Poststructuralist (Deconstructive) approach to Tariq Rahman’s short story “Bingo”

Jawairia Munir

UMT, Lahore

1

Abstract

The aim of this research study is to apply the three stage model of Poststructuralist /

deconstructive process, as proposed by Barry (2002), on a literary text, i.e. short story. For this

purpose Tariq Rahman’s “Bingo” has been selected and analysed using this model of literary

stylistics theory. Firstly, at the verbal stage contradictory words are selected and analysed in

isolation and their subconscious meanings are identified. Secondly at the textual stage those

statements and utterances are analysed that reflect diversion of ideas on the part of the writer. At

this stage conflicting theme and ideas are focused instead of words in isolation. And finally at the

linguistic stage the surface meaning of the whole short story is called into question and is found

as contradictory to the hidden and unconscious meaning. The deconstructive analysis shows that

various words and phrases in “Bingo” show the slippery and fluid nature of language for

example; the title “Bingo” itself does not adhere to the text. Furthermore, there are other

contradictory statements as “I think this is a race of slaves”, --- They were not slaves it seemed”,

“he took his paw in his big hand”, etc. At the surface level the narrator shows his disliking for

the Bingos but at deeper level he creates a sort of affection and respect for them in the readers’

hearts. So the story is found to say things that are unsaid and sometimes it does not say anything

but everything is said instead.

Keywords: Post-structuralist; deconstruction; deconstructive analysis; verbal stage; textual

stage; linguistic stage; bingo.

2

Introduction

This research study is an application of three stage model of Poststructuralist / deconstructive

process proposed by Barry (2002) on Tariq Rahman’s “Bingo”.

Different literary critics define deconstruction differently but most of them believe that it started

as a reaction against structuralism in early nineties (Mills, 2003). It is closely tied with Derrida’s

deconstruction (Werlock, 2009). Derrida coined this term and he is the major and most

significant representative of this philosophical movement (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2007 that

challenges and contradicts all the past beliefs and ideologies. Deconstruction is one of the most

important features of post-structuralism that applies different tools to analyse the literary texts

(Lashari & Awan, 2012).

The theory of deconstruction was initiated by Barthes (1968) with “The death of the author and

later on became fully popular with the literary works of Derrida (1966) who, in his lecture on

“Structure, Sign and the Play in the Discourse of human sciences”, claims that there are no

absolute or fixed points in the universe; it is decentred and relativistic (Dean, 2005) and man

does a sort of “free play” in it, which Derrida remarks as “liberating” (Barry, 2002) following

Barthes’ analogy who in “The death of the author” announces “freedom” from all textual

restraints (Kafeer, 1995).

Deconstruction is, in fact, based on the philosophy of Nietzsche’s famous remark “There are no

facts, only interpretations” (Barry, 2002; Deleuze, 2006). “Words are containers of meanings”

and meanings can be “put into or retrieved from words” (Sin, 2002). Words can elicit many

different interpretations. In that deconstruction contradicts the fixity of meaning in structuralism.

The major focus of deconstruction is to criticize “Logocentrism” and to refute the origin and

presence of metaphysics (Culler, 1983). There is no textual centre or fixity. The words are

3

pluralistic and multiple in their meanings, referring not only to whatever is present in the text,

but also to what they refer to outside the text (McGuire & Jorgensen, 2010). Deconstruction

finds out the unfixed meanings; finds untruths behind the truths; ambiguities behind the

expressions (Lashari & Awan, 2007). It claims that this is a decentred universe and all reality is

a lie; The truth is not “truth” in “reality” but only propagated as “truth”; It preaches multiple

realities, multiple truths and multiple identities and is against one centre and one consumer

culture. It accepts no past theory of knowledge. All the accepted and established beliefs and

ideologies of the past are challenged as well as rejected. Its proponents claim that deconstruction

is the only construction (Bauman, 1992).

According to the theory of deconstruction culture is relativised. Morality is privatised. What is

right for one may not be right for others. Religion is also considered a private matter (Ven &

Ziebertz, 2012) people have very little association with their fellow beings. Standards of

moralities have become different. Identities are conflicting. It demystifies natural origins and

physical essences (Epstein, 1999) and this process has no limit.

Barry (2002) describes the theory of deconstruction as “applied post-structuralism”.

Deconstruction and post structuralism are often used synonymously in the literary criticism

(Cicora, 2000).

Literary critics do not agree on one definition of deconstruction. Derrida (1978) himself

describes that deconstructive reading has a sort of relationship between ‘what the writer

commands and what he does not command’, though this relationship is unperceived by the

writer. However, Hannack & Taylor (2001) define deconstruction as “a methodological strategy

which seeks to uncover layers of hidden meaning in a text which have been denied or

suppressed”. Text is a cultural product resulted as a social interaction and its true meaning is

4

suppressed inside the layers with the analogy of Freudian concept of dreams as the expression of

the unconscious or suppressed desires (Freud, 1900). Deconstruction is the process in which the

literary critics deconstruct the literary and linguistic texts.

Johnson (1980) opines that Derrida’s deconstruction is much closer to the word “analysis”,

which etymologically means “to undo”, and this “deconstruction of a text does not proceed by

random doubt or arbitrary subversion, but by the careful teasing out of warring forces of

signification within the test”. The text is at war with itself and multiple meanings may be

inferred after a close textual analysis (Barry, 2002). Moreover Cuddon (1991) asserts that in

deconstruction a text says “something quite different from what it appears to be saying”. He

further says that literary text may look apparently as giving “single stable meanings” but in

reality they carry plurality of meanings which can be different and contradictory to one another.

According to Barry (2002) “Signs float free of what they designate, meanings are fluid and

subject to a constant slippage and spillage”. He further says that meanings are not “pure” and

“are always contaminated by their opposites”. Deconstruction talks about binary oppositions in

language like day/night, light/dark, male/female, good/bad, in which meaning of one cannot be

determined without the reference of the other. But in deconstruction the polarity of these

common binary oppositions is reversed, in which the second term is more desirable and more

privileged (Edgar & Sedgwick, 2007).

The theory of deconstruction became highly popular (Carroll, 1990) in the literary circles and

many post structuralist literary critics were engaged in the task of deconstructing the texts,

‘reading against the grain’ or ‘reading the text against itself’ the purpose of which is ‘knowing

the text as it cannot know itself’ (Eagleton in Barry, 2002). So, the text is at war against itself

and it uncovers the “underlying unconscious dimension of the author” (Derrida, (1978).

5

Derrida's well known phrase ‘There is nothing outside the text’ is widely quoted and interpreted

by the literary critics. So with Derrida this term came into vogue and many critics began to

deconstruct the texts afterwards following his footsteps.

Barry (2002) proposes these three stages --- verbal, textual and the linguistic to deconstruct the

texts. In the verbal stage the words are studied in isolation, with the concept that they do not

contain pure or fixed meanings, but rather, they represent contradictions and paradoxes in a text.

It reveals binary oppositions and slipperiness of the language being used. In the textual stage

overall meaning of the text is identified. It also analyses shifting meanings, textual contradictions

and the continuity of the texts. The linguistic stage calls into question the trustworthiness and

reliability of language being used in a literary text. It represents in language what it does not

intend to present. It calls into question “the adequacy of language itself as a medium of

communication.

Barry (2002 applies this three stage model on a poem by Dylan Thomas 'A refusal to mourn the

death, by fire, of a child in London'. He identifies the binaries, contradictions and paradoxes used

in this poem revealing “major time shifts and changes in viewpoint, and that there is no smooth

chronological progression (Barry, 2002). There are also many omissions in the poem that do not

tell things we expect to be told. For example the poet does not tell us why he refuses to mourn

the death of that child but at the same time we find him mourning although he claims not to

mourn. Barry further says that the poet “identifies the language trap, and then falls into it”.

Lashari & Awan, (2012) have applied this three stage model as proposed by Barry (2002) on

“The cow” by Firdous Haider (1994). After a comprehensive three stage analysis they conclude

that the text of this story fails to dig out and convey single meaning from the sign, signifier and

6

signified. The language conveys various unstable messages and meanings, so it can be called

chaotic rather than trustworthy.

In the deconstruction of this short story “Bingo” the text will be deconstructed into bits and

pieces and then analysed using “three stages of deconstructive process” as proposed by Barry

(2002).

Tariq Rahman is a well known Professor of Sociolinguistics at the Beaconhouse National

University, Lahore. He is a highly published scholar and has been a guest professor in Denmark

and Spain. He is the author of three collections of short stories. His short stories are brief which

mirror Pakistani society as being prone to social inequality and brutality. The writer develops the

short stories craftily from everyday events reflecting back the foibles and contradictions of

human beings. “Bingo”, which is set in East Pakistan---now Bangladesh, is the most pathetic and

impressive story from these collections. All his short stories are written in English.

Discussion

Tariq Rahman’s “Bingo” is an impressive and pathetic story with the background theme of 1971

war between Pakistan and India. It mirrors contempt and hatred of West Pakistanis against the

East Pakistanis now Bangladesh. The story revolves around two military cadets Safeer and

Tajassur who are under training to become commissioned officers in the army and later on

posted in the East Pakistan during the war of 1971. The narrator is Safeer who is obtuse,

diplomatic, jealous of his fellow cadet Tajassur, and contemptible of all Bengalis. While Tajassur

(a Bengali) is a good-natured and kind hearted person who always suffers due to his lively

nature. To make fun of his Bengali companion Safeer calls him Bingo. Safeer is against

Bengalis and kills several Bengalis and dishonours their girls when in East Pakistan. But one day

he is taken prisoner and a Bangladeshi army officer passes the sentence of death on him. He

7

undergoes a psychological crisis and understands that the Bengalis too were fighting for what

they considered worth preserving. At this juncture he’s taken out of the prison and taken home

by Tajassur, who is now an officer in the Bangladesh army. At Tajassur’s home Safeer

understands the essential humanity of the Bengalis, fall in love with Tajassur’s sister, and

become more understanding. A captain of special services group breaks into the house and kills

Tajassur’s sister and Tajassur. Safeer kills Tajassur’s mother to end her agony at her son and

daughter’s deaths. They go back but by this time Bangladesh is free and the Pakistan Army has

surrendered. Whole the story reflects Safeer’s psychological conflict in liking and disliking of

Tajassur. At the end Safeer shows his deep love for Bingos but at the expense of their death.

In the application of the first stage of verbal analysis, the words are studied in isolation from

other linguistic items and their subconscious or hidden meanings are identified. This analysis

reveals various contradictions and fluidity of meanings in the text under discussion. For example

in “BINGO”

Safeer and Tajassur

Safeer and Tajassur represent two entirely different entities. Although they are two individual

characters, they represent two different worldviews. Safeer is egoist, callous and suffers

superiority complex while his fellow cadet Tajassur is humble, lively and helpful person who is

always ready to please others. Each of the characters can be studied under the shadow of the

other. In the text the character of Tajassur is more desirable honoured and privileged than that of

Safeer. Through these characters the writer represents two conflicting parts of Pakistan (West

Pakistan and East Pakistan). Both these characters portray the actual feelings of their respective

regions and peoples during the war of 1971 between Pakistan and India as a result of which East

Pakistan became Bangla Desh.

8

upto our neck in the soup

The above utterance is unclear although seems to be an idiomatic expression. How can a man get

into the soup upto his neck? But instead he can get into trouble. May be the writer has coined this

idiomatic phrase translating the Urdu idiom (gerdan tk dhans jana) in English under the influence

of his native Pakistani culture. May be the writer is using the soup in place of trouble with the

analogy of helpless chickens that can be found in the soup. This utterance portrays helplessness

of the cadets during training when they could do nothing in response of the punishments that

were inflicted upon them by their seniors.

the whole army spat on its hands and got down to the onerous task of making a soldier out of

him.

Again we find an unclear statement. How can the whole army spit on its hands. When army is

used as a collective noun (given to a group of specific people) it can not possess hands.

Individuals in the army have hands so this statement might be true if it was written as “the whole

army spat on their hands”. Secondly this phrase “spat on its hands” is ambiguous that invites

multiple meaning. It can mean ‘taking an oath’, “preparation to do something” as the players spit

on their hands when they are ready to do something important in the game. It may mean

determination on the part of army to make Tajassur a good soldier. This phrase shows the

floating nature of language in both spillage and slippage of the meanings in the text.

He was a Bingo

The word Bingo in the above phrase is ambiguous. Bingo is the name of the game which is

played by cards. It is the game of chance, a type of lottery. It is used as the simplest form of

gambling in some areas of the world. In the above utterance how can a man be a bingo --- a

game? He is a human not a game. He is called Bingo perhaps because seniors and army officers

9

used to play with and make fun of Tajassur. They used to beat and him out of enjoyment and

sometimes out of embarrassment.

the colonel was as serious as church as he took his paw in his big hand

In the above utterance “his paw” is ambiguous. Paw is supposed to be of a dog or any other

primate, but here it refers to the hand of Tajassur. This word refers to all the humiliation and

disgust of the narrator of the story for his Bengali counterpart.

We better roast your Bingo friends alive

“Roast” is ambiguous. Roast is the word used with reference of food not with that of humans. It

has nothing to do with firing. Roast is to bake, fry or grill food especially meat but how can

humans be roasted alive. Even the animals are not roasted alive. First they are cut into pieces and

then roasted. Furthermore this roast can be taken as the literal translation of an Urdu word

/bhu:nәna/ that can be used as the synonymous of “fire at” someone or something. The word has

been deliberately used to produce the desired effects and impressions.

But where is your conscience?

In the above statement Tajassur invites the conscience of Safeer who hates and humiliates

Bingos and disgraces their girls without any reason. This can be the conscience of Pakistani

people who held themselves superiors to Bengalis. This conscience may refer that both these

characters are at the trial of their consciousness. Both think they are right in whatever they are

doing. Here conscience can be referred to the political consciousness of West Pakistan that was

causing havoc in Bengal. There is another pattern of meaning in this utterance. East Pakistan and

West Pakistan both got independence under one banner. Both are fighting for the same cause to

gain control over the whole country. Whatever each of them thinks right for herself, thinks

wrong for the other. So it is a touching dilemma.

10

Can’t you see that this lovely lush-green land is under hobnailed boots.

‘Under the hobnailed boots’ in the above expression is ambiguous that symbolises different

meanings. It is unbelievable to have a whole valley under hobnailed boots. Firstly there cannot

be a boot so large that can take a whole valley under it. That must be of some giant. Secondly

hobnailed boots are usually worn by army men. It refers to the fact that Bengal was trespassed

by the army against the wishes of her people. It also symbolises the oppression that was enforced

by the military officials of West Pakistan in the East Pakistan.

I got my first girl too one day

The phrase ‘my first girl’ elicits that there were many other girls that followed the first.

Bangla Desh was free and the Pakistan Army had surrendered.

This last line of the story elicits many meanings. Tajassur represents Bangladesh in the story. He

bears all the pains and trials inflicted upon him by Pakistani army and at the end dies at their

hands. His death shows freedom from humility, disgrace and pains that he suffers during his

short life. Similarly Bangladesh was free after suffering so much humiliation and disgrace from

Pakistani army and people. The surrender of Pakistani army at the end portrays the defeat and

surrender of Safeer at the end of story. Safeer does not like Bingos. Throughout the story he

shows his contempt and hatred and disgrace against them but at the end he surrenders before the

love and kindness of Tajassur. He begins loving Bingos but at the expense of their death.

The above discussion shows that language does not reflect whatever is there in the world. Rather

it creates its own world. It is the first step of “going against the grain” to identify the difference

and deference in the text as proposed by Derrida (1978).

In the second textual stage overall meaning of ‘Bingo’ is identified by analysing shifting

meanings, textual contradictions, the tension of ideas, breaks, and the discontinuity of the texts.

11

The title of the story is surprising as Bingo actually denotes a game but in the whole story there

is no mention of this game. Here ‘Bingo’ refers to a person belonging to Bangladesh. This person

has again nothing to do with the game Bingo. So the title does not belong to the story as it does

not refer to any bingo game but the writer is putting his own meaning to it --- that is a man who

belongs to Bengal. The writer shifts the meaning of the word ‘Bengali’ to the word ‘Bingo’ and

assigns it a new meaning. So the word Bingo acts as a container in which any meaning can be

put by the author.

There are certain expressions which are contradictory to one another. In one paragraph Safeer

says about Tajassur that He was a sub-human creature but in the next paragraph he says if one

talked to him he smiled and spoke nicely even afterwards he says he was so lively and soft-

spoken. All the above utterances reveal contradictory notions of the narrator about Tajassur. It

also shows that the text is fluid, floating and is at war against itself. Any meaning can be

retrieved from the text or any other meaning can be given to it. It also shows that text can reveal

contradictory notions about different characters within it.

At another place in the story the writer calls Bengal a Marshland as I went a step further and

called him a Marshland minion. ---- and since all his land was marshland so __ the title while at

another place he says this lovely lush green land is under the hobnailed boots. So the writer’s

view about Bengal is contradictory.

Again we find contradictory statement about the Bengali people. Safeer and other Pakistani

Army officials treated the East Pakistan as their colony. As Safeer says “I think this is a race of

slaves”. And later on we find a Bengali Major blaming Safeer to treat them as slaves when he

was caught a prisoner in the following way: “You are colonists like French in Algeria and the

12

Belgians in Congo”. But later in the story we find a contradictory statement from Safeer as “They

were not slaves it seemed”.

In the other paragraph there are again contradictory statements. At one place Safeer says I hated

these Bengali bastards. I hated them all --- and later on when he finds his Bengali companion

Tajassur standing before him he states I put my arms around his neck and almost stifled him --- I

kissed him on the cheek. All the above examples show how the text contradicts itself and how the

writer’s attitude shifts from one idea to the other. It also reveals the disunity of the text in the

guise of unity.

The linguistic stage calls into question the trustworthiness and reliability of language being used

in a literary text. It represents in language what it does not intend to present. It calls into question

“the adequacy of language itself as a medium of communication” (Barry, 2002).

The story’s title Bingo was given to a Bengali to show the contempt and humiliation of West

Pakistanis against Bengali people but after reading the story Bingo incites our love and affection

towards them. The reader can declare in praise --- What a Bingo he is! It compels the readers to

sympathise with the people of Bengal at their suffering during the war of 1971.

In the story the narrator Safeer relates all the incidents according to his own point of view. He

exhibits all his hatred and contempt against his Bengali friend but inwardly he impresses the

readers by describing his good qualities. He is employing the rhetorical strategies in his

narration.

Bingo is full of lines that reveal Pakistani army’s hatred, disdain and rather sarcasm towards

Bengalis. They made fun of Bengalis. They called them “Bingos” out of mockery and contempt.

We find Safeer repeatedly saying:

“Bingos were dirty ---- stubborn Bingos----or-----bloody Bingos”

13

He does not even consider them humans and calls them Apes, inhuman, animals---- or----dogs

They looked like animals--- their animal faces scared me --- whimpered like dogs--- stupid

wretch cried out in fear--- chickens with the heads cut off--- an expert in bringing in Bingos as a

net brings in fish --- but actually in spite of all this hatred and inhuman attitude against Bingos

the story compels its readers to think that Bengalis are also very much humans. They are not

animals and should not be treated like that. They are lovable and very kind hearted people. They

are also worthy of respect as any other nation and are inferior to none.

The story reveals the writer’s stance that Bengali people should not be blamed at their demand of

independence. In fact their demands were not dealt with suitably that led them to declare Bangla

Desh as an independent state. In this way he took a different position on this issue from other

Pakistani writers. In one of his interviews Rehman suggests to read the hamood Rehman

Commission report regarding this issue. He says that reading this report we can see why “bones

were crushed for raising slogans”. He further states “we cannot mend those bones but we should

confront the ghosts of our past” to learn a lesson.

“Bingo” portrays misery and disgrace of the people of Bengal at the hands of Pakistani army.

The whole story describes the miserable events. The degree of misery increases as the story

proceeds further and heightens at the end with the cutting deaths of Bengalis and Tajassur

himself along with his whole family. But the ending line of the story shows the end of miseries

and suffering of Bengali people which reads --- Bangla Desh was free---.

“Bingo” is written in the form of dialogues and in the English that is typically spoken and

written in Pakistan. Therefore it is full of expressions such as

“Staff and seniors are allowed to nab him by the neck”,

“He was quite a kid and kids can’t get serious about politics and such like grown up things”

14

“That’s a fat-headed thing to say”

“We had better roast your Bingo friends alive.”

“Major Ali Ahmad was an expert in bringing in Bingos as a net brings in fish”

“I was given a blow on the head which made everything go dark in front of me”.

The language inevitably shows the stamp of Pakistani culture and local, indigenous habits of

speech both in form and use.

He has used military jargon that runs throughout the story. It adds flavour to the textual

language. It also adds to the authenticity and effectiveness of linguistic impressions.

Conclusion

Deconstructive analysis of Tariq Rahman’s Bingo shows that the meaning of language is not

fixed but rather it is fluid. It conveys multiple meanings which can be quite opposite of one

another. De Saussure’s idea that word cannot give meaning in isolation is questioned as the data

analysis shows that words can give meanings in isolation and that can be multiple meanings.

From that it shows that language is pluralistic in nature. Deconstruction rejects De Saussure’s

theory of signification that sign, signifier and signified contain single fixed meaning. It

propagates that one signifier can represent many signified concepts. So the application of three

stage deconstructive model proposed by Barry (2002) on Bingo reveals this pluralistic nature of

language. These three stages of textual analysis are verbal, textual and linguistic. The application

of these three stages on “Bingo” reveals that language is not fixed nor it contains a single stable

message. Rather it pluralistic in nature. It contains several meanings that make it ambiguous. Its

fluid nature makes it flexible and its meanings can go on and on till infinity. Thus, in that

context, The verbal level shows the slippery and fluid nature of language. The ideas are floating

and the words do not represent what they are meant to represent. The textual stage also shows

15

that there are various utterances that are contradictory to one another. Whatever the writer says in

one statement is contradictory what he says in the other statement. Then there are concepts that

do not adhere to the text and its meaning like the concept of “Bingo”. Then there are

contradictory and ambiguous statements as “I think this is a race of slaves”, They were not

slaves it seemed”, “he took his paw in his big hand”, upto our neck in the soup”, etc. All this

analysis shows the unfixed nature of language. Finally the linguistic stage reveals the things

unsaid in the literary text. At a surface level the narrator shows his disliking for the Bingos but at

the deeper level the story creates a sort of affection and respect for them in the hearts of the

reader. So the story is found to say things that are unsaid and sometimes it does not say anything

but everything is said instead (Lashari & Awan, 2012).

16

References

Barry, P. (2002). Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester:

University Press.

Bertens, H. (2003). Literary theory: the basic. London and New York: Routledge; Taylor &

Francis Group

Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. New York: Routledge Publishing, pp 150-172.

Carroll. D. The States of "Theory": History, Art, and Critical Discourse. London: Columbia

University Press

Cicora, M. A. (2000). Modern Myths and Wagnerian Deconstructions: Hermeneutic Approaches

to Wagner. London: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp 218

Connors, C. (2010). Literary Theory: A Beginner's Guide. Oneworld Publications. Pp. 227

Cuddon, J. A. (1991). Dictionary of literary terms and literary theory. 3rd Ed. London: The

Penguin Publishers.

Culler, J. (2007). On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. London:

Cornell University Press, 307 pp.

Dean. C. L. (2005). A prolegomenon to the study of the Mystical elements in the anti

Essentialism in post-structuralism, Postmodernism, feminism and queer Theory.

Australia: Gamahucher press.

Deleuze, G. (2006). Nietzsche and Philosophy. London: Continuum International Publishing

Group.

Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Ed. Trans. Gayatri Spivak Chakarvort. Baltimore: John

Hopkins University Press. 154; 244

17

Edgar, A. & Sedgwick, P. (2007). Cultural Theory: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge

Publishing, pp 447.

Epstein, M. (1999). Transculture in the Context of Contemporary Critical Theories in

Transcultural Experiments: Russian and American Models of Creative Communication,

New York: St. Martin’s Press (Scholarly and reference Division), pp. 79-90

Freud, Sigmund, (1900).  ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’ in Rivkin and Ryan, ed. Literary

Theory: An Anthology, 2002, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Hancock, P. & Tyler, M. (2001). Work, postmodernism and organization. 1st Edition. London:

Sage Publications, p 41

Kafeer, D. (1995). Philosophy and Literature. Retrieved on 15th may, 1913 from

http://faculty.risd.edu/dkeefer/reports.htm

Mcguire, D. & Jorgensen, K. M. (2010). Human Resource Development: Theory and Practice.

London: Sage Publications, pp 45-56

Rybicki, J. (2003). Post-structuralism. Retrieved on 13th May, 2013 from

http://www.ap.krakow.pl/nkja/literature/theory/post-structuralism.htm

Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.

Sin. K. K. (2012). Myths and misconceptions in translation teaching. In E. Hung (Ed.), Teaching

Translation and interpreting 4(pp. 213-230) London: John Benjamins Publishing.

Smith, J. K. A. (1976). Jacques Derrida: Live Theory. London: Continuum International

publishing group.

Ven, J. A. & Ziebertz, H. (2012). Tensions Within and Between Religions and Human Rights.

BRILL, pp 255.

18

Vincent, L. B. (1983). “Extension of subversion.” In deconstructive criticism: An advance

introduction. New York: Columbia University Press.

http://thecurrentaffairs.com/watchaks-tv-online-aks-channel-pakistan-aks-tv-shows.html

Werlock, A. H. P. (2009). Companion to Literature: Facts on File Companion to the American

Short Story. New York: Infobase Publishing, pp 842

19