I’tesamuddin’s narrative in and of itself does not seem to participate in the discourse of Orientalism. Orientalism concerns itself with the “othering” of Eastern culture, making it a spectacle to Western culture. I’tesamuddin’s narrative initially seems to be the reverse of Orientalism. In the case of The Wonders of Vilayet, it is Western culture which is made a spectacle to Eastern culture. I’tesamuddin is essentially Joseph Pitts in reverse. Where Joseph Pitts gave an ethnographic account of the Middle East based upon his experiences, I’tesamuudin gives an ethnographic account of his experiences in the West. While Joseph Pitts was taken captive and continuously wronged and abused by the Turkish people, I’tesamudden was employed by the British East India company and wronged by his employer, Robert Clive. On the other hand, while the work itself does not enact Orientalism, Orientalism can be found within it given the exploitation of India by Clive and the East India Company. There is also the idea that Orientalism is inescapable, and perhaps so inescapable that even people in the Orient can perpetuate Orientalism themselves. Even if a Middle Eastern writer chooses to make a spectacle of Western culture, this is arguably still Orientalism. The reason being is that the Middle Eastern writer is still setting himself apart from Western culture by writing of it ethnographically. The fact that the roles have switched still does not trump the concept of Orientalism, as it seems to be ever present no matter which way. In writing his work he also opens himself up to becoming a spectacle to the West because Westerners may read his work, and the moment Western culture looks at his work as a spectacle, Orientalism is further perpetuated, and hence the discourse of Orientalism continues. The very fact that I’tessamudin’s work is being studied and discussed here shows a continued discourse of Orientalism.

In chapter 8, I’tesamuddin tells a story of a painter who killed someone for the sake of having an object to paint, and he was acquitted for the crime rather than executed so that he could finish his paining. At first glance, it seems that I’tesamuddin is criticizing European culture, asserting that it values art and innovation over human life. This could be seen as a reverse form of Orientalism. However, later on he explains that anyone who is innovative and artsy in India will not be met with respect, but rather shunned and disregarded. At the end of this point he says, “Under such circumstances it is a wonder that anyone at all should apply himself to the sciences and arts” (74). He then goes on to describe his fascination with the observatory at Oxford. What seems like a criticism of European culture in the beginning turns out to be more of a critique of Eastern culture in the end. This could be interpreted as I’tesamuddin inflicting Orientalism on his own culture, or it could still be seen as the reverse. Perhaps, rather than inflicting Orientalism on himself, he is actually using the same writing tactics as Joseph Pitts in reverse. Much like how Pitts would point out what Eastern culture does “right” for the sake of critiquing his own culture, I’tesammudin is drawing from the spectacle of Western culture to improve upon Eastern culture. Just as Pitts admired the reverence of Muslims, I’tesamuddin admires Europe’s passion for art and science, and he feels that his culture should enter into this sector to compete with Western culture.

I’tesamuddin’s narrative in and of itself does not seem to participate in the discourse of Orientalism. Orientalism concerns itself with the “othering” of Eastern culture, making it a spectacle to Western culture. It involves the stereotyping and subjugating of the “orient”, under the guise of critique or outright racism. We see examples of such Orientalism in Joseph Pitt’s account, as well as flecks of such in Lady Mary Wortley’s travels. Upon reading I’tesamuddin’s narrative, initially it seems to be the reverse of Orientalism, also known as Occidentalism. In the case of The Wonders of Vilayet, it is Western culture which is made a spectacle to Eastern culture. I’tesamuddin is essentially Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley in reverse. Where Joseph Pitts and Lady Mary Wortley give a critical ethnographic account of the Middle East based upon his experiences, I’tesamuddin gives a critical ethnographic account of his experiences in the West. While Joseph Pitts was taken captive and continuously wronged and abused by the Turkish people, I’tesamuddin was employed by the British East India company and wronged by his employer, Robert Clive. Similar to other voices we have explored thus far, like that of Lady Mary Wortley and Joseph Pitts, who focus on primarily on giving objective observations (though they often fail at the objective part), I’tesamuddin likewise describes with his lens the new world into which he has been thrust; however, he does not do so with an unclouded gaze.

On the other hand, while the work itself does not enact Orientalism, and instead facets of Occidentalism (or appeared Occidentalism), Orientalism can be found within it given the exploitation of India by Clive and the East India Company. There is also the idea that Orientalism is inescapable, and perhaps so inescapable that even people in the Orient can perpetuate Orientalism themselves. Even if a Middle Eastern writer chooses to make a spectacle of Western culture, this is arguably still Orientalism. One must not forget that I’tesamuddin criticizes his own country several times, considering it not as advanced as its British counterpart. We see this when I’tesamuddin shames India for not celebrating learning and the arts as much as Britain does. In this same passage, he laments how India is not as technologically advanced (73-4), mentioning in a separate passage that they are stupid people everywhere, not just Britain, but India as well.

In chapter 8, I’tesamuddin tells a story of a painter who killed someone for the sake of having an object to paint, and he was acquitted for the crime rather than executed so that he could finish his paining. At first glance, it seems that I’tesamuddin is criticizing European culture, asserting that it values art and innovation over human life. This can be seen as Occidentalism. However, later on he explains that anyone who is innovative and artsy in India will not be met with respect, but rather shunned and disregarded. At the end of this point he says, “Under such circumstances it is a wonder that anyone at all should apply himself to the sciences and arts” (74). He then goes on to describe his fascination with the observatory at Oxford. What seems like a criticism of European culture in the beginning turns out to be more of a critique of Eastern culture in the end. This could be interpreted as I’tesamuddin inflicting Orientalism on his own culture, or it could still be seen as the reverse. Perhaps, rather than inflicting Orientalism on himself, he is actually using the same writing tactics as Joseph Pitts in reverse. Much like how Pitts would point out what Eastern culture does “right” for the sake of critiquing his own culture, I’tesamuddin is drawing from the spectacle of Western culture to improve upon Eastern culture. Just as Pitts admired the reverence of Muslims, I’tesamuddin admires Europe’s passion for art and science, and he feels that his culture should enter into this sector to compete with Western culture.

Another example of Orientalism within I’tesamuddin’s narrative is the fact that the Middle Eastern writer is still setting himself apart from Western culture by writing of it ethnographically. The fact that the roles have switched still does not trump the concept of Orientalism, as it seems to be ever present no matter which way. In writing his work he also opens himself up to becoming a spectacle to the West because Westerners may read his work, and the moment Western culture looks at his work as a spectacle, Orientalism is further perpetuated, and hence the discourse of Orientalism continues. The very fact that I’tesamuddin’s work is being studied and discussed here shows a continued discourse of Orientalism.