Anticolonialism has often been regarded as a constitutive feature of “postcolonial literature”. Do you agree?

The rejection of colonialism and its exploitation of the
subjects of the Empire is certainly a feature of postcolonial fiction. However, critics
from a New Historicist perspective often argue that rejection and rebellion often hide a
complicit attitude. Thus, some texts produced by Europeans but that could be considered
postcolonial because they were influenced by imperialist discourse such as E. M.
Forster's A Passage to India or J. Conrad's Heart of
Darkness have been subjected to increasing critical scrutiny as far as the
representation of the empire and the natives is concerned. Such analyses have aimed to
bring out the authors' complicity with the system that they apparently
challenged. 

A general strategy common to postcolonial
texts is the technique that critic Abdul JanMohamed has called "writing back".
Postcolonial writers use literary modes and devices from the Western tradition to create
a counter-hegemonic discourse. As JanMohamed has argued in Manichaean
Aesthetics (1983), the rejection of the colonial past always involves
admitting the enduring influence of that past in the construction of postcolonial
identities and discourses.