We are unable to display your institutional affiliation without JavaScript turned on.
Browse Book and Journal Content on Project MUSE

Find using OpenURL

The Postcolonial Careers of Santha Rama Rau (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

“Santha Rama Rau? Didn’t you used to be famous?” (2). Such was the response of one cocktail party attendee upon meeting the subject of Antoinette Burton’s new book. Indeed, Santha Rama Rau was once famous. The child of the Indian ambassador to Washington and a feminist social reformer, the Indian-born and Wellesley-educated Rau became one of the foremost translators of India to Americans in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. A middlebrow writer based in New York City, she wrote travel books and cookbooks, novels and memoirs, adapted E.M. Forster’s A Passage to India for Broadway, and wrote essays for The New Yorker and Reader’s Digest. She commanded a wide American readership. But today, as Burton notes, Rama Rau “scarcely registers as even a minor diasporic writer” (2). In this slim volume, Burton takes up the challenge of making this once-insignificant writer significant again.

One way to restore and even elevate the standing of a forgotten cultural figure is to insert her into a genealogy of others whose significance is undisputed. This is the approach Burton takes. Reading Rama Rau through the framework of postcolonial literary studies, Burton shows that Rama Rau should be recognized as a proto-post-colonial writer, a precursor to such figures as Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Bharati Mukherjee, and Arundhati Roy. In positioning Rama Rau this way, Burton seeks to write what she calls the “prehistory” (31) of postcolonialism. She argues successfully that Rama Rau, in her representations of India and in her own self-fashioning, was an “avatar of certain postcolonial ways of seeing and knowing” (20) and articulated many of the concepts that would become central to postcolonial studies in later decades: a cosmopolitan subjectivity not oriented exclusively towards the West, a celebration of India’s multicultural hybridity, and a rejection of the developmental logic of tradition vs. modernity. Claiming Rama Rau as an early postcolonial writer allows Burton to argue persuasively that the emergence of a postcolonial consciousness is inseparable from Cold War geopolitics and globalization more generally. Burton suggests that America’s new role as a global power, and the concomitant desire on the part of ordinary Americans to understand the emerging postwar world, created new audiences and new opportunities for writers from the decolonizing world. In locating the origins of postcolonial literary subjectivity in Cold War America, Burton succeeds in bringing the U.S. more centrally into postcolonial studies and thereby expands the transnational dimensions of the field.

Another way to resurrect a minor cultural figure is to embed her in a rich context and show how she expresses or engages with the important ideas of her historical moment. Burton does not pursue this approach. She has not written a cultural history or even a cultural biography, and she has not used Rama Rau as a window onto the world of postwar American political, cultural, literary, or intellectual history. There exists a rich body of scholarship on postwar cultural history and the history of American representations of Asia that Burton could have drawn on to frame and enrich her analysis. Although she gestures toward this work, she does not engage substantively with its ideas, including, for example, the affiliative logic of postwar American Orientalism, the widespread interest of African Americans in India and the decolonizing world more generally, and the history of middle class American women as consumers of a spectacular and commodified Asia. This becomes a problem because Burton makes a point of emphasizing that America was Rama Rau’s primary context: she lived in New York, was married to an American, often identified with Washington’s foreign policies, was published by American publishers, and wrote for an American audience. Inserting Rama Rau into a British-and Indian-dominated postcolonial tradition, Burton ignores the ways that Rama Rau also functioned as an American cultural producer. As a result, Burton isolates Rama Rau from the panoply of other cultural figures – travel writers, novelists, journalists, actors, musicians, playwrights, lyricists, filmmakers, political actors – who also served as “translators” of Asia and the decolonizing world to Americans. This implied singularity leaves the reader with the erroneous impression that, for example, Rama Rau was the only person...

You must be logged in through an institution that subscribes to this journal or book to access the full text.


Shibboleth authentication is only available to registered institutions.

Project MUSE

For subscribing associations only.