One of the most remarkable and appealing aspects of Aijaz Ahmad was his deep affection for India and his strong desire to live and work there. Despite the opportunity to pursue a highly successful career in an American university, Aijaz was not motivated by personal ambition. Instead, he chose to settle in Delhi, even though it meant facing uncertainty in his academic career. It was in India that he produced his most influential work, establishing himself as a leading Marxist literary theorist and a prominent Marxist public intellectual. His dedication to the cause of human justice served as an inspiration to those who still believe in its possibility.
However, it would be inaccurate to portray Aijaz’s decision to settle in India as merely sentimental. It was also a reflection of his growing conviction that American universities, especially their literary departments, were being influenced by intellectual fads that blurred the line between political radicalism and reaction. Although he understood that these trends would eventually reach India and impact its academic institutions as well, he believed that there were still intellectual strongholds in India where one could openly identify as a communist without fear or mockery.
When Aijaz published his book “In Theory,” which featured forthright essays critiquing these fashionable trends from a Marxist perspective, he faced criticism and ridicule from the academic literary circles he had left behind. The notoriety of his book stemmed not from attacking overtly right-wing and reactionary ideologies, or from his staunch Marxism, but from his argument that supposedly left and radical theoretical positions in literature were complicit with the rising right-wing tendencies. This assertion provoked bitterness and anger among those who considered themselves radical, as they saw themselves accused of being impostors. Aijaz named prominent literary theorists and writers in his critique (Fredric Jameson, Edward Said, and Salman Rushdie), further fueling the controversy.
Despite hurt feelings and heated debates, the conflict revealed the enduring importance of ideas in the study of literature and the significance of passionate political expression by intellectuals. Aijaz’s criticisms should not be regarded as solely personal attacks; they raised fundamental questions about the theoretical aspects of literature and culture, as well as the politics embedded within them.
One specific issue that Aijaz addressed was Fredric Jameson’s essay on introducing literature from Asia, Africa, and Latin America into the curricula of literary studies in the metropole. Jameson sought to connect these literary works with the spirit of the Bandung Conference and its decolonization efforts, even if they did not overtly express these aspirations. Aijaz disagreed with the concept of dividing the world into three distinct regions and the use of allegory to interpret such literature. He argued that “critical realism” would be a more accurate term and criticized the broad generalization of these literary works, particularly when it came to Urdu literature, which he was intimately familiar with. Aijaz’s critique went beyond the surface-level discussion and drew upon the broader Marxist tradition, suggesting that Jameson and other metropolitan academics had disregarded the radicalism rooted in this tradition.
Ultimately, Aijaz’s argument implied that the Bandung ideal underlying Jameson’s framework should be seen as more than just the emergence of nation-states. It should be understood as a specific understanding that linked these nations to democratic principles and the revolutionary aspirations of their people. To fully grasp the Bandung moment and do justice to it, a more comprehensive theoretical and historical understanding of the nation, including intellectual history, is necessary.