A postcolonial Comparative Analysis of A Passage to India and Two

 Author: Hafza Qazi.

Orientalist writers have shown only one perspective of the colonization in their texts and deliberately adhered to the set standards by Europeans in the portrayal of “mysterious” India and docile Indians while on the other hand native writers who have been affected by the colonization portrayed it through a different lens where English people were subjected to despise and rebellion instead of being idealized by the ‘passive’ Indians. In this essay, I will analyze how Orientalist writers were systematically infusing the ideas of docility and inferiority into the minds of Indian people portraying themselves as a superior and civilized race especially in terms of politics and education through their literature presenting only one side to the world. Postcolonial native writers on the other hand criticized this racist portrayal of India and changed the narrative by giving voice to the ones who have been marginalized. Drawing this analysis will provide us with a better understanding of the strategies colonizers used to make Indians believe that they are inferior as a race and how postcolonial writers countered this issue through their narrative.

In this context, I will look for the answers to how this monolithic portrayal of the Orient has impacted the psychological state of colonized masses and how the other side of the story of fighting back was deliberately neglected? I will also incorporate how Postcolonial writers changed the narrative of colonizers as saviours to invaders and looters along with how this contribution will impact the neocolonial hegemonies? In this essay, a postcolonial analysis of the novels A Passage to India by E.M. Forster and Two by Gulzar will be conducted in the light of Homi Bhabha’s theory of cultural hybridity. Colonization in India was justified with the civilizing mission by the colonizers but upon analyzing it through Bhabha’s idea of cultural hybridity we can conclude that the argument of civilizing mission negates itself by the end. When we see culture as fluid and perpetually in motion- as a non-static entity the notion of distinguishing between colonized and colonizers on basis of superiority and inferiority in terms of culture, becomes baseless. According to Bhabha pure uncontaminated culture is a myth and all the cultures are characterized by a mixedness which Bhabha referred to as “cultural hybridity”.  

When observed through Bhabha’s perspective the binary of the superior culture of the colonizers and an inferior culture of the subjugated Indians is negating itself because if a permanent label is put on one culture as superior and exalted and another as inferior and menial then culture is being taken as a fixed unchangeable notion in other words as a static essence which is inherently not possible under the concept of cultural hybridity proposed by Bhabha. Culture is the ever-changing and ever-transforming process however colonial discourse cannot admit this because the notion of superior and exalted Britishness is at the core of its justification of colonialism as a civilizing mission. Because there is no inherent essence of the British culture the illusion of a ‘civilizing mission’ becomes baseless and breaks itself down and this deconstructive analysis will reveal colonization as an act of exploiting and invading other people’s land and robbing them of their material resources through power.

 The main argument of the civilizing mission was to culturally educate the subjugated natives so they could attain the same level of civilization as their colonizers. The civilizing mission with justified colonialism was underlined by the argument that the natives, after being exposed to the British culture, would ultimately become culturally exalted eliminating the cultural gap between the two groups and if idealistically the cultural gap is covered the hoax justification of civilizing mission will end as well at the same moment. In the postcolonial deconstructive analysis of the above-mentioned novels, all of these arguments will be incorporated and analyzed from the perspective of Homi Bhabha.

In the novel, “A passage to India” Forster has portrayed the colonizer’s mindset of superiority (culturally and morally) and inferiority to the Orient. He has sketched how British officials treated Indians stereotypically as ‘Others’ and privileged Europeans as ‘us’. It elucidates the impact of ‘Englishness’ on the indigenous culture and identity. Throughout the novel, Forster portrays Indians and India’s landscape as of lesser value and presents the ‘Englishness’ as a superior component and English people as better administrators and responsible individuals. The English people are presented as calm at the time of crisis, while the Indians are shown to be impatient, less rational rather emotional and overly expressive. British India, from a wider angle, is portrayed as an example of reason/logic and orderliness, while native India is irrational and superstitious. The character of an Indian Nawab at the time of a minor accident in his car is meant to reveal the childish nature of the Nawab. He loses his head, abuses his chauffeur, and behaves badly towards Miss Derek, while the white men are presented as men of grace and poise.  In comparison to any English character, we witnessed Indians as impulsive and sentimental through the characters like Dr Aziz and Mahmoud Ali. Dr Aziz, under the influence of colonial ideology, is fond of Western notions of beauty and does not regard his wife as a beautiful woman. Although Aziz does find friendship and affection in Fielding, he still cannot free himself from the shackles of the enslaved mentality that takes hold of him while dealing with the insidious and insulting officials. He is impulsive and sentimental while Fielding is always calm and composed and does not outwardly express his emotions anywhere like a conventional Englishman. This very portrayal is challenged and countered by the native post-colonial writers.

Oriental and postcolonial portrayal differs in the sense that native writers redefine the Orient through their literature and counter the unrealistic and dark imagery presented to the world by Orientalist writers. For instance, in A Passage to India, only the superior-inferior binary of cultures between the colonized and colonizers is highlighted and Indians are shown as passive and docile. British India shown by Forster is peacefully colonized and issues between the colonized and colonizers are not on a bigger scale and are sorted in courts and laws made by the British rulers.  While in reality it is only one side of the story and has not shown any horrors of the colonization or the trauma entailed by the partition. It does not give any glimpse of the anti-colonial movements and civil disobedience movements that were carried out to take the charge back from Colonials. This deliberate monolithic portrayal is proof that Europeans did not want the rest of the world to see India and Indians capable enough to run their own country or fight against the invaders. 

Gulzar, an infamous Urdu poet from India, has witnessed the colonization era of India and the consequential partition after that.  Gulzar has criticized Englishmen numerous times in his subtle yet profound Urdu poetry but in his recently published novel “Do Loug” (translated as Two) he for the first time penned down his thoughts on partition and bluntly spoke through his characters about the strategies that colonizers used in order to create the Hindu-Muslim divide in India and the division of the country that led afterwards. Talking about how British people contributed in fueling the religious conflicts and the bad blood between the rulers of different states in India Gulzar said “They knew our differences were as intense as our friendships. They created armies out of our people and won our own country. Really amazing these English people! See they got the rail started, established the postal system. And it is not as if they brought any money from their homes. The money was ours and so was the country, yet they became the masters and we the servants” (Gulzar 49). It shows how the postcolonial writers talked about the material looting of their country while the Orientalist writers did not write any such thing as they had to present themselves as civilized and superior.  They could easily plunge a whole nation into such crises being superior and civil. This is why Forster did not write about the looting and hypocrisy done by the colonizers instead he wrote “Don’t forget that you’re superior to everyone in India except one or two Ranis and they are on equality” (Forster 33) This makes it quite clear that Orientalists thought of themselves as a superior race and presented so to the world as well as hiding the darker side where the colonized nations were robbed off and the cultural diversity was on stake.

Gulzar was highly critical of the colonizers throughout his text and discouraged the lifestyle of English colonizers. The lifestyle which has become the desired ‘modern’ living for the neo-colonized nation is critiqued in his book as “They use knives and forks even to eat. With one hand carve us up and with the other, they devour us (colonized masses)” (Gulzar 51). He used such sentences to counter the stereotypical depiction of Orientalist writers who portrayed Indians as if they are desperate to mimic them and would imitate their eating habits or dressing style as shown in A passage to India where Dr Aziz gave his Tie clip to Fielding and lied about having another when he did not have one and was desperate to look like a gentleman (who was supposedly English in appearance). Forster portrayed being religious or valuing one’s morals as backwardness in his text and it could be seen when a character Mohammed Latif refused to shake hands and Aziz said “Oh no, Don’t shake hands. He is an Indian of the old-fashioned sort, he prefers to salaam” (Forster 110). He did not stop there and wrote quite clearly in his novel “Indians are incapable of responsibility” (Forster 113). On the contrary, while critiquing the consequences of colonization Gulzar argued, “The seeds sown by the British had sprouted thorns which began to prick. They were masters of their craft” (Gulzar 24). 

According to Gulzar, the religious and sectarian differences were there among Indian people but they have been living together in inter-faith harmony without any idea of dividing the states as per their religious majority or minority. It was the colonizers who fueled these differences and inhumanely divided united India into ‘TWO’. United India was both religiously and culturally a diverse nation but, in an attempt, to attain their political agendas, colonizers introduced them to their literature and culture presenting it as an epitome of both. Apart from this, the subtle perpetuation of inferiority complex was also instilled in the colonized subjects which in reality was only for the political and economical gains of the colonizers.  In addition to this, considering Bhabha’s notion of the hybridity of the culture, we see that all this superior-inferior debate was nothing but a hoax justification by the colonizers. If there is no essence of any culture on a high pedestal and the subjugated or inferior culture in comparison to that then no race can be elevated or demoted on basis of it hence Orient and its portrayal was political and racist not civilizational. The civilizing mission in itself was just an attempt to eradicate the universally known cultural diversity of India and to invade it for political purposes, not for the ‘civilizational’ mission of an underprivileged and less groomed race.

Works Cited:

Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. New York, Routledge, 2004.

Gulzar. TWO. India, Thompson Press, 2017. Print.

Said, Edward. “Orientalism.” Pantheon Books, 1978.