violence is a cleansing force. It rids the colonized of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them, and restores their self-confidence.
If one looks at this from a general point of view, it definitely seems true. The colonised finally pose a threat to the dominant force, and in that threat, they experience a sense of power. However, at a very very fundamental level, I find that not to be the case in Forster's A Passage to India. . No doubt, the British characters in the novel seem to all beat a hasty retreat to Britain - Moore, Quested and eventually Fielding; a sort of symbolic surrender to the Indians. Yet, it seems it is Aziz who suffers the most in the aftermath. He is paranoid, suspicious, angry and desires to escape into a reclusion. In conclusion, I like the Aziz at the end of the novel less than the Aziz at the beginning. Violence has not cleansed Aziz. It gives him a new stubborn hatred of the British which seems myopic and bitter. It almost costs him Fielding's friendship. He does not seem a better man for it, only holding on to the notion that one can "Never be friends with the English!".
I found the last few paragraphs of the novel very powerful as Fielding and Aziz finally and plainly lash out at each other as symbols of the Enemy, yet their embrace at the end binds them, suggesting the core of humanity. The listing of physical structures "the rocks, the temples, the tank, the jail, the palace, the birds, the carrion, the Guest House" come between them, suggesting the impossibility of shaking off the historical burden that has not cleansed but instead tainted the friendship between an Englishman and an Indian. Violence, in my simplistic opinion, has not cleansed but tainted, politicised and embittered a sweet intelligent man.
My question is this: To what extent was this a necessary reality check and what, do you think,is Forster's intention?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment