Forster and colonialism

Where does Forster stand in the issue of colonialism? This was one of the questions that was brought up during the seminar last week and after reading the novel, I think Forster maintains a very ambivalent stand in the issue of colonialism throughout his novel. He takes sides with neither the colonized nor colonizer but rather, maintains a more neutral stance in portraying the issue of colonialism. Hence neither side is vilified nor valorised totally. This is evident for example in Forster’s oscillation between painting the colonized Indians in a more unfavourable light and painting them in a more sympathetic light. For example in Chapter XIX, the readers witness how Godbole wishes to return to his birthplace to “start a high school there on sound English lines, that shall be as like Government College as possible” because “at present there is only vernacular education” (165). Here, what is implicit in Godbole’s decision is that he deems “vernacular education” as being inferior to the supposedly “sound” English education and to further compound matters, he even wants the school to be named after Mr Fielding or “King-Emperor George the Fifth” (166)! Not only does Godbole (unconsciously or not) view his country as being subordinate to the coloniser’s, he even wants to acculturate his own people to become part of the coloniser’s country rather than to his own! Here Forster paints the Indians in a more negative light, showing how they too are complicit in their own colonisation; Forster adopts a more nuanced view in showing which party is culpable in perpetuating colonialism.

However, despite this more negative depiction, Forster later swings to portraying the Indian society in a very redeeming light, and this is particularly evident in Chapter XXVII. Forster writes, “Civilization strays about like a ghost here, revisiting the ruins of empire, and is to be found not in great works of art or mighty deeds, but in the gestures well-bred Indians make when they sit or lie down. Fielding, who had dressed up in native costume, learned from his excessive awkwardness in it that all his motions were makeshifts, whereas when the Nawab Bahadur stretched out his hand for food, or Nureddin applauded a song, something beautiful had been accomplished which needed no development…When the whirring of action ceases, it becomes visible, and reveals a civilisation which the West can disturb but will never acquire…” (236). In this short paragraph, Forster effectively undermines the association of the coloniser with civilisation and instead shows how the colonised can in fact be more civilised than the coloniser with his “excessive awkwardness” (236). This nuanced portrayal of the colonised is also evident in Forster’s portrayal of the coloniser and all these are suggestive of Forster’s ambivalent stand in the issue of colonialism. He depicts the issue in all its complexities and does not risk reducing the issue of colonialism into a binary of neat but oversimplified compartments.

As opposed to Forster, I think Fanon is more absolute in how he depicts colonialism. While I agree that to a very large extent, the colonised have been victimised by the colonisers, I think Fanon overly victimises the colonised while vilifying the colonisers such that the binary between coloniser and colonised becomes too stark. When readers read of how the colonised have “to work themselves to exhaustion while a contemptuous and bloated Europe looks on” (55) or how Fanon calls for the European masses to “wake up, put on their thinking caps and stop playing the irresponsible game of Sleeping Beauty” (62), it becomes all too apparent which side Fanon is on and which side he condemns. This lack of grey areas (something very intrinsic to reality) makes me question if Fanon has perhaps been too absolute in his portrayal of the issue of colonialism, while failing to acknowledge that not everything can be seen simply in black and white.

-sarah