In the preface to The Doom of Empire, Martin Green states that “One could read all the works of the Great Tradition, and will never know that England had an empire.” While this argument can be applied to the bourgeois and largely domestic nature of the nineteenth-century literary canon, E.M. Forster's A Passage to India (1924) and George Orwell's Burmese Days (1934) mark the development of a politically engaged consciousness in the postwar period . , largely triggered by the brutal Amritsar massacre of 1919. Both novels – influenced by the writers' experiences in the East – launch a scathing satirical attack on the conduct of the British Raj abroad and the moral bankruptcy of the English country club. A particularly notable aspect of Orwell and Forster's criticisms is the complicity of English women in encouraging and reinforcing male ideals of belligerence and chauvinism in the East, thus exacerbating strained relations between natives and their British rulers. However, although both texts show a shared contempt for the overbearing, Kiplingian pomposity 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, thus demonstrating how Works by both writers present us with innovative and thought-provoking, yet surprisingly distinguishable, interpretations of the weak days of British imperialism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayE.M. Forster wrote A Passage to India against a backdrop of political turmoil and simmering racial tensions, largely exacerbated by the incompetence of British colonialists in the East. His novel constantly contrasts the settlers' blind complacency and thinly disguised racial prejudice with their repeated assertion that "they are here to do justice and keep the peace" [45]. The callous conduct of the English inevitably has a detrimental effect on cross-cultural understanding and friendship, and despite the naïve efforts of Mrs. Moore and the aptly named Adela Questad to gain an authentic vision of India, the oppressive and unjust political structure of the country the country causes the two women to experience a divisive and surprisingly unfathomable environment. Indeed, as she watched her son, the city magistrate, at work in court, Mrs Moore laments the insensitivity and negligence of the British Raj in India: satisfaction derived from it… A touch of regret – not the wily substitute but true heartfelt regret – would have made him a different man, and the British Empire a different institution. [46] In this destructive quagmire of bigotry and suspicion, it is only the elderly Brahmin Godbole, with his decidedly un-British form of wisdom, who expresses the inherent unity of East and West (“When evil occurs, it expresses the entire universe. Likewise when good happens”). Through the character of Godbole, Forster cleverly adopts the ancient values ​​of Hinduism as a vehicle for an alternative and strikingly contemporary way of thinking about intercultural relations, thus pioneering a number of innovative and provocative literary representations of colonialism. Published a decade after Forster's novel, George Orwell's Burmese Days launches a vitriolic and darkly humorous attack on the grandiose illusions of imperialism and the gross and senseless debauchery of administrative staff, whose crude dependence on "alcohol as cement of the empire" [37]. ] leads to the development of a society steeped in moral failure andcorruption. Despite being set during the last days of British colonialism, the bullish nature of this exclusive and viciously racist “Kipling-infested little film “Clubs” [69] ensures that all forms of political dissent are crushed, leaving the protagonist, John Flory, isolated in his understanding of the ways in which Empire degrades the natives it presumptuously claims to elevate. Similar to Forster's narrative, Orwell expresses the firm belief that no member of a subjugated race can develop a true friendship with a member of the dominant race, as the oppressive political structures at work in Burma ensure that such friendship will end in betrayal and resentment. . As Flory reflects after a heated political exchange in the European Club, “With the Indians there must be no loyalty, no true friendship.” [80], a notion that increases the socially constructed and seemingly impenetrable barrier to positive relations between the English and their colonial subjects. Paradoxically, however, both novels feature an unlikely alliance between a Western male 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, you are very short, very short! Septicemia, peritonitis and paralysis of the ganglia occur. [35] cultural and contagion, which, in turn, warns of the corruptive nature of the Anglo-Indians' grossly mercenary approach to society. Instead of bringing peace and justice to the native peoples of the East, Orwell suggests that the function of the English is equivalent simply to "rub our land on them" [40], with the English and Burmese committing abominable acts for the sake of social mobility and prestige. Forster’s novel addresses a similar process of moral degradation taking place among British expatriates in India: “They all become exactly the same, no worse, no better. I give every Englishman two years” [9]. Even the Indian Doctor Aziz – an affectionate and youthful presence for much of the novel – is consumed by a “genuine hatred towards the English”, eventually isolating himself from Flory due to his humiliation at the hands of British law: “At last I am an Indian, he thought, standing still in the rain” [278-9]. It is therefore clear that, rather than bringing a beacon of hope and prosperity to the East, as literary antecedents such as Rudyard Kipling had implied, Forster's and Orwell's narratives portray the presence of the 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 setting evoked by Forster and Orwell is arguably a microcosm of British society, with its short-sighted "country club" mentality acting as a poor recreation of suburban England. 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 return from Spain to a complacent, decidedly “English” society, apparently with no connection to foreign affairs (“Earthquakes in Japan, famine in China, revolutions in Mexico? It is interesting to note, however, that both Orwell's and Forster's biting satire are exercised inmerciless manner towards Anglo-Indian women, who they often portray as principal collaborators in the colonial system of oppression and subjugation. For example, A Passage to India's haughty colonial wife, Mrs. Turton, most effectively encapsulates the Englishwoman's contemptuous and highly gendered intolerance towards native Indians through her series of increasingly absurd outbursts: " Why, they should crawl from here to the caves on their hands and knees whenever andThere's an English woman in sight, you shouldn't talk to them, you should spit on them” [204]. Burmese Days is baffled and disgusted by Flory's admiration for Burmese culture: "He was understanding, dimly, that his views were not what an Englishman should have" [121] – but becomes attracted to him when he adopts conventional behavior." and “manly” on a hunting expedition. Through their position as agents of chauvinism and oppression, then, women are equated with British “civilization” and become a destructive and dogmatic force in the East, a consensus between the two authors that has prompted the feminist literary critic Jenny Sharpe to conclude that the Anglo-Indian woman “perhaps more than anyone else, embodies the 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 behind the British presence in the East: “how can you understand that we are in this country for any purpose other than to steal? It's that simple. The official holds the Burmese down while the businessman searches his pockets” [38]. Through Flory's gripping 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 unjust system of caste in Great Britain. As such, his acute disillusionment with the British social system is reflected in the troubling sense of nihilism that permeates the text, a powerful skepticism that manifests itself most palpably in the novel's tragic and disturbing conclusion: “There is a number rather high rate of suicides among Europeans in Burma, and they arouse very little surprise” [295]. Orwell's Burma is a socially fragmented country characterized by indigenous corruption and imperial hypocrisy, and the reader is offered very little hope of redemption or justice. Forster, on the other hand, avoids expressing these sweeping structural condemnations, instead placing the emphasis on the personal rather than directly. address the social and political implications of British colonialism. This humanist tendency is evident through his repeated speculations about whether an Englishman and an Indian could ever be friends under colonialism, a concern that runs throughout the text. It is important to remember that Forster is not advocating an end to British imperialism – he instead favors a more conciliatory and tolerant form of British rule in India – so his text does not have the radical overtones of Orwell's Burmese Days. Furthermore, Forster does not share Orwell's overly bleak outlook, as memorably demonstrated in the final riding scene, where Fielding and Aziz attempt reconciliation: But the horses would not, they walked away; the earth didn't want him... the birds, the carrion, the Guesthouse, who appeared as they came out of the gap and saw Mau below: they didn't want him, they said with a hundred voices: "No, not yet", and the sky said: " No, not there.” [306]Literary theorist Edward Said believes that.