Fanon, Forster, Violence

Fanon’s ‘On Violence” makes quite an exciting read. The never-ending violence between the colonizer and the colonized, the strategies they each employ against one another, and how the colonized undergoes a transformation (from “thing” to man) during the violent process of decolonization.

However, putting Fanon and Forster together, Forster’s A Passage to India is not as violent, but a rather nullifying experience. Forster has this knack of building up dramatic tension only to flatten it. The expected climatic experience after all that dramatic tension is not fulfilled. If we read Fanon into Forster, I would say that the trial of Aziz would have been the linchpin to the violent process of decolonization, but it was not.

“The Marabar Caves had been a terrible strain on the local administrations; they altered a good many lives and wrecked several careers, but they did not break up a continent or even dislocate a District” (223).

However, we do get a sense that decolonization is in its infancy. Aziz’s victory made the Indians “aggressive. They wanted to develop an offensive, and tried to do so by discovering new grievances and wrongs, many of which had no existence" (245). Also, the victory led to a unification of sorts between the Hindu and Moslem (251). There are several changes on the colonizer’s side too, such as the Political Agent no longer having as much power and influence as before (280)

Yet, it is always made clear that the violent decolonization process is not going to happen.

"British officialism remained, as all-pervading and as unpleasant as the sun; and what was next to be done against it was not very obvious" (245, 246).

The colonizer’s Repressive State Apparatuses are still in place, in the form of surveillance.

"The Criminal Investigation Department kept an eye on Aziz ever since the trial -- they had nothing actionable against him, but Indians who have been unfortunate must be watched, and to the end of his life he remained under observation" (279).

Although decolonization is not happening on a large social scale, we do see the character of Aziz develop from a “thing” into a semblance of a “man”. I say ‘semblance’ as Aziz did not become the radical and violent colonized rebel suggested by Fanon. Aziz merely affirms his cynicism of his oppression as a colonized subject. Looking back, he acknowledges that “[t]his pose of ‘seeing India’ which had seduced him to Miss Quested at Chandrapore was only a form of ruling India; no sympathy lay behind it” (292).

I think that Forster has presented a far more realistic account of decolonization as compared to Fanon. I quite agree with the possibilities that Fanon suggests with regards to the whole decolonization process, but it is unsatisfying as it is also reductive. Fanon’s decolonization process is like a step-by-step “An Idiot’s guide to Decolonization”, colonized and colonizer relationships are over-simplified as he views them both as items/objects/units (inflexible), rather than humans (flexible). What disturbs me most is perhaps that he does not consider the forging of friendships/relationships/love etc between the colonizer and the colonized possible other than a violent relationship. He argues that the colonized is always waiting for a chance to replace the colonizer, whereas Forster suggests to us the possibility of a union between the colonizer and the colonized.