Indian Science Fiction: Patterns, History and Hybridity

New Dimensions in Science Fiction

Indian Science Fiction

New Dimensions in Science Fiction

Series Editors

Professor Pawel Frelik

University of Warsaw

Professor Patrick B. Sharp

California State University, Los Angeles

Editorial Board

Grace Dillon

Portland State University

Tanya Krzywinska

Falmouth University

Isiah Lavender III

University of Georgia

Roger Luckhurst

Birkbeck University of London

John Rieder

University of Hawai‘i

Indian Science Fiction

Patterns, History and Hybridity

Suparno Banerjee

© Suparno Banerjee, 2020

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright owner except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Applications for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the University of Wales Press, University Registry, King Edward VII Avenue, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NS.

www.uwp.co.uk

British Library CIP Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN   978-1-78683-666-3

eISBN 978-1-78683-668-7

The right of Suparno Banerjee to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 79 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Cover image: Debangana Banerjee, Home-World (2020), mixed media on paper © the artist.

For Irabati

You are the future

Series Editors’ Preface

Science fiction (SF) is a global storytelling form of techno-scientific modernity which conveys distinct experiences with science, technology and society to a wide range of readers across centuries, continents and cultures. The New Dimensions in Science Fiction series aims to capture the dynamic, worldwide and media-spanning dimensions of SF storytelling and criticism by providing a venue for scholars from multiple disciplines to explore their ideas on the relations of science and society as expressed in SF.

Contents

Acknowledgements

A Brief Chronology of Indian Science Fiction

Introduction: To Mark or Not to Mark Territories

Defining SF

Defining ‘Indian’

The Trajectory

1 Genealogies: A Brief History of Indian SF

1835–1905: Revolutionary Futures, Scientific Education and Influence of Western SF

1905–47: Utopias, Popular Culture and Experimentations

1947–95: The Golden Age of SF in Indigenous Languages, Rebirth of Indian English SF and SF on Screen

1995–2019: The Rise of Indian English SF, Globalisation, SF Films and Web Mags

Conclusion

2 Cognitions and Estrangements: Epistemes and World Building in Indian SF

Knowledge, Science and Science Fiction

Science and Fiction

Vedic Science and Fiction

Subaltern Science and Fiction

SF and the Mythological Paradigm

Reinterpreting Hindu Myths

Indian SF and Non-Hindu Myths

Conclusion

3 Other Times: Alternative Histories, Imagining the Future and Non-linear Temporalities

Alternative Histories

Other Tomorrows

The Present, Forking Paths and Non-linear Temporalities

Conclusion

4 Other Spaces: Utopian Discourses and Non-expansionist Journeys

Indian SF and Utopian Discourses

Indian SF and Space Travel

Conclusion

5 The Others: Aliens, Robots, Cyborgs and Other Others

The Other as the Self

The Other as the Other

Conclusion

Conclusion: Close Encounters

Notes

Bibliography: Primary Texts

Bibliography: Secondary Texts

Acknowledgements

Writing a book about Indian literature is daunting, to say the least, and would not have been possible without help from many friends, family and colleagues. I thank Sarah Lewis of University of Wales Press and Patrick B. Sharp, series editor of New Dimensions in Science Fiction, for their guidance in navigating through the publication process. I am highly indebted to my friend Tanja Stampfl, who read the whole manuscript and provided invaluable comments. I am grateful to Eric Smith, Amy J. Ransom, Himadri Lahiri and Rich Cooper for their valuable feedback on several chapters. Their suggestions greatly helped me in revising the manuscript. I am thankful to Texas State University for providing me with a one-semester sabbatical and a Research Enhancement Grant for this project. I must thank the National Library at Kolkata, Visva-Bharati Central Library and Bangiya Sahitya Parishad for giving me access to their respective archives. I thank Sudev P. Basu, Samantak Das, Anindita Bandyopadhyay, Amrit Sen and Arpita Chatterjee for their help in this matter. Anil Menon, Sanjib Mukhopadhyay, Dhrijoti Kalita, Arnab Ganguly and Hiranmoy Lahiri helped me find many books, stories and articles. I thank them heartily. I must also thank my parents Subir and Haimanti Banerjee for preserving old Bengali journals and books at my home in Santiniketan. Thanks also to Amit Rahul Baishya, Sami Ahmad Khan, Arvind Mishra, Srinarahari and Rob Tally for their reading and research-related suggestions.

This book draws on many of my previously published articles and book chapters. The following are the principal ones among them, and I am thankful to the editors and publishers for their permission to reprint and reuse large portions from these chapters and articles: Liverpool University Press for ‘An Alien Nation: Postcoloniality and the Alienated Subject in Vandana Singh’s Science Fiction’, published in Extrapolation: A Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy, 53/3 (2012); University Press of Mississippi for ‘India, Geopolitics, and Future Wars’, published in Isiah Lavender III’s edited anthology Dis-Orienting Planets: Racial Representations of Asia in Science Fiction (2017); and Brian Attebery for ‘Alternative Dystopia: Science, Power, and Fundamentalism in Rimi B. Chatterjee’s Signal Red’, published in Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 20/1 (2009) and ‘Ruptured Bodies and Invaded Grains: Biotechnology as Bioviolence in Indian Science Fiction’, published in Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts, 26/1 (2015).

I want to thank my two mentors Carl Freedman and Pallavi Rastogi for helping me form the germs of this project when I was still writing my dissertation at Louisiana State University. I should also acknowledge my colleagues in the field of science fiction studies, especially those working with Indian science fiction, for creating the critical mass on which I depend for formulating my ideas. You continue to inspire me. And last but not the least, I thank my wife Debangana and daughter Irabati for not ostracising me outright for all the time I ignore them in favour of SF. Nothing I do would be possible without their unconditional support.

A Brief Chronology of Indian Science Fiction

1835 Kylas Chunder Dutt’s ‘A Journal of Forty-Eight Hours of the Year 1945’, first Indian future history fiction and one of the earliest Indian English fictions

1845 Shoshee Chunder Dutt’s ‘The Republic of Orissa: A Page From the Annals of Twentieth Century’, second future history fiction

1882 Hemlal Dutta’s ‘Rahasya’ (Bangla), first narrative of technology and automation

1884–8 Pandit Ambika Datta Vyasa’s ‘Ascharya Vrittant’ (Hindi), first adventure science fiction (SF)

1892 ‘Shukra Bhraman’ (Bangla) written by Jagadananda Roy, first space travel story; published in 1914

1896 ‘Niruddesher Kahini’ (Bangla) written by Jagadish Chandra Bose for a short-story competition, first narrative functioning on exploitation of a specific scientific principle; later published as ‘Palatak Tufan’ in 1921

1900 Keshav Prasad Singh’s ‘Chandralok Ki Yatra’ (Hindi), first lunar-journey story; Hindi magazine Saraswati starts publication

1905 Begum Rokeya Shakhawat Hossain’s ‘Sultana’s Dream’, first feminist utopia

1908 Nath Madhav’s ‘Srinivasa Rao’, possibly the first Marathi SF

1913 Start of publication of Bangla children’s magazine Sandesh

1915 Anadidhan Banerjee’s ‘Mangal Graha’ (Hindi), possibly the first Mars story

1922 Sukumar Ray’s ‘Heshoram Hushiyarer Diary’ (Bangla)

1924 Rahul Sankrityayan’s socialist utopia Baisvee Sadi (Hindi)

1925 Hemendra Kumar Roy’s first SF, Meghduter Marte Agaman (Bangla)

1945 Premendra Mitra’s first Ghanada story ‘Mosha’ (Bangla)

1946 Kumudeswar Borthakur’s ‘Atom Boma’, possibly the first Assamese SF

1948 First publication of Hindi magazine Dharmayug

1952 William Berke’s Kaadu/The Jungle (Tamil/English), first partially Indian SF movie

1961 Satyajit Ray’s ‘Byom Jatrir Diary’, first Professor Shanku story

1963 First publication of Ascharya (Bangla) by Adrish Bardhan, the first SF magazine in India A. Kasilingam’s Kalai Arasi (Tamil), first Indian SF film

1965 Rajshekhar Bhoosnurmath’s ‘Holiday Planet’, possibly first Kannada SF

First SF film club in India starts in Kolkata under the guidance of Satyajit Ray

1971 First publication of Pran’s Chacha Chaudhary comics (Hindi)

1974 Jayant Vishnu Narlikar’s first SF ‘Krishna Bibar’ (Marathi) The Marathi Vidnyan Parishad launches SF writing competition to promote science education

1975 First publication of Bangla SF magazine Fantastic Salman Rushdie’s Grimus

1976 Leela Majumdar’s ‘Akash Ghanti’ (Bangla)

1980 Sujatha’s En Iniya Iyanthira (Tamil)

1986 Space City Sigma , first Indian SF TV show

1987 Shekhar Kapur’s film Mr. India

1989 Narlikar’s Vaman Parat Na Ala (Marathi)

1993 Bal Phondke edited It Happened Tomorrow , first collection of regional SF translated into English

1995 Amitav Ghosh’s The Calcutta Chromosome Establishment of Indian Science Fiction Writers Association

1997 Manjula Padmanabhan’s Harvest wins Onassis International Cultural prize for theatrical plays

Amitav Ghosh’s The Calcutta Chromosome wins Arthur C. Clarke Award

1998 Establishment of Indian Association for Science Fiction Studies

Launch of Indian Journal of Science Fiction Studies

2002 Vigyan Katha , Hindi SF magazine starts publication

2003 Abhijit Choudhury’s SF comedy film Patalghar (Bangla), National Film Award in two categories

Manish Jha’s dystopian film Matrubhoomi (Hindi), multiple international awards including FIPRESCI Award in the Parallel Section at the Venice Film Festival award

Rakesh Roshan’s Koi Mil Gaya (Hindi), multiple awards including Best Film Award in Filmfare Awards

2005 Vandana Singh’s ‘Delhi’ (2004) shortlisted for British SF Association Award in short fiction category

2009 Vandana Singh’s Distances (2008) wins Carl Brandon Parallax Award and on James Tiptree Jr Award Honour List

2010 S. Shankar’s Enthiran (Tamil), multiple awards including in National Film Awards and Filmfare Awards; highest-earning movie of the year

2011 Anubhav Sinha’s film Ra.One (Hindi), multiple awards including National Film Awards and Filmfare Awards; possibly most expensive Indian film ever

2012 Vandana Singh and Anil Menon edit Breaking the Bow , SF and other speculative fiction inspired by Ramayana (nominated for 2013 Locus Award)

2016 Kalpabishwa , Bangla SF webzine starts Mithila Review , SF webzine starts

2018 Vina Jie-Min Prasad’s ‘A Series of Steaks’ (2017, Best Novelette) and ‘Fandom for Robots’ (2017) nominated for Hugo Award (Short Story)

Luminescent Threads: Connections to Octavia E. Butler (2017), edited by Alexandra Pierce and Mimi Mondal nominated for Hugo Award (Best Related Work)

Gautam Bhatia (Strange Horizon editorial team) and S. B. Divya (Escape Pod editorial team) nominated for Hugo Award (Best Semiprozine)

2019 The Gollancz Book of South Asian Science Fiction edited by Tarun Saint

Vandana Singh’s Ambiguity Machines and Other Stories (2018) finalist in Philip K. Dick Award

Kalpabishwa (Bangla) publishes special issue on SF by women

Introduction:

To Mark or Not to Mark Territories

In the last twenty years, science fiction (SF) scholarship in Europe and North America has started recognising the links between SF and colonialism and at the same time paying attention to non-western and postcolonial SF. This scholarly trend has produced a number of books and anthologies that expose inherent connections between SF studies and the study of colonial and postcolonial literature – Ralph Pordzik (2001), John Rieder (2008), Patricia Kerslake (2007), Ericka Hoagland and Reema Sarwal (2010, anthology), Masood Raja, Jason Ellis and Swaralipi Nandi (2011, anthology), Eric Smith (2012) and Jessica Langer (2011) to name a few. Although SF found its dominant expression in western cultures, the above-mentioned works amply prove that SF is not only a western phenomenon. Many SF traditions thrive around the world and require extensive studies. In recent years, several scholars have taken on such tasks: for example Rachel Heywood Ferreira for Argentinian SF, Elizabeth Ginway for Brazilian SF and Anindita Banerjee for Russian SF. Indian SF, which probably has one of the oldest SF traditions outside Europe and North America, has yet to see such a broad book-length publication.

Indian SF, though, has seen a rising critical interest in the last two decades, reflected notably in many scholarly articles by Suparno Banerjee, Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay, Bishnupriya Ghosh, Sami A. Khan, Jessica Langer, Anwesha Maiti, Uppinder Mehan and Debjani Sengupta among others, as well as a few dissertations (Banerjee, 2010; Chattopadhyay, 2013; Khan, 2015). In 2016, Science Fiction Studies dedicated a special issue to Indian SF. Although these scholarly voices provide some excellent analyses of Indian SF, a unifying and broad discussion of such trends from a ‘national tradition’ model is still lacking. Such a study will provide a coherent and sustained analysis, and a wider picture of Indian SF, tasks which are not possible within the confines of an article, the multiple voices of an anthology or a journal issue. This book hopes to perform such an undertaking – to delineate the historical development of the genre over the years and examine major thematic patterns across multiple languages.

Any discussion of SF is accompanied by a dilemma of demarcation: what qualifies as SF and what does not. While too strict a definition of the genre stifles creative and critical vitality and renders a narrow vision of the field, an overly fluid and relativistic approach may lead to the loss of terminological specificity. Consequently, finding a fine balance among the various generic determinants and intergeneric and historically mutable relationships is crucial at the beginning of this project – demarcating a discursive territory that is clear enough for building a cohesive argument, but also fluid enough to indicate the contingent nature of such arguments. This dilemma of demarcation, though, is doubled in the examination of any national tradition. In addition to ‘SF’, the categories that justify a specific national adjective, ‘Indian’ in our case, must be examined. While this second definitional task can be performed by pointing at the geographic boundaries of the current Indian nation, geographic boundaries are known to be unstable over any extended period; even at any given point in time, boundaries can be hotly contested. Consequently, in both instances, Indian’ and ‘SF’, the definitions emerge out of dilemmas inherent in complex interactions of ideas and historical forces that expose their overdetermined nature. This introduction will work through these problematics to gain an understanding of both ‘Indian’ and ‘SF’ that will be useful for engaging with Indian SF.

Defining SF

In his highly influential study Metamorphoses of Science Fiction: On the Poetics and History of a Literary Genre (1979), Darko Suvin defines SF as a literature of ‘cognitive estrangement’. According to him, SF functions on a critical and dialectic interaction of two opposing forces:

It [SF] should be defined as a fictional tale determined by the hegemonic literary device of a locus and/or dramatis personae that (1) are radically or at least significantly different from empirical times, places, and characters of ‘mimetic’ or ‘naturalist’ fiction, but (2) are nonetheless – to the extent that SF differs from other ‘fantastic’ genres, that is, ensembles of fictional tales without empirical validation – simultaneously perceived as not impossible within the cognitive (cosmological and anthropological) norms of the author’s epoch.¹

For Suvin, the ‘necessary and sufficient’ condition of SF is the interaction between estrangement and cognition, an ‘imaginative framework’ that is alternative to the author’s own reality and creation of a ‘novum’, something completely new, that radically differentiates the universe of the story from the continuation of the author’s real world. ‘Science’, in its generally accepted sense as originator of technology and coming out of the European Enlightenment tradition, is not necessarily essential to the creation of SF. For Suvin, the ‘hypothesis’ from which SF takes off is not a scientific but a fictional one; it is the estranging device, much like the ‘alienation effect’ (verfremdungs-effekt) in Brecht’s epic theatre or the Russian Formalist concept propagated by Victor Shklovsky to defamiliarise (ostranienie) an object in order to draw attention to it. From that point on the story is developed with a totalising rigour, which is the ‘scientific’ element. The estrangement acting as a formal framework allows the detached eye to focus on the tale’s cognitive aspect – where the critical gaze is always fixed on the fundamental realities lying underneath the estranged surface. This cognitive approach, according to Suvin, makes SF ‘analogous to that of modern science and philosophy’.²

While Suvin’s approach distinguishes SF from mimetic literature as well as separating SF from other speculative or non-mimetic works, a strict agreement with this definition, according to Carl Freedman, leads to certain problems.³ Freedman argues that adhering strictly to the meaning of ‘cognition’ and ‘estrangement’ would exclude much of the works in the popular pulp SF tradition while including many works that show less affinity with the accepted notion of SF. ‘Cognition’, used in the context of Suvin’s definition of SF, connotes the logical/rational thinking capacity related to acquiring knowledge (science in its broader sense); by extension, this concept indicates a proper logical development within a text that leads to the knowledge of some type of human condition: political, philosophical, scientific and so on. ‘Estrangement’, used in the same definitional context, suggests a distance produced because of the lack of knowledge, which may signify the mysteriousness of the process that defamiliarises the fictional scenario from our normal world. In his definition, Suvin takes the mystery out of estrangement and suggests that it is a result of the cognitive process desiring to explore the human condition. Freedman argues that, according to Suvin, many of the early twentieth-century SF stories in the US would not be considered literature of ‘cognitive estrangement’ as they lack rigorous development of plot, but rather are like fantasies wearing a mask of SF. Thus even modern classics like George Lucas’s Star Wars movies (1977 onwards) will fall into this category, while Brecht and Dante will be considered proper SF. To solve this dilemma, Freedman modifies the term ‘cognition’ to ‘cognition effect’ to include texts that present an appearance of a cognitive approach though without strictly being cognitive; thus he defines SF as the genre that posits ‘cognitive estrangement’ as its dominant tendency, and interacts with other minor tendencies often associated with other genres.

However, in recent years this dialectical approach has been challenged by critics and authors such as Brian Attebery, John Rieder, China Miéville, Mark Bould, Sheryll Vint and Roger Luckhurst as too formalist and prescriptive. While Attebery uses the idea of ‘fuzzy sets’ (some shared qualities among varied modes of writings) in place of a dialectical definition,⁴ Rieder⁵ and Luckhurst⁶ prefer to examine SF in a historically mutable context rather than through any type of formalist approach; Miéville, in addition, criticises Suvin and Freedman’s emphasis on the notion of ‘cognition’ from an ideological point of view by asking whose cognition or cognition effect we should prioritise.⁷

According to Rieder, any overtly formal genre definition ignores the historical mutability of generic qualities and even the concept of genre itself. In ‘On Defining SF, Or Not’ (2010) Rieder proposes,

that understanding the positions and values of SF within past and present economies of genre, or how the history of this shifting and slippery subject fits into the larger context of changes within the system of genres, is the frame in which to put the question, what difference does it make when ‘we’ point to a text and say that it is SF?⁸

He sees SF through the ‘communities of practice’ model and argues that at best only an evolving ad hoc definition of the genre can be provided, wherein the various differing practices can come together, not in a final unity but in a ‘broad horizon’ of affinities. In Rieder’s view, this type of definition refers to ‘a shared territory that is not a matter of giving up on arriving at a definition of the genre, but rather is precisely the product of the interaction among different communities of practice using different definitions of SF’.⁹ Miéville’s critique differs from Rieder’s: he focuses on the ideology of ‘science’ and ‘rationality’ rather than on genre theory itself. He argues that Suvin (and also Freedman) prioritises a western understanding of these terms and that such understanding leads to the exclusivist attitude to any other fantastic literature displaying less ‘rational’ quality. Miéville proposes:

Taking alterity as a starting point might allow us to trace structural relations between fantastic genres and the anti-realist avant-garde. It might also allow a revisiting with critical rigour of a traditional – and traditionally denigrated as woolly and anti-theoretical – notion of the ‘sense of wonder’, as intrinsic to the field.¹⁰

A similar definitional discourse brews in the Indian SF community. The terms or corresponding ideas in some of the Indian languages that stand for SF are roughly translated into English as ‘stories of imagined science’ (‘kalpabigyaner golpo’ or often just ‘kalpabigyan’ in Bangla), ‘science stories’ (‘bigyan-vittik golpo’ in Bangla, ‘vijnana katha’ in Hindi and Marathi, ‘ar

iviyal pu

naikatai’ in Tamil etc.), ‘weird’ (‘ajgubi’ in Bangla), ‘science fantasy’, ‘science fiction’ and the larger umbrella term ‘speculative fiction’. The main conflicting elements in this definitional debate are the allegiance to ‘vijnana’, the Sanskrit word that stands for ‘specialised’ knowledge, and translates into English as ‘science’ in its post-Enlightenment methodological and disciplinary sense, along with the corresponding words and derivatives of ‘vijnana’ in other Indian languages on the one hand, and the transcending/marginalising of actual ‘vijnana’ in favour of the more fantastic/sensational on the other. In one of the few serious works of scholarship on this definitional debate in an indigenous language (Bangla), Rabin Bal cites Satyajit Ray in describing the two camps along the lines of Vernians (those who prefer a stronger allegiance to science and logic) and the Wellsians (those who use science only as a device to break through contemporary reality to imagine alterities).¹¹ While Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, an eminent astrophysicist and Marathi SF author, belongs to the first camp, Adrish Bardhan, an eminent Bengali SF author and founder of Ascharya, the first SF magazine in India, is part of the second. Narlikar calls for actual scientific elements in SF and dismisses what he calls ‘pseudo-science’ in these narratives.¹² Bardhan on the other hand, refuses to be constrained by any such boundaries.¹³ For Bardhan SF and fantasy are rarely distinguishable, even though something akin to Freedman’s ‘cognitive effect’ is often present in Bardhan’s own SF writing. These two authors’ positions are symptomatic of the larger field. While such influential authors and editors as Bal Phondke, Premendra Mitra and Kshitindranaryan Roy have professed opinions like Narlikar’s, authors such as Leela Majumdar and Satyajit Ray take a more ambiguous stance. Majumdar tries to distinguish between SF and weird fiction by the presence of scientific elements for the sake of the primarily juvenile readership, but Ray takes a more liberal attitude.¹⁴ More recently Vandana Singh, an author and theoretical physicist, in her ‘Speculative Manifesto’ (2008), has called for the primacy of imagination without regard to fidelity to actual science in speculating about alternative possibilities. For her, the finer genre distinctions are of lesser importance than speculatively imagining alterities absent in our mundane reality.¹⁵

Central to this definitional debate in India are the varying connotative associations between ‘vijnana’ and ‘science’. Hans Harder explains that ‘vijnana’, the Sanskrit word used as an equivalent for ‘science’, makes the very idea of ‘science’ ‘less well-defined and at the same time more loaded with polarising connotations’ in India than it is in the West.¹⁶ He points out similar semantic dissonances existing in other word pairs as ‘dharma’/‘religion’ and ‘darsana’/‘philosophy’, and assigns the difficulties to intercultural transactions of meanings and conceptual associations. In the case of the ‘vijnana’/‘science’ pair, Harder assigns the problem to the proximity of modern techno-science to the industrialised West that invaded India, and the association of religion and philosophy to the pre-colonial native culture. Hence the word ‘science’ becomes integral to the conception of European colonisers and their technologies, while ‘vijnana’¹⁷ retains a looser association with a set of cognitive functions from older Hindu-Buddhist philosophical traditions.¹⁸ Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay also foregrounds the ‘jnana’ (knowledge)/‘vijnana’ (science) binary to formulate his idea of ‘kalpavigyan’. He highlights the specificity of ‘vijnana’ against the transcendental holism of ‘jnana’ and claims that in the Indian context ‘vijnana’ often provides a pathway to a greater transcendental knowledge of the world, and hence ‘science’ must be understood in the context of the specific society in spite of its universalising tendencies while discussing SF.¹⁹ According to Chattopadhyay, the mythical associationism inherent in the ‘jnana’/‘vijnana’ binary lends this cultural specificity. I have made similar arguments elsewhere regarding the cultural specificity of ‘science’ and the diverging understanding between Indian and western concepts and the effect of such understanding on conceiving of SF.²⁰ Thus the sense of wonder in Indian SF often arises from what Miéville calls the ‘traditionally denigrated as woolly and anti-theoretical’ notion of science.²¹

However, Luckhurst argues that SF is a genre that evolves over time in the context of such culturally specific notions as ‘science’ and ‘modernity’, but always imagining alternative possibilities. He claims: ‘SF texts imagine futures or parallel worlds premised on the perpetual change associated with modernity, often by extending or extrapolating aspects of Mechanism from [the] contemporary world. In doing so, SF texts capture the fleeting fantasies thrown up in the swirl of modernity.’²² In the Indian context, that swirl is often caught up in the attempts to recontextualise ‘modernity’ not only within the Enlightenment tradition but also within a mythic rebirth of ancient Indian wisdom, or traditions that question modernity itself by imagining alternative ways of being. India’s colonial relationship to Europe, and hence to the very idea of European modernity and progress, thus places Indian SF at a unique and problematic position. Scholars such as Patricia Kerslake (2007) and John Rieder (2008) have extensively shown that SF and European imperialism are intrinsically connected, and that modernity and progress are inherently linked to fantasies of colonialism.²³ Jessica Langer (2011) on the other hand has delineated the role that postcolonial SF, especially from developing nations, plays in responding to such politics of power.²⁴ The history of Indian SF shows that from its very inception the genre has been resisting such fantasies of imperialism resulting from progress and modernity. Therefore, arguably, the imperial relationship between the culture of India and western modernity shaped Indian SF’s imagination of alterity. As I will show in the following chapters, almost every aspect of Indian SF is dependent on this relationship between Indian and western culture, making the genre a cultural hybrid par excellence.

Evidently, an evolving relationship between Indian culture and modernity and science will inevitably alter the way that SF is conceived in India, as such changes will also affect how Indian SF stands in relationship with the larger economy of genres. Hence a community of practice and cultural history approach is effective in dealing with texts over a period of more than a century. Yet, in order to decipher such relationships, we must also look