In the preface to the English novel in the twentieth century [The Fate of Empire], Martin Green states that “one could read all the works of the Great Tradition, and I would never know that England had an empire.” Although this argument can be applied to the bourgeois and largely domestic nature of the 19th-century literary canon, EM Forster's A Passage to India (1924) and George Orwell's Burmese Days (1934) mark the development of a politically conscious engaged post-war. , largely sparked by the brutal Amritsar massacre of 1919. Both novels – influenced by the writers' own experiences in the East – launch a fiercely satirical attack on the conduct of the British Raj abroad and the moral bankruptcy of the country English club. A particularly noteworthy aspect of Orwell's and Forster's critiques is the complicity of English women in encouraging and reinforcing masculine ideals of belligerence and chauvinism in the East, thereby exacerbating strained relations between the natives and their British rulers. . However, although both texts display a shared contempt for the authoritarian and Kiplingesque pomp of the British ruling classes in the East, Forster's liberal pragmatism and humanist approach contrast with the more radical and nihilistic tone of Orwell's novel, thereby demonstrating how the works of both writers present us with innovative and thought-provoking, yet remarkably distinct, interpretations of the waning days of British imperialism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayE.M. Forster wrote A Passage to India against a backdrop of political turbulence and simmering racial tensions, largely aggravated by the incompetence of the British colonialists in the East. His novel systematically contrasts the settlers' blind complacency and barely concealed racial prejudice with their repeated assertion that they "are there to dispense justice and keep the peace" [45]. The callous conduct of the British inevitably has a detrimental effect on cross-cultural understanding and friendship and, despite the naive efforts of Ms. Moore and the aptly named Adela Quested to gain an authentic view of India, the oppressive and unjust political structure of India the country makes the two women live in a conflicting and surprisingly unfathomable environment. Indeed, while observing her son, the City Magistrate, at work in court, Mrs. Moore laments the insensitivity and neglect of the British Raj in India: how he argued that he was not in India to behave pleasantly, and drew positive conclusions from it. satisfaction that comes from it... A touch of regret – not a clever substitute but genuine regret from the heart – would have made him a different man and the British Empire a different institution. [46] Among this destructive quagmire of intolerance and suspicion, only the old Brahmin, Godbole, with his distinctly un-British brand of wisdom, expresses the intrinsic unity of East and West ("When Evil Arrives , it expresses the whole unity of the East and the West). of the universe. Likewise when good happens). Through the character of Godbole, Forster skillfully adopts the ancient values ​​of Hinduism as a vehicle for an alternative and remarkably contemporary way of thinking about intercultural relations, paving the way for a succession of revolutionary and provocative literary depictions of colonialism. Published a decade after Forster's novel, George Orwell's Burmese Days launches into a vitriolic and darkly humorous attack onthe grandiose illusions of imperialism and the gross and senseless debauchery of administrative personnel, who crudely rely on “alcohol as the cement of the empire” [37] result in the development of a society plunged into moral failure and corruption. Although set during the era of the decline of British colonialism, the optimistic nature of the exclusionary and fiercely racist film "Kipling's Haunted Little Clubs" [69] ensures that any form of political dissent is crushed, leaving the protagonist, John Flory, isolated in his understanding of how the Empire degrades the natives it claims to elevate with importance. Like Forster's account, Orwell expresses his firm belief that no member of a submissive race can develop true friendship with a member of the dominant race, because the oppressive political structures at work in Burma ensure that 'such a friendship will end in betrayal and resentment. . As Flory said following a heated political exchange within the European Club: “With the Indians, there must be neither loyalty nor true friendship. » [80], a notion which increases the socially constructed and seemingly impenetrable barrier to positive relations between the English and their colonial subjects. Paradoxically, however, both novels present an unlikely alliance between a Western man and an educated native, in both cases a doctor. . Indeed, Orwell uses the connection between Flory and Dr. Veriswami to humorously employ the diagnostic language adopted by many politically engaged writers during the interwar period, derisively comparing the British Empire to an elderly patient: "Aha , Mr. Flory, she is very weak, very low! Serious complications set in. Sepsis, peritonitis and lymph node paralysis. [35]. By adopting the language of diagnosis and cure as a metaphor for the dying British Empire, Orwell evokes a disturbing sense of cultural disease and contagion, which, in turn, warns of the corrupting nature of the crudely mercenary approach of Anglo-Indians towards society. Instead of bringing peace and justice to the indigenous peoples of the East, Orwell suggests that the function of the British was simply to "put dirt on them",[40] with both the English and the Burmese committing heinous acts in the name of social mobility. and prestige. Forster's novel addresses a similar process of moral degradation at work among British expatriates in India: "They all become exactly the same, neither worse nor better. I give two years to any Englishman” [9]. Even the Indian Dr Aziz – an affectionate and youthful presence throughout much of the novel – is consumed by a "real hatred of the English", eventually isolating himself from Flory due to his humiliation at the hands of British law: " I am finally an Indian, he thought, motionless in the rain” [278-9]. It is therefore clear that, rather than bringing a glimmer of hope and prosperity to the East, as literary authors such as Rudyard Kipling had suggested, the stories of Forster and Orwell depict the presence of Anglo-Indians as a profoundly destructive force in the East. , circulating petty resentments and deep-rooted prejudices that ultimately destroy positive human relationships. In this way, the highly anglicized colonial context evoked by Forster and Orwell is arguably a microcosm of British society, with its myopic “country club” mentality acting as a poor recreation of the English suburbs. Indeed, the political sleepiness of middle England is a recurring theme in Orwell's writings; his personal account of the Spanish Civil War, Homage to Catalonia (1938), expresses his dismay at the thought of returning from Spain ina complacent, distinctly “English” society with no apparent connection to foreign affairs (“Earthquakes in Japan, famine in China, revolutions in Mexico? Don’t worry, the milk will be at the door tomorrow morning”). It is, however, interesting to note that Orwell and Forster's biting satire is most mercilessly directed towards Anglo-Indian women, whom they frequently describe as the principal collaborators in the colonial system of oppression. and subjugation. For example, A Passage to India's haughty, colonial wife, Mrs. Turton, best encapsulates the Englishwoman's contemptuous and highly gendered intolerance of native Indians through her series of increasingly outbursts. absurd: “Well, they should crawl from here to the caves. on all fours at all times and the English women are in sight, you must not speak to them, you must spit on them” [204]. Similarly, the main female character in Burmese Days is mystified and repelled by Flory's admiration for Burmese culture: "She vaguely understood that his views were not those an Englishman should hold. » [121] – but becomes attracted to him when he adopts a conventional and "manly" attitude during a shooting expedition. Through their position as agents of chauvinism and oppression, women are therefore assimilated into British "civilization" and become a destructive and dogmatic force in the East, a consensus between the two authors which pushed feminist literary criticism Jenny Sharpe concluded: that the Anglo-Indian woman “perhaps more than anyone else embodies memsahib in all its contradictions”. However, it is important to recognize the different ways in which Orwell and Forster approach their critique of English colonialism. Unlike Forster in A Passage to India, Orwell actually addresses the economic reasons underlying the British presence in the East: "how can you pretend that we are in this country for any purpose other than that of stealing?" It's so simple. The official detains the Burman while the businessman searches his pockets” [38]. Through Flory's harrowing account of colonial ambitions in Burma, the reader gains insight into Orwell's growing political radicalism, with critics agreeing that his experience in the country undoubtedly heightened his sensitivity to the system of unfair caste in Britain. Thus, his deep disillusionment with the British social system is reflected in the disturbing sense of nihilism that permeates the text, a powerful skepticism that manifests itself most palpably in the novel's tragic and disturbing conclusion: "There "There is a fairly large number of suicides among Europeans in Burma, and they cause very little surprise" [295]. Orwell's Burma is a socially fragmented country, marked by indigenous corruption and imperial hypocrisy, and the reader has little hope of redemption or justice. Forster, in contrast, avoids making these sweeping structural condemnations, instead emphasizing the personal rather than the situation directly. addressing the social and political implications of British colonialism. This humanist tendency is evident in his repeated speculations about whether an Englishman and an Indian can ever be friends under colonialism, a concern that runs throughout the text. It is important to remember that Forster is not advocating the end of British imperialism – rather he favors a more conciliatory and tolerant form of British rule in India – his text therefore does not have the radical undertones of the Burmese Days of 'Orwell. Furthermore, Forster does not share Orwell's overly gloomy vision, as the final scene memorably demonstrates.