The empire strikes back: Die Postkoloniale Indische Literatur von Aussen Nach Innen

The article, which is divided into five sections, the Indian-born author of German language attempts to illustrate/illuminate the particular hurdles to determining this subject as a genre. The works discussed by male and female authors vary tremndously one from another both in theme and in style. Among them are novels and stories in traditional narrative style by Naipaul, Ghosh, Lahiri… primarily grouped by major themes of immigration. At the same time that authors such as Rushdie, Roy, Tharoor... have been endeavoring to expand the vocabulary and conventions of the English language and to further modern narrative technique. Not only is the complex Indian subcontinent and its positive and negative realities portrayed and redefined, but as a parallel occurrence, rave stories and pop novels are being written by Rushdie and Kureishi. One must note here that English is not the mother tongue of any of these writers. The English language is used as an instrument of literary and artistic expression. This essay also expounds on examples of how “Indian Writing in English” differentiates itself clearly from “The Indian Romanticism” of European literature. The postcolonial writers point an admonishing finger to the wounds of India and they ruthlessly mock the inhumane regimes of Mrs. Thatcher and of Mr. Bush. One segment is devoted to the bizarre portrayal of love, gender and sex relations that makes the reading of the books in question vexing.

Postcolonial language : rejection and subversion

Postcolonial literature is often depicted as a form of cultural translation, a privileged space from which to rewrite history and retroactively reflect upon the colonial experience. Based on this notion of cultural translation, the article seeks to examine, respectively, Aimé Césaire’s Une Tempête (1969) and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986) as regards the “written-back” characters Caliban and Friday. Both characters will be compared and contrasted concerning their peculiar use of language as an instrument of power, subversion, and rejection of the European ruling.

Rethinking Polycentric Structures in the Postcolonial Church: Dangers of “Drone Missiology” or Afghanization of Christianity

In this brief essay I shall obviously draw from my reflections which I shared over the past three decades and to which I have provided some bibliographical references. It is clear from them that I had several opportunities to share my views beyond the Anglo-Saxon world, and some of them in events organized by K. Koschorke himself in the German academic circles as Munich-Freising Conferences. It is important that we do not get misled by words. We also need clarity of the concepts involved. Koschorke’s emphasis on “ploycentric structures” requires to be discussed and analysed critically to sort out its geographic components and its political-cultural implications, in order to be clear where lie the priorities. Without such exercise we will run the risk of hiding behind the ambiguity of words and concepts. My gut feelings make me believe that “polycentric structures” is just what the West needs in the postcolonial era to replace the control it has lost with decolonization.