1

“Each of Us Has A Name”: Renaming As an Expression of Appropriation or Rejection in Amitav Ghosh's Sea of Poppies

By Mark Elliott Shapiro

Each of Us Has a Name By Zelda

Each of us has a name given by God and given by our parents Each of us has a name given by our stature and our smile and given by what we wear Each of us has a name given by the mountains and given by our walls Each of us has a name given by the stars and given by our neighbors Each of us has a name given by our sins and given by our longing Each of us has a name given by our enemies and given by our love Each of us has a name given by our celebrations and given by our work Each of us has a name given by the seasons and given by our blindness Each of us has a name given by the sea and given by

2our death.

(Translation text downloaded from http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/execvp/file8484.pdf; this might be a download from Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.)

I Introduction

Renaming is a prominent element that Avitam Ghosh uses in

his novel, Sea of Poppies, to depict the relationship between

cultures, especially the relationship between the culture of a

colonial power – Great Britain – and the culture of the colonized

– the native population of 19th-century India. I will focus here

on two types of renaming: friendly renaming, which expresses

acceptance and/or appropriation of the Other, and inimical

renaming, which expresses rejection of, even contempt for, the

Other and a clear demarcation line between the renamer and the

renamed Other. There is a connection between friendly or inimical

renaming and colonialism and, on the other hand, there is a

connection between friendly renaming and hybridization.

Whereas, the two examples I will give of friendly renaming

are indirect outcomes of Britain’s colonial presence in India,

3the two examples I will give of inimical renaming are directly

linked to British colonialism.

There are many instances of renaming in Sea of Poppies;

however, in the context of this brief essay, I will focus only on

five instances that express either appropriation or rejection. In

four of the five instances, the renaming involves the expansion

or alteration, but not the elimination, of the original name. The

fifth example, the language used by the hybrid crew is itself a

hybrid, and, in some cases, expands or alters the original terms

while, in some cases, it replaces the original term altogether.

Renaming is but one of the linguistic elements that Ghosh

uses to represent hybridity and processes of hybridization. Other

devices include consecutive translation of foreign terms into

English and the use of hybrid language in the text (as seen, for

example, in the linguistic amalgam used by Doughty or in the

names of the dishes served by the Burnhams at the banquet that is

depicted in the novel). By considering inimical versus friendly

renaming, it is possible to more clearly understand how the novel

juxtaposes hostility toward the Other and love for the Other.

4

5II Renaming as an expression of rejection

The two instances of renaming as an expression of rejection

are associated with two representatives of British colonialism.

The inimical renaming in which they engage does not involve any

attempt at incorporating the Other into the renamer's world; it

is simply a way of defining the Other in terms of the renamer’s

world.

For instance, Burnham’s renaming of Baboo Nob Kissin as

Baboon. On the one hand, it could be argued that there is an

element of endearment in Burnham’s use of the name “Baboon” –

albeit, this sounds very much like the kind of endearment that is

often expressed toward a pet animal (baboons can fit into that

category) – and there does seem to be some kind of emotional bond

between the two – as can be seen in the following passage:

Mr. Burnham was sitting at a massive desk, bathed in the muted glow of a skylight, far above. His eyes widened ashe watched Baboo Nob Kissin walking across the room. ‘My good Baboon!’ he cried, as he took in the sight of the gomusta’s oiled, shoulder-length hair and the necklace that was hanging around his neck. ‘What on earth has become of you? You look so . . .’

‘Yes, sir?’

6‘So strangely womanish’ (223).

It is interesting to note that Burnham is not consistent in

his use of the rename Baboon and twice reverts to the gomusta’s

original name in this same section of the novel:

‘You?’ Mr. Burnham looked up at the gomusta in surprise. ‘But Baboo Nob Kissin! Whatever for?’ (225)

Mr Burnham cast a dubious glance at the gomusta’s matronly form. ‘I am impressed by your enthusiasm, Baboo NobKissin. But are you sure you’ll be able to cope with the conditions of a ship?’ (225-26)

However, these lapses are far outnumbered in that particular

section by the usage of the rename “Baboon.” It could be argued

that the rename suggests that Burnham considers his employee to

be on a much lower level – that of an animal, albeit an

intelligent one. In the conversation that takes place in that

section, Burnham shows a certain, although perhaps limited,

respect for Baboo Nob Kissin’s shrewdness: “The shrewd glint in

Baboo Nob Kissin’s eye was not lost on his employer. Mr. Burnham

leant forward in his chair, “Do you think she might testify?”

(227)

7The second example of inimical renaming is James Doughty’s

renaming of Neel's father, the late Raja of Rashkali, as

Rascally-Roger. Here, the gap between the renamer and the renamed

is much wider. Doughty feels that he is morally superior to the

late Rajah:

The unexpected dinner invitation from the budgerow started Mr Doughty off on a journey of garrulous reminiscence. ‘Oh my boy!” said the pilot to Zachary, as they stood leaning on the deck rail. ‘The old Raja of Rashkali: I could tell you a story or two about him – Rascally-Roger I used to call him!’ He laughed, thumping the deck with his cane. ‘Now there was a lordly nigger if ever you saw one! Best kind of native – kept himself busy with his shrub and his nautch-girls and his tumashers.… He was a shy little shaytan too, the Rascally-Roger….’ (49).

Renaming in this case – that is, the inimical renaming

carried out by Burnham and Doughty – is both symbolic of and

metonymic of the colonial power’s imposition of its own culture

on the colonized entity. On the one hand, it symbolizes the

colonial power’s authority and sense that it is free to operate

in the colonized entity (although Burnham is careful to act only

within the strictures of the local legal system); on the other

8hand, it is metonymic because it is one manifestation, albeit a

major one, of the colonial power’s influence.

A link between colonization and renaming in Hawaii is

referred to by Lisa Kahaleole Hall, who claims that

… European and American colonization stripped political power and voting rights from Hawaiian women.

For Hawaiian women, the imposition of Christianity within the Western legal system forced their literal renaming with both “Christian names” and patrilineal surnames, and enforced monogamy and heterosexual marriage through the criminalization of sexual behavior (278).

III Renaming as an expression of acceptance and appropriation

Friendly renaming bridges different worlds, where one

character renames another in order to incorporate the latter into

another world or into the former's world.

It is significant that two of Sea of Poppies' chief

protagonists – and one could argue that they are the chief hero

and chief heroine – are given hybrid names and are also hybrids

in themselves: Zachary racially (white father, black mother) and

Paulette culturally (being exposed to Hindu, Muslim and French

9cultures). Thus, in their case, renaming emphasizes their hybrid

nature.

Serang Ali's renaming of Zachary as Malum Zichri as part of

a Pygmalion-like process of turning Zachary into a part of the

ruling class aboard the Ibis; this is an appropriation but it is

also a recognition of Zachary’s new status as one of the

commanders of the ship. This changeover process is depicted in

two scenes. The first is when Zachary must go ashore

to conduct the shipowners’ business on the island, which included the delivery of a letter to the owner of a plantation, some six miles from Port Louis. Zachary was making ready to go ashore with the letter when he was intercepted by Serang Ali, who looked him up and down in concern.

‘Malum Zikri catch plenty trouble’n he go Por’Lwee likethat’ (19).

What follows is a total overhaul of Zachary. Thus, the

renaming is symbolic of and metonymic of a dramatic

transformation in his status:

Here again, Serang Ali came to Zachary’s aid: it turnedout that among the lascars there were many who boasted of skills apart from sailoring – among them a kussab who had once worked as a ‘dress-boy’ for a shipowner; a steward who

10was also a darzee and earned extra money by sewing and mending clothes; and a topas who had learnt barbering and served as the crew’s balwar. Under Serang Ali’s direction, the team went to work, rifling through Zachary’s bags and trunks, picking out clothes, measuring, folding, snipping, cutting. While the tailor-steward and his chuckeroos busied themselves with inseams and cuffs, the barber-topas led Zachary to the lee scuppers and, with the aid of a couple oflaunders, subjected him to as thorough a scrubbing as he hadever had….

In a couple of hours Zachary was looking at an almost unrecognizable image of himself in the mirror…. (19-20).

Here the renaming symbolizes not only appropriation and the

establishment of a new bond between Serang Ali and Zachary; it

also symbolizes Zachary’s elevation of status.

A similar elevation of status can be seen in four biblical

figures who are renamed: Abraham, Jacob, Joseph and Joshua. In

all these instances, the renaming, as in the above cases of

renaming in the novel, is both symbolic of and metonymic of a

fundamental change in – and an elevation of – status. In the case

of Abraham, Joshua and Joseph in the second of the renaming

processes he undergoes, renaming is name expansion; in the case

of Jacob and Joseph in the first of the renaming processes he

undergoes, the original name is replaced by a new one.

11God renames Abram Abraham by expanding his previous name in

order to signify his new status as founder of the Jewish people:

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God;walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked withhim, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nationsof thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed afterthee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to bea God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will giveunto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thouart a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Genesis 17:1-8).

God renames Jacob Israel to signify his new relationship

vis-à-vis God and to signify his elevation of status: Like

Abraham, he is transformed and the transformation is symbolized

by his new name. After struggling with the angel, Jacob is

renamed Israel by God:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as

12he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power [or, for thou hast struggled] with God and with men, and hast prevailed (Gen. 32:25-29; 24-28, according to the King JamesVersion system of verse numbering).

Perhaps this is also an allusion to Abraham who argues –

that is, verbally struggles – with God in order to try to save

Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. Herbert Marks considers

Jacob's renaming as Israel by God to be a correctional measure

whereby God assigns Jacob two names to balance Esau's two names,

the second being Edom; however, more importantly, Marks argues

that the name Israel can be glossed as “God strives for you” and

sees in the renaming the establishment of an alliance with God

(39-40).

Joseph undergoes two renamings. When Pharaoh proclaims him

viceroy, Joseph rides in a royal chariot through the streets of

the capital as the people in the crowd, or perhaps Pharaoh’s

heralds, call out, “Avrekh!” (Gen. 41:43). According to the

classic medieval biblical commentator Rashi, the rename should be

13read as av (father in Hebrew) – rakh (rech? king in Aramaic); that

is, Joseph is perceived as the king’s father. Public renaming of

Joseph as Avrekh can be seen as the public’s recognition of his

power, and can also be seen as an expression of its awareness of

his being both its father (that I, its ruler) and yet a young

man.

Pharaoh renames him (Gen. 41:45) Zaphnath-paaneah (or

Tzafnat Pane’akh), which, according to Rashi, means interpreter

of hidden things. Pharaoh’s renaming of Joseph, is, on the one

hand, recognition of Joseph’s powers as a dream interpreter,

while, on the other hand, it is perhaps an attempt to appropriate

Joseph and make him a part of Egyptian society by giving him an

Egyptian name.

Moses’ renaming of Joshua before he sets out with the other

11 spies to Canaan is an expression of Joshua’s new elevated

status: “These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy

out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua”

(Numbers 13:16). Moses adds the letter yod, which is also the

first letter in God’s ineffable name, the Tetragrammaton, in

14order to give Joshua the added protection of God and in order to

elevate his status by reinforcing his relationship with God (as

is the case with Jacob).

In the novel, Jodu's mother renames Paulette Putli. This

“was her way of domesticating her” (69). Paulette “in the

confusion of tongues that was to characterize her upbringing”

reciprocates by renaming her adoptive mother “Tantima” (“aunt-

mother”), a hybrid French-Arabic title (69).

For Zachary and Paulette, the renaming is only part of an

entire hybridization process: Serang Ali treats Zachary as a

protegé, while Jodu's mother gives the motherless French girl an

Indian-Muslim upbringing. Actually, both Zachary and Paulette are

protégés, and this status is articulated through their being

renamed by their respective patrons.

There is another manifestation of renaming that is linked to

appropriation in the novel. It is the renaming that takes place

aboard the Ibis, which is a sort of melting pot that produces a

hybrid society. However, the ship’s hybrid society is unlike most

hybrids, which are the product of an amalgamation of two

15elements: The ship’s crew represents many different societies.

Thus, the Ibis can be seen as an example of a healthy hybrid

society that is able to work together for a common goal: In the

case of the Ibis, that goal is getting the ship to its

destination. The mutiny towards the end of the novel indicates

that, even in such a seemingly unified context, tensions can

break down bonds of solidarity.

However, it should be pointed out that there is great

significance – as far as the idea of hybridity is concerned - in

the novel’s ending: The two hybrid chief protagonists – Paulette

and Zachary – are left as a pair on deck, while, in the longboat

depicted in the last two paragraphs of Sea of Poppies, we see a

truly hybrid team representing different racial or ethnic groups:

Jodu, Neel, Ah Fatt, Kalua and Serang Ali.

The initial picture that Zachary receives of the

multiracial, hybrid crew, which is linked linguistically by the

renaming (or hybridization) of nautical terms, is impressive, and

the solidarity remains for the bulk of the novel. The

appropriation is directed towards all the members of the crew

16who, despite their different origins, are in a very real sense

homogenized into a single society with a specific, albeit richly

variegated culturally, identity.

Sohn, Stephen Hong Sohn, Paul Lai and Donald C. Goellnicht

point out that Sea of Poppies is

a novel that for the most part takes place on a boat (called the Ibis). The titular poppies of course reference the opium trade, and in that regard, the global scope of thenovel is not surprising, but Ghosh’s status as an Asian American author signifies the malleable nature of the field’s classification practices. Although many still consider Ghosh primarily through an Anglophone lens, as a South Asian Indian author writing in English, his residency status—where he is known to divide his time between India and the United States—certainly complicates his position within American and postcolonial literatures more broadly. His novels too do not yield to a specific geographic centrality as evidenced especially by Sea of Poppies, as so much of that novel occurs literally on the ocean, a border space if you will, that emphasizes the transit between and among different national locations (15).

In the depiction of the hybrid crew of the Ibis, the

linguistic element in the hybridization of nautical terms used by

the hybrid crew of lascars is prominent. His introduction to the

ship’s crew initially stresses its lack of homogeneity:

17This was Zachary’s first experience of this species of

sailor. He had thought the lascars were a tribe or nation, like the Cherokee or Sioux; he discovered now that they camefrom places that were far apart, and had nothing in common, except the Indian Ocean; among them were Chinese and East Africans, Arabs and Malays, Bengalis and Goans, Tamils and Arakanese (14).

However, a passage only two pages later clearly indicates

that the heterogeneity is overcome by language – by friendly,

appropriating renaming. The crew, despite its diverse origins,

speaks a single, hybrid language:

Once under sail, Zachary was forced to undergo yet another education, not so much in seamanship this time, as in the ways of the new crew…. Having been put in charge of the ship’s stores Zachary had to familiarize himself with a new set of provisions, bearing no resemblance to the accustomed hardtack and brined beef; he had to learn to say ‘resum’ instead of ‘rations’, and he had to wrap his tongue around words like ‘dal’, ‘masala’ and ‘achar’. He had to getused to ‘malum’ instead of mate, ‘serang’ for bosun, ‘tindal’ for bosun’s mate, and ‘seacunny’ for helmsman; he had to memorize a new shipboard vocabulary, which sounded a bit like English and yet not: the rigging became the ‘ringeen’, ‘avast!’ was ‘bas!’ and the cry of the middle-morning watch went from ‘all’s well’ to ‘alzbel’. The deck now became the ‘tootuk’ while the masts were ‘dols’; a command became a ‘hookum’ and instead of starboard and larboard, fore and aft, he had to say ‘jamna’ and ‘dawa’, ‘agil’ and ‘peechil’ (16).

18 The lascars can be seen as a kind of hybrid society, linked

together by language, specifically, by the renaming of the

fundamental elements of shipboard life; thus, they effectively

represent a connection between hybridization and friendly

renaming.

The renaming in the novel can be linked to other instances

of renaming in other contexts. For instance, the renaming of

streets in New York City – Manhattan's Upper West Side in the

late 19th century and Harlem streets in the late 20th. Concerning

the renaming of New York streets, Reuben S. Rose-Redwood, citing

Maoz Azaryahu, notes that the “practice of symbolic erasure is

most evident in the act of street renaming, where one name is

officially replaced by another” (533). He links street naming as

a commemorative practice to the more general issues of place-

making, memory and “symbolic capital.” Maoz Azaryahu discusses

the nomenclature “Hebrew Sea” in Zionist history before the

establishment of the State of Israel in 1948; he argues (252)

that the metamorphosis of the Mediterranean Sea into the “Hebrew

Sea” turned a mere geographical entity into an integral element

19of Zionist ideology. Thus, a geographic entity was appropriated

into the Zionist lexicon.

IV Conclusion

Sea of Poppies is rich in allusions to and expressions of the

way different cultures interrelated in 19th-century India during

the period of British colonialism. It uses various tools to

articulate these interrelationships; one of those tools is

renaming. In this brief essay, I have given five examples of

renaming: three examples of friendly renaming, which expresses a

desire to create a bridge between cultures and even to

appropriate another culture, and two examples of inimical

renaming, which, in the case of two of the novel’s

representatives of British colonialism in India, expresses both

an antagonism towards the colonized culture and the desire to

emphasis the superiority of the colonizing power’s culture over

that of the colonized entity.

20

21Works Cited

Primary Source

Amitav Ghosh. Sea of Poppies. London: John Murray, 2008.

Secondary Sources

Azaryahu, Maoz. “The Formation of the 'Hebrew Sea' in Pre-State Israel. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 7.3 (November 2008): 251-67.

Hall, Lisa Kahaleole. “Strategies of Erasure: U.S. Colonialism and Native Hawaiian Feminism,” American Quarterly 60.2 (2008), 273-80.

Marks, Herbert. “Biblical Naming and Poetic Etymology.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114.1 (Spring 1995): 21-42.

Rose-Redwood, Reuben S. “From Number to Name: Symbolic Capital, Places of Memory and the Politics of Street Renaming in New York City.” Social and Cultural Geography 9.4 (June 2008): 431-52.

Sohn, Stephen Hong, Lai, Paul, and Goellnicht, Donald C. “Theorizing Asian American Fiction,” MFS Modern Fiction Studies 56.1 (2010), 1-18.