First published in London 1937, Halide Edip’s “Inside India” projects a portion of Indian society of and Indian Independence movement at 1935. In this short essay, I will mention Halide Edip’s position as a writer in the colonial era of India by referring to specific passages from her text. In so doing, I will be illustrating the issue with a touch upon Aijaz Ahmad’s and Arif Dirlik’s approaches to the notions of orientalism and postcolonialism. Moreover, I’ll be analyzing Halide Edip’s understanding of “nationhood” which bears the contradistinction of Eastern as the spiritual and the Western as the materialist by referring to Partha Chaterjee’s definition of anticolonial nationalisms. I consider “Inside India” as a text of demythologization and a text of re-mythologization concurrently; Edip, on the one hand presents a “postcolonial” picture of India of 30’s, yet her travel accounts, together with the lectures which were published under the title of “The Conflict of East and West in Turkey”, intends to constitute a feeling of “totality” by means of “nationhood” which, according to Georges Bataille, the very requirement for the modern myth of which contemporary society is in need.[1]

Inside India as a Postcolonial Text of Literature
Halide Edip visited India at 1935 and delivered lectures at National Muslim University in New Delhi which were afterwards published under the title, “Conflict of East and West in Turkey”.[2] In the same year at January, Mahatma Gandhi the leader of Indian independence movement chaired Halide Edip’s lecture at the university. He also gave an interview to her about the conditions of the independence movement in India.[3] One should also be reminded of the fact that Halide Edip worked as a visiting professor at Columbia University during the 1931-32 academic year at the times when she was hailed as an “exotic, woman revolutionary” at the American press.[4] An exile from her own country, Halide Edip was a well known and a celebrated figure in Britain, United States and India beginning with 1925’s. The question, what might be the reasons why she was so popular needs an extensive investigation of the perception of Halide Edip in these countries by means of the media comments, books and other documents, which can open up a fruitful discussion for the purposes of a more extensive paper. Therefore, for the intentions of this paper, in this section I will briefly mention the importance of Halide Edip’s “Inside India” as a “postcolonial” work of literature.
Halide Edip’s “Inside India” is basically the travel accounts of her visit to India in 1935. The book consists of not only physical observations but also theoretical approaches to Indian independence movement. In the preface, Halide Edip mentions her promise to Dr. Ansari whom she met in 1913 at Constantinople, to write a book about his country after her visit. One of the popular intellectuals of the Muslim community in India, Dr. Ansari was present in Turkey during 1910’s, as the official of the Indian Muslims to help the Turkish army during war-time, since their aims was to preserve the Caliphate. Halide Edip went to India in a time when the Indian Muslims were still shocked due to the abolition of the Caliphate. Yet she wasn’t present there as a representative of Turkish Kemalist government. For example, in her accounts she cites Lenin and Gandhi as the two great leaders of the century whereas Mustafa Kemal doesn’t occupy her interests.[5]
And what’s more, in her lectures “Conflict of East and West in Turkey” she provides an alternative narrative of Turkish Independence movement and the social reforms and revolutions between 1919 and 1935, in which she doesn’t stress Mustafa Kemal as the leader who provided salvation for the whole country; she rather characterizes the Independence movement and the reform acts as the work of “the People” as she states, regarding the foundation of Constituent Assembly in 1923: “It was the first government in the East created by the people and acting for the people.”[6] Edip’s insistence of “the people” throughout her lectures has two implications: First, as mentioned, she provides an alternative account of Turkish history which was mainly based on what Mustafa Kemal stated in “Speech”, that is, basically on the basis of the leader, Ataturk who founded the National Assembly and brought about the ways of salvation for the nation. The emphasis on “the people” represents Edip’s acquisition to achieve “totality” during the nation-building process, which I’ll explain in the following sections. Second, one should also bear in mind that the narrative of “Inside India” is also based on “the people” through the emphasis of “nationhood” instead of “nationalism”. Besides, her accounts consist of the different narratives of Indian intellectuals from the Hindu leader Gandhi to socialist leader Jawaharlal and also the “ordinary” agents of the process of the movement of independence whose lives Edip delve into throughout the first two chapters of her book, “India Seen Through the Salam House” and “India Seen on Highways and Byways”. In that regard, Edip highlights the very agencies of the individuals who were altogether involved in the independence movement. Accordingly, she prefers to use the word “nationhood” and not “nationalism” since “the former brings into play and harmonises inner forces in all their variety from a utilitarian and an aesthetic point of view, while the latter may cause inner disintegration and create conflict with the surrounding peoples.”[7] These two implications of Halide Edip altogether point out her intentions of achieving the feelings of “unity” and “totality” during the process of nation building. Additionally, in virtue of her insistence on “the people” as nation builders both in the case of Turkey and India, Edip actualizes a postcolonial critique which emphasizes the power and the agency of the East which is supposed to be created and dominated by the West.
We already said that Edip’s political position doesn’t pertain to a Kemalist one although in “Conflict of East and West in Turkey” she champions the reform acts of the Republic. Rather, her position pertains to an independent one; throughout her visit she only clings to her Muslim identity. Besides, she is known as an anti-colonialist and a revolutionary scholar and a critic among Indian intellectuals. However, strangely Halide Edip’s “Inside India” was never translated and published in Turkish. Despite the fact that she is very popular with her novels regarding the national independence movement of Turkey such as “Ateşten Gömlek” and “Vurun Kahpeye”, Halide Edip didn’t receive any attention for her very original work “Inside India” in which as an “Eastern” and as a woman scholar, she provides a “postcolonial” account of India in a time when India was still under the rule of a colonial power of Britain.
Mushirul Hasan also notes that Halide Edip’s account of India was dismissed due to various reasons: “Presumably, the reflections of Halide Edip are ignored simply because she asks disturbing questions – questions that do not fit into established historical canons.” He further states that “the neglect of so important a work is largely due to our dependence on intellectual resources from the West, our anxiety to adopt their frameworks and models, and in some cases, to assiduously nurture the Orientalist vision and representation of India.”[8] Then what are the ways in which Halide Edip’s India differs from its orientalist or Western representations? In this regard, Hasan provides an explanation: “she was not interested in imagining, inscribing, or inventing India, but rather in unfolding its multifaceted personality.” Besides, her understanding of India was anchored in the historical and sociological insights she had during her stay in 1935.[9]
The first part of the book is named “India Seen Through Salam House” in which she makes observations of the conditions of Indian Muslim intellectuals in the process of the independence movement. She forefronts important intellectuals including some women activists and analyzes their relations to Gandhi by referring to her specific conversations with those intellectuals. The second chapter of the book is called “India Seen on Highways and Byways” in which she gives an extensive account of important Indian cities such as Bombay, Lahore, Calcutta and Hyderabad. She recounts the Indian way of life as it is lived in 1935 and relates her observations and sociological analysis to the conditions of Indian Independence movement leaded by Mahatma Gandhi. In the last and the third section of the book named “India in the Melting-Pot”, she develops a more historical and political analysis regarding the independence movement; she comments on important figures of the movement such as the Hindu leader Gandhi, the socialist leader Jawaharlal, the idea of single-nationhood of Abdul-Gaffar Khan and lastly the position of the British in 1935. Halide Edip’s accounts develop by constantly referring to the ideas and sayings of these intellectuals; as Hasan suggests, Halide Edip doesn’t image or inscribe India, but she manifests the “active agents” of India of 1935 by means of her book. She provides an intellectual and a scholarly space for those agents to express their very activism during the struggle against colonialism.
Aijaz Ahmad quotes Edward Said who defines Orientalism “as a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction between “the Orient” and “the Occident”.”[10] According to Ahmad, Said speaks of “the West, or Europe, as the one which produces knowledge, the East as the object of that knowledge. In other words, he seems to posit stable subject-object identities, as well as ontological and epistemological distinctions between the two.”[11] Halide Edip’s “Inside India” provides a counter example of Said’s intervention; for the ways in which this time, it is Halide Edip, an Eastern scholar who produces knowledge on the East. And what’s more important is Halide Edip’s position in producing that knowledge. Halide Edip, rather than providing an account of India as consisting of passive, colonized, stable subjects of the Occident, insists on the active agencies of the Indian intellectuals who undertake a mission of overthrowing the colonial rule. Eventually, Halide Edip’s “Inside India” stands as a counter example to the Foucauldian view that Ahmad summarizes, that is, “he (Foucault) insists that it is a Western episteme; about the rest of humanity he makes no claim to knowledge.”[12] By means of her book, Halide Edip becomes a scholar who produces an episteme as opposed to those were put forth by the Western scholars. As Hasan remarks, “she (Halide Edip) sums up aspects of Indian nationalism, points to its strengths and weaknesses, underlines its encounters with colonialism, and explores the rising tide of Muslim nationalism.”[13]
Accordingly, Ahmad mentions the intention of Said’s Orientalism to encourage writing “counter-history” for the Orient, and that is which Halide Edip actualizes in her accounts of India.[14] By emphasizing the active agencies of the Indian intellectuals during the struggle of Indian independence movement, Halide Edip’s book corresponds to Saidian humanism, as opposed to Foucauldian anti-humanism which underscores the definite construction of the episteme on the Orient by the West. Ahmad highlights what he considers as one of the major complaints of Edward Said as that “from Aeschylus onwards the West has never permitted the Orient to represent itself; it has represented the Orient.”[15] Yet in virtue of “Inside India” it is the Orient which represents itself. Hence Halide Edip maintains a revolutionary stance with regard to the debates on orientalism and colonialism. Moreover, Halide Edip’s account of India becomes a reaction against orientalist intention, which Ahmad quotes from Said as “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.”[16]
I would like to remark that the act of writing a “counter-history” was also the intention of Edip in “Conflict of East and West in Turkey”. There she aimed to produce an episteme which was distinct from the one of Mustafa Kemal. Hence Edip acquires two seemingly opposite yet interrelated positions: On the one hand she reacts against the knowledge production by the revolutionary Kemalists in Turkey, while propagating the knowledge production of Indian revolutionaries on the other. This explains well why Halide Edip prefers nationhood over nationalism: The episteme produced by Kemalists was based on the sense of “nationalism” whereas the Indian intellectuals forefront “nationhood” in producing an anticolonial knowledge.
After having examined Halide Edip’s position within the discussions of orientalism, we can now briefly explain the question whether Halide Edip is a postcolonial writer or not, and if she is one, in what sense. Indeed, Arif Dirlik asks the question, “Who exactly are the postcolonial intellectuals?” According to him, “now that postcoloniality has been released from the fixity of Third World location, the identity of the postcolonial is no longer structural but discursive.” Dirlik further states that “postcolonial in this perspective represents an attempt to regroup intellectuals of uncertain location under the banner of postcolonial discourse.” By paying attention to what Dirlik says regarding the postcolonial intellectual, one can conclude that Halide Edip’s position pertains to a postcolonial one since she carves up a “discursive” space within “Inside India” by which she puts forth an episteme of the Orient by the Orient in virtue of a literary space as mentioned before.
Moreover, Dirlik propounds further explanations regarding the postcolonial intellectual when he says, “intellectuals in the flesh may produce the themes that constitute postcolonial discourse, but it is participation in the discourse that defines them as postcolonial intellectuals.”[17] Halide Edip’s travel accounts and her extensive observations on Indian Independence movement in 1935, proves her participation in the discourse that she manifests and recounts. In this respect Hasan notes that “there is passion in her writings, and anger against colonialism and colonial exploitation. There is commitment in her description of India’s nationalist movement and its leader, and a desire to see their efforts reach fruition during her lifetime.”[18] For that manner “postcolonial, rather than a description of anything, is a discourse that seeks to constitute the world in the self-image of intellectuals who view themselves (or have come to view themselves” as postcolonial intellectuals.”[19] It is hard to say that Halide Edip defined herself as “postcolonial” writer since the term wasn’t invented yet at 1935. However, it is crucial to see that Halide Edip doesn’t only provide a description of India but she also participates to that very discursive area constituted by not only Halide Edip herself, but also by all Indian intellectuals to whom “Inside India” refers.
Halide Edip as the Reconciler of the East and the West
When describing the advance of anticolonial nationalisms, Chatterjee distinguishes the “material domain” from the “spiritual domain” at which anticolonial nationalisms declare their sovereignty. On the contrary, the material domain is occupied with the Western ideals of economy, statecraft, science and technology; the spaces where “the West had proved its superiority and the East had succumbed.” As opposed to the material domain dominated by those Western ideals, Chatterjee argues that anticolonial nationalisms reserve room for the “spiritual” in order to maintain its own domain of sovereignty. For Chatterjee, the spiritual is “an ‘inner’ domain bearing the “essential” marks of cultural identity.” What he further proposes as the fundamental feature of anticolonial nationalisms in Asia and Africa is that; “the greater one’s success in imitating Western skills in the material domain, therefore, the greater the need to preserve the distinctness of one’s spiritual culture.” In this respect, she illustrates the ways in which the spiritual domain is constituted and maintained by means of three main areas; language, school and family.[20]
Halide Edip’s theoretical approach in “Conflict of East and West in Turkey” is similar to Chatterjee’s. She distinguishes the Eastern mind from the Western mind as the former maintains spirituality while the latter’s unique characteristic is materiality.[21] Moreover, according to Halide Edip, “the individual of the East is the possessor of a marked and unique personality.” The individual of the East managed this “simply by detaching his mind from material worldly realities.” [22] The “uniqueness” that she underscores corresponds to what Chatterjee defines as “the essential marks of cultural identity” within the spiritual domain.
Halide Edip adds further to Chatterjee’s arguments when she acknowledges that the East and the West should cooperate. She intends to reconcile the two notions, materiality (of the West) and spirituality (of the East) which for Chatterjee mark the crucial distinction between the East and the West. According to Edip, this cooperation can occur when the East “feels itself equal with the West…” In addition the necessity of equality, the two “must also possess mutually valuable things to exchange.” Halide Edip further remarks that this reconciliation or cooperation is taking place since a group of people in the West began to realize the superiority of Eastern philosophy while at the same time the East began to take steps for improvement of its material life due to its realization of the lack of materiality as opposed to the West.[23] Therefore she champions the policies of Gandhi, who is “trying to regenerate the Eastern villager economically and morally, while he is fighting against a too rapid industrialization.”[24] Gandhi founds his anticolonial nationalism on the basis of not only spirituality but also economy which for Chatterjee is a material domain dominated by the West. Yet Edip insists that Gandhi’s operation within that material domain is a unique one indeed; Gandhi not only operates within the domain of the spiritual in his revolutionary ideals but also within materiality to the extent that it excludes and alters Western domination and power. Gandhi proposes a new understanding of materiality which is distinct from the Western one; and for Edip, it resembles the “Ahi” organization in 13th century Anatolia.[25] The ideal figure of an anticolonial revolutionary is depicted by Halide Edip as the leader who combines the materiality of the West with the spirituality of the East. Moreover, Gandhi is more than an anticolonial revolutionary for Halide Edip when she states: “Both the Eastern and the Western world should study him seriously for he is offering one of the ways which may lead to the salvation, not only of the East but also of the West, by enabling it to cooperate with a free, strong, moral and peaceful East.”[26]
I would like to remind, not to confuse the reader that I do not exactly refer to the reconciliation of East and West for explaining the endeavor towards achieving “totality” in Indian case and the ways Halide Edip refers to it. Yet this reconciliation is one minor component of this totality. The idea of reconciling this kind of a Cartesian dualism bears the intentions of creating a civilization which is universal. Indeed, this was also the intention of German romantics of 19th century, through a creation of a “modern mythology”. Now let us briefly examine “Inside India” with regard to the notion of “myth” and in the meantime explain what we mean by “totality”.
Edip’s India as the Living Myth
The studies on mythology began in the late 18th century with the group “Athenaeum” founded by August Wilhelm Schlegel and Friedrich Schlegel and consisting of other romanticist thinkers such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ludwig Tieck and Novalis. The Idealists J. G. Fichte and F. W. Schelling were also connected to the group. Among the circle, Friedrich Schlegel was the leading figure to propagate the need for a new mythology for contemporary society:
“Our poetry lacks a focal point, such as mythology was for the ancients; and once could summarize all the essentials in which modern poetry is inferior to the ancient in these words: “We have no mythology. But, I add, we are close to obtaining one or, rather, it is time that we earnestly work together to create one.”[27]
“Poetry” for Schlegel meant more than verses; Ernst Behler and Roman Struc explain that poetry in Schlegel appears to be “a certain faculty of the human mind belonging to man’s very essence, like reason or imagination.” According to Schlegel, poetry was “the primordial power of mankind.” The artist, more precisely the poet, for Schlegel assumes an extraordinary position as his task is “to decipher the significance of Being and to reveal the mysteries of the universe.” Hence, the poetic imagination is nothing but “a higher potency of the imaginative faculty shared by all men.”[28]
As mentioned, Schlegel insists on the urgent need of a new mythology, a modern one indeed. His interest in Indian myth derives from this intention. His 1808 book, “On the Language and Wisdom of India” was no surprise for that manner. In “Dialogue on Poetry”, he states:
“But to accelerate the genesis of the new mythology, the other mythologies must also be reawakened according to the measure of their profundity, their beauty and their form. If only the treasures of the Orient were as accessible to us as those of Antiquity.”
For Schlegel, Indians were not in recognition of what they were possessing as myth, which is actually their secret gate of salvation. It is the Germans’ duty to translate all their works, study them and remind Indians of great treasure of which they are unaware:
“What new source of poetry could then flow from India if a few German artists with their catholicity and profundity of mind, with the genius for translation which is their own, had the opportunity which a nation growing ever more dull and brutal barely knows how to use.”[29]
Schlegel was first to found a university chair of Sanskrit in Germany and he was the translator of many Indian myths to German.[30]
Romantic Movement was the first serious attempt in Europe towards exploring Indic myths. As Feldman and Richardson suggest, in the time of Romantics, with the Schlegels and Novalis, the Indic myth becomes “the epitome of primal spiritual purity, innocence, and cosmic-human harmony.” Besides, according to August Schlegel, Indian religion was the source underlying all religions.[31] In the meantime, F. Schlegel was dissatisfied that the Indians were not aware of what they possess was a myth by the help of which “religious, historic and moral dualities” within the Orient and the Occident as Said would call, could be reconciled. Schlegel’s ideas of reconciliation pave the way for the studies of “comparative philology”, [32] by means of which the Indian society can be awakened and a universal reconciliation could be sustained. The problematic aspect of Schlegel’s suggestions reside in what we mentioned in the beginning section of this paper, that is, the construction of the episteme on the East by the West. The position of German romantics pertains to an orientalist one since it is the “German artist” who has the duty to translate all the Indic myths, study them and “teach” them to Indian nation that is “growing ever more dull and brutal”.
There is no doubt that “myth” was also instrumental in nation building processes throughout 19th century. Besides, as mentioned the interest toward Indian mythology increased since the intervention of German romantics. In the meantime, the discipline of philology served to the knowledge production on the East by the West. Although Schlegel’s ambition to reconcile the dualism of Orient and Occident was also the case for Halide Edip, he nevertheless maintains an orientalist outlook since he is in the position to produce episteme on the East on the basis of the inferiority of the East and the superiority of the West over the East. Besides, A. Schlegel’s depiction of Indian religion as the religion underlying all other religions is not realistic when one is reminded of the fact that there was not a “single” religion existent in India. A. Schlegel’s approach is much more philosophical, and it seems that those “artists”, most of who are philologists, are brainstorming on the epistemological domain which they themselves created with regard to the East. In that regard, Halide Edip’s position in 1935 is postcolonial and distinct from those who are only interested in the mythical entity of Indian past. Her account of India in “Inside India” is very demythologizing as she portrays India as a vibrant community moving towards independence not because they are the inheritors of an Eastern mythology as 19th century philologists would carefully “remind”. Rather she insists on the “spiritual” character of the Easterners as the distinguishing remark from the West and by which the independence will be achieved.
Although Halide Edip presents a demythologizing and a postcolonial account of India in her book, her narrative nevertheless maintains mythical intentions for mainly two reasons: First, Halide Edip’s depiction of Gandhi in “Inside India” corresponds to the romantic depiction of the “artist” who has the ability and the responsibility to transform the world. Second, Halide Edip’s insistence of “unity” and “totality” among Indian people coincide with the intention of theoreticians of myth regarding the abolition of fragmentary existence of humanity by replacing it with a “total” experience of the world.
In the concluding paragraph of “Conflict of East and West in Turkey” Halide Edip declares:
“All Hindu Indians should support him and serve him in this work, for he is the only person capable of using the best in Hinduism and of sorting out the superstitious, the degenerative elements which have crept into it. All Muslim Indians should also support him, and further his cause, for his synthesis is dominated in its fundamentals by the everlasting principles of Islam… Both the Eastern and the Western world should study him for he is offering one of the ways which may lead to the salvation, not only of the East but also of the West, by enabling it to cooperate with a free, strong, moral and peaceful East.”[33]
For Halide Edip, the existence of Gandhi is essential for he is the crucial agent who harmonizes “the spiritual” with “the material”. When considered in a wider picture, her contention can be interpreted as the reconciliation of the Orient and the Occident in Saidian terminology. On the other hand in Schelling’s terms, Gandhi is the harbinger of a universal unity which humanity needs to achieve in order to reproduce a modern mythology; since “myth” for Schlegel points back to what poetry seemed to be in the primal beginnings of the human race, a unity of thought, art and belief which can be realized in the future.[34] The artist, for Halide Edip, of this modern myth is Mahatma Gandhi. What’s more, that myth is a “living” one, and progressing day to day. It is a living myth.[35] It continually looks to the future. The livingness of the myth is revealed by Halide Edip in the beginning of “Inside India”: “India is no longer ‘was’: it is very much ‘is’.”[36]
Furthermore, this living myth around the personality of Gandhi is narrated in Inside India as follows:
“… At the moment it was the atmosphere rather than the motionless figure of Mahatma Gandhi that took hold of the crowd. He was only a unit. Yet I watched him. By some freak of light, or rather because of the thinnes of his shoulders, his draperies stood out both sides in sharp angles. Everything about him seemed to have fallen into a geometrical shape. Wrapt in that white mantle, his shoulders two sharp edges, his face immobile, he looked like Buddha.”[37]
In some instances she cites people talking about Gandhi; for example:
“He has a magnetic personality; everyone who comes in touch with him loses all capacity for clear judgment – everyone who knows him becomes too emotional to be trusted to be objective.”[38]
Toward a Conclusion: Postcolonial Condition = the Modern Mythology?
Halide Edip ends “Inside India” with a quote from Jane Adams who states; “No one is going to get up by himself; we must all go up together if we go up at all.”[39] In addition to the reason regarding the personality of Gandhi as an “artist” in the process of nation building, Halide Edip’s account of India is also mythical for its intentions with regard to the idea of “totality.” In examining the relation between myth and contemporary society, Georges Bataille suggests:
“A myth thus cannot be assimilated to the scattered fragments of a dissociated group. It is in solidarity with total existence, of which it is the tangible expression.”[40]
Bataille’s interpretation contends that Western civilization is too much fragmented and individualized; therefore it needs to achieve a feeling of totality (which is the crucial characteristic of myth) for a better future of humanity. For Halide Edip, Gandhi is the artist who would raise this feeling of total existence as a nation. In politically practical terms, “nationhood” as an anticolonial type of nationalism in Chatterjee’s terms, is a solution for achieving that feeling of totality.
Halide Edip’s “Inside India” marks the common point where the possibility of mythology finds room for its existence in postcolonial social critique and literature. Halide Edip portrays the evolution of a “living myth” of Indians produced by the artist, Mahatma Gandhi, who holds the control over the episteme in order to demolish Western domination and to carve out a space of power for his community which altogether achieves the feeling of total existence and experience with people from various ethnic and religious grounds. Mahatma Gandhi is depicted by Halide Edip as a figure whose religiosity is transcendental to all religions; he is the religion himself.
Friedrich Schelling in “Introduction to the Philosophy of Mythology” propounds the idea that mythology is a totality, “in its unbroken unity through all the Moments of a perpetual activity and movement… True religion will be the last mythology which reunites all previous Moments.”[41] Those previous “Moments” which Schelling refers consist of, in the context that Halide Edip investigates both in “Inside India” and in “Conflict of East and West in Turkey”, the sum of colonial and orientalist conditions and the distinction between East and the West where the West is the absolute sovereign and the determinant of the episteme on the East. The result of the independence movement is a living mythology created by the “artist” Gandhi who is determined to end the colonial rule, reunite the “Moments” in course of achieving firstly the national and consequently the universal totality in which the spiritual and the material domains are harmonized in accordance with the newly emerged “modern mythology”.
Works Cited
Aijaz Ahmad, “Orientalism and After: Ambivalence and Metropolitan Location in the Work of Edward Said”, Ch. 5 In Theory, Verso 1992
Arif Dirlik, “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 20, 1994.
Burton Feldman & Robert Richardson. “The Rise of Modern Mythology: 1680-1860” Indiana University Press. 1972.
Edward Said. “Orientalism”. Vingate, New York. 1979. P
Friedrich Schlegel. Dialogue on poetry and literary aphorisms. Translated, introduced, and an­notated by Ernst Behler & Roman Struc. University Park, Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1968.
Georges Bataille, “Visions of excess: selected writings, 1927-1939”. University of Minnesota Press. 1985.
Halide Edip. “Inside India”. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. 2002.
Halide Edip. “Conflict of East and West in Turkey”, Jamia Press, Delhi. 1935
Partha Chatterjee, “The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories” Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey
Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy, “The Nazi Myth”. in Critical Inquiry, vol. 16, no.2 (Winter 1990). pp. 291-312. University of Chicago Press.

[1] Georges Bataille, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, in “Visions of excess: selected writings, 1927-1939”. University of Minnesota Press. 1985. p.232
[2] Mushirul Hasan, “Enduring Encounters: Halide Edib’s Image of India and Turkey” in “Inside India”. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. 2002., p.IX
[3] Ibid., p.lxvii
[4] Ibid., p.xxvi
[5] Halide Edip. “Inside India”, Oxford University Press. New Delhi. 2002. p.201
[6] Halide Edip. “Conflict of East and West in Turkey”, Jamia Press. Delhi. 1935. p.110
[7] Ibid., p.243
[8] Mushirul Hasan, “Enduring Encounters: Halide Edib’s Image of India and Turkey” in “Inside India”. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. 2002. p.ix
[9] Ibid., p.x
[10] Edward Said. “Orientalism”. Vingate, New York. 1979. p.2
[11] Aijaz Ahmad, “Orientalism and After: Ambivalence and Metropolitan Location in the Work of Edward Said”, Ch. 5, In Theory, Verso 1992. p.183
[12] Ibid., p.165
[13] Mushirul Hasan, “Enduring Encounters: Halide Edib’s Image of India and Turkey” in “Inside India”. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. 2002. p.x
[14] Aijaz Ahmad, “Orientalism and After: Ambivalence and Metropolitan Location in the Work of Edward Said”, Ch. 5, In Theory, Verso 1992p.161
[15] Ibid., p.172
[16] Ibid., p.184
[17] Arif Dirlik, “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 20, 1994. pp. 296-97
[18] Mushirul Hasan, “Enduring Encounters: Halide Edib’s Image of India and Turkey” in “Inside India”. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. 2002. p.ix-x
[19] Arif Dirlik, “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” Critical Inquiry, Vol. 20, 1994. p.302
[20] Partha Chatterjee, “The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories” Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey. p.6
[21] Halide Edip. “Conflict of East and West in Turkey”, Jamia Press. Delhi. 1935. pp.224-225
[22] Ibid., p.3
[23] Ibid., p.242
[24] Ibid., p.245
[25] Ibid., p.246
[26] Ibid., p.247
[27] Friedrich Schlegel. Dialogue on poetry and literary aphorisms. Translated, introduced, and an­notated by Ernst Behler & Roman Struc. University Park, Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1968. p.81
[28] Ernst Behler & Roman Struc. “The Position of Friedrich Schlegel’s Dialogue on Poetry within the Romantic Movement” in “Dialogue on Poetry and Literary Aphorisms”. 1968. pp.15-16-17
[29] Friedrich Schlegel. Dialogue on poetry and literary aphorisms. Translated, introduced, and an­notated by Ernst Behler & Roman Struc. University Park, Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1968, p.86-87
[30] Burton Feldman & Robert Richardson. “The Rise of Modern Mythology: 1680-1860” Indiana University Press. 1972. p.307
[31] Ibid., p.350
[32] Ibid., pp. 351-352
[33] Halide Edip. “Conflict of East and West in Turkey” Jamia Press. Delhi. 1935. p.247
[34] Burton Feldman & Robert Richardson. “The Rise of Modern Mythology: 1680-1860” Indiana University Press. 1972. p.307
[35] I refer to Pierre Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy in using the term “living myth” which they use in order to define the “Nazi Myth”. Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy, “The Nazi Myth”, in Critical Inquiry, vol. 16, no.2 (Winter 1990). pp. 299-300
[36] Halide Edip. “Inside India”. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. 2002. p.5
[37] Ibid., p.36
[38] Ibid., p.34
[39] Ibid., p.248
[40] Georges Bataille, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, in “Visions of excess: selected writings, 1927-1939”. University of Minnesota Press. 1985. p.232
[41] Friedrich W. J. Schelling. “Introduction to the Philosophy of Mythology”, in “The Rise of Modern Mythology: 1680-1860”, Indiana University Press. 1972. p. 327

Picture retrieved from

Full article available at