One of the major points of Rushdies Imaginary Homelands is the idea of living in the past. But the difference between this essay and the other works we have read is that he isn’t necessarily sad about the past, he’s more nostalgic. In a lot of pop psychology and Buddhist literature, It is seen that one should only live in the present as living in the past will create a longing that’s not only not based in reality, but is also based from a biased point of view. In essence, you’re living in the past but that’s only in your head.  He also asks a paradoxical question. “What does it mean to be Indian outside of India?” It begs a question thstbRushdie is getting at, everything changes shape based on a point of view that can’t ever be touched, he’s being haunted by identity of past, and even though he doesnt see anythi g wrong with it, he’s self aware enough to know he’s only seeing it the way he wants to see the past.

“America a nation of immigrants, has created great literature out of the phenomenon of cultural transplantation, out of examining the ways in which people cope with a new world: it may be that by discovering what we have in common with those who preceded us into this country we can do the same” (Rushdie 1312).

I find this piece of literary work very interesting, because Rushdie explores the phenomena of how a past time (old photographs) led her to realize how much she wanted to restore her own past of herself. I find that we all have parts of us buried and hidden to the world, maybe even ourselves, but we are the only ones that can explore the idea of trying to find clarify. When we find clarity on the mysterious past we may or may not recollect it allows us to see and visualize the world in such a different way. Colors we’ve always seen, seem to be so visceral and pungent, because we now have an alternate perception on what we know to be true. 

Rushdie also then goes on to explain this divide that’s occurred through migration, displacement and life in a minority group. These aspects change the path in which one looks through, and tries to maneuver  through life. Life is difficult and tradition can sometimes put limitations on how we are able to truly live in this world. The expectations of life can be diluted depending on how one decides to live – through others or for yourself.

Rushdie discusses the process of crossing cultures and how they create challenges on the basis of who we are as cultural beings. The crossing of cultures allows opportunities for new learning and growth, it gives us the an understanding of not only people from different cultures and their culture in a new environment but an awareness of our home culture. Rushdie explains the importance of being open to crossing cultures, but also to not disregard our former personalities and the cultures which we were born into. Rushdie reflects on this process of self-discovery as he has experienced it in his own life as an immigrant coming to Britain. First he is a Muslim in predominantly Hindi India, then as an Indian migrant to Pakistan, followed by an Indian-Pakistani living in Britain. Rushdie experiences cross-cultural experiences first hand. He explores the familiarity of his home and the freedom of the unknown by living in different culture. 

     In this essay, Rushdie discusses how memories and identities can become fragmented and lost through cultural displacement.  He describes how being an immigrant makes him feel as if he is alienated from his native country when he says “…our physical alienation from India almost inevitably means that we will not be capable of reclaiming precisely the thing that was lost.” He describes his own memories of his past life in Bombay being fractured through dislocation, yet he still remembers the more trivial, yet profound aspects of his past. Rushdie explains that this theme of fragmented memories and identity is reflected through the character Saleem in Midnight’s Children. This made me wonder if this is a common theme in his works since his other novel, The Satanic Verses, deals with a similar concept. He poses the question on how Indian writers in British society can preserve their native identities while also embracing Western traditions to which he responds that they “have access to a second tradition”. I liked this idea on how immigrants can find common ground from their experiences and use this sense of displacement through their writings.  

“There is an obvious parallel here with archeology. The broken pots of antiquity, from which the past can sometimes, but always provisionally, be reconstructed, are exciting to discover, even if they are pieces of the most quotidian objects.” (Rushdie 1310)

Rushdie’s comparison of literary interpretations of the past to archeologists digging up broken pottery and prescribing meaning to it is actually quite enlightening. As writers, if we are documenting the past, we are picking out moments of time that might be significant or they are simply enjoyable. The pottery found by archeologist might be an ancient ceremonial cultural relic or someone’s water pitcher that their least favorite aunt gave them, but in interpreting its value, archeologists add meaning to it. Reflecting on the past makes the past more meaningful, we have, as a society, the hope that we will learn from the past- instead of clay pots, we use plastic water jugs because they are cheaper, faster to produce, and break less. Right now the plastic water jug does not have the distance of time or space to make it significant, but in 100 years, the perspective of its importance might change as society reinflates the importance of the plastic jug.

In “Imaginary Homelands,” Indian author; Salman Rushdie, states that Indian writers (however loosely that term may be applied) “can’t simply use the [English] language in the way the British did; that it needs remaking for our own purposes” (Rushdie 1311). 

What Rushdie means is that, for an Indian author joining the English writing tradition, the burden is placed upon them to find their own voice and a voice that sets them apart from other British authors (assuming they want to be set apart at all). To simply copy someone like Dickens, or Bowen, or Orwell is not enough. Having two cultural traditions to draw from yet not truly belonging to either, like Rushdie, the Indian author must draw from both to create their own identity if they are to truly represent any kind of unique experience within the canon of literature written in the English language. This goes for any writer of migrant decent, whether they he Indian like Rushdie or Polish like Joseph Conrad. Rushdie argues that one way to find your national voice is to build a literary family, authors who you choose to draw inspiration from. For him, this family tree is comprised of the likes of Kafka, Cervantes, and Melville. Each of these authors hail from varying national backgrounds but Rushdie chooses each one to create his own literary tradition. 

It is the burden of the Indian writer (once again, however loosely that term is applied) to find their own cultural identity within English literature. However, they are also at an advantage in that, as far as cultures go, they have two major traditions from which they can pull inspiration, build a tradition, create their own identity. This is, of course, an advantage any writer has. But from a nationalistic perspective, where authors are expected to represent entire demographics based on their own ethnic origin, the concept of using English to do this can be tricky to navigate. As Rushdie suggests, carefully selecting your inspirations as a writer can give you an edge in standing out amid the other writers who utilize the English language. Simply writing about India is not enough. E. M. Forster writes of India and even features an Indian protagonist in A Passage to India, but this does not make him an Indian author. No, to be considered an Indian author it seems that one must go beyond characters and setting, even if those characters and that setting are familiar to the author. One must focus on style, prose, and technique when writing; they must find some way to stand out from the rest of the pack if they are to be seen as true storytellers of their own national experience. 

“it’s my present that is foreign, and that the past is home, albeit a lost home in a lost city in the mists of time.” 

This quote really caught my attention, because it talks about how circumstances can change. How, even if we are no longer in one place or grew up away from where our parents originally came from, those places of the past are still a part of us. We grow up in the home of our parents, and the places that they grew up in, influence the way they raise us. Culturally, India is very different from Britain, they have a different set of values and different rules of society than Britain, those values are embedded in our parents who grew up there, and those same values are given to us as we grow up. No matter where you live now, what you do, you should always remember your roots, even as lost as they are, they are still a part of you, no matter how “fragmented” your memory of those roots may be.