Comparative textual analysis reveals how colonial rule restructured labor and caste in Indian fiction, highlighting a stylistic transition from social realism to transnational memory.
Colonialism and Socio-Cultural Transformation in the Novels of Mulk Raj Anand and Amitav Ghosh Shruti Singh Ashvini Joshi This comparative postcolonial paper analyses how novels by Mulk Raj Anand and Amitav Ghosh depict socio-cultural changes caused by colonialism. Anand's fiction reveals how the late-colonial caste system, labour and poverty led to the exploitation of people on plantations and that these issues were still being experienced by those living in the late-colonial period. Ghosh's writings consider the impact of colonialism after its end through the lens of memory, migration, trade and communities affected by displacement. The study employs a qualitative textual and comparative analysis, drawing from postcolonial theory: Said's critique of colonial discourse, Bhabha's notions of hybridity and the Third Space; Fanon's discussions of colonial violence; and Spivak's interest in representing the subaltern. The texts examined are Anand's Untouchable, Coolie and Two Leaves and a Bud and Ghosh's The Shadow Lines, Sea of Poppies and The Glass Palace. Anand illustrates colonialism through the routine humiliation of the subaltern body; Ghosh reconstructs colonialism through multiple transnational narratives that reflect migration, memory and cultural hybridisation. Each of these authors demonstrates that colonialism is not only a political phenomenon; it also restructures labour, caste, language, land, kinship, and belonging. Thus, the comparison of these two authors demonstrates a shift in Indian English fiction from straightforward social realism to historical postcolonial narration. At the same time, they both use a similar ethical centre in recovering lives that have been neglected by the official histories and asserting that social change has to be understood from an individual's point of view.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shruti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: