Chutnification of English: Rewriting the Colonizer’s Tongue in Midnight’s Children
Chutnification of English: Rewriting the Colonizer’s Tongue in Midnight’s Children
This blog is written as part of the Film Screening Worksheet activity assigned by Prof. Dilip Barad (Department of English, MKBU). I belong to Group 3: Chutnification of English, and this reflection explores how language becomes a powerful postcolonial tool in Midnight’s Children directed by Deepa Mehta, based on the novel by Salman Rushdie.
What is “Chutnification”?
In his essay collection Imaginary Homelands, Rushdie argues that English no longer belongs only to the British. Once it travels, it changes. It absorbs local flavours. It becomes something new.
So the question arises:
Is English still a colonial language, or has it become Indian?
Language as Identity
In Midnight’s Children, Saleem Sinai narrates not only his life but also the life of the nation. His storytelling style is exaggerated, playful, fragmented, and full of cultural references. This is not “Queen’s English.” It is something else — something hybrid.
For example, Saleem often mixes memory, fantasy, and history. His sentences are long and dramatic, filled with repetitions and emotional exaggeration. Words and phrases rooted in Indian culture are left untranslated. This forces the audience to enter an Indian linguistic space rather than expecting the text to adjust to Western norms.
If we translate Rushdie’s expressive, mixed language into “standard” British English, much of its humour, rhythm, and emotional depth would disappear. The local flavour would be lost. The political resistance within the language would also fade.
Chutnification as Resistance
Language was one of the strongest tools of British colonial rule. English education created a class of Indians trained to think in colonial frameworks. However, Rushdie reverses this power dynamic.
Instead of rejecting English completely, he appropriates it.
This idea connects with Homi K. Bhabha and his concept of hybridity in The Location of Culture. Bhabha explains that when colonized people imitate the colonizer, they do so with difference. That difference creates a “Third Space” — a space of negotiation and creativity.
Rushdie’s English operates in this Third Space. It is not purely British, nor purely Indian. It is something in-between. This in-betweenness becomes a site of power rather than weakness.
Film and Linguistic Mixing
The film adaptation also reflects chutnification through dialogue and sound. Characters switch between English, Hindi, and Urdu naturally. The blending is not explained or justified; it simply exists. This multilingual environment reflects real Indian speech patterns.
The use of mixed language challenges the idea that English must be “pure” or “correct.” Instead, it shows that English in India has evolved. It belongs to those who use it.
Even pronunciation and tone in the film signal identity. The rhythm of speech feels distinctly Indian. This demonstrates that language carries history, memory, and cultural belonging.
What is Lost in “Standard” Translation?
If we take a dramatic, culturally rich paragraph from Rushdie and convert it into formal British English:
The exaggeration becomes flat.
The humour becomes formal.
The cultural intimacy disappears.
The emotional intensity weakens.
This exercise shows that language is not neutral. “Standard” English often represents colonial authority, order, and control. Chutnified English represents fluidity, plurality, and postcolonial freedom.
Is English Still Colonial?
English came to India through colonization. That history cannot be erased. However, today English in India is shaped by Indian users. It carries Indian idioms, emotions, and politics.
Rushdie’s work suggests that English is no longer owned by the colonizer. It has been transformed — pickled in Indian experience.
Thus, English becomes a site of negotiation. It carries colonial history, but it also carries postcolonial creativity.
Conclusion: Speaking in a Borrowed Yet Transformed Tongue
Belonging to a postcolonial nation means living with layered identities. We inherit languages, borders, and histories shaped by colonialism. But we also reshape them.
In Midnight’s Children, language becomes more than communication — it becomes identity. Through chutnification, Rushdie shows that the colonizer’s tongue can be rewritten, re-accented, and reimagined.
English in India is no longer a symbol of submission. In Rushdie’s hands, it becomes a symbol of hybridity, survival, and creative resistance.
In the end, chutnified English is not broken English. It is reborn English — carrying the taste of history, memory, and nationhood all at once.
References
