Commonwealth Literature Does Not Exist by Salman Rushdie

According to Rushdie, one of the rules, one of the ideas on which the edifice rests, is that literature is an expression of nationality. Literature is a general representation of cultural particularities  that is, literature varies from culture to culture, from one period to another. There is another element of literature that shocks the literary mind. A respectable literary piece, according to Rushdie must meet the demands of authenticity. Authenticity demands that sources, forms, style, language and symbol all derive from a supposedly homogenous and unbroken tradition.

There is where tragedy falls to the ground. What the term authenticity reveals, so much in the use inside the little world of Commonwealth literature would seem ridiculous outside this world. Now, the lexicon of Commonwealth literature (as it applies to the literary aspect of British colonialism) is an innovation. Literary critics often praise the achievements of Commonwealth literary figures, forgetting the most essential element of literature. Today, literary works are not mutually exclusive  in the sense that, they are simultaneously influenced by different cultures. In some Indian novels, both the form and style resemble that which Europeans used in the early 20th century. This is not an intentional event. Many of these writers are Western educated. As such, it is inevitable that their style would follow the Western model.

Commonwealth literature is therefore an unreliable face of historicity. It is neither founded on one form nor guided by an encompassing set of norms. Indeed, when one talks of Commonwealth literature, one needs to look beyond the borders of the nation-state  to the land of the West. In short, according to Rushdie, Commonwealth literature is an encompassing myth.