Final answer:
Rushdie's critique highlights how the label "Commonwealth Literature" can cause the marginalization of writers like Ruth Jhabalava, leading to their exclusion from mainstream literature. Efforts to diversify the canon have led to greater inclusion of varied voices over time, though inequalities persist.
Step-by-step explanation:
Rushdie's critique of the term "Commonwealth Literature" suggests that imposing such a restrictive label can lead to the marginalization of works that do not conform to its standards. Consequently, the work of writers like Ruth Jhabalava is at risk of being excluded from mainstream literature because it does not fit the predefined criteria of "Commonwealth Literature." This exclusion can result from a number of systemic issues within the literary world, such as the legacy of colonization, the dominance of Western literary standards, and the gatekeeping practices of publishing and academia. Writers who do not conform to these standards often find it much harder to gain recognition, including being featured in literary anthologies or taught in traditional literature courses.
Despite these challenges, the literary landscape is gradually becoming more inclusive. Efforts to broaden the literary canon have made room for minoritized and non-Western writers, albeit slowly. Literature classrooms are now more likely to include a diverse range of authors than in the past, but the balance is yet to be fully restored. For example, African American, Native American, and writers from former British colonies are receiving more attention in academic settings, reflecting a dynamic and evolving canon that is better representative of different cultures and experiences.
It is essential to acknowledge the way historical structures and power dynamics have influenced literary recognition and to actively participate in the inclusion of a diverse array of voices within the literary canon, much like the shifting perspectives in contemporary debates over literature.