The Negative Representation of the East in E.M. Forster’s A Passage to India

“The Inconvenient Indian” speaks to a general audience and particularly to US and Canada. The book is organized into chapters and each chapter refers to a variety of themes. Some of these themes are history, culture, politics, and laws. By incorporating all these themes,

Throughout the years, the colonized inhabitants of a conquered nation have responded to the threat of imperialism by encouraging violence and rebelling against their captors. This behavior is shown when Moulavy Syad Kutb Shah Sahib writes about the Sepoy Mutiny in India and when he states in Document 2 that, “We must unite in their slaughter for by this alone will the lives and faith of us both be saved.” [..] Perhaps the English may try to assure the Hindus that they have consented to give up killing cows from respect for the Hindu religion. But no sensible man will be gulled by such deceit, for the promises of the English are deceitful.” This passage demonstrates how Sahib promotes violence through a letter and encourages the Muslims and

Often perceived as a group of tyrannical oppressors, the white people have firmly established their gruesome and discriminatory image through the bloody history of its dictatorship over racial minorities. Although it is true to some extent that White people were biased and unjust to other races, it is obvious that the intransigent mindset of the native Indian people have also contributed to the intense enmity between the two races. Harold Cardinal, once president of the Indian Association of Alberta, had inaccurately accused Caucasian Canadians in “The Mystery of the White Man”. He had described White men as a group of bigoted, corrupted rapists and portrayed the Indians as some guiltless victims of the depraved White society mistreated

India was under imperialistic rule by the British Empire or the “Bristish Raj” from 1858 to 1947.The region under British control—commonly called “India” in the British period included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom as well as the “princely states” ruled by individual rulers under the paramount of the British throne. In my recent visit to London precious jewels and Indian made goods are displaced in Windsor castle under high security. Most of the goods accumulated from India were under Queen Victoria’s reign; the other monarchs who were reigning during this imperialistic time were Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI. W.E.B Dubois writes in “the Souls of White Folks,” “We see Europe’s greatest sin precisely where we found Africa’s and Asia’s,—in human hatred, the despising of men; with this difference, however: Europe has the awful lesson of the past before her, has the splendid results of widened areas of tolerance, sympathy, and love among men, and she faces a greater, an infinitely greater, world of men than any preceding civilization ever faced.” England took advantage of its darker counterparts by showing superiority through color, religion, and technological advances.

The designs of the English “became more imperial and their attitude more haughty and aloof” (George,44). The social gulf that existed between the “diplomatic pundits” and the English scholars began to widen. The attitude of the average Englishman changed from one of disapproval of “Hindu superstitions” and “Mussalman bigotry” and of philosophic and cultural interest in Hindu mythology, and of historical curiosity in Moguhal domination; into one of contempt for an inferior and conquered people (George, 44). The English had “developed from the pettifogging traders quarreling over their seats in church, to imperial swashbucklers and large scale extortionists” (Spear, 23). The British no longer relished the ways of commerce; their appetites’, instead were whetted by conquest and prospects of plunder.

The memoir starts with Orwell describing the tendency of defiance and disobedience that had grown in India since it became a British colony. Indeed, “the anti European feeling was very bitter” (256) among the native population. Orwell who was on the frontline of this crisis could testify about how “the young Buddhist priests who had nothing to do but jeer at Europeans” (256) were causing him trouble. However, as surprising as it is, Orwell himself is opposed to Imperialism. He thinks that for Imperialism to sustain, there is a “dirty job” of mistreating and terrorizing the natives on an everyday basis that policemen like him were responsible of. Imperialism seeks for imposing its conformity to the Indian population by gaining their compliance.

Indians were named as Indian in English because they were recognized as people of India. However, White never treated those people of India like this. Why did they so sure that Indians were not the normal human-being like themselves? Have they ever doubted they were wrong? I believed they used to suspected their actions, at least some of them, at some moment. However, the massacre and enslavement still happened. Although they might ever doubted their behaviours, but they still believed those absurd “theories”. They could do this because Indians didn’t have souls; they could do this because “survival of fittest”(102).

However, this exotic allure doesn't change the facts since India is portrayed as a land of poverty, insecurity, chaos and financial opportunity. In other words, it is depicted as London's polar opposite. Seeing that it is the Jewel in the Crown of English colonialism, this land's wealth was usurped by various soldiers absorbed by insatiable greed. Evidently, our creative author experimented with this prospect in our novel inadvertently revealing a pronounced tendency to overlook any wrong-doing committed by British officials. As such, one can argue that he is enslaved by racial prejudices. In fact, his nation’s superiority was exposed through Sherlock Holmes’s ability to efficiently subdue Tonga. In contrast, Stevenson didn't hesitate in acknowledging his nation's atrocities. For instance, we discover that Case who is one of Falesa's established British trader is rotten to the core for he unabashedly sought the annihilation of his rivals. Indeed, for this selfish creature others are only a means to an end. Evidently, he was capable of repulsing Wiltshire who identified him as a false representation of the values or principles of home. However, our author is similar to Doyle in that he recognizes that the colonizing empire’s dominance as evidenced by the villainous Case, who effortlessly keeps the islanders under his thumb by utilizing their belief in Tiapolo or the

Forster spends large sections of the novel characterizing different typical attitudes the English hold toward the Indians whom they control. Forster’s satire is most harsh toward Englishwomen, whom the author depicts as overwhelmingly racist, self-righteous, and viciously condescending to the native population. Some of the Englishmen in the novel are as nasty as the women, but Forster more often identifies Englishmen as men who, though condescending and unable to relate to Indians on an individual level, are largely well-meaning and invested in their jobs. For all Forster’s criticism of the British manner of governing India, however, he does not appear to question the right of the British Empire to rule India. He suggests that the British would be well served by becoming kinder and more sympathetic to the Indians with whom they live, but he does not suggest that the British should abandon India outright. Even this lesser critique is never overtly stated in the novel, but implied through biting

Impact of British Colonization Exposed in A Small Place, A Passage to India, and Robinson Crusoe

The issue of Self-displacement of the British colonial characters in the colonised Indian peripheries reveals the nature of the power relations in dominating the Other (the Indians). Based on the Oriental discourse, this section highlights the struggle of the subjugated inferior Other in approving its identity and diminishing the British stereotypical inferior images and apathy in portraying their culture. This conflict is the sources of

In a Passage to India the author, E. M Forster sends the message of India’s mistreatment and misrepresentation by Britain. Throughout the novel, the reader is able to observe how British and Indian characters are treated differently. The author demonstrates the British perspective of Indians being the ignorant characters in the novel, whose company leads to troubles. Another aspect of the British perspective is that Indians are being treated as inferiors to the British in their own country, because if it were not for the British, the social and political order in India will descend into chaos. The author demonstration of the British perspective encourages the reader to feel sympathetic towards Indians. Whenever Aziz and Ronny meet, Ronny

E.M. Forster’s classic novel “A Passage to India” tells the story of a young doctor, Dr. Aziz, and his interactions with the British citizens who are residing in India during the time of the British Raj. Throughout the novel, the reader gets many different viewpoints on the people and the culture of India during this point in history. The reader sees through the eyes of the Indian people primarily through the character of Dr. Aziz, and the perceptions of the British through the characters of Mr. Fielding, Adela Quested, and Mrs. Moore. Through the different characters, and their differing viewpoints, the reader can see that Forster was creating a work that expressed a criticism that he held of the behavior of the British towards their Indian subjects.

Rohinton Mistry’s (38) first person autobiographical narrative of his trip to the Himalayan city of Dharmsala is on the surface a quaint, visual, biographical account of a journey to an Indian town that helps the author come full circle: His childhood visions of the city he dreamt of visiting and its reality as he sees it in adulthood are different in many ways, yet his childhood and adulthood converged in serene moment that epitomizes Mistry’s glorification of his native India: “To have made this journey, I felt, was to have described a circle of my own. And this understanding increased the serenity of the moment” (51). However, a rhetorical analysis of the speaker in the essay, which as mentioned is a first person autobiographical narrative lead us to an agenda that is hidden below the surface: Indian nationalism and pride. This is not to insinuate that the author has some hidden, malevolent agenda to thrust Indian nationalism upon the reader. Rather, the tools of rhetorical analysis reveal the subtle undertones of the essay in a manner that perhaps even the author is not full conscious of. Rhetorical analysis depends on part in gauging what effect a text has on its intended audience (Leach 218). Thus, the strength of rhetorical analysis lies in the textual evidence that is presented as proof of an analytical claim and that is what is attempted throughout this analysis.

In the novel A Passage to India, Forster portrays many of the interactions between the Indian population and the British imperialists as an over-arching metaphor for the shortcomings of imperialism. This ‘metaphor’ is further elaborated by the personal make-up of certain characters, through their values, and their actions towards one another. The following essay will focus on the character Cyril Fielding and his ability to contrast the ordinary English imperialist and by doing so expose the polarizing inroads of the British Raj.