E.M. Forster’s “A Passage to India” is a story that explores the dynamics of the complex relationship and the cultural clashes between the British and Indian people during the British Raj. Forster is praised for his keen insight, and an unparalleled understanding of the diverse Indian cultures, a notable accomplishment for an English writer. But can we declare him as an anti-imperialist based on this? Does he explore the dynamics between the ‘colonizers’ and the ‘colonized’ with the same depth?

, the novel, on the surface, is a clash of the East and the West, and on a closer look, it deals with the dilemma of human relationships. The question that the story begins and ends with is, 

“Is it possible for an Indian and an Englishman to be friends?”

 With the innumerable differences in their ways of life and thinking, and the colonial institution in the backdrop, 

 navigate their unusual friendship with the same question in their minds. In spite of many differences in their beliefs and characters, the two men succeed in creating a unique friendship, but the atmosphere of animosity between their races is persistent, and continues to threaten their friendship.

, his troubling encounter with Miss Quested or Adela’s inability to find “

 ”, the cultural gap portrayed is profound. On the other hand, the physical and social divide in the city of Chandrapore, where British colonizers inhabit a separate “

 area while native Indians reside in the “

,” is a representation of the imperial subjugation of the natives by the British. The subsequent trial of Dr. Aziz, marked by racial tensions, highlights the systemic bias and injustices within the colonial legal system.

Forster’s novel, through a third person omniscient narrator, presents a multifaceted portrayal of both British and Indian characters, highlighting the flaws and merits of individuals on both sides of the colonial divide. This allows readers to see the humanity and complexity of the characters, rather than reducing them to mere representatives of their respective cultures or biases.

But something in the story feels amiss. Though Forster is unusually perceptive, he doesn’t explore the dynamics of the actual subjugation, the relation between the colonizers and the colonized with as much transparency. He condones the attitudes, the moral decay of the British within the system, but never the structure of imperialism itself.

British imperialism, under the guise of the 

 in India, exploited the Indians economically, especially the lower, unlettered classes, which unlike the educated and middle classes do not find a mention in the novel. Imperialism and its ravages were entrenched in every layer of the Indian society, but 

 only manages to talk about one certain class of individuals. Their [the Empire’s] policies and taxes were cruel and inhumane, and they showed an utter disregard for Indian lives and cultures. The western world and most of Britain especially is built upon the backs of colonial labor.

, criticized Forster for completely overlooking this crucial element that would have contextualized the situation and the tension he seeks to create. Savage 

The ugly realities underlying the presence of the British in India are not even glanced at, and the issues raised are handled as though they could be solved on the surface level of personal intercourse and individual behavior

With the exception of the punkah wallah, we never see an Indian performing physical labor. Thus we have little sense of why the English are in India in the first place. The importance of recognizing economic exploitation is that it puts the issue of friendship in perspective. There are much larger, if less personal, reasons for opposing imperialism.”

Fielding, often compared to Forster himself, is a strong voice throughout the novel as he distances himself from the British establishment. However, after he leaves India, he marries and becomes associated with the government, his perspective on the Empire changes as well.

,” emphasizing that the British Empire cannot be done away with because doing so would be impolite. Fielding’s stance was not wavering from the beginning, but he underwent a change of perspective as a result of his new position in the imperial structure. He also began to believe that the Empire was indispensable because the Indians needed them. For Forster to make a character like Fielding, recognized for his disillusionment with the Empire, change and justify the necessity of the British Empire, raises questions about Forster’s own perspective. It prompts reflection over whether Fielding mirrors Forster’s own eventual realization of the indispensability of the Empire, regardless of his goodwill.

A Passage to India: Can we call E.M. Forster anti-imperialist?

The Tempest, published in 1611, is thought to be William Shakespeare’s last play. It is often read as a metatheatrical play, in which Prospero controls the course of action while commenting about the illusion of reality. A reality that seems parallel to the made up world and an illusion in works of fiction.

The play was written at a time when England was establishing itself as a colonial power along other European empires. At the time of Shakespeare, and up until the late nineteenth century, The Tempest was read and acted out as a comedic and didactic play. But more recently, after the emergence of postcolonial criticism in literature, The Tempest has increasingly been expounded on through a postcolonial lens.

This lens instantly makes the story fall into a quintessential colonial setup, with 

The story is set in an island which is rightfully Calibans’, and Prospero strategically takes control of it from Caliban and turns him into a slave. Prospero uses and exploits Caliban to get control of the island. Prospero's usurpation of Caliban's land mirrors the colonization by the European powers, where indigenous populations were subjugated and exploited for resources. Caliban's attempt to resist Prospero's rule and assert his autonomy is met with cruel punishment and further subjugation.

 impose their language on Caliban, and expect him to be grateful for it, just like the original colonizers, who believed it to be “

” to civilize and educate the indigenous people. Caliban, however, detests that he has been taught the colonizer's language. This imposition of language is important in the colonial debate as cultural erasure is a colonial tactic of alienating the occupied from their identity, and asserting and normalizing dominance.

 “You taught me language, and my profit on't/

Is I know how to curse. The red plague rid you

For learning me your language.” (1.2.364-366)

Prospero also accuses Caliban of attempting to rape Miranda. Caliban does not deny this claim, but many critics are of the view that a sexual division into the [

] virgin is common in colonial discourse. “Miranda is represented as just such a virgin, to be protected from the rapist native and presented to a civil lover, Ferdinand. The ‘fatherly’ power of the coloniser, and his capacity to regulate and utilise the sexuality of his subject ‘children’, is therefore a potent trope as activated in the The Tempest and again demonstrates the crucial nexus of civil power and sexuality in colonial discourse.” (

Throughout the text, Caliban is described as a “

.” He is described as a person who is ugly, and hard to look at. His physical appearance and speech are described in derogatory terms, emphasizing the dehumanization and otherization of indigenous people often associated with the colonial narrative. He is the dehumanized non-white figure in a narrative woven and controlled by Prospero.

Despite Prospero's treatment, Caliban's character also reflects resistance and the desire for liberation. He resents Prospero's rule and expresses his longing for freedom, even suggesting an alliance with other characters against Prospero. However, towards the end, Caliban eventually accepts Prospero’s authority, and promises to be “

This ending to Caliban’s struggle for freedom implies that he was in the wrong to attempt to resist the colonizer. His fate is left ambivalent, as to whether he gets his island or freedom back, or remains under Prospero’s power. However, Prospero does, still insultingly, acknowledge him as his possession towards the end of the play -– “

this thing of darkness I acknowledge mine

” (5.1.175-6), which goes to say that he still views Caliban his property and as racially subordinate to him.

A postcolonial reading of the text highlights the undertones and justification of colonial structures within this piece of fiction, as a reality of the time it was produced in. These instances from the text demonstrate that the relationship between Prospero and Caliban serves as a microcosm of the larger colonial narrative, inviting audiences to reflect on, reinterpret and question the text as a direct product of an era where colonization was justified and hailed.

Shakespeare’s The Tempest: A Post-Colonial Reading

Translated from Bengali to English by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Breast Giver” is the second story from Mahasweta Devi’s collection of short stories “Breast Stories.” Mahasweta Devi’s literary works provide a critical commentary on the social and political environment, with a focus on marginalized segments of Indian society, particularly women, as well as the peasant and tribal communities residing in the Indian forests. “Breast Giver,” seemingly straightforward and realistic, weaves seamlessly with a subtle yet stinging satire, a story of ‘motherhood,’ and its connotations in a caste-driven patriarchal society.

Mahasweta Devi’s “Breast Giver” is a story with many layers, an intersection of different subalterns — of 

. Her stories generallyopen a window into the lives of the most vulnerable sections of our society and cast a limelight on issues that plague our society that not many care to talk about. Through “Breast Giver,” Mahasweta narrates a tale that makes one ponder about motherhood, its idealization in Indian society, as well as the exploitative aspect of commodifying a woman’s body in the name of that idealization.

Set roughly between the fifties and eighties in Harisal, a pilgrimage center inWest Bengal, “Breast Giver” chronicles the story of Jashoda, a Brahmin woman who takes up 

 as a profession. She lived a life of domesticity with her husband Kangalicharan, bearing and taking care of their children, as well as looking after the household duties before the son of a wealthy neighbor, Haldarbabu, ran his 

 over Kangali, and he had to be amputated. As they run out of options to keep the household running, Jashoda takes it upon herself to take up a job in the Haldar house. She helps her own house the only way she can, by offering up her body and its resources to nurse the Haldar clan’s children. She becomes a wet nurse for the family, for as long as her body allows, in exchange for financial compensation and the basic requirements to keep her house running.

 doesn’t want its women to breastfeed, to 

. Jashoda believes that this duty was ordained to her, through a dream, by the “

 and so she takes pride in doing what the other women won’t. Even though she feels pride in using her body to carry out god’s deed, one does wonder, did she ever have a choice? Even though she took up nursing professionally, she had never known a life where she wasn’t already pregnant or nursing. It was all she had ever given the space to do, and it was all she knew how to do.

It is as if she were Kangalicharan’s wife from birth, the mother of twenty children, living or dead, counted on her fingers. Jashoda doesn’t remember at all when there was no child in her womb when she didn’t feel faint in the morning, when Kangali’s body didn’t drill her body like a geologist in a darkness lit only by an oil- lamp. She never had the time to calculate if she could or could not bear motherhood.”

 of the Haldar household. In West Bengal, the 

f mother-goddess worship has an enormous significance, and hence, Jashoda, whose name also alludes to Yashoda, the foster mother of Lord Krishna, gains respect, not just as a wet nurse, but people begin to see her as an incarnation of the Mother goddess herself. She is dubbed as 

 and so on. She receives otherworldly respect, and admiration, and is invited to all the important functions as the 

This mirrors Indian society at large, where women’s identity is made to be centered around and celebrated for motherhood. Some groups also worship the 

, the chief nourisher, and expect to sacrifice every comfort for the sake of 

Such is the power of the Indian soil that all women turn into mothers here and all men remain immersed in the spirit of holy childhood. Each man the Holy Child and each woman the Divine Mother”

On the other hand, this overexploitation of Jashoda’s body culminates with the development of a tumor in her breast, the very part of her body that she took so much pride in. She suffers unimaginable agony in her last days. In commodifying her body and deifying her role, the human beneath it all is never considered. Mahsweta Devi makes sure we realize this as she highlights the hypocrisy behind the divine idea of motherhood when Jashoda’s children and milk children refuse to take care of her. When this 

 dies, she is all alone on the journey to the funeral 

 — no one is there to light her funeral pyre to give back or even bid goodbye to the mother.

Jashoda was the receiver of ostensible glory in her lifetime, for possessing the faculty to nurture. To be able to provide a breast to feed on. She is representative of countless women, hailed for being mothers — their bodies likened to holy sanctuaries — but never treated or respected as individual human beings. Jashoda was a body, a source of capital. Jashoda was a god, the holy mother. She was more than human, she was less than human. But never human.

Jashoda’s death was also the death of God. When a mortal masquerades as God here below, she is forsaken by all and she must always die alone.”

Body and Deity: Motherhood in Mahasweta Devi’s Breast Giver

Representation is how societal aspects such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality and social issues are presented, according to the BBC. In terms of representation, Muslim have been thoroughly underrepresented and misrepresented. One of the recent tropes is that of taking off a hijab, a catharsis of sorts for the character. Hijab already has enough stigma attached to it. Women who choose to wear one are said to have been forced or brainwashed. This trope, making its appearance frequently, underplays the choice and narrative of the women who choose to wear the hijab, in the name of representation.

”. The advertisement shows a group of men playing football on a hill, and the ball is accidentally thrown towards a group of girls sitting nearby, clad in the traditional pheran and a headscarf. One of the girls decides to stand up and showcase her excellent footwork with the ball while the boys try and fail to keep up with her. Towards the end of what would have been a harmless advertisement otherwise, the girl takes off her headscarf, while the background track resonates the lines, “

To think from an outsider’s perspective, this advertisement is nothing out of the ordinary. But, this kind of a depiction has a different effect for Muslim women who choose to wear hijab, even if it’s not unusual to come across. Most of the representations of Muslim characters wearing hijab set up the story for them to take out and toss their hijab later on. It’s inevitable. You already know what’s going to follow when you see a hijabi Muslim character on-screen. It [taking off hijab] magically takes away the problems that they’re shown to be facing throughout.

The point is, those girls in the campaign may not even be representing Muslims, but the recurrence of women removing their headscarf in the mainstream media is far too much for it to just be a happy coincidence, or an aesthetic addition. Hijab has been portrayed as a tool of oppression, and taking it off as freeing. If a piece of clothing justifies the oppression of women, and its removal is the solution, then how does one justify the subjugation and oppression still rampant against women of other communities, and basically women in general?

 Muslim is shown to be struggling with her values and desires. The film was a matter of 

 when many Muslim women took to social media to discuss its representation and ending, where Hala also removes her hijab. Nowhere in the film is it hinted that she has been struggling with it. Removing the veil is often depicted as a solution, or the means to one. With the few token representations that Muslims get in mainstream media, it seems that most of them are aimed at, or end up spreading Anti-Muslim sentiments.

Muslim characters are churned out in bulk through the old generalizing, stereotyping machine, with each new one dimensional character resembling the others already in line. Whether it is Hollywood, or Bollywood, Muslim men are almost always either terrorists or oppressive patriarchs; or both. The women are silent and suppressed, or struggling for freedom. Diversity is non-existent. There is hardly ever a portrayal on-screen which represents, even to a small amount, the dynamics of a regular Muslim family or society.

, a film that shows an inter-religious marriage, in the backdrop of the Bombay communal riots. Shaila Banu and Shekhar are both planning to elope, away from their intolerant families that won’t accept their love. While reaching Shekhar who is waiting for her near the sea, Shaila’s burqa gets entangled while she is approaching Shekhar; and she leaves it behind. Film critic 

As Shaila runs to Shekhar, her burkha gets entangled. She removes it and goes to him, almost as if she is freeing herself from the shackles of her family, society and religion

”. There are two points worth noting here – one: why doesn’t Shekhar, a Hindu man, need to break free from these shackles? Second, Shaila’s burqa – her veil is drawn in likeness to the shackles of her family, society and religion. These heavy juxtapositions play with the psyche of people. Whether subtle or apparent, these tropes work at instilling and ingraining a suspicion and to a greater level, hatred of Muslims and their way of life.

With these representations, women who choose to wear the hijab, by choice, to practice their religion and to exert their freedom are ignored and their agency disregarded. There is no denying that a lot of women are forced to wear the hijab, and denied their agency as well. But this narrative, of “

” is being overdone deliberately. It robs the Muslim representation of the nuance it can otherwise present on screen.

Taking control of the narrative, and bringing forward their own stories is important for Muslims. There have been films, mostly independent, created by Muslims, that explore and bring out the diversity, and the struggles of Muslims in a much kinder and realistic way. In the mainstream however, the representation feels almost satirical at this point. It gives away an impression that the creators have not had proper interactions with Muslims, or lack the creativity to move forward from redundant and dehumanizing stereotypes that were created decades ago.

Articles by Mukaram Shakeel

A Passage to India: Can we call E.M. Forster anti-imperialist?

Shakespeare’s The Tempest: A Post-Colonial Reading

Body and Deity: Motherhood in Mahasweta Devi’s Breast Giver

Taking the Hijab Off – Misrepresentation Through Compelling Visuals

A Passage to India: Can we call E.M. Forster anti-imperialist?

Shakespeare’s The Tempest: A Post-Colonial Reading

Body and Deity: Motherhood in Mahasweta Devi’s Breast Giver

Taking the Hijab Off – Misrepresentation Through Compelling Visuals