Recently I've had to revise my long-held opinion that Europeans (or, in fact, Americans) can't write about India. It's not that they can't physically write about India, it's that their efforts always seem tainted by colonialism. Read "The Far Pavilions" or even "Shantaram" if you don't believe me. A friend of mine who majored in English literature here in India agrees with me, so I'm not alone.
But now I'm reading "Passage to India," which seems to be the exception that proves the rule. Yes, the author makes sweeping generalizations about Indians, but he doesn't start with the philosphy that Indians are inherently other. Even the best-inentioned writers will fail at being unbiased if they can't exorcise this particular personal demon. And most of them can't. Forster can. He doesn't make any attempt to justify the British presence in India, not even by emphasizing that "not all of them were that bad." (What kind of justification is that, anyway?) There are good Britishers and bad Britishers, but Forster runs with the premise that none of them have any business colonizing India in the first place.
Although the book is about British prejudice, it could just as well be about Indian prejudice. The plot hinges on a sexual harrassment charge filed by an English girl against an Indian man. From the beginning the reader knows that the charge is fake, but the British citizenry of the region believe the worst. They refuse to acknowledge that the Indian might be innocent, even when the girl suffers an attack of conscience and withdraws her charge in the middle of the trial. The British use the charge as an excuse to unleash torments and loathing against all Indians. Their hatred has nothing to do with the crime in question.
So yes, the book is about unreasonable British prejudice against Indians, but...if Forster hadn't told us that the charge was fake (in other words, if we hadn't known) then even I wouldn't have known whom to believe. Because from the beginning, the Indians were convinced that the British had set them up. Even when the girl broke with her own community to withdraw the charge (an act of personal bravery), the Indian community continued to loathe her.
Towards the end of the sad affair, one of the Indians tells the guy who has been falsely accused, "If God himself descended from heaven into [the Britishers'] club and said you were innocent, they would disbelieve him."
This reminds me of the long-ago OJ Simpson trial. I was shocked to discover, years after it ended, that a huge percent of the population still believes that OJ was innocent, that he was set up. Despite the fact that the case against him was dismissed, everyone I knew always said that OJ was guilty. (His recent aborted book deal didn't help matters on that front.)
The most difficult and memorable legal cases are never just about the two parties in question.
i saw the movie of the same book not too long ago. it was well done, captivating, and basically felt more like an introduction to the mystery of India as well as a really deep jane austen-ish understanding of people, pride, prejudice and personality. it showcases the growth and change in the personalities of the lead actor and actress, and was a delightful movie to watch.
ReplyDeletei see all kinds of slants - of Americans who've never been but feel they are an authority (this kind is now thankfully being shunned by most media), of those who went and saw what they thought was India, and of Indian NRIs, as well as some who have Indian roots but have rarely known India well, firsthand.
You know, you're right. Maybe all these views taken together represent something closer to the truth than any single view taken alone.
ReplyDeleteRacial prejudice has abated somewhat, so the view of an American who visited India as a foreigner is just as much about India as the view of an Indian visiting America for the first time.
I think so long as all views are equally represented, there's nothing wrong with the diversity.