Beyond the Frontiers: Quest for Identity in Amitav Ghosh’s The Shadow Lines

Sukanta Das*

Amitav Ghosh stands unique among the generation of Indian writers engaged in
creative writing in English following Rushdie. Ghosh’s writings, which resist generic
divisions, deal with the effects of colonialism, and problematize the dominant discourse
of history. Though generically and thematically diverse, one of the persistent tropes in
Ghosh’s writings is the “in-between” space. Evidently Ghosh contests the
constructedness of various borders segregating nations from nations, people from people,
culture from culture etc. The revisionist approach to history, destabilization of borders,
exhumation of the individual voices suppressed/elided by dominant ideology point to the
uniquely Ghosian way of quest for identity. Incidentally the issue of identity is both
contentious and complicating because of its use and abuse in various discourses, right
from that of politics to ordinary human life. The debate over identity spins round both its
theoretical and practical fields making sometimes mutually contradictory propositions.
The theoretical debate about identity revolves not only round its nature, process of
formation, but also raises important existential/ontological questions. However there are
two major dominant theories about identity, namely the essentialist and the
postmodernist. The essentialist concept of identity focuses on the single aspect of one’s
identity (say, gender) and holds it essentially true. The essentialist notion of identity
therefore prioritizes one aspect of numerous social, cultural, political affiliations of an
individual and emphasizes on some essential core. The postmodernists, on the other, are
basically skeptical about identity since the language, through which experience is
interpreted, is essentially unstable and therefore identity is epistemically unreliable.
Unlike the essentialists who believe in the singular affiliation of an individual’s identity,
the postmodernists deny any such identity. However the ‘strategic essentialism’, first
formulated by Gayatri Spivak, deploys identity strategically for specific political
purposes. Understandably the invocation of identity is doubtlessly important and
effective in achieving the desired result particularly in the case of a group or community.
Thus even though the supporters of strategic essentialism are aware of the falsity of
identity and illusion of purported homogeneity, they nonetheless invoke it in order to
obtain something for the community. However the strategic essentialism is flawed and
questioned on the ground that it leads to a kind of elitism among the privileged class of a
group identity. While the “knowing” theorists who deploy identity strategically may be
aware of the illusoriness of identity, the “unknowing” activists continue to believe in
identity. But the crux of the matter is that unless something as important as identity is
taken seriously and used only strategically, the project will not be viable in the long run.
However contentious and problematic it may be, identity remains one of the most
important –as well as hotly disputed–topics in literary and cultural studies. While
experience plays an important part in the formation of an individual’s identity, its
interpretation involves much theoretical complications. An individual’s understanding of
himself/herself –who is s/he?–is likely to be influenced by and in turn influences his/her
social location. The postpositivist realist theory of identity, as postulated by Satya P.
Mohanty and et al, involves a theoretical understanding of the social location to which an
individual belongs. Unlike the postmodernists, a realist theory of identity does not take
“experience” to be meaningless and unreliable. These theorists do not see experience as
essentially misleading for, experience, if properly interpreted, can yield real epistemic
knowledge about identity. Even the seemingly personal experience is socially and
theoretically constructed and therefore proper understanding of experience can be a clue
to the interpretation of an individual’s identity and his/her location in the world. As
Mohanty says, “…Identities are ways of making sense of our experiences.”(Mohanty, 43)
Significantly identities cannot be merely wished away for what we are inevitably
influences our social, political, cultural activities and vice versa. An individual’s social
location plays an important part in the formation of his /her identity. The social location
on the other hand is formed by the real–justifiable or unjustifiable– social categories like
race, class, gender, sexuality etc. What is important here to note is that even though these
various categories are open to contestation and subversion, they are nonetheless capable
of creating real material result. For example, even when we may question the validity of a
social category like class/caste, we cannot deny the obvious result emanating from such a
category. When we talk of an individual’s identity we have to take into account at least
two aspects of an individual’s identity, namely one’s public identity and private identity
or lived sense of the self. Simplistically speaking public identity refers to an identity
which one has in a public space and by which one is known, hailed, referred to and
categorized. This is the third person view of an individual. But even though there remains
a gulf between one’s public and private identity, one cannot deny the consequence of
one’s public identity in the sphere of one’s identity to oneself. The problem with one’s
private identity is that it cannot be communicated to and used in the public sphere.
Interestingly an individual has multiple identities which are formed as a result of
numerous social, political, cultural affiliations. Thus even when one may like to be
known as Indian, his/her affiliation to a particular religion might be extremely important
under certain circumstance which may render his/her desire to be identified as Indian
inconsequential. Hence the issue of freedom in one’s choice of identity is also an integral
part of the process of formation of one’s identity. Whether we are ‘free’ enough to choose
our identity or identity is formed by process to which we have limited control is a
contentious issue in the discussion of identity. Even when reasoning is important in the
selection of a particular identity, one cannot but take into account the social context at the
time of choosing an identity. As Amartya Sen argues, “Not only is reason involved in the
choice of identity, but the reasoning may have to take note of the social context and
contingent relevance of being in one’s category or another” (Sen, 28). Private identity or
one’s daily self focuses on one’s personal understanding of oneself. What an individual
understands about himself/ herself may not be personal even in his /her own personal
space. The so-called “inner” emotions we feel are not necessarily personal for they are
evoked by certain context created by the social discourse. However the split between
private and public identity of an individual is not permanent for there is always
connections and negotiations between them. In fact one’s ‘internal’ identity is constituted
within ‘external’ identity which in turn is conditioned by subjective negotiation. Hence
identity is not only multi-faceted but also involves continuous interaction and negotiation
with one’s location in the world.

In The Shadow Lines Amitav Ghosh investigates the notion of identity and shows
how the dominant discourses play significant part in the formation of one’s identity. The
identity of Thamma, the grandmother of the nameless narrator, offers an important study
of how the discourses like that of the nation and nationalism create identity of the person
concerned. From the very early period of his life the unnamed narrator is urged by his
somewhat queer uncle Tridib to create his own story lest he may get trapped in other’s
stories (“…we would never be free of other people’s inventions” (SL-31)). The Shadow
Lines investigates how the prevalent/dominant discourse is to be resisted in order to hear
‘other’ voices waiting to be heard. Thamma evidently believes in the dominant rhetoric of
nation and nationalism as she is trapped in the dominant discourse. She believes in the
corporeal reality of nation and believes strongly in its territorial boundary. Benedict
Anderson defines nation as “imagined communities” with all probable nuances of the
term. Even though the idea of the nation is predominantly political, it goes beyond that
and comes to represent consciousness built by the emotional responses of the people in it.
In other words the members of the given community mutually come to share the basic
characteristics of a community–race, language, history, myth, religion, territory etc.
Ernest Renan emphasizes the unstable nature of nations which are always on the point of
collapse in multiple divisions within the community. Evidently in Renan’s scheme of
things nations are not “natural” entities and their instability points to their social
construction. Nationhood therefore is a myth sustained by ideology perpetuating
nationalism which creates homogenizing national tradition. But in practice the discourse
of nationalism fails to take into account and therefore is unable to represent the truly
diverse culture of a nation and ultimately upholds the views of the dominant, privileged
group. Therefore the idea of nation with its fixed territorial boundary is sustained by the
dominant discourse of nationalism. In The Shadow Lines Amitav Ghosh problematizes
nationalism in his search for identity. The constant urging to the narrator on the part of
Tridib to invent (hi) stories–use imagination with precision–may be taken as a key not
only to the thematic core of the book but also to the inquiry of various identities formed.
The grandmother of the narrator–Thamma– fails to invent her stories rendering herself
getting trapped in the available dominant discourse of nationalism. Her idea of the nation
and nationalism is very categorical, one-dimensional and plain. She is visibly caught by
the euphoria of nationalism which champions the internal solidarity within the boundary
and focuses on its difference from those lying outside the frontier. The dominant idea of
nation focuses on the territorial boundary as well as on its discrete distinction from those
across the border. In other words while the idea of nation is constituted by a
homogenizing zeal among the people within the border, its identity is also affirmed by its
distinction, separateness, difference from neighbours .Thamma wants to contribute to the
building up of independent India for which she advises her grandson to build a strong
body in order to build a strong country. Thamma is caught by this dominant discourse of
nation. As a believer in the reality/sanctity of borders separating one nation-state from
others, Thamma wants to witness the territorial boundary separating India from East
Pakistan from the plane. She is elated at the prospect of watching borders while going by
a plane towards Dhaka. Her desire to witness the border is not just the naïve innocent
wish for she believes in the discourse of nation emphasizing the territorial discrete
identity. She is certain of some concrete demarcating lines—“…surely there’s something-
trenches perhaps, or soldiers, or guns pointing at each other, or even just barren strips of
lands”(SL,151). She defends her conviction by announcing: “But if there aren’t any
trenches or anything, how are people to know? I mean where’s the difference then? And
if there’s no difference both sides will be the same; it’ll be just like it used to be before,
when we used to catch a train in Dhaka and get off in Calcutta the next day without
anybody stopping us. What were it all for then--partition and all the killing and
everything--if there isn’t something in between?”(SL, 151).Thus the creation of a nation
lies in violence and it is maintained by difference. This difference must be maintained,
highlighted, and constantly evoked. That the nation originates in violence makes
Thamma particularly critical of Ila, the narrator’s cousin who lives in England. Thamma
takes Ila to task for living in England to which she does not and should not belong for “It
took these people (English people) a long time to build that country; hundreds of years,
years and years of war and bloodshed. Everyone who lives there has earned his right to
be there with blood: with their brother’s blood…They know they are a nation because
they’ve drawn their borders with blood” (SL, 78). Naturally war is thought to be the most
important event that can take place in the life of the nation. Thus Thamma eulogizes war
as a means of creating nationalism among the people: “war is their religion. That’s what
it takes to make a country. Once that happens people forget they were born this or that,
Muslim or Hindu, Bengali or Punjabi: they become family born of the same pool of
blood. That is what you have to achieve for India, don’t you see?”(SL, 78). Evidently her
identity as a militant nationalist is constituted by the grand/meta-narrative of the
patriarchal discourse of nation upholding only the grand events like war. Thus she readily
parts with her prized gold jewels for the cause of the war to defeat the enemies on the
other side of the border. It is in fact on this sort of events that the euphoria of nationalism
is staged. The dominant discourse of nationalism has its own way of operation. It
operates through the discourse of history. Thus when war is fought on the frontiers, the
newspapers are full of the news of war fanning the nationalistic fervour. But on the other
hand the riots in Calcutta in 1964 are carefully left out so as to keep the discourse moving
without disruption and fissure. The omission of a riot in Khulna (Dhaka) and its vicious
complicity with the riot in Calcutta is also very important and revelatory. The narrator
makes the link between the two events and shows the arbitrariness of borders—shadow
lines—drawn on the subcontinent. This reconstruction of history on the part of the
narrator is an attempt to resist the aggressiveness of various discourses in shaping,
moulding, and constructing our personality. Thamma believes in the dominant discourse
of nationhood that is sanctified/ratified through war or coercive state apparatus.
Understandably Thamma’s identity as a fervent nationalist is constructed by the ideology/
discourse in which she gets trapped. She does not go beyond the border drawn by both
history and nationalism. Thamma’s private identity is constituted by her location in the
world rendering her trapped in the popular discourse. However the dominant ideology to
which she subscribes has its historical origin. As a middle class woman she has been fed
to the discourse and particularly has witnessed the traumatic state of partition. In fact
Thamma likes to see her identity in terms of a militant nationalist. Ghosh here critiques
the dominant discourse of history which chooses to record those events which are
permitted by the official nationalism.
The identities are real and have material consequences. Thamma’s identity as a
fervent nationalist therefore makes her interpret the world around. She is hence critical of
Ila staying abroad and even comes up with the idea of material advantage goading Ila to
stay in the alien country. In fact Thamma’s objections to Ila and her disapproval of Tridib
are generated by her intense desire to maintain conformity to a particular
ideology/discourse. She is especially critical and dismissive of Tridib’s non-conformity
and warns the narrator against the pernicious impact of Tridib. Such religious obsession
with conformity makes her highly critical of Ila and calls her ‘whore’. Thamma who
believes in the fixity of borders urges Jethamoshai to come back to India for “it’s not safe
for you here” (Dhaka) (SL, 215). But Jethamoshai does not believe in the concept of
nation, or for that matter, nation-state. He retorts: “Once you start moving you never stop.
That’s what I told my sons when they took the trains. I said: I don’t believe in this India-
Shindia. It’s all very well, you’re going away now, but suppose when you get there they
decide to draw another line somewhere? What will you do then? Where will you move
to? No one will have you anywhere. As for me, I was born here, and I’ll die here” (SL,
215). This stance runs counter to the stand of the dominant nationalism to which Thamma
subscribes. Amitav Ghosh seems to suggest that quest for identity involves the crossing
of borders. Thamma’s identity is formed because of her exposure to the dominant
discourse and therefore she looks at everything from her own prejudiced point of view.
The idea of the ‘nation’ constructed by violence or bloodshed is seriously criticized
by Robi, the narrator’s uncle whose interpretation of the way Tridib was killed debunks
the shadowy lines of borders. The narrator’s exploration of the events in which Tridib got
killed and the fierce riot of 1964 in Calcutta renders the borders between the countries
meaningless—shadow lines. The borders fragmenting the subcontinent into different
nation-states are arbitrarily drawn for they cannot form real, distinct identity immune
from foreign influence. The Shadow Lines is a critique of the constructedness of borders,
meaning of distance. This is echoed in Robi’s speech: “…why don’t they draw thousands
of little lines through the whole subcontinent and give every little space a new name?
What would it change? It’s a mirage; the whole thing is a mirage. How can anyone divide
a memory?”(SL, 247). Nationality is an important marker of identity but it is also a
theoretical construct which depends on an individual’s exposure and access to the
dominant discourse. Evidently Thamma likes to see herself basically as a champion of
militant sort of nationalism which highlights the concreteness of borders. Being a
supporter of fierce nationalism she wants the borders to be categorically drawn and
believes in the reality existing outside the frontier. This obsession of the nationalist with
borders (with their physical manifestation) is metaphorically borne out in the division of
the house at Dhaka. The minuteness of the boundary of the divided house attests to the
jingoistic sort of nationalism. Evidently Thamma exists as a life-long supporter of this
view. She in fact internalizes the principle doctrines of the dominant discourse of
nationalism. Thamma’s identity therefore seriously affects particular kinds of behaviour
and action. She cannot expect the nations to be at peace for a nation must affirm her
identity by maintaining her difference. She never steps outside the border erected by the
dominant discourse. Hers is a case of getting trapped in other’s stories. Amitav Ghosh
therefore critiques the discrete identity affirmed by various borders of space and time.
Ghosh here explores the unreality and invalidity of traditional identity-forming constructs
like nation and nationalism.
Unlike Thamma, the narrator does not become the victim of the dominant discourse
of nationalism. From the very early on the unnamed narrator is urged by his somewhat
precocious uncle Tridib to use his imagination with precision. He alerts the narrator about
various misleading stories to which one may fall a victim. Obviously the stories refer to
the dominant discourse in which everybody lives. By highlighting the vital part played by
the discourse in the formation of one’s identity Tridib warns the narrator against any sort
of ideology. This is illustrated in the episode when Tridib, fantasizing over his supposed
meeting with May Price in England, is exposed by the narrator about his made-up story
before Tridib’s friends: “If you believe anything people tell you, you deserve to be told
anything at all…” (SL-12). This comment by Tridib precisely sums up the danger lying at
the heart of discourse. In other words The Shadow Lines challenges the givenness of
anything–physical reality or theoretical formulation. The mission of the narrator’s his life
has been to question the borders, their givenness. He takes it up as his duty to verify the
truth—historical, national etc. He wants to explore time and space beyond border. His
experience of doubt about the authenticity of borders forms his identity. He comes to
realize the arbitrariness of borders and later discovers the unmistakable link between the
riot in Calcutta and the mob violence in which Tridib got killed which renders the borders
between nations shadow lines.
While the discourse of nation and nationalism plays a significant part in the
formation of an individual’s identity, the discourse of history is also important in this
respect. An individual’s exposure to (and subsequent internalization of) the dominant
discourse of history forms an identity for him/her. In his fictional works Ghosh displays
an abiding concern for history. Ghosh uncovers the hegemonic employment of history
both in the colonial and national history. In The Shadow Lines Ghosh seeks to retrieve the
unofficial history from the debris of official history. The dominant discourse of the
history of nationalism thus is remarkably silent about all those ‘local’ events like riot that
may seriously prove the rhetoric of nationalism hollow. Understandably the shocking
event of riot in Calcutta which took the city by storm was given as little space as reported
only in the last page couched with sports news of the English dailies (SL-223). The
dominant discourse of history and nationalism thus belittles riots since it marks
disruptions/interruptions in the story of nationalism and nation-state. This is echoed in the
speech of Manik, the narrator’s friend: “All riots are terrible…But it must have been a
local thing. Terrible or not it is hardly comparable to war” (SL, 221) Even the post-
colonial Ila believes that history can only happen in the West. People like Ila are
indoctrinated about the heroism associated with the history of the West. Ila elaborates on
the essential (?) difference between the historic West and the non-West with only the
burden of history: “well of course there are famines and riots and disasters…But those
are local things after all—not like the revolutions or anti-fascist wars, nothing that sets a
political example to the world, nothing that’s really remembered” (SL, 104).This echoes
Ila’s cultivated amnesia toward one’s history. One of the constant imperatives behind
actions is her desire to remain ‘free’ from the history of bloody culture of her roots. But
no quest for identity can be meaningful unless it is strengthened by a keen perception of
history. The newly created nation-state must create its euphoria, celebrate its birth with
pomp and grandeur, sustain and perpetuate its charisma by upholding its difference from
neighbours. Therefore difference is constantly evoked in the history of a nation. The
dominant discourse of history must highlight on solidarity with those within the border
and mark difference from those beyond the frontier. Thus reasonably war amounts to a
matter of great ‘national’ importance in contradistinction to local things like ‘riot’ and it
must be properly propagated among the masses. But the official history must maintain its
distance from local disruptive events like riot so as to emphasize on the purported
homogeneity of nation-state. The narrator makes a vital connection between his
nightmarish school bus ride in Calcutta and the events in which Tridib got killed in
Dhaka. Through a process of recovering and therefore reconstructing history the narrator
comes to appreciate the invalidity of distance–distance that separates. The narrator comes
to know about the meaninglessness of distance through an imaginative process of
restructuring history. This is evidenced in the post-mortem of the riot that took place in
Dhaka and Calcutta. The erection of border between the nations cannot make Calcutta
immune from the riot. The arbitrariness, unjustifiability of borders is evidenced in the
way the incident in Dhaka triggers off violence in Calcutta separated by the border line of
modern nation-state. The narrator meditates: “They had drawn their borders, believing in
that pattern, in the enchantment of lines, hoping perhaps that once they had etched their
borders upon the map, the two bits of land would sail away from each other like the
shifting tectonic plates of the prehistoric Gondwanaland…when each city was the
inverted image of the other, locked into an irreversible symmetry by the line that was to
set us free—our looking-glass border” (SL, 233). Ghosh believes that the quest for
identity starts from appreciating the fragility of borders.
The Shadow Lines invites critical enquiry into the reappraisal of identity formed
through access to and subscription of various discourses. In Ghosian scheme of things
quest for identity presupposes the breaking down of borders. Traditionally identity is
thought to be formed because of various socio-political factors. But the unquestioning
acceptance or uncritical internalization of the traditional identity constructs results in the
non-realization of self or crisis in identity. Thamma’s life is an instance in point where
her identity is formed by her exposure to the dominant discourse. She only subscribes to
the dominant discourse of nationalism which highlights on the discreteness of borders.
But the narrator travels beyond the frontiers of nationality, culture etc. Unlike Thamma,
the narrator does not allow himself to get trapped in other’s discourse. This attempt to
question the dominant discourses forms his identity. However this critical enquiry into
the authenticity of borders undertaken by the narrator can be traced to the narrator’s class
position. Being a member of the bourgeois family the narrator can have the scope for
enquiring into the validity of various borders. On the other hand Thamma imbibes the
very spirit of the dominant culture of nationalism as a result of which she is easily caught
in the rhetoric of the dominant nationalism. Ila’s case points to the misunderstanding and
misappropriation of various ideologies. She earnestly gropes for freedom and this urge
unaccompanied by the rational scrutiny leads her to wrongly rush in a place where her
freedom is seriously curtailed. Her retort to Robi and the narrator in the night club, when
they refuse to allow her from dancing with a stranger, is marked by an uncontrollable
desire to become free from “bloody culture”. Evidently Ila is caught in the popular story
of freedom, culture furnished by the dominant western discourse. Ila embodies the
deleterious consequence of colonialism and particularly colonial education. Colonialism
champions itself through the systematic erasure and cancellation of the difference and
value of the non-west. As Ashis Nandi writes: “This colonialism colonises minds in
addition to bodies and it releases forces within societies to alter their cultural priorities
once for all. In the process, it helps to generalize the concept of the modern West from a
geographical category. The West is now everywhere, within the West and outside, in
structures and in minds.”(Nandy, P.xi).Therefore the post-colonial Ila internalizes the
dominant discourse of the West, particularly in its insistence on effeminate, irrational,
barbaric, superstitious, conservative non-West, Other of the West. Hence her desperate
attempt to make intimacy and subsequent marriage with Nick. Her make-believe story
about her doll Magda only metaphorically delineates her own marginalized position in
the western world so earnestly longed for. Even though Nick turns out to be good for
nothing she cannot complain or whimper. She has to lead a faithless conjugal life when
Nick becomes profligate. But at her last telephone conversation with the narrator she
denies any rift in her relation with Nick. This obviously highlights her helplessness and is
also an acknowledgement of the fact that attempt at reckless internalization of western
ideology of freedom presupposes acceptance of moral promiscuity. Ila believes that she
can belong to the West simply by denying everything that is non-West (specifically
Indian) and by emulating the West. Ila’s identity therefore is constructed in accordance
with her exposure to and uncritical acceptance of dominant ideologies. The identity she
chooses–cosmopolitan–can be traced to her social location. As a member of the affluent
family she is easily exposed to cosmopolitanism and western life style. Though she lives
in various places but she never travels a place. She never exercises her imagination and
thus the airport lounges are for her the ‘places to piss in’. Her situation reinforces the
plight of an individual not rooted in a particular place.
Amitav Ghosh here shows how various discourses play vital role in the formation of
identity of individuals. But the access to particular discourse is also limited by the social
position of an individual .The Shadow Lines seeks to challenge the givenness of identity
and its inviolability. Thus the quest for identity is a quest for self- knowledge about the
multiplicity of affiliations to which an individual subscribes. Even when various socio-
political realities operate through silence like the shadow lines, an individual’s perception
of the shadowiness of borders constitutes a step toward quest for identity.

WORKS CITED
Ghosh, Amitav: The Shadow Lines, New Delhi: Oxford University Pres, 1995(All
subsequent references are to this edition and cited as SL)
Mohanty, Satya P: “The Epistemic Status of Cultural Identity on Beloved and the
postcolonial Condition” Cultural Critique, (Reprinted in Reclaiming Identity edited by
Moya, Paula M.L. & Hames-Garcia Michael R, Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 2001)
Nandy, Ashis: The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism,
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983
Sen, Amartya: Identity and Violence The Illusion of Destiny, Great Britain: Allen Lane,
2006
Anderson, B: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, London: Verso, 1983
* Sukanta Das, Lecturer in English, P.D.Women’s College, Club Road, P.O.& Dist.-
Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101, ( R ) Vill.-Tupamari, Vivekananda Pally, P.O. & Dist.-
Jalpaiguri, Pin-735101