Khan 371the self-definition of the metropolitan—the greengrocer, the bus-driver,
or the laundress—was hardly the same as that of someone who had cho-
sen to travel to the colony, for whatever reason. To use Lyotard’s term,
the metanarrative that governed day-to-day life in the metropole, while
certainly colored by the colonial experience, was not defined by it as it was
in the colony, particularly for an educated middle-class colonial.
us a certain sense of solidarity was fostered, not only between stu-Th
dents from the same colony, but also with students from different colonies
but very similar political and social concerns. The era was one of colo-
nial self-evaluation and personal, as well as national, redefinition. Such a
process requires support and feedback, which was welcomed more from
sympathizers than from “overlords.” Furthermore, it requires, as Dana
Villa explains, a “specifically political space distinct from the state and
the economy, an institutionally bounded discursive arena that is home
to citizen debate, deliberation, agreement, and action.”^42 Villa’s elabora-
tion of Habermas’s and Hannah Arendt’s public sphere is also a useful
description of what sort of discursive arena was needed for the colonials
to become trans/nationalist activists. While the institutional boundaries
of this discourse were defined by the colonizer, there was a real—if shift-
ing—space which the otherwise disenfranchised colonials could access in
the metropole.
s is not to claim for a moment that Europe provided an “ideal Thi
speech situation,” in that it was hardly free from internal or external coer-
cion. Externally, the coercive limits placed on speech were obvious, not
only in terms of policing by governments but also by the powerful limita-
tions of public perception: as second-class guests in their host countries,
the students had to be very careful to not attract too much public notice
or provoke hostility. It was clear to everyone, for example, that the dis-
solution of India House was due more to the attention of the press than
to any government plan. Internally, the most obvious limitation placed on
participation was simply one of access: only members of certain classes
would be able to study in the metropoles and join in the discourse. There
were other limitations as well. It was possible to be ostracized from the
group for certain behavior, from disagreement on methods or suspicion
of spying for the authorities to personality conflicts. There was also the
problem of funding: enough of the nationalists in the metropoles were