Each of the stories in Interpreter of Maladies deals with loss, whether the loss of a child in “A Temporary Matter,” the loss of tradition in “This Blessed House,” or the loss of a sense of home through the processes of migration in “Mrs. Sen’s.” So varied are the senses and psychic experiences of pain and loss each story describes, it is striking that two of Lahiri’s stories, “Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine” and “A Real Durwan,” reckon with the broader, more historical loss and trauma that resulted from the Partition of India. Why is an American writer, so far removed from the events and results of the Partition, playing interpreter of this historical trauma? Furthermore, how is Lahiri’s interest in national issues from a diasporic position indicative of a larger trend or objective you can identify in immigrant literature?

Although writer Jhumpa Lahiri—who was born in London and grew up in Rhode Island—is not a native of India, she is still a member of its global diaspora. Lahiri's parents were born and raised in India, particularly West Bengal, and they instilled Bengali/Indian cultural values in her at a young age. Although Lahiri was born twenty years after the Partition of India, she has studied the history and political and cultural complexities of the event. In the same way that scholars of World War II or the Cultural Revolution study these historical events despite being born after their conclusion, Lahiri uses secondhand sources to conduct research.
This trend of diaspora nationalism can be found among many Asian American, Middle Eastern American, and Hispanic American writers. Many first-generation or second-generation Americans try to understand, analyze, and articulate the duality of being both an American by birth and a "foreigner" in household culture. This is not exclusive to writers who are people of color. The origins of country music can be traced to Irish and Scottish immigrants in the South and Appalachia. Despite having lived in the United States for many generations, there is still a cultural tie to the ancestral homeland.
Lahiri's viewpoint of India and Indian history is skewed, however, no matter how many firsthand sources she draws from (e.g., her parents, family members back in India, historical records, et al.). Asian Americans may be as prone as others to fetishizing their ancestral cultures, because they did not grow up in that particular country. Interestingly, the word "interpreter" is in the title of her book, and, in a sense, Lahiri can only be an interpreter of Indian history and culture unless she embeds herself in that culture for a long period of time.