You are on page 1of 2

The poet begins by stating that Great Pan has not died, but has simply

emigrated to India. Great pan is a Greek God who has been declared
unwanted. He is half goat and half human. Here, this sentence
demonstrates two points. One, that Indians are acceptant of cultures from
all around the world, and that they give the Greek God the sense of
belonging that he is denied in his own country, and second, that Pan, who
is a mixture of two components, represents the fact that identity is indeed
a mixture of different linguistic and cultural aspects (duality of nature).
In the next stanza the Indian Gods are described. They are said to roam
freely, disguised as monkeys or snakes. This sentence brings out a sort of
ambivalence regarding the freedom Gods actually have. Though the first
line says that the Gods enjoy absolute freedom, the word disguised
questions this statement, as it implies that the Gods are trying to stay
hidden, and that their liberty is somewhat limited.
The following lines emphasize the rigidity and deeply rooted respect the
Indians have for nature and knowledge. The poet describes how every
tree is considered sacred and gives a list of actions that are considered
sins such as shoving a book, slamming a book or tossing a book. She
states that a book must be used with care without disturbing the Goddess
of knowledge, Sarasvati, or offending the tree with whose paper the book
was made. These statements demonstrate the importance that knowledge
and language hold in Indian culture, and how these values are strictly
upheld by the Indians. It also implies how in this culture, knowledge,
nature and language are inter-related evident by the link established
between trees and books. What can be noted in this part of the poem is
the constant repetition of the word sin. It is this repetition that helps to
bring out the rigidity of Indian culture.
The next stanza of the poem is in a negative tone, and is harshly critical.
The author questions: which language had not been the oppressors
tongue, and which language had truly meant to murder someone? These
lines are powerfully conveyed, and they depict language as a weapon, an
instrument of murder. She questions how, it so happens that even after
the soul has been cropped, the unborn grandchildren grow to love this
strange language. Here, she speaks of an enemy, most probably
referring to the British, who colonized India and bruised aspects of their
culture with the introduction of their own language-English. The poet
speaks of how the rich culture of India has been mutilated by the
introduction of a foreign language, and by the oppression of the British,
who stooped to even murder. The poet speaks of a long scythe. Here the
scythe symbolizes the tongue, which is used to communicate (language).

The scythe is a weapon, and can be used for murder. However, the scythe
is often used in agriculture for harvesting, and in a way, symbolizes
growth. Therefore, the poet brings out how language is not just a means
of communication, but much more. It is a representation of our culture
and identity but at the same time, it is powerful enough to destroy
another culture and influence people greatly, as the Indians have been by
the English language. It brings into question how big of a part language
actually plays in shaping our identities, our culture and our history. How
significant is the change that takes place in terms of the way we look at
our culture as a consequence of losing our language? How does our
language make us who we are? The poet conveys her own views on this
idea, by providing us with a sort of prediction of the future, where she
claims that older generations and younger generations will be separated
by the barrier of language-each will speak a different one, each one
foreign to the other. While this ending of the poem projects a sort of
sadness regarding the loss of such a vibrant culture, as described in the
initial stanzas, this statement also gives out a vibe of acceptance- that the
poet has accepted that the consequences are inevitable, and that she
must learn to make peace with it, as no one really is to blame. In a way,
we may perceive that the poet is indeed, somehow referring to her own
situation. Indian by origin, but brought up in English-speaking countries,
her lack of connectivity to her own culture and language, and her
confusion regarding her own cultural identity is represented by these last
few lines.
Therefore, we may conclude, that all in all, Different history paints a
picture of how language and culture shape our identity and how their loss
affects us, while simultaneously bringing out the deep-rootedness of what
she considers to be her true culture-Indian.

You might also like