary, and the other journals on vegetarianism. He claims that these books had profound influences over his inclination towards vegetarianism (49).

Moreover, he assures that theGitahad a very great impression on his ideas about the 'truth'. He writes: "The impression has ever since been growing on me with the result that I regard it today as the book par excellence for the knowledge of

Truth"(63). Some other books are The light of Asia and The SongCelestial by Sir

Edwin Arnold, Madame Blavat Sky's Key to Theosophy, Thomas Carlyle's Herosand

Hero-Worship ,Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, Ruskin's Unto this last ,

Pearson's Many Infallible Proofs Narmadashanker'sDharma Vichar, Translations of

Upanisads, Washington Irving's Life of Mahomet, Max Muller's book India-What

Can It Teach Us? Tolstoy's, The Gospels in Brief, What to Do?, Swami

Viveknanda'sRajayoga and others.

The reason behind producing this list of books read by Gandhi which he mentions in several places of his autobiography is that, he claims to have formed his

7 Famous Sanskrit epic describing the ideal deeds of Rama 8 The Famous Hindu epic also known as Mahabharat 28

'self 'from the ideas from these books. He insists that these books served the ultimate ideas of vegetarianism, celibacy, ahimsa and Satyagraha to him. But this does not remain as his consistent idea throughout his autobiography because when he was terribly sick, due to dysentery, he becomes adamant not to follow the Shastras9 which he claims to have read earlier, only to stick to his own ideas about his health. He writes in a section entitled, 'Near Death's Door': "For me the question of diet was not one to be determined on the authority of the Shastra's. It was one, interwoven with my course of life which is guided by the principles, no longer depending upon outside authority" (356).

Moreover, Gandhi constructs his notion of 'self' around his ideas of celibacy, non violence (ahimsa) and Satyagraha in the different phases of his life and supposes to arrive to the truths, after the severe trails in his life. He creates an autobiographical discourse around these major ideas to construct his autobiographical self which he believes to be the ultimate truth of his life. McNee argues that autobiographical discourses confirm to the postmodernist theories of constructed subjectivities, because they are the records and actually the very process of self-construction laid out for readers to share (95). Here is an inquiry of how Gandhi constructs his subjectivity by way of 'discursive construction' of his self in terms of his ideas of celibacy, non- violence and civil-disobedience. By 'discursive construction', I mean construction of autobiographical self through the discourses one makes in his autobiography.

Gandhi claims that his practice of brahmachary is extremely difficult to maintain because he was also an ordinary human therefore he struggled hard to put a very strong curb upon his carnal desires. Once, Gandhi declares that he will abide by the supreme law of brahmacharya (celibacy) ever in his life and claims that, "after

9 Sacred Hindu law-books 29 full discussion and mature deliberation" he took a vow in 1906 (170). His views on bramacharya are stern. He sees a very clear demarcation between life of a brahmachar10iand non-bramachari. He interprets that, "[b]oth use their eyesight, but whereas the bramachari uses it to see the glories of God, the other uses it to see the frivolity around him. Both use their ears, but whereas the one hears nothing but praises of God, the other feasts his ears upon ribaldry" (172). According to him this adherence to brahmacharya is a victory over the senses and union with the God and his strong conviction lies on the sureness of attainment of God. Therefore he writes:

"His name and this grace are the last resources of the aspirant after moksha" (173). He asserts that: "As I look back upon the twenty years of the vow I am filled with pleasure and wonderment"(170). This 'pleasure and wonderment' is the final outcome of the experimentation on celibacy. A biographer Krishna, Kripalani reinforces his notion of bramacharya insisting that, " [i]f his life was to be dedicated to the service of his fellowmen, if spiritual enlightenment was to be the goal of his striving, he must forever abjure the lust of flesh and observe strictly celibacy or what Hindu Scriptures called brahmacharya" (66). Like Gandhi, Kripalani seems to understate the 'if-not' part of his statement. It sounds as if bramacharya vow is a must for serving the fellowmen of his\her country.

Gandhi indentifies himself as an adherent of 'ahimsa', a brahmachari, a satyagrahi and a vegetarian. All these function as the tools to strive toward the God in

Gandhi's life. So his identity in his autobiography is supposed to be the identity of a

'truth finder'. Autobiographical identity for Paul John Eakin is "an integral part of a lifelong process of identity formation. Written autobiographies represents only a small if revealing part of a much larger phenomenon the self-narration we practice day in

10 A celibate 30 day out" (115). In terms of Eakin's idea, one can see Gandhi contending to establish the 'revealing part' of his autobiography as his struggle for ahimsa, celibacy,

Satyagraha and vegetarianism leaving too large a portion of life behind. This is a general tendency of every autobiographer who intentionally foregrounds the part of life which he wishes and underplays that which he wants to forget. On the other hand no autobiographer can capture in language every event of one's life through autobiographical act of 'self' presentation in his autobiography.

Lejeune states that, rather than being regressive, an autobiographical subject construct progressive 'narrative identity ' creating the self in language (215). Now the issue at hand is to disclose how Gandhi projects his 'self' through his discourse of non- violence or ahimsa and what perception does he keep regarding ahimsa in his autobiography or to put it more particularly how does he create the 'self' through his discourse of non violence?

Gandhi endeavors to establish himself as religiously tolerant and humanitarian which he demonstrates through his study and contact of Christian scriptures, book and

Christian people. He narrates that he readTheLight of Asia for Buddhism and also worked with Muslims, Shikh and other fellowmen. So his discourse about this religious tolerance is the prime mover towards his notion of ahimsa. Gandhi claims that he had inculcated the idea of ahimsa from the teachings of theGita,New

Testament and The Light of Asia. He quotes a line from the Sermon on the Mount which reads: "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"(64). He claims that this line had a magnificent effect in him which helped to consolidate the idea of ahimsa.

Furthermore, he reinforces his idea of religious tolerance and non-violence as he emphasizes: "I should read more religious books and acquaint myself with all the 31 principal religions"(20). At one point he also claims that "the passion for truth was innate in [him]" (20). At several other points in his autobiography he asserts that he was indoctrinated by the books and scriptures he went through.

Regarding ahimsa he writes: "To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being [therefore] I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body"(191). He adds: "I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by men from the cruelty of man" (191).

These lines sound like a part of a sermon; Gandhi acts as a preacher and the readers, the audience. The point is how Gandhi presumes himself to be; on the process of the formulation of his autobiographical self. He strives to move on the path which directs him towards the image of a Mahatma.

Gandhi reassures the readers that his life is perfectly guided by the truth or the

God. He insists that he had drawn his determination to stay firm on the ideas of ahimsa and non – possession (aparigraha) rigorously from the Gita. He writes: "To me the Gita become an infallible guide of conduct. It becomes my dictionary of daily reference. Just as I turned to the English Dictionary for the meanings of English words that I did not understand, I turned to this dictionary of conduct for a ready solution of all my troubles and trails" (212).

It is really indubitable that one learns important lessons from books and scriptures as one does from the experiences but Gandhi reaches to the extent to say that the Gita is the 'ready solution' of all his troubles and trials in his life. Here the scripture Gita becomes a source of agency which Gandhi assumes to construct his self and assumes himself a model Hindu. Such 'formed subject', after the experience of abiding by the laws of Gita, is the autobiographical subject of Gandhi rather than the 32 real flesh-blood subject. Smith and Watson state that, "autobiographical subjects know themselves as subjects of particular kinds of experience attached to their social statues and identities"(25).

Gandhi claims that ahimsa is the basis of the search for truth (220). He reinforces this idea as he insists: "Man and his deed are two distinct things. Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed , whether good or wicked always deserves respect or pity as the case may be" (220). His idea of ahimsa culminates in these lines, since he opines that a man and his deeds are separate things. A man with a body or flesh-blood man in an absolute term is same as every other man irrespective of his deeds. This is similar to his comparison of man with lamb. But what if, we attach a man's deeds with this body. A very simple thing is that unless Gandhi himself doesn't associate his deeds with his body, which Smith and Watson term as 'embodiment ', he will remain to be nothing but a lamb. And the matter is that this research contends to establish an alternative truth that Gandhi throughout his autobiography strives to associate his body with his deeds to assume his autobiographical self. He associates his titleMahatma with his deeds and declares: "When I come to examine my title to this realization, I find nothing but my love for the people. And this in turn is nothing but an expression of my unshakable faith in Ahimsa" (325).

As his conclusive and declarative remarks on ahimsa in the final chapter he writes: "My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than

Truth. And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization or Truth is Ahimsa, I shall deem all my labour in writing these chapters to have been in vain" (396). 33

We can realize a very strong sense of appeal made by Gandhi to his readers that his torments for the attainment of truth throughout his life have a very close connection with his idea of ahimsa and with the truth he experimented. He therefore, claims that 'Truth' and ahimsa are same and if not so Gandhi's struggle in his life is in vain. Gandhi's strong sense of rhetoric significantly corroborates with the construction of his 'autobiographical self' every moment when he declares such statements to be absolutely true for himself if not for others.

Now Gandhi creates a nexus between his idea of 'truth' and ahimsa which ultimately serves his notion of Sartyagraha which is the strongest weapon in his political career to fight against the British Raj11. Gandhi makes a very subtle connection among all his ideas of vegetarianism, celibacy, ahimsa (non violence) and

Satyagraha to give a certain shape to his self and to justify his career in politics. He writes:

But all my life through the very insistence on truth has taught me to

appreciate the beauty of compromise [ahimsa]. I saw in later life that

this spirit was an essential part of Satyagraha. It has often meant

endangering my life and incurring the displeasure of friends. But 'truth'

is hard as adamant and tender as a blossom. (125)

Time and again Gandhi associates his notion of 'truth' with his ideas of vegetarianism, celibacy and ahimsa and after all with his political principle of Satyagraha. Doing so, he constructs his narrative account of 'self' around these intangible notions which he calls 'truth'.

On the process of his autobiographical act of writing, Gandhi attempts to consolidate his idea of Satyagraha as the final truth to achieve or to materialize in

11 British colonial regime 34 politics. He attempts to establish his ideas as the outcome of real experiments in his life. Regarding Satyagraha, he views that it is "an absolutely non–violent weapon" and a "sovereign remedy" for the fight against British Raj (299). In a long letter to

Gandhi on the other hand, Rabindranath Tagore writes: "I believe in the true meeting of the East and the West. Love is the ultimate truth of soul. We should do all we can, not to outrage that truth, to carry its banner against all opposition. The idea of non – cooperation unnecessarily hurts that truth" (59). Point is that, what Gandhi calls truth is relative rather than absolute. What Gandhi finds absolutely true is not true for

Tagore. Gandhi's ideas about Satyagraha also intensify his notion of truth and self, cultivated in his autobiography. In his reply to Tagore, Gandhi states that Tagore had misunderstood his idea of non –cooperation. According to Gandhi, India had two options; one is non-cooperation and the other is violence. He has insisted in his reply in Young India of 1 June 1921 that, "[n]on-cooperation is intended to pave the way to real, honorable and voluntary co-operation based on mutual respect and trust (qtd in

Bhattacharya 65).

Stressing upon the effectiveness of Satyagraha in politics Gandhi writes in

Hind Swaraj that, "passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used" (109). He claims: "Without drawing a drop of blood, it produces far reaching results"(109). Each moment when

Gandhi introduces his ideas he associates it with the ultimate truth, the God or with the supreme laws of spiritualism. He insists that Satyagraha is driven by the soul- force therefore it is an extreme form of self-sacrifice. It is the safest weapon of all because it doesn't directly harms other (106). Conformity is the essential character of every ideas presented in his autobiography. These discourses about the Satyagraha give way to the constitution of self in his autobiography. Striking trait of his 35

'autobiographical self' is his assurance and the conformity towards what he calls

'truth'. Gandhi invents his 'self' in the line of the discourse he creates about

Satyagraha. This ultimately serves the purpose of invention of his political self in his autobiography. Eakin asserts, "Autobiographical writing is a form of self- invention that constitutes the self" (qtd. in Smith and Watson 140).

In an incident Gandhi deduces the exact truth or meaning of Satyagraha when it comes to designate a right name to an ashram12 which he had established in

Ahamedabad. Gandhi and his fellow workers propose names like Sevashram,

Tapovan etc. but finally they decide to name it Satyagraha Ashram. After this, he justifies why the name Satyagraha was the correct name. He opines that, "our creed was devotion to truth, and our business was the search for and insistence on the truth"(312). So this name properly justifies the mission, goal and method of service in

India according to Gandhi. This indicates that Gandhi is very much sure of his

'autobiographical self' who does everything for the sake of his idea of truth.

Furthermore, the members of Satyagraha Asharam make rules to be strictly followed then Gandhi reassures that their prime motto is to direct their conduct towards the truth. Gandhi states that after the suggestion from Sir GurudasBenerji they added the virtue of humility in among their other rules made for the attainment of the truth in

Satyagraha Ashram. Regarding 'humility', Gandhi has a strong opinion. He writes:

"The true connotation of humility is self- effacement. Self- effacement is moksha … service without humility is selfishness and egotism"(312). On the process of this

'discursive formation' of the self he introduces mystic terms like; 'self-effacement',

'egotism' and 'moksha'. Similarly, he assumes his self to have been constructed around

12 Hermitage , religious retreat 36 the sense these words contain and what people conceive after reading his autobiography.

After the experiment of what he names KhedaSatyagraha he came to the conclusion that along with the essential principle of simplicity a true Satyagrahai needs to have 'civility'. Gandhi reasserts that, "civility does not here mean the mere outward gentleness and desire to do the opponent good" (344). He insists that,

"[t]hese should show themselves in every act of a Satyagrahi" (344). Gandhi deduces such significant ideas normally after a long explanation of some key incidents in his life which are his experiments in life through which he passes and presents such ideas as the inevitable outcome of those experiments with truth. This pattern in Gandhi's autobiography signifies the way he arrange his plot as a dimension of his autobiographical act which Smith and Watson call 'structuring modes of self inquiry'

(69). It is also relevant to D.G Wright's claims that autobiography is a task of creation than description (212).

In an analysis of Gertrude stein's 'Everybody's Autobiography' Timothy W.

Galow stresses that autobiography is fundamentally 'unreliable' due to the 'elusiveness of language'(115). According to Galow the very nature of language is elusive therefore; whatever one writes in language in an autobiography is unreliable owing to the elusive nature of language. Gandhi presents his every idea about truth in universalizing and in an absolute manner. He act like an essentialist who assures what he puts through his pen in his autobiography is true for him if not for other. Moreover,

Gandhi assumes his true identity in his discourses regarding his ideas of truth. Galow studies Stein and writes that "true identity is always impossibility, because it relies in the presumption of a static and knowable past that can be used as the basis for identity claims"(116). Gandhi on the other hand believes that his identity formed out of his 37 sense of truth is always the same and the one, whether it is in the past, present or future, i.e the almighty God. This resort to God for every solution of the problem is the powerful rhetoric that Gandhi employs which at many points of his autobiography tends to justify himself as the true votary of truth. This is how he makes his sense of self as an experimenter of Satyagraha.

Re-emphasizing the power of Satyagraha he further writes: "The end of a

Satyagraha campaign can be described as worthy, only when, it leaves the

Satyagrahisstronger and more spirited than they are in the beginning"(346). This not only indicates what Gandhi thinks of his campaign of Satyagraha, that Satyagraha is an ordeal to make oneself spiritually stronger but it also means that Gandhi had got a gradual increase of his spiritual strength and enthusiasm after the completion of each

Satyagraha. He politicizes his 'self' to have gained more refinement than ever before after the completion of each Satyagraha. He claims that, "the salvation of the people depends upon themselves, upon their capacity for suffering and sacrifice" (347). He interprets that Satyagraha is a supreme form of self-sacrifice and also insists that

Satyagraha is a process of self purification (362).

He claims that Satyagraha is not an action which anyone can venture into. It is a very severe test of the self. Saying so, Gandhi assumes his place and position of

Mahatma which he had attained after the ordeals of such self-sacrifices so he warns:

"Satyagraha is essentially a weapon of the truthful. A Satyagrahi is pledged to non- violence and, unless people observe it in thought, word and deed, I cannot offer mass

Satyagraha"(369). Here, Gandhi becomes cautious and attempts to aware those who take Satyagraha lightly and at the same time he implies that he has attained the position of an accomplished Satyagrahi. 38

Now coming to the final part of this analysis, I examine how Gandhi fabricates his 'autobiographical self' as an accomplished spiritual master directing towards the god. Here, the emphasis is laid on how Gandhi presumes to have deployed his mortal body as means to attain immortal truth and spiritualism. To be more particular,

Gandhi seems to be treating his body as a natural lab for the experimentation of the truth. Through the 'embodiment' of his deeds, he assumes his 'autobiographical self'.

Smith and Watson argue that, "body is the site of autographical knowledge, as well as a textual surface upon which a person's life is inscribed "(37). Gandhi inflicts severe tests of pains and suffering, particularly through his experimentation of celibacy and nature treatment upon his body. The target of such experimentation in his body is to attain the 'truth' discussed so far.

Since the beginning to the end of his autobiography we see Gandhi experimenting upon his body to imply that his body is merely a means to attain the higher 'truth'. The first instance he presents in his autobiography is the body which is

'coward', most of the time hunted by the fear of thieves, ghosts and serpents. This fearful body is Gandhi's childhood self when death and dangers outside had become an obsession (27). In an incident, he narrates how he managed to escape his body from the terrible lust or carnal desire when he incidentally encountered a prostitute.

He writes that god's "infinite mercy protected me against myself" (29). In a very tactful manner he warns those who run after the fulfillment of this bodily desire which he successfully abstained from.

A very strong sense of abstinence is described by Gandhi in his experimentation of brahamacharywhich he vowed later in 1906 in his life. But he professes to establish the idea that from the picture of a lustful husband, who finds himself indulged with his wife in a bed when at the very moment his father was taking 39 his final breath; he modifies himself into a perfect bramhachari later. Here Gandhi focuses on the body as the primary site in which an extreme control is a must to attain the purified soul.

While Gandhi was in London he presents a different picture of his self. What actually he used to think about his personality in London is in stark contrast with his body which he finds in simple loin cloth after being Mahatma. He writes: "Here [in

London] I wasted ten minutes every day before a huge mirror watching myself arranging my tie and parting my hair in the correct fashion. My hair was by no means soft and everyday it meant a regular struggle with the brush to keep it in position"

(50). In opposition to his changing matured idea of spiritualism which valorizes the self-purification, self-sacrifice, self-effacement and inward beauty, Gandhi at this time in London was beautifying his body not soul but an external frame of his 'self'.

When Gandhi's fight for the equality was gradually getting the shape in Africa, he narrates that, his body had experienced physical as well as mental torments. He experiences these torments while travelling in ships and trains from place to place in

Africa, because of the discriminatory behaviors of the authority. In an incident when

Gandhi was asked to change his seat unjustly, he boldly rejected it and as a consequence he was beaten cruelly. He narrates: "The man came down upon me and began heavily to box my ears. He seized me by the arm and tried to drag me down. I clung to the brass rails of the coachbox and was determined to keep my hold even at the risk of breaking my wrist hones" (98). This indicates how Gandhi stresses upon the pains his body experiences to show that he had always become ready to sacrifice his body for the sake of the freedom of his fellowmen. Gandhi does not care his body being at any risk in the service of the god and his fellowmen's right or for the social justice. This is the idea which Gandhi implicitly reproduces through these lines. 40

Gandhi also narrates about the social condition of Indian settlers in South

Africa as coolie13or indenture laborers. He reports, such coolies and laborers were deprived of their fundamental rights. Living in a very unhygienic condition and doing high risk jobs was their fate. The condition was that Indians were not allowed to walk in public footpaths and move out of the door after 9 PM. Gandhi writes: "I, thus made an intimate study of the hard condition of the Indian settles, not only by reading and hearing about it but by personal experience" (111). This way Gandhi claims to have experienced the hardest and the pathetic conditions of Indians and fellowmen personally, so he proclaims to have put his body always at stakes while experimenting with the truth.

Moreover, he assures that he had got a gradual success and satisfaction on serving such people. He insists: "The heart's earnest and pure desire is always fulfilled. In my own experience I have often seen this rule verified" (128). He further adds: "Service of the poor has been my heart's desire, and it has always thrown me amongst the poor and enabled me to identify myself with them" (128). Gandhi's service of such laborers and mankind becomes a medium or the way how he gets self satisfaction and in addition it becomes a means for the purification of his soul for the sake of higher goal of the attainment of the 'truth'. So putting his body into severe tests he shows how he strives toward the construction of his 'self', the 'self' of a

Mahatma.

He also mentions about his service being an active member of an ambulance crops. He writes that he was equally fond of nursing. Regarding such service he keeps a very high opinion in his autobiography. He warns: "Service which is rendered without joy helps neither the servant nor the served" (145). According to him, "[b]ut

13 Labourer 41 all other pleasures and possessions pale into nothingness before service, which is rendered in a spirit of joy" (145). This implies that suffering in service of mankind is not suffering at all but an absolute matter of joy which he derives through his own experiment of the body. The matter is Gandhi never ceases to make such proverbial statement since the beginning to the end in his autobiography.

In a section entitled 'My Choice' earlier, he declares that: "A vow is a vow

[which] cannot be broken"(47). So, in several incidents in his life he attempts to prove himself as a genuine vow-keeper. Particularly, he does so when he becomes severely sick and doctors and 'Vaidays14' prescribe him medicines and foods. He narrates at several points in his autobiography that he never succumbs to transgression. Not only this, but he applies this vow-keeping principle to his wife and children as far as he can. In an incident he has confessed that for the sake of greater cause he decides to take goats milk, infringing his vow when he was in a death bed, as prescribed by the doctor. He writes: "I succumbed. My intense eagerness to take up the Satyagraha fight had created in me a strong desire to live, and so I contented myself with adhering to the letter of my vow only, and sacrificed its spirit" (358).

Except these, there are tens of incidents which he narrates to show that he had really been adamant not to follow the suggestions or prescription of the doctors,

Vaidaysand Sastras to keep his body a site of trails, pains and ordeals for the experimentation of truth. These body trails of Gandhi lead us to the ground where

Gandhi deliberates to consolidate his fluid identity in the form of the

'autobiographical self' projected in his autobiography by means of aforementioned autobiographical acts. On this process, Gandhi acts with conformity. He stands consistently in his opinions of vegetarianism, celibacy, non-violence and civil-

14 Traditional healers or medical practioners 42 disobedience and justifies what he calls 'Truth' or his act of arrival to the realm of the

God. Formation of Autobiographical Self and Truth in B.PKoirala's 'Atmabritanta'

According to the notions developed in the recent autobiographical theories and life writing, autobiographical acts are performed to construct the 'autobiographical self' according to the will of the autobiographer which hardly corroborates with the real flesh-blood self of the writer. By this, I refer to what Smith and Watson say the

'symbolic interaction' of the self of an autobiographer with the world outside at large

(49). As mentioned in the introductory section, an autobiographer interacts with the outside world through the medium of language while writing about oneself and constructs his/her self through the language in his autobiography. The self of the writer assumed in his\her autobiography thus constructed is what I mean the

'autobiographical self' in this dissertation.

This process of narrating about one's life in an autobiography is in general an autobiographical act which involves a very complex process. The problem is, such construction of the self through language is far away from the real self of the writer and partial in terms of the truth it supposes to claim. The major purpose of this chapter is therefore; to unfold how B.P. Koirala, a renowned democratic leader of

Nepal, constructs his 'autobiographical self'. This self in his autobiography is beyond his real self and examines the extent to which Koirala's claims of reality of his self projected in his autobiography are close to truth outside the autobiography.

So, this chapter aims to explicate how B.PKoirala, performs autobiographical acts and assumes his 'autobiographical self', in his autobiography entitled

Atmabritanta15. Basically, the focus is on the 'constructedness' of Koirala's autobiographical self, when he narrates the stories of his life implying the gradual formation of the self in his autobiography. He performs the autobiographical act of

15 Nepali substitute of autobiography 44 narrating the story of his self in relation to his childhood and upbringing in his family especially the relation with his father, his struggle for the freedom of Nepal from both

Ranarchy and the unitary regime of Nepali kings16 in India and Nepal, his relationship with kings, fellow workers, general people and finally in relation to his growing popularity in the national and international level.

Regarding the historical context of writing Koirala's autobiography, his autobiography is in a sense, mediated one. When Koirala was cancer-stricken and was fighting with death at the eleventh hour of his life in his death –bed; he had spoken these words about his life which was recorded in a tape recorder and later this recording was transcribed by a senior advocate of Nepal, Ganeshraj Sharma who also worked as an assistant and legal counselor of B.PKoirala. According to Sharma this tape - recording was done in a private room of Koriala, where he was bed-ridden, only in the presence of Mr. Sharma and Koirala's niece SailajaAcharaya who was also a co-political worker of Koirala.

So, according to Sharma, Koirala's autobiography is the result of Sharma's initiation of recording Koirala's life story and also the result of Koirala's eagerness to keep something important about his life in the record for the people of Nepal which is supposed to be significant in Nepali political history in the future. Sharma claims that he has attempted his best to retain the original words and even the syntax of Koirala in the tape record. Further, Sharma states that there was no question – answer session to coax Koirala for the stories and events in his life. It was recorded as Koirala went on speaking about different subjects, people, events and issues in his life. This process went for several days in the morning when Mr. Sharma used to visit Koirala for the purpose of recording. Sharma assures that he did not ask any questions to Koirala and

16 Shah Kings TribhuvanMahendra and Beerendra 45 even he did not get chance to do so for the uninterrupted flow of Koirala's oral narration. Sharma claims that it was done so not to break the chain and an apparent chronology of events of Koirala's life in narration, yet there is no proper chronology in his autobiography. Many times in the autobiography, Koirala moves back and forth in time according to his autobiographical memory he brings into play.

This background is really very significant from the point of view of how

Koirala becomes selective to choose and highlight the subjects, events, people and issues of his life more from political field since his immediate audience and the

'coaxers' were people from political, intellectual and legal background i.e. Mr. Sharma and SailajaAcharaya. Similarly, as mentioned in the preface of the autobiography by

Mr. Sharma; Koirala himself was eager to articulate his experiences of political life for the record of future generation. This also aligned his autobiographical narration more towards politics rather than the personal affairs. It is because Koirala tends to be overtly political actor throughout his narration in greater degree in his autobiography than his personal and non-political affairs.

When Koirala was in a jail as a political prisoner he writes in terms of his release from the prison that he passionately wished to be released, as it comes naturally in every prisoner. But putting equal stress upon the logic of his stay in the prison, he rationalizes that the time outside the prison is not really favorable for his politics therefore, it is far better to remain inside the jail. He writes in his "Jail

Journal17': "My life has been perfectly political life. I cannot opt for any other profession in this age" (137).

With these premises in mind I also examine how Koirala plays his memory to remember those events in his life which has political significance and how he

17 Koirala's prison journal which has been published 46 deliberately underplays the events and stories which are not overtly political, in his autobiography. But as mentioned earlier, I begin with how Koirala fabricates his autobiographical self while narrating about his childhood, upbringing and his relationship with his family member's especially with his father. It means how Koirala perceives his childhood, his family members, especially his father and doing so how he projects his autobiographical self. Here, fabrication of autobiographical self means how an autobiographer employs language to construct his attitude or perception of his own self in his/her autobiography in a rhetorical sense. After all, how this linguistic construct or fabricated self in this sense stands to represent the real self of Koirala which is simply unattainable according to the recent theories of autobiography.

While writing an autobiography, what happens is, an autobiographer becomes conscious about what he is going to write or tell and by this way he/she selects the subject matter of his\her life to put into words to articulate. As soon as the autobiographer puts things about his/her life into language he/she happens to fix his/her ideas about one's own self into autobiographical language. This act of putting one's self into language is an 'autobiographical act' and the self of the writer so formed is the 'autobiographical self' so far as the recent theories are concerned. This is what exactly James Olney argues, regarding the character of an autobiographical narration.

He argues, "a narrative that pretends to be written by a self – conscious self who is actually only a linguistic construct" is an autobiographical narration (qtd in Brosman,

98). Taking Olney's idea into account I argue that an autobiographical act performed by Koirala is a linguistic construct out of which the 'autobiographical self' is formed.

Somehow like Gandhi, Koirala also allocates a considerable space in his autobiography to appreciate his father and also mentions that his father is the major source of Koirala's personality formation in the childhood. But unlike Gandhi, Koirala 47 insists that his childhood was full of struggle, exile and turmoil. This turmoil, according to Koirala, begins when Rana Prime Minister Chandra Shumser forced an order of exile against Koirala's father. Koirala's father, Krishna Prasad Koirala, was an innovative man who stood against orthodoxies and autocratic Rana regime, according to Koirala. He claims that, the revolutionary political motif which later developed in him, had its firm root in the nature of his father. On the process of his upbringing,

Koirala claims that his father instilled the revolutionary spirit into Koirala's self.

In the very first page of his autobiography, Koirala mentions: "What I believe is my family was extraordinary and my parents were very extraordinary. I have heard about my grandfather only from my grandmother and he was also an extraordinary person. There has been tremendous impact of them upon me, the impact of my father grandfather and grandmother"(1). By saying so, Koirala puts a significant stress upon the nature, deeds and struggle of his father, during his early days of life in his autobiography. This stress has to do with the formation of revolutionary psyche in

Koirala which he claims to have got from his father.

While projecting his self from father's personality Koirala deliberately politicizes his autobiographical memory. By this, I mean to say that Koirala tends to activate his childhood memories which are associated with his father and his relationship with his father. This he does in expense of his other memories. This often happens in an autobiographical act. An autobiographer consciously deliberates to either remember or forget the incidents of his life. Regarding this act of remembering,

Jessica J. Cameron, Wilson and Ross argue that an autobiographer deliberately remembers those incidents of his life which help him/ her to enhance the self which he/she wishes to project in his/her autobiography (208-9). Except confessional autobiography, in which an autobiographer gives out-let to his wrong –deeds for the 48 purpose of emotional purification; such selective memory plays a meaningful role in the autobiography like Koirala's and Gandhi's.

Some incidents mentioned by Koirala about his father in his autobiography are really dubious and high-handed. Initially, Koirala's family used to be a well- off family. He narrates that, his father was a self- made man. He was also a learned man who was inspired by his mother to learn Farasi language which was in the official use during his time. Sanskrit used to be a necessary and a compulsory language since he belongs to a Brahmin family. But Koirala's father also learned English, keeping a home-tutor of English language for the sake of being up-to-date with the international political affairs (1).

Koirala claims that his father opted for multiple professions and got remarkable success in almost all of them. He was also a great businessman in the

Eastern Nepal during his time. Further, Koirala claims, his father had established one of the major eastern urban centers, Biratnagar. He established the temple of goddess

Kali. As there was the provision of lending custom house (office) into public contract by the government, his father used to take such contracts. Koirala mentions, about his father that, "[h]e was a very self- satisfied man"(2). Saying so, Koirala narrates an incident about his father which sounds rather incredulous. Once when his father was returning from a local bazzar, Dhulabari to Rangeli in a dusk of a particular evening he happened to hear something from the cosmos in the form of oracle. The oracle is:

Krishna-Prasad! You did everything for self-fulfillment. You earned

money for yourself, for your spouse, for your personal well. Whatever

you are getting proud of at present, there is no point in doing so. What

did you do? Unless you do something for the sake of other, there is no 49

meaning of earning for yourself; this has only meaning for any selfish

one. (2)

According to Koirala this incident marks a sharp turning point in his father's life which readily oriented him towards benevolence. Koirala claims that this particular supernatural incident ignited his father to open schools and hospitals in the community. This is how, Koirala narrates, his father became a genuine social and political worker, which in turn gave way to shape his own personality as well.

The major reason behind the exile of his father is his inclination towards this social welfare according to Koirala. The then Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher becomes furious when Koirala's father sends a letter with a pack of old tattered cloth of a hillydhakre18asking to compare Chandra Shumser's cloths with his citizen's cloth.

Koirala claims that his father used to advocate for the equal rights of female, poverty alleviation and public social awareness raising against the autocratic rule of Ranas.

This social character of Koirala's father, later led to a forced mass exile of his family members altogether forty-five. Among them the chief guardian of all those exiles was

Koirals's father. Koirala claims that his father became the center of hope and support for all such exiled in India since then began the life full of pains and sorrows in

Koirala's family (6).

Nepalese history of Ranas reveals that Rana rulers always opposed any positive social transformation to prolong their rule against the people. So for a Rana

Prime Minister, the person like Koirala's father always becomes a hurdle to persist their family rule. Koirala's father becomes an object lesson and a role –model for him in his future struggle against the same Ranarchy.

18 Vernacular name for poor hilly porters of Nepal 50

The exile resulted into a terrific economic downfall in Koirala's family but he clearly mentions that it is impossible to narrate about the pathetic condition of their poverty in his autobiography though he mentions some. Instead, his major target is to show how his political personality got its preliminary shape during the period of exile of his family. He states: "We were in a great sorrow. I believe it is almost impossible to explain the matter of poverty in here" (9). "I have a clear remembrance of how we used to manage our meal, taking soaked gram peas sitting on the roof top in the summer"(9). Koirala is not so much eager to foreground his poverty. Rather, he tends to direct his audience towards how he came to be a man like his father. Once, he narrates: "Sorrow was so much that I had become a newspaper hawker; stayed with empty stomach but such incident did not have any adverse psychological effects on me"(55). He writes: "In a retrospect I feel that I have been reading some romantic mischief"(55). He further adds: "Elder brother had had great effects of such sorrows in his character" (55). These statements imply that Koirala has had fantastic rather than adverse effects of poverty upon his character. He again gives credit to his father for such fantastic effects of poverty upon him. Hisstress is that his father had a good quality to manage his children psychologically in troubles.

Koirala insists that he had inclination towards the ideals of Gandhi though his acts and attitudes are rather different and contradictory with Gandhi's which I discuss elsewhere in this dissertation. But while creating a nexus between Gandhi and himself he brings his father's personality in between:

He was a reformist. Indeed he was a revolutionary. He used to say that

a person involved in politics, should not only manage politics but also

manage, education and other aspects of social life. He held somehow

the views like Gandhi's. Later his outlook had somewhat resemblance 51

with Gandhi, same posture of sitting, same countenance and same

behaviors. (51)

In an implicit manner Koirala mentions that he was beginning to see his father transforming into the figure whom he had a strong adherence to, i.e. Gandhi. It is not that Koirala's father was transforming himself into Gandhi but through his autobiographical act Koirala wishes to give the color, figure and attributes of Gandhi to his father. Ultimately he tends to attribute the character of his father and Gandhi into himself.

This is how Koirala attempts to represent himself in his autobiography. As mentioned earlier, this he accomplishes through the help of the discourse which he creates about his father, Gandhi, other family members and co-workers in his autobiography. This representation of self created through language is not the real flesh-blood self of Koirala but an autobiographical self as such. There is an inevitable gap between the real self and this 'autobiographical self'. In this regard Leigh Gilmore argues:

Because the subject of an autobiography is a self representation and

not the autobiographer her/himself, most contemporary critics describe

this 'self' as a fiction. When we locate the pressure to tell the truth in

the context of the fictive self accountable for producing truth, the

problematical alliance between fact and fiction in autobiography

beings to emerge. (68)

The matter is again about the act of the fabrication of language. When Koirala projects his autobiographical self in his language he creates the self made up of language unlike the real person Koirala. According to Gilmore this constructed self in language is the 'fictive self'. She argues that when we expect the truth to be coming 52 out of this 'fictive self' the real problem arises. What actually happens is, the facts and fiction begin to merge in autobiography blurring the boundary between the facts and fiction inside the range of an autobiography. Koirala deliberately projects his self into the personality of his father and Gandhi. It is like Koirala articulates his wishes to be like his father and thereby he sees, his father in turn somehow like Gandhi. Instead of visiting real Koirala in his autobiography, we visit his 'fictive' 'autobiographical self' made up of language loaded with the intentions.

Though, Koirala does not mention about the other family members the way he mentions about his father in his autobiography, he has something to say about his mother and wife Sushila. Regarding his mother he writes in Jail Journal: "My mother is not of the kind of woman having hopelessness. When she met me the day before, her words were courageous; she used to have the courage of taking leadership in difficult situation but when I contemplate over her physical ability due to age, I feel anxious" (51).

This he writesinSundarijal19, Kathmandu, once after he got chance to meet his mother in jail. This attitude towards his mother also plays a crucial role in framing his personality. On the other hand, his initial remarks about his wife Sushila are not laudatory, but he narrates when she comes in contact of Koirala after marriage, he started grooming and fostering her. He claims that his treatment of her gave way to an amazing result. He goes as far as to mention: "In terms of beauty, in a particular phase of her life my friends used to say that in comparison, there is no beautiful girl than

Sushila. Once when I was in Hajaribagh jail, my friends asked in a debate, who I think is the most beautiful person in the world; I replied the name of Sushila" (24).

19 Name of a place in Kathmandu valley where Koirala was put in the prison. 53

Not only this when the debate about the beauty of Sushila culminated Koirala claims that he challenged his friends to show any other most beautiful person than his wife, they failed and agreed with him (24). When we go through these lines we tend to realize the extent to which Koirala seems to embellish his language to frame his attitudes towards his mother and wife. There are several such instances where Koirala seems compassionate and indulgent with the people he likes an intolerant towards those whom he wants to dissociate with.

Now how does he manipulate his narration to project his autobiographical self when he was struggling for freedom in India? This question leads towards the formation of his political career, attitudes and the political convictions. In general, his maturity in politics emerges from the inspiration of his father and his personality in the initial stages of life as mentions earlier and his acquaintances with the top level

Indian political leaders, like Gandhi and significantly with Nehru. Nepali political leaders like SubarnaShumser ,Ganeshman Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattrai have exerted the political effect upon Koirala. His acquaintances with the kings also have profound impact upon him by and large.

On this process of examining the formation of Koirala'sself regarding his political career during his struggle in India and Nepal I notice that he foregrounds those events and the friends which correlate with his political subject formation which is the 'autobiographical self'. In doing so he underplays other events of his life like his private and family life. This signifies that an autobiography is only a partial truth and embellishment of one's self. This idea corroborates with the idea of Rockwell Gray who writes: "The individual self above all seems especially tenuous an only partially knowable. It is to be met by indirection and evoked in the silences or spaces between 54 a person's overt deeds an gestures, for we are suspicious of the idea that a man's character can be read directly" (44).

Gray suspects the idea that we can know the real self of an individual directly.

The medium to know the self of an autobiographer or anybody is his/her gestures and deeds. An autobiography in this sense is a form of the gesture, a symbolic gesture of autobiographer's deeds. Koirala symbolizes his political deeds in his autobiography which obviously are partial by their very nature.

Koirala comes in contact with the Indian political leaders when he decides to involve himself in political movements going on in India against British rule. His ultimate target was to direct that movement towards Nepal against Ranarchy unifying the exiled Nepali political leaders and students available in India during that time. In this context Koirala was caught by the British authority and put into the jail. When he was in a jail in Hajaribagh in India he writes: "During this period in Hajaribagh jail I came in a close contact with the great political leaders of Bihar"(29). He also writes that being an 'A' class prisoner he was kept in Hajaribagh jail where he used to get high regards from his friends (29). In the same incident Koirala violates the rule of the prison and wears a political flag on his head. He is asked to remove the flag immediately by the authority but he denies. This led to a situation of severe confrontation but against this confrontation with authority he claims that he is supported by a large crowd. He writes: "I had so many followers, all the youths used to follow me, they all had gathered"(30). The problem here is that Koirala directly writes that all the youths were none of others but his followers. He attempts to prove himself a focal point of that particular political struggle in the jail.

In an incident when he met Ganeshman Singh for the first time, Koirala narrates that Ganeshman had become extremely influenced by his good conduct (38). 55

When the first conference to form Nepali Congress party is held in Calcutta he narrates that he is nominated as the president of Nepali Congress though the other names have been proposed. He writes: "My name was proposed obviously, because I was the one who was running for the sake of the party "(40). He also claims that not only of India he had a contact with the top level leaders of Burma (41).

Once he remembers the event of a day when he went to meet Gandhi for the first time. He narrates this incident with a special emphasis. He writes that he reached to Gandhi at 10 am and returned from there at 4 pm. He stayed there the whole day long. Koirala writes: "My picture was covered by the newspapers of that day" (73).

He states that Gandhi gave him words for the moral support of Koiala's political movement against Ranas in Nepal. He also gives equal emphasis of his direct and regular acquaintances with Nehru, Indira Gandhi and other top level leaders of India.

By doing so he signifies how his political career got consolidated and also assumes how he got his political agency to make himself able to stand in a firm position to fight against the orthodox authority of Nepal and liberate Nepali people. This is what he seems to achieve from his autobiographical act and convey it to his audiences.

In an incident Koirala remembers the assassination of Gandhi and states that it was the most shocking incidents for him. He adds that he shaded tears whole night due to the grief of Gandhi's demise (74). He narrates the news of the death of Nehru with equal stress. He hears this news when he was in Sundarijal jail. In the Jail

Journal he writes:

Since I got the news of the demise of Jawaraharlal Nehru I have a

restless mentality, try to control the self but in vain. Several times

came to the room and shaded tears alone. After shedding tears, felt that

I got relief. What a faith, belief and affection I guess I had towards 56

him. I guess I had inscribed intangible father figure of him in my heart.

(169)

These two narrations in two different contexts signify Koirala's sheer emotional investment towards Gandhi and Nehru. By this investment one can estimate how

Koirala frames his self inclined to politics, to work for the political causes of Nepal.

Furthermore, he also mentions that such political and emotional inclination towards

Gandhi and Nehru was in his subconscious level if not always in the conscious level.

In the real life situation of his politics he had many contradictions with Gandhi and his ideas of non-violence, Satyagraha, celibacy and vegetarianism. Koirala involves himself in armed – revolution against Ranas, has shown his temper in many occasions, and he is inclined to both drinking and sex. He has confessed in his Jail

Journal that he became able to abandon smoking and alcohol but finds it hard to do away with girl. Similarly, he had many disagreements with Nehru as well but this is not my concern here.

There is another incident of adventurous kind in which Koirala narrates how he and his fellow workers managed to smuggle weapons from Burma to India and to

Nepal. When he narrates it, it sounds like a movie adventure which rarely happens in the real life situation. He mentions how they manage to baffle the guards and other people in an unused airport in Patna, land the weapon leaden plane and escape from there with weapon, safely (116). This indicates Koirala's risk bearing capability which fits with the political adventures which he takes subsequently after that incident.

Koirala allocates considerable space in his autobiography to clarify the state of his relationship with the kings of Nepal particularly, with King Tribhuwan and

Mahendra. By doing so he conceives his autobiographical self as an exceptional self who had both love and hate relationships with the kings. He states that his relationship 57 with the kings was not of stable kind. It was designated by the contemporary political situation of the country. He assumes that he had a balance relationship with kings. He narrates the incidents in such a way which imply that he was the only efficient politician who had capability to confront with the kings for the sake of democracy and nationality.

This portion of his autobiography which narrates the account of his relationship with the kings has a significant impact on Koirala's conception ofhis'autobiographical self'. In this regard I agree with Karl J.Weintraub who claims that, "[a]utobiography is inseparably linked to the problem of self –conception" (834).

Weintraub further claims: "The manner in which men conceive of the nature of the self, largely determines the form and process of autobiographical writing"(834).

Weintrub argues that the way one thinks of oneself determines what he writes in his autobiography. It is as simple as that. Here I mean to say that the way

Koiralaperceives himself in accordance to his relationship with the kings ultimately shapes the mode of his narration which one can see in his autobiography.

When everything was arranged for the most prominent and historical 'Delhi

Agreement'20 which was supposed to end the Ranarchy from Nepal later, Koirala with his friends went to Delhi. Despite of some disagreements, everything was made ready for the agreement by the careful decision of Koirala. According to Koirala, political situation was so that they had to sign the agreement. He writes: "If I also had disagreed to sign, nobody would have agreed to it" (137). This was the first occasion when Koirala got opportunity to meet king Tribhuvan. He narrates this incident with full of excitement. When he reached Delhi in a guest house named Hyderabad Guest

20 Famous historical agreement made among Nepali Congress, King Tribhuvan and Rana rulers which was supposed to end the Rana rule from Nepal 58

House the organizers readily offered him a visit with King Tribhuvan. When he entered the room of the King, he narrates that 'His majesty' asked him to sit together in his own couch which Koirala believes was an abnormal thing. King asked his state of affair and said "I have heard much about you" to admire him. (137-38).

Similarly in another incident when Koirala was appointed as the home minister of Nepal after the Delhi Agreement he was called by the King to stay in the palace itself both for his office and residence until the further arrangements were made. Koirala praises King Tribhuvan and writes: "He kept me in a very good manner… with all facilities and regards which a host pays for his guest"(153). But in the subsequent chapterKoirala criticizes King Tribhuvan for receiving the royal salutation from the army without taking any advice with Koirala. This incident took place just after Mohan Sumsher was toppled from the post of the prime minister.

Koirala states that when King got the support of the army his character revealed a dramatic change and that day onwards the king became powerful (156).

Koirala admits that he did not have any idea of royal etiquette. He used to behave in his own way with the kings but he says, people and especially journalist used to criticize him. In an incident when king was busy watching football match

Koirala reached there. King offered him seat in his own couch which was congested.

Meanwhile his leg faced towards the King due to the uncomfortable posture of

Koirala. This was severely criticized later. But Koirala interprets this incident as a deliberate attempt to counteract against the domineering nature of monarchy. He claims that he had faced his leg towards the king deliberately to imply that kings are not superior then the citizen they have equal status. He insists that it was his conscious effort to do so (163). 59

Koirala further narrates that there was a kind of similitude between the character of King Tribhuvan and his character, unlike King Mahendra, who was introvert in nature. Like Koirala King Tribhuvan had the likings of dances, parties, music and girls. Koirale narrates, once so happened that king invited Koirala for a night party. Koirala went there and saw that alcohol flowing like water; young ladies were invited, beautiful ladies, lot of fun with drinks and dances. He was amazed to see that obscene activities were increasing in the presence of King and himself (167). He narrates all these incidents to justify that he had a very intimate relationship with King

Tribhuvan. But he warns the reader in several points in the autobiography that, it does not mean, 'Koirala blindly adheres to King'. He attempts to reveal that he is also the man who can criticize the king from all levels if necessary and also claims that he had done so in reality.

It is not only King Tribhuvan he had intimate personal relationship also with

King Mahendra. Koirala had both intimacy as well as relationship of enemity with king Mahendra. When he was put in jail by Mahendra after the infamous event of

2017 B.S. Koirala remembers his close personal relationship with King Mahendra and fails to judge his behavior towards him. He interrogates: "What I think is, why did king behaved me so even though I had such a good personal relationship with him?"

(219). Koirala's good personal relationship with king culminates gradually after he becomes the first elected prime minister of Nepal till the royal takeover of 2017 B.S.

This period marks a kind of parenthetical period in terms of Koirala's good relationship with king Mahendra. After 2017 B.S. everything turned into enmity.

Koirala loves to mention his good relationship with the King in his autobiography. By doing so he assumes his self, an autobiographical self, constituted through the discourse he produces out of his relationship with the king. He narrates that the 60 relationship was really good and by the same time he doubts why king changed his behavior at once upside down? Here applies what Jerome Burner argues that "[i]n autobiography, we set forth a view of what we call our self and its doings, reflections, thoughts and place in the world "(25). In Burner's sense, rather than the objective truth of one's life, an autobiography offers us 'view' of what an autobiographer thinks about his|her self in his autobiography in a particular time of his life when he ventures to write his autobiography.

Koirala affirms that: "Whatever he did externally, King always offered me a great regard"(216). He also mentions that the King used to call Koirala personally for parties in the palace. He says that king had equal regards for both Koirala and her wife Sushila. King always used to call Sushila along with him. Once, Koirala remembers, when king was in Dang, Tulsipur he called Koirala for party and drinks.

The next day an official visit to India was scheduled for Koirala. King composed a poem on the spot dedicated to Koirala. Koirala insists that the poem was really very emotional and composed out of the love of king towards him. He even remembers the part of that poem and writes on his autobiography (215-16). This was the situation of his relationship with King Mahendra. The problem is that, the mystery of shattered relationship after the incident of 2017 B.S has remained unsolved in his autobiography. In a particular context, Koirala guesses that it might be because of the growing popularity of Koirala inside the country and in an international level, King

Mahendra felt unsafe about his kingship and rule. But this is not the final interpretation of Koirala (219).

Koirala narrates his most memorable stay with king Manendra in Pokhera for six to seven days. When, Koirala claims, he got, a due regard, love and affection and personal sharing from both King and the Queen. This sort of his relationship with 61 king has been juxtaposed with Koirala's uncompromising views regarding democracy and people's right when he was in Sundarijal jail in his autobiography. Koirala's line of thought can be counter posed with the thoughts of King Mahendra regarding their definition of democracy and nationality. Koirala gains his agency through the narration of such events in his autobiography in which he demonstrates himself as a stern politician who demonstrates that he never can compromise with the king in expense of democracy and people's rights. He presents himself as never submitting to and compromising with the views imposed by the King.

As mentioned earlier, an autobiographer performs the politics of both remembering and forgetting the events in his /her life in accordance with the importance he/she lays to one incident over the other. He/she gives the prominence to that particular memory which complies with the autobiographical self which he/she tends to cultivate in his /her autobiography. GunnthorunnGudmundsdottir argues:

Writing an autobiography entails choosing some memories and

discarding others. More than that, it also means choosing a form for

these memoires, a narrative structure. In doing so the autobiographer

consciously forgets other interpretations of the same events, other

memories that might contradict the one he or she writes about. (36)

This selecting and discarding one memory over other obviously happens in Koirala's case as well. Two events are noteworthy in this regard.The first incident was of the death of his brother Harihar, in India due to cholera. He mentions that event in a very objective language only to say that their economic condition was poor. His language lacks the mood of melancholy in the pathetic death of his brother. He narrates,

"Harihar my brother, caught cholera, could not manage treatment and he died of cholera. After his death we did not have any way to take him to cremation. No money 62 to buy shroud, no money to buy wooden logs. Everybody was speechless'' (60). Later, after this incident every family members with his mother met his father, since his father was absent at home at the time of the death of the brother, he writes that his father asked about the dead brother and when the mother kept silence, his father understood and did not response furthermore in this regard (61). What I mean to say here is, Koirala gives a very little space to such incident in his autobiography. It is because his purpose is not to be melancholic but to be an objective political analysist of the events of his life and to answer how his political self was constructed.

The second incident was of the death of his own daughter when Koirala was the Home Minister. He seems to be underplaying this incident focusing much on the arrival of the then crown prince Mahendra with the complaint about his marriage.

Koirala mentions the death of his daughter is such a way that a general audience gets perplexed by his tone. He narrates:"That morning my daughter had died, she was a small daughter, she had died. I had resided in Rangamahal .Taking a footwalk from there – because that girl was, small 'Tarini21 had carried her. One of us had to bury her, we were taking her" (257).

This is the way how he presents about the death of his daughter. He does not mention even about the cause of her death and in no time he switches off from that subject and highlights the complaint of the crown prince Mahendra. He never mentions about that event anywhere in his autobiography besides that. Since the beginning to the end Koirala seems to be revolving around the political affairs in one way or the other. This is because he wishes to focus on the political part of his autobiographical self formation and which is indeed the key part of his life. The other point which I have mention in the beginning of this chapter is that the coaxer and the

21 Koirala's brother 63 targeted audience of the autobiography of Koirala are those who want to know about the political life that Koirala had lived. This might be the reason why Koirala focuses on the political affairs over the other.

Now coming almost to the final part of my analysis I focus on how Koirala seems to be thinking about his autobiographical self in relation to the responses of the general public in Nepal, India and to a lesser extent to neighboring country China.

Koirala in this regard, presents several incidents in the later part of his autobiography in which he got unexpected responses full of respect, love and regards in his visit to

India, China and his domestic visits to the different parts of the country inside.

Through the autobiographical act of narrating such responses from others towards him he proactively constructs his strong politically charged self in his autobiography. Max

Saunders claims: "In autobiographical act, it is a self that did not previously exist"(504). I mean Koirala proactively creates his self and gives it a particular rhetorical shape in his autobiography. According to Saunders, before the autobiographical act of creating the self in language the self that is projected in the autobiography does not exist prior to it. Therefore writing autobiography in this sense is actively and consciously creating a particular form of self through language. This has been the key point of my argument throughout this research.

In an incident when Koirala delivered his speech in a program organized by

The Labour Party, an Indian journalist was so impressed according to Koirala that, he said, " I saw a model today of what kind of prime minister should be of India" indicating to Koirala (256). Koirala further writes," I believe, I had created an adequate impression in the international leval during that period "(256). Koirala insists through this statement that due to his political ideals and determination to fight 64 for the sake of it he had really achieved an internal as well as international acclamation to his satisfaction.

He narrates his visit to Patna, India. He claims: "When I landed in Patna, I think that, the extent to which they welcome me was I guess only offered to Nehru.

Nobody might have got that magnitude of welcome. I did not have even expected to get that level of welcome. I saw a sea of people when the plane was landing" (231).

It is not the matter of doubt that whether Koirala got that level of welcome in

India or not? The matter is how Koirala focuses on such incidents in constructing his

'autobiographical self'.

Further, he narrates that he received such grand welcome in Banglore as well.

He narrates: "I guess I have got enormous popular support by the presence of the crowd of people… I saw big Nepali capitalist, Prime Minister Mohan Sumsher, defense minister Baber Sumsher, his brother Krishna Sumsher, and all were there."(232). He claims that he got the same level of grand welcome in Delhi. He narrates: "They took to me to the same place where they had kept King Tribhuwan,

Hyderabad Nigam House"(232). He also mentions about the lavish gifts offered by the people to him in Patna (234). When Koirala was in the visit to 'LalKilla'22 with

Nehru, he remembers of his speech which he had delivered in response to his facilitation. He assures himself that: "I felt gratified myself by the speech I made. I spoke for about forty minutes. I was too satisfied "(235). That speech was made on the topic of Indo –Nepal relationship. He also mentions that Nehru was himself very much impressed by Koirala (234). He claims: "I thought I was able to make a very good impression"(235). He affirms that nobody might have got that degree of respect,

22 A famous historical fort in India 65 affection and applaud who visited there from Nepal ever before and he justifies that respect with the remarks: "I was the elected one, so that was obvious to happen"(238).

Now he turns towards China where he got the respect and love from the Chu

Yen Lai and even Mao. He narrates, "Chu Yen Lai who was in my company, he so impressed me, all the days I spent there [China], as if he did not have any work, he only stayed with me and looked after me" (241). Koirala focuses on the things like where they kept him, in what sort of hotel, what were the provisions for him, for his wife and daughter, how was the train he travelled in, and what attitudes did the

Chinese kept about his political personality and so. He remembers that he was really satisfied from his visit to China and the way Chinese authority behaved with him. The purpose of Koirala to mention about his visits to India and China is not only to project his 'autobiographical self' but also to justify that Koirala got equal importance and value from both India and China. It implies how he has managed and maintained the diplomatic relationship with Nepal's immediate neighbors.

This is how Koirala professes to cultivate the autobiographical self which he believes was dedicated to the country and for the freedom of the people. Remarkable feature of Koirala's autobiography is its incessant narration of political events. What happened in Koirala's life were nothing other than the complex affairs of politics out of which he has framed his 'autobiographical self' either deriving character from his father, grandfather, Gandhi, Nehru or from the interactions with his political acquaintances, Nepali kings or from the popular perception he estimates that the people kept about him in the country and outside. Conclusion: Complexities of Autobiographical Act in the Autobiographies of

Gandhi and Koirala

I studied the autobiographies of Gandhi and Kioirala and examined the way they represent their identities to explore how these autobiographers construct their

'self' and the 'truth' about their life, while narrating their life stories. With this question in mind, I also explored into what actually happens when an autobiographer begins to write about his/her life. The second question helped me to study the recent developments in the theoretical dimensions of life-writing as a genre. I found that, an autobiographer creates a discourse about his /her life and projects it as the truth of his

/her life in general. Creation of discourse means, narrating the stories and events of one's life by a careful selection of language to create the image of the autobiographer as he\she desires. This construction of one's own discourse applies to both Gandhi and

Koirala, as it applies to any autobiographer in general. Moreover, the truth and the image of an autobiographer created in the autobiography turns out to be a provisional truth. Since there are multiple truths in the real life of an autobiographer, he/she only can project single version of truth out of the multiple truths of his/her real life.

The act of construction of a particular identity of the self of an autobiographer by the use, careful selection and organization of language is an autobiographical act.

Autobiographical act involves the act of remembering as well as consciously forgetting the events of the life of an autobiographer. So, memory is the major component of this autobiographical act. Memory by its nature is not complete in itself. It is fragmented because it fades with the passage of time. First, the autobiographer carefully selects a particular memory of his\her life which fits into the story his desires to narrate and second, he discards the memory which does not fit into the story he/she desires to tell. Furthermore, fabrication is done to supplement the 67 faded memory to give it a complete shape. In doing so, obviously there are chances of merging facts into fictions by the autobiographer. This brings a complication in the autobiographical act of writing. This is the problem of an autobiographical act which results in the production of partial truth or the provisional truth about the life of an autobiographer. I analyzed how Gandhi and Koirala performed this complex autobiographical act and thereby construct their autobiographical 'self' and 'truth' out of this act.

In the case of Gandhi, his life had been the series of experiments of truth, as he mentions in his autobiography. Gandhi's experience of his personal and political struggle to arrive to the truth, turn out to be either his experiments on vegetarianism or celibacy, either non-violence or civil-disobedience. He hardly fluctuates from these major principles of his life. So, his autobiographical discourse is the discourse constructed around his experiences about vegetarianism, celibacy, non-violence and civil-disobedience. Gandhi's purpose of writing autobiography is to show his readers how he arrives to the truths about vegetarianism, celibacy, non –violence and civil- disobedience. The inherent desire of Gandhi is to reveal how his self gradually grows to become the self of a 'Mahatma. I argued that, Gandhi seldom moves to the other events of his life which are not related to his major principles of his life mentioned before.

Koirala projects his autobiographical self much as a public self. He even cannot distinguish between his private and public selves. The inherent purpose behind the projection of his public self is to reveal his readers that his life is not the life lived for himself and his family but in a greater level his life was devoted to the attainment of democracy, freedom and prosperity in Nepal. As mentioned earlier, Koirala downplays the private events of his life and foregrounds each and every political 68 event he remembers in his autobiography. Koirala's autobiographical discourse is therefore a political discourse by and large.

There is a remarkable difference between the real self of an autobiographer and the 'autobiographical self'. The real–self is the self of an autobiographer which is the flesh blood self that exists outside the autobiography in the real world whereas, the self created by the autobiographer in his autobiography by the use of language is the 'autobiographical self'. As I have mentioned in the introduction, Smith and Watson bring the reference of recent developments in the discourse of autobiography and argue that real self of an autobiographer is simply unattainable. On the other hand, the self created in the autobiography is the fictional self as it involves the use of fiction.

With the insights of recent development in autobiography discussed in the first chapter, I discerned how Gandhi and Koirala perform the complex act of writing their autobiography and create their autobiographical self.

The overall study implies that the act of writing an autobiography and construction of the self and truth through the autobiographical act is the result of the dynamics among the intention of an autobiographer, the time or context of writing autobiography, the place, immediate circumstances and number of other factors.

Therefore, the judgment of an autobiographer's life and his/her personality through the truth and the self constructed in his/her autobiography becomes partial or provisional. It is because the truth created by the autobiographer and the self produced in the autobiography are provisional in themselves as my study shows.

The purpose of this research was not to prove Gandhi and Koirala right or wrong. Moreover, the purpose was not to analyze the political principles they held and the historical events they participated in. The only purpose is to see how they project themselves through their discourse of autobiography. The purpose was to 69 examine how they perform the autobiographical act of truth construction as well as self projection.

I found that autobiography is not very much different than the artifact produced by the artist. Writing about one's life is something like producing artistic or if not artistic, rhetoric dimension of one's experiences and events of life. Though the degree of projection of truth or facts of one's life becomes less in the act of writing an autobiography; its importance is growing because readers like to read autobiography both as artifact and factual representation of autobiographer's life. As a reader personalizes the things and events from a literary fiction with his/her real life situation, he/she does so, more in the case of reading an autobiography because obviously autobiographies are relatively more close to the reality. It means a fiction writer imagines a real life situation and fictionalizes it to produce a story but an autobiographer projects his\her experience of life into an autobiography merging both facts into fiction.

I believe that research on the dynamics among the components of autobiographical act and construction of autobiographical truth and self is very immense and wide. Who writes autobiography more than other? For example, most often celebrities are motivated to write their story of struggle and success in the contemporary celebrity culture. Why does one write an autobiography? How do people from margins like Blacks, women and so, use autobiographical discourse?

These and several other questions regarding the implications of writing an autobiography are always productive questions one can ask as a researcher. Works Cited

Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi, comp. and ed. Mahatma and the Poet: Letters and Debates

between Gandhi and Tagore 1915-1941. New Delhi: National Book Trust,

2005. Print.

Brosman , Catharine Savage. "Autobiography and the Complications of

Postmodernism and Feminism." Sewanee Review 113.1 (2005): 96-107. Print.

Burner, Jerome."Self-making and Word-making." Narrative and Identity: Studies in

Autobiography , Self and Culture. Ed. Jens Brockmeier and DonalCarbaugh.

Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. Print.

Cameron, Jessica J., Anne E. Wilson, and Michael Ross. "Autobiographical Memory

and Self-assessment." Self and Memory: Studies in Self and Identity. Ed.

Denise R. Beike, James M. Lampinen and Douglas A. Behrend.NewYork :

Psychology Press, 2004. Print.

Dodd, Philip, ed. Modern Selves : Essays on Modern British and American

Autobiography. London: Frank Cass, 2005. Print

Eakin, Paul John. "Breaking Rules: The Consequences of Self- Narration." Biography

24.1 (2001): 113-127. Project Muse. Print.

Galow, Timothy W.." GertudeSteins's 'Everybody's Autobiography' and the Art of

Constradictions." Journal of Modern Literature 32.1 (2008): 111-128. Print

Gandhi, M.K. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. New Delhi: Maanu Graphics, 1909.

Print.

Gilmore, Leigh. "Policing Truth: Confession, Gender, and Autobiographical

Authority." Autobiography and Postmodernity. Ed. Ashley Kathleen, Gilmore

Leigh and Peters Gerald.Amherst: U of Massachustts P, 1994. Print.

Gray, Rockwell. "Autobiography Now." Kenyon Review 4.1 (1982): 31-55.Print. 71

Gudmundstottir, Gunnthorunn. Borderlines: Autobiography and Fiction in

Postmodern Life Writing. New York: Rodopi, 2003. Print.

Koirala, B.P..Aatmabritanta. Comp. and ed. Ganeshraj Sharma. Kathmandu:

Jagadamba Publication, 2011. Print.

- - -. Jail Journal. Kathmandu: Jagadamba Publication, 2013. Print.

Kripalani, Krishna. Gandhi: A Life. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 2011. Print.

Lejeune, Philippe. On Diary. Trans. Katherine Durnin. Ed. Jeremy D. Popkin and

Julie Rak. Hawai'i: U of Hawai'i P, 2009. Print

- - -. On Autobiography: Theory and History of Literature.Mineapolis: U of

Minnesota P,1989. Print.

Mathien, Thomas, and D.G Wright, eds. Autobiography as Philosophy: The

Philosophical Uses of Self-presentation. Oxon: Routedge, 2006.Print.

McNee, Lisa. "Autobiographical Subjects." Research in African Literatures 28.2

(1997): 83-101. Print.

Saunders, Kenneth."Mahatma Gandhi seen through His Autobiography." Pacific

Affairs 4.3 (1931): 201- 209.Print

Saunders, Max. Self Impression : Life-Writing, Autobiografiction and the Forms of

Modern Literature. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Smith, Robert. Derrida and Autobiography. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print.

Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. Reading Autobiography: A guide for Interpreting

Life Narratives. London: U of Minnesota P, 2001. Print.

Weintraub, Karl J. "Autobiography and Historical Consciousness." Critical Inquiry

1.4 (1975): 821-848. Print.