Travelling across borders: Temporality, trauma, and memory in amitav ghosh's dancing in cambodia and at large in Burma

Abstract

In travel writing as a genre, the convergence of the words temporality, memory and trauma has occasioned an explosion of deliberations centred around the representation of the other(ness), the privilege of speaking of and for a foreign culture, and strategies used to perpetuate hierarchies and differences in cultural discourses. From having strong cultural affinities with Greater India in the ancient past, the countries of Southeast Asia like Cambodia, Myanmar have undergone sea changes in the present experiencing a long phase of colonisation and then ravaged by their own internal strife and upheavals. Writers from the erstwhile colonised countries like Amitav Ghosh have attempted in their travelogues to document the history and culture of Cambodia and Myanmar while traversing its rough terrain. Amitav Ghosh's widely acclaimed Dancing in Cambodia and At Large in Burma stands as the foremost example for understanding the travails of time and history of Cambodia and Myanmar. The narration of Ghosh's travel experiences in these countries brings to the fore the complex temporal dimensions of history amalgamated with collective trauma caused to its people through seemingly unabated and intense phases of violence and bloodshed in Khmer Rouge revolution. The proposed paper explores the various couplings of history and memory to explore the perennial traumatic feeling of the people of Myanmar and Cambodia and attempts to locate it in a larger historical perspective generally shared with India. Some pertinent questions which the proposed paper seeks to reflect upon are: the dangers of homogenisation and using ahistorical vocabulary to replicate the hegemony of cosmopolitan models of postcoloniality over local models. Also, is 'out of placeness' of the narrator is a problematic identity or something permanent and worth celebrating? Is cosmopolitanism suitable for postcolonial societies or is it just another totalising discourse of colonialism spreading its tentacles in complicity with neo-liberalism?