Untouchable describes a day in the life of a young sweeper, Bakha, who is denied even a chance to walk freely and in the open air because of his profession. The novel presents the caste system of rural India as its setting and depicts a series of significant images that constitute a complete composite of the life of an untouchable. The concept of mimicry has an additional dimension for Bakha. He doesn't just copy the colonial masters because he wants to be like them. While copying them, he also recognizes Western ideals as distinct and superior to those of his people, and simultaneously attempts to reconstruct his identity as a subhuman within the Indian caste system. Although the novel lacks a colonial discourse due to the marked physical absence of the colonial masters, Bakha along with other Indians' worship of the West constructs one that allows for the reinvention of Bakha's identity. This essay borrows from Homi K. Bhabha's discussion of colonial discourse and mimicry in his seminal book, The Location of Culture. Through his ideas, mimicry becomes a vehicle for colonial discourse and Untouchable is not simply a critique of the divisive caste system, but transcends it and becomes a colonial discourse that allows for the negotiation of the identity of the Untouchables. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayIn Colonialism as a Civilizing Mission, Melitta Waligora reveals that “the image of India dominated by a 'caste' society fixed hierarchy is the product of cooperation between colonial officials and certain Indian social groups. (143) » This knowledge is particularly important because the novel ostensibly deals with the caste system. The clear division of castes as well as Bakha's position as an Untouchable immediately introduce a colonial presence because it must be kept in mind that "the objective of colonial discourse is to conceive of the colonized as a population of degenerate types on the basis of racial origin, in order to justify conquest and establish systems of administration and instruction. (Bhabha 101) » Instead of the physical presence of the colonizers, the stream-of-consciousness narration in Bakha's thoughts introduces them. We understand that he aspires to resemble the "sahibs, superior people (11)" in his exterior - that if he "puts on their clothes (11)" he will "look like a sahib." (11) » It is in particular the presence of the hat which establishes a binary opposition between the colonizers and the colonized Indians. The hat is fetishized by Indians as a “symbol of authority”. (100) » Anand's narrative technique, along with the metaphorical presence of the colonizers emphasized through the clothing, establishes the place of the colonizers in the narrative space. Bakha's obsession is not only with the way they wear their clothes, but also with their lifestyle and the way they live. to live. He notes that "the Tommies lived, sleeping on strange low canvas beds covered with blankets, eating eggs, drinking tea and wine from tin cups, going to parades and then going down to the bazaar with cigarettes on hand." mouth and small silver objects. -hand-mounted rods. (11) » I quote at length because this awareness of a different way of life becomes Bakha's ideal way of life in his "English monkey mind" (55) and he gradually shows disdain towards the way of life of his people and even adopts some of its lifestyles. their habits, one of them being smoking. He was “ashamed of the Indian way of performing ablutions […] because he knew the Tommies didn’t like it. (18,emphasis mine)” In the end, Bakha even imitates the way of thinking of the colonizers. His adoration and mimicry of the colonizers goes from blind copying to denunciation of his culture. Graham Huggan explains very clearly the difference between mimicry and mimesis. He explains: “In mimicry, the dominant function is that of mischievous imitation, the kind of imitation that pays ironic homage to its object. Mimesis generally refers to a broader representational process that involves mediation between different worlds and people, essentially between different symbolic systems. (94) »In other words, mimicry is disruptive imitation while mimesis is symbolic representation. I would use its definition in my essay when referring to either term. Bakha's mimicry reveals the identity crisis of the colonizers. Mimicry involves a static representation of a subject such that there is an unchanging and defined aspect to mimic. The colonizers are simplified and reduced to one-dimensional characters where “identity becomes nothing more than props and costumes. (Fuchs 1)" In this case, the hat that "adorns the noblest part of the body (101)" becomes a metaphor for the colonizers, and Bakha's desire to wear it represents his belief that wearing it would make him more like them. His mimesis undermines the colonizers by showing how easily they can be reproduced and exposes their “ambivalence” as they “transform into an uncertainty that fixes the colonial subject as a “partial” presence. (Bhabha 123)” Bakha's understanding of identity is synonymous with outward appearance, that he becomes what he wears, and wearing the clothes of the colonizers would make him more like them and in turn lose his untouchability. However, this risks disrupting the identity of the colonizer and removing part of his authority as colonial master. To quote Bhabha, “the threat of mimicry lies in its double vision which, by revealing the ambivalence of colonial discourse, also disrupts its authority. (126) “Similarly, the ease with which Bakha sheds his Indianness reveals the ambivalent identity of the colonized subject, thus also subverting his collective identity. Throughout the narrative, the focus is on Bakha as a social abject, and we are constantly reminded that he is a source of pollution to his community. The treatment of Bakha by his community reflects their concern over their ambiguous position within colonial India as a Hindu caste and a colonized subject. The caste villagers treat him like a “dirty dog!” Son of a bitch! The offspring of a pig! (47)” but, as Bakha already realizes, they depend on him to clean up their waste because “they also hate excrement (52)”. As an Untouchable, he stands outside the caste, but is inextricably linked to it. Although the caste villagers are superior to Bakha, they do not forget that they are also subjects of colonial rule. Their anxiety manifests itself when they repeatedly emphasize Bakha's inferior position, because in doing so they assert their place within colonial India. By verbally and physically abusing Bakha, the villagers also remind themselves that they are not in the lowest hierarchy in colonial India. The repetition of Bakha as the Untouchable imprisons him in his title so that mimesis becomes a solution. The most significant encounter he has is when he enters the town and the Hindu caste accidentally brushes against him. The man immediately reprimands Bakha for not “yelling and warning me of your approach.” (47) » At first, there were times when Bakha became indignant and scolded himself for not fighting back (51).. 141-162.